-------
BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (BOAT)
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR F001-F005 SPENT SOLVENTS
VOLUME 2
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
James R. Berlow, Chief David Pepson
Treatment Technology Section Project Manager
CJ.S. Environmental Protoction Agency
ie* 5, Library (5FL-16)
9. l»arboril Str«»t, Hooa
5tL 159604
November 7, 1986
-------
BDAT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR
F001-F005 SPENT SOLVENT WASTES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 . Page
Executive Summary xxi
SECTION 1: Background and General Description
1.1 Legal Background 1-1
1.2 EPA's Approach to Developing BDAT 1-2
1.2.1 Waste Treatability Groups 1-3
1.2.2 Determination of "Demonstrated" Treatment
Technologies • 1-3
1.2.3 Determination of "Available" Treatment
Technologies 1-4
(1) Treatment technologies that present greater
total risks than land disposal methods 1-5
(2) Proprietary or Patented Processes 1-5
(3) Substantial Treatment 1-5
1.2.4 Collection and Analysis of Performance Data 1-6
(1) Collection of Performance Data 1-6
(2) Treatment Design and Operation 1-7
1.2.5 Identification of "Best" Demonstrated Available
Treatment 1-8
1.2.6 Variance from the Treatment Standard 1-8
SECTION 2: Industries Affected
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Classification of Waste as F001-F005 Spent Solvents 2-1
2.3 Industries Which Use Listed Solvents 2-1
2.4 Spent Solvent Waste Generation 2-10
2.4.1 Surface Cleaning 2-10
2.4.2 Equipment Cleaning 2-11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
SECTION 2 (continued)
2.5 Geographical Distributions 2-12
REFERENCES 2-45
SECTION 3: Waste Characterization
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Waste Characterization Data 3-1
3.2.1 Furniture Manufacturing 3-3
3.2.2 Plastics and Resins Industry 3-7
3.2.3 Fiber Industry 3-10
3.2.4 Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing 3-11
3.2.5 Paint Formulation 3-15
3.2.6 Dyes and Pigments Manufacturing 3-16
3.2.7 Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 3-17
3.2.8 Organic Pesticides Manufacturing 3-21
3.2.9 Printing Industry 3-24
3.2.10 Can Coating Industry 3-26
3.2.11 Membrane Production Industry 3-31
REFERENCES 3-32
SECTION 4: Applicable Treatment Technologies 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Carbon Adsorption 4-1
4.2.1 Applicability 4-1
4.2.2 Underlying Principles of Operation 4-2
4.2.3 Description of Activated Carbon Manufacture and
Carbon Regeneration 4-3
(1) Activated Carbon Manufacture 4-3
(2) Carbon Regeneration 4-5
4.2.4 Design and Operating Parameters Affecting
Performance 4-6
(1) Design Parameters 4-6
(2) Operating Parameters 4-9
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION 4: (continued)
4.2.5 Bench-Scale Testing 4-10
4.2.6 Pilot-Scale Testing 4-11
Carbon Adsorption References 4-13
4.3 Distillation 4-14
4.3.1 Steam Stripping 4-14
(1) Applicability 4-14
(2) Underlying Principles of Operation 4-14
(3) Description of Steam Stripping 4-17
(4) Design and Operating Parameters Affecting
Performance 4-17
4.3.2 Batch Distillation 4-20
(1) Applicability 4-20
(2) Underlying Principles of Operation 4-21
(3) Description of Batch Distillation 4-21
(4) Design and Operating Parameters Affecting
Performance 4-21
4.3.3 Thin Film Evaporation 4-23
(1) Applicability 4-23
(2) Underlying Principles of Operation 4-23
(3) Description of Thin Film Evaporation 4-24
(4) Design and Operating Parameters Affecting
Performance 4-24
4.3.4 Fractionation 4-24
(1) Applicability 4-24
(2) Underlying Principles of Operation 4-26
(3) Description of Fractionation 4-26
(4) Design and Operating Parameters Affecting
Performance 4-26
Distillation References 4-29
4.4 Biological Treatment 4-30
4.4.1 Applicability 4-30
4.4.2 Underlying Principles of Operation 4-30
(1) Anaerobic Biological Treatment 4-31
(2) Aerobic Biological Treatment 4-31
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION 4: (continued)
4.4.3 Description of.Biological Treatment 4-32
(1) Activated Sludge 4-32
(2) Aerated Lagoons 4-34
(3) Trickling Filters 4-35
(4) Rotating Biological Contactors 4-37
4.4.4 Design and Operating Parameters Which Affect
Performance 4-39
(1) Equalization 4-39
(2) Nutrients 4-39
(3) Aeration/Oxygen Supply 4-40
(4) Wastewater-Biomass Contact 4-41
(5) Microorganism Growth Phase 4-43
(6) Temperature 4-43
(7) ph 4-44
(8) Selection of Microorganisms 4-45
Biological Treatment References 4-46
4.5 Incineration 4-47
4.5.1 Applicability 4-47
4.5.2 Underlying Principles of Operation 4-47
4.5.3 Description of Incinerators 4-48
(1) Liquid Injection 4-48
(2) Rotary Kiln 4-48
(3) Fluidized Bed 4-51
(4) Hearth 4-51
4.5.4 Design and Operating Parameters Affecting
Performance 4-51
(1) Design Parameters 4-51
(2) Operating Parameters 4-59
Incineration References 4-61
4.6 Wet Air Oxidation 4-62
4.6.1 Applicability 4-62
4.6.2 Underlying Principles of Operation 4-62
4.6.3 Description of Wet Air Oxidation 4-63
(1) Conventional Wet Air Oxidation 4-63
(2) Catalyzed Wet Air Oxidation 4-65
IV
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
SECTION 4: (continued)
4.6.4 Design and Operating Parameters Affecting
Performance 4-65
Wet Air Oxidation References 4-67
4.7 Air Stripping 4-68
4.7.1 Applicability 4-68
4.7.2 Underlying Principles of Operation 4-68
4.7.3 Description of Air Stripping 4-68
(1) Mechanical Surface Aerators 4-70
(2) Diffused Aerators 4-70
Air Stripping References 4-71
4.8 Fuel Substitution 4-72
4.8.1 Applicability 4-72
4.8.2 Underlying Principles of Operation 4-72
4.8.3 Description of Fuel Substitution 4-72
(1) Industrial Boilers 4-73
(2) Industrial Kilns 4-73
4.8.4 Design and Operating Parameters Affecting
Performance 4-74
Fuel Substitution References 4-76
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
VOLUME 2 Page
SECTION 5: Treatment Performance 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Summary of Treatment Performance Data 5-2
5.3 Data Editing Rules 5-5
5.4 Statistical Methods for Establishing BOAT 5-7
5.4.1 Variability Factor Calculation 5-7
5.4.2 Outlier Test 5-9
5.4.3 Analysis of Variance 5-9
5.5 Development of BOAT Treatment Standards for Wastewaters
Containing F001-F005 Spent Solvent Wastes 5-12
5.5.1 Transfer of Treatment Data for Wastewaters
Containing F001-F005 Spent Solvent Wastes 5-14
5.5.2 Derivation of Average Variability Factors for
Wastewater Treatment 5-17
5.5.3 Acetone Wastewaters 5-20
5.5.4 n-Butyl Alcohol Wastewaters 5-21
5.5.5 Carbon Disulfide Wastewaters 5-22
5.5.6 Carbon Tetrachloride Wastewaters 5-23
5.5.7 Chlorobenzene Wastewaters 5-27
5.5.8 Cresols (Cresylic Acid) Wastewaters 5-34
5.5.9 Cyclohexanone Wastewaters 5-37
5.5.10 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Wastewaters 5-38
5.5.11 Ethyl Acetate Wastewaters 5-44
5.5.12 Ethylbenzene Wastewaters .' 5-45
5.5.13 Ethyl Ether Wastewaters 5-57
5.5.14 Isobutanol Wastewaters 5-58
5.5.15 Methanol Wastewaters 5-59
5.5.16 Methylene Chloride Wastewaters 5-62
5.5.17 Methyl Ethyl Ketone Wastewaters 5-71
5.5.18 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Wastewaters 5-73
5.5.19 Nitrobenzene Wastewaters 5-77
5.5.20 Pyridine Wastewaters 5-83
5.5.21 Tetrachloroethylene Wastewaters 5-84
5.5.22 Toluene Wastewaters 5-91
5.5.23 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Wastewaters 5-110
5.5.24 l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-Trifluoroethane Wastewaters. 5-115
5.5.25 Trichloroethylene Wastewaters 5-116
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION 5: (Continued)
5.5.26 Trichlorofluoromethane Wastewaters 5-123
5.5.27 Xylene Wastewaters 5-126
5.6 Development of BDAT Treatment Standards for
F001-F005 Spent Solvent Wastes (Other Than Wastewater) .. 5-129
5.6.1 Transfer of Incineration Treatment Data 5-130
5.6.2 Derivation of An Average Variability Factor for
Incineration 5-133
5.6.3 Acetone (Other Than Wastewater) 5-135
5.6.4 n-Butyl Alcohol (Other Than Wastewater) 5-139
5.6.5 Carbon Disulfide (Other Than Wastewater) 5-140
5.6.6 Carbon Tetrachloride (Other Than Wastewater) 5-143
5.6.7 Chlorobenzene (Other Than Wastewater) 5-144
5.6.8 Cresols (Cresylic Acid) (Other Than Wastewater)... 5-147
5.6.9 Cyclohexanone (Other Than Wastewater) 5-148
5.6.10 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (Other Than Wastewater) 5-149
5.6.11 Ethyl Acetate (Other Than Wastewater) 5-152
5.6.12 Ethylbenzene (Other Than Wastewater) 5-153
5.6.13 Ethyl Ether (Other Than Wastewater) 5-156
5.6.14 Isobutanol (Other Than Wastewater) 5-157
5.6.15 Methanol (Other Than Wastewater) 5-158
5.6.16 Methylene Chloride (Other Than Wastewater) 5-159
5.6.17 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (Other Than Wastewater) 5-163
5.6.18 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (Other Than Wastewater) 5-166
5.6.19 Nitrobenzene (Other Than Wastewater) 5-170
5.6.20 Pyridine (Other Than Wastewater) 5-173
5.6.21 Tetrachloroethylene (Other Than Wastewater) 5-174
5.6.22 Toluene (Other Than Wastewater) 5-177
5.6.23 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Other Than Wastewater) .... 5-181
5.6.24 1,1,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Other Than
Wastewater) 5-184
5.6.25 Trichloroethylene (Other Than Wastewater) 5-185
5.6.26 Trichlorofluoromethane (Other Than Wastewater) ... 5-188
5.6.27 Xylene (Other Than Wastewater) 5-189
REFERENCES 5-192
VI1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
VOLUME 3
APPENDIX I 1-1
APPENDIX II II-l
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
BOAT Treatment Standards xxii
2-1 Constituents of Listed.Hazardous Spent Solvent Wastes .. 2-2
2-2 Industries Using Solvents Listed as F001-F005 2-3
2-3 Industries Involved in Surface Cleaning and
Degreasing 2-9
2-4 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Wood Furniture Manufacturing 2-14
2-5 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Metal Furniture Manufacturing 2-15
2-6 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Plastics and Resins Manufacturing 2-16
2-7 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Fiber Manufacturing 2-17
2-8 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 2-18
2-9 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Paint Manufacturing and Application 2-19
2-10 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Cyclic Crudes and Intermediates Including Dyes
Manufacturing 2-20
2-11 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Pigments Manufacturing 2-21
2-12 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 2-22
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Page
2-13 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Agricultural Chemicals Manufacturing 2-23
2-14 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Printing Industry 2-24
2-15 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Commercial Testing Laboratories 2-25
2-16 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Electronic Components Manufacturing 2-26
2-17 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Semiconductors and Related Devices Manufacture 2-27
2-18 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Synthetic Rubber Industry 2-28
2-19 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Tire Industry 2-29
2-20 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Textiles Industry 2-30
2-21 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Leather and Tanning Industry 2-31
2-22 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Transportation Vehicles Manufacturing 2-32
2-23 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Paper Coating Industry 2-33
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Page
2-24 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Adhesives and Sealants Industry 2-34
2-25 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Food Industry - Beer, Edible Fats, and Butter 2-35
2-26 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Dry Cleaning Industry 2-36
2-27 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Wool Weaving and Finishing Industry 2-37
2-28 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Petroleum Refining Industry 2-38
2-29 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Primary Metals Manufacturing 2-39
2-30 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Fabricated Metals Manufacturing 2-40
2-31 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Non-Electric Machinery Manufacture 2-41
2-32 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Electric Equipment Manufacture 2-42
2-33 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Instruments and Clocks Manufacture 2-43
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table
Paqe
2-34 Census Data (1977) for Number of Facilities in Each
State and EPA Region
Automotive Repair Shops 2-44
3-1 Summary of Industries for Which Spent Solvent Waste
Characterization Data Are Available 3-2
3-2 Waste Characterization Data for Spent Thinner and
Solvent from Furniture Manufacturing - Plant A 3-3
3-3 Waste Characterization Data for Spent Thinner and
Solvent from Furniture Manufacturing - Plant B 3-4
3-4 Waste Characterization Data for Spent Thinner and
Solvent from Furniture Manufacturing - Plant C 3-5
3-5 Waste Characterization Data for Spent Thinner and
Solvent from Furniture Manufacturing - Plant D 3-6
3-6 Waste Characterization Data for Still Bottoms and
Caustic from Plastics and Resins Manufacturing 3-7
3-7 Waste Characterization Data for Epoxy Resin Waste
from Plastics and Resins Manufacturing 3-7
3-8 Waste Characterization Data for Phenolic and Polyester/
Alkyd Resin Waste from Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing 3-9
3-9 Waste Characterization Data for Solvent Recovery
Bottoms, Laboratory Solvents and Chrome Plating
Solution from Fiber Industry 3-10
3-10 Waste Characterization Data for Solvent Recovery
Bottoms from Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 3-11
3-11 Waste Characterization Data for Solvent Recovery
Bottoms from Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 3-13
3-12 Waste Characterization Data for Paint Tank Wash from
Paint Manufacturing 3-15
Xll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Page
3-13 Waste Characterization Data for Spent Thinner from
Paint Manufacturing 3-15
3-14 Waste Characterization Data for Dyes and Pigments
Waste from Dyes and Pigments Manufacturing 3-16
3-15 Waste Characterization Data for Still Bottoms and
Caustic from Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 3-17
3-16 Waste Characterization Data for Isocyanates
Manufacturing Wastes from Organics Chemicals
Manufacturing 3-19
3-17 Waste Characterization Data for Diphenyl Methane and
Isocyanate Manufacturing Wastes from Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing 3-19
3-18 Waste Characterization Data for Alkenes Manufacturing
Wastes from Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 3-20
3-19 Waste Characterization Data from Aldehyde Furan
Manufacturing Waste from Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing 3-20
3-20 Waste Characterization Data from Organic
Pesticides Manufacturing 3-21
3-21 Waste Characterization Data from Organic
Pesticides Manufacturing 3-21
3-22 Waste Characterization Data from Organic
Pesticides Manufacturing 3-22
3-23 Waste Characterization Data from Organic
Pesticides Manufacturing 3-22
3-24 Waste Characterization Data from Organic
Pesticides Manufacturing 3-23
3-25 Waste Characterization Data from Organic
Pesticides Manufacturing 3-23
Xlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Page
3-26 Waste Characterization Data for Solvent Recovery
Bottoms from Printing Industry 3-24
3-27 Waste Characterization Data for Spent Ink Wash from
Printing Industry 3-25
3-28 Waste Characterization Data for Spent Can Coating
Residue from Can Coating Industry 3-26
3-29 Waste Characterization Data for Spent Solvents and
Organics from Membrane Production Industry 3-31
5-1 Quantification Levels for F001-F005 Solvents 5-6
5-2 BOAT Treatment Standards (as Concentrations in the
Treatment Residual Extract) 5-13
5-3 Grouping of Spent Solvent Constituents for Transfer
of BOAT Wastewater Treatment Data 5-15
5-4 Variability Factors for All Full-Scale Wastewater
Treatment Data Sets Used in the Derivation of the
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
BOAT Treatment Standards
Treatment Performance Data for Carbon Tetrachloride ....
