vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste
Washington DC 20460
EPA/530-SW-88-0009-n
May 1988
Solid Waste
Best
Demonstrated
Available Technology
(BOAT) Background
Document for
K087
Proposed
Volume 14
-------
PROPOSED
BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (BOAT)
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR K087
Volume 14
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street
Washington, D.C. 20460
James R. Berlow, Chief Jose Labiosa
Treatment Technology Section Project Manager
May 1988
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
T
-------
BOAT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR K087
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Legal Background 1
1.1.1 Requirements Under HSWA 1
1.1.2 Schedule for Developing Restrictions 4
1.2 Summary of Promulgated BOAT Methodology 5
1.2.1 Waste Treatability Groups 7
1.2.2 Demonstrated and Available Treatment
Technologies 7
(1) Proprietary or Patented Processes 10
(2) Substantial Treatment 11
1.2.3 Collection of Performance Data 12
(1) Identification of Facilities for
Site Visits 12
(2) Engineering Site Visit 14
(3) Sampling and Analysis Plan 15
(4) Sampling Visit 16
(5) Onsite Engineering Report 17
1.2.4 Hazardous Constituents Considered and
Selected for Regulation 17
(1) Development of BOAT List 17
(2) Constituent Selection Analysis 27
(3) Calculation of Standards 29
1.2.5 Compliance with Performance Standards 30
1.2.6 Identification of BOAT 32
(1) Screening of Treatment Data 32
(2) Comparison of Treatment Data 33
(3) Quality Assurance/Quality Control 34
1.2.7 BOAT Treatment Standards for "Derived From"
and "Mixed" Wastes 36
(1) Wastes from Treatment Trains
Generating Multiple Residues 36
(2) Mixtures and Other Derived From
Residues 37
(3) Residues from Managing Listed Wastes
or that Contain Listed Wastes 38
1.2.8 Transfer of Treatment Standards 40
1.3 Variance from the BOAT Treatment Standard 41
-------
BOAT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR K087
(Continued)
Section paqe
2. INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 46
2.1 Industry Affected and Process Description 46
2.2 Waste Characterization 49
3. APPLICABLE/DEMONSTRATED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 55
3.1 Applicable Treatment Technologies 55
3.2 Demonstrated Technologies 56
3.2.1 Fuel Substitution 59
(1) Applicability and Use of Fuel Substitution... 59
(2) Underlying Principles of Operation 62
(3) Description of the Fuel Substitution Process. 63
(4) Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance.. 66
(5) Design and Operating Parameters 69
3.2.2 Incineration 74
(1) Applicability and Use of Incineration 74
(2) Underlying Principles of Operation 75
(3) Description of the Incineration Process 77
(4) Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance.. 83
(5) Design and Operating Parameters 88
3.2.3 Chemical Precipitation 94
(1) Applicability and Use of Chemical
Precipitation 94
(2) Underlying Principles of Operation 94
(3) Description of the Chemical Precipitation
Process 96
(4) Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance.. 101
(5) Design and Operating Parameters 103
3.2.4 Sludge Filtration 106
(1) Applicability and Use of Sludge Filtration... 106
(2) Underlying Principles of Operation 106
(3) Description of the Sludge Filtration.Process. 107
(4) Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance.. 107
(5) Design and Operating Parameters 108
3.2.5 Stabilization 110
(1) Applicability and Use of Stabilization 110
(2) Underlying Principles of Operation.. 110
(3) Description of the Stabilization Process 112
(4) Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance.. 113
(5) Design and Operating Parameters 114
n
-------
BOAT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR K087
(Continued)
Section Page
3.3 Performance Data 117
3.3.1 BOAT List Organics 117
3.3.2 BOAT List Metals 117
(1) Wastewaters 117
(2) Nonwastewaters 118
4. IDENTIFICATION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
(BOAT) FOR K087 WASTE 132
4.1 BOAT List Organics 132
4.2 BOAT List Metals 134
4.2.1 Wastewaters 134
4.2.2 Nonwastewaters 135
5. SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS 138
5.1 Identification of BOAT List Constituents in the
Untreated Waste 138
5.2 Elimination of Potential Regulated Constituents
Based On Treatabil ity 140
5.2.1 BOAT List Organics 140
5.2.2 BOAT List Metals 141
5.2.3 BOAT List Inorganics Other Than Metals 142
5.3 Selection of Regulated Constituents 142
6. CALCULATION OF BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS 157
REFERENCES 163
APPENDIX A Statistical Methods A-l
APPENDIX B Analytical QA/QC B-l
APPENDIX C Design and Operating Data for Rotary Kiln
Incineration Performance Data C-l
APPENDIX D Detection Limit Tables for Rotary Kiln Incineration
Performance Data D-1
APPENDIX E Method of Measurement for Thermal Conductivity E-l
n i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
BOAT Constituent List 19
Number of Coke PI ants Li sted by State 47
Number of Coke Plants Listed by EPA Region 48
Approximate Composition of K087 Waste 51
K087 Waste Composition and Other Data 53
3-1 Analytical Results for K087 Untreated Waste Collected
Prior to Treatment by Rotary Kiln Incineration 121
3-2 Analytical Results for Kiln Ash Generated by
Rotary Kiln Incineration 123
3-3 Analytical Results for Scrubber Water Generated
by Rotary Kiln Incineration of K087 Waste 125
3-4 Performance Data for Chemical Precipitation and
Sludge Filtration of a Metal-Bearing Wastewater
Sampled by EPA 127
3-5 Performance Data for Stabilization of F006 Waste 130
4-1 F006 TCLP Data Showing Substantial Treatment 137
5-1 Detection Status of BOAT List Constituents in
K087 Waste 145
5-2 BOAT Constituents in K087 Waste 152
5-3 Concentrations of Identified Constituents in the
Untreated Waste and Treatment Residuals from
Rotary Kiln Incineration 153
5-4 Characteristics of the BOAT Organic Compounds in
K087 Waste that may Affect Performance in Rotary
Kiln Incineration Systems 155
5-5 Regulated Constituents for K087 Waste 156
6-1 Calculation of Nonwastewater Treatment Standards
for the Regulated Constituents Treated by
Rotary Kiln Incineration 159
6-2 Calculation of Wastewater Treatment Standards for
the Regulated Constituents Treated by Rotary
Kiln Incineration 160
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
6-3 Calculation of Wastewater Treatment Standards for
the Regulated Metal Constituents Treated by
Chemical Precipitation 161
6-4 Calculation of Nonwastewater Treatment Standards
for the Regulated Metal Constituents Treated
by Stabilization 162
B-l Matrix Spike Recovery Data for Kiln Ash Residuals
from Rotary Kiln Incineration of K087 Waste B-4
B-2 Accuracy-Corrected Analytical Results for Kiln Ash
Generated by Rotary Kiln Incineration of K087 Waste.. B-6
B-3 Matrix Spike Recovery Data for Scrubber Water
Residuals from Rotary Kiln Incineration of
K087 Waste B-8
B-4 Accuracy-Corrected Analytical Results for Scrubber
Water Generated by Rotary Kiln Incineration of
K087 Waste B-9
B-5 Accuracy-Corrected Data for Treated Wastewater
Residuals from Chemical Precipitation and Sludge
Filtration B-ll
B-6 Matrix Spike Recovery Data for Metals in Wastewater.. B-12
B-7 Matrix Spike Recovery Data for F006 Waste B-13
B-8 Accoracy-Corrected F006 TCLP Data Showing
Substantial Treatment B-14
B-9 Analytical Methods for Regulated Constituents B-15
B-10 Specific Procedures or Equipment Used in Extraction
of Organic Compounds When Alternatives or
Equivalents are Allowed in the SW-846 Methods B-16
B-ll Specific Procedures on Equipment Used for Analysis
of Organic Compounds When Alternatives or
Equivalents are Allowed in the SW-846 Methods B-18
B-12 Specific Procedures Used in Extraction of Organic
Compounds When Alternatives to the SW-846 Methods
are Allowed by Approval of EPA Characterization and
Assessment Division B-20
B-13 Deviations from SW-846 B-21
C-l Operating Data from the K087 Test Burn C-5
C-2 Summary of Intervals When Temperatures in the Kiln
Fell Below Targeted Value of 1800°F C-7
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
C-3 Summary of Intervals When Temperatures in the
Afterburner Fell Below Targeted Value of 2050°F C-8
C-4 Flameout Occurrences Recorded by Operator C-9
C-5 Occurrences of Oxygen and Carbon Monoxide Spikes ... C-10
D-l Detection Limits for Samples of K087 Untreated Waste
Collected During the K087 Test Burn D-2
D-2 Detection Limits for K087 Kiln Ash D-8
D-3 Detection Limits for K087 Scrubber Water D-15
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Schematic Diagram of K087 Waste Generating Process 50
3-1 Liquid Injection Incinerator 78
3-2 Rotary Kiln Incinerator 79
3-3 Fluidized Bed Incinerator 81
3-4 Fixed Hearth Incinerator 82
3-5 Continuous Chemical Precipitation 97
3-6 Circular Clarifiers 99
3-7 Inclined Plate Settler 100
A-l Temperature Trends for Sample Set #1 C-12
A-2 Temperature Trends for Sample Set #2 C-14
A-3 Temperature Trends for Sample Set #3 C-16
A-4 Temperature Trends for Sample Set #4 C-17
A-5 Temperature Trends for Sample Set #5 C-18
B-l Oxygen Emissions for Sample Set #1 C-20
B-2 Oxygen Emissions for Sample Set #2 C-21
B-3 Oxygen Emissions for Sample Set #3 C-23
C-l Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Sample Set #1 C-25
C-2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Sample Set #2 C-26
C-3 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Sample Set ?3 C-28
D-l Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #1 C-30
D-2 Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #2 C-31
D-3 Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #3 C-33
D-4 Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #4 C-34
D-5 Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #5 C-35
E-l Schematic Diagram of the Comparative Method E-2
VII
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BOAT Treatment Standards for K087
Pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) enacted
on November 8, 1984, and in accordance with the procedures for
establishing treatment standards under section 3004(m) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is
proposing best demonstrated available technology (BOAT) treatment
standards for the listed waste identified in 40 CFR Part 261.32 as K087
(decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations). Compliance with these
treatment standards is a prerequisite for disposal of the waste in units
designated as land disposal units according to 40 CFR Part 268.
K087 waste contains both BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
BOAT treatment standards have been proposed for nine of the organics and
two of the metals in both nonwastewater and wastewater forms of K087
waste. Rotary kiln incineration was determined to be BOAT for the
organics in K087 waste; this technology generates ash (nonwastewater) and
scrubber water (wastewater) residuals that contain metals which may
require treatment. The treatment standards for the organic constituents
in these residuals have been developed using performance data from rotary
kiln incineration of K087 waste. Chemical precipitation., using lime as
the treatment chemical, followed by settling and/or sludge filtration was
determined to be BOAT for the metals in the scrubber water; this treatment
results in filtrate (wastewater) and precipitated solids (nonwastewaterj
IX
-------
residuals. The wastewater treatment standards for the metals were
developed by transferring performance data from chemical precipitation
and sludge filtration of a metal-bearing wastewater. BOAT for the metals
in both the ash and the precipitated solids was determined to be
stabilization, using a cement kiln dust binder; the nonwastewater
treatment standards for the metals were developed by transferring
performance data from stabilization of F006 waste. A detailed
description of the performance data used by the Agency to develop BOAT
treatment standards can be found in Section 3.3 of this background
document.
The following table lists the specific BOAT treatment standards for
K087 waste. For the purpose of determining the applicability of the BOAT
treatment standards, wastewaters are defined as wastes containing less
than 1 percent (weight basis) filterable solids and less than 1 percent
(weight basis) total organic carbon (TOC). Wastes not meeting this
definition must comply with treatment standards for nonwastewaters. For
the BOAT list organics, treatment standards reflect total waste
concentration. The units for the total waste concentration are mg/kg
(parts per million on a weight-by-weight basis) for nonwastewaters and
mg/1 (parts per million on a weight-by-volume basis) for wastewaters.
For BOAT list metals in nonwastewaters, treatment standards reflect the
leachate concentration from the TCLP. The units for the leachate
concentration are mg/1. For BOAT list metals in wastewaters, treatment
standards reflect the total waste concentration, and the units are mg/1.
-------
Testing procedures for all sample analyses performed for the
regulated constituents are specifically identified in Appendix B of this
background document. These standards become effective as of
August 8, 1988.
-------
BOAT Treatment Standards for K087
Maximum for any single grab sample
Nonwastewater
Wastewater
Constituent
Total waste
concentration
TCLP leachate
concentration
(mg/i)
Total waste
concentration
(mg/1)
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Acenaphthalene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Lead
Zinc
0.071
0.65
0.070
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not appl icable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
0.53
0.086
0.014
0.008
0.014
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.037
1.0
xn
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This section of the background document presents a summary of the
legal authority pursuant to which the BOAT treatment standards were
developed, a summary of EPA's promulgated methodology for developing
BOAT, and finally a discussion of the petition process that should be
followed to request a variance from the BOAT treatment standards.
1.1 Legal Background
1.1.1 Requirements Under HSWA
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), which were
enacted on November 8, 1984, and which amended the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), impose substantial new responsibilities
on those who handle hazardous waste. In particular, the amendments
require the Agency to promulgate regulations that restrict the land
disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. In its enactment of HSWA,
Congress stated explicitly that "reliance on land disposal should be
minimized or eliminated, and land disposal, particularly landfill and
surface impoundment, should be the least favored method for managing
hazardous wastes" (RCRA section 1002(b)(7), 42 U.S.C. 6901(b)(7)).
One part of the amendments specifies dates on which particular groups
of untreated hazardous wastes will be prohibited from land disposal
unless "it has been demonstrated to the Administrator, to a reasonable
degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the
-------
wastes remain hazardous" (RCRA section 3004(d)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5),
42 U.S.C. 6924 (d)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5)).
For the purpose of the restrictions, HSWA defines land disposal "to
include, but not be limited to, any placement of ... hazardous waste in
a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land
treatment facility,.salt dome formation, salt bed formation, or
underground mine or cave" (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C. 6924(k)).
Although HSWA defines land disposal to include injection wells, such
disposal of solvents, dioxins, and certain other wastes, known as the
California List wastes, is covered on a separate schedule (RCRA section
3004(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (f)(2)). This schedule requires that EPA
develop land disposal restrictions for deep well injection by
August 8, 1988.
The amendments also require the Agency to set "levels or methods of
treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste
or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are minimized" (RCRA section 3004(m)(l),
42 U.S.C. 6924 (m)(l)). Wastes that meet treatment standards established
by EPA are not prohibited and may be land disposed. In setting treatment
standards for listed or characteristic wastes, EPA may establish
different standards for particular wastes within a single waste code with
differing treatability characteristics. One such characteristic is the
physical form of the waste. This frequently leads to different standards
-------
for wastewaters and nonwastewaters. Alternatively, EPA can establish a
treatment standard that is applicable to more than one waste code when,
in EPA's judgment, a constituent in these wastes can be treated to the
same concentration. In those instances where a generator can demonstrate
that the standard promulgated for the generator's waste cannot be
achieved, the Agency also can grant a variance from a treatment standard
by revising the treatment standard for that particular waste through
rulemaking procedures. (A further discussion of treatment variances is
provided in Section 1.3.)
The land disposal restrictions are effective when promulgated unless
the Administrator grants a national variance and establishes a different
date (not to exceed 2 years beyond the statutory deadline) based on "the
earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity which protects human health and the environment will be
available" (RCRA section 3004(h)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (h)(2)).
If EPA fails to set a treatment standard by the statutory deadline
for any hazardous waste in the First Third or Second Third of the
schedule (see Section 1.1.2), the waste may not be disposed in a landfill
or surface impoundment unless the facility is in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements specified in Section 3004(o) of RCRA.
In addition, prior to disposal, the generator must certify to the
Administrator that the availability of treatment capacity has been
investigated and it has been determined that disposal in a landfill or
surface impoundment is the only practical alternative to treatment
-------
currently available to the generator. This restriction on the use of
landfills and surface impoundments applies until EPA sets a treatment
standard for the waste or until May 8, 1990, whichever is sooner. If the
Agency fails to set a treatment standard for any ranked hazardous waste
by May 8, 1990, the waste is automatically prohibited from land disposal
unless the waste is placed in a land disposal unit that is the subject of
a successful "no migration" demonstration (RCRA section 3004(g), 42
U.S.C. 6924(g)). "No migration" demonstrations are based on case-
specific petitions that show there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the unit for as long as the waste remains hazardous.
1.1.2 Schedule for Developing Restrictions
Under section 3004(g) of RCRA, EPA was required to establish a
schedule for developing treatment standards for all wastes that the
Agency had listed as hazardous by November 8, 1984. Section 3004(g)
required that this schedule consider the intrinsic hazards and volumes
associated with each of these wastes. The statute required EPA to set
treatment standards according to the following schedule:
1. Solvents and dioxins standards must be promulgated by November 8,
1986;
2. The "California List" must be promulgated by July 8, 1987;
3. At least one-third of all listed hazardous wastes must be
promulgated by August 8, 1988 (First Third);
4. At least two-thirds of all listed hazardous wastes must be
promulgated by June 8, 1989 (Second Third); and
5. All remaining listed hazardous wastes and all hazardous wastes
identified as of November 8, 1984, by one or more of the
characteristics defined in 40 CFR Part 261 must be promulgated by
May 8, 1990 (Third Third).
-------
The statute specifically identified the solvent wastes as those
covered under waste codes F001, F002, F003, F004, and F005; it identified
the dioxin-containing hazardous wastes as those covered under waste codes
F020, F021, F022, and F023.
Wastes collectively known as the California List wastes, defined
under section 3004(d) of HSWA, are liquid hazardous wastes containing
metals, free cyanides, PCBs, corrosives (i.e., a pH less than or equal to
2.0), and any liquid or nonliquid hazardous waste containing halogenated
organic compounds (HOCs) above 0.1 percent by weight. Rules for the
California List were proposed on December 11, 1986, and final rules for
PCBs, corrosives, and HOC-containing wastes were established
August 12, 1987. In that rule, EPA elected not to establish standards
for metals. Therefore, the statutory limits became effective.
On May 28, 1986, EPA published a final rule (51 FR 19300) that
delineated the specific waste codes that would be addressed by the First
Third, Second Third, and Third Third. This schedule is incorporated into
40 CFR 268.10, .11, and .12.
1.2 Summary of Promulgated BOAT Methodology
In a November 7, 1986, rulemaking, EPA promulgated a technology-based
approach to establishing treatment standards under section 3004(m).
Section 3004(m) also specifies that treatment standards must "minimize"
long- and short-term threats to human health and the environment arising
from land disposal of hazardous wastes.
-------
Congress indicated in the legislative history accompanying the HSWA
that "[t]he requisite levels of [sic] methods of treatment established by
the Agency should be the best that has been demonstrated to be
achievable," noting that the intent is "to require utilization of
available technology" and not a "process which contemplates
technology-forcing standards" (Vol. 130 Cong. Rec. S9178 (daily ed.,
July 25, 1984)). EPA has interpreted this legislative history as
suggesting that Congress considered the requirement under 3004(m) to be
met by application of the best demonstrated and achievable (i.e.,
available) technology prior to land disposal of wastes or treatment
residuals. Accordingly, EPA's treatment standards are generally based on
the performance of the best demonstrated available technology (BOAT)
identified for treatment of the hazardous constituents. This approach
involves the identification of potential treatment systems, the
determination of whether they are demonstrated and available, and the
collection of treatment data from well-designed and well-operated systems.
The treatment standards, according to the statute, can represent
levels or methods of treatment, if any, that substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration
of hazardous constituents. Wherever possible, the Agency prefers to
establish BOAT treatment standards as "levels" of treatment
(i.e., performance standards) rather than adopting an approach that would
require the use of specific treatment "methods." EPA believes that
concentration-based treatment levels offer the regulated community
-------
greater flexibility to develop and implement compliance strategies as
well as an incentive to develop innovative technologies.
1.2.1 Waste Treatability Group
In developing the treatment standards, EPA first characterizes the
waste(s). As necessary, EPA may establish treatability groups for wastes
having similar physical and chemical properties. That is, if EPA
believes that wastes represented by different waste codes could be
treated to similar concentrations using identical technologies, the
Agency combines the codes into one treatability group. EPA generally
considers wastes to be similar and of the same treatability group when
they are both generated from the same industry and from similar
processing stages. In addition, EPA may combine two or more separate
wastes into the same treatability group when data are available showing
that the waste characteristics affecting treatment selection and
performance are similar or that one waste would be expected to be less
difficult to treat by a particular treatment technology.
Once the treatability groups have been established, EPA collects and
analyzes data on identified technologies used to treat the wastes in each
treatability group. The technologies evaluated must be demonstrated on
the waste or a similar waste and must be available for use.
1.2.2 Demonstrated and Available Treatment Technologies
Consistent with legislative history, EPA considers demonstrated
technologies to be those that are used on a full-scale basis to treat the
waste of interest or a similar waste with regard to parameters that
-------
affect treatment selection (see November 7, 1986, 51 FR 40588). EPA also
will consider as treatment those technologies used to separate or
otherwise process chemicals and other materials. Some of these
technologies clearly are applicable to waste treatment, since the wastes
are similar to raw materials processed in industrial applications.
For most of the waste treatability groups for which EPA will
promulgate treatment standards, EPA will identify demonstrated
technologies either through review of literature related to current waste
treatment practices or on the basis of information provided by specific
facilities currently treating the waste or similar wastes.
In cases where the Agency does not identify any facilities treating
wastes represented by a particular waste treatability group, EPA may
transfer a finding of demonstrated treatment. To do this, EPA will
compare the parameters affecting treatment selection for the waste
treatability group of interest to other wastes for which demonstrated
technologies already have been determined. The parameters affecting
treatment selection are described in Section 3.2 of this document. If
the parameters affecting treatment selection are similar, then the Agency
will consider the treatment technology also to be demonstrated for the
waste of interest. For example, EPA considers rotary kiln incineration a
demonstrated technology for many waste codes containing hazardous organic
constituents, high total organic content, and high filterable solids
content, regardless of whether any facility is currently treating these
wastes. The basis for this determination is data found in literature and
-------
data generated by EPA confirming the use of rotary kiln incineration on
wastes having the above characteristics.
If no commercial treatment or recovery operations are identified for
a waste or wastes with similar physical or chemical characteristics that
affect treatment selection, the Agency will be unable to identify any
demonstrated treatment technologies for the waste, and, accordingly, the
waste will be prohibited from land disposal (unless handled in accordance
with the exemption and variance provisions of the rule). The Agency is,
however, committed to establishing treatment standards as soon as new or
improved treatment processes are demonstrated (and available).
Technologies available only at research facilities (pilot- and bench-
scale operations) will not be considered in identifying demonstrated
treatment technologies for a waste because they would not necessarily be
"demonstrated." Nevertheless, EPA may use data generated at research
facilities in assessing the performance of demonstrated technologies.
As discussed earlier, Congress intended that technologies used to
establish treatment standards under section 3004(m) be not only
"demonstrated," but also available. To decide whether demonstrated
technologies may be considered "available," the Agency determines whether
they (1) are commercially available and (2) substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration
of hazardous constituents from the waste.
EPA will only set treatment standards based on a technology that
meets the above criteria. Thus, the decision to classify a technology as
-------
"unavailable" will have a direct impact on the treatment standard. If
the best demonstrated technology is unavailable, the treatment standard
will be based on the next best demonstrated treatment technology
determined to be available. To the extent that the resulting treatment
standards are less stringent, greater concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the treatment residuals could be placed in land disposal
units.
There may be circumstances in which EPA concludes that for a given
waste none of the demonstrated treatment technologies are "available" for
purposes of establishing the section 3004(m) treatment performance
standards. Subsequently, these wastes will be prohibited from continued
placement in or on the land unless managed in accordance with applicable
exemptions and variance provisions. The Agency, however, is committed to
establishing new treatment standards as soon as new or improved treatment
processes become "available."
(1) Proprietary or patented processes. If the demonstrated
treatment technology is a proprietary or patented process that is not
generally available (i.e., commercially available), EPA will not consider
the technology in its determination of the treatment standards. EPA will
consider a proprietary or patented process available if the Agency
determines that the treatment method can be purchased or licensed from
the proprietor. The services of the commercial facility offering this
technology often can be purchased even if the technology itself cannot be
purchased.
10
-------
(2) Substantial treatment. To be considered "available," a
demonstrated treatment technology must "substantially diminish the
toxicity" of the waste or "substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents" from the waste in accordance with
section 3004(m). By requiring that substantial treatment be achieved in
order to set a treatment standard, the statute ensures that all wastes
are adequately treated before being placed in or on the land and ensures
that the Agency does not require a treatment method that provides little
or no environmental benefit. Treatment will always be deemed substantial
if it results in nondetectable levels of the hazardous constituents of
concern. If nondetectable levels are not achieved, then a determination
of substantial treatment will be made on a case-by-case basis. This
approach is necessary because of the difficulty of establishing a
meaningful guideline that can be applied broadly to the many wastes and
technologies to be considered. EPA will consider the following factors
in an effort to evaluate whether a technology provides substantial
treatment on a case-by-case basis:
1. Number and types of constituents treated;
2. Performance (concentration of the constituents in the
treatment residuals); and
3. Percent of constituents removed.
If none of the demonstrated treatment technologies achieve
substantial treatment of a waste, the Agency cannot establish treatment
standards for the constituents of concern in that waste.
11
-------
1.2.3 Collection of Performance Data
Performance data on the demonstrated available technologies are
evaluated by the Agency to determine whether the data are representative
of well-designed and well-operated treatment systems. Only data from
well-designed and well-operated systems are included in determining
BOAT. The data evaluation includes data already collected directly by
EPA and/or data provided by industry. In those instances where
additional data are needed to supplement existing information, EPA
collects additional data through a sampling and analysis program. The
principal elements of this data collection program are: (1) the identifi-
cation of facilities for site visits, (2) the engineering site visit,
(3) the sampling and analysis plan, (4) the sampling visit, and (5) the
onsite engineering report.
(1) Identification of facilities for site visits. To identify
facilities that generate and/or treat the waste of concern, EPA uses a
number of information sources. These include Stanford Research
Institute's Directory of Chemical Producers; EPA's Hazardous Waste Data
Management System (HWDMS); the 1986 Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facility
(TSDF) National Screening Survey; and EPA's Industry Studies Data Base.
In addition, EPA contacts trade associations to inform them that the
Agency is considering visits to facilities in their industry and to
solicit assistance in identifying facilities for EPA to consider in its
treatment sampling program.
12
-------
After identifying facilities that treat the waste, EPA uses this
hierarchy to select sites for engineering visits: (1) generators treating
single wastes on site; (2) generators treating multiple wastes together
on site; (3) commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDFs); and (4) EPA in-house treatment. This hierarchy is based on two
concepts: (1) to the extent possible, EPA should develop treatment
standards from data produced by treatment facilities handling only a
single waste, and (2) facilities that routinely treat a specific waste
have had the best opportunity to optimize design parameters. Although
excellent treatment can occur at many facilities that are not high in
this hierarchy, EPA has adopted this approach to avoid, when possible,
ambiguities related to the mixing of wastes before and during treatment.
When possible, the Agency will evaluate treatment technologies using
commercially operated systems. If performance data from properly
designed and operated commercial treatment methods for a particular waste
or a waste judged to be similar are not available, EPA may use data from
a research facility operation. Whenever research facility data are used,
EPA will explain in the preamble and background document why such data
were used and will request comments on the use of such data.
Although EPA's data bases provide information on treatment for
individual wastes, the data bases rarely provide data that support the
selection of one facility for sampling over another. In cases where
several treatment sites appear to fall into the same level of the
hierarchy, EPA selects sites for visits strictly on the basis of which
13
-------
facility could most expeditiously be visited and later sampled if
justified by the engineering visit.
(2) Engineering site visit. Once a treatment facility has been
selected, an engineering site visit is made to confirm that a candidate
for sampling meets EPA's criteria for a well-designed facility and to
ensure that the necessary sampling points can be accessed to determine
operating parameters and treatment effectiveness. During the visit, EPA
also confirms that the facility appears to be well operated, although the
actual operation of the treatment system during sampling is the basis for
EPA's decisions regarding proper operation of the treatment unit. In
general, the Agency considers a well-designed facility to be one that
contains the unit operations necessary to treat the various hazardous
constituents of the waste as well as to control other nonhazardous
materials in the waste that may affect treatment performance.
In addition to ensuring that a system is reasonably well-designed,
the engineering visit examines whether the facility has a way to measure
the operating parameters that affect performance of the treatment system
during the waste treatment period. For example, EPA may choose not to
sample a treatment system that operates in a continuous mode, for which
an important operating parameter cannot be continuously recorded. In
such systems, instrumentation is important in determining whether the
treatment system is operating at design values during the waste treatment
period.
14
-------
(3) Sampling and analysis plan. If after the engineering site visit
the Agency decides to sample a particular plant, the Agency will then
develop a site-specific sampling and analysis plan (SAP) according to the
Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Land Disposal Restriction
Program ("BDAT")(USEPA 1987a). In brief, the SAP discusses where the
Agency plans to sample, how the samples will be taken, the frequency of
sampling, the constituents to be analyzed and the method of analysis,
operational parameters to be obtained, and specific laboratory quality
control checks on the analytical results.
The Agency generally produces a draft of the site-specific SAP within
two to three weeks of the engineering visit. The draft of the SAP is
then sent to the plant for review and comment. With few exceptions, the
draft SAP should be a confirmation of data collection activities
discussed with the plant personnel during the engineering site visit.
EPA encourages plant personnel to recommend any modifications to the SAP
that they believe will improve the quality of the data.
It is important to note that sampling of a plant by EPA does not mean
that the data will be used in the development of treatment standards for
BOAT. EPA's final decision on whether to use data from a sampled plant
depends on the actual analysis of the waste being treated and on the
operating conditions at the time of sampling. Although EPA would not
plan to sample a facility that was not ostensibly well-designed and
well-operated, there is no way to ensure that at the time of the sampling
the facility will not experience operating problems. Additionally, EPA
15
-------
statistically compares its test data to suitable industry-provided data,
where available, in its determination of what data to use in developing
treatment standards. The methodology for comparing data is presented
later in this section.
(Note: Facilities wishing to submit data for consideration in the
development of BOAT standards should, to the extent possible, provide
sampling information similar to that acquired by EPA. Such facilities
should review the Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Land
Disposal Restriction Program ("BOAT")(USEPA 1987a), which delineates all
of the quality control and quality assurance measures associated with
sampling and analysis. Quality assurance and quality control procedures
are summarized in Section 1.2.6 of this document.)
(4) Sampling visit. The purpose of the sampling visit is to collect
samples that characterize the performance of the treatment system and to
document the operating conditions that existed during the waste treatment
period. At a minimum, the Agency attempts to collect sufficient samples
of the untreated waste and solid and liquid treatment residuals so that
variability in the treatment process can be accounted for in the
development of the treatment standards. To the extent practicable, and
within safety constraints, EPA or its contractors collect all samples and
ensure that chain-of-custody procedures are conducted so that the
integrity of the data is maintained.
In general, the samples collected during the sampling visit will have
already been specified in the SAP. In some instances, however, EPA will
16
-------
not be able to collect all planned samples because of changes in the
facility operation or plant upsets; EPA will explain any such deviations
from the SAP in its follow-up onsite engineering report.
(5) Onsite engineering report. EPA summarizes all its data
collection activities and associated analytical results for testing at a
facility in a report referred to as the onsite engineering report (OER).
This report characterizes the waste(s) treated, the treated residual
concentrations, the design and operating data, and all analytical results
including methods used and accuracy results. This report also describes
any deviations from EPA's suggested analytical methods for hazardous
wastes that appear in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste
(USEPA 1986a).
After the OER is completed, the report is submitted to the plant for
review. This review provides the plant with a final opportunity to claim
any information contained in the report as confidential. Following the
review and incorporation of comments, as appropriate, the report is made
available to the public with the exception of any material claimed as
confidential by the plant.
1.2.4 Hazardous Constituents Considered and Selected for Regulation
(1) Development of BDAT list. The list of hazardous constituents
within the waste codes that are targeted for treatment is referred to by
the Agency as the BDAT constituent list. This list, provided as
Table 1-1, is derived from the constituents presented in 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix VII and Appendix VIII, as well as from several ignitable
17
-------
constituents that are used as the basis of listing wastes as F003 and
F005. These sources provide a comprehensive list of hazardous
constituents specifically regulated under RCRA. The BOAT list consists
of those constituents that can be analyzed using methods published in
SW-846 (USEPA 1986a).
The initial BOAT constituent list was published in the Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions (USEPA
1987a). Additional constituents are added to the BOAT constituent list
as additional key constituents are identified for specific waste codes or
as new analytical methods are developed for hazardous constituents. For
example, since the list was published in March 1987, 18 additional
constituents (hexavalent chromium, xylene (all three isomers), benzal
chloride, phthalic anhydride, ethylene oxide, acetone, n-butyl alcohol,
2-ethoxyethanol, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methanol,
methyl isobutyl ketone, 2-nitropropane, l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-
trifluoroethane, and cyclohexanone) have been added to the list.
Chemicals are listed in Appendix VIII if they are shown in scientific
studies to have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on
humans or other life-forms, and they include such substances as those
identified by the Agency's Carcinogen Assessment Group as being
carcinogenic. Including a constituent in Appendix VIII means that the
constituent can be cited as a basis for listing toxic wastes.
Although Appendix VII, Appendix VIII, and the F003 and F005
ignitables provide a comprehensive list of RCRA-regulated hazardous
18
-------
1521g
Table 1-1 BOAT Constituent List
BOAT
reference
no.
222.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
6
223
7.
8
9
10
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25
26.
27.
28.
29.
224.
225.
226.
30.
227.
31.
214.
32
Parameter
Volatiles
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitri le
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon tetrachlor ide
Carbon disulfide
-Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l ,3-butadiene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
Trans -1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Oichlorodif luoromethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Di Chloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Trans- 1 ,3-Oichloropropene
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
I ,4-Dioxane
2-Ethoxyethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
CAS no.
67-64-1
75-05-8
107-02-8
107-13-1
71-43-2
75-27-4
74-83-9
71-36-3
56-23-5
75-15-0
108-90-7
126-99-8
124-48-1
75-00-3
110-75-8
67-66-3
74-87-3
107-05-1
96-12-8
106-93-4
74-95-3
110-57-6
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-60-5
78-87-5
10061-02-6
10061-01-5
123-91-1
110-80-5
141-78-6
100-41-4
107-12-0
60-29-7
97-63-2
75-21-8
74-88-4
19
-------
1521g
Table 1-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no.
33.
228.
34
229.
35.
37
38.
230.
39
40
41
42.
43
44.
45
46.
47.
48
49.
231.
50.
215.
216.
217.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
218.
60.
61.
62.
Parameter
Volatiles (continued)
Isobutyl alcohol
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methacrylomtr i le
Methylene chloride
2-Nitropropane
Pyndine
1,1,1, 2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tet rach loroe thane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tribromomethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trich loroe thane
Trichloroethene
Tnchloromonof luorome thane
1 , 2,3-Tnchloropropane
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-tnf luoro-
ethane
Vinyl chloride
1,2-Xylene
1,3-Xylene
1,4-Xylene
Semivolat i les
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminof luorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Am 1 me
Anthracene
Aramite
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzal chloride
Benzenethiol
Deleted
Benzo(a)pyrene
CAS no.
78-83-1
67-56-1
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
126-98-7
75-09-2
79-46-9
110-86-1
630-20-6
79-34-6
127-18-4
108-88-3
75-25-2
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
96-18-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
97-47-6
108-38-3
106-44-5
208-96-8
83-32-9
96-86-2
53-96-3
92-67-1
62-53-3
120-12-7 .
140-57-8
56-55-3
98-87-3
108-98-5
50-32-8
20
-------
1521g
Table 1-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68
69
70
71
12
73
74
75
76
77
78.
79
80
81
82
232.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94
95
96
97
98
99
10.
10
Parameter
Semivolat i les (continued)
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo( ghijperylene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
p-Benzoqumone
Bis(2-chloroethoxy ) me thane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-etn>lhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromopheny 1 phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Buty 1-4 ,6-din Itrophenol
p-Chloroani 1 me
Chlorobenzi late
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitr i le
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Creso 1
Cyclohexanone
D i benz ( a , h ) anthracene
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene
Dibenzo(a, i )pyrene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Oichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-D>chlorobenzidme
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2.6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3,3 '-Dimethoxybenzidme
p-0 imethy lam moazobenzene
3, 3 '-Dimethyl benz id me
2, 4- Dimethyl phenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,4-Dinn robenzene
4,6-Dm ' *, -o-o-cresol
2,4-Din:1 rophenol
CAS no.
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
106-51-4
111-91-1
111-44-4
3963B-32-9
117-B1-7
101-55-3
85-68-7
66-85-7
106-47-8
510-15-6
59-50-7
91-58-7
95-57-8
542-76-7
218-01-9
95-46-7
106-44-5
108-94-1
53-70-3
192-65-4
189-55-9
541-73-1
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
120-83-2
87-65-0
84-66-2
119-90-4
60-11-7
119-93-7
105-67-9
131-11-3
84-74-2
100-25-4
534-53-1
51-28-5
21
-------
1521g
Table 1-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
219
107.
108
109.
110.
Ill
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
36.
121.
122.
123
124
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131
132
133.
134.
135
136.
137.
138
Parameter
Semwolat i les (continued)
2,4-Dmitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propy Initrosamme
Diphenylamine
Di pheny In itrosamme
1 , 2-Di pheny Ihydraz me
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexach lorobenzene
Hexach lorobut ad lene
Hexachlorocyc lopentadlene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
Indenofl , 2,3-cd)pyrene
Isosafrole
Methapyri lene
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4 '-Methy lenebis
(2-chloroani line)
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqumone
1-Naphthy lamine
2-Naphthylamine
p-Nitroani 1 me
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamme
N-Nitrosodiethylamme
N-Nitrosodimethy lamine
N-N i t rosomethyl ethyl ami ne
N-Nitrosomorphol me
N-Nitrosopiperidme
n-Nitrosopyrrol id me
5-Nitro-o-toluidme
Pentach lorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentach loron 1 1 robenzene
CAS no.
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
621-64-7
122-39-4
86-30-6
122-66-7
206-44-0
86-73-7
116-74-1
87-66-3
77-47-4
67-72-1
70-30-4
1888-71-7
193-39-5
120-58-1
91-80-5
56-49-5
101-14-4
66-27-3
91-20-3
130-15-4
134-32-7
91-59-8
100-01-6
98-95-3
100-02-7
924-16-3
55-18-5
62-75-9
10595-95-6
59-89-2
100-75-4
930-55-2
99-65-8
608-93-5
76-01-7
82-68-8
22
-------
1521g
Table 1-1 (continued)
BDA/
reference
no.
139.
140.
141.
142.
220
143.
144
145
146
147
148.
149
150.
151.
152.
153
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
Parameter
Semivolati les (continued)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phthalic anhydride
2-Picoline
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorcinol
Saf role
1,2, 4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4, 6-Tetrachlorophenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
2,4 ,6-Trichlorophenol
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)
phosphate
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 mm
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thai 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
Inorganics other than metals
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulf ide
CAS no.
87-86-5
62-44-2
85-01-8
108-95-2
85-44-9
109-06-8
23950-58-5
12S-00-0
108-46-3
94-59-7
95-94-3
58-90-2
120-82-1
95-95-4
88-06-2
126-72-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
-
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
57-12-5
16964-48-8
8496-25-8
23
-------
1521g
Table
(continued)
BOAT
reference
no.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184.