Calculation of BOAT for Carbon Tetrachloride
Treatment Performance Data for Chlorobenzene
Calculation of BOAT for Chlorobenzene
Treatment Performance Data for Cresols (Cresylic
Acid)
Treatment Performance Data for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
Calculation of BDAT for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
Treatment Performance Data for Ethylbenzene
Calculation of BDAT for Ethvlbenzene
5-18
5-25
5-26
5-30
5-33
5-36
5-40
5-43
5-47
5-56
XIV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Page
5-14 Treatment Performance Data for Methanol 5-61
5-15 Treatment Performance Data for Methylene Chloride 5-65
5-16 Calculation of BOAT for Methylene Chloride 5-70
5-17 Treatment Performance Data for Methyl Ethyl Ketone 5-72
5-18 Treatment Performance Data for Methyl Isobutyl Ketone .. 5-75
5-19-' Calculation of BDAT for Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 5-76
5-20 Treatment Performance Data for Nitrobenzene 5-79
5-21 Calculation of BDAT for Nitrobenzene 5-82
5-22 Treatment Performance Data for Tetrachloroethylene 5-86
5-23 Calculation of BDAT for Tetrachloroethylene 5-90
5-24 Treatment Performance Data for Toluene 5-94
5-25 Calculation of BDAT for Toluene 5-109
5-26 Treatment Performance Data for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ... 5-112
5-27 Calculation of BDAT for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5-114
5-28 Treatment Performance Data for Trichloroethylene 5-118
5-29 Calculation of BDAT for Trichloroethylene 5-122
5-30 Treatment Performance Data for Trichlorofluoromethane... 5-125
5-31 Treatment Performance Data for Xylene 5-128
5-32 Grouping of Spent Solvent Constituents for Transfer
of BDAT Treatment Data for All Other F001-F005
Spent Solvents 5-131
5-33 Variability Factors for Incineration Data 5-134
5-34 Incineration Data for Acetone 5-137
XV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table
5-35 Incineration Data for Carbon Disulfide 5-142
5-36 Incineration Data for Chlorobenzene 5-146
5-37 Incineration Data for 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 5-151
5-38 Incineration Data for Ethylbenzene 5-155
5-39 Incineration Data for Methylene Chloride 5-161
5-40 Incineration Data for Methyl Ethyl Ketone 5-165
5-41 Incineration Data for Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 5-168
5-42 Incineration Data for Nitrobenzene 5-172
5-43 Incineration Data for Tetrachloroethylene 5-176
5-44 Incineration Data for Toluene 5-179
5-45 Incineration Data for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5-183
5-46 Incineration Data for Trichloroethylene 5-187
5-47 Incineration Data for Xylene 5-191
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Page
1-1 Index of Plant Treatment Data 1-1
II-l Analysis of Variance Results for Comparing Biological
and Combined Biological and Activated Carbon Treatments
at Plant 246 (Chlorobenzene) II-2
II-2 Summary Statistics for the Transformed Data at
Plant 246 (Chlorobenzene) II-2
II-3 The Outlier Test Results for the Biological Treatment
Performance Data at Plant 246 (1,2-Dichlorobenzene) .... II-3
II-4 Analysis of Variance Results for Comparing Biological
and Combined Biological and Activated Carbon Treatments
at Plant 246 (1,2-Dichlorobenzene) II-4
II-5 Summary Statistics for the Transformed Data at
Plant 246 (1,2-Dichlorobenzene) II-4
II-6 Analysis of Variance for Comparing Steam Stripping
of Pharmaceuticals Industry Treatment Data and
Biological Treatment Data at Plant 265 (Methylene
Chloride) II-5
II-7 Analysis of Variance Results for Comparing Air
Stripping Treatment and Steam Stripping Pilot-Scale
Treatments (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) II-6
II-8 The Outlier Test Results for the Combined Steam
Stripping and Activated Carbon Treatments at Plant 297
(Nitrobenzene) II-6
II-9 Analysis of Variance Results for Comparing Steam
Stripping and Combined Steam Stripping and Activated
Carbon Treatments at Plant 297 (Nitrobenzene) II-7
11-10 Summary Statistics for the Transformed Data at
Plant 297 (Nitrobenzene) II-7
11-11 The Outlier Test Results for the Biological Treatment
Data at Plant 225 (Tetrachloroethylene) II-8
XVI1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Page
11-12 The Outlier Test Results for the Biological Treatment
Data at Plant 234 (Toluene) II-9
11-13 Analysis of Variance Results for Comparing Biological
Treatment and Combined Biological and Activated
Carbon Treatments at Plant 246 (Toluene) 11-10
11-14 Summary Statistics for the Transformed Data at
Plant 246 (Toluene) 11-10
11-15 Analysis of Variance Results for Comparing Pilot-Scale
Air Stripping and Pilot-Scale Steam Stripping Data
(1,1,1-Trichloroethane) 11-11
11-16 Summary Statistics for the Transformed Data of the
Pilot-Scale Air and Steam Stripping Treatments
(1,1,1-Trichloroethane) 11-11
11-17 The Outlier Test Results for the Steam Stripping
Treatment Data at Plant 284 (Trichloroethylene) 11-12
xvi 11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 EPA Regions 2-13
3-1 Resin Production Process 3-8
3-2 Organic Phosphate Ester Production Process 3-18
3-3 Litho Pressing of Three Piece Cans 3-27
3-4 Production of Two Piece Can Bodies 3-28
3-5 Pressing of Can Ends 3-29
3-6 Assembly of Three Piece Cans 3-30
4-1 Plot of Breakthrough Curve 4-4
4-2 Moving Bed Carbon Adsorption 4-8
4-3 Isotherms for Carbon Adsorption 4-12
4-4 Steam Stripping 4-18
4-5 Batch Distillation 4-22
4-6 Thin Film Evaporation 4-25
4-7 Tray Fractionation Column 4-27
4-8 Activated Sludge 4-33
4-9 Trickling Filter 4-36
4-10 Rotating Biological Contactor 4-38
4-11 Liquid Injection Incinerator 4-49
4-12 Rotary Kiln Incinerator 4-50
4-13 Fluidized Bed Incinerator 4-52
4-14 Hearth Incinerator 4-53
4-15 Wet Air Oxidation 4-64
4-16 Air Stripping 4-69
xix
-------
-------
5. TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
5.1 Introduction
This section explains how all of the treatment standards for
F001-F005 spent solvents were derived. A summary of the sources of
treatment performance data used to derive BDAT treatment standards for
spent solvent wastes is presented in Section 5.2. Data editing
procedures are discussed in Section 5.3. Statistical analyses, including
calculation of variability factors, outlier determination, and analysis
of variance are discussed in Section 5.4. Development of BDAT treatment
standards for wastewaters containing the F001-F005 spent solvent
constituents are presented in Section 5.5. Treatment standards for all
other spent solvent wastes are presented in Section 5.6. Complete data
sets characterizing wastes used in the derivation of the treatment
standards are presented in Appendix I. This appendix should be consulted
when determining whether to submit a petition for a variance from the
treatment standard. To obtain a variance, a petitioner would have to
show that their F001-F005 spent solvent waste is sufficiently different
from the wastes considered in the development of the treatment standard,
such that EPA's consideration of this waste during the rulemaking would
have resulted in a separate treatability subgroup. All pertinent
statistical parameters and results used to determine the treatment
standards are presented in Appendix II.
5-1
-------
5.2 Summary of Treatment Performance Data
EPA collected data on treatment of wastes containing the F001-F005
spent solvent constituents. Treatment data were examined by EPA from the
following sources for use in development of BDAT treatment standards for
F001-F005 spent solvents:
a) Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
Industries Data Base (Reference 13). EPA collected treatment
performance data for the development of OCPSF effluent limitations
regulations. For the F001-F005 spent solvents rule, we used data
from 28 plants in the OCPSF category. Wastewater treatment
technologies for which data were collected as part of this program
include steam stripping, biological treatment, and systems which
use these technologies in combination with activated carbon
adsorption. These data do not necessarily represent treatment of
spent solvent wastes, but rather treatment of wastes containing
the constituents. The Agency may use treatment data from wastes
that it believes to be similar and that contain constituents of
concern even though the actual wastes may not fall within an EPA
code.
b) Pharmaceuticals Industry Data Base (Reference 14). EPA collected
data for the development of effluent guidelines for the
Pharmaceuticals industry. We are using data from one plant which
operates a steam stripper for treatment of methylene chloride
wastewater in this data base. These data were presented in EPA's
Notice of Availability of Data (Reference 16).
c) Subseguent to proposal, EPA collected incinerator residue samples
from the incineration of hazardous wastes, including spent
solvents, from 10 incinerators at 9 sites (Reference 11).
Analyses of TCLP extracts of the residue and total analyses of the
residue were performed for these samples. Analyses were also
performed on influent wastes fed to the incinerators at all
sites. These data were presented in EPA's Notice of Availability
of Data (Reference 16).
d) Data on pilot-scale steam stripping and air stripping of
solvent-contaminated groundwater are presented in a paper by
Stover and Kincannon, 1983 (Reference 2). These data do not
necessarily represent treatment of spent solvent wastes, but
rather treatment of similar wastes containing the constituents.
5-2
-------
e) Data on full-scale powdered activated carbon and biological
treatment (commercially available PACT® process) of organic
chemical manufacturing wastewater are presented in a paper by
Hutton, 1979 (Reference 4). These data do not necessarily
represent treatment of spent solvent wastes, but rather treatment
of similar wastes containing the constituents.
f) Data on pilot-scale air stripping of tap water spiked with
tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene and groundwater
contaminated by industrial discharge are presented in a paper by
Love and Eilers, 1982 (Reference 6). These data do not
necessarily represent treatment of spent solvent wastes, but
rather treatment of similar wastes containing the constituents.
g) Data on pilot-scale granular activated carbon adsorption of runoff
water from a waste disposal site's containment dikes are presented
in a paper by Becker and Wilson, 1978 (Reference 7). These data
do not necessarily represent treatment of spent solvent wastes,
but rather treatment of similar wastes containing the constituents.
h) Data on full-scale granular activated carbon adsorption of
pesticide wastewater are presented in a report by IT
Enviroscience, 1983 (Reference 3). These data do not necessarily
represent treatment of spent solvent wastes, but rather treatment
of similar wastes containing the constituents.
i) Data on full-scale biological treatment of wastewaters from the
synfuels industry are presented in a report by Torpy, Raphaelian,
and Luthy, 1981 (Reference 5). These data do not necessarily
represent treatment of spent solvent wastes, but rather treatment
of similar wastes containing the constituents.
j) Data on full-scale granular activated carbon adsorption of cresol
wastewater are presented in a paper by Baker, Clark, and Jeserig,
1973 (Reference 12). These data do not necessarily represent
treatment of spent solvent wastes, but rather treatment of similar
wastes containing the constituents.
k) Data on bench-scale wet air oxidation of F001-F005 spent solvent
wastes and on a synthetic waste containing methylene chloride were
submitted by Zimpro, Inc., 1986 (Reference 10). These data do not
necessarily represent treatment of spent solvent wastes, but
rather treatment of similar wastes containing the constituents.
1) Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category Data Base
(Reference 9). EPA collected data for the development of effluent
guidelines for the iron and steel manufacturing industry. We
considered data for xylene and toluene from three combined
treatment systems in this data base.
5-3
-------
m) Data on pilot-scale granular activated carbon adsorption of
organic contaminants in a drinking water supply are presented in a
paper by Ruggiero and Ausubel, 1982 (Reference 8). These data do
not necessarily represent treatment of spent solvent wastes, but
rather treatment of similar wastes containing the constituents.
Performance data used to develop BOAT treatment standards are presented
by constituent for each of the F001-F005 spent solvent wastes in
Sections 5.5 and 5.6. Complete data sets displaying all constituent
values and all pollutant parameters analyzed for each influent and
effluent point within each plant are included in Appendix I. The reader
should consult this appendix for information characterizing the wastes
treated in development of BDAT treatment standards.
5-4
-------
5.3 Data Editing Rules
The following editing rules were applied to all of the available
data. Changes from proposal are also discussed here:
a) All sets of influent and effluent concentrations were considered
to be paired data unless it was known that the samples were not
collected so as to fully account for the retention time in the
treatment system. Paired data sets were deleted if the influent
concentration was less than the corresponding effluent
concentration. This is a change from proposal in response to
comments. At proposal, all sets of influent and effluent
concentrations were considered to be paired data regardless of
treatment system retention time.
b) For paired data sets, individual data pairs were deleted if the
influent concentration was below the quantification level for a
constituent. Entire data sets were deleted when the majority of
the influent concentrations for a constituent were below the
quantification level for that constituent. Quantification levels
for the solvents of concern are shown in Table 5-1. This is a
change from proposal. At proposal, the Agency used screening
levels as an editing criteria in order to assess whether the
effluent concentration level represented treatment or simply
reflected a low influent concentration. In response to comments,
the Agency is no longer using screening levels to develop land
disposal restrictions standards. As a consequence, the Agency
believes it to be more appropriate to use quantification levels as
an editing criteria for deleting treatment data sets where
influent concentrations are low.
c) Treatment concentration levels reported by the analytical
laboratories as at or below the analytical detection limit were
set equal to the detection limit for averaging and statistical
analyses. Setting the concentration level equal to the detection
limit reported with a data set is a conservative approach because
the actual concentration of a constituent reported as "not
detected" is between zero and the detection limit. Consequently,
the mean value computed using the detection limit as an estimate
of the actual value will be somewhat higher than the true mean of
the data. This is the same procedure used at proposal when data
were reported at or below the detection limit.
5-5
-------
Table 5-1
QUANTIFICATION LEVELS FOR F001 - F005 SOLVENTS
Quantification Level
Constituent (mg/L)
Acetone 0.05
n-Butyl alcohol 5.0
Carbon disulfide 0.05
Carbon tetrachloride 0.05
Chlorobenzene 0.05
Cresols (Cresylic acid) 0.50
Cyclohexanone 0.125
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.125
Ethyl acetate 0.05
Ethyl benzene 0.05
Ethyl ether 0.05
Isobutanol 5.0
Methanol 0.25
Methylene chloride 0.125
Methyl ethyl ketone 0.05
Methyl isobutyl ketone 0.05
Nitrobenzene 0.125
Pyridine 0.05
Tetrachloroethylene 0.05
Toluene 0.05
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.05
1,1,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane 0.05
Trichloroethylene 0.05
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.05
Xylene 0.05
5-6
-------
5.4 Statistical Methods for Establishing BOAT
To develop BOAT treatment standards, the Agency used the following
three statistical methods that were presented in EPA's Notice of
Availability of Data on the land disposal restrictions (Reference 16):
1) Variability Factor Calculation - to account for variability in
performance of well-designed and well-operated systems.
2) Outlier Test - to determine whether a data point within a data set
is representative of that data set.
3) Analysis of Variance - to measure whether differences between data
sets are statistically discernible.
More detailed discussions of these methods follow below.
5.4.1 Variability Factor Calculation
The Agency incorporated a variability factor in the development of
BDAT treatment standards. To obtain the BDAT treatment standard, the
Agency multiplied the long-term average treatment performance value by
the variability factor. Variability in performance principally arises
from inherent mechanical limitations in maintaining control parameters at
the optimum setting.
An example would be an automatic pH control system used to maintain
the proper pH range for precipitation of a toxic metal. In this system,
a pH sensing device provides a signal to the controller that the pH is
not at the set point (i.e., the optimum design point). The controller
then changes (either pneumatically or electrically) the position of the
valve that supplies the reagent(s) used to adjust pH. The Agency would
consider such a system to be well-operated provided that it is properly
designed, calibrated, and maintained. Nevertheless, this system cannot
be operated without any variation in the level of performance. Control
valves are not manufactured in such a way that they can precisely add the
exact amount of reagent needed to be at the set point: either too much or
too little reagent will be added. Also, there is a lag time between the
time that the sensing device detects a problem and the time the
controller adjusts the position of the valve to correct the problem.
Additionally, there can be process upsets that reguire greater changes to
the system with corresponding greater variations in performance. Another
source of variability is the analysis of treatment samples; even EPA
approved methods will have some variability in test results for the same
samples. All of the above variations can occur even at well designed and
operated treatment facilities.
5-7
-------
The Agency used the statistical calculation described below to
account for these changes. This analysis is the same as has been used
for the development of numerous regulations in the Effluent Guidelines
Program.
VF = C99
Mean
where,
VF = Estimate of maximum variability factor determined from a
sample population of data.
Cgg = Estimate of performance values which 99 percent of the
observations will be below. Cgg is calculated using the
following equation:
Cgg = exp(y + 2.33Sy)
where y and Sy are the mean and standard deviation,
respectively, of the logtransformed data.
Mean = Arithmetic average of the individual performance values.
Setting standards based on such a variability factor should not be
viewed as "relaxing" BDAT requirements. Rather, it accommodates the
normal variability of the processes. A plant will have to be designed to
meet the mean treatment level in order to be assured of not being out of
compliance when the Agency samples the treatment residues.
5-8
-------
5.4.2 Outlier Test
An outlier in a data set is an observation (or data point) that is
significantly different from the other data. The measure of difference
is determined by the statistical method known as a Z-score. Because the
outlier test assumes data to be normally distributed, it is necessary to
transform the data by computing the logarithm of each data point before
performing the outlier test. The Z-score is calculated by dividing the
difference between the data point and the average of the data set by the
standard deviation. For data that is normally distributed, 99.5 percent
(or two standard deviations) of the measurements will have a Z-score
between -2.0 and 2.0. A data point outside this range is not considered
to be representative of the population from which the data are drawn.
EPA used this statistical method to confirm that certain data do not
represent treatment by a well-operated system. The Agency used this
method only in cases where data on the design and operation of a
treatment system were limited. This method is a commonly used technique
for evaluating data sets.
5.4.3 Analysis of Variance
EPA used the statistical method known as analysis of variance in
determining the level of performance that represents BOAT. This method
provides a measure of the differences between data sets. If the
differences are not statistically discernible, the data sets are said to
be homogeneous.
This method was used in two cases. The first case was where more
than one technology was used to treat the same waste. In this case, the
analysis of variance method was used to determine whether BOAT
represented a level of performance achieved by only one technology or
represented a level of performance achievable by more than one or all of
the technologies. The second case where the analysis of variance was
used was where different wastes with common constituents were treated
with the same technology. We used this statistical method to determine
whether separate BDAT values should be established for each waste or
whether the levels of performance were homogeneous and, therefore,
amenable to a single concentration level for a given constituent.
To determine whether any or all of the treatment data sets were
homogeneous using the analysis of variance method, it was necessary to
compare a calculated "F value" to what is known as a "critical value."
These critical values are available in most statistics texts.
5-9
-------
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 would 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:
(1) All data points are logtransformed.
(2) The sum of the logtransformed data points (Ti) is computed for
each data set.
(3) The statistical parameter known as the sum of the squares
between data sets (SSB) is computed:
k 1^2 T2
SSB = Y, - _
i=l n; N
where,
k = number of treatment technologies
i\i = number of data points for technology i
N = number of data points for all technologies
T - sum of logtransformed data points for all technologies
(4) The sum of the squares within data sets (SSW) is computed.
k ni k T2
SSW = L Z y?,j - Z
where,
yi -i = the logtransformed observation (j) for treatment
technology (i)
(5) The degrees of freedom corresponding to SSB and SSW are
calculated. For SSB, the number of degrees of freedom is
given by k-1. For SSW, the number of degrees of freedom is
given by N-k.
5-10
-------
(6) Using the above parameters, the F value is calculated as
follows:
r -_
MSW
where,
MSB = SSBX(k-l) and
MSW = SSW/(N-k).
A computational table summarizing the above parameters
is shown below.
COMPUTATIONAL TABLE FOR THE F VALUE
Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square
OOT3
Between SSB k-1 MSB = ~
Within SSW N-k
MSB
MSW
N-k
5-11
-------
5.5 Development of BOAT Treatment Standards for Wastewaters
Containing F001-F005 Spent Solvent Wastes
BDAT treatment standards for F001-F005 spent solvent wastes in
wastewater are presented in Table 5-2. Descriptions of how the treatment
standards were derived are presented in this section. Treatment
performance data for each constituent are also presented in this
section. Complete data sets including all constituents and pollutant
parameters analyzed in the wastes treated at each plant are included in
Appendix I. Where wastewater treatment data were not available to the
Agency, data on which the treatment standards were based were transferred
from other spent solvent wastes for which data were available. The basis
for transfer of treatment standards for wastewaters is presented in
Section 5.5.1, page 5-14.
The derivation of BDAT treatment standards includes a variability
analysis as discussed in Section 5.4. For some data sets, data were
insufficient to develop variability factors; in these cases the Agency
used a variability factor that represented the average of the variability
factors from available data sets. Calculation of the average variability
factors is discussed in Section 5.5.2.
In some cases, the treatment standard derived from the data was below
the EPA published analytical quantification level for a specific
constituent because of the lower quantification levels associated with
the treatment residuals actually tested. In these instances, the BDAT
treatment standard was set at the published quantification level, which
is the lowest level at which EPA can support analytical quantification
over the range of wastes that will be subject to this rule.
5-12
-------
Table 5-2
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
(As Concentrations in the Treatment Residual Extract)
Constituent
Acetone
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Cresols (cresylic acid)
Cyclohexanone
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl acetate
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl ether
Isobutanol
Methanol
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride generated
at Pharmaceuticals plants
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pyridine
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-
trifluoroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Xylene
Wastewaters
Containing
Spent Solvents
(mq/L)
0.05
5.0
1.05
0.05
0.15
2.82
0.125
0.65
0.05
0.05
0.05
5.0
0.25
0.20
12.7
0.05
0.05
0.66
1.12
0.079
1.12
1.05
1.05
0.062
0.05
0.05
Non-Wastewater
Spent Solent
Wastes
(mg/L)
0.59
5.0
4.81
0.96
0.05
0.75
0.75
0.125
0.75
0.053
0.75
5.0
0.75
0.96
0.96
0.75
0.33
0.125
0.33
0.05
0.33
0.41
0.96
0.091
0.96
0.15
5-13
-------
5.5.1 Transfer of Treatment Data for Wastewaters Containing F001-F005
Spent Solvent Wastes
Where wastewater treatment data on spent solvents were not available,
the Agency developed treatment standards based on the treatment of wastes
(e.g. process wastes) containing the constituents listed in F001-F005.