185.
186
187
188.
189
190
191
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200
201
202.
Parameter
Orqanochlonne pesticides
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC
Chlordane
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrm
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Isodrin
Kepone
Methoxyclor
Toxaphene
Phenoxyacet ic acid herbicides
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacet ic acid
Si Ivex
2,4,5-T
Orqanophosphorous insecticides
Disulfoton
Famphur
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Phorate
PCBs
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
CAS no
309-00-2
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
57-74-9
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
60-57-1
939-98-8
33213-6-5
72-20-8
7421-93-4
76-44-8
1024-57-3
465-73-6
143-50-0
72-43-5
8001-35-2
94-75-7
93-72-1
93-76-5
298-04-4
52-85-7
298-00-0
56-38-2
298-02-2
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
24
-------
1521g
Table 1-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference Parameter CAS no.
no.
PCBs (continued)
203. Aroclor 1242 53469-21-9
204. Aroclor 1248 12672-29-6
205. Aroclor 1254 11097-69-1
206. Aroclor 1260 11096-82-5
Dioxins and furans
207 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
208 Hexachlorodibenzofurans
209 Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
210 Pentachlorodibenzofurans
211. Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
212. Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
213. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxm 1746-01-6
25
-------
constituents, not all of the constituents can be analyzed in a complex
waste matrix. Therefore, constituents that cannot be readily analyzed in
an unknown waste matrix were not included on the initial BOAT list. As
mentioned above, however, the BOAT constituent list is a continuously
growing list that does not preclude the addition of new constituents when
analytical methods are developed.
There are five major reasons that constituents were not included on
the BOAT constituent list:
1. Constituents are unstable. Based on their chemical structure,
some constituents will either decompose in water or will ionize.
For example, maleic anhydride will form maleic acid when it comes
in contact with water and copper cyanide will ionize to form
copper and cyanide ions. However, EPA may choose to regulate the
decomposition or ionization products.
2. EPA-approved or verified analytical methods are not available.
Many constituents, such as 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene, are not
measured adequately or even detected using any of EPA's
analytical methods published in SW-846 Third Edition.
3. The constituent is a member of a chemical group designated in
Appendix VIII as not otherwise specified (N.O.S.). Constituents
listed as N.O.S., such as chlorinated phenols, are a generic
group of some types of chemicals for which a single analytical
procedure is not available. The individual members of each such
group need to be listed to determine whether the constituents can
be analyzed. For each N.O.S. group, all those constituents that
can be readily analyzed are included in the BOAT constituents
list.
4. Available analytical procedures are not appropriate for a complex
waste matrix. Some compounds, such as auramine, can be analyzed
as a pure constituent. However, in the presence of other
constituents, the recommended analytical method does not
positively identify the constituent. The use of high pressure
liquid chromotography (HPLC) presupposes a high expectation of
findjng the specific constituents of interest. In using this
procedure to screen samples, protocols would have to be developed
on a case-specific basis to verify the identity of constituents
26
-------
present in the samples. Therefore, HPLC is not an appropriate
analytical procedure for complex samples containing unkown
constituents.
5. Standards for analytical instrument calibration are not
commercially available. For several constituents, such as
benz(c)acridine, commercially available standards of a
"reasonably" pure grade are not available. The unavailability of
a standard was determined by a review of catalogs from specialty
chemical manufacturers.
Two constituents (fluoride and sulfide) are not specifically included
in Appendices VII and VIII; however, these compounds are included on the
BOAT list as indicator constituents for compounds from Appendices VII and
VIII such as hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen sulfide, which ionize in
water.
The BOAT constituent list presented in Table 1-1 is divided into the
following nine groups:
Volatile organics;
Semivolatile organics;
Metals;
Other inorganics;
Organochlorine pesticides;
Phenoxyacetic acid herbicides;
Organophosphorous insecticides;
PCBs; and
Dioxins and furans.
The constituents were placed in these categories based on their chemical
properties. The constituents in each group are expected to behave
similarily during treatment and are also analyzed, with the exception of
the metals and inorganics, by using the same analytical methods.
(2) Constituent selection analysis. The constituents that the
Agency selects for regulation in each treatability group are, in general,
27
-------
those found in the untreated wastes at treatable concentrations. For
certain waste codes, the target list for the untreated waste may have
been shortened (relative to analyses performed to test treatment
technologies) because of the extreme unlikelihood of the constituent
being present.
In selecting constituents for regulation, the first step is to
summarize all the constituents that are found or believed to be present
in the untreated waste at treatable concentrations. The process of
determining what constituents are treatable involves the use of the
statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, discussed in Section
1.2.6, to determine if constituent reductions were significant. The
Agency interprets a significant reduction in concentration as evidence
that the technology actually "treats" the waste.
There are some instances where EPA may regulate constituents that are
not found in the untreated waste but are detected in the treated
residual. This is generally the case where presence of the constituents
in the untreated waste interferes with the quantification of the
constituent of concern. In such instances, the detection levels of the
constituent are relatively high, resulting in a finding of "not detected"
when, in fact, the constituent is present in the waste.
After determining which of the constituents in the untreated waste
are present at treatable concentrations, EPA develops a list of potential
constituents for regulation. The Agency then reviews this list to
determine if any of these constituents can be excluded from regulation
28
-------
because they would be controlled by regulation of other constituents in
the list.
EPA performs this indicator analysis for two reasons: (1) it reduces
the analytical cost burdens on the treater and (2) it facilitates
implementation of the compliance and enforcement program. EPA's
rationale for selection of regulated constituents for this waste code is
presented in Section 5 of this background document.
(3) Calculation of standards. The final step in the calculation of
the BOAT treatment standard is the multiplication of the average
treatment value by a factor referred to by the Agency as the variability
factor. This calculation takes into account that even well-designed and
well-operated treatment systems will experience some fluctuations in
performance. EPA expects that fluctuations will result from inherent
mechanical limitations in treatment control systems, collection of
treated samples, and analysis of these samples. All of the above
fluctuations can be expected to occur at well-designed and well-operated
treatment facilities. Therefore, setting treatment standards utilizing a
variability factor should be viewed not as a relaxing of section 3004(m)
requirements, but rather as a function of the normal variability of the
treatment processes. A treatment facility will have to be designed to
meet the mean achievable treatment performance level to ensure that the
performance levels remain within the limits of the treatment standard.
The Agency calculates a variability factor for each constituent of
concern within a waste treatability group using the statistical
29
-------
calculation presented in Appendix A. The equation for calculating the
variability factor is the same as that used by EPA for the development of
numerous regulations in the Effluent Guidelines Program under the Clean
Water Act. The variability factor establishes the instantaneous maximum
based on the 99th percentile value.
There is an additional step in the calculation of the treatment
standards in those instances where the ANOVA analysis shows that more
than one technology achieves a level of performance that represents
BOAT. In such instances, the BOAT treatment standard is calculated by
first averaging the mean performance value for each technology for each
constituent of concern and then multiplying that value by the highest
variability factor among the technologies considered. This procedure
ensures that all the BOAT technologies used as the basis for the
standards will achieve full compliance.
1.2.5 Compliance with Performance Standards
All the treatment standards reflect performance achieved by the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT). As such, compliance with these
standards requires only that the treatment level be achieved prior to
land disposal. It does not require the use of any particular treatment
technology. While dilution of the waste as a means to comply with the
standard is prohibited, wastes that are generated in such a way as to
naturally meet the standard can be land disposed without treatment. With
the exception of treatment standards that prohibit land disposal, all
treatment standards proposed are expressed as a concentration level.
30
-------
EPA has used both total constituent concentration and TCLP analyses
of the treated waste as a measure of technology performance. EPA's
rationale for when each of these analytical tests is used is explained in
the following discussion.
For all organic constituents, EPA is basing the treatment standards
on the total constituent concentration.found in the treated waste. EPA
based its decision on the fact that technologies exist to destroy the
various organics compounds. Accordingly, the best measure of performance
would be the extent to which the various organic compounds have been
destroyed or the total amount of constituent remaining after treatment.
(NOTE: EPA's land disposal restrictions for solvent waste codes
F001-F005 (51 FR 40572) use the TCLP value as a measure of performance.
At the time that EPA promulgated the treatment standards for F001-F005,
useful data were not available on total constituent concentrations in
treated residuals and, as a result, the TCLP data were considered to be
the best measure of performance.)
For all metal constituents, EPA is using both total constituent
concentration and/or the TCLP leachate concentration as the basis for
treatment standards. The total -constituent concentration is being used
when the technology basis includes a metal recovery operation. The
underlying principle of metal recovery is the reduction of the amount of
metal in a waste by separating the metal for recovery; therefore, total
constituent concentration in the treated residual is an important measure
of performance for this technology. Additionally, EPA also believes that
31
-------
it is important that any remaining metal in a treated residual waste not
be in a state that is easily leachable; accordingly, EPA is also using
the TCLP as a measure of performance. It is important to note that for
wastes for which treatment standards are based on a metal recovery
process, the facility has to comply with both the total constituent
concentration and the TCLP prior to land disposal.
In cases where treatment standards for metals are not based on
recovery techniques but rather on stabilization, EPA is using only the
TCLP as a measure of performance. The Agency's rationale is that
stabilization is not meant to reduce the concentration of metal in a
waste but only to chemically minimize the ability of the metal to leach.
1.2.6 Identification of BOAT
(1) Screening of treatment data. This section explains how the
Agency determines which of the treatment technologies represent treatment
by BOAT. The first activity is to screen the treatment performance data
from each of the demonstrated and available technologies according to the
following criteria:
1. Design and operating data associated with the treatment data must
reflect a well-designed, well-operated system for each treatment
data point. (The specific design and operating parameters for
each demonstrated technology for this waste code are discussed in
Section 3.2 of this document.)
2. Sufficient QA/QC data must be available to determine the true
values of the data from the treated waste. This screening
criterion involves adjustment of treated data to.take into
account that the type value may be different from the measured
value. This discrepancy generally is caused by other
constituents in the waste that can mask results or otherwise
interfere with the analysis of the constituent of concern.
32
-------
3. The measure of performance must be consistent with EPA's approach
to evaluating treatment by type of constituents (e.g., total
concentration data for organics, and total concentration and TCLP
for metals in the leachate from the residual).
In the absence of data needed to perform the screening analysis, EPA
will make decisions on a case-by-case basis of whether to include the
data. The factors included in this case-by-case analysis will be the
actual treatment levels achieved, the availability of the treatment data
and their completeness (with respect to the above criteria), and EPA's
assessment of whether the untreated waste represents the waste code of
concern. EPA's application of these screening criteria for this waste
code are provided in Section 4 of this background document.
(2) Comparison of treatment data. In cases in which EPA has
treatment data from more than one technology following the screening
activity, EPA uses the statistical method known as analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to determine if one technology performs significantly better.
This statistical method (summarized in Appendix A) provides a measure of
the differences between two data sets. If EPA finds that one technology
performs significantly better (i.e., the data sets are not homogeneous),
BOAT treatment standards are the level of performance achieved by the
best technology multiplied by the corresponding variability factor for
each regulated constituent.
If the differences in the data sets are not statistically
significant, the data sets are said to be homogeneous. Specifically, EPA
uses the analysis of variance to determine whether BOAT represents a
level of performance achieved by only one technology or represents a
33
-------
level of performance achieved by more than one (or all) of the
technologies. If the Agency finds that the levels of performance for one
or more technologies are not statistically different, EPA averages the
performance values achieved by each technology and then multiplies this
value by the largest variability factor associated with any of the
acceptable technologies. A detailed discussion of the treatment
selection method and an example of how EPA chooses BOAT from multiple
treatment systems is provided in Section A-l.
(3) Quality assurance/quality control. This section presents the
principal quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures employed
in screening and adjusting the data to be used in the calculation of
treatment standards. Additional QA/QC procedures used in collecting and
screening data for the BOAT program are presented in EPA's Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program
("BOAT") (EPA/530-SW-87-001, March 1987).
To calculate the treatment standards for the Land Disposal
Restriction Rules, it is first necessary to determine the recovery value
for each constituent (the amount of constituent recovered after spiking,
which is the addition of a known amount of the constituent, minus the
initial concentration in the samples divided by the amount added) for a
spike of the treated residual. Once the recovery value is determined,
the following procedures are used to select the appropriate percent
recovery value to adjust the analytical data:
34
-------
1. If duplicate spike recovery values are available for the
constituent of interest, the data are adjusted by the lowest
available percent recovery value (i.e., the value that will yield
the most conservative estimate of treatment achieved). However,
if a spike recovery value of less than 20 percent is reported for
a specific constituent, the data are not used to set treatment
standards because the Agency does not have sufficient confidence
in the reported value to set a national standard.
2. If data are not available for a specific constituent but are
available for an isomer, then the spike recovery data are
transferred from the isomer and the data are adjusted using the
percent recovery selected according to the procedure described in
(1) above.
3. If data are not available for a specific constituent but are
available for a similar class of constituents (e.g., volatile
organics, acid-extractable semivolatiles), then spike recovery
data available for this class of constituents are transferred.
All spike recovery values greater than or equal to 20 percent for
a spiked sample are averaged and the constituent concentration is
adjusted by the average recovery value. If spiked recovery data
are available for more than one sample, the average is calculated
for each sample and the data are adjusted by the lowest average
value.
4. If matrix spike recovery data are not available for a set of data
to be used to calculate treatment standards, then matrix spike
recovery data are transferred from a waste that the Agency
believes is a similar matrix (e.g., if the data are for an ash
from incineration, then data from other incinerator ashes could
be used). While EPA recognizes that transfer of matrix spike
recovery data from a similar waste is not an exact analysis, this
is considered the best approach for adjusting the data to account
for the fact that most analyses do not result in extraction of
100 percent of the constituent. In assessing the recovery data
to be transferred, the procedures outlined in (1), (2), and (3)
above are followed.
The analytical procedures employed to generate the data used to
calculate the treatment standards are listed in Appendix B of this
document. In cases where alternatives or equivalent procedures and/or
equipment are allowed in EPA's SW-846, Third Edition (USEPA 1986a)
35
-------
methods, fthe specific procedures and equipment used are also documented
in this Appendix. In addition, any deviations from the SW-846, Third
Edition, methods used to analyze the specific waste matrices are
documented. It is important to note that the Agency will use the methods
and procedures delineated in Appendix B to enforce the treatment
standards presented in Section 6 of this document. Accordingly,
facilities should use these procedures in assessing the performance of
their treatment systems.
1.2.7 BOAT Treatment Standards for "Derived-From" and "Mixed" Wastes
(1) Wastes from treatment trains generating multiple residues. In a
number of instances, the proposed BOAT consists of a series of operations
each of which generates a waste residue. For example, the proposed BOAT
for a certain waste code is based on solvent extraction, steam stripping,
and activated carbon adsorption. Each of these treatment steps generates
a waste requiring treatment--a solvent-containing stream from solvent
extraction, a stripper overhead, and spent activated carbon. Treatment
of these wastes may generate further residues; for instance, spent
activated carbon (if not regenerated) could be incinerated, generating an
ash and possibly a scrubber water waste. Ultimately, additional wastes
are generated that may require land disposal. With respect to these
wastes, the Agency wishes to emphasize the following points:
1. All of the residues from treating the original listed wastes are
likewise considered to be the listed waste by virtue of the
derived-from rule contained in 40 CFR Part 261.3(c)(2). (This
36
-------
point is discussed more fully in Section 1.2.7(2) below.)
Consequently, all of the wastes generated in the course of
treatment would be prohibited from land disposal unless they
satisfy the treatment standard or meet one of the exceptions to
the prohibition.
2. The Agency's proposed treatment standards generally contain a
concentration level for wastewaters and a concentration level for
nonwastewaters. The treatment standards apply to all of the
wastes generated in treating the original prohibited waste.
Thus, all solids generated from treating these wastes would have
to meet the treatment standard for nonwastewaters. All
derived-from wastes meeting the Agency definition of wastewater
(less than 1 percent TOC and less than 1 percent total filterable
solids) would have to meet the treatment standard for
wastewaters. EPA wishes to make clear that this approach is not
meant to allow partial treatment in order to comply with the
applicable standard.
3. The Agency has not performed tests, in all cases, on every waste
that can result from every part of the treatment train. However,
the Agency's treatment standards are based on treatment of the
most concentrated form of the waste. Consequently, the Agency
believes that the less concentrated wastes generated in the
course of treatment will also be able to be treated to meet this
value.
(2) Mixtures and other derived-from residues. There is a further
question as to the applicability of the BOAT treatment standards to
residues generated not from treating the waste (as discussed above), but
from other types of management. Examples are contaminated soil or
leachate that is derived from managing the waste. In these cases, the
mixture is still deemed to be the listed waste, either because of the
derived-from rule (40 CFR Part 261.3(c)(2)(i)) or the mixture rule
(40 CFR Part 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)) or because the listed waste is
contained in the matrix (see, for example, 40 CFR Part 261.33(d)). The
prohibition for the particular listed waste consequently applies to this
type of waste.
37
-------
The Agency believes that the majority of these types of residues can
meet the treatment standards for the underlying listed wastes (with the
possible exception of contaminated soil and debris, for which the Agency
is currently investigating whether it is appropriate to establish a
separate treatability subcategorization). For the most part, these
residues will be.less concentrated than the original listed waste. The
Agency's treatment standards also make a generous allowance for process
variability by assuming that all treatability values used to establish
the standard are lognormally distributed. The waste also might be
amenable to a relatively nonvariable form of treatment technology such as
incineration. Finally, and perhaps most important, the rules contain a
treatability variance that allows a petitioner to demonstrate that its
waste cannot be treated to the level specified in the rule (40 CFR Part
268.44(a). This provision provides a safety valve that allows persons
with unusual waste matrices to demonstrate the appropriateness of a
different standard. The Agency, to date, has not received any petitions
under this provision (for example, for residues contaminated with a
prohibited solvent waste), indicating, in the Agency's view, that the
existing standards are generally achievable.
(3) Residues from managing listed wastes or that contain listed
wastes. The Agency has been asked if and when residues from managing
hazardous wastes, such as leachate and contaminated ground water, become
subject to the land disposal prohibitions. Although the Agency believes
this question to be settled by existing rules and interpretative
38
-------
statements, to avoid any possible confusion the Agency will address the
question again.
Residues from managing First Third wastes, listed California List
wastes, and spent solvent and dioxin wastes are all considered to be
subject to the prohibitions for the underlying hazardous waste. Residues
from managing California List wastes likewise are subject to the
California List prohibitions when the residues themselves exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste. This determination stems directly
from the derived-from rule in 40 CFR Part 261.3(c)(2) or in some cases
from the fact that the waste is mixed with or otherwise contains the
listed waste. The underlying principle stated in all of these provisions
is that listed wastes remain listed until delisted.
The Agency's historic practice in processing delisting petitions
addressing mixing residuals has been to consider them to be the listed
waste and to require that delisting petitioners address all constituents
for which the derived-from waste (or other mixed waste) was listed. The
language in 40 CFR Part 260.22(b) states that mixtures or derived-from
residues can be delisted provided a delisting petitioner makes a
demonstration identical to that which a delisting petitioner would make
for the underlying waste. These residues consequently are treated as the
underlying listed waste for delisting purposes. The statute likewise
takes this position, indicating that soil and debris that are
contaminated with listed spent solvents or dioxin wastes are subject to
the prohibition for these wastes even though these wastes are not the
39
-------
originally generated waste, but rather are a residual from management
(RCRA section 3004(e)(3)). It is EPA's view that all such residues are
covered by the existing prohibitions and treatment standards for the
listed hazardous waste that these residues contain and from which they
are derived.
1.2.8 Transfer of Treatment Standards
EPA is proposing some treatment standards that are not based on
testing of the treatment technology of the specific waste subject to the
treatment standard. Instead, the Agency has determined that the
constituents present in the subject waste can be treated to the same
performance levels as those observed in other wastes for which EPA has
previously developed treatment data. EPA believes that transferring
treatment performance for use in establishing treatment standards for
untested wastes is valid technically in cases where the untested wastes
are generated from similar industries or similar processing steps, or
have similar waste characteristics affecting performance and treatment
selection. Transfer of treatment standards to similar wastes or wastes
from similar processing steps requires little formal analysis. However,
in the case where only the industry is similar, EPA more closely examines
the waste characteristics prior to concluding that the untested waste
constituents can be treated to levels associated with tested wastes.
EPA undertakes a two-step analysis when determining whether wastes
generated by different processes within a single industry can be treated
to the same level of performance. First, EPA reviews the available waste
40
-------
characteristic data to identify those parameters that are expected to
affect treatment selection. EPA has identified some of the most
important constituents and other parameters needed to select the
treatment technology appropriate for a given waste. A detailed
discussion of each analysis, including how each parameter was selected
for each waste, can be found in the background document for each waste.
Second, when an individual analysis suggests that an untested waste
can be treated with the same technology as a waste for which treatment
performance data are already available, EPA analyzes a more detailed list
of constituents that represent some of the most important waste
characteristics that the Agency believes will affect the performance of
the technology. By examining and comparing these characteristics, the
Agency determines whether the untested wastes will achieve the same level
of treatment as the tested waste. Where the Agency determines that the
untested waste is easier to treat than the tested waste, the treatment
standards can be transferred. A detailed discussion of this transfer
process for each waste can be found in later sections of this document.
1.3 Variance from the BOAT Treatment Standard
The Agency recognizes that there may exist unique wastes that cannot
be treated to the level specified as the treatment standard. In such a
case, a generator or owner/operator may submit a petition to the
Administrator requesting a variance from the treatment standard. A
particular waste may be significantly different from the wastes
considered in establishing treatability groups because the waste contains
a more complex matrix that makes it more difficult to treat. For
41
-------
example, complex mixtures may be formed when a restricted waste is mixed
with other waste streams by spills or other forms of inadvertent mixing.
As a result, the treatability of the restricted waste may be altered such
that it cannot meet the applicable treatment standard.
Variance petitions must demonstrate that the treatment standard
established for a given waste cannot be met. This demonstration can be
made by showing that attempts to treat the waste by available
technologies were not successful or by performing appropriate analyses of
the waste, including waste characteristics affecting performance, which
demonstrate that the waste cannot be treated to the specified levels.
Variances will not be granted based solely on a showing that adequate
BOAT treatment capacity is unavailable. (Such demonstrations can be made
according to the provisions in Part 268.5 of RCRA for case-by-case
extensions of the effective date.) The Agency will consider granting
generic petitions provided that representative data are submitted to
support a variance for each facility covered by the petition.
Petitioners should submit at least one copy to:
The Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
An additional copy marked "Treatability Variance" should be submitted
to:
Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
42
-------
Petitions containing confidential information should be sent with
only the inner envelope marked "Treatabil ity Variance" and "Confidential
Business Information" and with the contents marked in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 2 (41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976, amended by
43 FR 4000).
The petition should contain the following information:
1. The petitioner's name and address.
2. A statement of the petitioner's interest in the proposed action.
3. The name, address, and EPA identification number of the facility
generating the waste, and the name and telephone number of the
plant contact.
4. The process(es) and feed materials generating the waste and an
assessment of whether such process(es) or feed materials may
produce a waste that is not covered by the demonstration.
5. A description of the waste sufficient for comparison with the
waste considered by the Agency in developing BOAT, and an
estimate of the average and maximum monthly and annual quantities
of waste covered by the demonstration. (Note: The petitioner
should consult the appropriate BOAT background document for
determining the characteristics of the wastes considered in
developing treatment standards.)
6. If the waste has been treated, a description of the system used
for treating the waste, including the process design and
operating conditions. The petition should include the reasons
the treatment standards are not achievable and/or why the
petitioner believes the standards are based on inappropriate
technology for treating the waste. (Note: The petitioner should
refer to the BOAT background document as guidance for determining
the design and operating parameters that the Agency used in
developing treatment standards.)
7. A description of the alternative treatment systems examined by
the petitioner (if any); a description of the treatment system
deemed appropriate by the petitioner for the waste in question;
and, as appropriate, the concentrations in the treatment residual
or extract of the treatment residual (i.e., using the TCLP where
appropriate for stabilized metals) that can be achieved by
applying such treatment to the waste.
43
-------
8. A description of those parameters affecting treatment selection
and waste characteristics that affect performance, including
results of all analyses. (See Section 3.2 for a discussion of
waste characteristics affecting performance that the Agency has
identified for the technology representing BOAT.)
9. The dates of the sampling and testing.
10. A description of the methodologies and equipment used to obtain
representative samples.
11. A description of the sample handling and preparation techniques,
including techniques used for extraction, containerization, and
preservation of the samples.
12. A description of analytical procedures used, including QA/QC
methods.
After receiving a petition for a variance, the Administrator may
request any additional information or waste samples that may be required
to evaluate and process the petition. Additionally, all petitioners must
certify that the information provided to the Agency is accurate under
40 CFR Part 268.4(b).
In determining whether a variance will be granted, the Agency will
first look at the design and operation of the treatment system being
used. If EPA determines that the technology and operation are consistent
with BOAT, the Agency will evaluate the waste to determine if the waste
matrix and/or physical parameters are such that the BOAT treatment
standards reflect treatment of this waste. Essentially, this latter
analysis will concern the parameters affecting treatment selection and
waste characteristics affecting performance parameters.
In cases where BOAT is based on more than one technology, the
petitioner will need to demonstrate that the treatment standard cannot be
-------
met using any of the technologies, or that none of the technologies are
appropriate for treatment of the waste. After the Agency has made a
determination on the petition, the Agency's findings will be published in
the Federal Register, followed by a 30-day period for public comment.
After review of the public comments, EPA will publish its final
determination in the Federal Register as an amendment to the treatment
standards in 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart D.
45
-------
2. INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
This section discusses the industry affected by the land disposal
restrictions for K087 waste, describes the process that generates the
waste, and presents available waste characterization data. As discussed
in Section 1.1, those wastes listed in 40 CFR Section 261.32 are subject
to the land disposal restriction provisions of HSWA. Within that
industry-specific listing of hazardous wastes is the following waste code
generated by the coking industry (40 CFR 261.32):
K087: Decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations.
2.1 Industry Affected and Process Description
The coking industry is composed of producers of coke and coke
byproducts. The Agency estimates that there are 36 facilities in the
coking industry that potentially generate K087 waste. The locations of
these facilities are provided in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, by State and by EPA
region, respectively. These facilities fall under SIC Code 3312.
Coke and coke byproducts result from the carbonization of coal, a
process by which coal is thermally pyrolyzed. Coke serves principally as
a fuel and reducing agent in the making of iron and steel. The
byproducts--coal tar, light oil, ammonia liquor, and coke oven gas--are
46
-------
1779g/p.l
Table 2-1 Number of Coke Plants
Listed by State
State
Alabama
1 11 inois
Indiana
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Missouri
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Number of plants
5
2
6
1
1
3
1
2
5
5
2
1
1
1
Source: USDOE 1988.
47
-------
1779g
Table 2-2 Number of Coke Plants
Listed by EPA Region
EPA region
II
III
IV
V
VII
VI11
Number of plants
2
8
a
16
1
1
Source USDOE 1988.
48
-------
further refined into commodity chemicals such as ammonium sulfate,
benzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene, anthracene, creosote, and road tar.
In the carbonization process, coal is charged to coke ovens and
heated for 15 to 30 hours at temperatures ranging from 500 to 1,100°C
(Austin 1984, Perch 1979). Coking temperatures will vary with the coking
time, the rate of underfiring, the coal mixture, the moisture content of
the coal, and the desired properties of the coke and byproducts. Gases
evolved from the coke oven--water vapor, tar, light oil, and other
compounds--are routed to a collection main and subsequently cooled. The
condensates and any entrained particulates are channeled to a decanter
tank, where tar products and ammonia liquor are separated according to
density. The heavy residue (sludge) that settles to the bottom of the
decanter tank is K087 waste. The process is depicted in Figure 2-1.
2.2 Waste Characterization
K087 waste generally contains from 6 to 11 percent water and from 89
to 94 percent coal tar compounds, chiefly aromatic hydrocarbons such as
those found in pitch; anthracene oil; and light, middle, and heavy oils.
BOAT list semivolatile organics are present at concentrations up to
28 percent; concentrations of BOAT list volatile organics measure
approximately 0.1 percent. BOAT list metals and inorganics other than
metals are present in quantities less than 0.05 percent. Table 2-3
provides an approximation of the composition of K087 waste, which is
based on the available waste characterization data summarized in
49
-------
PURIFIED COKE
OVEN GASES
I
COAL
^
COKE OVEN GASES 1 CONDENSATES
COKE OVENS
AND ENTRAINED
PARTICULATES
----- ^-
COOLEH
AND ENTRAINED
PARTICULATES
DECANTER
AMMONIA
^
LIQUOR ~~
TAR
tn
o
T
f
COKE
FLUSHING
LIQUOR
K087 WASTE
FIGURE 2-1 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF K087 WASTE GENERATING PROCESS
-------
1779g/p.26
Table 2-3 Approximate Composition of K087 Waste
Constituent Concentration
Non-BDAT organics (chiefly coal tar aromatic hydrocarbons) 60-80%
BOAT semwolatile organics 15-28%
Water 6-11%
BOAT volatile organics <0.1%
BOAT metals and inorganics <0.05%
51
-------
Table 2-4. Waste characteristics that may affect treatment selection or
performance include (1) the high heating value, 13,000 to 15,300 Btu/lb;
(2) the ash content, 2.7 to 9.7 percent; and (3) the total organic carbon
(TOC) content, 76 to 86 percent.
52
-------
1779g/p.3
Table 2-4 K087 Waste Composition and Other Data
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (mg/kg)
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes
BOAT Semivolatile Orqanics (mq/kq)
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
8enz(a)anthracene
Benzenethiol
6enzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi Jperylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
2, 4- Dimethyl phenol
Di benzo( ah) anthracene
F luoranthene
Fluorene
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
BOAT Metals (mq/kq)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl Hum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thai 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration (source)
6
<2
17
3
10000
<894
6700
5400
310
<9b2
<1026
<894
3800
4700
<894
1200
<894
<894
<982
7000
2100
64000
1200
15000
5900
<2.0
1.9
<20
<0.5
1.7
<2.0
<2.5
64
2.9
<4.0
1.2
<5.0
2.1
<5.0
50
(1)
- 212
- <10
- 152
- 123
- 13000
- <1026
- 6100
- 7500
- 5300
- 9300
- <1026
- 5400
- 6500
- <1026
- 1900
- <1026
- <1026
- 1200
- 9300
- 3100
- 81000
- 1800
- 41000
- 9700
- 6.1
- 2.1
- 4.5
- 85
- 4.2
- 4.6
- 1.6
- 2.7
- 66
(2)
173
-
97
79
24200
<1290
14200
6790
-
8650
-
2560
4640
6690
<1290
<1290
<1290
<1290
28200
14200
2370
49500
2380
43200
14800
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(3)
410
-
224
233
24100
564
8450
6465
-
10345a
103453
3050
6030
4995
396
1350
256
1000
24750
11950
3145
40800
1970
34750
15800
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(4)
-
-
-
700
20500
380
10400
7600
-
5400
5500
6700
8450
7950
<400
5450
<400
1750
25000
8050
6150
95000
5900
36000
20500
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(5)
400 '
-
260
260
21500
900
10400
4600
-
1900
2900
1500
5500
4480
425
1850
820
580
13800
7100
1600
51500
3150
19000
13500
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(6) (7)
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8000
-
-
-
-
-
17000
-
-
36000
490
-
15000
_
0.28-20
-
-
-
-
-
31-154
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
53
-------
1779g/p.4
Table 2-4 (continued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
(1)
Concentration (source)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
BOAT Inorganics other than Metals (ing/kg)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
17.9 - 228
0.18 - 0.38
275 - 323
Non-BDAT Volatile Organics (rag/kg)
Styrene 3.4 - 26
Non-BDAT Semwolat i 1e Orqanics (mg/kg)
5000 - 6800
6200 - 9400
Other Parameters
Dibenzofuran
1-Methyl naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthalene
Ash content (%) 2.7-9.7
Heating value (Btu/lb) 14800 - 15300
Total halogens as chlorine (%) 0.02 - 0.06
Oi1 and grease (%)
Percent water (%) 5.7 - 11.3
Total organic carbon (%) 76.0 - 86.0
Total organic halides (mg/kg) 25.8 - 87.7
Total solids (%) 87 - 91
Viscosity -b
155
7190
6010
4650
asoo
4200
10200
37
27
0.9 - 2.7
13000 - 14400
22.5
3.35
20
Benzofb and/or k)fluoranthene
Because of the high concentration of filterable solids in the waste, viscosity values could not be determined
- = Not analyzed.
from Brenda Shine, Midwest Research Institute, to Edwin F.
Record Sample
Sources:
(1) USEPA 1988a.
(2) Memorandum, "Coke By-Product Sampling Data Summary,
Abrams, USEPA, September 29, 1987, Coke Plant No. 6
(3) Ibid., Coke Plant No. 1, Record Sample.
(4) Ibid., Samples CIS Run 1.
(5) Ibid., Samples CU-1.
(6) Environ 1985
(7) Letters from Earle F. Young, Jr., American Iron and Steel Institue, to Dwight Hlustick, USEPA, December 2,
1986, and to Steve E. Silverman, USEPA, July 25, 1986, letter and attachment from Edward M. Bryan, Petar
Energy Corporation, to Valdas Adamkus, USEPA, Region V, March 5, 1982.
54
-------
3. APPLICABLE/DEMONSTRATED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
This section identifies the applicable and demonstrated treatment
technologies for K087 waste, provides a description of the technologies
that are demonstrated, and presents performance data associated with the
demonstrated technologies for treatment of BOAT list constituents in K087
waste.
3.1 Applicable Treatment Technologies
As shown in Section 2.2, K087 waste contains BOAT list organic
constituents and much lesser concentrations of BOAT list metals. The
Agency has identified fuel substitution and incineration as applicable
technologies for treating the BOAT list organic constituents in K087
waste. As treatment processes, fuel substitution and incineration have
the same purpose: to thermally destroy the organic constituents in the
waste by converting them to carbon dioxide, water, and other combustion
products. Fuel substitution, in addition to destroying organic
constituents, uses the waste as a substitute for conventional fuels
burned in high-temperature industrial processes.
Both fuel substitution and incineration result in residuals that may
require treatment because of their metal content. Specifically, the
residuals consist of ash and scrubber water. Note that residuals
generated by fuel substitution technologies that meet certain EPA
facility requirements, and for which 50 percent of the fuel is coal, may
not be subject to any treatment standards under the Bevill exemption (see
52 FR 17012, May 6, 1987). EPA's determination regarding the application
55
-------
of the Bevill exemption will be addressed in EPA's rulemaking for burning
hazardous wastes in boilers and industrial furnaces.
The applicable technology for treatment of metals in the scrubber
water is a wastewater treatment system that includes (1) a chemical
precipitation step to precipitate metals out of solution, and (2) a
settling step or a sludge filtration step to remove the precipitated
residues from solution.
For the metals in the ash and in the precipitated residues from
chemical precipitation, the only applicable technology that EPA has
identified is stabilization. The purpose of stabilization is to
immobilize the metal constituents of concern, thereby reducing their
leaching potential.
In addition to the specific organic and metal treatment technologies,
EPA has also identified recycling as applicable to the K087 waste.
Recycling involves treating the K087 waste for (1) reuse in the coke
ovens or (2) production of a commercial tar product. Treatment prior to
reuse would involve, for example, mixing the waste with coke oven
flushing liquor, grinding the material in a ball mill, and mixing the
milled material with coal to be fed to the coke ovens for coke
production. Alternatively, the waste may be added to hot tar, ground in
a ball mill, and packaged as a salable product.
3.2 Demonstrated Technologies
Fuel substitution and incineration, the applicable technologies for
BOAT list organics in K087 waste, are "demonstrated" on K087 waste. Data
submitted by industry indicate that fuel substitution and incineration
56
-------
are commonly practiced on a full-scale basis. EPA has identified one
facility that uses fuel substitution and four facilities that use offsite
incineration. Wastes from three of these facilities undergo multiple
hearth incineration. While the Agency believes that many other
facilities also use fuel substitution and incineration, it has
insufficient information to estimate the number of such facilities.
Fuel substitution and incineration are discussed in detail in
Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Performance data for rotary kiln incineration
are presented in Section 3.3.
The Agency has not identified any facilities using chemical
precipitation followed by settling or, alternatively, sludge filtration
on the scrubber water generated by rotary kiln incineration of K087
waste. This treatment, however, is demonstrated on a metal-bearing
wastewater that has similar parameters affecting treatment selection, and
thus the Agency considers this treatment to be demonstrated for the K087
scrubber water. Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 describe chemical
precipitation, settling, and sludge filtration, as well as the parameters
affecting the selection of these treatment technologies. Performance
data for chemical precipitation and sludge filtration of the
metal-bearing wastewater are presented in Section 3.3. A comparison of
these data to those of the K087 scrubber water shows that the parameters
affecting treatment selection are similar.
The Agency has not identified any facilities using stabilization on
the treatment sludge that would be generated by treatment of K087
scrubber water or the ash generated by rotary kiln incineration of K087
57
-------
waste. Stabilization, however, is used on a full-scale basis to treat
wastes (e.g., F006 waste) that contain these metals and that have
comparable concentrations of filterable solids, total organic carbon, and
oil and grease. Thus, the Agency considers stabilization to be
demonstrated for both the K087 treatment sludge and the ash.
Stabilization is described in Section 3.2.5. Performance data for
stabilization of F006 waste are presented in Section 3.3. These
performance data include data on characteristics of the untreated F006
waste.
EPA has identified seven facilities that recycle K087 waste on a
full-scale basis. The extent to which recycling is demonstrated is of
concern, however, because, unlike the other technologies, recycling may
adversely affect coke or tar product quality at some facilities. The
Agency has little data available to assist in defining which
subcategories of K087 waste can be recycled. Specific data were
submitted by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) concerning the
practice of recycling K087 wastes (51 FR 17019, May 6, 1987). These data
characterize the final coke and coal tar products that result from
production which does not involve recycling of K087 waste and production
which does involve such recycling. These data indicate that recycling
has little, if any, impact on the amount of hazardous constituents in the
coke or coal tar, and thus lead the Agency to infer that recycling is not
likely to affect product quality. However, the AISI data provided
characterization for only one sample of untreated K087 decanter tar
sludge. These data therefore do not provide sufficient evidence to
support the premise that recycling can be accomplished for all K087
58
-------
wastes. To address this concern, EPA is requesting comment and data in
the proposed rule to assist in defining the subcategory of K087 waste
that can be recycled.
3.2.1 Fuel Substitution
Fuel substitution involves using hazardous waste as a fuel in
industrial furnaces or in boilers for generation of steam. The hazardous
waste may be blended with other nonhazardous wastes (e.g., municipal
sludge) and/or fossil fuels.
(1) Applicability and use of fuel substitution
Fuel substitution has been used with industrial waste solvents,
refinery wastes, synthetic fibers/petrochemical wastes, and waste oils.
It can also be used when combusting other waste types produced during the
manufacturing of Pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, and pesticides. These
wastes can be handled in a solid, liquid, or gaseous form.
The most common types of units in which waste fuels are burned are
industrial furnaces and industrial boilers. Industrial furnaces include
a diverse variety of industrial processes that produce heat and/or
products by burning fuels. They include blast furnaces, smelters, and
coke ovens. Industrial boilers are units wherein fuel is used to produce
steam for process and plant use. Industrial boilers typically use coal,
oil, or gas as the primary fuel source.
There are a number of parameters that affect the selection of fuel
substitution. These are:
59
-------
Halogen content of the waste;
Inorganic solids content (ash content) of the waste,
particularly heavy metals;
Heating value of the waste;
Viscosity of the waste (for liquids);
Filterable solids concentration (for liquids); and
Sulfur content.