We believe these wastes to be similar to F001-F005 spent solvent
wastewaters. We have not identified, nor are we aware of, any
constituents in the F001-F005 spent solvent wastewaters that would cause
these wastes to treat differently than the broad array of wastes for
which we have data. EPA's data base for wastewaters includes wastes
generated in the manufacture of over 200 products at over 30 different
facilities.
Where wastewater treatment data on a particular spent solvent waste
or constituent were not available to the Agency, treatment data were
transferred from other constituents for which data were available. For
this rulemaking, treatment data were transferred based on similarity of
chemical structure with the exception of carbon disulfide which is
structurally dissimilar to the other listed F001-F005 hazardous wastes.
EPA's data transfer criteria represents a change from proposal. At
proposal, the Agency relied primarily on the physical parameters of
solubility and Henry's Law Constants. Solubility was used to predict the
effectiveness of biological treatment; where biological treatment was the
technology basis, the treatment standard was set at the level of
detection. Henry's Law constants were used to predict the effectiveness
of steam stripping.
Commenters stated that the Agency should base the transfer of data on
average characteristics of wastes in a relatively large and diverse
grouping. In consideration of the comments received, the Agency believes
that, for the wide range of wastes covered for this particular
rulemaking, a broader approach to transfer of data is warranted.
Accordingly, in the final rule, we are using chemical structure as the
basis for transfer of data. The Agency believes that chemical structure
allows the consideration of a broader array of physical and chemical
factors affecting treatment, while at the same time relating the transfer
rationale to an indicator that is commonly used to predict how organic
compounds will react with other compounds and under various conditions.
Included in Table 5-3 are the structural groups upon which the transfer
of treatment standards for wastewaters was based. One F001-F005 spent
solvent constituent, carbon disulfide, was determined not to be
5-14
-------
en
i—>
tn
Name of Structural Group
Halogenated Aliphatics
Non-halogenated Aromatics
Halogenated Alkenes
Halogenated Aromatics
Ketones
Alcohols
Table 5-3
GROUPING OF SPENT SOLVENT CONSTITUENTS FOR TRANSFER OF BOAT WASTEWATER TREATMENT DATA
Functi onal
Group
R-X
R=R'
R-C-R'
II
0
R-OH
Consti tuent
Carbon tetrachloride
Methylene chloride
Pharmaceuticals Wastewater
All Other Wastewaters
1 ,1,1-Tri chloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifl uoroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Ethyl benzene
To!uene
Xylene
Ni trobenzene
Pyridi ne
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Di chlorobenzene
Acetone
Cyclohexanone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
n-Butyl alcohol
Isobutanol
Methanol
transferred treatment data.
"Treatment Technologies: B = Biological; SS = Steam Stripping; AC = Activated Carbon.
"-Treatment standard shown is the quantification level for the constituent.
''Commercially available patented PACT® process.
Treatment
Value
(mg/U
0.05C
Technology"
12.7
0.20
1.05
1.05a
0.05C
0.05C
1.12
0.05C
0.66
1.12a
0.079
0.062
0.15
0.65
0.05a-c
0.125a-c
0.05a-c
0.05°
5.0a-c
5.0a-c
0.25a'c
ss
B
SS
SS
Bd
B
B&AC
AC
SS&AC
B&AC
B
B&AC
B&AC
B&AC
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
Constituent From Which
Data Were Transferred
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
-------
Table 5-3 (Continued)
GROUPING OF SPENT SOLVENT CONSTITUENTS FOR TRANSFER OF BOAT WASTEWATER TREATMENT DATA
Name of Structural Group
Ethers
Esters
Functional
Group
R-O-R'
R-C-OR1
II
0
Constituent
Ethyl ether
Ethyl acetate
Phenols
Organic Sulfur Compounds
R = S
Cresols
Carbon disulfide
en
i
aTransferred treatment standards.
'•'Treatment Technologies: B = Biological; SS = Steam Stripping; AC = Activated Carbon.
"-Treatment standard shown is the Quantification Level for the constituent.
Treatment
Value
(mg/L) Technology"
0.05a'c SS
0.05a'c SS
2.82 AC
1.05a SS
Constituent From Whi
Data Were Transferred
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
-------
structurally similar to any other F001-F005 constituents. For this
reason, transfer of treatment data could not be based on chemical
structure. However, carbon disulfide does have a large Henry's Law
Constant, 1.2 x 10~^ atm m^/mole (Reference 1), indicating that
carbon disulfide is amenable to steam stripping. Henry's Law Constant
was therefore used as the basis for transferring treatment data to carbon
disulfide.
To best account for the range of physical and chemical properties
within a structural group that affect treatment by a specific technology,
the Agency transferred data from the compound with the least stringent
treatment standard for any member of that structural group. If no
treatment data were available for any member of the particular structural
group, data representing the least stringent treatment standard from the
next most similar structural group were transferred. For example, no
treatment data were available for any member of the alcohols, esters, and
ethers structural groups. The ketones were considered to be the next
most similar structural group, based on the oxygen containing,
electron-releasing functional groups present in all four structural
groups. Therefore, data representing the least stringent treatment
standard for constituents in the ketones group were transferred to the
alcohols, ethers, and esters groups.
5.5.2 Derivation of Average Variability Factors for Wastewater
Treatment
The derivation of BDAT treatment standards includes a variability
analysis as discussed in Section 5.4.1. For some data sets, data were
insufficient to develop variability factors; in these cases the Agency
used a variability factor that represented the average of the variability
factors from available data sets. Calculation of the average variability
factors is shown in Table 5-4, page 5-18.
5-17
-------
Table 5-4
VARIABILITY FACTORS FOR ALL FULL-SCALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT DATA
SETS USED IN THE DERIVATION OF THE BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Constituent Plant Variability Factor
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 202 2.11
Methylene Chloride 265 7.58
Tetrachloroethylene 225 3.65
Toluene 234 1.87
257 1.89
286 3.25
AVERAGE 3.39
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOLLOWED BY ACTIVATED CARBON
Constituent Plant Variability Factor
Chlorobenzene 246 4.93
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene 246 3.68
Toluene 246 9.89
AVERAGE 6.17
STEAM STRIPPING
Constituent Plant VariabilIty Factor
Methylene Chloride 12003 3.76
Toluene 246 1.21
Trichloroethylene 284 1.81
AVERAGE 2.26
STEAM STRIPPING FOLLOWED BY ACTIVATED CARBON
Constituent Plant VariabilIty Factor
Nitrobenzene 297 2.65
Toluene 297 1.55
AVERAGE 2.10
Average variability factor for all BOAT wastewater treatment = 3.56.
5-18
-------
Table 5-4 (Continued)
VARIABILITY FACTORS FOR ALL FULL-SCALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT DATA
SETS USED IN THE DERIVATION OF THE BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION* TREATMENT
Constituent Plant Variability Factor
Chlorobenzene 246 4.93
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 246 3.68
Toluene 246 9.89
Nitrobenzene 297 2.65
Toluene 297 1.55
AVERAGE 4.54
"Includes data sets for biological treatment followed by acti-
vated carbon adsorption and steam stripping followed by acti-
vated carbon adsorption.
5-19
-------
5.5.3 Acetone Wastewaters
The Agency has no data for wastewater treatment for the removal of
acetone. For reasons presented in Section 5.5.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to acetone spent
solvent wastewaters. Specifically, we transferred the treatment data
from methyl isobutyl ketone because, like acetone, methyl isobutyl ketone
contains the ketone functional group. Methyl isobutyl ketone was the
only constituent for which we had data in the ketones structural group.
Using performance data from methyl isobutyl ketone, the BDAT treatment
standard for acetone is 0.05 mg/L. The technology basis for this
treatment is steam stripping.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for acetone spent solvent
wastewaters represents substantial treatment. We would expect untreated
acetone wastes to be similar to untreated methyl isobutyl ketone wastes,
from which we transferred treatment data, since they are used in some of
the same manufacturing processes as shown in Section 2 of this document.
As discussed on page 5-73, in reference to methyl isobutyl ketone, we
believe these constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity
of the spent solvent wastes containing acetone and substantially reduce
the likelihood of migration of acetone from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for acetone
was the same as the standard at promulgation although the derivation of
the treatment standard has changed because of the change in the approach
to data transfer. (See Section 5.5.1 for a more detailed discussion of
the methodology for data transfer.)]
5-20
-------
5.5.4 n-Butyl Alcohol Wastewaters
The Agency has no data for wastewater treatment for the removal of
n-butyl alcohol. For reasons presented in Section 5.5.1, EPA used
chemical structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to
n-butyl alcohol spent solvent wastewaters. Specifically, we transferred
the treatment data from methyl isobutyl ketone, which contains the ketone
functional group, to n-butyl alcohol, which contains the hydroxyl
functional group. The alcohols structural group is most structurally
similar to the ketones group based upon their oxygen containing,
electron-releasing functional groups. Methyl isobutyl ketone was the
only constituent for which we had data in the ketones structural group.
Using performance data from methyl isobutyl ketone, the transferred BOAT
treatment standard for n-butyl alcohol is 0.05 mg/L. This transferred
standard is below the quantification level and could not be used as the
treatment standard; therefore, the BOAT treatment standard was set at the
quantification level of 5.0 mg/L. The technology basis for this
treatment standard is steam stripping.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for n-butyl alcohol spent
solvent wastewaters represents substantial treatment. We would expect
untreated n-butyl alcohol wastes to be similar to untreated methyl
isobutyl ketone wastes, from which we transferred treatment data, since
they are used in some of the same manufacturing processes, as shown in
Section 2 of this document. As discussed on page 5-73, in reference to
methyl isobutyl ketone, we believe these constituent reductions
substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes
containing n-butyl alcohol and substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of n-butyl alcohol from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for n-butyl
alcohol was estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based on
biological treatment (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The principal
difference between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is
EPA's consideration of quantification levels in setting the standard (see
the discussion on the use of quantification levels in Section 5.5 on
page 5-12). To a lesser extent, the Agency's change in the criteria for
data transfer affected the treatment standard. (See Section 5.5.1,
page 5-14, for a discussion of the Agency's methodology for data
transfer.)]
5-21
-------
5.5.5 Carbon Bisulfide Wastewaters
The Agency has no data for wastewater treatment for the removal of
carbon disulfide. For reasons presented in Section 5.5.1, in most cases
EPA used chemical structure as the basis for transferring performance
data where data are unavailable. However, carbon disulfide is
structurally dissimilar to the other listed F001-F005 hazardous wastes.
Therefore, transfer of treatment data could not be based on chemical
structure.
Carbon disulfide has a large Henry's Law Constant, 1.2 x 10~^ atm
m^/mole (Reference 1), indicating that carbon disulfide is amenable to
steam stripping. Therefore, the data used to determine the treatment
standard were transferred from the constituent with the closest Henry's
Law Constant and for which BOAT was based on steam stripping. The data
on which the treatment standard for 1,1,1-trichloroethane was based, 1.05
mg/L, were transferred to carbon disulfide.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for carbon disulfide spent
solvent wastewaters represents substantial treatment. We would expect
untreated carbon disulfide wastes to be similar to untreated
1,1,1-trichloroethane wastes from which we transferred treatment data.
As discussed on page 5-110, in reference to 1,1,1-trichloroethane, we
believe these constituent reductions to substantially diminish the
toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing carbon disulfide and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of carbon disulfide from
spent solvent wastes.
[A technology-based BDAT treatment standard was not developed for
carbon disulfide wastewaters at proposal. The promulgated treatment
standard was based on data transferred from treatment of 1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane. (See Section 5.5.1, page 5-14 for a discussion of the Agency's
methodology for data transfer.)]
5-22
-------
5.5.6 Carbon Tetrachloride Wastewaters
The Agency has biological treatment data for carbon tetrachloride at
plant 225 in the OCPSF data base. The Agency also has data from
full-scale biological treatment of wastewater from organic chemicals
manufacturing (commercially available patented PACT® process.
Reference 4). The data are summarized in Table 5-5 and calculation of
the BOAT treatment standard is shown in Table 5-6.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for carbon tetrachloride:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. The
available data and information did not show any of the data to
represent poor design and operation. Accordingly, none of the
data were deleted on this basis.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for each data set as shown in Table 5-6.
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment by the PACT® process because there is only one data
pair available from this process. Therefore, the average
variability factor for BDAT biological treatment, 3.39, was used
(calculation of the average variability factor is shown in
Table 5-4, page 5-18).
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment at plant 225 because all effluent values were reported
as less than or equal to the detection limit of 10 ug/L. We would
expect some variability in the data because the actual
concentrations would range from 0 to the detection limit of 10
ug/L. To estimate the variability, the Agency used the average
variability factor for BDAT biological treatment, 3.39.
(Calculation of the average variability factor is shown in
Table 5-4, page 5-18.)
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-6 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
5-23
-------
sources of wastewaters containing carbon tetrachloride spent
solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT (0.034 mg/L from plant
206) to ensure that the standard could be achieved for all waste
matrices within the waste treatability subgroup. This calculated
concentration level is below the guantification level and could
not be used as the treatment standard; therefore, the treatment
standard was set at the guantification level of 0.05 mg/L. The
technology basis was biological treatment.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for carbon tetrachloride represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices generated by process
streams from the manufacture of at least seven different
products. The untreated waste concentration of carbon
tetrachloride ranged from 0.050 mg/L to 44 mg/L in these waste
matrices. All of these wastes can be treated to the BDAT
treatment standard or below (0.050 mg/L). We believe these
constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the
spent solvent wastes containing carbon tetrachloride and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of carbon
tetrachloride from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for carbon
tetrachloride was <0.010 mg/L based on biological treatment (see Table
13, 51 FR 1725). The difference between the proposed and promulgated
treatment standards is primarily due to EPA's consideration of
quantification levels in setting the promulgated standard (see the
discussion on the use of guantification levels in Section 5.5, page 5-12)
and the incorporation of a variability factor in derivation of the
promulgated treatment standard. (See Section 5.4 for a discussion of the
variability factor.) The changes in data editing also contributed to the
change in the treatment standard (data editing rules are presented in
Section 5.3).]
5-24
-------
Table 5-5
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
.Plant 225
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(UQ/U (uq/U
1,890
543
411
942
1,730
1,054
1,676
1,813
874
832
896
842
2,306
1,340
51
210
44,000
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10b
10b
Plant 225
Products Manufactured
Polyvinyl chloride
Perch!oroetnylene
Chlorinated paraffins
Chlorine
Hydrogen chloride
Sodium methyl ate
D.G. Hutton, 1979
Biological Treatment3-0
Influent Effluent
(UO/L) (UQ/L)
95
5.5
Description of
Waste Treated
Wastewater from organic chemi-
cals manufacturing.
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
bln the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 227, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
cCommercially available patented PACT® process.
5-25
-------
Table 5-6
CALCULATION OF BOAT FOR CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
Plant
No. Technology
Average
Treatment Treatment Con-
Concentration Variability centration Level
(uq/L) Factor Avg. x VF (ua/Ll
225 Biological
lb Biological
10
5.5
3.39a
3.39a
34
19
aAverage variability factor of all BOAT biological treatment
data (see Table 5-4 and the discussion on page 5-17).
bCommercially available patented PACT® process.
5-26
-------
5.5.7 Chlorobenzene Wastewaters
The Agency has biological treatment data for chlorobenzene at plants
202, 206, 246, and 263 in the OCPSF data base. Also available from the
OCPSF data base are data for biological treatment followed by activated
carbon adsorption at plant 246. The Agency also has data from full-scale
biological treatment of wastewater from organic chemicals manufacturing
(commercially available patented PACT® process. Reference 4). The data
are summarized in Table 5-7 and calculation of the BOAT treatment
standard is shown in Table 5-8.
The following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for chlorobenzene:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. Data
for biological treatment at plant 263 (consisting of three data
points) were deleted on the basis of poor design and performance.
Based on the disproportionately low removals relative to other
biological treatment systems for wastes containing chlorobenzene,
EPA judged this system to be poorly designed and operated. This
system achieved a reduction of only 15.5 percent as compared with
85 to 99 percent for other biological systems treating wastes
containing chlorobenzene.
Data for biological treatment at plant 206 were deleted because
the treatment system at this plant was shown to be poorly designed
and/or operated based on the wide variation in influent
concentrations. The nature of biological treatment systems
requires sufficient control of influent concentrations through the
use of equalization to prevent "shock loading" of the biomass.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for each data set as shown in Table 5-8.
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment by the PACT® process because there is only one data
pair available from this process. Therefore, the average
variability factor for BOAT biological treatment, 3.39, was used.
(Calculation of the average variability factor is shown in Table
5-4, page 5-18.)
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment at plant 202 because all effluent values were reported
as less than or equal to the detection limit of 10 ug/L. We would
expect some variability in the data because the actual
concentrations would range from 0 to the detection limit of 10
5-27
-------
ug/L. To estimate the variability, the Agency used the average
variability factor for BDAT biological treatment, 3.39.
(Calculation of the average variability factor is shown in Table
5-4, page 5-18.)
3. Biological treatment and biological treatment followed by
activated carbon adsorption of chlorobenzene at plant 246 were
compared with the analysis of variance method to determine whether
the performance of one technology was significantly better than
the other for treatment of the same waste. It was shown that the
addition of activated carbon adsorption to biological treatment
significantly improved treatment performance. Therefore, the
treatment concentration level for plant 246 is 149 ug/L based upon
biological treatment followed by activated carbon adsorption.
(Refer to the statistical calculations and results in Table II-l,
Appendix II.) The analysis of variance method could not be used
to compare treatments on any other wastes because data were not
available for more than one treatment for other wastes.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-8 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastewaters containing chlorobenzene spent solvents.
The least stringent treatment level within the treatability
subgroup was selected for BDAT (0.15 mg/L from plant 246) to
ensure that the standard could be achieved for all waste matrices
within the waste treatability subgroup. The technology basis was
biological treatment followed by activated carbon adsorption.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for chlorobenzene represents treatment
of a variety of waste matrices generated by process streams from
the manufacture of 31 or more different products. The untreated
waste concentration of chlorobenzene ranged from 0.010 mg/L to 7.2
mg/L in these waste matrices. All of these wastes can be treated
to a level of 0.15 mg/L or below; in all cases we were able to
treat to the BDAT treatment standard. We believe these
constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the
spent solvent wastes containing chlorobenzene and substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of chlorobenzene from spent
solvent wastes.
5-28
-------
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
chlorobenzene was 0.062 mg/L based on biological treatment followed by
activated carbon adsorption (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The difference
between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily due
to the incorporation of a variability factor in derivation of the
promulgated treatment standard. (See Section 5.4 for a discussion of the
variability factor.) Other less significant factors affecting the change
in the treatment standard are the changes in data editing (data editing
rules are presented in Section 5.3), and deletion of some of the data
points used at proposal because they represented poor operation of the
treatment systems at the time of sampling.]
5-29
-------
Table 5-7
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR CHLOROBENZENE
Plant 202
Biological Treatment3
Influent
(ua/L)
135
160
140
99
79
284
404
429
361
401
163
152
161
188
304
225
302
214
159
116
Plant
Bioloaical
Influent
(ua/L)
9,206
16,646
49,775
1,414
14,731
3,159
6,756
929
Effluent
(ug/U
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
206
Treatment3
Effluent
(ug/U
1 ,083
710
460
2,781
142
603
153
794
Plant 202
Products Manufactured
Disperse dye coupler
Disperse dyes
Naphthalene sulfonic acid
Organic pigments
p-Phenylene diamine
Sulfur dyes
Vat dyes
Xylenesulfonic acid, sodium
salt
2-Bromo-4,6-dinitroaniline
2,4-Dimtroanil me
2,4-Dinitrochlorobenzene
2 ,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4,6-Trinitrophenol
4-Ch1oro-2,6-dinitrobenzene
sulfonic acid, potassium salt
Plant 206
Products Manufactured
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Polyurethane resins
Orthochloroaniline
Benzophenone
2-Sulfophthalic acid
2,6-Dichloronitroaniline
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-30
-------
Table 5-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR CHLOROBENZENE
Plant 246
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ua/Ll
1
1
3
343
19
729
856
10
,564
10
10
,258
355
287
409
,040
115
36
44
151
19
111
229
233
298
10
38
14
17
Plant 246
Biological Treatment3
Followed by
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Influent Effluent
(UQ/L) (uq/U
1
1
3
7
343
19
729
856
10
,564
10
10
836
,258
287
409
.040
,200
21
10
10
10
19
33
30
56
68
10
10
10
10
80b
6.500
6.075
70C
Plant 246
Products Manufactured
Aniline
Dinitrotoluene (mixed)
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
Nitrobenzene
Polymeric methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate
Polyoxypropylene glycol
Toluene diaimne (mixture)
Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
Polymeric methylene dianiline
Polyurethane resins
Plant 246
Products Manufactured
Same as Plant 246 - Biological
Treatment
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e.. the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
bln the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 219, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
5-31
-------
Table 5-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR CHLOROBENZENE
Plant 263 Plant 263
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
Polymeric methylene diphenyl
515 788 diisocyanate
832 404 Polyurethane resins
443 320 Polyurethane component
Polyurethane prepolymer
Propoxylates, alkylamines
O.G. Mutton, 1979 Description of
Biological Treatment3•b Waste Treated
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Wastewater from organic chemi-
cals manufacturing.
1,900 12
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
''Commercially available patented PACT® process.
5-32
-------
Table 5-8
CALCULATION OF BOAT FOR CHLOROBEN2ENE
Average
Treatment Treatment Con-
Avg. x VF (UQ/L)
34
906
149
Plant
No.
202
246
246
Concentration Variability
Technology (ua/L) Factor
Biological 10 3.39a
Biological 101 8.96
Biological fol- 30 4.93
lowed by
Activated
Carbon
lb Biological 12 3.39a 41
aAverage variability factor of all BOAT biological treatment
data (see Table 5-4 and the discussion on page 5-17).
^Commercially available patented PACT® process.
5-33
-------
5.5.8 Cresols (Cresylic Acid) Wastewaters
The Agency has full-scale granular activated carbon adsorption data
for cresols (cresylic acid) (References 3 and 12). The Agency also has
biological treatment data (Reference 5). The data are summarized in
Table 5-9.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for cresols (cresylic acid):
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. The
available data and information did not show any of the data to
represent poor design and operation. Accordingly, none of the
data were deleted on this basis.
The biological treatment data set shown in Table 5-9 was deleted
because the data were considered unreliable for use in developing
treatment standards. The confidence of identification of the
compounds present in the samples is questionable since the
identifications were reported as "tentative." One activated
carbon data set (Baker, et. al.) was deleted because the influent
and effluent concentrations were not reported individually, but in
ranges. The average effluent concentration and treatment
concentration level could not be determined from the data.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration level
and the variability factor for the data set. Process variability
could not be calculated for activated carbon adsorption because
there is only one data pair available from this process.
Therefore, the average variability factor for BDAT activated
carbon adsorption, 4.54, was used (calculation of the average
variability factor is shown in Table 5-4, page 5-19).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. Sufficient data did not exist to identify separate waste
treatability subgroups; therefore, one waste treatability subgroup
was established for all sources of wastewaters containing cresols
(cresylic acid) spent solvents. The treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT (2.82 mg/L from Torpy,
Raphaelian, and Luthy, 1981) by multiplying the process effluent
concentration, 0.620 mg/L, by the average variability factor for
BDAT activated carbon adsorption, 4.54. The technology basis was
activated carbon treatment.
5-34
-------
5. The BOAT treatment standard for cresols (cresylic acid) represents
treatment of a waste matrix generated by a process stream from the
manufacture of pesticides. The untreated waste concentration of
cresols (cresylic acid) was as high as 16.5 mg/L in this waste
matrix. This waste was treated to a concentration below the BDAT
treatment standard (2.82 mg/L). We believe these constituent
reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent
solvent wastes containing cresols (cresylic acid) and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of cresols
(cresylic acid) from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for cresols
(cresylic acid) was estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based
on biological treatment (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The principal
difference between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is
EPA's use of performance data for activated carbon adsorption treatment
of cresols and the incorporation of a variability factor in derivation of
the promulgated treatment standard. (See Section 5.4 for a discussion of
the variability factor.)]
5-35
-------
Table 5-9
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR CRESOLS (CRESYLIC ACID)
IT Enviroscience, 1983
Full-Scale Granular Description of
Activated Carbon Waste Treated
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/Ll Pesticide wastewater
16,500 620a
Torpy, Raphaelian &
Luthy, 1981 Description of
Biological Treatment Waste Treated
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Wastewater from the synfuels
industry
1.886 15.3C
2,536 36.8C
Baker et. al., 1973
Full-Scale Granular Description of
Activated Carbon Waste Treated
Influent Effluent
(ug/Ll (ug/L) Cresol wastewater
3,500,000- 0-7,000,000d
6,500,000
aReference did not specifically identify constituent as
o-, m-, or p-cresol.
bThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
Co-Cresol.
dp-Cresol.
5-36
-------
5.5.9 Cyclohexanone Wastewaters
The Agency has no data for wastewater treatment for the removal of
cyclohexanone. For reasons presented in Section 5.5.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to cyclohexanone
spent solvent wastewaters. Specifically, we transferred the treatment
data from methyl isobutyl ketone because, like cyclohexanone, methyl
isobutyl ketone contains the ketone functional group. Methyl isobutyl
ketone was the only constituent for which we had data in the ketones
structural group. Using performance data from methyl isobutyl ketone,
the transferred standard for cyclohexanone is 0.05 mg/L. The standard
derived from the transferred data is below the quantification level and
could not be used as the treatment standard. Therefore, the BOAT
treatment standard was set at the quantification level of 0.125 mg/L.