If halogenated organics are burned, halogenated acids and free
halogen are among the products of combustion. These released corrosive
gases may require subsequent treatment prior to venting to the
atmosphere. Also, halogens and halogenated acids formed during
combustion are likely to severely corrode boiler tubes and other process
equipment. For this reason, halogenated wastes are blended into fuels
only at very low concentrations to minimize such problems. High chlorine
content can also lead to the incidental production (at very low
concentrations) of other hazardous compounds such as PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls), PCDDs (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins),
PCDFs (polychlorinated dibenzofurans), and chlorinated phenols.
High inorganic solids content (i.e., ash content) of wastes may cause
two problems: (1) scaling in the boiler, and (2) particulate air
emissions. Scaling results from deposition of inorganic solids on the
walls of the boiler. Particulate emissions are produced by
noncombustible inorganic constituents that flow out of the boiler with
the gaseous combustion products. Because of these problems, wastes with
60
-------
significant concentrations of inorganic materials are not usually handled
in boilers unless the boilers have an air pollution control system.
Industrial furnaces vary in their tolerance to inorganic
constituents. Heavy metal concentrations, found in both halogenated and
nonhalogenated wastes used as fuel, can cause environmental concern
because they may be emitted either in the gaseous emissions from the
combustion process, in the ash residues, or in any produced solids. The
partitioning of the heavy metals to these residual streams primarily
depends on the volatility of the metal, waste matrix, and furnace design.
The heating value of the waste must be sufficiently high (either
alone or in combination with other fuels) to maintain combustion
temperatures consistent with efficient waste destruction and operation of
the boiler or furnace. For many applications, only supplemental fuels
having minimum heating values of 4,400 to 5,600 kcal/kg (8,000 to 10,000
Btu/lb) are considered to be feasible. Below this value, the unblended
fuel would not be likely to maintain a stable flame and its combustion
would release insufficient energy to provide needed steam generation
potential in the boiler, or the necessary heat for an industrial
furnace. Some wastes with heating values of less than 4,400 kcal/kg
(8,000 Btu/lb) can be used if sufficient auxiliary fuel is employed to
support combustion or if special designs are incorporated into the
combustion device. Occasionally, for wastes with heating values higher
than virgin fuels, blending with auxiliary fuel may be required to
prevent overheating or overcharging the combustion device.
61
-------
In combustion devices designed to burn liquid fuels, the viscosity of
liquid waste must be low enough that the liquid can be atomized in the
combustion chamber. If the viscosity is too high, heating of storage
tanks may be required prior to combustion. For atomization of liquids, a
viscosity of 165 centistokes (750 Saybolt Seconds Universal (SSU)) or
less is typically required.
Filterable material suspended in the liquid fuel may prevent or
hinder pumping or atomization.
Sulfur content in the waste may prevent burning of the waste because
of potential atmospheric emissions of sulfur oxides. For instance, there
are proposed Federal sulfur oxide emission regulations for certain new
source industrial boilers (51 FR 22385). Air pollution control devices
are available to remove sulfur oxides from the stack gases.
(2) Underlying principles of operation
For a boiler and most industrial furnaces, there are two distinct
principles of operation. Initially, energy in the form of heat is
transferred to the waste to achieve volatilization of the various waste
constituents. For liquids, volatilization energy may also be supplied by
using pressurized atomization. The energy used to pressurize the liquid
waste allows the atomized waste to break into smaller particles, thus
enhancing its rate of volatilization. The volatilized constituents then
require additional energy to destabilize the chemical bonds and allow the
constituents to react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water
vapor. The energy needed to destabilize the chemical bonds is referred
to as the energy of activation.
62
-------
(3) Description of the fuel substitution process
As stated, a number of industrial applications can use fuel
substitution. Therefore, there is no one process description that will
fit all of these applications. However, the following section provides a
general description of industrial kilns (one form of industrial furnace)
and industrial boilers.
(a) Kilns
Combustible wastes have the potential to be used as fuel in kilns
and, for waste liquids, are often used with oil to co-fire kilns.
Coal-fired kilns are capable of handling some solid wastes. In the case
of cement kilns, there are usually no residuals requiring land disposal
since any ash formed becomes part of the product or is removed by
particulate collection systems and recycled back to the kiln. The only
residuals may be low levels of unburned gases escaping with combustion
products. If this is the case, air pollution control devices may be
required.
Three types of kilns are particularly applicable: cement kilns, lime
kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns.
(i) Cement kilns. The cement kiln is a rotary furnace, which
is a refractory-lined steel shell used to calcine a mixture of calcium,
silicon, aluminum, iron, and magnesium-containing minerals. The kiln is
normally fired by coal or oil. Liquid and solid combustible wastes may
then serve as auxiliary fuel. Temperatures within the kiln are typically
between 1,380°C and 1,540°C (2,500°F to 2,800°F). To
date, only liquid hazardous wastes have been burned in cement kilns.
63
-------
Most cement kilns have a dry participate collection device (i.e.,
either an electrostatic precipitator or baghouse), with the collected fly
ash recycled back to the kiln. Buildup of metals or other
noncombustibles is prevented through their incorporation in the product
cement. Many types of cement require a source of chloride so that most
halogenated liquid hazardous wastes currently can be burned in cement
kilns. Available information shows that scrubbers are not used.
(ii) Lime kilns. Quick-lime (CaO) is manufactured in a
calcination process using limestone (CaCO ) or dolomite (CaCO and
0 j
MgCO ). These raw materials are also heated in a refractory-lined
O
rotary kiln, typically to temperatures of 980°C to 1,260°C
(1,800°F to 2,300°F). Lime kilns are less likely to burn
hazardous wastes than cement kilns because product lime is often added to
potable water systems. Only one lime kiln currently burns hazardous
waste in the U.S. That particular facility sells its product lime for
use as flux or as refractory in blast furnaces.
As with cement kilns, any collected fly ash is recycled back to the
lime kiln, resulting in no residual streams from the kiln. Available
information shows that scrubbers are not used.
(iii) Lightweight aggregate kilns. Lightweight aggregate kilns
heat clay to produce an expanded lightweight inorganic material used in
Portland cement formulations and other applications. The kiln has a
normal temperature range of 1,100°C to 1,150°C (2,000°F
to 2,100°F). Lightweight aggregate kilns are less amenable to
combustion of hazardous wastes as fuels than other kilns described above
64
-------
because they lack material in the kiln to adsorb halogens. As a result,
burning of halogenated organics in these kilns would likely require
afterburners to ensure complete destruction of the halogenated organics
and scrubbers to control acid gas production. Such controls would
produce a wastewater residual stream subject to treatment standards.
(b) Industrial boilers
A boiler is a closed vessel in which water is transformed into steam
by the application of heat. Normally, heat is supplied by the combustion
of pulverized coal, fuel oil, or gas. These fuels are fired into a
combustion chamber with nozzles and burners that provide mixing with
air. Liquid wastes, and granulated solid wastes in the case of
grate-fired boilers, can be burned as auxiliary fuel in a boiler. Few
grate-fired boilers burn hazardous wastes, however. For liquid-fired
boilers, residuals requiring land disposal are generated only when the
boiler is shut down and cleaned. This is generally done once or twice
per year. Other residuals from liquid-fired boilers would be the gas
emission stream, which would consist of any products of incomplete
combustion, along with the normal combustion products. For example,
chlorinated wastes would produce acid gases. If this is the case, air
pollution control devices may be required. For solid fired boilers, an
ash normally is generated. This ash may contain residual amounts of
organics from the blended waste/fuels as well as noncombustible
materials. Land disposal of this ash would require compliance with
applicable BOAT treatment standards.
65
-------
(4) Waste characteristics affecting performance
For cement kilns and lime kilns and for lightweight aggregate kilns
burning nonhalogenated wastes (i.e., no scrubber is needed to control
acid gases), no residual waste streams would be produced. Any
noncombustible material in the waste would leave the kiln in the product
stream. As a result, in transferring standards EPA would not examine
waste characteristics affecting performance but rather would determine
the applicability of fuel substitution. That is, EPA would investigate
the parameters affecting treatment selection. For kilns these parameters
(as mentioned previously) are Btu content, percent filterable solids,
halogenated organics content, viscosity, and sulfur content.
Lightweight aggregate kilns burning halogenated organics and boilers
burning wastes containing any noncombustibles will produce residual
streams subject to treatment standards. In determining whether fuel
substitution is likely to achieve the same level of performance on an
untreated waste as on a previously treated waste, EPA will examine:
(1) relative volatility of the waste constituents, (2) the heat transfer
characteristics (for solids); and (3) the activation energy for
combustion.
(a) Relative volatility
The term relative volatility (a) refers to the ease with which a
substance present in a solid or liquid waste will vaporize from that
waste upon application of heat from an external source. Hence, it bears
a relationship to the equilibrium vapor pressure of the substance.
66
-------
EPA recognizes that the relative volatilities cannot be measured or
calculated directly for the types of wastes generally treated in an
industrial boiler or furnace. The Agency believes that the best measure
of relative volatility is the boiling point of the various hazardous
constituents and will, therefore, use this parameter in assessing
volatility of the organic constituents.
(b) Heat transfer characteristics
Consistent with the underlying principles of combustion in aggregate
kilns or boilers, a major factor with regard to whether a particular
constituent will volatilize is the transfer of heat through the waste.
In the case of industrial boilers burning solid fuels, heat is
transferred through the waste by three mechanisms: radiation,
convection, and conduction. For a given boiler it can be assumed that
the type of waste will have a minimal impact on the heat transferred from
radiation. With regard to convection, EPA believes that the range of
wastes treated would exhibit similar properties with regard to the amount
of heat transferred by convection. Therefore, EPA will not evaluate
radiation convection heat transfer properties of wastes in determining
similar treatability. For solids, the third heat transfer mechanism,
conductivity, is the one principally operative or most likely to vary
between wastes.
Using thermal conductivity measurements as part of a treatability
comparison for two different wastes through a given boiler or furnace is
most meaningful when applied to wastes that are homogeneous. As wastes
exhibit greater degrees of nonhomogeneity, thermal conductivity becomes
67
-------
less accurate in predicting treatability because the measurement
essentially reflects heat flow through regions having the greatest
conductivity (i.e., the path of least resistance and not heat flow
through all parts of the waste). Nevertheless, EPA has not identified a
better alternative to thermal conductivity, even for wastes that are
nonhomogeneous.
Other parameters considered for predicting heat transfer
characteristics were Btu value, specific heat, and ash content. These
parameters can neither better account for nonhomogeneity nor better
predict heat transferability through the waste.
(c) Activation energy
Given an excess of oxygen, an organic waste in an industrial furnace
or boiler would be expected to convert to carbon dioxide and water
provided that the activation energy is achieved. Activation energy is
the quantity of heat (energy) needed to destabilize molecular bonds and
create reactive intermediates so that the oxidation (combustion) reaction
will proceed to completion. As a measure of activation energy, EPA is
using bond dissociation energies. In theory, the bond dissociation
energy would be equal to the activation energy; however, in practice
this is not always the case.
In some instances, bond energies will not be available and will have
to be estimated or other energy effects (e.g., vibrational) and other
reactions will have a significant influence on activation energy.
Because of the shortcomings of bond energies in estimating activation
energy, EPA analyzed other waste characteristic parameters to determine
68
-------
if these parameters would provide a better basis for transferring
treatment standards from an untested waste to a tested waste. These
parameters included heat of combustion, heat of formation, use of
available kinetic data to predict activation energies, and general
structural class. All of these were rejected for the reasons provided
below.
The heat of combustion measures only the difference in energy of the
products and reactants; it does not provide information on the transition
state (i.e., the energy input needed to initiate the reaction). Heat of
formation is used as a tool to predict whether reactions are likely to
proceed; however, there are a significant number of hazardous
constituents for which these data are not available. Use of available
kinetic data was rejected because while such data could be used to
calculate some free energy values (AG), they could not be used for
the wide range of hazardous constituents. Finally, EPA decided not to
use structural classes because the Agency believes that evaluation of
bond dissociation energies allows for a more direct comparison.
(5) Design and operating parameters
(a) Design parameters
Cement kilns and lime kilns, along with aggregate kilns burning
nonhalogenated wastes, produce no residual streams. Their design and
operation is such that any wastes that are incompletely destroyed will be
contained in the product. As a result, the Agency will not look at
design and operating values for such devices since treatment, per se,
cannot be measured through detection of constituents in residual
69
-------
streams. In this instance it is important merely to ensure that the
waste is appropriate for combustion in the kilns and that the kiln is
operated in a manner that will produce a usable product.
Specifically, cement, lime, and aggregate kilns are demonstrated only
on liquid hazardous wastes. Such wastes must be sufficiently free of
filterable solids to avoid plugging the burners at the hot end of the
kiln. Viscosity also must be low enough for the waste to be injected
into the kiln through the burners. The sulfur content is not a concern
unless the concentration in the waste is sufficiently high as to exceed
Federal, State, or local air pollution standards promulgated for
industrial boilers.
The design parameters that normally affect the operation of an
industrial boiler (and aggregate kilns with residual streams) with
respect to hazardous waste treatment are (1) the design temperature,
(2) the design retention time of the waste in the combustion chamber, and
(3) turbulence in the combustion chamber. Evaluation of these parameters
would be important in determining if an industrial boiler or industrial
furnace is adequately designed for effective treatment of hazardous
wastes. The rationale for selection of three parameters is given below.
(i) Design temperature. Industrial boilers are generally
designed based on their steam generation potential (Btu output). This
factor is related to the design combustion temperature, which in turn
depends on the amount of fuel burned, and its Btu value. The fuel feed
rates and combustion temperatures of industrial boilers are generally
fixed based on the Btu values of fuels normally handled (e.g., No. 2
70
-------
versus No. 6 fuel oils). When wastes are to be blended with fossil fuels
for combustion, the blending, based on Btu values, must be such that the
resulting Btu value of the mixture is close to that of the fuel value
used in design of the boiler. Industrial furnaces also are designed to
operate at specific ranges of temperature in order to produce the desired
product (e.g., lightweight aggregate). The blended waste/fuel mixture
should be capable of maintaining the design temperature range.
(ii) Retention time. A sufficient retention time of combustion
products is normally necessary to ensure that the hazardous substances
being combusted (or formed during combustion) are completely oxidized.
Retention times on the order of a few seconds are normally needed at
normal operating conditions. For industrial furnaces, as well as
boilers, the retention time is a function of the size of the furnace and
the fuel feed rates. For most boilers and furnaces, the retention time
usually exceeds a few seconds.
(iii) Turbulence. Boilers are designed so that fuel and air
are intimately mixed. This helps ensure that complete combustion takes
place. The shape of the boiler and the method of fuel and air feed
influence the turbulence required for good mixing. Industrial furnaces
also are designed for turbulent mixing where fuel and air are mixed.
(b) Operating parameters
The operating parameters that normally affect the performance of an
industrial boiler and many industrial furnaces with respect to treatment
of hazardous wastes are (1) air flow rate, (2) fuel feed rate, (3) steam
71
-------
pressure or rate of production, and (4) temperature. EPA believes that
these four parameters will be used to determine if an industrial boiler
burning blended fuels containing hazardous waste constituents is properly
operated. The rationale for selection of these four operating parameters
is given below. Most industrial furnaces will monitor similar
parameters, but some exceptions are noted below.
(i) Air feed rate. An important operating parameter in boilers
and many industrial furnaces is the oxygen content in the flue gas, which
is a function of the air feed rate. Stable combustion of a fuel
generally occurs within a specific range of air-to-fuel ratios. An
oxygen analyzer in the combustion gases can be used to control the feed
ratio of air to fuel to ensure complete thermal destruction of the waste
and efficient operation of the boiler. When necessary, the air flow rate
can be increased or decreased to maintain proper fuel-to-oxygen ratios.
Some industrial furnaces do not completely combust fuels (e.g., coke
ovens and blast furnaces); therefore, oxygen concentration in the flue
gas is a meaningless variable.
(ii) Fuel feed rate. The rate at which fuel is injected into
the boiler or industrial furnace will determine the thermal output of the
system per unit of time (Btu/hr). If steam is produced, steam pressure
monitoring will indirectly determine if the fuel feed rate is adequate.
However, various velocity and mass measurement devices can be used to
monitor fuel flow directly.
72
-------
(iii) Steam pressure or rate of production. Steam pressure in
boilers provides a direct measure of the thermal output of the system and
is directly monitored by use of in-system pressure gauges. Increases or
decreases in steam pressure can be effected by increasing or decreasing
the fuel and air feed rates within certain operating design limits. Most
industrial furnaces do not produce steam, but instead produce a product
(e.g., cement, aggregate) and monitor the rate of production.
(iv) Temperature. Temperatures are monitored and controlled in
industrial boilers to ensure the quality and flow rate of steam.
Therefore, complex monitoring systems are frequently installed in the
combustion unit to provide a direct reading of temperature. The
efficiency of combustion in industrial boilers is dependent on combustion
temperatures. Temperature may be adjusted to design settings by
increasing or decreasing the air and fuel feed rate.
Wastes should not be added to primary fuels until the boiler
temperature reaches the minimum needed for destruction of the wastes.
Temperature instrumentation and control should be designed to stop waste
addition in the event of process upsets.
Monitoring and control of temperature in industrial furnaces are also
critical to the product quality; e.g., lime, cement, or aggregate kilns,
which require minimum operating temperatures. Kilns have very high
thermal inertia in the refractory and in-process product, high residence
times, and high air flow rates, so that even in the case of a momentary
stoppage of fuel flow to the kiln, organic constituents are likely to
73
-------
continue to be destroyed. The main operational control required for
wastes burned in kilns is to stop waste flow in the event of low kiln
temperature, loss of electrical power to the combustion air fan, and loss
of primary fuel flow.
(v) Other operating parameters. In addition to the four
operating parameters discussed above, EPA considered and then discarded
one additional parameter -- fuel-to-waste blending ratios. While the
blending is done to yield a uniform Btu content fuel, blending ratios
will vary widely depending on the Btu content of the wastes and fuels
being used.
3.2.2 Incineration
This section addresses the commonly used incineration technologies:
Liquid injection, rotary kiln, fluidized bed, and fixed hearth. A
discussion is provided regarding the applicability of these technologies,
the underlying principles of operation, a technology description, waste
characteristics that affect performance, and finally important design and
operating parameters. As appropriate, the subsections are divided by
type of incineration unit.
(1) Applicability and use of incineration
(a) Liquid injection
Liquid injection is applicable to wastes that have viscosity values
low enough that the waste can be atomized in the combustion chamber. A
range of literature maximum viscosity values are reported with the low
being 100 SSU and the high being 10,000 SSU. It is important to note
74
-------
that viscosity is temperature dependent so that while liquid injection
may not be applicable to a waste at ambient conditions, it may be
applicable when the waste is heated. Other factors that affect the use
of liquid injection are particle size and the presence of suspended
solids. Both of these waste parameters can cause plugging of the burner
nozzle.
(b) Rotary kiln/fluidized bed/fixed hearth
These incineration technologies are applicable to a wide range of
hazardous wastes. They can be used on wastes that contain high or low
total organic content, high or low filterable solids, various viscosity
ranges, and a range of other waste parameters. EPA has not found these
technologies to be demonstrated on wastes that are composed essentially
of metals with low organic concentrations. In addition, the Agency
expects that some of the high metal content wastes may not be compatible
with existing and future air emission limits without emission controls
far more extensive than those currently used.
(2) Underlying principles of operation
(a) Liquid injection
The basic operating principle of this incineration technology is that
incoming liquid wastes are volatilized and then additional heat is
supplied to the waste to destabilize the chemical bonds. Once the
chemical bonds are broken, these constituents react with oxygen to form
carbon dioxide and water vapor. The energy needed to destabilize the
bonds is referred to as the energy of activation.
75
-------
(b) Rotary kiln and fixed hearth
There are two distinct principles of operation for these incineration
technologies, one for each of the chambers involved. In the primary
chamber, energy, in the form of heat, is transferred to the waste to
achieve volatilization of the various organic waste constituents. During
this volatilization process some of the organic constituents will oxidize
to CO and water vapor. In the secondary chamber, additional heat is
supplied to overcome the energy requirements needed to destabilize the
chemical bonds and allow the constituents to react with excess oxygen to
form carbon dioxide and water vapor. The principle of operation for the
secondary chamber is similar to liquid injection.
(c) Fluidized bed
The principle of operation for this incinerator technology is
somewhat different than that for rotary kiln and fixed hearth
incineration relative to the functions of the primary and secondary
chambers. In fluidized bed incineration, the purpose of the primary
chamber is not only to volatilize the wastes but also to essentially
combust the waste. Destruction of the waste organics can be accomplished
to a better degree in the primary chamber of a fluidized bed incinerator
than in that of a rotary kiln or fixed hearth incinerator because of
(1) improved heat transfer from fluidization of the waste using forced
air and (2) the fact that the fluidization process provides sufficient
oxygen and turbulence to convert the organics to carbon dioxide and water
vapor. The secondary chamber (referred to as the freeboard) generally
76
-------
does not have an afterburner; however, additional time is provided for
conversion of the organic constituents to carbon dioxide, water vapor,
and hydrochloric acid if chlorine is present in the waste.
(3) Description of the incineration process
(a) Liquid injection
The liquid injection system is capable of incinerating a wide range
of gases and liquids. The combustion system has a simple design with
virtually no moving parts. A burner or nozzle atomizes the liquid waste
and injects it into the combustion chamber, where it burns in the
presence of air or oxygen. A forced draft system supplies the combustion
chamber with air to provide oxygen for combustion and turbulence for
mixing. The combustion chamber is usually a cylinder lined with
refractory (i.e., heat-resistant) brick and can be fired horizontally,
vertically upward, or vertically downward. Figure 3-1 illustrates a
liquid injection incineration system.
(b) Rotary kiln
A rotary kiln is a slowly rotating, refractory-lined cylinder that is
mounted at a slight incline from the horizontal (see Figure 3-2). Solid
wastes enter at the high end of the kiln, and liquid or gaseous wastes
enter through atomizing nozzles in the kiln or afterburner section.
Rotation of the kiln exposes the solids to the heat, vaporizes them, and
allows them to combust by mixing with air. The rotation also causes the
ash to move to the lower end of the kiln, where it can be removed.
77
-------
WATER
AUXILIARY FUEL
BURNER
AIR
00
LIQUID OR GASEOUS
WASTE INJECTION
TBURNER
17 U
PRIMARY
COMMON
CHAMBER
AFTERBURNER
SPRAY
CHAMBER
I
GAS TO AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
HORIZONTALLY FIRED
LIQUID INJECTION
INCINERATOR
ASH
WATER
FIGURE 3-1
LIQUID INJECTION INCINERATOR
-------
GAS TO
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
AUXILIARY
FUEL
AFTERBURNER
SOLID
WASTE
INFLUENT
FEED-
MECHANISM
COMBUSTION
GASES
LIQUID OR
GASEOUS
WASTE
INJECTION
ASH
FIGURE 3-2
ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
79
-------
Rotary kiln systems usually have a secondary combustion chamber or
afterburner following the kiln for further combustion of the volatilized
components of solid wastes.
(c) Fluidized bed
A fluidized bed incinerator consists of a column containing inert
particles such as sand, which is referred to as the bed. Air, driven by
a blower, enters the bottom of the bed to fluidize the sand. Air passage
through the bed promotes rapid and uniform mixing of the injected waste
material within the fluidized bed. The fluidized bed has an extremely
high heat capacity (approximately three times that of flue gas at the
same temperature), thereby providing a large heat reservoir. The
injected waste reaches ignition temperature quickly and transfers the
heat of combustion back to the bed. Continued bed agitation by the
fluidizing air allows larger particles to remain suspended in the
combustion zone (see Figure 3-3).
(d) Fixed hearth incineration
Fixed hearth incineration, also called controlled air or starved air
incineration, is another major technology used for hazardous waste
incineration. Fixed hearth incineration is a two-stage combustion
process (see Figure 3-4). Waste is ram-fed into the first stage, or
primary chamber, and burned at less than stoichiometric conditions. The
resultant smoke and pyrolysis products, consisting primarily of volatile
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, along with the normal products of
combustion, pass to the secondary chamber. Here, additional air is
80
-------
WASTE
INJECTION
BURNER
FREEBOARD
*--.." ,,"',
" * N > ,'.'
> .s1«s»s/ss4. . ,"«. «' s s
y^w ^^*r jwr^K %;'s ^ % ^c-^^^-1 v \\ \
\>*sV* ,\v- *" ^ ^ '" > ^s"
s ssji ^ i. 1.xs % f ^}\~*
GAS TO
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
MAKE-UP
SAND
AIR
ASH
FIGURE 3-3
FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR
81
-------
AIR
GAS TO AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
AIR
WASTE
INJECTION
00
ro
HBURNER
1
PRIMARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
GRATE
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
AUXILIARY
FUEL
1
2-STAGE FIXED HEARTH
INCINERATOR
ASH
FIGURE 3-4
FIXED HEARTH INCINERATOR
-------
injected to complete the combustion. This two-stage process generally
yields low stack particulate and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. The
primary chamber combustion reactions and combustion gas are maintained at
low levels by the starved air conditions so that particulate entrainment
and carryover are minimized.
(e) Air pollution controls
Following incineration of hazardous wastes, combustion gases are
generally further treated in an air pollution control system. The
presence of chlorine or other halogens in the waste requires a scrubbing
or absorption step to remover hydrochloric acid and other halo-acids from
the combustion gases. Ash in the waste is not destroyed in the
combustion process. Depending on its composition, ash will either exit
as bottom ash, at the discharge end of a kiln or hearth for example, or
as particulate matter (fly ash) suspended in the combustion gas stream.
Particulate emissions from most hazardous waste combustion systems
generally have particle diameters of less than 1 micron and require high-
efficiency collection devices to minimize air emissions. In addition,
scrubber systems provide an additional buffer against accidental releases
of incompletely destroyed waste products as a result of poor combustion
efficiency or combustion upsets, such as flameouts.
(4) Waste characteristics affecting performance
(a) Liquid injection
In determining whether liquid injection is likely to achieve the same
level of performance on an untested waste as on a previously tested
83
-------
waste, the Agency will compare dissociation bond energies of the
constituents in the untested and tested waste. This parameter is being
used as a surrogate indicator of activation energy which, as discussed
previously, destabilizes molecular bonds. In theory, the bond
dissociation energy would be equal to the activation energy; however, in
practice this is not always the case. Other energy effects (e.g.,
vibrational effects, the formation of intermediates, and interactions
between different molecular bonds) may have a significant influence on
activation energy.
Because of the shortcomings of bond energies in estimating activation
energy, EPA analyzed other waste characteristic parameters to determine
if these parameters would provide a better basis for transferring
treatment standards from an untested waste to a tested waste. These
parameters include heat of combustion, heat of formation, use of
available kinetic data to predict activation energies, and general
structural class. All of these were rejected for reasons provided below.
The heat of combustion measures only the difference in energy of the
products and reactants; it does not provide information on the transition
state. Heat of formation is used as a tool to predict whether reactions
are likely to proceed; however, there are a significant number of
hazardous constituents for which these data are not available. Use of
kinetic data was rejected because these data are limited and could not be
used to calculate free energy values UG) for the wide range of
hazardous constituents to be addressed by this rule. Finally, EPA
84
-------
decided not to use structural classes because the Agency believes that
evaluation of bond dissociation energies allows for a more direct
determination of whether a constituent will be destabilized.
(b) Rotary kiln/fluidized bed/fixed hearth
Unlike liquid injection, these incineration technologies also
generate a residual ash. Accordingly, in determining whether these
technologies are likely to achieve the same level of performance on an
untested waste as on a previously tested waste, EPA would need to examine
the waste characteristics that affect volatilization of organics from the
waste, as well as destruction of the organics, once volatilized.
Relative to volatilization, EPA will examine thermal conductivity of the
entire waste and boiling point of the various constituents. As with
liquid injection, EPA will examine bond energies in determining whether
treatment standards for scrubber water residuals can be transferred from
a tested waste to an untested waste. Below is a discussion of how EPA
arrived at thermal conductivity and boiling point as the best method to
assess volatilization of organics from the waste; the discussion relative
to bond energies is the same for these technologies as for liquid
injection and will not be repeated here.
(i) Thermal conductivity. Consistent with the underlying
principles of incineration, a major factor with regard to whether a
particular constituent will volatilize is the transfer of heat through
the waste. In the case of rotary kiln, fluidized bed, and fixed hearth
incineration, heat is transferred through the waste by three mechanisms:
85
-------
radiation, convection, and conduction. For a given incinerator, heat
transferred through various wastes by radiation is more a function of the
design and type of incinerator than of the waste being treated.
Accordingly, the type of waste treated will have a minimal impact on the
amount of heat transferred by radiation. With regard to convection, EPA
also believes that the type of heat transfer will generally be more a
function of the type and design of incinerator than of the waste itself.
However, EPA is examining particle size as a waste characteristic that
may significantly impact the amount of heat transferred to a waste by
convection and thus impact volatilization of the various organic
compounds. The final type of heat transfer, conduction, is the one that
EPA believes will have the greatest impact on volatilization of organic
constituents. To measure this characteristic, EPA will use thermal
conductivity; an explanation of this parameter, as well as how it can be
measured, is provided below.
Heat flow by conduction is proportional to the temperature gradient
across the material. The proportionality constant is a property of the
material and is referred to as the thermal conductivity. (Note: The
analytical method that EPA has identified for measurement of thermal
conductivity is named "Guarded, Comparative, Longitudinal Heat Flow
Technique"; it is described in Appendix E.) In theory, thermal
conductivity would always provide a good indication of whether a
constituent in an untested waste would be treated to the same extent in
the primary incinerator chamber as the same constituent in a previously
tested waste.
86
-------
In practice, thermal conductivity has some limitations in assessing
the transferability of treatment standards; however, EPA has not
identified a parameter that can provide a better indication of heat
transfer characteristics of a waste. Below is a discussion of both the
limitations associated with thermal conductivity, and the other
parameters considered.
Thermal conductivity measurements, as part of a treatability
comparison for two different wastes through a single incinerator, are
most meaningful when applied to wastes that are homogeneous (i.e., major
constituents are essentially the same). As wastes exhibit greater
degrees of nonhomogeneity (e.g., significant concentration of metals in
soil), then thermal conductivity becomes less accurate in predicting
treatability because the measurement essentially reflects heat flow
through regions having the greatest conductivity (i.e., the path of least
resistance) and not heat flow through all parts of the waste.
Btu value, specific heat, and ash content were also considered for
predicting heat transfer characteristics. These parameters can no better
account for nonhomogeneity than thermal conductivity; additionally, they
are not directly related to heat transfer characteristics. Therefore,
these parameters do not provide a better indication of the heat transfer
that will occur in any specific waste.
(ii) Boiling point. Once heat is transferred to a constituent
within a waste, then removal of this constituent from the waste will
depend on its volatility. As a surrogate of volatility, EPA is using
87
-------
boiling point of the constituent. Compounds with lower boiling points
have higher vapor pressures and, therefore, would be more likely to
vaporize. The Agency recognizes that this parameter does not take into
consideration the impact of other compounds in the waste on the boiling
point of a constituent in a mixture; however, the Agency is not aware of
a better measure of volatility that can easily be determined.
(5) Design and operating parameters
(a) Liquid injection
For a liquid injection unit, EPA's analysis of whether the unit is
well designed will focus on (1) the likelihood that sufficient energy is
provided to the waste to overcome the activation level for breaking
molecular bonds and (2) whether sufficient oxygen is present to convert
the waste constituents to carbon dioxide and water vapor. The specific
design parameters that the Agency will evaluate to assess whether these
conditions are met are: temperature, excess oxygen, and residence time.
Below is a discussion of why EPA believes these parameters to be
important, as well as a discussion of how these parameters will be
monitored during operation.
It is important to point out that, relative to the development of
land disposal restriction standards, EPA is concerned with these design
parameters only when a quench water or scrubber water residual is
generated from treatment of a particular waste. If treatment of a
particular waste in a liquid injection unit would not generate a
wastewater stream, then the Agency, for purposes of land disposal
88
-------
treatment standards, would be concerned with only the waste
characteristics that affect selection of the unit, not the
above-mentioned design parameters.
(i) Temperature. Temperature is important in that it provides
an indirect measure of the energy available (i.e., Btu/hr) to overcome
the activation energy of waste constituents. As the design temperature
increases, the more likely it is that the molecular bonds will be
destabilized and the reaction completed.
The temperature is normally controlled automatically through the use
of instrumentation that senses the temperature and automatically adjusts
the amount of fuel and/or waste being fed. The temperature signal
transmitted to the controller can be simultaneously transmitted to a
recording device, referred to as a strip chart, and thereby continuously
recorded. To fully assess the operation of the unit, it is important to
know not only the exact location in the incinerator at which the
temperature is being monitored but also the location of the design
temperature.
(ii) Excess oxygen. It is important that the incinerator
contain oxygen in excess of the stiochiometric amount necessary to
convert the organic compounds to carbon dioxide and water vapor. If
insufficient oxygen is present, then destabilized waste constituents
could recombine to the same or other BOAT list organic compounds and
potentially cause the scrubber water to contain higher concentrations of
BOAT list constituents than would be the case for a well-operated unit.
89
-------
In practice, the amount of oxygen fed to the incinerator is
controlled by continuous sampling and analysis of the stack gas. If the
amount of oxygen drops below the design value, then the analyzer
transmits a signal to the valve controlling the air supply and thereby
increases the flow of oxygen to the afterburner. The analyzer
simultaneously transmits a signal to a recording device so that the
amount of excess oxygen can be continuously recorded. Again, as with
temperature, it is important to know the location at which the combustion
gas is being sampled.
(iii) Carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is an important
operating parameter because it provides an indication of the extent to
which the waste organic constituents are being converted to carbon
dioxide and water vapor. An increase in the carbon monoxide level
indicates that greater amounts of organic waste constituents are
unreacted or partially reacted. Increased carbon monoxide levels can
result from insufficient excess oxygen, insufficient turbulence in the
combustion zone, or insufficient residence time.
(iv) Waste feed rate. The waste feed rate is important to
monitor because it is correlated to the residence time. The residence
time is associated with a specific Btu energy value of the feed and a
specific volume of combustion gas generated. Prior to incineration, the
Btu value of the waste is determined through the use of a laboratory
device known as a bomb calorimeter. The volume of combustion gas
generated from the waste to be incinerated is determined from an analysis
90
-------
referred to as an ultimate analysis. This analysis determines the amount
of elemental constituents present, which include carbon, hydrogen,
sulfur, oxygen, nitrogen, and halogens. Using this analysis plus the
total amount of air added, the volume of combustion gas can be
calculated. After both the Btu content and the expected combustion gas
volume have been determined, the feed rate can be fixed at the desired
residence time. Continuous monitoring of the feed rate will determine
whether the unit is being operated at a rate corresponding to the
designed residence time.
(b) Rotary kiln
For this incineration, EPA will examine both the primary and
secondary chamber in evaluating the design of a particular incinerator.
Relative to the primary chamber, EPA's assessment of design will focus on
whether it is likely that sufficient energy will be provided to the waste
to volatilize the waste constituents. For the secondary chamber,
analogous to the sole liquid injection incineration chamber, EPA will
examine the same parameters discussed previously under liquid injection
incineration. These parameters will not be discussed again here.
The particular design parameters to be evaluated for the primary
chamber are kiln temperature, residence time, and revolutions per
minute. Below is a discussion of why EPA believes these parameters to be
important, as well as a discussion of how these parameters will be
monitored during operation.
91
-------
(i) Temperature. The primary chamber temperature is important,
in that it provides an indirect measure of the energy input (i.e.,
Btu/hr) available for heating the waste. The higher the temperature is
designed to be in a given kiln, the more likely it is that the
constituents will volatilize. As discussed earlier under "Liquid
Injection," temperature should be continuously monitored and recorded.
Additionally, it is important to know the location of the temperature
sensing device in the kiln.
(ii) Residence time. This parameter is important in that it
affects whether sufficient heat is transferred to a particular
constituent in order for volatilization to occur. As the time that the
waste is in the kiln is increased, a greater quantity of heat is
transferred to the hazardous waste constituents. The residence time will
be a function of the specific configuration of the rotary kiln, including
the length and diameter of the kiln, the waste feed rate, and the rate of
rotation.
(iii) Revolutions per minute (RPM). This parameter provides an
indication of the turbulence that occurs in the primary chamber of a
rotary kiln. As the turbulence increases, the quantity of heat
transferred to the waste would also be expected to increase. However, as
the RPM value increases, the residence time decreases, resulting in a
reduction of the quantity of heat transferred to the waste. This
parameter needs to be carefully evaluated because it provides a balance
between turbulence and residence time.
92
-------
(c) Fluidized bed
As discussed previously in the section on "Underlying Principles of
Operation," the primary chamber accounts for almost all of the conversion
of organic wastes to carbon dioxide, water vapor, and acid gas if
halogens are present. The secondary chamber will generally provide
additional residence time for thermal oxidation of the waste
constituents. Relative to the primary chamber, the parameters that the
Agency will examine in assessing the effectiveness of the design are
temperature, residence time, and bed pressure differential. The first
two were included in the discussion of the rotary kiln and will not be
discussed here. The latter, bed pressure differential, is important in
that it provides an indication of the amount of turbulence and,
therefore, indirectly the amount of heat supplied to the waste. In
general, as the pressure drop increases, both the turbulence and heat
supplied increase. The pressure drop through the bed should be
continuously monitored and recorded to ensure that the designed valued is
achieved.
(d) Fixed hearth
The design considerations for this incineration unit are similar to
those for a rotary kiln with the exception that rate of rotation (i.e.,
RPM) is not an applicable design parameter. For the primary chamber of
this unit, the parameters that the Agency will examine in assessing how
well the unit is designed are the same as those discussed under "Rotary
kiln"; for the secondary chamber (i.e., afterburner), the design and
93
-------
operating parameters of concern are the same as those previously
discussed under "Liquid injection".
3.2.3 Chemical Precipitation
(1) Applicability and use of chemical precipitation
Chemical precipitation is used when dissolved metals are to be
removed from solution. This technology can be applied to a wide range of
wastewaters containing dissolved BOAT list metals and other metals as
well. This treatment process has been practiced widely by industrial
facilities since the 1940s.
(2) Underlying principles of operation
The underlying principle of chemical precipitation is that metals in
wastewater are removed by the addition of a treatment chemical that
converts the dissolved metal to a metal precipitate. This precipitate is
less soluble than the original metal compound and therefore settles out
of solution, leaving a lower concentration of the metal present in the
solution. The principal chemicals used to convert soluble metal
compounds to the less soluble forms include lime (Ca(OH) ), caustic
(NaOH), sodium sulfide (Na S), and, to a lesser extent, soda ash
(Na CO ), phosphate, and ferrous sulfide (FeS).
The solubility of a particular compound will depend on the extent to
which the electrostatic forces holding the ions of the compound together
can be overcome. The solubility will change significantly with
temperature; most metal compounds are more soluble as the temperature
increases. Additionally, the solubility will be affected by the other
constituents present in a waste. As a general rule, nitrates, chlorides,
94
-------
and sulfates are more soluble than hydroxides, sulfides, carbonates, and
phosphates.
An important concept related to treatment of the soluble metal
compounds is pH. This term provides a measure of the extent to which a
solution contains an excess of either hydrogen or hydroxide ions. The pH
scale ranges from 0 to 14, with 0 being the most acidic, 14 representing
the highest alkalinity or hydroxide ion (OH ) content, and 7.0 being
neutral.