The technology basis for this treatment standard is steam stripping.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for cyclohexanone spent
solvent wastewaters represents substantial treatment. We would expect
untreated cyclohexanone wastes to be similar to untreated methyl isobutyl
ketone wastes, from which we transferred treatment data, since they are
used in some of the same manufacturing processes, as shown in Section 2
of this document. As discussed on page 5-73, in reference to methyl
isobutyl ketone, we believe these constituent reductions substantially
diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing
cyclohexanone and substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of
cyclohexanone from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
cyclohexanone was estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based
on biological treatment (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The principal
difference between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is
EPA's consideration of quantification levels in setting the standard (see
the discussion on the use of quantification levels in Section 5.5 on
page 5-12). To a lesser extent, the Agency's change in the criteria for
data transfer affected the treatment standard. (See Section 5.5.1,
page 5-14, for a discussion of the Agency's methodology for data
transfer.)]
5-37
-------
5.5.10 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Wastewaters
The Agency has biological treatment data for 1,2-dichlorobenzene at
plants 202, 206, and 246 in the OCPSF data base. The Agency also has
data for biological treatment followed by activated carbon adsorption at
plant 246 in the OCPSF data base. The data are summarized in Table 5-10
and calculation of the BDAT treatment standard is shown in Table 5-11.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for 1,2-dichlorobenzene:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. In
EPA's judgment, one data point in the data set for biological
treatment at plant 246 represented poor design and operation. We
confirmed this judgment using the the outlier test (refer to Table
II-3, Appendix II). The outlying data point was deleted.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for each data set as shown in Table 5-11.
3. Biological treatment and biological treatment followed by
activated carbon adsorption of 1,2-dichlorobenzene at plant 246
were compared with the analysis of variance method to determine
whether the performance of one technology was significantly better
than the other for treatment of the same waste. It was shown that
the addition of activated carbon adsorption to biological
treatment significantly improved treatment performance.
Therefore, the treatment concentration level for plant 246 is 0.65
mg/L based upon biological treatment followed by activated carbon
adsorption. (Refer to the statistical calculations and results in
Appendix II.) The analysis of variance method could not be used
to compare treatments on any other wastes because data were not
available for more than one treatment for other wastes.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-11 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient, data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastewaters containing 1,2-dichlorobenzene spent
solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT (0.65 mg/L from plant
246) to ensure that the standard could be achieved for all waste
matrices within the waste treatability subgroup. The technology
basis was biological treatment followed by activated carbon
adsorption.
5-38
-------
5. The BDAT treatment standard for 1,2-dichlorobenzene represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices generated by process
streams from the manufacture of 30 different products. The
untreated waste concentration of 1,2-dichlorobenzene ranged from
0.233 mg/L to 4.4 mg/L in these waste matrices. All of these
wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment standard or below (0.65
mg/L). We believe these constituent reductions substantially
diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing
1,2-dichlorobenzene and substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of 1,2-dichlorobenzene from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
1,2-dichlorobenzene was 0.053 mg/L based on biological treatment followed
by activated carbon adsorption (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The
difference between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is
primarily due to the incorporation of a variability factor in derivation
of the promulgated treatment standard. Other less significant factors
affecting the change in the treatment standard are the changes in data
editing (data editing rules are presented in Section 5.3) and deletion of
some data points used at proposal because they represented poor operation
of the treatment systems (see the discussion of the outlier analysis in
Section 5.4).]
5-39
-------
Table 5-10
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
PLant 202
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/U
1,350
1,554
4.387
2,444
21
20
15
10
Plant 202
Products Manufactured
Disperse dye coupler
Disperse dyes
Naphthalene sulfonic acid
Organic pigments
p-Phenylene diamine
Sulfur dyes
Vat dyes
Xylenesulfonic acid, sodium
salt
2-Bromo-4,6-dinitroaniline
2,4-Dinitroanilme
2,4-Din itrochlorobenzene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4,6-Trmitrophenol
4-Chloro-2,6-dinitrobenzene
sulfonic acid, potassium salt
Plant 206
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(uq/U (UQ/L)
806
437
396
381
233
2,333
649
1.247
555
847
125
175
121
89
77
55
63
61
72
44
Plant 206
Products Manufactured
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Polyurethane resins
Orthochloroanilme
Benzophenone
2-Sulfophthalic acid
2,6-Dichloronitroanilme
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-40
-------
Table 5-10 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
Plant 246 Plant 246
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Aniline
Dinitrotoluene (mixed)
2,081 l,153b Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
820 681 Nitrobenzene
914 830 Polymeric methylene diphenyl
1,558 612 diisocyanate
2,801 516 Polyoxypropylene glycol
1,620 529 Toluene diamine (mixture)
1,198 626 Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
1,182 603 Polymeric methylene dianiline
1,338 506 Polyurethane resins
1,157 449
1,412 470
768 394
1,894 512
1,243 468
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were not
collected so as to fully account for the retention time in the
treatment system).
bln EPA's judgment, this data point represented poor design and
operation. We confirmed this judgment using the outlier test (refer
to Table II-3, Appendix II) and this data point was deleted.
5-41
-------
Table 5-10 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
. Plant 246
Biological Treatment3
Followed by
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (UQ/L)
2,081
820
914
1,558
2,801
1,620
1,198
1,182
1,338
1,157
1.412
768
1,894
1,243
3,000
2,187
3,275
368
481
126
225
157
158
177
186
191
178
158
136
150
149
50b
72b
35"
Plant 246
Products Manufactured
Aniline
Dinitrotoluene (mixed)
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
Nitrobenzene
Polymeric methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate
Polyoxypropylene glycol
Toluene diamine (mixture)
Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
Polymeric methylene dianiline
Polyurethane resins
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
"In the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 219, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
5-42
-------
Table 5-11
CALCULATION OF BOAT FOR 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
Average
Treatment Treatment Con-
Plant Concentration Variability centration Level
No. Technology (ua/Ll Factor Avg. x VF (ug/Ll
202 Biological 16.5 2.11 35
206 Biological 88.2 2.48 219
246 Biological 554 1.56 862
246 Biological 176 3.68 648
followed by
Activated
Carbon
5-43
-------
5.5.11 Ethyl Acetate Wastewaters
The Agency has no data for wastewater treatment for the removal of
ethyl acetate. For reasons presented in Section 5.5.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to ethyl acetate
spent solvent wastewaters. Specifically, we transferred the treatment
data from methyl isobutyl ketone, which contains the ketone functional
group, to ethyl acetate, which contains the ester functional group. The
esters structural group is most structurally similar to the ketones group
based upon their oxygen containing, electron-releasing functional
groups. Methyl isobutyl ketone was the only constituent for which we had
data in the ketones structural group. Using performance data from methyl
isobutyl ketone, the BDAT treatment standard for ethyl acetate is 0.05
mg/L. The technology basis for this treatment standard is steam
stripping.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for ethyl acetate spent
solvent wastewaters represents substantial treatment. We would expect
untreated ethyl acetate wastes to be similar to untreated methyl isobutyl
ketone wastes, from which we transferred treatment data, since they are
used in some of the same manufacturing processes, as shown in Section 2
of this document. As discussed on page 5-73, in reference to methyl
isobutyl ketone, we believe these constituent reductions substantially
diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing ethyl
acetate and substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of ethyl
acetate from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for ethyl
acetate was estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based on
biological treatment (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The difference between
the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily due to the
Agency's change in the criteria for data transfer. (See Section 5.5.1,
page 5-14, for a discussion of the Agency's methodology for data
transfer.>]
5-44
-------
5.5.12 Ethylbenzene Wastewaters
The Agency has biological treatment data for ethylbenzene at plants
202, 211, 215, 221, 230, 234, 238, 242, 244, 251, 253, 257, 293, and 299
in the OCPSF data base. The Agency also has data from pilot-scale steam
stripping and pilot-scale air stripping of solvent contaminated
groundwater (Reference 2). The data are summarized in Table 5-12 and
calculation of the BDAT treatment standard is shown in Table 5-13.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for ethylbenzene:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. The
available data and information did not show any of the data to
represent poor design and operation. Accordingly, none of the
data were deleted on this basis.
In consideration of the amount of full-scale data available for
ethylbenzene, we believe it is appropriate to exclude data for
pilot-scale air stripping and pilot-scale steam stripping.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for each data set as shown in Table 5-13.
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment at plants 202, 211, 215, 221, 230, 234, 238, 242, 244,
251, 253, 293, and 299 because all effluent values were reported
as less than or equal to the detection limit of 10 ug/L. We would
expect some variability in the data because the actual
concentrations would range from 0 to the detection limit of 10
ug/L. To estimate the variability, the Agency used the average
variability factor for BDAT biological treatment, 3.39.
(Calculation of the average variability factor is shown in Table
5-4, page 5-18.)
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-13 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastewaters containing ethylbenzene spent solvents.
The least stringent level within the treatability subgroup was
5-45
-------
selected for BOAT (0.034 mg/L from plants 202, 211, 215, 221, 230,
234, 238, 242, 244, 251, 253, 293, and 299) to ensure that the
standard could be achieved for all waste matrices within the waste
treatability subgroup. This calculated concentration level is
below the quantification level for ethylbenzene and could not be
used as the treatment standard; therefore, the treatment standard
was set at the quantification level of 0.05 mg/L. The technology
basis was biological treatment.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for ethylbenzene represents treatment
of a variety of waste matrices generated by process streams from
the manufacture of at least 160 different products. The untreated
waste concentration of ethylbenzene ranged from 0.010 mg/L to 80.0
mg/L in these waste matrices. All of these wastes were treated to
the BDAT treatment standard or below (0.050 mg/L). We believe
these constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity
of the spent solvent wastes containing ethylbenzene and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of ethylbenzene
from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
ethylbenzene was <0.010 mg/L based on biological treatment (see Table 13,
15 FR 1725). The principal differences between the proposed and
promulgated treatment standards are EPA's consideration of quantification
levels in setting the standard (see the discussion on the use of
quantification levels in Section 5.5 on page 5-12) and the incorporation
of a variability factor in derivation of the promulgated treatment
standard. Another less significant factor affecting the change in the
treatment standard is the change in data editing (data editing rules are
presented in Section 5.3).]
5-46
-------
Table 5-12
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ETHYLBENZENE
Plant 202
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(uo/L) (ug/L)
507
512
449
398
307
367
390
489
546
596
292
303
280
207
171
96
176
181
146
119
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Plant 202
Products Manufactured
Disperse dye coupler
Disperse dyes
Naphthalene sulfonic acid
Organic pigments
p-Phenylene diamine
Sulfur dyes
Vat dyes
Xylenesulfonic acid, sodium
salt
2-Bromo-4,6-di n i troan i1i ne
2,4-Dinitroaniline
2,4-0 i n i trochlorobenzene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4,6-Trinitrophenol
4-Chloro-2,6-dinitrobenzene
sulfonic acid, potassium salt
Plant 211
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (UQ/Ll
80,000
36,584
43.171
17,902
14,769
12,923
64,154
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Plant 211
Products Manufactured
Coal tar solvent
Coatings
Cresols (mixed)
Ethyl benzene
Methyl naphthalene
Naphthalene
Pitch tar residue
Pyridines (tar bases)
2,4-Xylenol (dimethyl phenol)
Phenol
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-47
-------
Table 5-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ETHYLBENZENE
Plant 215 Plant 215
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/Ll (uq/L) Benzene
Toluene
1,150 10 Mixed xylenes
564 10 Cyclohexane
4,150 10 Isobutylene
Propylene
Polypropylene
Butyl rubber
Paraffins
Plant 221 Plant 221
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Di-isodecyl phthalate ester
Ethylene
64 10 Propylene
10 10 Isopropanol
140 10 Petroleum hydrocarbon resins
1,3-Butadiene
Butylenes
Cyclopentadiene dimer
Isobutylene
Isoprene
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-48
-------
Table 5-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ETHYLBENZENE
Plant 230 Plant 230
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/U) (ug/Ll Benzene
Ethylene
1,217 10 Hydrogen
893 10 Propylene
1,537 10 Pyrolysis gasoline
2,652 10 Polyethylene resin
3,040 10 Polypropylene
101 10 Polypropylene resin
107 10 1,3-Butadiene
483 10 Butylenes
628 10
578 10
521 10
440 10
699 10
563 10
389 10
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-49
-------
Table 5-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ETHYLBENZENE
Plant 234
Biological Treatment3
Influent
(ug/U
168
390
108
200
157
480
130
114
110
585
90
150
59
90
608
220
260
490
120
228
227
10
10
10
339
10
250
3,850
336
378
295
640
71
Effluent
(UQ/U
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Plant 234
Products Manufactured
Acetic acid
Acetic anhydride
Acetone
Acetaldehyde
Propiomc acid
PET resins/fibers
Acetoacetanil ide
Terephthalic acid
n-Propyl acetate
Oiethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
di-n-Butyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Isopropoacetate
Isobutyl acetate
Hydroquinone
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-50
-------
Table 5-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ETHYLBENZENE
Plant. 238
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(UQ/L) (UQ/L)
3,350
220
10
10
Plant 238
Products Manufactured
Formaldehyde
Polystyrene (crystal)
Polystyrene (impact)
Polystyrene latex
Polystyrene oriented sheet
ABS resin
Phenolic resins
Styrene-acrylonitrile resin
Styrene maleic anhydride resins
Plant 242
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(ua/Ll (ua/Ll
553
190
10
10
Plant 242
Products Manufactured
Alkyd resins
Epoxy resins
Glyoxal-urea formaldehyde
textile resin
Unsaturated polyester resins
Acrylic resins
Melamine resins
Urea resins
Plant 244
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(ua/L) (ug/L)
608
10
Plant 244
Products Manufactured
Cyclohexanol
C4 Hydrocarbons
Ethylene
Ethylene-methacrylic acid
copolymer
Polyethylene polyvinyl acetate
copolymers
Propylene
Hexamethylenediamine
Polyethylene resins
Adiponitrile
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-51
-------
Table 5-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ETHYLBENZENE
Plant.251
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(UQ/U (uq/L)
1,281
1,235
1,360
10
10
10
Plant 251
Products Manufactured
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Butylenes (mixed)
Dialkylbenzene, by-product
Diphenyl oxide (diphenyl ether)
Ethane
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene
Formaldehyde
Iminodiacetic acid
Naphthalene
Nitrilotnacetic acid
o-Xylene
Phenol
Propylene
Resin tars
Sorbic acid, salts
Toluene
1,3-Pentadiene (piperyliene)
Phenolic resins
Cumene
1,3-Butadiene
Cyclopentadiene dimer
Isoprene
Xylenes (mixed)
Plant 253
Biological Treatment9
Influent Effluent
(uq/L) (uq/L)
Plant 253
Products Manufactured
Polypropylene resins
144
10
10
10
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-52
-------
Table 5-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ETHYLBENZENE
Plant 257
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L)
63
71
67
75
355
327
239
139
179
149
159
153
94
124
116
85
122
172
141
83
157
231
376
608
3,648
970
1.000
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10"
55"
10b
Plant 257
Products Manufactured
Acetone
Ally! chloride
Bisphenol-A
Butylenes (mixed)
Diacetone alcohol
Ethylene
Isobutylene
Phenol
Propylene
Vinyl chloride
Epichlorohydrin
Acetone
Epoxy resins
Isopropanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
n-Butyl alcohol
Cumene
Ethanol
sec-Butyl alcohol
Butadiene
Isoprene
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
"in the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 259, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
5-53
-------
Table 5-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ETHYLBENZENE
Plant 293 Plant 293
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(UQ/U (ug/L) Polystyrene (impact)
Polystyrene & copolymers
3,565 10 Polystyrene oriented sheet
2,287 10 ABS resin
SAN resin
Plant 299 Plant 299
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) ABS resin
114 10
22 10
230 10
112 10
82 10
114 10
85 10
77 10
79 10
81 10
132 10
75 10
124 10
144 10
99 10
105 10
Stover and Kincannon, 1983 Description of
Pilot-Scale Steam Stripper Waste Treated
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Pilot-scale study of ground-
water near a waste disposal
23,500 10 dump site which contained
23,500 10 household refuse, demolition
23,500 10 materials, chemical sludges,
23,500 992 and hazardous liguid chemicals.
23,500 10
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-54
-------
Table 5-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ETHYLBENZENE
Stover and Kincannon, 1983 Description of
Pilot-Scale Air Stripper Waste Treated
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (uq/U Pilot-scale study of ground-
water near a waste disposal
23,500 53 dump site which contained
23,500 10 household refuse, demolition
23,500 528 materials, chemical sludges.
23,500 558 and hazardous liquid chemicals.
23,500 10
23,500 1,035
5-55
-------
Table 5-13
CALCULATION OF BOAT FOR ETHYLBENZENE
Average
Treatment Treatment Con-
Plant
No.
202
211
215
221
230
234
238
242
244
251
253
257
293
299
Concentration Variability
Technology (ua/L) Factor
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11.7
10
10
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
1.98
3.39a
3.39a
centration Level
Ava. x VF (ua/L)
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
23
34
34
aAverage variability factor for BOAT Biological Treatment (see
Table 5-4 and the discussion on page 5-17).
5-56
-------
5.5.13 Ethyl Ether Wastewaters
The Agency has no data for wastewater treatment for the removal of
ethyl ether. For reasons presented in Section 5.5.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to ethyl ether
spent solvent .wastewaters. Specifically, we transferred the treatment
data from methyl isobutyl ketone, which contains the ketone functional
group, to ethyl ether, which contains the ether functional group. The
ethers structural group is most structurally similar to the ketones group
based upon their oxygen containing, electron-releasing functional
groups. Methyl isobutyl ketone was the only constituent for which we had
data in the ketones structural group. Using performance data from methyl
isobutyl ketone, the BDAT treatment standard for ethyl ether is 0.05
mg/L. The technology basis for this treatment standard is steam
stripping.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for ethyl ether spent solvent
wastewaters represents substantial treatment. As discussed on page 5-73,
in reference to methyl isobutyl ketone, we believe these constituent
reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent
wastes containing ethyl ether and substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of ethyl ether from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based treatment standard for ethyl ether was
estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based on biological
treatment (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The principal difference between
the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's change
in the criteria for transfer of treatment data (see Section 5.5.21 for a
discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer).]
5-57
-------
5.5.14 Isobutanol Wastewaters
The Agency has no data for wastewater treatment for the removal of
isobutanol. For reasons presented in Section 5.5.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to isobutanol
spent solvent wastewaters. Specifically, we transferred the treatment
data from methyl isobutyl ketone, which contains the ketone functional
group, to isobutanol, which contains the hydroxyl functional group. The
alcohol structural group is most structurally similar to the ketones
group based upon their oxygen containing, electron-releasing functional
groups. Methyl isobutyl ketone was the only constituent for which we had
data in the ketones structural group. Using performance data from methyl
isobutyl ketone, the transferred standard for isobutanol is 0.05 mg/L.
The standard derived from the transferred data is below the
quantification level and could not be used as the treatment standard.
Therefore, the BDAT treatment standard was set at the quantification
level of 5.0 mg/L. The technology basis for this treatment standard is
steam stripping.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for isobutanol spent solvent
wastewaters represents substantial treatment. We would expect untreated
isobutanol wastes to be similar to untreated methyl isobutyl ketone
wastes, from which we transferred treatment data, since they are used in
some of the same manufacturing processes, as shown in Section 2 of this
document. As discussed on page 5-73, in reference to methyl isobutyl
ketone, we believe these constituent reductions substantially diminish
the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing isobutanol and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of isobutanol from spent
solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for isobutanol
was estimated at the detection limit of <0.050 mg/L based on biological
treatment (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The primary difference between the
proposed and promulgated treatment standards is EPA's consideration of
quantification levels in setting the standard (see the discussion on the
use of quantification levels in Section 5.5 on page 5-12). To a lesser
extent, the Agency's change in the criteria for data transfer affected
the treatment standard. (See Section 5.5.1, page 5-14, for a discussion
of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-58
-------
5.5.15 Methanol Wastewaters
The Agency has wet air oxidation treatment data for methanol
(Reference 10). The data are summarized in Table 5-14.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for methanol:
1. We evaluated the data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment system. The
data for wet air oxidation treatment of methanol were deleted
because we did not believe the treatment to be substantial. By
transferring data from another technology, a BDAT treatment
standard over 10,000 times (four orders of magnitude) smaller
could be obtained. We have no information to conclude, nor do we
believe, that the wastes treated by the wet air oxidation unit are
sufficiently different from the similarly-treated wastes on which
the standard was based to account for this large difference in
treatability. Taking the variability into account, the standard
derived from wet air oxidation would also be over 200 times
greater than any BDAT treatment standard. We therefore conclude
that the treatment represented by this data set for wet air
oxidation treatment of methanol does not represent substantial
reductions in toxicity or likelihood of migration.
2. Because the Agency has no other data for treatment of methanol,
treatment data for methanol were transferred from another
compound. For reasons presented in Section 5.5.1, EPA used
chemical structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to
methanol spent solvent wastewaters. Specifically, we transferred
the treatment data from methyl isobutyl ketone, which contains the
ketone functional group, to methanol, which contains the hydroxyl
functional group. The alcohols structural group is most
structurally similar to the ketones group based upon their oxygen
containing, electron-releasing functional groups. Methyl isobutyl
ketone was the only constituent for which we had data in the
ketones structural group. Using performance data from methyl
isobutyl ketone, the transferred standard for methanol is 0.05
mg/L. The standard derived from the transferred data is below the
quantification level and could not be used as the treatment
standard. Therefore, the BDAT treatment standard was set at the
quantification level of 0.25 mg/L. The technology basis for this
treatment standard is steam stripping.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for methanol spent solvent
wastewaters represents substantial treatment. We would expect
untreated methanol wastes to be similar to untreated methyl
5-59
-------
isobutyl ketone wastes, from which we transferred treatment
performance, since they are used in some of the same manufacturing
processes, as shown in Section 2 of this document. As discussed
on page 5-73, in reference to methyl isobutyl ketone, we believe
these constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity
of the spent solvent wastes containing methanol and substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of methanol from spent solvent
wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BOAT treatment standard for methanol
was estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based on biological
treatment (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The principal difference between
the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is EPA's consideration
of quantification levels in setting the standard (see the discussion on
the use of quantification levels in Section 5.5 on page 5-12). To a
lesser extent, the Agency's change in the criteria for data transfer
affected the treatment standard. (See Section 5.5.1, page 5-14, for a
discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-60
-------
Table 5-14
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR METHANOL
Data Submitted by Zimpro, Inc., 1986
Met Air Oxidation
Diluted Oxidation
Raw Waste Feed Product Description of
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) Waste Treated
36,900,000 9,200,000 800,000 General organic
5-61
-------
5.5.16 Methylene Chloride Wastewaters
The Agency has biological treatment data for methylene chloride at
plants 246 and 265 in the OCPSF data base. Also from the OCPSF data base
are steam stripping data at plant 284 and biological treatment followed
by activated carbon adsorption data at plant 246. The Agency also has
data from pilot-scale granular activated carbon adsorption (Reference 7)
and data from wet air oxidation treatment (Reference 10). Data are also
available for steam stripping of methylene chloride wastewater from the
Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing Industry (plant 12003 of the Industrial
Technology Division data base). The data are summarized in Table 5-15
and calculation of the BOAT treatment standard is shown in Table 5-16.
The following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for methylene chloride:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. Data
for steam stripping of methylene chloride wastewater at the
Pharmaceuticals manufacturing facility (plant 12003) were
evaluated to determine whether the steam stripper could be
considered well-designed and operated. The steam stripper was
designed to operate at 98°C in the overhead. However, many data
points were obtained during operation at overhead temperatures
below 98°C. Therefore, the data were examined to determine the
minimum temperature representative of a well-operated system. As
a method of evaluating the data, the effluent concentration was
plotted as a function of overhead temperature. The data indicate
that, as the overhead temperature drops below the design
temperature, there is an increase in the variability in the
effluent concentrations achieved at a given overhead temperature.
This increased variability is an indication of increased
instability or poor control of the steam stripping system. Since
the variability in the effluent concentrations increased as the
overhead temperature dropped below 90°C, the minimum overhead
temperature for a system that was well-operated was estimated as
90°C. Twenty-one data points were deleted from the data set
because the overhead temperature was below 90°C.
In consideration of the amount of full-scale data available for
methylene chloride, we believe it is appropriate to exclude data
for pilot-scale activated carbon adsorption and bench-scale wet
air oxidation treatment.
5-62
-------
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for each data set as shown in Table 5-16.
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment followed by activated carbon adsorption at plant 246
because all effluent values were reported as less than or equal to
the detection limit of 10 ug/L. We would expect some variability
in the data because the actual concentrations would range from 0
to the detection limit of 10 ug/L. To estimate the variability,
the Agency used the average variability factor for BDAT biological
treatment followed by activated carbon adsorption, 6.17.
(Calculation of the average variability factor is shown in
Table 5-4, page 5-18)
3. Biological treatment and biological treatment followed by
activated carbon adsorption of methylene chloride at plant 246
were compared to determine whether the performance of one
technology was significantly better than the other for treatment
of the same waste. Since all effluent values in each data set
were reported as less than or egual to the detection limit, the
two data sets were considered statistically homogeneous. The
combined biological treatment followed by activated carbon
adsorption data set was not used to determine the BDAT treatment
standard because the addition of activated carbon adsorption did
not significantly improve treatment performance. Therefore, the
treatment concentration level for plant 246 is 0.20 mg/L based
upon biological treatment.
Data were not available for more than one treatment for other
wastes; therefore, the analysis of variance method could not be
used to compare treatments on other wastes.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-16 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Methylene chloride spent
solvent wastewater generated at a Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing
facility was identified as a separate waste treatability
subgroup. Data were insufficient to identify other waste
treatability subgroups; therefore, a second waste treatability
subgroup was established for all remaining sources of wastewater
containing methylene chloride spent solvents. We then compared
the treatment levels for the two waste treatability subgroups by
the analysis of variance. The treatment levels are significantly
different (see Table II-6, Appendix II). A separate BDAT
treatment standard (12.7 mg/L from plant 12003) was developed for
the Pharmaceuticals manufacturing industry based on the data for
steam stripping of methylene chloride. The least stringent
5-63
-------
treatment level within the second treatability subgroup for all
other methylene chloride wastewaters was selected for BDAT (0.20
mg/L from plant 265) to ensure that the standard could be achieved
for all waste matrices within the waste treatability subgroup.