When hydroxide is used, as is often the case, to precipitate the
soluble metal compounds, the pH is frequently monitored to ensure that
sufficient treatment chemicals are added. It is important to point out
that pH is not a good measure of treatment chemical addition for
compounds other than hydroxides; when sulfide is used, for example,
facilities might use an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) meter
correlation to ensure that sufficient treatment chemical is used.
Following conversion of the relatively soluble metal compounds to
metal precipitates, the effectiveness of chemical precipitation is a
function of the physical removal, which usually relies on a settling
process. A particle of a specific size, shape, and composition will
settle at a specific velocity, as described by Stokes' Law. For a batch
system, Stokes' law is a good predictor of settling time because the
pertinent particle parameters remain essentially constant. Nevertheless,
in practice, settling time for a batch system is normally determined by
empirical testing. For a continuous system, the theory of settling is
95
-------
complicated by factors such as turbulence, short-circuiting, and velocity
gradients, increasing the importance of the empirical tests.
(3) Description of the chemical precipitation process
The equipment and instrumentation required for chemical precipitation
vary depending on whether the system is batch or continuous. Both
operations are discussed below; a schematic of the continuous system is
shown in Figure 3-5.
For a batch system, chemical precipitation requires only a feed
system for the treatment chemicals and a second tank where the waste can
be treated and allowed to settle. When lime is used, it is usually added
to the reaction tank in a slurry form. In a batch system, the supernate
is usually analyzed before discharge, thus minimizing the need for
instrumentation.
In a continuous system, additional tanks are necessary, as well as
instrumentation to ensure that the system is operating properly. In this
system, the first tank that the wastewater enters is referred to as an
equalization tank. This is where the waste can be mixed to provide more
uniformity, minimizing wide swings in the type and concentration of
constituents being sent to the reaction tank. It is important to reduce
the variability of the waste sent to the reaction tank because control
systems inherently are limited with regard to the maximum fluctuations
that can be managed.
Following equalization, the waste is pumped to a reaction tank where
treatment chemicals are added; this is done automatically by using
instrumentation that senses the pH of the system and then pneumatically
96
-------
WASTEWATER
FEED
<£>
ATMENT
EMICAL
:EED
rSTEM
COAGULANT OR
FLOCCULANT FEED SYSTEM
EQUALIZATION
TANK
ELECTRICAL CONTROLS
WASTEWATER FLOW
MIXER
EFFLUENT TO
DISCHARGE OR
SUBSEQUENT
TREATMENT
SLUDGE TO
DEWATERING
FIGURE 3-5
CONTINUOUS CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
-------
adjusts the position of the treatment chemical feed valve such that the
design pH value is achieved. Both the complexity and the effectiveness
of the automatic control system will vary depending on the variation in
the waste and the pH range that is needed to properly treat the waste.
An important aspect of the reaction tank design is that it be well
mixed so that the waste and the treatment chemicals are both dispersed
throughout the tank to ensure comingling of the reactant and the
treatment chemicals. In addition, effective dispersion of the treatment
chemicals throughout the tank is necessary to properly monitor and,
thereby, control the amount of treatment chemicals added.
After the waste is reacted with the treatment chemical, it flows to a
quiescent tank where the precipitate is allowed to settle and
subsequently to be removed. Settling can be chemically assisted through
the use of flocculating compounds. Flocculants increase the particicle
size and density of the precipitated solids, both of which increase the
rate of settling. The particular flocculating agent that will best
improve settling characteristics will vary depending on the particular
waste; selection of the flocculating agent is generally accomplished by
performing laboratory bench tests. Settling can be conducted in a large
tank by relying solely on gravity or can be mechanically assisted through
the use of a circular clarifier or an inclined separator. Schematics of
the latter two separators are shown in Figures 3-6 and 3:7.
Filtration can be used for further removal of precipitated residuals
both in cases where the settling system is underdesigned and in cases
98
-------
SLUDGE
INFLUENT
CENTER FEED CLARIFIER WITH SCRAPER SLUDGE REMOVAL SYSTEM
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
SLUDGE
RIM FEED - CENTER TAKEOFF CLARIFIER WITH
HYDRAULIC SUCTION SLUDGE REMOVAL SYSTEM
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
SLUDGE
RIM FEED - RIM TAKEOFF CLARIFIER
FIGURE 3-6
CIRCULAR CLARIFIERS
99
-------
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
FIGURE 3-7
INCLINED PLATE SETTLER
100
-------
where the particles are difficult to settle. Polishing filtration is
discussed in a separate technology section.
(4) Waste characteristics affecting performance
In determining whether chemical precipitation is likely to achieve
the same level of performance on an untested waste as on a previously
tested waste, EPA will examine the following waste characteristics:
(1) the concentration and type of the metal(s) in the waste, (2) the
concentration of total suspended solids (TSS), (3) the concentration of
total dissolved solids (IDS), (4) whether the metal exists in the
wastewater as a complex, and (5) the oil and grease content. These
parameters affect the chemical reaction of the metal compound, the
solubility of the metal precipitate, or the ability of the precipitated
compound to settle.
(a) Concentration and type of metals
For most metals, there is a specific pH at which the metal hydroxide
is least soluble. As a result, when a waste contains a mixture of many
metals, it is not possible to operate a treatment system at a single pH
that is optimal for the removal of all metals. The extent to which this
affects treatment depends on the particular metals to be removed and
their concentrations. An alternative can be to operate multiple
precipitations, with intermediate settling, when the optimum pH occurs at
markedly different levels for the metals present. The individual metals
and their concentrations can be measured using EPA Method 6010.
(b) Concentration and type of total suspended solids (TSS)
Certain suspended solid compounds are difficult to settle because of
101
-------
either their particle size or their shape. Accordingly, EPA will
evaluate this characteristic in assessing transfer of treatment
performance. Total suspended solids can be measured by EPA Wastewater
Test Method 160.2.
(c) Concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS)
Available information shows that total dissolved solids can inhibit
settling. The literature states that poor flocculation is a consequence
of high TDS and shows that higher concentrations of total suspended
solids are found in treated residuals. Poor flocculation can adversely
affect the degree to which precipitated particles are removed. Total
dissolved solids can be measured by EPA Wastewater Test Method 160.1.
(d) Complexed metals
Metal complexes consist of a metal ion surrounded by a group of other
inorganic or organic ions or molecules (often called ligands). In the
complexed form, the metals have a greater solubility and, therefore, may
not be as effectively removed from solution by chemical precipitation.
EPA does not have an analytical method to determine the amount of
complexed metals in the waste. The Agency believes that the best measure
of complexed metals is to analyze for some common complexing compounds
(or complexing agents) generally found in wastewater for which analytical
methods are available. These complexing agents include ammonia, cyanide,
and EDTA. The analytical method for cyanide is EPA Method 9010, the
method for EDTA is ASTM Method D3113, and the method for ammonia is EPA
Wastewater Test Method 350.
102
-------
(e) Oil and grease content
The oil and grease content of a particular waste directly inhibits
the settling of the precipitate. Suspended oil droplets float in water
and tend to suspend particles such as chemical precipitates that would
otherwise settle out of the solution. Even with the use of coagulants or
flocculants, the separation of the precipitate is less effective. Oil
and grease content can be measured by EPA Method 9071.
(5) Design and operating parameters
The parameters that EPA will evaluate when determining whether a
chemical precipitation system is well designed are (1) design value for
treated metal concentrations, as well as other characteristics of the
waste used for design purposes (e.g., total suspended solids), (2) pH,
(3) residence time, (4) choice of treatment chemical, and (5) choice of
coagulant/flocculant. Below is an explanation of why EPA believes these
parameters are important to a design analysis; in addition, EPA explains
why other design criteria are not included in EPA's analysis.
(a) Treated and untreated design concentrations
EPA pays close attention to the treated concentration the system is
designed to achieve when determining whether to sample a particular
facility. Since the system will seldom out-perform its design, EPA must
evaluate whether the design is consistent with best demonstrated practice,
The untreated concentrations that the system is designed to treat are
important in evaluating any treatment system. Operation of a chemical
precipitation treatment system with untreated waste concentrations in
excess of design values can easily result in poor performance.
103
-------
(b) pH
The pH is important because it can indicate that sufficient
treatment chemical (e.g., lime) is added to convert the metal
constituents in the untreated waste to forms that will precipitate. The
pH also affects the solubility of metal hydroxides and sulfides, and
therefore directly impacts the effectiveness of removal. In practice,
the design pH is determined by empirical bench testing, often referred to
as "jar" testing. The temperature at which the "jar" testing is
conducted is important in that it also affects the solubility of the
metal precipitates. Operation of a treatment system at temperatures
above the design temperature can result in poor performance. In
assessing the operation of a chemical precipitation system, EPA prefers
continuous data on the pH and periodic temperature conditions throughout
the treatment period.
(c) Residence time
The residence time is important because it impacts the completeness
of the chemical reaction to form the metal precipitate and, to a greater
extent, the amount of precipitate that settles out of solution. In
practice, it is determined by "jar" testing. For continuous systems, EPA
will monitor the feed rate to ensure that the system is operated at
design conditions. For batch systems, EPA will want information on the
design parameter used to determine sufficient settling time (e.g., total
suspended sol ids).
104
-------
(d) Choice of treatment chemical
A choice must be made as to what type of precipitating agent (i.e.,
treatment chemical) will be used. The factor that most affects this
choice is the type of metal constituents to be treated. Other design
parameters, such as pH, residence time, and choice of
coagulant/flocculant agents, are based on the selection of the treatment
chemical.
(e) Choice of coagulant/flocculant
This is important because these compounds improve the settling rate
of the precipitated metals and allow smaller systems (i.e., those with a
lower retention time) to achieve the same degree of settling as much
larger systems. In practice, the choice of the best agent and of the
required amount is determined by "jar" testing.
(f) Mixing
The degree of mixing is a complex assessment that includes, among
other things, the energy supplied, the time the material is mixed, and
the related turbulence effects of the specific size and shape of the
tank. EPA will, however, consider whether mixing is provided and whether
the type of mixing device is one that could be expected to achieve
uniform mixing. For example, EPA may not use data from a chemical
precipitation treatment system in which an air hose was placed in a large
tank to achieve mixing.
105
-------
3.2.4 Sludge Filtration
(1) Applicability and use of sludge filtration
Sludge filtration, also known as sludge dewatering or cake-formation
filtration, is a technology used on wastes that contain high
concentrations of suspended solids, generally higher than 1 percent. The
remainder of the waste is essentially water. Sludge filtration is
applied to sludges, typically those that have settled to the bottom of
clarifiers, for dewatering. After filtration, these sludges can be
dewatered to 20 to 50 percent solids.
(2) Underlying principle of operation
The basic principle of filtration is the separation of particles from
a mixture of fluids and particles by a medium that permits the flow of
the fluid but retains the particles. As would be expected, larger
particles are easier to separate from the fluid than smaller particles.
Extremely small particles, in the colloidal range, may not be filtered
effectively and may appear in the treated waste. To mitigate this
problem, the wastewater should be treated prior to filtration to modify
the particle size distribution in favor of the larger particles, by the
use of appropriate precipitants, coagulants, flocculants, and filter
aids. The selection of the appropriate precipitant or coagulant is
important because it affects the particles formed. For example, lime
neutralization usually produces larger, less gelatinous particles than
does caustic soda precipitation. For larger particles that become too
small to filter effectively because of poor resistance to shearing, shear
resistance can be improved by the use of coagulants and flocculants.
106
-------
Also, if pumps are used to feed the filter, shear can be minimized by
designing for a lower pump speed or by usomg a low-shear type of pump.
(3) Description of the sludge filtration process
For sludge filtration, settled sludge is either pumped through a
cloth-type filter medium (such as in a plate and frame filter that allows
solid "cake" to build up on the medium) or drawn by vacuum through the
cloth medium (such as on a drum or vacuum filter, which also allows the
solids to build). In both cases the solids themselves act as a filter
for subsequent solids removal. For a plate and frame type filter,
removal of the solids is accomplished by taking the unit off line,
opening the filter, and scraping the solids off. For the vacuum type
filter, cake is removed continuously. For a specific sludge, the plate
and frame type filter will usually produce a drier cake than a vacuum
filter. Other types of sludge filters, such as belt filters, are also
used for effective sludge dewatering.
(4) Waste characteristics affecting performance
The following characteristics of the waste will affect performance of
a sludge filtration unit: (1) size of particles and (2) type of particles.
(a) Size of particles
The smaller the particle size, the more the particles tend to go
through the filter medium. This is especially true for a vacuum filter.
For a pressure filter (like a plate and frame), smaller particles may
require higher pressures for equivalent throughput, since the smaller
pore spaces between particles create resistance to flow.
107
-------
(b) Type of particles
Some solids formed during metal precipitation are gelatinous in
nature and cannot be dewatered well by cake-formation filtration. In
fact, for vacuum filtration a cake may not form at all. In most cases
solids can be made less gelatinous by use of the appropriate coagulants
and coagulant dosage prior to clarification, or after clarification but
prior to filtration. In addition, the use of lime instead of caustic
soda in metal precipitation will reduce the formation of gelatinous
solids. The addition of filter aids, such as lime or diatomaceous earth,
to a gelatinous sludge will also help significantly. Finally, precoating
the filter with diatomaceous earth prior to sludge filtration will assist
in dewatering gelatinous sludges.
(5) Design and operating parameters
For sludge filtration, the following design and operating variables
affect performance: (1) type of filter selected, (2) size of filter
selected, (3) feed pressure, and (4) use of coagulants or filter aids.
(a) Type of filter
Typically, pressure type filters (such as a plate and frame) will
yield a drier cake than a vacuum type filter and will also be more
tolerant of variations in influent sludge characteristics. Pressure type
filters, however, are batch operations, so that when cake is built up to
the maximum depth physically possible (constrained by filter geometry),
or to the maximum design pressure, the filter is turned off while the
cake is removed. A vacuum filter is a continuous device (i.e., cake
discharges continuously), but will usually be much larger than a pressure
108
-------
filter with the same capacity. A hybrid device is a belt filter, which
mechanically squeezes sludge between two continuous fabric belts.
(b) Size of filter
As with in-depth filters, the larger the filter, the greater its
hydraulic capacity and the longer the filter runs between cake discharge.
(c) Feed pressure
This parameter impacts both the design pore size of the filter and
the design flow rate. It is important that in treating waste the design
feed pressure not be exceeded; otherwise, particles may be forced through
the filter medium, resulting in ineffective treatment.
(d) Use of coagulants
Coagulants and filter aids may be mixed with filter feed prior to
filtration. Their effect is particularly significant for vacuum
filtration in that it may make the difference in a vacuum filter between
no cake and a relatively dry cake. In a pressure filter, coagulants and
filter aids will also significantly improve hydraulic capacity and cake
dryness. Filter aids, such as diatomaceous earth, can be precoated on
filters (vacuum or pressure) for sludges that are particularly difficult
to filter. The precoat layer acts somewhat like an in-depth filter in
that sludge solids are trapped in the precoat pore spaces. Use of
precoats and most coagulants or filter aids significantly increases the
amount of sludge solids to be disposed of. However, polyelectrolyte
coagulant usage usually does not increase sludge volume significantly
because the dosage is low.
109
-------
3.2.5 Stabilization
Stabilization refers to a broad class of treatment processes that
chemically reduce the mobility of hazardous constituents in a waste.
Solidification and fixation are other terms that are sometimes used
synonymously for stabilization or to describe specific variations within
the broader class of stabilization. Related technologies are
encapsulation and thermoplastic binding; however, EPA considers these
technologies to be distinct from stabilization in that the operational
principles are significantly different.
(1) Applicability and use of stabilization
Stabilization is used when a waste contains metals that will leach
from the waste when it is contacted by water. In general, this
technology is applicable to wastes containing BOAT list metals, having a
high filterable solids content, low TOC content, and low oil and grease
content. This technology is commonly used to treat residuals generated
from treatment of electroplating wastewaters. For some wastes, an
alternative to stabilization is metal recovery.
(2) Underlying principles of operation.
The basic principle underlying this technology is that stabilizing
agents and other chemicals are added to a waste to minimize the amount of
metal that leaches. The reduced Teachability is accomplished by the
formation of a lattice structure and/or chemical bonds that bind the
metals to the solid matrix and, thereby, limit the amount of metal
constituents that can be leached when water or a mild acid solution comes
into contact with the waste material.
110
-------
There are two principal stabilization processes used--cement-based
and lime-based. A brief discussion of each is provided below. In both
cement-based and lime/pozzolan-based techniques, the stabilizing process
can be modified through the use of additives, such as silicates, that
control curing rates or enhance the properties of the solid material.
(a) Portland cement-based process
Portland cement is a mixture of powdered oxides of calcium, silica,
aluminum, and iron, produced by kiln burning of materials rich in calcium
and silica at high temperatures (i.e., 1400°C to 1500°C). When
the anhydrous cement powder is mixed with water, hydration occurs and the
cement begins to set. The chemistry involved is complex because many
different reactions occur depending on the composition of the cement
mixture.
As the cement begins to set, a colloidal gel of indefinite
composition and structure is formed. Over a period of time, the gel
swells and forms a matrix composed of interlacing, thin, densely packed
silicate fibrils. Constituents present in the waste slurry (e.g.,
hydroxides and carbonates of various heavy metals) are incorporated into
the interstices of the cement matrix. The high pH of the cement mixture
tends to keep metals in the form of insoluble hydroxide and carbonate
salts. It has been hypothesized that metal ions may also be incorporated
into the crystal structure of the cement matrix, but this hypothesis has
not been verified.
Ill
-------
(b) Lime/pozzolan-based process
Pozzolan, which contains finely divided, noncrystalline silica (e.g.,
fly ash or components of cement kiln dust), is a material that is not
cementitious in itself, but becomes so upon the addition of lime. Metals
in the waste are converted to silicates or hydroxides, which inhibit
leaching. Additives, again, can be used to reduce permeability and
thereby further decrease leaching potential.
(3) Description of the stabilization process
In most stabilization processes, the waste, stabilizing agent, and
other additives, if used, are mixed and then pumped to a curing vessel or
area and allowed to cure. The actual operation (equipment requirements
and process sequencing) will depend on several factors such as the nature
of the waste, the quantity of the waste, the location of the waste in
relation to the disposal site, the particular stabilization formulation
to be used, and the curing rate. After curing, the solid formed is
recovered from the processing equipment and shipped for final disposal.
In instances where waste contained in a lagoon is to be treated, the
material should first be transferred to mixing vessels where stabilizing
agents are added. The mixed material is then fed to a curing pad or
vessel. After curing, the solid formed is removed for disposal.
Equipment commonly used also includes facilities to store waste and
chemical additives. Pumps can be used to transfer liquid or light sludge
wastes to the mixing pits and pumpable uncured wastes to the curing
site. Stabilized wastes are then removed to a final disposal site.
112
-------
Commercial concrete mixing and handling equipment generally can be
used with wastes. Weighing conveyors, metering cement hoppers, and
mixers similar to concrete batching plants have been adapted in some
operations. Where extremely dangerous materials are being treated,
remote-control and in-drum mixing equipment, such as that used with
nuclear waste, can be employed.
(4) Waste characteristics affecting performance
In determining whether stabilization is likely to achieve the same
level of performance on an untested waste as on a previously tested
waste, the Agency will focus on the characteristics that inhibit the
formation of either the chemical bonds or the lattice structure. The
four characteristics EPA has identified as affecting treatment
performance are the presence of (1) fine particulates, (2) oil and
grease, (3) organic compounds, and (4) certain inorganic compounds.
(a) Fine particulates
For both cement-based and 1ime/pozzolan-based processes, the
literature states that very fine solid materials (i.e., those that pass
through a No. 200 mesh sieve, 74 urn particle size) can weaken the bonding
between waste particles and cement by coating the particles. This
coating can inhibit chemical bond formation and decreases the resistance
of the material to leaching.
(b) Oil and grease
The presence of oil and grease in both cement-based and 1ime/pozzolan-
based systems results in the coating of waste particles and the weakening
of the bonding between the particle and the stabilizing agent. This
113
-------
coating can inhibit chemical bond formation and thereby decrease the
resistance of the material to leaching.
(c) Organic compounds
The presence of organic compounds in the waste interferes with the
chemical reactions and bond formation inhibiting curing of the stabilized
material. This results in a stabilized waste having decreased resistance
to leaching.
(d) Sulfate and chlorides
The presence of certain inorganic compounds interferes with the
chemical reactions, weakening bond strength and prolonging setting and
curing time. Sulfate and chloride compounds may reduce the dimensional
stability of the cured matrix, thereby increasing Teachability potential.
Accordingly, EPA will examine these constituents when making
decisions regarding transfer of treatment standards based on
stabilization.
(5) Design and operating parameters
In designing a stabilization system, the principal parameters that
are important to optimize so that the amount of leachable metal
constituents is minimized are (1) selection of stabilizing agents and
other additives, (2) ratio of waste to stabilizing agents and other
additives, (3) degree of mixing, and (4) curing conditions.
(a) Selection of stabilizing agents and other additives
The stabilizing agent and additives used will determine the chemistry
and structure of the stabilized material and, therefore, will affect the
Teachability of the solid material. Stabilizing agents and additives
114
-------
must be carefully selected based on the chemical and physical
characteristics of the waste to be stabilized. For example, the amount
of sulfates in a waste must be considered when a choice is being made
between a 1ime/pozzolan-based and a Portland cement-based system.
To select the type of stabilizing agents and additives, the waste
should be tested in the laboratory with a variety of materials to
determine the best combination.
(b) Amount of stabilizing agents and additives
The amount of stabilizing agents and additives is a critical
parameter in that sufficient stabilizing materials are necessary in the
mixture to bind the waste constituents of concern properly, thereby
making them less susceptible to leaching. The appropriate weight ratios
of waste to stabilizing agent and other additives are established
empirically by setting up a series of laboratory tests that allow
separate leachate testing of different mix ratios. The ratio of water to
stabilizing agent (including water in waste) will also impact the
strength and leaching characteristics of the stabilized material. Too
much water will cause low strength; too little will make mixing difficult
and, more importantly, may not allow the chemical reactions that bind the
hazardous constituents to be fully completed.
(c) Mixing
The conditions of mixing include the type and duration of mixing.
Mixing is necessary to ensure homogeneous distribution of the waste and
the stabilizing agents. Both undermixing and overmixing are
undesirable. The first condition results in a nonhomogeneous mixture;
115
-------
therefore, areas will exist within the waste where waste particles are
neither chemically bonded to the stabilizing agent nor physically held
within the lattice structure. Overmixing, on the other hand, may inhibit
gel formation and ion adsorption in some stabilization systems. As with
the relative amounts of waste, stabilizing agent, and additives within
the system, optimal mixing conditions generally are determined through
laboratory tests. During treatment it is important to monitor the degree
(i.e., type and duration) of mixing to ensure that it reflects design
conditions.
(d) Curing conditions
The curing conditions include the duration of curing and the ambient
curing conditions (temperature and humidity). The duration of curing is
a critical parameter to ensure that the waste particles have had
sufficient time in which to form stable chemical bonds and/or lattice
structures. The time necessary for complete stabilization depends upon
the waste type and the stabilization used. The performance of the
stabilized waste (i.e., the levels of constituents in the leachate) will
be highly dependent upon whether complete stabilization has occurred.
Higher temperatures and lower humidity increase the rate of curing by
increasing the rate of evaporation of water from the solidification
mixtures. However, if temperatures are too high, the evaporation rate
can be excessive, resulting in too little water being available for
completion of the stabilization reaction. The duration of the curing
process, which should also be determined during the design stage,
typically will be between 7 and 28 days.
116
-------
3.3 Performance Data
3.3.1 BOAT List Organics
The Agency has data for five sets of untreated waste and kiln ash
samples and six scrubber water samples from an EPA incineration facility
that show treatment of BOAT list organic constituents in K087 waste.
These analytical data, collected during a test burn using rotary kiln
incineration, have been reported in the K087 onsite engineering report
(USEPA 1988a) along with design and operating information on the
treatment system. The analytical data are presented in Tables 3-1
through 3-3 at the end of this section. These data show total waste
concentrations for all BOAT list constituents in the untreated waste
(Table 3-1), the residual ash (Table 3-2), and the scrubber water (Table
3-3). TCLP leachate concentrations for metals in the ash are also shown
(Table 3-2). Operating data collected during the test burn are presented
and discussed in Appendix C. EPA's analyses of these data in the
development of the BOAT treatment standards are presented in Sections 4,
5, and 6.
3.3.2 BOAT List Metals
(1) Wastewaters. The Agency does not have performance data on
treatment of BOAT list metals in the scrubber water generated by rotary
kiln incineration of K087 waste. However, 11 data sets are available
from treatment of BOAT list metals in a metal-bearing wastewater by
chemical precipitation, primarily using lime as the treatment chemical,
and sludge filtration. These performance data are presented in
117
-------
Table 3-4. They reflect total waste concentrations for BOAT list metals
in the untreated and treated wastewaters.
Based on the available information on waste characteristics that
affect treatment performance, the Agency believes these data represent a
level of performance that can be achieved using this same treatment on
the K087 scrubber water. A comparison of the scrubber water data and the
untreated metal-bearing wastewater data reveals that both wastes contain
small, if any, concentrations of antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
mercury, selenium, thallium and vanadium. Concentrations of cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc are, in most cases,
significantly lower in the K087 scrubber water, making it likely that the
scrubber water would be less difficult to treat. Other performance-
related waste characterization data for both wastes are not available for
comparison. EPA's analyses of the performance data in the development of
the BOAT treatment standards are presented in Sections 4 and 6.
(2) Nonwastewaters. EPA does not have performance data on treatment
of BOAT list metals in either the ash generated by rotary kiln
incineration of K087 waste or the treatment sludge generated by
precipitation of the K087 scrubber water. Industry, however, submitted
performance data for F006 waste (an electroplating sludge) using
stabilization, the demonstrated technology for these K087
nonwastewaters. These F006 data, presented in Table 3-5., reflect total
waste and TCLP leachate concentrations for BOAT list metals in the
untreated waste and TCLP leachate concentrations for metals in the
treated waste. The data represent F006 wastes from various
118
-------
electroplating industries, including auto part manufacturing, aircraft
overhauling, zinc plating, small engine manufacturing, and circuit board
manufacturing.
The Agency believes these F006 data can be used to represent the
performance of stabilization on the treatment sludge that would be
generated from treatment of K087 scrubber water, because the treatment
sludge would be less difficult to treat than the F006 waste based on the
waste characteristics that affect performance. The analyses of the
scrubber water show that this residual contains metals at concentrations
ranging from less than 0.0003 mg/1 to 8.3 mg/1, with the highest
concentration being 8.3 mg/1 for lead (see Table 3-3 and the
accuracy-corrected data in Table B-4). Precipitation of this waste would
yield a precipitated residue with an estimated concentration up to
160 mg/1 for lead and lower for the other metals present and with a water
content and filterable solids concentration similar to those of the F006
wastes. A review of the F006 wastes shows that they contain metals at
concentrations ranging up to 42,900 ppm.
The Agency believes the F006 data can also be used to represent the
performance of stabilization on the K087 ash. EPA expects that the ash
is easier to stabilize because such ash residuals contain metals in the
form of oxides, which have been shown to leach at lower concentrations
than the typical F006 hydroxides.
EPA's analyses of the F006 data in the development of treatment
standards for K087 nonwastewaters are presented in Sections 4 and 6.
119
-------
Other stabilization data were available to EPA and can be found in
the Administrative Record. They were eliminated from further
consideration as sources for transferring data to develop treatment
standards because of one or a combination of the reasons provided below:
1. The waste treated was less similar to the K087 ash or expected
precipitated residuals than the waste for which performance data
are presented;
2. The performance data do not show substantial treatment for the
constituents to be regulated (selected in Section 5);
3. Design and operating data, or the lack of such data, do not
enable the Agency to ascertain whether the treatment system was
well designed and well operated; or
4. The measure of performance is not consistent with EPA's approach
in evaluating treatment of metals by stabilization; e.g., EP
levels are given rather than TCLP leachate levels.
120
-------
1779g/p.26
Table 3-1 Analytical Results for K087 Untreated Waste
Collected Prior to Treatment by Rotary Kiln Incineration
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (mg/kg)
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes
BDAT Semivolatile Orqanics (mg/kg)
Acenaphtha lene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
para-Cresol
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(l , 2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
BDAT Metals (mg/kg)a
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 lum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thall lum
Vanadium
Zinc
1
17
<2.0
17
21
11000
7500
5700
310
3200
3100
4100
5100
1600
11000
7600
2100
64000
34000
1600
9100
<2.0
6.1
<20
<0.5
1.7
<2.0
3.2
85
2.9
<4 0
1.2
<5.0
2.7
<5.0
63
2
19
<2 1
17
23
12000
8100
5900
NO
<1010
7500
4300
5300
1600
12000
7900
2500
66000
34000
1500
5900
<2.0
6.1
<20
<0.5
2.1
<2.0
4.5
80
3.6
4.6
1.6
<5.0
2.3
<5.0
63
Concentration
Sample Set #
3
5.6
<2.0
5.0
3.0
10000
7100
5600
NO
3100
3100
4100
5100
1300
11000
7000
2300
64000
15000
1200
8000
<2.0
5.5
<20
<0.5
2.1
<2.0
3.2
72.
3.8
<4 0
1.3
<5.0
2.2
<5.0
58
4
212
<10
152
123
13000
8100
7500
NO
<982
9300
5400
6500
1900
<982
9300
3100
81000
41000
1800
9700
<2.0
1.9
<20
<0.5
1.7
<2.0
<2.5
64
4.2
<4.0
1.4
<5.0
2.1
<5.0
50
5
170
<10
130
121
10000
6700
54CO
ND -
5300
<1026
3800
4700
1200
11000
7000
2100
63000
15000
1200
8100
<2.0
5.2
<20
<0.5
1.9
<2.0
2.6
69
3.3
<4.0
1 2
<5.0
2.2
<5.0
66
121
-------
1779g/p.27
Table 3-1 (Continued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Inorganics Other Than Metals (mq/ka)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
Non-BDAT Volatile Orqanics (ma/kg)
Styrene
Non-BDAT Semwolatile Orqanics (mq/kq)
Dibenzofuran
2-Methylnaphthalene
Other Parameters
Ash content (%)
1
22.8
0.38
323
12
5300
7000
2.9
Heating value (Btu/lb) 15095
Percent water (%)
Total halogens as chlorine (%)
Total organic carbon (%)
Total organic ha Tides (mg/kg)
Total solids (%)b
Viscosity0
Elemental constituents (%)
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Oxygen
5.70
0.033
83.67
27.0
87.7
-
83.80
5.62
1.13
9.13
2
18.2
-
320
12
5600
6900
3.4
14898
10.31
0.023
76.38
28.0
90.5
-
81.90
5.14
1.06
11.94
Concentration
Sample Set t
3
21.1
-
275
3 4
5200
6300
9.7
14823
11.26
0.026
84.27
29.3
91.1
-
84.01
5.27
1.03
10.25
4 '
22.0
-
293
26
6800
9400
3.7
15336
7.72
0.045
79.10
87.7
89.7
-
66.36
6.46
0.82
26.59
5
17.9
0.18
302
71
5000
6200
2.7
14959
6.60
0 057
85.57
25.8
86.5
-
77.54
5.97
0.96
15.71
Source: USEPA 1988a.
aResults have been reported on a wet weight basis.
Total solids results are biased low because of test complications arising from waste matrix.
Because of the high concentration of solids in the waste, viscosity values could not be determined.
- = Not analyzed.
ND = Not detected; estimated detection limit has not been determined.
Note: This table shows concentrations or maximum potential concentrations in the untreated waste for all
constituents detected in the untreated waste or detected in the residuals generated by treatment of the
waste. EPA analyzed the untreated waste for all the BOAT list constituents that are listed in Table 0-1.
122
-------
1779g/p 28
Table 3-2 Analytical Results for Kiln Ash Generated by
Rotary Kiln Incineration of K087 Waste
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volati 1e Orqanics Ug/kg)
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes
BOAT Semivolati 1e Orqanics Ug/kg)
Acenaphthalene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
para-Cresol
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
BOAT Metals (mq/kg)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Tver
Thai 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
1
<25
<25
150
<25
<1000
<1000
<1000
NO
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<3.2
9.9
317
0.60
<0.40
34
746
44
<0.10
10
1,4
<0.60
<1.0
17
50
2
<25
<25
85
<25
<1000
<1000
<1000
ND
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<2.0
11
56
<0.5
<1.0
5.2
44
8.2
2.8
<4.0
1.6
<5.0
<1.0
9.7
13
Concentrat ion
Sample Set 1
3
<25
<25
<25
<25
<1000
<1000
<1000
ND
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<2.0
6.7
53
<0.5
<1.0
2.2
43
8.3
2.9
<4.0
<0.50
<5.0
<1.0
6.6
13
4
<25
<25
<25
<25
<1000
<100C
<1000
ND
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<2.0
12
41
<0.5
<1 0
2.1
50
5.9
3 3
<4.0
5.9
<5.0
<1.0
8 1
12
5
<25
<25
190
-------
1779g/p.29
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Concentration
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT TCLP: Metals WD
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selen turn
Si Iver
Thai lium
Vanadium
Zinc
BOAT Inorganics Other Than Metals (mg/kg)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
Non-BDAT Volatile Orqanics Ug/kg)
Styrene
Non-BDAT Semivolatile Orqanics Ug/kg)
Dibenzof uran
2-Methylnaphthalene
Other Parameters (rag/kg)
Total organic carbon
Total chlorides
Total organic halides
1
425
96
609
3.3
<4.0
62
<6 0
29
<0.2
93
<50
<6.0
<10
<30
169
0.74
<1.0
35.5
<25
<1000
<100Q
350000
9.7
375
Sample Set #
2 3
<20 <20
33 25
344 547
<5.0 <5.0
<10 <10
<20 <20
52 1110
40 53
<0.30 <0.30
<40 <40
7.3 <5 0
=50 <50
<10 <10
<50 <50
202 218
<0.50 <0.50
-
36.3 144
<25 <25
<1000 <1000
<1000 <1000
553000 402000
6.8 14.1
18.3 32.1
4
<20
19
641
<5.0
<10
<20
346
20
<0 30
<40
<5 0
<50
<10
<50
288
<0.50
-
116
<25
<1000
<1000
316000
14.6
19.8
5
<32
43
546
2.5
<4.0
8.7
497
106
<0.2
16
<5 Q
<6.0
<500
8.3
256
<0.50
<0.25
11.0
<25
<1000
<1000
244000
16.0
133
Source: USEPA 1988a.
- = Not analyzed.
NO = Not detected; estimated detection limit has not been determined.
Note: This table shows the concentrations or maximum potential concentrations in the kiln ash for all
constituents that were detected in the untreated waste or detected in residuals generated from treatment of
the waste. EPA analyzed the kiln ash for all the BOAT list constituents that are listed
in Table 0-2.
124
-------
1779g/p.26
Table 3-3 Analytical Results for Scrubber Water Generated by Rotary Kiln
Incineration of K087 Waste
Concentrat ion
Constituent/parameter (units)
Sample
BOAT Volatile Orqanics Ug/1)
Benzene <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Methyl ethyl ketone 14 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Toluene <5 8 <5 <5 <5 <5
Xylenes <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
BOAT Semwolati le Orqanics (/*g/l)
Asenaphthalene <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Anthracene <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Benz(a)anthracene <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Benzenethiol ND NO ND ND ND ND
Benzo(b)fluoranthene <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Benzo(k)f luoranthene <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Benzo(a)pyrene <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Chrysene <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 C10
para-Cresol <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Fluoranthene <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Fluorene <10 <10 <10 ^10 <10 ^10
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Naphthalene <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Phenanthrene '10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Phenol «10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
ry Ct ic
BOAT Metals Ug/1)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl lium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thailium
Vanadium
Zinc 2250 2040 1740 2910 2670 2960
<32
211
65
<1.0
26
306
1050
5610
0.23
<11
81
<6.0
126
15
<33
191
350
1.3
15
304
1100
7000
<0.20
<11
61
<7.0
109
12
<20
148
302
<5.0
21
155
948
3240
0.48
<40
5.7
<50
77
<50
39
257
340
<5.0
41
236-
1240
4780
0.33
<40
83
*50
108
<50
<20
300
290
<5.0
42
255
1160
5610
0.30
<40
87
<50
96
<50
<32
342
102
<1 0
51
259
1240
4840
0.40
<11
87
<6.0
136
18
125
-------
1779g/p.27
Table 3-3 (Continued)
Concentration
Constituent/parameter (units)
Sample
BOAT Inorganics Other Than Metals (mg/1)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
Non-BDAT Volatile Orqanics Ug/1)
Styrene
Non-BDAT Semivolatile Orqanics Ug/1)
Dibenzofuran
2-Methyl naphthalene
Other Parameters
<0.01
3.38
<0.01
2.99
<0.01 <0.01
2.38
11.9 <1.0
<0.01
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<0.01
3.54
<5
Total organic carbon (mg/1)
Total solids (mg/1)
Total chlorides (mg/1)
Total organic halides Ug/1)
37.9
2240
51.3
33.7
26.1
2080
57.9
33.2
88.9
1910
48.5
48.7
148
2350
51.0
23.3
111
2480
58.3
27.6
94.1
2720
56.0
27.4
Source: USEPA 1988a.
aScrubber water samples are not assigned a sample set number. See the K087 OER (USEPA 1988a)
for specific collection times.
- = Not analyzed.
ND = Not detected; estimated detection limit has not been determined.
Note: This table shows concentrations or maximum potential concentrations in the scrubber
water for all constituents detected in the untreated waste or detected in residuals generated
from treatment of the waste. EPA analyzed the scrubber water for all the BOAT list
constituents that are listed in Table D-3.
126
-------
1847g
ro
Table 3-4 Performance Data for Chemical Precipitation
and Sludge Filtration of a Metal-Bearing Wastewater Sampled by EPA
Concentration (ppm)
Constituent /parameter
BOAT Metals
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent )a
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thai 1 lum
Zinc
Other Parameters
Sample
Treatment
tank composite
<10
<1
<10
<2
13
893
2.581
138
64
<1
471
<10
'2
<10
116
Set #1
Filtrate
<\
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
0.011
0.12
0.21
<0.01
<0.1
0.33
<1
<0.2
<1
0.125
Sample
Treatment
tank composite
<10
<1
<10
<2
10
807
2,279
133
54
<1
470
<10
2
<10
4
Set #2
Filtrate
<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0 5
0.190
0.12
0.15
<0.01
<0 1
0.33
<1
<0 2
<1
0.115
Sample Set #3
Treatment
tank composite Filtrate
<10 <1
<1 <0.1
<10 3.5
<2 <0.2
<5 <0.5
775 -a
1,990 0.20
133 0.21
<10 <0.01
<1 <0.1
16,330 0.33
<10 <1
<2 <0.3
<10 <1
3 9 0.140
Sample
Treatment
tank composite
<10
<1
<10
<2
<5
0.6
556
88
<10
<1
6,610
<10
<2
<10
84
Set #4
Filtrate
-
<1
<10
<2
<5
0.042
0.10
0.07
<0.01
<1
0.33
<10
<2
<10
1.62
Total organic carbon
Total solids
Total chlorides
Total organic halides
2700
2500
2800
3600
500
2900
900
-------
1847g
Table 3-4 (Continued)
Concentration (ppm)
Const ituent/parameter
BOAT Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Tver
i *
i>o Tha 1 1 ium
oo
Zinc
Other Parameters
Sample
Treatment
tank composite
<10
<1
<10
<2
<5
917
2,236
91
18
1
1,414
<10
<2
<10
71
Set #5
Filtrate
<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
0.058
0.11
0.14
<0.01
<0.1
0.310
<1
<0.2
<1
.125 0
Sample
Treatment
tank composite
<10
<1
<10
<2
<5
734
2.548
149
<10
<1
588
<10
<2
<10
4
Set #6
Filtrate
<1
<0.1
<2
<0.2
<0.5
a
0.10
0.12
<0.01
<0.1
0.33
<1
<0.2
<1
0.095
Sample
Treatment
tank composite
<10
'1
<10
<2
10
769
2,314
72
108
<1
426
<\Q
'2
<10
171
Set #7
Filtrate
<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
0.121
0.12
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
0.40
<1
<0.2
<1
0.115
Sample
Treatment
tank composite
<10
<1
<10
<2
<5
0.13
831
217
212
<1
669
<10
<2
<10
15 1
Set #8
Filtrate
<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.01
0.15
0.16
<0.01
<0.1
0.36
-------
1847g
Table 3-4 (Continued)
r\>
Concentration (ppm)
Constituent /parameter
BOAT Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Tha 1 1 ium
Zinc
Other Parameters
Total organic carbon
Total solids
Total chlorides
Total organic halides
Sample
Treatment
tank composite
<10
<1
<10
<2
<5
0.07
939
225
<10
-1
940
<10
<2
<10
5
2100
-
-
0
Set #9
Filtrate
<1
<0.1
-------
led jy
Table 3-5 Performance Data for Stabilization of F006 Waste
Concentration (ppm)
Sample Set P
Constituent Stream
Arsenic Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
Barium Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
Cadmium Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
oo Treated TCLPb
0
Chromium Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Copper Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
Lead Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
1
<0.01
<0.01
36.4
0.08
0.12
1.3
0.01
0.01
1270
0 34
0.51
40.2
0.15
0.20
35.5
0.26
0.30
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0 01
21 6
0.32
0 50
0.42
31 3
2.21
0.50
0 01
755
0 76
0.40
0.39
7030
368
5 4
0.25
409
10.7
0 40
0 36
3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
85.5
1.41
0.33
0.31
67.3
1.13
0.06
0 02
716
0.43
0.08
0.20
693
1.33
1.64
1.84
257
2.26
0.30
0.41
4
<0.01
<0.01
17.2
0.08
0.20
0.90
1.31
0.02
0 01
<0.01
110
0.02
0.23
0.08
1510
4.62
0.30
0.15
88.5
0.45
0 30
0.21
5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
14.3
0 38
0 31
0 23
720
23 6
3 23
0 01
12200
25 3
0 25
0 30
160
1 14
0.20
0 27
52
0 45
0 24
0 34
6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
24.5
0 07
0 30
0 19
7.28
0.3
0 02
0 01
3100
38.7
0 21
0 38
1220
31.7
0.21
0.29
113
3 37
0 30
0.36
7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
12.6
0.04
0.04
0.14
5.39
0.06
0.01
0.01
42900
360
3.0
1.21
10600
8.69
0.40
0.42
156
1.0
0.30
0.38
8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
15.3
0.53
0.32
0.27
5.81
0.18
0.01
0.01
47.9
0.04
0.10
0.2
17600
483
0.50
0 32
1.69
4.22
0.31
0.37
9
0.88
<0.02
<0.02
19.2
0.28
0.19
0.08
5.04
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
644
0 01
0 03
0.21
274000
16.9
3.18
0.46
24500
50.2
2.39
0.27
-------
!:»/ c J
Table 3-5 (corn inued)
Sample Set ?
Const ituent
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Zinc
Stream
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
1
<0.001
<0.001
-
435
0.71
0.04
-
_
<0.01
0.06
-
2.3
0.01
0.03
-
1560
0.16
0.03
2
<0 001
<0.001
<0.001
989
22.7
1.5
0.03
_
<0.01
0.06
0.11
6.62
0 14
0.03
0 05
4020
219
36 9
0.01
3
<0.001
<0.001
<0 001
259
1.1
0.23
0.15
-
-
0.07
0.11
38 9
0.20
0.20
0.05
631
5.41
0.05
0.03
4
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
374
0.52
0 10
0.02
-
-
0.08
0 01
9.05
0 16
0 03
0 03
90200
2030
32
0.01
5
.
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
701
9 78
0.53
0.03
-
<0.01
0 04
0 14
5.28
0 08
0 04
0 04
35900
867
3.4
0 04
6
_
0 003
<0 001
<0 001
19400
730
16 5
0 04
-
<0 01
0 05
0 09
4 08
0 12
0 03
0 06
27800
1200
36 3
0 03
7
_
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
13000
152
0.40
0 10
-
<0.01
0.04
0.07
12.5
0 05
0.03
0.05
120
0.62
0.02
0.02
8
_
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
23700
644
15.7
0.04
-
<0.01
0.07
0.07
8.11
0.31
0.03
0.05
15700
650
4.54
0.02
9
-
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
5730
16.1
1.09
0.02
-
<0.45
<0.01
<0.01
19 1
<0.01
<0 01
<0.01
322
1.29
0.07
<0.01
Source: CWM Technical Note 87-117, Table 1.
Binding agent: cement kiln dust.
3Mix ratio is 0 2 The mix ratio is the ratio of the reagent weight to waste weight.
bMix ratio is 0 5 with the exception of Sample Set #4 in which mix ratio is 1.0
Note: Waste samples are from the following industries- set #1, unknown, set #2, auto part manufacturing, set #3, aircraft overhauling; set #4, zinc
^i = n. cot *q unknown- spt #fi. tma 11 pnoinp manufacturing set #7. circuit board manufacturing, set #8, unknown; and set #9. unknown
-------
4. IDENTIFICATION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (BOAT)
FOR K087 WASTE
This section explains EPA's determination of the best demonstrated
available technology (BOAT). As discussed in Section 1, the BOAT for a
waste must be the "best" of the "demonstrated" technologies discussed in
Section 3.2; the BOAT must also be "available." What technology
constitutes "best" is determined after screening the available data from
each demonstrated technology, adjusting these data for accuracy, and
comparing the performance of each technology to that of the others. If
only one technology is identified as demonstrated, this technology is
considered "best." To be "available" a technology (1) must be
commercially available and (2) must provide substantial treatment.
4.1 BOAT List Organics
Of the technologies identified as demonstrated on the organics in
*
K087 waste (i.e., fuel substitution, incineration, and recycling ),
the Agency has performance data only for rotary kiln incineration
(presented in Section 3.3 and adjusted for accuracy in Appendix B).
These data meet all the screening criteria outlined in Section 1.2.6(1).
First, the data reflect a well-designed, well-operated system for all
data points (see Appendix C). Second, sufficient QA/QC information is
available to determine the true values of the analytical results for the
treated residuals. Third, the measure of performance is consistent with
*Recycling may not be feasible for all generators of K087 waste (refer
to Section 3.2).
132
-------
EPA's approach in evaluating the treatment of organics; i.e., total waste
concentrations are given for BOAT list organics in the residual ash and
scrubber water.
Because the performance data from rotary kiln incineration are the
only data available for treatment of K087 waste, EPA is not able to
perform an ANOVA test (see Appendix A) on the data to compare the three
demonstrated technologies to determine which is best. However, since
recycling does not result in a residual to be land disposed, EPA would
consider it "best." Of fuel substitution and rotary kiln incineration,
EPA does not believe that the former would perform better because (1) the
performance data from rotary kiln incineration indicate that little
additional treatment of organics can be accomplished, and (2) the
temperatures and residence times of fuel substitution do not generally
exceed those of rotary kiln incineration.
Both recycling and rotary kiln incineration are available because
(1) neither is a proprietary or patented process and thus both are
commercially available, and (2) both substantially diminish the toxicity
of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood that hazardous
constituents will migrate from the waste.
Recycling clearly provides substantial treatment because there are no
residuals. For rotary kiln incineration, EPA believes that the number of
constituents treated and the associated reductions achieved represent
substantial treatment. For example, naphthalene concentrations ranging
from 63,000 to 81,000 mg/kg were reduced to less than 1.2 mg/kg in the
ash and 0.010 mg/1 in the scrubber water; phenanthrene concentrations of
133
-------
15,000 to 41,000 mg/kg were reduced to less than 1.2 mg/kg in the ash and
0.010 mg/1 in the scrubber water; and benzene concentrations up to 212
mg/kg were reduced to less than 0.026 mg/kg in the ash and 0.005 mg/1 in
the scrubber water. (See the performance data in Tables 3-1 through 3-3
and the accuracy-corrected data in Appendix B.)
The Agency may establish a "no land disposal" treatment standard
based on the "best" technology, recycling, if it is determined that
recycling does not adversely affect coke or tar product quality at all
facilities generating K087 waste; i.e., it is demonstrated for all K087
generators. (See Section 3.2 for further discussion.) At this time, the
Agency is proposing rotary kiln incineration as BOAT for the purpose of
setting treatment standards.
4.2 BOAT List Metals
Rotary kiln incineration and subsequent treatment of the scrubber
water, as noted in Section 3, result in wastewater and nonwastewater
residuals that contain metals which may require further treatment prior
to land disposal.
4.2.1 Wastewaters
For metals in K087 wastewaters, the only identified demonstrated
treatment is chemical precipitation followed by settling or,
alternatively, sludge filtration. Performance data are available for
chemical precipitation, using lime as the treatment chemical, and sludge
filtration as discussed in Section 3.3.2. The Agency does not expect
that the use of other treatment chemicals would improve the level of
134
-------
performance. Thus, chemical precipitation using lime as the treatment
chemical and sludge filtration are "best." The performance data meet the
screening criteria outlined in Section 1.2.6(1), The treated data values
are adjusted for accuracy in Appendix B.
Chemical precipitation, using lime, and sludge filtration are
"available" because such treatment is commercially available and would
provide substantial treatment for the K087 scrubber water. EPA's
determination of substantial treatment is based on the fact that the
concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc in
the metal-bearing wastewater for which data are available were reduced
significantly as shown by the data.
As chemical precipitation, using lime, followed by sludge filtration
is demonstrated, best, and available for metals in K087 scrubber waters,
this treatment represents BOAT for metals in K087 wastewaters.
4.2.2 Nonwastewaters
For metals in K087 nonwastewaters (i.e., ash or precipitated
residuals from treatment of K087 scrubber water), the only identified
demonstrated technology is stabilization. Performance data are available
for stabilization using cement kiln dust as the binding agent as
discussed in Section 3.3.2. The Agency does not expect that use of other
binders would improve the level of performance. Thus, stabilization
using cement kiln dust as the binding agent is "best."
In screening the data using the criteria in Section 1.2.6(1), the
Agency deleted 54 data points because the binder-to-waste ratio was not
135
-------
properly designed. The deleted data points include 4 for barium, 7 for
cadmium, 5 for chromium, 7 for copper, 8 for lead, 8 for nickel, 7 for
silver, and 8 for zinc. The remaining data that also have treatable
quantities of metals are presented in Table 4-1.
Stabilization is "available" because it is commercially available and
it substantially reduces the likelihood that hazardous constituents will
migrate from the waste. EPA's determination of substantial treatment is
based on the following observations for reductions in the TCLP leachate
concentrations of metals in the F006 waste. As shown in Table 4-1,
cadmium was reduced from as much as 23.6 to 0.01 mg/1, chromium from 360
to 1.21 mg/1, copper from 483 to 0.32 mg/1, lead from 50.2 to 0.27 mg/1,
nickel from 730 to 0.04 mg/1, silver from 0.31 to 0.03 mg/1, and zinc
from 2030 to 0.01 mg/1. Accuracy-corrected values for the TCLP leachate
concentrations of these metals in the stabilized waste are shown in
Appendix B.
As stabilization using cement kiln dust as a binder is demonstrated,
best, and available for BOAT list metals in the K087 nonwastewaters,
stabilization represents BOAT.
136
-------
1847g
Table 4-1 F006 TCLP Data Showing Substantial Treatment
Manufacturing Mix
Source ratio Barium
Unknown
untreated
treated 0.2
Auto part manufacturing
untreated
treated 0.5
Aircraft overhauling
untreated 1 41
treated 02 0 33
Zinc plating
untreated
treated 1.0
Unknown
untreated 0.38 23 6
treated 0.5 0.23
Small engine manufacturing
untreated
treated 0.5
Circuit board manufacturing
untreated
treated 0.5
Unknown
untreated 0 53
treated 0.5 0.27
Unknown
untreated 0.28
treated 0.5 0.08
TCLP leachate concentrations
Cadmium Chromium Copper
.
2 21 0.76 368
0.01 0.39 0 25
1 13 0 43
0 06 0 OB
0 02 4 C2
^0 01 - 0 15
25.3 1 14 0 45
0 01 0.30 0.27
0.03 38.7 31 7
0 01 0.38 0.29
0.06 360 8.69
0.01 1.21 0.42
0 18 483
0 01 - 0.32
16 9'
0.46
Lead
-
10
0
2
0
0
0
9.
0
3
0
1
0.
4.
0.
50.
0.
.7
.36
.26
30
45
.21
.78
.34
.37
.36
.0
.38
,22
37
2
27
(mq/1)
Nickel
0.71
0.04
22.7
0.03
1 1
0 23
0 52
0.02
0 08
0 03
730
0 04
152
0.10
644
0 04
16.1
0.02
Si Iver
-
0.14
0 05
0 20
0 20
0 16
0 03
867
0.04
0.12
0.06
0.05
0 05
0 31
0 05
Zinc
0
0
219
0
c
c
2030
0
0
1200
0
0,
0
650
0.
1.
<0
.16
.03
.01
41
o-:
01
04
03
,62
,02
02
29
01
Source: Table 3-5.
137
-------
5. SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
As discussed in Section 1, the Agency has developed a list of
hazardous constituents (Table 1-1) from which the constituents to be
regulated are selected. The list is a "growing list" that does not
preclude the addition of new constituents as additional key parameters
are identified. The list is divided into the following categories:
volatile organics, semivolatile organics, metals, inorganics,
organochlorine pesticides, phenoxyacetic acid herbicides,
organophosphorous pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins and furans. The
constituents in each category have similar chemical properties and are
expected to behave similarly during treatment, with the exception of the
inorganics.
This section describes the step-by-step process used to select the
constituents to be regulated. The process involves developing a list of
potential regulated constituents and then eliminating those constituents
that would be controlled by subsequent regulation of the remaining
constituents.
5.1 Identification of BOAT List Constituents in the Untreated Waste
The first step in selecting constituents to be regulated is to
identify the BOAT list constituents that are present in the waste or are
likely to be present in the waste. A particular BOAT list constituent is
identified if it meets any of the criteria listed below..
1. The constituent is detected in the untreated waste above the
detection limit.
138
-------
2. The constituent is detected in any of the treated residuals above
the detection limit. (Detection limits in untreated wastes are
often high because of analytical problems. Thus, a constituent
detected in a treated residual but not detected in the untreated
waste is likely to be present in the untreated waste.)
3. The constituent is likely to be present in detectable
concentrations in the waste based on EPA's analysis of the
waste-generating process.
As discussed in Sections 2 and 3, the Agency has characterization
data as well as performance data from the rotary kiln incineration of
K087 waste. These data have been used to identify the BOAT list
constituents in K087 waste. For samples collected during the K087 test
burn, Table 5-1 (presented at the end of this section) indicates which
constituents were analyzed and, of those, which were detected or not
detected. (Tables D-l through D-3 in Appendix D show the detection
limits for the test burn performance data.) EPA analyzed for 192 of the
231 BOAT list constituents. EPA did not analyze for 20 organochlorine
pesticides, 3 phenoxyacetic acid herbicides, 5 organophosphorous
insecticides, 7 volatile organics, 3 semivolatile organics, or 1 metal;
EPA believes that all of these compounds are unlikely to be present in
the waste because there is no in-process source for these constituents.
In the samples from the K087 test burn, 37 of the analyzed
constituents were detected. EPA found 19 BOAT organics,* 9 BOAT
The xylene isomers, 1,2-xylene, 1,3-xylene, and 1,4-xylene, are
being considered as one constituent here because they were not
analyzed separately.
139
-------
metals, and 3 BOAT inorganics other than metals (i.e., cyanide, sulfide,
and fluoride) in the untreated waste. In the treated residuals, the
Agency found 1 additional organic and 5 additional metals. The other
waste characterization data (see Table 2-4) indicate that 5 more BOAT
organics may be present in the untreated K087 waste. All 42 of these
"identified" constituents are listed in Table 5-2.
5.2 Elimination of Potential Regulated Constituents Based on
Treatability
The next step in selecting the constituents to be regulated is to
eliminate those identified constituents in the waste that are not present
in treatable quantities and therefore cannot be significantly treated by
the technologies designated as BOAT. Table 5-3 shows the concentrations
of the identified constituents in the untreated waste and incineration
treatment residuals.
5.2.1 BOAT List Organics
The ANOVA test (see Appendix A) would show that for the organics in
the K087 waste, BOAT (i.e., rotary kiln incineration) significantly
reduced the levels of the identified organic constituents, with the
possible exception of acenaphthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, ortho-cresol,
2,4-dimethylphenol, and dibenzo(ah)anthracene. The Agency cannot
determine if significant reduction occurred for these five compounds
because they were not detected in any of the untreated or treated waste
samples collected during the K087 test burn. Because these compounds are
expected to behave similarly to the other semivolatiles and because they
have been shown to be present in other K087 wastes at comparable
140
-------
concentrations, the Agency assumes these compounds may be present in
treatable quantities.
5.2.2 BOAT List Metals
As discussed in Section 4.2, BOAT for the organics in K087 waste
generates both nonwastewater and wastewater residuals that may require
treatment for metals. Analytical results from samples collected during
the K087 test burn show that few metals in the scrubber water or in the
ash were generated in quantities which could be treated by chemical
precipitation and sludge filtration or by stabilization, respectively.
The Agency generally eliminates constituents from consideration as
regulated constituents when they cannot be significantly treated by the
technologies designated as BOAT. In the case of K087 waste, however,
metals are not excluded as potential regulated constituents because the
untreated K087 waste contains metals, and it is probable that other K087
incinerator residuals will have treatable concentrations of these metals,
as discussed below.
An incinerator is not specifically designed to treat metals.
Accordingly, the concentration of metals found in the scrubber water and
in the ash will depend on the specific design and operating parameters
selected for volatilization and destruction of the organic constituents
in the waste, including operating temperatures, residence times, and
turbulence effects. For example, an incinerator that operates at a
higher temperature would be expected to have higher metal concentrations
in the scrubber water than an incinerator that operates at a lower
temperature. Also, metal residual concentrations will vary from one
141
-------
incinerator test to the next because the untreated wastes can have
different concentrations of a particular metal constituent.
5.2.3 BOAT List Inorganics Other Than Metals
Rotary kiln incineration significantly reduced the concentration of
cyanide in K087 waste. Thus, cyanide is present in the waste at
treatable levels.
The Agency does not believe fluoride is present in the untreated
waste at treatable levels (0.18 to 0.38 mg/kg). Note that this
constituent was detected in the scrubber water residual at concentrations
up to 3.54 mg/1. This level is also not considered treatable because
fluoride occurs naturally in water at concentrations up to 10 mg/1.
5.3 Selection of Regulated Constituents
All constituents on Table 5-3 with the exception of fluoride could be
regulated in K087 waste. The Agency believes, however, that the
regulation of fewer constituents will indicate effective treatment of all
constituents.
For K087 waste, the criteria for final selection are as follows:
1. The constituent was present in the untreated waste in high
quantities relative to the presence of other constituents of its
type, e.g., volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals; and/or
2. The constituent is believed to be more difficult to treat based
on an analysis of characteristics affecting performance of the
treatment system.
Using the first criterion, the Agency has chosen three volatile
organics, four semivolatile organics, and two metals. Of the volatile
organics, benzene, toluene, and xylene were present in untreated wastes
at higher concentrations than the concentration of methyl ethyl ketone.
142
-------
The concentrations of naphthalene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, and
acenaphthalene were highest relative to the concentrations of the rest of
the semivolatile constituents. Lead and zinc concentrations were the
highest of the metals concentrations. Refer to Table 5-3 for ranges of
concentrations in untreated K087 waste.
Using the second criterion, the Agency has selected two additional
semivolatile organics, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene and chrysene, based on
boiling points and bond energies. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, both
the volatility of a constituent and its combustibility affect whether the
constituent will undergo treatment in an incinerator or other thermal
destruction technology. The Agency believes that the boiling point of a
pure constituent under ideal conditions will provide some indication of
its behavior in waste undergoing incineration. The higher the boiling
point of a component, in general, the more difficult that component is to
treat. Under this premise, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenzo(ah)-
anthracene, and chrysene rank as the most difficult to treat. (Table 5-4
shows the boiling points for the identified organic compounds in K087
waste.) The Agency is using theoretical bond energies as a means to
determine which of several constituents would be easier to treat at a
given set of incinerator conditions (see Section 3.2 for a further
discussion of bond energy). In general, the higher the bond energy for a
constituent, the more difficult it is to combust that constituent.
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene,
benzo(ghi)perylene, and dibenzo(ah)anthracene rank as the most difficult
to treat based on their high bond energies. (Table 5-4 also shows the
143
-------
calculated bond energies for the identified treatable organic
constituents.)
Of the three compounds with the highest boiling points and the three
compounds with the highest bond energies (four compounds in all, since
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene and dibenzo(ah)anthracene fall into both
categories), the Agency has chosen indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene and chrysene
for regulation because (1) data showing substantial treatment of
benzo(ghi)perylene and dibenzo(ah)anthracene are not available (these
compounds were not "identified" in the rotary kiln incineration
performance data, as explained in Section 5.2), and (2) the boiling point
and bond energy characteristics of all four compounds are comparable.
The Agency believes that regulation of the constituents selected thus
far will ensure that treatment occurs for the remaining BOAT list
organic, metal, and cyanide candidates. Table 5-5 presents the selected
regulated constituents for K087 waste.
144
-------
Table 5-1 Detection Status of BOAT List Constituents in K087 Waste
BOAT
reference
no
222.
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
223.
7.
8.
9.
10
11.
12.
13.
14
15
16.
17
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23
24.
25.
26
27
28.
29.
224.
225.
226
30.
227.
31.
214.
32.
Const ituent
Volatiles
Acetone
Acetomtri le
Acrolein
Acrylonitri le
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon tetrachlor ide
Carbon bisulfide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l,3-butadiene
Chlorodibromome thane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1 , 2-Dibromoeth.ane
Dibromomethane
trans-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Dichlorodif luoromethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
t rans-1, 3-D ichl oropropene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
1 ,4-Dioxane
2-Ethoxyethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
CAS no.
67-64-1
75-05-8
107-02-8
107-13-1
71-43-2
75-27-4
74-83-9
71-36-3
56-23-5
75-15-0
108-90-7
126-99-B
124-48-1
75-00-3
110-75-8
67-66-3
74-87-3
107-05-1
96-12-8
106-93-4
74-95-3
110-57-6
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-60-5
78-87-5
10061-02-6
10061-01-5
123-91-1
110-80-5
141-78-6
100-41-4
107-12-0
60-29-7
97-63-2
75-21-8
74-88-4
Detection
status
NO
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
.NA
ND
ND
ND
145
-------
Table 5-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no
33.
228.
34.
229
35
37.
38.
230
39
40
41
42
43
44
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
231.
50.
215.
215
217.
51.
52.
53.
54
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
218.
60.
61.
62.
Constituent
Volati les (continued)
Isobutyl alcohol
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methacrylonitri le
Methylene chloride
2-Nitropropane
Pyridine
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tr ibromomethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromonof luoromethane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
l,l,2-Tnchloro-l,2,2-
tnf luoroethane
Vinyl chloride
l,2-Xylenea
l,3-Xy1enea
l,4-Xylenea
Semivolat i les
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminof luorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Am line
Anthracene
Aramite
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzal chloride
Benzenethiol
Deleted
Benzo(a)pyrene
CAS no.
78-83-1
67-56-1
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
126-98-7
75-09-2
79-46-9
110-86-1
630-20-6
79-34-6
127-18-4
108-86-3
7S-2S-2
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
96-18-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
97-47-6
108-38-3
106-44-5
208-96-8
63-32-9
96-86-2
53-96-3
92-67-1
62-53-3
120-12-7
140-57-8
56-55-3
98-87-3
108-98-5
50-32-8
Detection
status
NO
NA
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
D
D
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
D
NA
D
D
146
-------
Table 5-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no
63.
64.
65
66.
67
68.
69
70
71
72.
73
74.
75
76
77.
78
79
80.
81
82.
232
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92
93
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99
100
101
Constituent
Semwolat i les (continued)
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi Jperylene
Benzo(k )f luoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)ethane
B is (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl ) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phtha late
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Butyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol
p-Chloroan 1 1 me
Chlorobenzi late
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphtha lene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitn le
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
Cyclohexanone
D ibenz( a, h) anthracene
Oibenzo(a,e)pyrene
Dibenzofa, i Jpyrene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidme
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3 , 3 ' -Dimethoxybenz idme
p-D imet hy lam i noazobenzene
3,3 '-Dimethylbenz id me
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,4-Dimtrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Dimtrophenol
CAS no.
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
106-51-4
111-91-1
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
101-55-3
85-68-7
86-85-7
106-47-8
510-15-6
59-50-7
91-58-7
95-57-8
542-76-7
218-01-9
95-48-7
106-44-5
108-94-1
53-70-3
192-65-4
189-55-9
541-73-1
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
120-83-2
87-65-0
84-66-2
119-90-4
60-11-7
119-93-7
105-67-9
131-11-3
84-74-2
100-25-4
534-52-1
51-28-5
Detection
status
D
NO
D
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
D
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
ND
ND
ND
147
-------
Table 5-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no
102.
103.
104
105
106.
219.
107
108
109
110.
Ill
112.
113
114
115.
US.
117.
118
119
120.
36
121.
122.
123.
124
125
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138
Constituent
Semivolati les (continued)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dimtrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Diphenylamine
Dipheny Initrosamine
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexach lorobut ad lene
Hexach lorocyc lopentad lene
Hexachloroethane
Hexach lorophene
Hexach loropropene
Indeno( 1,2, 3-cd)pyrene
Isosaf role
Methapyri lene
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4'-Methylenebis
(2-chloroani line)
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthy lamine
p-Nitroani line
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-buty lamine
N-Nitrosodiethy lamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethy lamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
n-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentach lorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
CAS no.
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
621-64-7
122-39-4
86-30-6
122-66-7
206-44-0
66-73-7
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47-4
67-72-1
70-30-4
1888-71-7
193-39-5
120-58-1
91-80-5
56-49-5
101-14-4
66-27-3
91-20-3
130-15-4
134-32-7
91-59-8
100-01-6
98-95-3
100-02-7
924-16-3
55-18-5
62-75-9
10595-95-6
59-89-2
100-75-4
930-55-2
99-65-8
608-93-5
76-01-7
82-68-8
Detection
status
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
148
-------
Table 5-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no
139.
140.
141.
142.
220.
143.
144.
145
146.
147.
148.
149
150
151
152.
153.
154
155
156.
157.
158.
159
221.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168
169
170.
171.
Constituent
Semivolat i les (continued)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacet in
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phthalic anhydride
2-Picoline
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorcmol
Safrole
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4, 6-Tetrachlorophenol
1 ,2,4-Tnchlorobenzene
2,4 , 5-Tr ichlorophenol
2,4 ,6-Tr ichlorophenol
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)
phosphate
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryll lum
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
S i Iver
Thai 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
Inorganics Other Than Metals
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulf ide
CAS no.
87-86-5
62-44-2
85-01-8
108-95-2
35-44-9
109-06-8
23950-58-5
129-00-0
108-46-3
94-59-7
95-94-3
58-90-2
120-b2-l
95-95-4
88-06-2
126-72-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
-
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
57-12-5
16964-48-8
8496-25-8
Detection
status
ND
NO
D
D
NA
ND
NO
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
D
D
D
D
NA
D
D
D
D
D
ND
D
D
D
D
D
D
149
-------
Table 5-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178
179.
180.
181.
182
183.
184
185
186
187.
188
189.
190
191.
192.
193.
194
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
Constituent
Orqanochlorine pesticides
Aldrtn
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma -BHC
Chlordane
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Isodnn
Kepone
Methoxyclor
Toxaphene
Phenoxvacet ic acid herbicides
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacet ic acid
Si Ivex
2,4,5-T
Orqanophosphorous insecticides
Disulfoton
Famphur
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Phorate
PCBs
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
CAS no.
309-00-2
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
57-74-9
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
60-57-1
939-98-8
23213-6-5
72-20-8
7421-93-4
76-44-8
1024-57-3
465-73-6
143-50-0
72-43-5
8001-35-2
94-75-7
93-72-1
93-76-5
298-04-4
52-85-7
298-00-0
56-38-2
298-02-2
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
Detection
status
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
150
-------
Table 5-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no
Constituent
CAS no.
Detection
status
PCBs (continued)
203
204.
205.
206.
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
NO
ND
ND
ND
207
208.
209
210
211
212
213
Dioxins and furans
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-diox ins
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofurdns
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin
1746-01-6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
aThe three xylene isomers were analyzed as total xylenes.
ND = Not detected
D = Detected
NA = Not analyzed
151
-------
Table 5-2 BOAT Constituents in K087 Waste
Const ituent
BOAT Volatile Oroanics
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes
BDAT Semivolat i le Orqamcs
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene3
Anthracene
Benz (a ) anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
Benzo(gh) )perylenea
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol3
para-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenola
Dibenzo( ah) anthracene3
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
BDAT Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 lum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thall lum
Vanadium
Zinc
BDAT Inorganics
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
Detected in
untreated waste
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reason for identification
Detected in
kiln ash
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Detected in
scrubber water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"These constituents were not detected in samples collected during the K087 test burn. Their presence
in the waste is evident in other characterization data available to the Agency (see Table 2-4).
152
-------
Table 5-3 Concentrations of Identified Constituents in the Untreated Waste and
Treatment Residuals from Rotary Kiln Incineration
Constituent
BOAT Volatile Orqamcs
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes
BOAT Semwolat 1 1e Orqamcs
Acenaphtha lene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi )pery'lene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenolb
Dibenzof ah) anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 , 2 , 3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
BOAT Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 lum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thai 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
Untreated waste
(mg/kg)
5.6-212
<2.0-<10
5.0-152
3.0-123
10,000-13,000
<894-
-------
Table 5-3 (Continued)
Concentration
Constituent
Untreated waste
Img/kg)
Kiln ash [TCLP leachate]
(mg/kg)
Scrubber water
(mg/1)
BOAT Inorganics Other Than Metals
Cyanide 17.9-22.8 <0.58-1.28 <0.013
Fluoride 0.18-0.38 <1.0C 2.38-3.54°
Sulfide 275-323 11-144C <1.0-11.9C
Concentrations for constituents in kiln ash, in the TCLP leachate of the kiln ash, and in the scrubber
water have been corrected for accuracy (see Appendix B) except for the values marked with superscript c.
These constituents were not detected in samples collected during the K087 test burn Their presence in
the waste is evident in other characterization data available to the Agency (see Table 2-4)
cL)nadjusted values.
- = Not analyzed
154
-------
1779g/p.21
Table 5-4 Characteristics of the BOAT Organic Compounds
in K087 Waste That May Affect Performance
in Rotary Kiln Incineration Systems
Constituent
Boiling point (°C)
Calculated bond energy
(kcal/mol)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes (o-,m-,and p-)
BDAT Semivolatile Orqanics
80.1
79.6
110.8
138.4 - 144 4
1320
1215
1235
1220
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene3
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo ( k ) f 1 uorant hene
Benzo(ghi)perylenea
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol3
para-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenola
Dibenzo( ah) anthracene3
F luoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 , 2 , 3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
280
279
340
435
169.5
-
480
-
311
488
191
202
211.5
524
250
293-295
536
217.9
340
182
393
2400
2540
2865
3650
4000
4000
4350
4000
3650
1405
1405
1390
4430
3190
2700
4350
2094
2880
1421
3210
3Sources: Verschueren 1983, Perry 1973, CRC 1986.
bCa leulations are based on information in Sanderson 1971.
155
-------
1779g/p.21
Table 5-5 Regulated Constituents for K087 Waste
BOAT Volatile Organics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
BOAT Semivolatile Orqanics
Acenaphthalene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
BOAT Metals
Lead
Zinc
156
-------
6. CALCULATION OF BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
This section details the calculation of treatment standards for the
regulated constituents selected in Section 5. EPA is setting treatment
standards for K087 waste based on performance data from (1) rotary kiln
incineration of K087 waste, (2) chemical precipitation and sludge
filtration of a metal-bearing wastewater sampled by EPA, and
(3) stabilization of F006 waste.
For treatment of BOAT list organics, all five data sets for
nonwastewaters and six data sets for wastewaters reflect treatment in a
well-designed, well-operated system and result from BOAT. Furthermore,
they are accompanied by sufficient QA/QC data. Thus, the data meet the
requirements for setting treatment standards.
For treatment of BOAT list metals in K087 waste, the 11 data sets for
wastewaters from chemical precipitation, using lime, and sludge
filtration reflect treatment in a well-designed, well-operated system and
result from BOAT. Sufficient QA/QC information is also available. Thus,
these data points meet the requirements for setting treatment standards.
Also, for treatment of BOAT list metals in K087 waste, the nine data
sets (see Table 4-1) for nonwastewaters from stabilization of F006 waste
60ing a cement kiln dust binder reflect treatment in a well-designed,
well-operated system, result from BOAT, and are accompanied by sufficient
QA/QC data. Thus, they meet the requirements for setting treatment
standards.
157
-------
As discussed in Section 1, the calculation of a treatment standard
for a constituent to be regulated involves (1) adjusting the data points
for accuracy, (2) determining the mean (arithmetic average) and
variability factor (see Appendix A) for the data points, and
(3) multiplying the mean and the variability factor together to determine
the treatment standard.
The procedure for adjusting the data points is discussed in detail in
Section 1.2.6(3). The data from each of the demonstrated technologies
are adjusted in Appendix B. The unadjusted and accuracy-corrected values
for the regulated constituents are presented again in Tables 6-1 through
6-4, along with the accuracy-correction factors, means of the
accuracy-corrected values, and treatment standards.
158
-------
1847g
Table 6-1 Calculation of Nonwastewater Treatment Standards for the
Regulated Constituents Treated by Rotary Kiln Incineration
Unadjusted concentration (mg/kg) Accuracy-corrected concentration (mg/kg)
Sample Set 1 Correction Sample Set #
Constituent
1
2
3
4
5
Variabi lity
factor 123 45 Mean
(mg/kg)
factor
Treatment
standard
(mg/kg)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
BOAT Semivolati le
Acenaphthalene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(l,2.3-cd)-
pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
<0.
0.
<0.
Orqanics
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
.025
.150
.025
.00
00
00
00
00
00
<0.025
0.085
<0.025
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.025
0.190
<0.025
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1/0
1
1
1/0
.98 <0.026 <0.026 <0 026 <0.026 <0.026
.00 0.150 0.085 <0.025 <0.025 0.190
.00 0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025
.822 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217
1/0.822 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217
1/0
1/0
1/0
1/0.
.822 <1.217 <1.217 <1 217 <1 217 <1.217
.822 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217
.822 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217
.822 <1.217 <1.217
-------
1847g
Table 6-2 Calculation of Wastewater Treatment Standards for the
Regulated Organic Constituents Treated by Rotary Kiln Incineration
Unadjusted concentration (mg/1)
Sample Set #
Constituent
1
2
3
4
5
6
Correc-
tion
factor
Accuracy-corrected
concentration (mg/1)
Sample Set
1
2
3
4
#
5
6
Mean
(mg/D
Variability Treatment
factor standard
(mg/1)
BOAT Volatile Organ ics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
BDAT Semi volatile
Acenaphthalene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
crl Indeno(l,2,3-cd)-
o
pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Orqanics
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.005
0.008
<0.005
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.005
0.008
<0.005
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
2.8
1.54
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.014
0.008
0.014
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
-------
1847g
Table 6-3 Calculation of Wastewater Treatment Standards for the
Regulated Metal Constituents Treated by Chemical Precipitation and Sludge Filtration
Concentration (mg/1)
Correction Sample Set #
Constituent factor 123456789 10
BOAT Metals
Lead
Unadjusted <0 01 <0.01 <0.010 <0. 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 '0 01 <0.01
Accuracy- 1/0.76 <0.013 <0 013 <0.013 <0.013 <0.013 <0 013 <0.013 <0 013 '0.013 <0 013
corrected
Zinc
Unadjusted 0.125 0.115 0.140 1.62 0.125 0.095 0.115 0.130 0 06 0 070
Accuracy- 1/0.98 0.128 0.117 0.143 1.653 0.128 0.097 0.117 0 133 0.061 0.071
corrected
Variability Treatment
11 Mean factor standard
(mg/1) (mg/1)
<0.01
<0.013 <0.013 2.8 0.037
0 100
0.102 0.250 4.13 1.0
-------
Table 6-4 Calculation of Nonwastewater Treatment Standards for the
Regulated Metal Constituents Treated by Stabilization
01
r\3
TCLP leachate concentration (mg/1)
Sample Set #
Constituent 1 23456789
BOAT Metals
Lead
Unadjusted - 0.36b 0.30a 0.21C 0.34b 0.36b 0.38b 0.37b 0.27b
Accuracy-corrected - 0.39 0.34 0.23 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.40 0.29
Zinc
Unadjusted 0.03a 0.01b 0.05a 0.01C 0.04b 0.03b 0.02b 0.02b <0.01b
Accuracy-corrected 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.04 0 03 0.02 0 02 ^0.01
Variability Treatment
Mean factor standard
(mg/1) (mg/1)
0.35 1.5 0.053
0.024 36 0.086
Data point from mix ratio of 0 2. Correction factors are 1/0 894 for lead and 1/0.878 for zinc
h
Data point from mix ratio of 0.5. Correction factors are 1/0 929 for lead and 1/1.014 for zinc
C0ata point from mix ratio of 0.1. Correction factors are 1/0.929 for lead and 1/1 014 for zinc
-------
REFERENCES
ASTM. 1986. American Society for Testing and Materials. Annual book of
ASTM standards. Philadelphia, Pa.: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
Ackerman, D.G., McGaughey, J.F., and Wagoner, D.E. 1983. At sea
incineration of PCB-containing wastes on board the M/T Vulcanus.
EPA 600/7-83-024. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Ajax Floor Products Corp. n.d. Product literature: technical data
sheets, Hazardous Waste Disposal System. P.O. Box 161, Great Meadows,
N.J. 07838.
Austin, G.T. 1984. Shreve's chemical process industries. 5th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Bishop, P.L., Ransom, S.B., and Grass, D.L. 1983. Fixation mechanisms
in solidification/stabilization of inorganic hazardous wastes. In
Proceedings of the 38th Industrial Waste Conference, 10-12 May 1983, at
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Bonner, T.A., et al. 1981. Engineering handbook for hazardous waste
incineration. SW-889. NTIS PB81-248163. Prepared by Monsanto Research
Corporation under Contract no. 68-03-3025 for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Castaldini, C., et al. 1986. Disposal of hazardous wastes in industrial
boilers and furnaces. New Jersey: Noyes Publications.
Cherry, Kenneth F. 1982. Plating waste treatment. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
Ann Arbor Science, Inc. pp. 45-67.
Conner, J.R. 1986. Fixation and solidification of wastes. Chemical
Engineering. Nov. 10, 1986.
CRC. 1986. CRC handbook of chemistry and physics. 6th ed. R.C. Weast,
ed. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press, Inc.
Cull inane, M.J., Jr., Jones, L.W., and Malone, P.G. 1986. Handbook for
stabilization/solidification of hazardous waste. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. EPA report no. 540/2-86/001. Cincinnati,
Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cushnie, George C., Jr. 1985.' Electroplating wastewater pollution
control technology. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Publications, pp. 48-62,
84-90.
163
-------
Cushnie, George C., Jr. 1984. Removal of metals from wastewater
neutralization and precipitation. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Publications.
pp. 55-97.
Electric Power Research Institute. 1980. FGD sludge disposal manual,
2nd ed. Prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. EPRI CS-1515 Project 1685-1
Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute.
Environ. 1985. Characterization of waste streams listed in 40 CFR
Section 261 waste profiles. Vol. 2. Prepared for Waste Identification
Branch, Characterization and Assessment Division. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Gurnham, C.F. 1955. Principles of industrial waste treatment. New
York: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 224-234.
Kirk-Othmer. 1980. Flocculation. Vol. 10, in Encyclopedia of chemical
technology, 3rd ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 489-516.
Mishuck, E. Taylor, D.R., Telles, R. and Lubowitz, H. 1984.
Encapsulation/Fixation (E/F) mechanisms. Report No. DRXTH-TE-CR-84298.
Prepared by S-Cubed under Contract No. DAAK11-81-C-0164. AD-A146177.
Mitre Corp. 1983. Guidance manual for hazardous waste incinerator
permits NTIS PB84-100577.
Novak, R.G., Troxler, W.L., and Dehnke, T.H. 1984. Recovering energy
from hazardous waste incineration. Chemical engineering progress 91:146.
Oppelt, E.T. 1987. Incineration of hazardous waste. JAPCA 37(5).
Perch, M. 1979. Coal conversion processes (carbonization), in Kirk-
Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed. Vol. 6. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Perry, R.H., ed. 1973. Chemical engineer's handbook. 5th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Pojasek RB. 1979. Solid-waste disposal: solidification. Chemical
Engineering 86(17): 141-145.
Sanderson. 1971. Chemical bonds and bond energy. Vol. 21 in Physical
chemistry. New York: Academic Press.
Santoleri, J.J. 1983. Energy recovery a by-product of hazardous waste
incineration systems. In Proceedings of the 15th Mid-Atlantic Industrial
Waste Conference on Toxic and Hazardous Waste.
164
-------
USDOE. 1988. U.S. Department of Energy. Computer printout: EIA3
(Energy Information Administration) mailing list, EIA5-coke plant survey
respondents. Retrieved Jan. 14, 1988. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Energy.
USEPA. 1980a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. RCRA listing background document for K087. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1980b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. Guide to the disposal of chemically
stabilized and solidified waste. Prepared for MERL/ORD under Interagency
Agreement No. EPA-IAG-D4-0569. P881-181505. Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1983. Treatability manual. Vol. Ill (Technology for
control/removal of pollutants). EPA-600/2-82-001c. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1986. Best demonstrated available technology (BOAT) background
document for F001-F005 spent solvents. Vol. 1. EPA/530-SW-86-056.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1986a. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Test
methods: for evaluating solid waste. SW-846, 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1986b. Hazardous waste management systems; land disposal
restrictions; final rule: Appendix I to Part 268 - Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). 51 FR 40643-54,
November 7, 1986.
USEPA. 1986c. Office of Solid Waste. Onsite engineering report of
treatment technology and performance and operation for Envirite
Corporation, York, Pennsylvania. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1987a. Office of Solid Waste. Generic quality assurance project
plan for land disposal restrictions program ("BOAT"). EPA/530-SW-87-011.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1987b. Office of Solid Waste. Burning of hazardous waste in
boilers and industrial furnaces; proposed rule. 52 FR 17012. May 6, 1987,
165
-------
USEPA. 1988a. Onsite engineering report of treatment technology
performance and operation for K087 waste at the Combustion Research
Facility, Jefferson, Arkansas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1988b. Onsite engineering report of treatment technology and
performance for K061 waste at Horsehead Resource Development Co., Inc.
Palmerton, Pennsylvania. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Versar Inc. 1984. Estimating PMN incineration results. Contract
no. 68-01-6276, draft report for Office of Toxic Substances. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Verschueren, Karel. 1983. Handbook of environmental data on organic
chemicals. 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc.
Vogel, G. et al. 1983. Incineration and cement kiln capacity for
hazardous waste treatment. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Research
Symposium on Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous Wastes, April 1986,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
166
-------
APPENDIX A
A.I F Value Determination for ANOVA Test
As noted earlier in Section 1.0, EPA is using the statistical method
known as analysis of variance in the determination of the level of
performance that represents "best" treatment where more than one
technology is demonstrated. This method provides a measure of the
differences between data sets. If the differences are not statistically
significant, the data sets are said to be homogeneous.
If the Agency found that the levels of performance for one or more
technologies are not statistically different (i.e., the data sets are
homogeneous), EPA would average the long term performance values achieved
by each technology and then multiply this value by the largest
variability factor associated with any of the acceptable technologies.
If EPA found that one technology performs significantly better (i.e., the
data sets are not homogeneous), BOAT would be the level of performance
achieved by the best technology multiplied by its variability factor.
To determine whether any or all of the treatment performance data
sets are homogeneous using the analysis of variance method, it is
necessary to compare a calculated "F value" to what is known as a
"critical value." (See Table A-l.) These critical values are available
in most statistics texts (see, for example, Statistical Concepts and
Methods by Bhattacharyya and Johnson, 1977, John Wiley Publications, New
York).
A-l
-------
Where the F value is less than the critical value, all treatment data
sets are homogeneous. If the F value exceeds the critical value, it is
necessary to perform a "pair wise F" test to determine if any of the sets
are homogeneous. The "pair wise F" test must be done for all of the
various combinations of data sets using the same method and equation as
the general F test.
The F value is calculated as follows:
(i) All data are natural logtransformed.
(ii) The sum of the data points for each data set is computed (T.).
(iii) The statistical parameter known as the sum of the squares
between data sets (SSB) is computed:
SSB =
where:
k = number of treatment technologies
PI = number of data points for technology i
N = number of data points for all technologies
T.J = sum of natural logtransformed data points for each technology.
k
x
1-1
1 1
'V'
"T
" k 1
[ i?1 ^
N
i. -
(iv) The sum of the squares within data sets (SSW) is computed:
k n^
' *Z1J 'I
n^
SSW =
where:
i i
V
^ J = the natural logtransformed observations (j) for treatment
' technology (i).
A-2
-------
(v) The degrees of freedom corresponding to SSB and SSW are
calculated. For SSB, the degree of freedom is given by k-1. For SSW,
the degree of freedom is given by N-k.
(vi) Using the above parameters, the F value is calculated as
follows:
MSB
F = MSW
where:
MSB = SSB/(k-l) and
MSW = SSW/(N-k).
A computational table summarizing the above parameters is shown below.
Computational Table for the F Value
Source
Between
Within
Degrees of
freedom
k-1
N-k
Sum of
squares
SSB
SSW
Mean square
MSB = SSB/k-1
MSW = SSW/N-k
F
MSB/MSW
Below are three examples of the ANOVA calculation. The first two
represent treatment by different technologies that achieve statistically
similar treatment; the last example represents a case where one
technology achieves significantly better treatment than the other
technology.
A-3
-------
1790g
Example 1
Methylene Chloride
Steam stnoDina
Influent
Ug/D
1550.00
1290.00
1640.00
5100.00
1450.00
4600 00
1760.00
2400 00
4800.00
12100 00
Effluent
Ug/D
10.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
10.00
10.00
10 00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Bioloqical treatment
In(effluent) [ln(eff luent)]2 Influent Effluent In(effluent)
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.48
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
Ug/D Ug/D
5.29 1960.00 10.00 2.30
5.29 2568.00 10.00 2.30
5.29 1817.00 10.00 2.30
6.15 1640.00 26 00 3.26
5.29 3907.00 10.00 2.30
5.29
5 29
5.29
5 29
5 29
[In(effluent)]
5.29
5.29
5.29
10.63
5.29
Sum:
23.18
53.76
12.46
31.79
Sample Size:
10 10
Mean:
3669
10.2
Standard Deviation-
3328.67 .63
Variability Factor:
10
2.32
.06
2378
923.04
1.15
13.2
7.15
2.48
2.49
.43
ANOVA Calculations:
SSB =
SSW =
k C T,2 1
2 1 J_
1 = 1 Hi
1 J .
f f k 12 1
Z T,
i=l '
1 L N J J
' k r\i 2 1 k f T,2 1
. iil j=l X li;i J 'i = l I nT J
MSB = SSB/(k-l)
MSW = SSW/(N-k)
A-4
-------
1790g
Example 1 (continued)
F = MS6/MSW
where
k = number of treatment technologies
n = number of data points for technology i
i
N = number of natural log transformed data points for all technologies
T = sum of log transformed data points for each technology
i
X - the nat log transformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
'J
n = 10, no = 5. N = 15. k = 2, T = 23.18. T = 12 46. T = 35.64, T = 1270.21
SSB =
= 155 25
537.31 155 25
10
1270 21
15
= 0.10
SSW = (53 76 + 31.79) -
537.31 155.25
10
= 0 77
MSB = 0.10/1 - 0 10
MSW = 0 77/13 = 0.06
0.10
= 1 67
0.06
ANOVA Table
Source
Degrees of
f reedom
SS
MS
Between(B)
Within(W)
1
13
0.10
0.77
0.10
0.06
1.67
The critical value of the F test at the 0.05 significance level is 4 67 Since
the F value is less than the critical value, the means are not significantly
different (i e., they are homogeneous).
Note All calculations were rounded to two decimal places. Results may differ
depending upon the number of decimal places used in each step of the calculations
A-5
-------
1790g
Example 2
Tnchloroethylene
^team stripping
Influent
Ug/D
1650.00
5200.00
5000.00
1720.00
1560.00
10300.00
210.00
1600.00
204 00
160.00
Effluent
Ug/1)
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10 00
10.00
27.00
85.00
10.00
ln(eff luent)
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2 30
3.30
4.44
2 30
[In(effluent)]2
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
10 89
19 71
5.29
Influent
Ug/D
200.00
224.00
134.00
150.00
484.00
163.00
182.00
Biological treatment
Effluent
(M9/D
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
16.25
10.00
10.00
In(effluent)
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.79
2.30
2.30
[In(effluent)]
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
7 78
5.29
5.29
Sum.
26.14
72.92
16.59
39 52
Sample Size:
10 10
10
Mean:
2760
19.2
2.61
220
10.89
2.37
Standard Deviation:
3209.6 23.7
Variabi1ity Factor-
3.70
.71
120.5
2.36
1.53
.19
ANOVA Calculations:
SSB =
T,2
k n,
1 = 1 Jl
ssw =
MSB = SSB/(k-l)
MSW = SSW/(N-k)
,1,"
fT
k
"i-l In?
A-6
-------
1790g
Example 2 (continued)
F = MSB/MSW
where
k = number of treatment technologies
n = number of data points for technology i
N = number of data points for all technologies
T = sum of natural log transformed data points for. each technology
X = the natural log transformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
N * 10, N = 7, N = 17, k = 2, T = 26 14, T, = 16.59, T = 42 73,
"= 1625 85, T = 683.30,
T -- 275.23
2
SSB =
663 30 275.23
10 7
1825 85
-
17
SSW = (72 92 + 39 52) -
MSB = 0.25/1 = 0.25
MSW = 4 79/15 = 0.32
F = °'25 = 0.78
0.32
663.30 275.23
10
* 0 25
= 4 79
ANOVA Table
Degrees of
Source freedom
Between(B) 1
Within(W) 15
SS MS F
0.25 0.25 0.78
4.79 0.32
The critical value of the F test at the 0.05 significance level is 4.54 Since
the F value is less than the critical value, the means are not significantly
different (i e., they are homogeneous).
Note: All calculations were rounded to two decimal places. Results may differ
depending upon the number of decimal places used in each step of the calculations.
A-7
-------
1790g
Example 3
Chlorobenzene
Activated sludqe followed by carbon adsorption
Influent Effluent In(effluent) [ln(eff luent )] 2
(M9/D (M9/1)
7200.00 80.00 4.38 19.18
6500.00 70.00 4.25 18.06
6075.00 35.00 3.56 12.67
3040.00 10.00 2.30 5.29
Sum:
14 49 55 20
Sample Size:
444
Mean-
5703 49 3.62
Biological
Influent
Ug/D
9206.00
16646.00
49775.00
14731.00
3159.00
6756.00
3040 00
-
7
14759
treatment
Effluent
Ug/D
1083.00
709.50
460.00
142.00
603.00
153.00
17.00
-
7
452.5
ln(eff luent)
6.99
6.56
6.13
4.96
6 40
5.03
2.83
38.90
7
5.56
ln[{effluent)]
48.86
43.03
37.58
24.60
40 96
25 30
8.01
226 34
~
-
Standard Deviation:
1835.4 32.24
Variability Factor:
7.00
.95
16311.86
379.04
15.79
1.42
ANOVA Calculations-
SSB =
SSW =
i = l n,
1=1 0=1
MSB = SSB/(k-l)
MSW = SSW/(N-k)
F = MSB/MSW
i = l
A-8
-------
1790g
where.
Example 3 (continued)
k = number ot treatment technologies
n - number of aata points for technology >
i
N = number of data points for all technologies
T = sum of natural log transformed data points for each technology
i
X = the natural log transformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
1.1
N = 4, N = 7, N = 11, k = 2. T = 14 49, T = 38.90, T = 53.39, T2= 2850.49, T = 209.96
T = 1513 21
2
SSB =
SSW =
209.96 1513 21 ]
4 7
(55 20 - 228 34) -
2850 49
-
H
209 96 + 1513.21
4 7
= 9 52
= 14 88
MSB = 9.52/1 - 9 52
MSW = 14 88/9 = 1 65
F = 9 52/1 65 - 5.77
ANOVA Table
Degrees of
Source freedom
Between! B) 1
Within(W) 9
SS MS F
9.53 9.53 5.77
14.89 1 65
The critical value of the F test at the 0.05 significance level is 5.12 Since
the F value is larger than the critical value, the means are significantly
different (i e , they are heterogeneous).
Note All calculations were rounded to two decimal places. Results may differ depending
upon the number of decimal places used in each step of the calculations
A-9
-------
A.2. Variability Factor
C
99
VF = Mean
where:
VF = estimate of daily maximum variability factor determined from
a sample population of daily data.
Cgg = Estimate of performance values for which 99 percent of the
daily observations will be below. Cgg is calculated using
the following equation: Cgg = Exp(y + 2.33 Sy) where y and
Sy are the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of the
logtransformed data.
Mean = average of the individual performance values.
EPA is establishing this figure as an instantaneous maximum because
the Agency believes that on a day-to-day basis the waste should meet the
applicable treatment standards. In addition, establishing this
requirement makes it easier to check compliance on a single day. The
99th percentile is appropriate because it accounts for almost all process
variability.
In several cases, all the results from analysis of the residuals from
BOAT treatment are found at concentrations less than the detection
limit. In such cases, all the actual concentration values are considered
unknown and hence, cannot be used to estimate the variability factor of
the analytical results. Below is a description of EPA's approach for
calculating the variability factor for such cases with all concentrations
below the detection limit.
It has been postulated as a general rule that a lognormal
distribution adequately describes the variation among concentrations.
Agency data shows that the treatment residual concentrations are
A-10
-------
distributed approximately lognormally. Therefore, the lognormal model
has been used routinely in the EPA development of numerous regulations in
the Effluent Guidelines program and is being used in the BOAT program.
The variability factor (VF) was defined as the ratio of the 99th
percentile (C ) of the lognormal distribution to its arithmetic mean
(Mean).
VF = C99 ^
Mean
The relationship between the parameters of the lognormal distribution
and the parameters of the normal distribution created by taking the
natural logarithms of the lognormally-distributed concentrations can be
found in most mathematical statistics texts (see for example:
Distribution in Statistics-Volume 1 by Johnson and Kotz, 1970). The mean
of the lognormal distribution can be expressed in terms of the
mean (^) and standard deviation (a) of the normal distribution as
follows:
Cg9 = Exp (n + 2.33a) (2)
Mean = Exp (M + 0.5a2) (3)
Substituting (2) and (3) in (1) the variability factor can then be
expressed in terms of a as follows:
VF = Exp (2.33 a - 0.5a2) (4)
For residuals with concentrations that are not all below the
detection limit, the 99 percentile and the mean can be estimated from
the actual analytical data and accordingly, the variability factor (VF)
can be estimated using equation (1). For residuals with concentrations
A-ll
-------
that are below the detection limit, the above equations can be used in
conjunction with the assumptions below to develop a variability factor.
Step 1: The actual concentrations follow a lognormal distribution. The
upper limit (UL) is equal to the detection limit. The lower limit (LL)
is assumed to be equal to one tenth of the detection limit. This
assumption is based on the fact that data from well-designed and
well-operated treatment systems generally falls within one order of
magnitude.
Step 2: The natural logarithms of the concentrations have a normal
distribution with an upper limit equal to In (UL) and a lower limit equal
to In (LL).
Step 3: The standard deviation (a) of the normal distribution is
approximated by
a = [(In (UL) - In (LL)] / [(2)(2.33)J = [ln(UL/LLJ] / 4.66
when LL = (0.1)(UL) then a = (InlO) / 4.66 = 0.494
Step 4: Substitution of the value from Step 3 in equation (4) yields the
variability factor, VF.
VF = 2.8
A-12
-------
APPENDIX B ANALYTICAL QA/QC
This appendix presents QA/QC information for the available
performance data presented in Section 3.3 and identifies the methods and
procedures used for analyzing the constituents to be regulated. The
QA/QC information includes matrix spike recovery data that are used for
adjusting the analytical results for accuracy. The adjusted analytical
results (referred to as accuracy-corrected concentrations), in general,
are used for comparing performance of one technology to another and for
calculating treatment standards for those constituents to be regulated.
B.1 Accuracy-Correct ion
The accuracy-corrected concentration for a constituent in a matrix is
the analytical result multiplied by the correction factor (the reciprocol
of the recovery fraction;* i.e., the correction factor is 100 divided by
the percent recovery). For example, if Compound A is measured at
2.55 mg/1 and the percent recovery is 85 percent, the accuracy-corrected
concentration is 3.00 mg/1:
2.55 mg/1 x 1/0.85 = 3.00 mg/1
(analytical result) (correction factor) (accuracy-corrected
concentration)
The appropriate recovery values are selected according to the procedures
specified in Section 1.2.6(3).
The recovery fraction is the ratio of (1) measured amount of
constituent in a spiked aliquot minus the measured amount of constituent
in the original unspiked aliquot to (2) the known amount of constituent
added to spike the original aliquot (refer to the Generic Quality
Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restriction Program ("BOAT")).
B-l
-------
B.I.I Nonwastewaters
Table B-l presents matrix spike recovery data for the kiln ash
residuals from rotary kiln incineration of K087 waste. Table B-2
presents the selected correction factors and the accuracy-corrected
concentrations for the constituents listed in Table 3-2.
Table B-3 shows matrix spike recovery data for the scrubber water
residuals from rotary kiln incineration of K087 waste. Table B-4
presents the selected correction factors and the accuracy-correction
concentrations for the constituents listed in Table 3-6.
B.I.2 BOAT List Metals
Table B-5 presents the selected correction factors and
accuracy-corrected concentrations for the data from chemical
precipitation and sludge filtration of BOAT list metals in wastewater
(see Table 3-4). Matrix spike recovery data did not accompany these
performance data. The correction factors are instead derived from matrix
spike recovery data on metals in a similar wastewater matrix (see
Table B-6).
Table B-7 presents matrix spike recovery data for metals in the TCLP
extracts from stabilization of F006 waste. Table B-8 presents the
selected correction factors and the accuracy-corrected concentrations for
the metals listed in Table 3-5.
B.2 Methods and Procedures Employed to Generate the Data Used in
Calculating Treatment Standards
Table B-9 lists the methods used for analyzing the constituents to be
regulated in K087 waste. Most of these methods are specified in SW-846
B-2
-------
(USEPA 1986a). For some analyses, SW-846 methods allow alternatives or
equivalent procedures and/or equipment to be used. Tables B-10 and B-ll
indicate the alternatives or equivalents employed in generating the data
for the K087 treatment standards. The EPA Characterization and
Assessment Division approved other alternatives to the SW-846 methods.
These are indicated in Table B-12. Deviations are shown in Table B-13.
The Agency plans to use these methods and procedures to enforce the
treatment standards for K087 waste.
B-3
-------
Table B-l Matrix Spike Recovery Data for Kiln Ash Residuals
from Rotary Kiln Incineration of K.087 Waste
Sample
Constituent percent recovery
Volatile Orqanics
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Benzene
(Average of volatiles)
Sennvolat i le Orqanics (acid extractable)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
4 -Chloro- 3 -methyl phenol
4-Nitrophenol
(Average of acid extractables)
Semivolatile Orqanics (base/neutral extractable)
1 ,2, 4- Tri chlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dimtrotoluene
Pyrene
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
(Average of base/neutral extractables)
Metals (total concentration analysis)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thai 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
114
114
106
106
100
(108)
7a
77
78
92
37
(71)a
84
93
121
34
82
79
(82.17)
23
44
78
78
76
76
73
104
120
78
92
72
48
80
78
Duplicate
percent recovery
114
114
106
104
98
(107.2)
na
80
83
87
35
(71.25)a
89
91
109
39
84
89
(83.5)
22
48
76
78
88
83
77
82
100
98
92
72
76
80
80
B-4
-------
Table B-l (Continued)
Sample Duplicate
Constituent percent recovery percent recovery
Metals (TCLP leachate concentration analysis)
Antimony 44 42
Arsenic 98 104
Barium 67 85
Beryllium 78 90
Cadmium 96 96
Chromium 75 83
Copper 68 85
Lead 76 97
Mercury 100 96
Nickel 68 80
Selenium 96 100
Silver 88 84
Thallium 76 54
Vanadium 75 66
Zinc 71 86
Inorganics Other Than Metals
Cyanide 96 58
aSpike recovery values of 20 percent or less are not used in the development of
treatment standards. Thus, the averages of the acid extractable compounds do not
reflect the recoveries of pentachlorophenol
Source. USEPA 1988a.
B-5
-------
Table B-2 Accuracy-Corrected Analytical Results for Kiln Ash Generated by
Rotary Kiln Incineration of K087 Waste
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volati 1e Oraanics (mg/kg)
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes
BOAT Semivolat t le Organics (ma/ka)
Acenaphthalene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
para-Cresol
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
I ndeno ( 1 , 2 , 3 -cd ) py rene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
BOAT Metals (ma/ka)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thai 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
Correction
factor
1/0.98
1/1.00
1/1 00
1/1 00
1/0 82
1/0 82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0 82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.69
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.77
1/0.82
1/0.34
1/0.22
1/0.44
1/0.76
1/0.78
1/0.76
1/0.76
1/0 73
1/0.72
1/1.00
1/0 78
1/0.92
1/0.72
1/0.48
1/0.80
1/0.78
1
<0.026
<0.025
0 150
<0.025
<1 2
<1.2
<1.2
ND
<1.2
<1.2
<1.2
<1.2
<1.4
<1.2
<1.2
<1.2
<1 2
<1.3
<1.2
<2.9
<14.6
22
417
0.77
<0.53
45
1023
54
<0.10
12
1.5
<0.83
<2.1
21
64
Accuracy-corrected concentration
Sample Set #
2345
<0.026 <0.026 <0.026 <0.026
<0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025
0.085 <0.025 <0.025 0 190
<0 025 <0.025 <0 025 <0.025
<1 2 <1.2 <1 2 <1.2
<1.2 <1 2 <1 2 <1 2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1 2
ND ND ND ND
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1 2 <1 2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1 2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1 2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.3 <1.3 <1.3 <1.3
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<2.9 <2.9 <2.9 <2.9
<9.1 <9.1 <9.1 <14.6
25 15 27 12
74 70 54 83
<0.6 <0.6 <0.6 0.46
<1.3 <1.3 <1.3 <0.53
6.8 2.9 2.8 10
60 59 68 129
10 10.1 7.2 8.8
2.8 2.9 3.3 <0.1
<5 1 <5.1 <5.1 5 8
1.7 <0.54 6.4 <0 54
<6.9 <6.9 <6.9 <8.3
<2.1 <2.1 <2 1 <2.1
12 8.2 10.1 12
17 17 15 27
B-6
-------
Table B-2 (Continued)
Accuracy-corrected concentration
Correct ion
Constituent/parameter (units) factor
BOAT TCLP. Metals (mq/1)
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 lum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
S i Iver
Thai 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
BOAT Inorganics Other Than Metals (mg/kg)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
Other Volatile Orqanics (mq/kq)
Styrene
Other Semivolatile Orqanics (mq/kq)
Dibenzofuran
2-Methylnaphthalene
Other Parameters (mg/kg)
Total organic carbon
Total chlorides
Total organic halides
1/0 42
1/0.98
1/0.67
1/0.78
1/0.96
1/0 75
1/0 68
1/0 76
1/0 96
1/0 68
1/0 96
1/0 b4
1/0 54
1/0 75
1/0 71
1/0.58
_b
-
1/1.00
1/0.82
1/0.82
_b
_b
_b
Sample Set #
1
1.019a
0.'098
0.909
0.004
'0.004
0.082
< 0.009
0.038
<0 0002
0 136
<0 052
<0 007
<0 018
<0 040
0.238
1.28
<1.0
35 5
<0.025
<1 2
<1.2
350000
9 7
375
2
<0.047
0.034
0.513
<0 006
<0.010
<0.027
0.076
0 053
<0 0003
<0 058
<0.007
-0 060
<0 016
<0.066
0.285
<0.58
-
36 3
<0.025
<1.2
<1.2
553000
6 8
18 3
3
<0.047
0.025
0.816
<0.006
<0.010
<0.027
1.632
0.070
<0.0003
<0 059
<0 005
<0 060
<0 018
<0.067
0.307
<0.58
-
144
<0.025
<1.2
<1.2
402000
14 1
32 1
4
<0
0.
0.
<0
<0.
<0
0
0
'0
<0.
<0
<0
<0
<0.
0.
<0.
-
116
<0.
-------
Table B-3 Matrix Spike Recovery Data for Scrubber Water Residuals
from Rotary Kiln Incineration of IC087 Waste
Sample
Constituent percent recovery
Volat i le Orqanics
1,1-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Benzene
(average of volatiles)
Semivolatile Orqanics (acid extractable)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
4 -Chloro- 3 -methyl phenol
4-Nitrophenol
(average of acid extractables)
Semivolatile Orqanics (base/neutral extractable)
1 ,2,4-Tnchlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dimtrotoluene
Pyrene
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
(average of base/neutral extractables)
Metals (total concentration)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl lium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thai 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
Inorganics
110
114
112
124
106
(113.2)
107
96
106
107
117
(106.6)
77
104
125
143
104
78
(105.2)
110
83
94
87
94
91
94
84
58
84
108
76
20
96
88
Duplicate
percent recovery
106
112
106
124
108
(111.2)
85
93
108
103
118
(101.4)
85
94
124
136
98
87
(104)
117
64
88
87
92
94
98
87
58
89
SO
80
18
98
91
Cyanide 88 78
B-8
-------
Table 6-4 Accuracy-Corrected Analytical Results for Scrubber Water
Generated by Rotary Kiln Incineration of K087 Waste
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (^9/1)
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes
BOAT Semivolatile Orqanics (wq/l)
Acenaphthalene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
para-Cresol
F luoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
BOAT Metals (mg/1)
Antimony
Arsenic
Ba r i urn
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thai 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
Correction
Factor
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1 00
1/1 00
1/1 00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1 00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/0.93
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/0.64
1/0.88
1/0.8
1/0.9
1/0.91
1/0.94
1/0.84
1/0.58
1/0.84
1/0.90
1/0.76
_b
1/0.96
1/0.88
1
<5
14
<5
<5
<10
<10
ND
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<11
<10
<0.032
0.330
0.074
<0.001
0.028
0.336
1.117
6.679
0.0004
<0.013
0 090
<0.008
126
0.016
2.557
Concentration
a
Sample
23456
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10
8 <5 <5 <5 <5
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5
-------
Table B-4 (Continued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
Correction
Factor
Concentrat ion
a
Sample
BOAT Inorganics Other Than Metals (mg/1)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
Other Volati 1e Orqanics Ug/1)
Styrene
Other Semivolati1e Orqanics
1/0.78
_c
1/1.00
<0.013
-------
1847g
Table B-5 Accuracy-Corrected Data for Treated Wastewater Residuals
from Chemical Precipitation and Sludge Filtration
DO
I
Untreated
concentration range Correction
Constituent (mg/1) factor
Antimony <10
Arsenic <\
Barium <10
Beryllium <2
Cadmium <5-13
Hexavalent chromium 0.08-893
Chromium 137-2581
Copper 72-225
Lead <10-212
Mercury
-------
1847g
Table B-6 Matrix Spike Recovery Data for Metals in Wastewater
ro
!
TV)
Sample
Constituent
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryll ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thai 1 ium
Vanadium
Zinc
Original sample
Ug/D
<21
<10
1,420
1.4
4.2
<4.0
<4.0
<5 0
<0 2
203
<25
<4.0
<10
<60
2,640
Spike added
Ug/D
300
50
5,000
25
25
50
125
25
1.0
1,000
25
50
50
250
10,000
Spike result
Ug/D
275
70
5.980
25
26
35
107
22
0.9
1,140
12
42
51
212
12,600
Percent
recovery3
92
140
91
94
87
70
86
88
90
94
48
84
102
85
100
Duplicate
Spike result
Ug/D
276
66
5,940
24
27
34
104
19
1.1
1,128
<25
38
48
211
12.400
Percent
recovery3
92
132
90
90
91
68
83
76
110
93
NC
76
96
84
98
Source: USEPA 1988b
NC = Not calculable.
aPercent recovery = [(spike result - original amount)/spike added] x 100.
-------
Table B-7 Matrix Spike Recovery Data for the TCLP Extracts from Stabilization of F006 Waste
Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver0
Zinc
Original
amount
found
(ppm)
0.101s
0.01b
0.3737s
0.2765b
0.0075s
2.9034b
0.3494s
0.2213b
0.2247s
0.1526b
0.3226s
0.2142b
0.001a
0.001b
0.028s
0.4742b
0.101s
0.043b
0.0437s
0.0344b
0.0133s
27.202b
Duplicate
(ppm)
0.01
0.01
0.3326
0.222
0.0069
0.7555
0 4226
0.2653
0.2211
0.1462
0.3091
0.2287
0.001
0.001
0.0264
0.0859
0 12
0 053
0.0399
0.0411
0,0238
3.65
% Error
0.0
0.0
5.82
10.9
4.17
58.7
9.48
9 0
0.81
2.14
2 14
3.27
0.0
0.0
6.87
69.3
8.6
10.4
4.55
8.87
28.3
76.3
Actual
Spike
0.086
0.068
4.9474
5.1462
4.9010
6.5448
4 6780
4.5709
4.8494
4.9981
4.9619
4.6930
0 0034
0.0045
4.5400
4.6093
0.175
0.095
4.2837
0.081
5.0910
19.818
% Recovery
94.5
104
91.9
97 9
97.9
94.3
85.6
86 6
92.5
97.0
92.9
89.4
92
110
90.3
86.6
86
66d
84.8
0.87d
101.4
87.8
Accuracy
correction
factor
1.06
0.96
1.09
1 02
1 02
1.06
1 17
1 15
1 08
1 03
1 08
1.12
1.09
0.91
1.11
1 15
1.16
0.96
1.18
114 9
0.99
1.14
at a mix ratio of 0.5.
at a mix ratio of 0.2
cfor a mix ratio of 0.2, correction factors of 1.16 and 1.18 were used when correcting for selenium and silver
concentrations, respectively.
This value is not considered in the calculation for the accuracy-correction factor
Source: Memo to R. Turner, U.S. EPA/H W.E.R.L. from Jesse R Conner, Chemical Waste Management dated January 20, 1988
B-13
-------
1847g
Table B-8 Accuracy-Corrected F006 TCLP Data Showing Substantial Treatment
Manufacturing Mix
Source ratio
Unknown
untreated
treated 0.2
Auto part manufacturing
untreated
treated 0.5
Aircraft overhauling
untreated
treated 0 2
Zinc plating
untreated
treated 1.0
Unknown
untreated
treated 0.5
Small engine manufacturing
untreated
treated 0.5
Circu.it board manufacturing
untreated
treated 0.5
Unknown
untreated
treated 0.5
Unknown
untreated
treated 0.5
TCLP leachate concentrations
Barium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead
-
2 21 0.76 368 10.7
0 01 0 46 0 27 0.39
1 41 1 13 0.43 2.26
0 34 0 06 0 09 - 0.34
0 C2 4 62 0 45
<0 01 - 0.16 0.23
0.38 23.6 25.3 1.14 0.45
0.25 0 01 0.35 0.29 0.37
0 03 38.7 31.7 3.37
0.01 0.44 0.31 0.39
0.06 360 8.69 1.0
0.01 1.4 0.45 0.41
0 53 0.18 483 4.22
0.29 0 01 - 0 35 0.40
0.28 16.9 50.2
0.09 - - 0.50 0.29
(mq/1)
Nickel
0.71
0.04
22.7
0.03
1.1
0.23
0 52
0 02
9.78
0.03
730
0.04
152
0 11
644
0 04
16 1
0.02
Silver Zinc
0.16
0.03
0.14 219
0 06 0 01
0 20 5 41
0 24 0 05
0 16 2G30
0 04 0 01
0.08 667
0.05 0 04
0 12 1200
0.07 0 03
0 05 0.62
0 06 0 02
0.31 650
0 06 0.02
1 29
<0.01
Note- Only treated values are corrected for accuracy.
Source. Table 3-5.
B-14
-------
1647g
Table 6-9 Analytical Metnods for Regulated Constituents
Analysis/methoas Method Reference
Volati 1e Organic?
Purge-and-trap 5030 1
Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for
volatile organics 8240 1
Semivolatile Orqanics
Continuous 1iquid-1iquid extract ion (treated waste) 3520 1
Soxhlet extraction (untreated waste) 3540 1
Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for semi-
volatile organics- Capillary Column Technique 8270 1
Hetals
Acid digestion
Aqueous samples and extracts to be analyzed by 3010 1
inductively coupled plasma atomic emission
spectroscopy (ICP)
Aqueous samples and standards to be analyzed by 3020 1
furnace atomic absorption (AA) spectroscopy
Sediments, sludges, and soils 3050 1
Lead (AA, furnace technique) 7421 1
Zinc (ICP) 6010 1
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) 51 FR 40643 2
References:
1. USEPA 1966a.
2. USEPA 1986b.
B-15
-------
i/ /dy/p.
Table B-10 Specific Procedures or Equipment Used in Extraction of Organic Compounds When
Alternatives or Equivalents Are Allowed in the SW-846 Methods
Analysis
SW-846 method
Sample aliquot
Alternatives or equivalents allowed
by SW-846 methods
Specific procedures or
equipment used
Purge-and-trap
5030
5 mi Hi liters of liquid;
1 gram of solid
The purge-and-trap device to be
used is specified in Figure 1 of
the method. The desorber to be
used is described in Figures 2 and 3,
and the packing materials are
described in Section 4 10.2 The
method allows equivalents of this
equipment or materials to be used
The purge-and-trap equipment and
the desorber used were as specified
in SW-846. The purge-and-trap
equipment is a Teckmar LSC-2 with
standard purging chambers (Supelco
cat. 2-0293). The packing mater la Is
for the traps were 1/3 silica gel
and 2/3 2.6-diphenylene.
The method specifies that the
trap must be at least ?5 cm long
and have an inside diameter of at
least 0.105 cm
The length of the trap was 30 cm
and the diameter was 0.105 cm.
The surrogates recommended are
toluene-d8,4-bromof luorobenzene.
and 1 ,2-dichloroethane-d4 The
recommended concentration level is
50 /ig/1
The surrogates were added as
specified in SW-846.
Soxhlet Extraction
3540
1 gram of sol id
The recommended surrogates
and their concentrations are
the same as for Method 3520
The surrogates used and their
concentration levels are the same
as for Method 3520.
Sample grinding may be required
for sample not passing through a
1-mm standard sieve or a 1-mm
opening
Sample grinding was not required
-------
Table B-10 (Continued)
Analysis
SW-846 method
Sample aliquot
Alternatives or equivalents allowed
by SW-846 methods
Specific procedures or
equipment used
Continuous liquid-
1iquid extraction
3520
1 liter of liquid
Acid and base/neutral extracts
are usually combined before
analysis by GC/MS. Under some
situations, however, they may
be extracted and analyzed
separately.
Acid and base/neutral extracts
were combined.
DO
t>
The base/neutral surrogates
recommended are 2-f luorobipheny1,
nitrobenzene-dS, terphenyl-d!4
The acid surrogates recommended
are 2-fluorophenol,
2,4,6-tribromophenol, and
phenol-d6 Additional compounds
may be used for surrogates The
recommended concentrations for
low-medium concentration level
samples are 100 ppm for acid
surrogates and 200 ppm for base/
neutral surrogates. Volume of
surrogate may be adjusted
Surrogates were the same as those
recommended by SW-846, with the
exception that phenol-d5 was
substituted for phenol-d6. The
concentrations used were the
concentrations recommended in SW-846.
-------
1458g
Table B-ll Specific Procedures or Equipment Used for Analysis of Organic Compounds
When Alternatives or Equivalents Are Allowed in the SW-846 Methods
Analysis
SW-846
method
Sample
preparat ion
method
Alternatives or equivalents
allowed in SW-846 for
equipment or in procedure
Specific equipment or procedures used
Gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry
for volat i le
organics
8240 5030
CD
I>
00
Recommended GC/MS operating conditions:
Electron energy:
Mass range:
Scan time:
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature:
Final column holding time:
Injector temperature:
Source temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Carrier gas:
70 ev (nominal)
35-260 amu
To give 5 scans/peak but
not to exceed 7 sec/scan
45'C
3 min
8°C/min
200°C
15 min
200-225"C
According to manufacturer's
specification
250-300"C
Hydrogen at 50 cm/sec or
helium at 30 cm/sec
Actual GC/MS operating conditions:
E lectron energy:
Mass range:
Scan time:
Iransfer line temperature:
Carrier gas:
70 ev
35-260 amu
2.5 sec/scan
Initial column temperature: 38'C
Initial column holding time: 2 min
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature:
Final column holding time:
Injector temperature'
Source temperature'
10'C/min
225'C
30 mm or xylene elutes
225'C
manufacturer's recommended
value of 100'C
275-C
Hel ium @ 30 ml/mm
The column should be 6 ft x 0.1 in 1 0. glass.
packed with 1% SP-1000 on Carbopack B (60/80 mesh) or
an equivalent.
Samples may be analyzed by purge-and-trap technique
or by direct injection.
The column used was an 8 ft x 0 1 in 1 0 glass, packed
with \% SP-1000 on Carbopack B (60/80 mesh).
The samples were analyzed using the purge-and-trap
technique.
Additional information on actual system used
Equipment- Finnegan model 5100 GC/MS/DS system
Dflta system: SUPERINCOS Autoquan
Mode F lectron impact
NBS 1ibr ary ava i lable
Interface to MS - Jpt 'ipnaratnr
-------
1458g
Table B-ll (Continued)
Analysis
SW-846
method
Sample
preparation
method
Alternatives or equivalents
al lowed in SW-846 for
equipment or in procedure
Specific equipment or procedures used
Recommended GC/MS operating conditions:
Actual GC/MS operating conditions:
Gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry
for semivolatile
organics: capillary
column technique
03
8270 3520-liquids Mass range:
3520-solids Scan time:
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature hold:
Injector temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Source temperature:
Injector.
Sample volume:
Carrier gas:
35-500 amu
1 sec/scan
40"C
4 min
40-270-C at
10"C/min
270'C (until
benzofg.h. i,]perylene has
eluted)
250-300'C
250-300-C
According to
manufacturer's
specification
Grob-type. split less
1-2 nl
Hydrogen at 50 cm/sec or
helium at 30 cm/sec
Mass range:
Scan time:
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature hold:
Injector temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Source temperature:
Injector:
Sample volume:
Carrier gas:
35-500 amu
1 sec/scan
30'C
4 min
8'C/min to 275'
and 10'C/min unt11
305'C
305'C
240-2GO C
300'C
Manufacturer's
recommenclat ion
(non-heated)
Grob-type, spitless
1 nl of sample extract
Helium @ 40 cm/sec
The column should be 30 m by 0.25 mm I.D , l-/im film
thickness silicon-coated fused silica capillary column
(J&W Scientific DB-5 or equivalent).
The column used was a 30 m x 0.32 mm I D
RTx -5 (57. phenyl methyl silicone) FSCC.
Additional Information on Actual System Used'
Equipment' Finnegan model 5100 GC/MS/OS system
Software Package: SUPERINCOS Autoquan
-------
1847g
Table B-12 Specific Procedures'Used in Extraction of Organic Compounds When Alternatives to
SW-846 Methods Are Allowed by Approval of EPA Characterization and Assessment Division
Analysis
SW-846 method
Sample aliquot
SW-846 specification
Specific procedures allowed by
approval of EPA-CAO
Continuous liquid-
liquid extraction
3520
1 liter
The internal standards are
prepared by dissolution in
carbon disulfide and then
dilution to such volume that
the final solvent is 20%
carbon disulfide and 801/
methylene chloride.
The preparation of the internal
standards was changed to eliminate
the use of carbon disulfide. The
internal standards were prepared
in methylene chloride only.
Soxhlet extraction
3540
1 gram
ro
o
The internal standards are
prepared by dissolution in
carbon disulfide and then
dilution to such volume that
the final solvent is 207
carbon disulfide and 80'X
methylene chloride
The preparation of the internal
standards was changed to eliminate
the use of carbon disulfide. The
internal standards were prepared
in methylene chloride only
-------
1847g
Table B-13 Deviations from SW-846
Analysis
Method
SW-846 specifications
Deviation from SW-846
Rationale for deviation
Soxhlet extraction
Acid digestion for
metals analyzed
3540 Concentrate extract to
1-ml volume.
3010 Digest 100 ml of sample in
3020 a conical beaker.
CO
ro
Extracts for untreated waste
were concentrated to 5-ml
volume.
Initial sample volume of
50 ml is digested in Griffin
straight-side beakers All
acids and peroxides are
halved
The untreated waste samples
could not be concentrated to
1-ml sample volume because of
the viscosity of the extract.
Sample volume and reagents
are reduced in half,
therefore, time required to
reduce sample to near
dryness is reduced.
However, this procedure
produces no impact on the
precision and accuracy of
the data.
-------
APPENDIX C DESIGN AND OPERATING DATA FOR
ROTARY KILN INCINERATION PERFORMANCE DATA
This appendix is a presentation and analysis of the design and
operating data from the Onsite Engineering Report of Treatment Technology
and Performance for K087 Waste at the Combustion Research Facility,
Jefferson, Arkansas (USEPA 1988a).
The operating data presented in Table C-l are reported according to
the sample set time interval during which they were collected. The
desired operating conditions or targeted values for the test burn are
displayed under the headings. The targeted values represent the optimum
operating conditions that are believed to provide the most effective
destruction of the organic constituents of concern in the Combustion
Research Facility (CRF) rotary kiln system.
Table C-l indicates that the kiln rotational speed, the scrubber
effluent water temperature, the pressure across the venturi scrubber, and
the scrubber effluent water pH and flow rate were kept within the
targeted values. The operating data for the kiln and afterburner
temperatures and for the gaseous emissions show some fluctuations from
the targeted values. Also, the operating data for the feed rate indicate
some fluctuations inherent to the operation of the rotary kiln system.
All these fluctuations from the targeted values are discussed below.
Tables C-2 and C-3 summarize the time intervals during which the
temperature in the kiln or the afterburner fell below the targeted
values. These data have been estimated from the strip charts at the end
of this appendix.
C-l
-------
The targeted temperature in the primary chamber of the rotary kiln at
the CRF was 1800°F. This temperature represents the maximum
temperature attainable in the primary chamber of the CRF kiln. During
treatment, there were a number of deviations from the targeted
temperature. Considering the range and frequency of these deviations and
examining the concentrations of organics in the kiln ash, EPA has
concluded that the conditions in the primary chamber represent a
well-operated unit for treatment of the K087 waste. A discussion of the
deviations from the targeted temperature is presented below.
As shown during the test sample set time intervals, temperatures in
the kiln fell below the targeted 1800°F on 16 occasions for periods
lasting from 3 to 90 minutes. The most severe fluctuation occurred on
August 26 when the temperature climbed from 1350 to 1800°F over a
period of approximately 70 minutes.
The targeted temperature for the afterburner was 2150°F; this
temperature represents the maximum attainable value for the CRF. During
treatment, the operating temperature deviated from the targeted condition
on several occasions.
Both the kiln and the afterburner at the CRF were equipped with
ultraviolet sensors that automatically terminated the auxiliary fuel and
air flows (and signaled to the operator to stop feeding waste into the
kiln) when a flameout (loss of visible flame) was detected. Note that
false detection of a flameout resulted in an actual flameout because the
auxiliary fuel and excess air were turned off. Flameouts were detected
C-2
-------
on several occasions during the sample set time intervals of the K087
test burn, as indicated on Table C-4.
The Agency believes these flameouts represent typical fluctuations
during normal operations of rotary kiln incinerators, especially in
systems where containerized waste is ram fed into the incinerator at
discrete time intervals. During the sample set time intervals, the kiln
and afterburner flames were reignited within seconds. As evidenced by
the data, the effect of a flameout is generally a decrease in temperature
and, if the flameout occurs in the afterburner, a drop in oxygen and a
rise in carbon monoxide content in the gas stream from the afterburner.
Note that there were occasions when the continuous emissions monitoring
instrumentation indicated less than 1 percent oxygen and greater than
100 ppm carbon monoxide in the gas stream from the afterburner. (Table
C-5 summarizes the estimated times.) These occasions, however, were
extremely short-lived, as indicated by the spike-like behavior of the
curves on the Figure B and D strip charts, which are presented in this
appendix.
Oxygen and carbon monoxide spikes also were produced when
temperatures climbed sharply in the kiln; according to CRF engineers,
these spiking phenomena were caused by "hot charges" fed into the kiln.
(A fiber drum was considered to be a "hot charge" if its K087 heating
value exceeded that of the average fiber drum.) These spikes would not
be considered uncommon in an operation such as the CRF rotary kiln
system, which has a ram feed mechanism.
C-3
-------
The operator at the ram feeder was instructed to stop the feed
immediately after each flameout occurrence or period of dramatic
temperature increase until the system stabilized. Thus, while the feed
rate averaged over the feeding period of each sample set interval was
less than the targeted value, it does not indicate poor operation.
Having evaluated the operating data, the Agency believes that the
rotary kiln incineration system was well operated and that the analytical
data are useful for the development of treatment standards for K087 waste.
C-4
-------
Table C-l Operating Data from the K087 Test Burn
0
1
en
Temperature (°F) Emissions
Kiln Pressure
rotational Scrubber Feed drop
Sample Set/ speed effluent ratec Op C02 C0d THC venturi
Date Time (rpm) Kiln Afterburner water (Ib/hr) (% vol) (7, vol) (ppm) (ppm) (in H-0)
Target values:6 0.2 1800 2150 <180 105 6-8 - <1000 0 20
Sample Set #1 8:40-15:10 0 2 1400-2000 1950-2150 165-170 77 0-19 7.0->10 0->100 -f 9-179
8/25/87
Sample Set #2 14:10-18:25 0.2 1600-2000 1850-2150 143-170 80 0-18 6 4->10 0->100 -f 7-149
8/25/87 (scrubber effluent water data)
Sample Set #2 10-20-13:00 0.2 1350-1875 1925-2150 165-170 97 0-13 3.8->10 0->100 0->10h 7-229
8/26/87 (kiln ash data)
Scrubber
ef f luent
Scrubber water
effluent flow rate
water pH (gpm)
7.0-8.0 1.5
6.9-7.8 1.5
7.0-7.5 1.5
7.0-7.6 15
Sample Set #3 9:50-14-15 0.2 1675-2000 1900-2150
8/28/87
165-170 89 0-14 5 4->10 0-1500 0->10" 20
7.2
1 5
Sample Set #4 13:15-16:50 0.2 1625-2000 2050-2150
8/28/87
165-170 87 2-12 6.8->10 0-800 0
20
7.2
1.5
Sample Set #5 15:50-18-25 0.2 1725-2050 2125-2175
8/28/87
165-170 90 4-12 6.4->10 0-360 0
20
7.2 1 5
-------
/p i
Table C-l (continued)
Kiln and afterburner temperatures presented on this table are minimum and maximum values according to the data logger strip charts, which are presented in
Figures A-l through A-5 in this Appendix. Note that the thermocouples connected to the American Combustion printer are used by the controller for
adjusting operating conditions.
The minimum 0? and maximum CO values typically correspond to periods of flameout in the kiln and/or afterburner. See Figures B, C. and D (in
Appendix C) for strip charts showing continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) of 0?, C0~. and CO. respectively.
Includes weight of fiber drum packaging (1.1 pounds per drum) and weight of waste (approximately 3.5 pounds per drum). Waste feed rate alone was
targeted at 80 Ib/hr.
Upper end of detection limit for CO was raised from 100 ppm on August 25 and 26 to 2000 ppm on August 28 by switching to another strip chart recorder.
The targeted values represent the optimum operating conditions to provide the most effective treatment for hazardous organic constituents. EPA
recognizes that during normal operation, these optimum conditions cannot be sustained at all times. EPA will determine whether the treatment system has
been adequately operated based on the magnitude and duration of the fluctuations from the targeted values.
THC analyzer was down for repairs.
9Needle readout failed during the test burn; operator speculated that pressure drop was in reality 20 in H20 on 8/25 and 8/26. Operator recorded values
from a second readout located in the bay area on 8/28.
The analyzer registered four sharp peaks on 8/26 at approximately 10:25. 10:28, 11:00. and 11.40 and one sharp peak on 8/28 at approximately 09:59.
Source: USEPA 1988.
o
i
-------
Table C-2 Summary of intervals When Temperatures in
the Kiln Fell Below Targeted Value of 1800°F
Date
Interval3
Minimum temperature reached
during interval (*F)a
Observations
8/25/87 08:41
08:57
10:03
11:36
12:37
15:07
17:04
8/26/87 10:20
11:27
11:39
8/28/87 09.50
10 01
10:07
10:14
14:41
16:08
- 08:57
- 09:27
- 10:15
- 12:12
- 12:40
- 15:12
- 18:25
- 11:27
- 11:39
- 12.00
- 09:59
- 10:05
- 10:13
- 10:20
- 15:08
- 16:14
1400
1450
1650
1675
1750
1725
1600
1350
1726
1650
1725
1725
1675
1725
1625
1725
Flameout (08:41)
Flameout (08:57, 09:12)
Flameout (10:02)
Flameout (12:00)
Flameout (12.37)
-
Flameout (17:02-18-25)
Ash bin replaced at 10 00
-
Flameout (11-40, 11.42)
_
Flameout (10 00)
Flameout (10.07)
Flameout (10.14)
-
-
Intervals and minimum temperatures are estimated from strip charts in Figures A-l through A-5,
which are presented in this appendix.
C-7
-------
Table C-3 Summary of Intervals When Temperatures in the
Afterburner Fell Below Targeted Value of 2050"F
Date
Interval'
Minimum temperature reached
during interval (°F)a
Observations
8/25/87 08:41
08:57
10:00
10-48
11:33
12:35
13:03
15:34
15:58
16-45
17:03
6/76/87 10:30
11 02
11:39
8/28/87 09.50
10:33
14-41
16:08
17:02
17:32
- 08:47
- 10:00
- 10:30
- 11:00
- 11:48
- 12-45
- 13:09
- 15-42
- 16.27
- 16:54
- 17-20
- 11.02
- 11 24
- 12.00
- 10:33
- 10:53
- 15:11
- 16:30
- 17:17
- 18:25
2025
1950
1975
2050
2000
2050
2050
2050
2025
2025
IbSO
2000
r.-^c
1325
1900
2000
2075
2125
2125
2125
Flameout
Flameout
Flameout
Flameout
Flameout
Flameout
Flameout
Flameout
F lameout
F lameout
F lameout
F lameout
Flameout
F lameout
(08:57)
(10:02)
(10:50)
-
(12.37)
13:07)
(15:30,
(16:00)
(16 42,
(17 02)
(10 30)
(11 02)
(11 40,
(10-00)
(10:37)
-
-
-
15:37)
16 47)
11 42)
Intervals and minimum temperatures are estimated from strip charts in Figures A-l through A-5,
which are presented in this appendix.
C-8
-------
Table C-4 Flameout Occurrences Recorded by Operator
Date Operating log time Location of flameout
Kiln Afterburner
8/25/87 08:41
08:57
09:12
10:02
10:50
12:00
12:37
13:07
15:30
15:37
16:00
16:42
16:47
17:02
8/26/87 10:30
11:02
11:40
11:42
13:36
8/28/87 10:00
10:06
10:13
10:37
11:10
12:56
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C-9
-------
Table C-5 Occurrences of Oxygen and Carbon Monoxide Spikes6
Time of
Date occurence
8/25/87 08:56
09:08
09:32
09:35
09:57
10:00
10:48
11:33
12:14
12:32
12:34
12:54
13.02
13:14
13:33
15:31
15.33
15.38
15:55
16:13
16:40
16:45
8/26/87 10:25
10:30
10:56
11:02
11:35
11:40
12:35
12:40
8/28/87 10:00
10:06
10:13
10:34
10-36
11:07
12:21
12:56
13:22
14:27
14:35
15.09
15:25
15:33
17:00
Less than
1% Oxygen
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
Greater than
100 ppm carbon
monoxide
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
-
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Observat ions
Flameout (08:57)
Flameout (09:12)
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Flameout (10:02)
Flameout (10:50)
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Flameout (12:37)
Hot charge
Flameout (13.07)
Hot charge
Hot charge
Flameout (15.30)
-
Flameout (15:37)
Flameout (16:00)
-
Flameout (16:42)
Flameout (16:47)
Hot charge
Flameout (10:30)
Hot charge
Flameout (11:02)
-
Flameout (11:40)
Hot charge
Hot charge
Flameout (10:00)
Flameout (10:06)
Flameout (10:13)
Hot charge
Flameout (10:37)
Flameout (11:10)
Hot charge
Flameout (12:56)
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
aOxygen less than 1% and carbon monoxide greater than 100 ppm according to
strip charts in Figures B and D.
Estimated from strip charts in Figures B and D.
c-io
-------
Temperature Trends for the Kiln Exit, Afterburner Exit,
Venturi Exit and Scrubber Effluent Water
C-ll
-------
THERMOCOUPLE CURVE Tl
2 - Kiln Exit
3 - Afterburner Exit
4 -% Venturi Exit
5 - Scrubber Liquor
i
Oi i
too ,
1
1 !
1 i i ill
^ 16"1" 20 ' 3C
' '90, : 80; ', i i 7C
i ' '
8/2S/87 11:30 j; "
i ; i ! l
ii ' i1 I!
' ! ', ' '1
1 i , ' ;
' i|! "!
i < t
,
I ' T l"" 1
j
i '
8/25/87 11:00 r- H
T7 ' --- i'-'ri
-, -f- ---1 "- -t -1- 7- -|"
1 ' i ' i , 1 i
' ' , ' i
8/25/87 10:30 : r3
100 .97 , -80 ; ; ' i7
i
^* i'
i , <
! i ' 1
01 1
100
i ' ' ; i i ' , i
i ' ' , , , i
1 ' l ' n 1 > 1 ' , ' !
1 , ' 1 i | 1 ' 1
1 1
8/25/87 10:00 ' ' T
u»« *»-> ,i - i -T i 1 -
i , , i ; i i l 1 1
;
; ' !
; , , - , , i ! ' !
i ' , : ' ' i
', i ' i ' i ' 1 '
8/25/87 09:30 i 1 | 1 i '
i'ii i ; ' | i
1 , i ' : l1 1 i '
i I
1 nol 1 eot c
1 9O 80) '
i
-H- - - - «- T
8/25/87 09:00 -j-.---
|
' J~L ' ' '
""""j~ "T
IT
1 L - " " j
iMPERATURE " '
: *.r..\'.
.'. _ f . i
ri ?^nn°F ' ' ' ' "'"' "'
U £3UU
0-2500°F : .
0-?50°F ' '
i 1 T . i < '
V
"- . . 7
1 '. «
; (- ?.
, , ' i (\ »(.
-
&.
*" ' i
' C* S
1 : K v
i , i ' ' , f r.
1 ! "" ! 4 60, , ; so ' ,
40
! ! , !
|i
:
4. -J I
*
f /
1 -
,\ ;
;
i / 1 1
: t
,! :f'T.'.
1
80, .' ' . 90 ' 100
20,"' ' 10. 0
4, -Z ' ;
4'"' H2
a ' -' ?
., 1. i 4 !
1 J '
," 1.
4!
4 i
Jr-
j i
<' '*
'. 1 2
i < ia :
: ,4
a . '^ '
4 , ,.;.iz,'
" [--
* 70* ' _. '2
33
~n
1 . i '' i ! -
} ' ' 1 1 1
! , i > '
,' C
4 i .' ^
1 '
' |
1 1
, - |
} ' *
j * i
Trr*
.1 t '
1 1 1
i T
!' I; .'
Tl t : Jl
T i
'
)]"'
>
-r*-1-
i' -
j
?l
1 1 1
T i i.; ' *
, i j, -
:_ [' V
' ' ,
i '
i '
!
i 1 1
' , .
1 i .
1
' 1
' ' i
r i
1 ':
80 ' ' '
22O '
4 .- £
4/'V j ,
-> ^ ' ^: ' '
^-* l
'I'll - ' ' ! ''
: i ill 1 :'.',,
ill i i I '
ill , ii I ,
! ' ' L ' ' '
-* 1 I'll1'
f
;
t
.-' "
!
.' ?'
i r. .
' 1 1 I 1 ' , ' 1 1
I 1 1 > 1 ' i ' ' ' '
' ; ' > , i ' ', i
I
\
r '
4
. -
4 .,-
t' ,-; 2
* ' - 2
S A '. 1
f "i
! , . " ;
4 9
. ' ,-j
\ , i , : 1 * ±"- '
1 ' 1 , 1 i ' , ;
' - , ; ' ' ' i !
, i ' , : i ,' ,
111'' 1 1 ' '
l ' ii,; i ,
' -f
1 i" ',
' 1 ?
0 i 401 ' ; SOi ', ' 60
'0 i j 160? i i 50 i . 40
T r i 1 ' i
_L ' i i
! i i ! ' :
i :
i * ^ ' '
i i i i '
._ n _ ( , ^
i i '
BBB ^5iiLj_.St;ji.r4--, ' l-^
. ' ~
'4; ; i
2' , :
i $ 7Q| - s
pj/ JO, , ,
' .' .'-
/ ^."' ,
"^ i
*!.:. 'j
..iiii;'1^
\< i 4> ^
- ' 2 G-J
.- ' -5
1 ' i-Crj.s
-J .'
J l_ 1 '
. . .
in'
4 > ,
1 ' ,
'4 I
,4 ,
4 ,
1 i
III,;
i
;
.'
/ j
'"TIJ '
, ? ' 90 ' 100
S ' 10- . 0
. T
t
t '
. " 1 : ' ' 1
, n-.M ', ', '
i .'
' '(
' - :
SI '. i
I-,
If
; 7'
j;l
1 '
' ! !
i
/ "
i
, - ,
It. . S' ,
\ 'Si*
> so-/1 i
1.2Q i '
J
i r j i
1
' '
L
'' ! '
t
i ; 9O ! .-100
; i 1
j_
1
i , , . ,
' i i , '
-' '
-+L3.
j
.' J
Ik!
i i
111
to, , ' i o
1 ' , 1 1 '
' i
i ; ^
i ! i , ' i
, , , i , ,
i : : i i
Temperature
Figure A-l Temperature Trends for Sample Set #1
C-12
-------
THERMOCOUPLE CURVE TEMPERATURE
2 - Kiln Exit 0-2500°F
3 - Afterburner Exit- 0-2500°F
4 - Venturi Exit 0-250°F
5 - Scrubber Liquor 0-250°F
ol i .
100 <
M '101 ' '
i ,9O 1
k
i 1 i ; ,
1 1 j ' :
! !
,
i 1
i 2Q 1
so; i
8/25/87 15:00
i i
i i , i
i
i
i
i ! I
1 ,
; i
i l
l i
1
i i
' 1
, i
'
i
i
8/25/87 14:30
i
;
, >
i ' '
01 !
! :
, ,
l i
i '
i ;
< i
i i
i
; HOI ; ! '
, :
i
i |
l
i ]
1
i
; 1
; 1
'.'I!
1
i
1 .
1 '
i ; '
I i
l , ,
1
'20 ; ;
8/25/87 14:00
i i
l
' :
. i
. i '
M ;
' '
8/25/87 13:30
i
,
1
i
'
8/25/87 13:00
01
100
1
, 1 '
, 1 i
, , 1 1
1
10,
' .901 i
i i
,
l
; ; '
,
: i i
I'M
' , :
i ,
,
i
j .
! ,
' ' i ,
' 30i i
;70i
i i > Bn
! ' M
1
"}~ 1
i
i < !
; ' i
i
i ^<
I ' 1 I
1
i i '
> t ',
!
| ,
i , ,
MM '
' ' 301
< no ;
! '
, t
- ' M
' , i
i ' '
i
t
, ,
; 20! ;
' 80
, : M
i i 1
i i
1 j
8/25/87 12:30
i , ,
i i
: , i
i i
J_
, , i
1 1 1
j j
J_
> : 1
1
!
M',
1 1
1
I
1
1
I301
. 70: ;
, ' i
1 i i
:
j |
' !
i l
~T
j J j.
' HO I '
L 1 i601
taoiti
j
' )
1 J
..II..
TTTT
' i
*
1 ' } T
j j
i ' M
i i '
,' i ' .
I , i
' ; M ,
4tl »
1
i
l
1
I
i .
j
l
|
1
i :
i : ,
. ,
1 , ,
! M . 401 i '
l , ; . 6O
' ,
i . ;
'
!
i ;
! , .
i
.
, <
i i
i i
!
I
, i '
! i
' i
,
i i i
i
1 M '
i :
i i
1 i
i :
1 i
, i i
/ -J a -: '. t
,1 r.l a ' l !
I ' ja-' t . ' ,
1 ,
' "'' * ' '
I ". i ':
':. '" ~
'if j. ' *
it !-' * ' '.I*1
11 fc -i -2
'"' "^
^ i
- ' (.
i:
1;
1 / ' *
. ; s.
i j 5'
i
M ' J ; ,
, ' 50 i 60 ;. 4 7* i ] 'ft aO ' " . r 90- , 1 100
50> : 40 , i rt 39 .'-1
I*
MM
Ml!
'Ill
i 1
i i 1
i )
' . !
J M
1 ' '
, ' !
1
!
. i
1 '
. i
i
' : ' ' ' ' ' ' \ ' £V 9<
' i . 20 ' f T .10'. . 0
r
1 » ^ ! ' - '
' I
i , , , ! '
!
, . , i
ii' 1 , . .
' ' 1 1 i ' i
1 ! 1
: ' i
ri 1
t ? . | i , ,
f . . '
, . ,? .. , , ,.
' * *' .'
V ? 4 ''
, ' :!' oi 1». . .
' ' 1 i f^\ »l i i
1 ' i U ' i! f.H
[i J i ,r' *
I"M
£
-.1 ' Z I
*
.2: i
.hfl ,
i 1 ! 1
III1
MM
- rv ' i.j:
i , >-. [ ,,)'*
! *- >* i, *
! i .''. ^ k ' . ] , 2 '
' F f '
. , i , i 1 r..
' < ,
\
\
., ri. ,lj ..-
* \
.- i
w,' 2 '
^
i i ' :'! T. ' ' ' ' ' '
: '1 ..
,, ': (
' i M [ i " M
MI i ' i
M i iii ! v
M \\ f\
1 i '. ; i 7 '
M| j i »,
iii! S 1 5|
! ! 1 1 1 1 J
' ' ' ' i ' L.J
Ml >j i TI
11 i.J " *;"
, ,' ?
!: '
:. S1
?
) T' '
i .' : 71 '
. .i 7! '
J 1 M ' ' >
, i
i i i
ii,
i i M : ill
: . i ! ! '
1 ' i ,
Ml! ' ' M
t ' ! '
i
'i ~ !-» t - ' !
l 'SO i 60 ' ' ^ 70 ' J _8O ' 'i " 90 : 100
i
50 40 f -» 30. ' ' I i ^20. f '10, i 0
' i
1 1 '
i > ,
! i
i
1 ' '
1
i ;4Q
, , 6O
i '
1
!
1
1
!
( 1
_, 1
'
l
i
1
, ' '
, ;
, < '
l '
; ! '
: i
!. '! ". ' *
1 5 * ' "r -.. -
f Sf * ,> *
. d *'. 2
t'* k' .!>?
: S < k, --1.... ,
,!' j L ' ' -'..
': "; .( "
i
' 7 .-' i*
7 f ' - *
) ^ * . 2
i 5 * ,- 21
1 ! ' \ 1C ' . 2
1 ' ?'. 4 =
!
i ;
i , i , , ,
. . i | .
h ; . 7
/ J fl ': .
' -V 1 ' t"-' c"
-.f. [ 1-..E.
i '-1'. i " ' * '
: 7 ' : ^.-'2
. i -
1 ""
j J
: 5,
Mi i -, ,
i -;
.
;;
j
J, -
'-J -
f 3
. \ r .
'.'. s
f T.
f . :
1 ' H* (
'. " >
i i a "
' ' ' \ *
i j . I j. S ,
'
|
1 '
, ; !
i SO ' ' ' 60 r 9 70» i (' .2 80. M j ? 90; too
1 50 ! 40 ( 30 ' '. .
i 1 i
-i i 1
i ,
1 ' l
i 1 :
, ' !
1 ' ,
, i
'I1 1
| !
I'll ' ' ' '
1
i .
1 ' !
r ' , |
M ! , '
1 r , 5. 4' .
2 ' , 201 i !!, 3 10 ' ' ' 6
. -2 '
.,(?,« ,i - .'-,
.-.' t r.
M f ' V '
. ' '
( t I vr
L' . y * ,-., .£
' ''I ' ' ' '
, » r. 4 ' >,'"'. 2
> ? ' 3"2
, ' ; , J. i. i ' J 5 .
l . , ^ 51
k / f
' 7
I ' y ' ~ '
1 1 j,
' : - ^ -
, , ,\ ' j
, . . i ?.
' $ i *>
ik k , ,
i
1 i '
Temoerature
Figure A-l (Continued)
C-13
-------
1
1
t
(
-
ion
I
XX
-to
'
, mi , f rirllin
ft* Y*h M * "T ' l!r
i -i i 1 1 1!" HI li !! ' '! :
"HERMOCOUPLE CURVE TEMPERATURE . ..
? _ Kiln Exit D-?tinnoF L
3 - Afterburner Exit 0-2500°F " "
1 - Venturi Exit 0-250°F .. .-
5 - Scrubber Liquor 0-250°F r "
TT3I" laoi ; sc
i
"i . . . . . ~p
T
01 40 5C
JW KJ 10 ^ i 50
ii
i r
T _L ' 4-
"- " "
8/25/87 15: M ' " 1 '
""j" i" " J= si < sc
o >5" w ..:.... . 1 .
8/ZS/87 15:00 £
8/Z5/87 14:30 T
:::::" ^---^JIUIJIJIIIJJ! -
T T i
' ' T" T T "T"
'2 -Z '
? » r v
1 ! 4 1 I
; 8 J
i .2 t
|..l ..I J
Mi ot jag j MI ! too
4oT : 3 . 20 , n o
( i
* * ' "
f" i ' "I
t i'l
' ,. ' 'U . " ..
*'"' B*ft
,'lr ' "'j'* T
.:?.:..,!*: i
. 2 ' ' ' 2 £ r
I' d./ 4 ; : ' - " 3
*,'W i ' " ' r.» i n
:...:.. 113: i.4tS-ffJ-$--t-l^-
i P » ' ii ' ! JL '
J i 44- 4- J-L _kj_
TT1 5' M1'. +^-
T l-l 'i 4-'Jr
l6oj_ j hoi ' -. * J*a i T '90! no
to ' S 'IWL / * 16" ~B
L * *
|"5 ""' " i" " "
T , 1' * ^^
-I...J Si -.,ii-.. _2!3 +..
T T.1 T J i T
jJ ri J '"t * \ 9
J ' : ' 1 IL t
i "S, . , r r I
T 4 1 ffiT" * 1 1 "^ ;
T > 11 ! 8 T
_;z ,| 1 . .........
V * _ii ' ' E
i±.:... KS- I TTT
1 1 ' 1 h Ll i I H: 11 1 1 1 1 1 I Cl I 1 ' 1 1 1 I
J -L-- '-% ----- :
«0 f 9 |7« 2 81 fe »0 100
JaiJi . .3 . ---_. '
i. ii.ji ,.41... .- -p
,:;s.;. c.t. [
ft i. ..'::. j ..[ J.
Temperature
Figure A-2 Temperature Trends for Sample Set #2
*0ata for scrubber effluent water collection.
C-14
-------
HJ ' " "
t
THFRMfirnilPI F niRVF TFMDFRflTMPF 4,
1 nuM lUCUUr LC. UUftVC 1 CnrtKn lUKt rrTT^
- 2 - Kiln Exit 0-2500°F
- 3 - Afterburner Exit fl-?^nn°F -I
4 - Venturi Exit 0-250°F r
, 5 - Scrubber Liquor 0-250°F "t
U/ 26/87 13-00 I * -,n-«... 1. r.,-»» -L-
; i ,i 1 "' " ^
1 ! L 1,1
T^.-4-..i
'l|
! ' . , ;
0 ' HOI ' 20 130 40| i
00 ' 80, 170, 6Q | j
1 ' ' ' '
i i M i i 1 i i
i ; 1 '
i i ' !
1 1 i| !ii
' ;
| 1 i ; ! J
i f \ \
\ ^.j^ ' ;
7-,<*0 ' '
! ~
' ' i . _i_
r
i i T
TI x t
"01 10 20 30| 40]
100 90> 80 70| 60
1 1
I J J__
1
j
-p 8/25/87 11:00 """ " " " "" "
i T T
T
i _i_ i
1 j
* i
1 ._........ .._-...-₯, FT. -,-,.-_-.-_._
1 1 1 '«9r' *"r' Sef i, t-3
±1.1 . 4_._. .__..
! i . .
20 30J 401
"100 i ,90 ' 80! 70 60
,
-p-r^T 10-°° T I T
1 ] i.JV 111 f "* I \\: *j i >1 ? T ' '
"i T i^ I ' i'*!\ l 1 ' i" "*i !l~~I * 1 ! r
1 .'IIC} H ' 1 *' 21 J ' ! i i
T , ! jj_iw rt r ? t i ' i
Z! -LlU-!U--'i--.r4:,..r, t ^.,,-r^-,-,
T tr^'M1 t TF L "TTTT-'
lip v, i ,
i , v ' j ' f i
l"p t ' J'j - \
T J r^T'f t* r
[!g!.!..^;. ,.[.... Ii .
| T[ iRTrj'-r 2 t 3 i
l [ f .J *i i1 i ^
, /It L : i s
T jrf :"":":::::i::;:"t""i
i Lii a . <.. ; J 1
tt US ?' : * " "\ -V --\1\
..._,_ _Ji^.!i.* Jj'.', i - I* r "*"
+ * +t"nr^rf *TT *TT r-?-- --4-4-
i ''.!*" ;.- -i|i ? ji
sa i '60: ,. ? 'ji^o*! '-r. 2 Paoi ; 5190; 1 1 100
50; 1 '401 . ', £30*1-. 2 ' SO, J BIIOI i i 0
'I i «f'» Ui»i i ! ; '
i i ^ : : ' i i ra j': 7 : i s i ' ' ' '
j ! : ' )i £ j.i " . - 1 .: ! ' I
1 ' ! f ' ri' j1 '' i I; i i i
1 i : ' - ' T ! . : ,-.:.:,!
i . U; *? i. , , t ,,
: ; 5 ;^i »," ^ ' : "? i i
: ,"', .-»/ 2. , .p. 3 . i
if! i*l 2l "!,' 5 ' , ; ,
1 -; ^ » ' i ' ' 1 ' 1 f ; 1 ! . 1 'I
1 .: 1 40 '; ,2'3g. 20i J i 10, | | iO
....... j. .| . j. j-j^-^t. , | .. || ,
.i'l ^ i* i ! 1 '-
1 >1 ': * i /' =
yI?T-''1 7 ..i ^H ' '
>:i- »! 1*3 1
if *T j *
./ .-5 ) ; i
T rsi izr__Tr > £. T T;
I'^J 'JJlrf t 2 >
J >. lii L 1 ! 6
"1"- >.rs' n pi-""1
t ' ? 3 1 1 ! ' IF
:T-'il£plr ^jT-j--]- -;-? tr-
::::::::i:5:::±:T?TiLSilT;S-t"---"--t--
> 1 pi » ; l.u S 1 I
r..: iti. 4-^51 4 .. .j_ r, i.5 , , ,i i,r,
". , II U ri j"1] 1 i 5 t " U
-'*- ii ijir ! -i-?-, --T--"rT
I" I II /it- .1 r-t ,-' C
- - !i ' $ a 4 ' l L
n-r , i ,>i I'l '', rt
50l' W-. !3 H. PVTO4!' t'TTr 80! i'! 1': 'I Igohr 1"H 100
so Ug: J-J lir^o4!:! ! 20! _j - ib, l ifl
""j"T ^"3ulSlI?"aiI st -."^
:::::::::i::+::JifS4ii:::::::.:..4.. .1^.
1 ! ..'k. .}|i» 21 . ? ' ' i
Temperature
Figure A-2 (Continued)
*Data for kiln ash collection.
C-15
-------
i TI : r ;j 33 ?
..::.: i.. ....ni..i|±. ±
...1 it
0 T W J20 30j |40 .50
THERMOCOUPLE CURVE TEMPERATURE
2 - Kiln Exit 0-2500°F
3 - Afterburner Exit 0-2500°F
4 - Venturi Exit 0-250°F
5 - Scrubber Liquor 0-250°F
111 t
[ [..
- 5P ,
C i: X JC 4C 5t
KX) JW 'C 7C 5 1C
-i;, 1:1. ;;:;;:;: : ..:. .::::::...::::::::.
1 1 i
TTJ. H ' T- '
::::.::::::i::"::~. :~: ....::::::::::::::. :t
z . 1+ t----_ -__ /.. .t.
t t
i T T
T
44- 1
i T
1 1
i
T
;*° ; 1 i i T H r
.j j- - .... . . .j
i ±.
IT
ir^r-p " :
)! 1 1 JC 01
100 1 pc q to!
j.
"
JmJmf^ 11 - - - - - . -
B
. .1
Y
o « _r *
no K ' c i
fl * < i
1
...
r .,,,,, ,4-
:.; : ; illllllllillilrmlTrlTiTtttTttr
j.. -4-^ ..;LiaLu.4.i.^.+. 4 i .. a
1 ! I'i^f-t T* - +- V r" " " """
LEflrt. ],;_.... I. .E
pal I " i M W i.' f 1 ' ear rsa oo
:._ia 1 A?*..!.! * B ll; o
' TTJ ,r FT T + .
. ..t .. -.,.113 . i : f...I. .4.
. : ^ ; : E i . :
. r .£.. C .A. ..I tt--tt- t
I -?r, it t £ i
: ::::::::: :i: :i 51 ;; 11::::: ::~
T ' . T"
ILL :::::::::is:::: ::;;:::: ±:;::::: :::
. :.... : . si ./.' f
fe» i t i j
... !....., :J i.l L.
r J; , ' . ... s \ , r
. Li i i.-s ( L.
. ..... tl. t'. L.
t ... . .. rj. «.; f..
. . ..Ll. I. t.-
:: :::::. "..o.'.r!.' Ji t..
L:-(.-'.i.:. 44 II
t Ti ' T : L7 I..
; ^.i. .....j j.i.. .. L
\TR . i i .... .V.T I.
60 ', W', 7jj |_ ^ !SK MOO
*S fbpSl . * B,'i-- - 5i' --- f-°
. : .:.ji. ..g-i.; i..i. . i.... L.
T . " T . fr T TT T
T f 'J ^ 1 ! 1 1 X * 1 M-
"r. . i TTT ft- --II-
i i j o.J .-..i-iit 1.1... K..
1 i ."Tsi ' >_r j 12 1 I y ii
1 ""TirnVr; »H""'|1i rtTTtTT TT
l.L 'l. a si 11 T
.. .4.. .;>).? UlT-C-r U? I
P ?. .H.i r . Iif.. .IT
FA. i- .11..- . A .... ila.
I .. .I.V''--t.i4.. ,1 f Tt t11 TT
.. . .. :.ti.,.' ...]! .. . i. i-i-
pi ' * ' ^^T
... ..!.. .. f :
TTTTT1TT1I IIWtT "":" "? H
r 31 f f :
: T Tj sj. t >c j M 100
» «ol T Ij 40 1. :;. 20/ ; 0 0
jj.-s £...i.i
:..J..,..U , j
[ ...J.. .... -~i
> ' ^- T
^ £ i ~ ' T
:: :: ::::.. .IL,... £..! i.
t , it? .:; -.5r
xt ; ?
"t» i T »
- fti I"- :
T T ^ i I.,...
^.('ill...- L
7 Wk -I
Temperature
Figure A-3 Temperature Trends for Sample Set
C-16
#3
-------
HiW^H
lliiiTiiillii
tff
THERMOCOUPLE CURVE TEMPERATURE
2 - Kiln Exit 0-2500°F
3 - Afterburner Exit 0-2500°F
4 - Venturi Exit 0-250°F
5 - Scrubber Liquor 0-250°F
501 i i
sol :
601 s nt.7*. ' '
.'J26O
1 ! t 90i
aa i > i .11 s 1101 _M_L
' 100
'0
T*"
Ul
tr
C\ H
t
-1
"
r
w^w
w
2
u;
^20
oi
:3a
i40i
iSOi 'MM :T60' I r" ' ! ^.70;
80 i ! : ;' ' f ;90I
100
2O ' i i j.-| " '101 i i i I i ' . 0
I I
1
I f
1
12
S-T
_
) B
i
,' Ll
mST51 tlllaoT
f ; _ i i i ; i i ' i ' i
'd i 5i9'0 i I I I I i 100
10
2C
3CK
soi
100 |
loo
80
tfi
^
50
40. i
3*
"ETTir
w.
I 2 201 I I I
iS:
i SI
FTTT
ifTtr
Tift
41
Jrit
Temperature
Figure A-4 Temperature Trends for Sample Set #4
C-17
-------
, ' , - !
1 . ; i
1 ' 1 '
' . ' 1 !
t l l 1 1
, 1 i 1
i ' ' !
! !
1 ' i ' '
i ,
1 i '
1 l
' ,
i t
I'M
ill!
1 1 J
i
1 ,
i '
i i '
i
1 ! '
i
1 . i
:
. ;
l . '
1
; '
M : ,
it ' ' 1 i
lid iSfeMfl 5
; 1 1 1
i '
i i ',
IM
- ----. "ii" T- . i ; . ' :
THERMOCOUPLE CURVE TEMPERATU
2 - Kiln Exit 0-2500
3 - Afterburner Exit 0-2500
4 - Venturi Exit 0-250
5 - Scrubber Liquor 0-25C
0
1
i
10 30
' _LL^>
! i i
. i
, ' , , i i ' i
't !|5|
iii'
i i ' .
RE
°F
°F
°F
°F
>-»» i !
, , .
: ' '
, ' '
II1'
1 1
. ' 'III
j : ., - J ,
1 .',
i : ;
. !
, '
s^ .
1
V-hrr;-
4 :
V 2 i
1 .- i i. . «;;
1 r; :
:' ^ '
i , < ! ' i ,
5
'- ' 3
i '
:«' -
i'4 ' '
'^ 2 >
I .;'':' ll *
! j ;. C-
. i
1 , ,'. 5'
A
M 2 i
* . c»". r-i -.
1 ' M ' '.;' T! '
1 '.
!i - f
1 .
' i i
i t
i
I i i
' M
r
, i
' ' ] *' ' \
" .
"' \ '
'i cj 4 ' . t ; . '
1C C |.
1
, i:
*'
5,
x
i , | , j
i
1
' ' 1
i
- , I
.
" 1 !
-
'
30 ! 40 50 60 >j ". >T5 * ' BC ' ; - yO 'C3
100
90.
80
70
60'
50
20
-i_f.
21 ,
.-;!_5
~l
-go
-?1-!-
101
201
4O l I . 50!
60'
1 .-. =60
?90
100
100
801
1 i '70 ' .
6O i i
501 i ,
. 40 , 7.;_iB__ .1 .* 20
.- r 10
H-
*
r-grtr
! bi
Tr-iTLiT
^V
a_ui
|
]E1^E
o>
rrfei
11
36
sa
tisla1
too
Temperature
Figure A-5 Temperature Trends for Sample Set #5
C-18
-------
Oxygen Emissions Strip Charts
C-19
-------
OXYGEN EMISSIONS
o
rv>
CD
8/25/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-25X (vol)
Begin Sample Set 11
14:25
End Sample Set II-
Figure B-l Oxygen Emissions for Sample Set II
*Rprnrrlpr npn<; WPTP not
rtirallu! thus ctark n.ruP U <:hiftpH in minutP<; tn thp
-------
o
r>o
OXYGEN EMISSIONS
8/25/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-25% (vol)
100
LBegin Sample Set #2
End Sample Set
Figure B-2 Oxygen Emissions for Sample Set #2
*Recorder pens were not aligned vertically; thus, stack curve is shifted 10 minutes to the left.
-------
OXYGEN EMISSIONS
o
I
ro
8/26/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
,VERTICAL SCALE: 0-25% (vol)
100 "~
10:00
-Begin Sample Set #2
**End Sample Set §2-*
Figure B-2 (Continued)
Recorder pens were not aligned vertically; thus, stack curve is shifted 5 minutes to the left.
**Data for kiln ash collection.
-------
OXYGEN EMISSIONS
8/28/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-25% (vol)
100
rv>
CO
End Sample Set 13
-Begin Sample Set #3
-Begin Sample Set #4
17:35
Begin Sample Set 15 End Sample Set
End Sample Set 14-1
Figure B-3 Oxygen Emissions for Sample Sets #3, #4, and
-------
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Strip Charts
C-24
-------
I
ro
en
CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
8/25/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-10% (vol)
08:25
12:25
LBegin Sample Set #1
14:25
End Sample Set II-
Figure C-l Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Sample Set #1
*Recorder pens were not aligned vertically; thus, stack curve is shifted 8 minutes to the right.
-------
CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
o
ro
CTl
8/25/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-10% (vol)
noqr
13:15
15:15
LBegin Sample Set #2
**
17:15
End Sample Set #2'
Figure C-2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Sample Set #2
*Recorder pens were not aligned vertically; thus, stack curve is shifted 8 minutes to the right.
**Data for scrubber effluent water collection.
-------
CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
o
ro
8/26/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-10% (vol)
10:00
l-Begin Sample Set #2**
**End Sample Set #2-»
Figure C-2 (Continued)
*Recorder pens were not aligned vertically? thus, stack curve is shifted 8 minutes to the right.
-------
CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
8/28/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-10% (vol)
L 10:15
Rpnin '
Begin Sample Set #3
13:35
End Sample Set #3--*
Begin Sample Set #4
I 17:35
in Sample Set 15 End Sample Set #5-
End Sample Set
Figure C-3 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Sample Sets #3, #4, and 15
*Recorder pens were not aligned vertically; thus, stack curve is shifted 8 minutes to the right.
-------
Carbon Monoxide Emissions Strip Charts
C-29
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
AFTERBURNER
8/25/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-100 ppm
o
GO
O
-Begin Sample Set #1
14:25
End Sample Set II-
Figure D-l Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set
-------
o
I
CO
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
AFTERBURNER
8/25/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-100ppm
100
13:25
15:25
LBegin Sample Set #2*
17:25
*End Sample Set #2-
Figure D-2 Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #2
-------
o
I
co
ro
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
AFTERBURNER
8/26/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-100 ppm
fj
t
HI
y
10(1-
flo
60
40
20
l-Jr^
-
L_Y=»|
10:00
3
T
»
r
^
F
-B
c
1
i
i
^
j
r
~
jdj
Q
4
V,
1
b
\ lii^j
M
100-
80
60
40
20-
U
4
LJ
-------
1800-
1600-
1400-
-Begin Sample Set #3
14:00
End Sample Set #3-
Figure D-3 Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set
-------
1800-
1600-
MOO-
1000-
-
-
600-
400-1
ZOO-
- ]
t
r.:..
iiJtiii 1 ;;
-~
^nt::;T^
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
. AFTERBURNER
8/28/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 10 units/hr
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-1800 ppm
i
h-
i "
if
4
H
L
1
it"
I"
I .-
1 .
i i
i
TZl
1
3tl
in
m
-ii
H
:
-
:
_:
t;
I!
ii
i
i
-
I ,
"rn
~''
---
_=r^
~
^~\
i
i
t i
c-l
--!
I~j
L"
i
r ^
r~
rr'
_...
:~
7
^
^i-:
WE
ip
1 1
1 1 :
[Oil
1
n*"
li?
!,"-
' -T*
Ml'
rir
i i ' . .
:~. -.
-- - !
__- -:
:";; i!
1 J!
-;| ;
n i
Rt"l|
TT. ;l
intill
liU. 1
.!_ H
ll
iii'
ilHl
i
T^'I li
i11' II
1 _-
1
~
-1»;.
1 J
7T
!r
-_
iili
!i
1 1
iii!
'i
j
i
i
;t|i
i ;:!
.u:
1
i
(pi
;
:~-
-:
-V
iijji
;it:!
.ri ^
lit,
up,
Hi!
:r~
ill
iii
-r
_-
.:"".
;? '
" TT " '
itjl!
IIP
MI'-
It
II
1
t_ I
t
»i
'I
-
T"
'-T-*.
-4-
±:|
P
ffi
H-i
i-'i
Pii
!|
j i 1 11
|!ii
il
tii?
ry-
jl]1
lit.1.
ltt.1
10
111!
-_
*
-
..
-
in
n:
r. .
T^T
L'
1C '
1 1 ,
"t:
:_ --
.
EH}
---,
.'ui.-
j
\- .j
i
; '
r
-r-
~
iiiti
!rr
Ifyi
!!!
ii
!
1
!
i,
ii
i!
:i
H<
i
r
I- '
- -
""i
ph.
ft
iT~
ih
1
jil.
i .
i!
' 1 i
iir
li!
i'
j;
;]
1 ^
;"-
T*
H:
il
i
ii
i
ipi
T"
hj
i1
.1
Ht!
J^ !
r.i'
i'.i
~!
:-':.
i
n
!H
uM1
1
Hi
i
i
itTT
Illl
iir.
1 ;
ILL
ill
ll
- ! -
tjjl
.:.:'
rilif
-:
-1 i
i
ti
||
1
it'
'n'
.1 j
11!
HW
(III
lilli
1
: r
u
i~
: :v
--
*
.n:
H
Trr~^
ii£
T
f
1]
JT
t
'it
! '
|
-:
r - "
L.1.L-
Ht
.ii.
:i.:
._
_F
-:-:
j~-
:.::
..._
;-
-W
4
-t
^
ii^:
~
---
-J-T
crl
j:r.
,._.
--
::'."
:;;
-7
^
1
T L
I
;1
I
r
l
JL
fr
T
f
T
>i*
irr
i .
i
*
i
i
I
If
.
"'
I
S,
i
i.
":::
:
--".
-~
::-z;
:m
r"
IT
:i!!i
-;ii
'II!
- L, .
il
rl t
; ' j
- i
"
~~,
_-
-_-_-
"-"_
-
it
-±"
ilir
L~n
r
rr
:;tj
'.:ir
s
:JI-
1
I1
1!
!!l|l
"['.;
:'::
-i
~-~j~.
-
:T
, ~
~ t
i
(
1
.
i!
Si
-(j:
:-"-"
_.
-"- :
' T
ur
i'h
i.
Si!
ill
_;:;
~r_
- --
~'.
|
1
i::::
::'.:
-
;"ll ^
!!I:H:
11
liif
ffi
^
-
--
'
t
- - "-
1
1
1
lii
Hi
'Ii
ill!
:-.;:
'-
::E.
:__.
-~
. ^
'.'.--
i '.'.
-Hi
1 --n
3
K"!
ti
j i
|_;
.Ii".
H
1H!
tilt
-S
.-.
-;|;
..17.:
.
~
.
.".
...
--r:
^ I '
!!
fr
if
lit)
lit
.h
u
1 .
i
ill
illl
'' I
~4 "
-
':"..
1
1
4
i
i r
t 1
Hlti
(i!]
m
"1!
Ill
ii 1!'
.lili
i
2
-3--
^
-4- -
:~.~ '.'-
3: -j
ifi^
ItfS
11
,i n
ill
r-.7H n
I"
1
;il
^}[IL
ii
ijH i
Hill i
i ,
.i
'- --
T;
--
*_ -:.
___ _
~ :zr
TT
TT
^ -
'I
--T
I
af
r?r
Iii
111
El
|[
M r;-Tl
^
_r
rr
;;
1
i I -
II Hill
-||-Ttrr
111 'iljL
}.
T-
- "
.-.-
-
-
.rr:
-T-
4:
;{L
;£
M"'
-[(7
:'fc
ill:
.f
i:
-f -
-/.-.
-"
:~
:fr:
HTf1
^fii
f
!<-
i
1
- »
i}i
-i
:i
;ll
li
r"
-
~*
-
....
:;~
i
r r
1«
i-j
}ih}
ir^
T "
;r
rp '
N
in
1 hi
1
\"
i
-
::ri"
--
-^'
:Hr
i
lj
i ;
; , i
1 1 i
ill.
;ii
_j
" 'I
!l-
til.
(ii
I-'
. i
-!
--
;
~~.i:
1
}
-ll
'.1
.1
7' '
aa
i;lij
-
:I
]
i]
j|
'
'.
1
!
' ^
i
14:20
15:20
-Begin Sample Set #4
16:20
End
Set #4^
Figure D-4 Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #4
-------
o
I
OJ
en
1800-
1600-
1400-
1200-
1000-
ppm
800-
600-
400-
200-
0-
7
I '..
I
i' "
V-
i- -
LL
_._
i:.
!!
ii i
CAR
AFT
8/2
HOR
VER
.:..
"rHl
... i
li
-.1
. t
- (
ii
'1
il«
-ill!
16:(
BON
ERB
8/8
IZO
TIC
--
--'-
r\ \
"- \
' ' i
___
, i
- r !
.:. i
:i-j
Vi
' ; i
!|jj
)0
M
UR
7
NT
AL
-^
-4
--
-s
0
N
A
_i
-'Hi
I
;ijj
_ j
iii
i
i
i
lot
i-lll
--- "7T
i
NOXIDE EMISSIONS
ER
L SCALE: 10 units
SCALE: 0-1800 ppm
~i
- i
._ i
i
"l.~l ~ -
,'.'.
'-[
"1 1
r-
11
:![|i
:fi
~ir
J
r
11
lii
!
ji
r ,
n
1 1
i:
j
i
II
III '
'in
-Rf
T
ir
H
-111'
..(I
^
uu
j t
..r:
-"]-'
. Hji
-,-li
..1.
ijij
>mi
~::
:
j;
!:
Jj
';iii
rti"
)j
; ;
-f-J j
--T ; t
'll
;j'!
. 1
ii '
M!
'HI
i
i
jl
Sf
._" .
: j
~_^
~i
.
V-~
- -
- : i
i
imnl
-
'..:-
_
:
..'."
:.:."
'-'
'.'".
ii'-
p 5
/»!
-j
1
.1 {
r
-
-' -
". '
n
itr
i-
=
-
-,'
1
1
i
;
Ml1
; ,
1!
:
i
i
..ill
Pt
i,".~
... i
.in
~
.-i
~p
- - ;i
i
--i
±\
.:'!
i
"i
.iii
#5
~~
--_
'51
--T-2
.-.13
:"_>:
j
r. 1 !
' ; -
Y-lj
J
m
.1:;
Ii.
17:
:.
'-
- - -"
i:^
'^:
'^
"r
i :-:
'';!.
: ;'"
!i''
i'u:
00
J
i
\-
::
^
-i
B-
'
.;:
o
1
jt~;
i
t-
.
~
HE
it:
ir:
T^~^
ill::
i-
1
LJ '
r*J-
Ihf
:
T
-! -
"['"
-
;f-
'-
\\
$''
f
r
f-
[jf;
: . U "
1 7 "~
'if:
!::
. ju
[tr:
|ll,
i i ! ! i
"-'.
- r
-
L~
~
^ . , T i
±r.
:~}
:
!r":
i
^
{. t
:iu!
iSi
;
-.
''"'.
. .
::'. :
F"
-T-
n
i i
lir.
is
'£-
jfe
ir.:^
11 "
.1
P-
ii:!
I'H
; . t
I, ..
ll 11!
:.~"
::r.
:._:.
;~
--<--
l:-)-;
(Si
I*
nit!
..j_ .
luJ-
jil|:
; _. ! i
i
njii
IIP
,!--
', -'
\T-
- ":
::~
ift
U :
if-
jitrj
te
lit)
Inr1
!ffl
1
jljij
HHi
dm
'.
jn::
IJT^
HE
fe
j|[:
IT:
J
ii"
It:
ii".
4-
i|i";
I'"'
UliLt
il
- ; i'
> t
..... .
- -.--'. r
ll
:4 \\
ir
.::: r.
... .a
j.
. . _ . _
u
^E-ilf
l-l-
--TT
-T-
a
i3
3
.-\
::t
';-'
-!|ll|
i lii 1
'.ill! 1
18
End S
1 !
:. :_:: :n
ii
-: :±: :ii!
24-
. ^_ .J ,
"1 -3^
H
4-
... -.^|
h:=t:3|
H :F *$
Ii H^* r|" "1
i ' iii i*
ngf Iff
ii iliij ll
,1 r~| d
H^ ij
ill
77Z1 -jc
IU
Mill
:00
ample Se
, j
1 1
[- ~-~~
I- ' i
^qr^
..j
-HJ
-4|
T:
_jj.
;J_ T T ' ,
^"! ^
I si
t qin
R irrj
T ~R
ff ^
ij ijjjj!
[I- xti
li 1
t- 1
(t W
tt nrT
I
i T
I i
t 15-
Figure D-5 Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #5
-------
APPENDIX D DETECTION LIMIT TABLES FOR
ROTARY KILN INCINERATION PERFORMANCE DATA
Tables D-l through D-3 indicate detection limits for all constituents
analyzed in samples from the K087 rotary kiln incineration test burn.
D-l
-------
Table D-l Detection Limits for Samples of K087 Untreated Waste
Collected During the K087 Test Burn
Detection limit
Sample Set i
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Oraamcs (ma/ka)
Acetone
Acetomtrile
Aero le in
Acrylomtn le
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Carbon tetrachlor ide
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l,3-butadiene
Ch lorod ibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1 ,2-D ibromomethane
D ibromomethane
trans-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
D i ch lorod i f luorome thane
1 , 1-Di chloroethane
1 ,2-Di chloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
trans-1 , 3-Dichloropropene
cis-1 , 3- Dich loropropene
1,4-Dioxane
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methylacry lonitri le
Methylene chloride
Pyridine
1,1,1, 2-Tetrachloroethane
1
2 0
20.0
20.0
20.0
1 0
1.0
2.0
1 0
1.0
1.0
20.0
1 0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
20.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
20.0
2 0
1 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 0
1.0
41.0
1.0
20.0
20.0
82.0
10.0
41.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
20.0
2.0
82.0
1.0
2
2.1
21.0
21.0
21.0
1.0
1.0
2 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
21 0
1 0
2 1
2.1
1.0
2.1
21.0
2.1
1.0
1.0
21.0
2.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 0
1.0
41.0
1.0
21.0
21 0
82.0
10.0
41.0
2.1
2.1
21.0
21.0
1.0
82.0
1.0
3
2.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
1 0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1 0
1 0
20.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
20.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
20.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
41.0
1.0
20.0
20.0
82 0
10.0
41.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
20.0
1.0
82.0
1.0
4
10 0
104.0
104.0
104.0
5.2
5.2
10 0
5 2
5 2
5 2
104 0
5 2
10 0
10 0
5.2
10.0
104.0
10.0
5.2
5.2
104.0
10.0
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
207.0
5.2
104 0
104.0
414.0
5.2
207.0
10.0
10.0
104.0
104.0
5.2
414.0
5.2
5
10.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
5.1
5.1
10 0
5 ;
5.1
5.1
102 0
5 1
10 0
10.0
5.1
10.0
102.0
10.0
5.1
5.1
102 0
10.0
5 1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5 1
5.1
203.0
5.1
102.0
102.0
406.0
5.1
203.0
10 0
10.0
102 0
102.0
5.1
406.0
5.1
D-2
-------
Table 0-1 (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set t
Constituent/parameter (units)
BDAT Volatile Orqanics (mg/kg)
(continued)
1 , 1 , 2 , 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tnbromomethane
1 , 1,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tnchloromonof luoromethane
1 ,2,3-Tnchloropropane
Vinyl chloride
Xy lenes
BDAT Semivolatile Orqanics (mg/kg)
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acety laminof luorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Am 1 me
Anthracene
Aramite
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
p-Benzoqumone
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) ethane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloropropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dmitrophenol
p-Chloroam 1 me
Chlorobenzi late
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
894
894
1788
1788
1788
894
894
894
4470
894
894
894
894
894
894
894
894
894
894
4470
894
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 0
1 0
1.0
1.0
2 1
1 0
1010
1010
2020
2020
2020
1010
1010
1010
5050
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
5050
1010
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2 0
1 0
954
954
1908
1908
1908
954
954
954
4770
954
954
954
954
954
954
954
954
954
954
4770
954
4
5 2
5.2
5.2
5 2
5 2
5 2
5 2
5 2
5 2
10 0
5 2
982
982
1964
1964
1964
982
982
982
4910
982
982
982
982
982
982
982
982
982
982
4910
982
5
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5 1
5.1
5 1
5.1
5 1
10.0
5 1
1026
1026
2052
2052
2052
1026
1026
1026
5130
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
5130
1026
D-3
-------
Table D-l (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set #
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Semwolat i 1e Orqanics (mg/kg)
(continued)
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropiomtri le
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
D ibenz( a, h) anthracene
Dibenzofa, e)pyrene
Dibenzo(a, i Jpyrene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
p- Dimethyl am inoazobenzene
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
2 , 4-Dimethy 1 phenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 , 4-Dinitrobenzene
4,6-Dimtro-o-cresol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dimtrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine/
diphenylmtrosamine
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadlene
Hexachloroethane
1
894
894
894
894
894
894
894
894
894
894
1790
894
894
894
1788
894
894
894
4470
4474
4474
894
894
894
894
1788
4470
894
894
894
894
894
894
2
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
2020
1010
1010
1010
2020
1010
1010
1010
5050
5050
5050
1010
1010
1010
1010
2020
5050
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
3
954
954
954
954
954
954
954
954
954
954
1906
954
954
954
1908
954
954
954
4770
4766
4766
954
954
954
954
1908
4770
954
954
954
954
954
954
4
982
982
982
982
982
982
982
982
982
982
1962
982
982
982
1964
982
982
982
4910
4906
4906
982
982
982
982
1964
4910
982
982
982
982
982
982
5
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1G26
1026
2052
1026
1026
1026
2052
1026
1026
1026
5130
5130
5130
1026
1026
1026
1026
2052
5130
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
D-4
-------
Table D-l (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set #
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Semivolati 1e Orqanics (mg/kg)
(continued)
Hexachlorophene
Hexach loropropene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isosaf role
Methapyr i lene
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4 ' -Methylenebis(2-chloroani 1 me)
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphtha lene
1 , 4-Naphthoqumone
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthy lamine
p-Nitroani 1 me
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamme
N -N 1 1 rosod i et hy 1 am i ne
N-Nitrosodimethy lamine
N -N itrosomethy let hy lamine
N-Nitrosomorpholme
N-Nitrosopiperidme
N-Nitrosopyrrol idine
5-Nitro-o-toluidme
Pentach lorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentach loron 1 1 robenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacet in
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picolme
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorcmol
Saf role
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4, 6-Tet rach loropheno 1
1,2, 4 -Trich lorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2, 4, 6-Trich loropheno 1
T r i s ( 2 , 3 -d i bromopropy 1 ) phosphate
1
894
1788
1788
1788
894
4470
4470
4474
894
4474
894
894
1788
894
4470
1788
894
4474
1788
894
894
894
894
4470
1788
894
4474
894
2
1010
2020
2020
2020
1010
5050
5060
5050
1010
5050
1010
1010
2020
1010
5050
2020
1010
5050
2020
1010
1010
1010
1010
5050
2020
1010
5050
1010
3
954
1908
1908
1908
954
4770
4770
4766
954
4766
954
954
1908
954
4770
1908
954
4766
1908
954
954
954
954
4770
1908
954
4766
954
4
982
1964
1964
1964
982
4910
4910
4906
982
4906
982
982
1964
982
4910
1964
982
4906
1964
982
982
982
98Z
4910
1964
982
4906
982
5
1026
2052
2052
2052
1026
5130
5130
5130
1026
5130
1026
1026
2052
1026
5130
2052
1026
5130
2052
1026
1026
1026
1086
5130
2052
1026
5130
1026
D-5
-------
Table D-l (Continued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Metals (ma/ka)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 Turn
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thai 1 mm
Vanadium
Zinc
BOAT Inorqanics Other Than Metals (mq/kq)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
BDAT PCB.s Ug/kg)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
BDAT Dioxins/Furans (ppb)
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxtns
Pentachlorodlbenzofuran
1
2.0
1.0
20
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
0.05
4.0
0.5
5 0
1 0
5.0
5.0
0.50
0.05
5.0
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
-
-
-
-
Detection limit
Sample Set #
2345
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
20 20 20 20
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
1 0 1.0 1.0 1 0
2.0 20 2.0 20
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
1.0 1.0 10 10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
40 40 40 40
0.5 05 05 05
5.0 50 50 50
10 10 1.0 10
50 50 50 50
5 0 5.0 5.0 5 0
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
0.05
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
2.3
1.9
2.6
1.9
D-6
-------
Table D-l (Continued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
Detection limit
Sample Set #
1234
5
BOAT Oioxins/Furans (ppb)
(continued)
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Non-BDAT Volatile Orqanics (mg/kg)
Styrene
Non-BDAT Semivolati1e Orqanics (mg/kg)
Dibenzofuran
-Methyl naphthalene
Other Parameters
Total organic halides (mg/kg)
Total solids (ppm)
1 0
894
894
1 0
1010
1010
1.0
954
954
5 2
982
962
1.9
1.8
2.1
5 1
10262
1026
20
10
20 20 20
10 10 10
20
10
Source: USEPA 1988a.
- = Not analyzed.
D-7
-------
Table D-2 Detection Limits for K067 Kiln Ash
Detection limit
Sample Set #
Constituent/parameter (units)
BDAT Volatile Orqanics Ug/kg)
Acetone
Acetonitn le
Acrolein
Acrylonitn le
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Carbon tetrachlor ide
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l ,3-butadiene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethy 1 vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
1 , 2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1 , 2-Dibromomethane
Dibromomethane
trans-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Dlchlorodlf luoromethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
trans-1 , 3-Dichloropropene
cis-1 , 3-D ich loropropene
1 ,4-Dioxane
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methylacry lonitn le
Methylene chloride
Pyridine
1
50
500
500
500
25
25
50
25
25
25
500
25
50
50
25
50
500
50
25
25
500
50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
1000
25
500
500
2000
250
1000
25
25
500
500
25
2000
2
50
500
500
500
25
25
50
25
25
25
500
25
50
50
25
50
500
50
25
25
500
50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
1000
25
500
500
2000
250
1000
25
25
500
500
25
2000
3
50
500
500
500
25
25
50
25
25
25
500
25
50
50
25
50
500
50
25
25
500
50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
1000
25
500
500
2000
250
1000
25
25
500
500
25
2000
4
50
500
500
500
25
25
50
25
25
25
500
25
50
"so
25
50
500
50
25
25
500
50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
1000
25
500
500
2000
250
1000
25
25
500
500
25
2000
5
50
500
500
500 '
25
25
50
25
25
25
500
25
50
50
25
50
500
50
25
25
500
50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
1000
25
500
500
2000
250
1000
25
25
500
500
25
2000
D-8
-------
Table D-2 (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set #
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics Ug/kg)
(continued)
1,1, 1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tnbromomethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Tnchloroethane
Tnchloroethene
Tr ichloromonof luorome thane
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
BOAT Semwolatile Orqanics (jjg/kg)
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminof luorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Am line
Anthracene
Aramite
Benz (a (anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)ethane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloropropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
1
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
25
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
25
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
3
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
25
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
4
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
25
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
25
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
D-9
-------
Table D-2 (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set *
Constituent/parameter (units)
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
BDAT Semivolatile Orqanics (jig/kg)
(continued)
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dimtropheno1 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
p-Chloroaniline 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Chlorobenz i late
p-Chloro-m-cresol 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
2-Chloronaphthalene 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
2-Chlorophenol 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
3-Chloropropionitn le
Chrysene 1000
ortho-Cresol 1000
para-Cresol 1000
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1000
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,iJpyrene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1,4-Dinitrobenzene
4,6-Dmitro-o-cresol
2,4-Oinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dimtrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine/
diphenylnitrosamine
1,2-Oiphenylhydrazine 5000 5000 5000 . 5000 5000
Fluoranthene 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Fluorene 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
D-10
-------
Table 0-2 (Continued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
Detection limit
Sample Set #
BOAT Semivolati1e Orqanics
(continued)
ug/kg)
Hexachlorobenzene 1000
Hexachlorobutadiene 1000
Hexachlorocyclopentadlene 1000
Hexachloroethane 1000
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(1.2,3-cd)pyrene 1000
Isosafrole 2000
Methapyn lene
3-Methy Icholanthrene 2000
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroani1 me) 2000
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene 1000
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamme
2-Naphthylamme
p-Nitroam line
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholme
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronltrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picol me
Pronamide
Pyrene 1000
Resorcmol
Safrole 5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
5000
5000
5000
5000
1000
5000
5000
5000
5000
1000
5000
5000
5000
5000
1000
5000
5000
5000
5000
1000
5000
1000
1000
2000
1000
5000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
5000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
5000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
5000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
5000
2000
10000
5000
2000
1000
1000
1000
10000
5000
2000
1000
1000
1000
10000
5000
2000
1000
1000
1000
10000
5000
2000
1000
1000
1000
100001
5000
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
5000
1000
5000
1000
5000
1000
5000
D-ll
-------
Table D-2 (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set #
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Semivolat i le Orqanics (/ig/kg)
(continued)
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4, 6-Tetrach loropheno 1
1 , 2 ,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4, 5-Trich loropheno 1
2 ,4 , 6-Trich loropheno 1
T r i s ( 2 , 3 -d i bromopropy 1 ) phosphate
BOAT Metals Other Than Metals (mq/kq)
Ant imony
Arsenic
Bar lum
Beryl 1 lum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Tver
Thai lium
Vanadium
Zinc
BOAT TCLP- Metals Uq/1)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 lum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
1
2000
1000
5000
1000
3 2
1 0
0. 10
0.10
0.40
0.70
0.60
0.50
0 10
1.1
0.50
0.60
1.0
0.60
0.20
32
10
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
0 20
2
2000
1000
5000
1000
2 0
1 0
20
0 5
1.0
2.0
2.5
1 0
0.05
4.0
0.50
5.0
1.0
5 0
2.5
20
10
200
5.0
10
20
25
1 0
0.30
3
2000
1000
5000
1000
2.0
1 0
20
0 5
1 0
2 0
2.5
1.0
0 05
4.0
0.50
5.0
1.0
5.0
2.5
20
10
200
5.0
10
20
25
1.0
0 30
4
2000
1000
5000
1000
2.0
1 0
20
0 5
1.0
2.0
2.5'
1 0
0.05
4.0
0.50
5.0
1.0
5.0
2 5
20
10
200
5 0
10
20
25
1 0
0.30
5
2000
1000
5000
1000
3 2
1.0
0 10
0 10
0.40
0.70
0.60
0 50
0.10
1.1
0.50
0.60
1.0
0.60
0.20
32
10
1.0
1 0
4.0
7 0
6.0
5.0
0.20
D-12
-------
Table 0-2 (Continued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT TCLP: Metals («q/l)
(continued)
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thai 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
BOAT Inorganics Other Than Metals (mq/kq)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
BOAT PCBs M/kq)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
BOAT Dioxins/Furans (ppb)
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzofuran
Tetrachlorodtbenzo-p-d toxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
2,3, 7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1
11
50
6.0
10
6.0
2.0
0.50
1.0
5.0
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Detection limit
Sample Set #
2345
40 40 40 11
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
50 50 50 6.0
10 10 10 500
50 50 50 60
50 50 50 2.0
0 50 0.50 0.50 0 50
1.0
5.0 5.0 50 25
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
0.09
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.02
0 02
0.01
D-13
-------
Table D-2 (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set #
Constituent/parameter (units) 1 2 3
Non-BDAT Volatile Orqanlcs Ug/kg)
Styrene 25 25 25 25 25
Non-BDAT Semivolat 11e Orqanics Ug/kg)
Dibenzofuran 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
2-Methylnaphthalene 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Other Parameters
Total organic carbon (mg/kg) 200 200 200 200 200
Total chlorides (mg/kg) 50 50 50 50 50
Total organic halides (mg/kg) 10 10 10 10 10
Source. USEPA 1988a.
- = Not analyzed.
D-14
-------
Table D-3 Detection Limits for K087 Scrubber Effluent Water
Detection limit
Sample Set t
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (^9/1)
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Aero le in
Acrylon itri le
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromome thane
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon tetrachlonde
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l,3-butadiene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
1 , 2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromomethane
Dibromomethane
trans-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Dichlorod if luoromethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2 -Oi chloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
1 ,4-Dioxane
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methylacrylonitri le
Methylene chloride
Pyndine
1,1,1, 2-Tetrachloroethane
1
10
100
100
100
5
5
10
5
5
5
100
5
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
5
100
100
50
200
10
100
100
5
400
5
2
10
100
100
100
5
5
10
5
5
5
100
5
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
5
100
100
50
200
10
100
100
5
400
5
3
10
100
100
100
5
5
10
5
5
5
100
c
J
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
5
100
100
50
200
10
100
100
5
400
5
4
10
100
100
100
5
5
10
5
5
5
100
5
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
5
100
100
50
200
10
100
100
5
400
5
5
10
100
100
100
5
5
10
5
5
5
100
5
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
5
100
100
50
200
10
100
100
5
400
5
6
10
100
100
100
5
5
10
5
C
~J
C
J
100
C
- 10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
5
100
100
50
200
10
100
100
5
400
5
D-15
-------
Table D-3 (Continued)
Detect ion 1 imit
Sample Set t
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (^g/1) (continued)
1, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tribromomethane
1,1, 1-Tnchloroethane
1, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tnch loromonof luoromethane
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
BOAT Semivolat i le Orqanics (uq/1)
Acenaphtha lene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminof luorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Arannte
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzenetrnol
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi )perylene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
is(2-chloroethoxy) ethane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloropropyl) ether
B i s ( 2-ethy Ihexy 1 Jphtha late
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2 -sec -Butyl -4, 6-dimtrophenol
p-Chloroani 1 me
Chlorobenzi late
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphthalene
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
10
50
10
50
10
100
10
50
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
10
50
10
50
10
100
10
50
10 '
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
10
50
10
50
10
100
10
50
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
10
50
10
50
10
100
10
50
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
10
50
10
50
10
100
10
50
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
10
50
10
50
10
100
10
50
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
D-16
-------
Table D-3 (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set #
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Semwolatile Orqanics (uq/1)
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitn le
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene
Dibenzo(a, i Jpyrene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3 '-Dichlorobenz idine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3,3' -Oimethoxybenzidine
p- Dimethyl ami noaz obenzene
3,3 ' -Dimethylbenzidine
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,4-Dinitrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Din itrophenol
2,4-Dimtrotoluene
2,6-Dimtrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dipheny lamine/
diphenylnitrosamine
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexach lorobenzene
Hexach lorobut ad i ene
Hexach lorocyc lopentad i ene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexach loropropene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
1
(cont inued)
20
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
2
20
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
3
20
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
4
20
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
5
20
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
1C
20
10
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
6
20
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
D-17
-------
Table D-3 (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set #
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Semi volatile Orqanics (;iq/l)
Isosaf role
Methapyri lene
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4 '-Methylenebis(2-chloroani 1 me)
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqumone
1-Naphthylamme
2-Naphthylamme
p-Nitroan 1 1 me
Nitrobenzene
4-Ni trophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamme
N-Nitrosomorpholme
N-Nitrosopiperidme
N-Nitrosopyrrol idine
5-Nitro-o-toluidme
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronltrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picoline
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorcinol
Saf role
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4, 6-Tetrachlorophenol
1 ,2,4-Tnchlorobenzene
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Tnchlorophenol
Tns( 2, 3- dlbromopropyl) phosphate
1
(continued)
50
10
10
10
50
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
50
20
20
20
10
50
10
2
50
10
10
10
50
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
50
20
20
20
10
50
10
3
50
10
10
10
50
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
50
20
20
20
10
50
10
4
50
10
10
10
50
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
50
20
20
20
10
50
10
5
50
10
10
10
50
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
50
20
20
20
10
50
10
6
50
10
10
10
50
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
50
20
20
20
10
50
10
D-18
-------
Table D-3 (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set #
Constituent/parameter (units) 1 2
BOAT Metals (uq/1)
Antimony 32 33
Arsenic 10 10
Barium 1.0 1.0
Beryllium 1.0 1.0
Cadmium 4.0 4.0
Chromium 7.0 7.0
Copper 6.0 60
Lead 5.0 5.0
Mercury 0 20 0 20
Nickel 11 11
Selenium 50 50
Si Iver 6.0 70
Thallium 10 10
Vanadium 60 60
Zinc 2.0 2 0
BOAT Inorqanics Other Than Metals (mq/1)
Cyanide 0.01 0 01
Fluoride 0.20 0.20
Sulfide 1-0 1.0
BOAT PCBs Uq/1)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
BOAT Dioxins/Furans (ppt)
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzof uran
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
3
20
10
200
5.0
10
20
25
10
0 30
40
5 0
50
10
50
50
0.01
0 01
1.0
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4 5
20 20
10 10
200 200
5.0 5.0
10 10
20 20
25 25
10 10
0.30 0 30
40. 40
50 50
50 50
10 10
50 50
50 50
0.01 0 01
-
1.0 1.0
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
32
10
1.0
1.0
4.0
7 0
6.0
5.5
0.20
11
5 0
6 0
10
6 0
2.0
0.01
0.20
1.0
0 5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.39
0 32
1.45
0.75
0 32
0 32
0 32
D-19
-------
Table D-3 (Continued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
Detection limit
Sample Set t
12345
6
Non-BDAT Volatile Orqamcs (/jq/1)
Styrene
Non-BDAT Semivolat11e Orqamcs (uq/1)
Dlbenzofuran
2-Methylnaphthalene
Other Parameters
Total chlorides (mg/1)
Total organic carbon (mg/1)
Total organic halides (jig/1)
Tota 1 sol ids (mg/ 1 )
10
10
1 0
2 0
10
10
10
10
1 0
2 0
10
10
10
10
1 0
2 0
10
10
10
10
1 0
2 0
10
10
10
10
1.0
2 0
10
10
10
10
1 C
2 0
20
10
Source- USEPA 1988a.
Samples are not assigned to sample sets
- = Not analyzed
D-20
-------
APPENDIX E
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT FOR THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
The comparative method of measuring thermal conductivity has been
proposed as an ASTM test method under the name "Guarded,'Comparative,
Longitudinal Heat Flow Technique." A thermal heat flow circuit is used
which is the analog of an electrical circuit with resistances in series.
A reference material is chosen to have a thermal conductivity close to
that estimated for the sample. Reference standards (also known as heat
meters) having the same cross-sectional dimensions as the sample are
placed above and below the sample. An upper heater, a lower heater, and
a heat sink are added to the "stack" to complete the heat flow circuit.
See Figure 1.
The temperature gradients (analogous to potential differences) along
the stack are measured with type K (chromel/alumel) thermocouples placed
at known separations. The thermocouples are placed into holes or grooves
in the references and also in the sample whenever the sample is thick
enough to accommodate them.
For molten samples, pastes, greases, and other materials that must be
contained, the material is placed into a cell consisting of a top and
bottom of Pyrex 7740 and a containment ring of marinite. The sample is 2
inch in diameter and .5 inch thick. Thermocouples are not placed into
the sample but rather the temperatures measured in the Pyrex are
extrapolated to give the temperature at the top and bottom surfaces of
the sample material. The Pyrex disks also serve as the thermal
conductivity reference material.
E-l
-------
GUARD
GRADIENT,
STACK
GRADIENT.
THERMOCOUPLE
no.
CLAMP
UPPER STACK
HEATER
I
TOP REFERENCE
SAMPLE
I
TEST/SAMPLE
j
BOTTOM
REFERENCE
SAMPLE
1
LOWER STACK
HEATER
I
LIQUID "COOLED
HEAT SINK
UPPER
GUARD
HEATER
HEAT FLOW
DIRECTION
LOWER
GUARD
HEATER
FIGURE E-l
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE COMPARATIVE METHOD
E-2
-------
The stack is clamped with a reproducible load to ensure intimate
contact between the components. In order to produce a linear flow of
heat down the stack and reduce the amount of heat that flows radially, a
guard tube is placed around the stack and the intervening space is filled
with insulating grains or powder. The temperature gradient in the guard
is matched to that in the stack to further reduce radial heat flow.
The comparative method is a steady state method of measuring thermal
conductivity. When equilibrium is reached the heat flux (analogous to
current flow) down the stack can be determined from the references. The
heat into the sample is given by
Q. = A+ (dT/dx)
in top top
and the heat out of the sample is given by
Qout = A (dT/dx), ^
bottom bottom
where
A = thermal conductivity
dT/dx = temperature gradient
and -top refers to the upper reference while bottom refers to the lower
reference. If the heat were confined to flow just down the stack, then
Q and Q would be equal. If Q and Q are in reasonable
in out in out
agreement, the average heat flow is calculated from
Q = (Q. + Q J/2
in out
The sample thermal conductivity is then found from
A . = Q/(dT/dx) .
sample sample,
E-3
------- |