The technology basis was biological treatment.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for methylene chloride represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices generated by process
streams from the manufacture of over 39 different products. The
untreated waste concentration of methylene chloride ranged from
7,000 mg/L to 10,000 mg/L in pharmaceuticals wastewater. This
waste was treated to the BDAT treatment standard developed for
methylene chloride wastewaters from pharmaceuticals manufacturing
or below (12.7 mg/L). The untreated waste concentration of
methylene chloride ranged from 0.027 mg/L to 12.1 mg/L in all
other waste matrices. All of these wastes were treated to the
BDAT treatment standard or below (0.20 mg/L). We believe these
constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the
spent solvent wastes containing methylene chloride and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of methylene
chloride from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for methylene
chloride was 0.011 mg/L based on biological treatment (see Table 13, 51
FR 1725). The difference between the proposed and promulgated treatment
standards is primarily due to the use of additional data on treatment of
methylene chloride and the incorporation of a variability factor in
derivation of the promulgated treatment standard. The additional data
supported development of a separate waste treatability subgroup for
methylene chloride spent solvent wastewaters from pharmaceuticals
manufacturing as discussed above. The additional data were presented in
EPA's Notice of Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). Another less
significant factor affecting the change in the treatment standard is the
change in data editing (data editing rules are presented in Section 5.3).]
5-64
-------
Table 5-15
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Plant 246 Plant 246
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Aniline
Dinitrotoluene (mixed)
27 10 Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
94 10 Nitrobenzene
1,817 10 Polymeric methylene diphenyl
717 10 diisocyanate
154 10 Polyoxypropylene glycol
133 10 Toluene diamine (mixture)
501 10 Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
135 10 Polymeric methylene dianiline
460 10 Polyurethane resins
1,640 26
3,907 10
969 10
277 10
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-65
-------
Table 5-15 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Plant 246
Biological Treatment3
Followed by
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Influent Effluent
(uq/L) (UQ/L)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10b
10b
10b
1
2
3
5
3
27
94
,817
717
154
133
501
135
,062
460
.907
969
277
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
,550
,005
Plant 246
Products Manufactured
Aniline
Oinitrotoluene (mixed)
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
Nitrobenzene
Polymeric methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate
Polyoxypropylene glycol
Toluene diamine (mixture)
Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
Plymeric methylene dianiline
Polyurethane resins
2,980
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
bln the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 219, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
5-66
-------
Table 5-15 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Plant 265
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(ua/L) (uq/U
760
690
500
60
10
10
Plant 265
Products Manufactured
Tar, tar crudes, and tar
pitches
Plant 284
Steam Stripping
Influent
(ug/L)
.135
,600
,140
1 ,760
2,400
690
570
320
267
520
198
641
4,800
12,100
469
Effluent
(ug/U
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
18
Plant 284
Products Manufactured
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Ethylene
Propylene
Methylene chloride
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Vinylidine chloride
1,2,3-Tnchloropropene
1,2-Dichloropropane
Propylene oxide
Ethylene oxide
Propylene glycol
Dipropylene glycol
Tripropylene glycol
Ethylene glycol
Methyl chloride
Oiethylene glycol
Triethylene glycol
Tetraethylene glycol
Ethanol amines
Polypropylene
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
1,2-Dichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-67
-------
Table 5-15 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Plant 12003
Steam Stripping
Influent
(ua/U
8,250,000
8,250,000
8,250,000
8,250,000
8,250,000
8,250,000
8,250,000
8,250,000
225,000
225,000
225,000
225,000
225,000
225,000
225,000
225,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
11,200,000
9,900,000
9,100,000
9,400,000
10,200,000
11 ,800.000
10,000,000
12,000,000
9,500,000
9,500,000
9,500,000
9,500,000
9,500,000
9,500,000
9,500,000
9,500,000
Effluent
(ug/L)
926
5,100
4,940
3, OOO3
1.9903
5.7003
22.8003
38,050a
3,900a-b
8,360a-b
20,600a-b
4,070a-b
10,700a-b
20,300a-b
4,800a>b
7,8703-b
1 ,720
1,630
3,600a
14.2503
39.3003
138, OOO3
110, OOO3
60.8003
10.1003
22,850a
57.5003
115, OOO3
59.9003
127.0003
3,180
3,730a
7,200
4,040
4,270
1,470
1.6203
2.630
7.8303
15.8003
Plant 12003
Products Manufactured
Pharmaceuticals
aData point deleted in analysis - overhead temperature less
than 90°C.
bThese data were deleted because the document from which
they were obtained (Reference 14) stated that the data set
was suspect.
5-68
-------
Table 5-15 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Becker and Wilson, 1978
Pilot-Scale Granular
Activated Carbon Column
Influent Effluent
(UQ/D (ua/L)
190
Description of
Waste Treated
Runoff water from a waste dis-
posal site's containment dikes.
51.0
Data Submitted by Zimpro, Inc., 1986
Viet Air Oxidation
Raw Waste
(ug/L)
3,600,000
15,000
500,000
Diluted
Feed
(uo/L)
125,000
Oxidation
Product
(ug/L)
4,000
<1,000
<10,000
Description of
Waste Treated
General organic
5-69
-------
Table 5-16
CALCULATION OF BOAT FOR METHVLENE CHLORIDE
Average
Treatment Treatment Con-
Plant Concentration Variability centration Level
No. Technology (ug/L) Factor Avg. x VF (ug/L)
Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing Industry:
12003 Steam Stripping 3,375 3.76 12,690
All Other Methylene Chloride Wastewaters:
284 Steam Stripping 10.5 1.40 15
246 Biological 11.2 1.78 20
265 Biological 26.7 7.58 202
246 Biological fol- 10 6.17a 62
lowed by
Activated
Carbon
aAverage variability factor for BOAT biological treatment
followed by activated carbon adsorption (see Table 5-4 and
the discussion on page 5-17).
5-70
-------
5.5.17 Methyl Ethyl Ketone Wastewaters
The Agency has wet air oxidation treatment data for methyl ethyl
ketone (Reference 10). The data are summarized in Table 5-17.
The following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for methyl ethyl ketone:
1. We evaluated the data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment system. Data
on bench-scale wet air oxidation treatment were deleted because
the concentration of methyl ethyl ketone in the diluted feed to
the wet air oxidation process was not reported and the detection
limit was not reported with the data.
2. Because the Agency has no other data for treatment of methyl ethyl
ketone, treatment data for methyl ethyl ketone were transferred
from another compound. For reasons presented in Section 5.5.1,
EPA used chemical structure as the basis for transferring
treatment data to methyl ethyl ketone spent solvent wastewaters.
Specifically, we transferred treatment data from methyl isobutyl
ketone because, like methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone
contains the ketone functional group. Methyl isobutyl ketone was
the only constituent for which we had data in the ketone
structural group. Using performance data from methyl isobutyl
ketone, the BDAT treatment standard for methyl ethyl ketone is
0.05 mg/L. The technology basis for this treatment is steam
stripping.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for methyl ethyl ketone
spent solvent wastewaters represents substantial treatment. We
would expect untreated methyl ethyl ketone wastes to be similar to
untreated methyl isobutyl ketone wastes, from which we transferred
treatment performance, since they are used in some of the same
manufacturing processes, as shown in Section 2 of this document.
As discussed on page 5-73, in reference to methyl isobutyl ketone,
we believe these constituent reductions substantially diminish the
toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing methyl ethyl
ketone and substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of
methyl ethyl ketone from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for methyl
ethyl ketone was estimated at the detection limit of <0.050 mg/L based on
biological treatment (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The principal
difference between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is
the Agency's change in the criteria for data transfer. (See Section
5.5.1, page 5-14, for a discussion of the Agency's methodology for data
transfer.)]
5-71
-------
Table 5-17
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE
Data Submitted by Zlmpro,
Inc., 1986
Het Air Oxidation
Oxidation
Raw Waste Product Description of
(ug/L) (UQ/D Waste Treated
8,200,000 Not detected3 Solvent still bottom waste-
water.
aThe detection limit was not reported with the data.
5-72
-------
5.5.18 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Wastewaters
The Agency has treatment data for methyl isobutyl ketone from
pilot-scale steam stripping and pilot-scale air stripping of solvent
contaminated groundwater (Reference 2). The data are summarized in
Table 5-18 and calculation of the BDAT treatment standard is shown in
Table 5-19.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for methyl isobutyl ketone:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. The
available data and information did not show any of the data to
represent poor design and operation. Accordingly, none of the
data were deleted on this basis.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for each data set as shown in Table 5-19.
Process variability could not be calculated for the pilot-scale
steam stripper because all effluent values were reported as less
than or equal to the detection limit of 10 ug/L. We would expect
some variability in the data because the actual concentrations
would range from 0 to the detection limit of 10 ug/L. To estimate
the variability, the Agency used the average variability factor
for BDAT full-scale steam stripping, 2.26. (Calculation of the
average variability factor is shown in Table 5-4, page 5-18.)
3. Air stripping and steam stripping of methyl isobutyl ketone at the
pilot-scale plant were compared with the analysis of variance
method to determine whether the performance of one technology was
significantly better than the other for treatment of the same
waste. It was shown that steam stripping provided significantly
better removal of methyl isobutyl ketone when compared with air
stripping. Therefore, the treatment concentration level for the
pilot-scale plant is 23 ug/L based upon steam stripping. (Refer
to Table II-7, Appendix II.) The analysis of variance method
could not be used to compare treatments on any other methyl
isobutyl ketone spent solvent wastes because data were not
available for more than one treatment for any other wastes.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-19 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
5-73
-------
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastewaters containing methyl isobutyl ketone spent
solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BOAT (0.025 mg/L from
pilot-scale steam stripping) to ensure that the standard could be
achieved for all waste matrices within the waste treatability
subgroup. This calculated concentration level is below the
quantification level and could not be used as the treatment
standard; therefore, the treatment standard was set at the
quantification level of 0.05 mg/L.
5. The BOAT treatment standard for methyl isobutyl ketone represents
treatment of a waste matrix generated from the manufacture of four
different products. The untreated waste concentration of methyl
isobutyl ketone was as high as 76.4 mg/L in this waste matrix.
This waste was treated to a concentration below the BDAT treatment
standard (0.050 mg/L). We believe these constituent reductions
substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes
containing methyl isobutyl ketone and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of methyl isobutyl ketone from spent
solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for methyl
isobutyl ketone was estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based
on biological treatment (see Table 13, 51 PR 1722). The principal
differences between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards are
EPA's consideration of quantification levels in setting the standard (see
the discussion on the use of quantification levels in Section 5.5 on page
5-12) and the incorporation of a variability factor in derivation of the
promulgated treatment standard. Another less significant factor
affecting the change in the treatment standard is the change in data
editing (data editing rules are presented in Section 5.3).]
5-74
-------
Table 5-18
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
Stover and Kincannon, 1983
Pilot-Scale Steam Stripper
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L)
76.400
76,400
76,400
76,400
76,400
10
10
10
10
10
Description of
Waste Treated
Pilot-scale study of ground-
water near a waste disposal
dump site which contained
household refuse, demolition
materials, chemical sludges,
and hazardous liquid chemicals.
Stover and Kincannon, 1983
Pilot-Scale Air Stripper
Influent Effluent
(UQ/D (ug/L)
76,400
76,400
76,400
76,400
76,400
76,400
45,000
60,000
24,400
42,800
18,500
60,200
Description of
Waste Treated
Pilot-scale study of ground-
water near a waste disposal
dump site which contained
household refuse, demolition
materials, chemical sludges,
and hazardous liquid chemicals.
5-75
-------
Table 5-19
CALCULATION OF BOAT FOR METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
Average
Treatment Treatment. Con-
Plant Concentration Variability centration Level
No. Technology (ug/L) Factor Avg. x VF (ug/L)
PS Air Stripping 41,817 2.83 118,342
PS Steam Stripping 10 2.26a 23
aAverage variability factor for BOAT full-scale steam stripping
(see Table 5-4 and the discussion on page 5-17).
5-76
-------
5.5.19 Nitrobenzene Wastewaters
The Agency has data for treatment of wastewaters containing
nitrobenzene by biological treatment at plant 246, biological treatment
followed by activated carbon adsorption at plant 246, steam stripping at
plants 246 and 297, and steam stripping followed by activated carbon
adsorption at plant 297 in the OCPSF data base. The data are summarized
in Table 5-20 and calculation of the BOAT treatment standard is shown in
Table 5-21.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for nitrobenzene:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. In
EPA's judgment, one data point in the data set for steam stripping
at plant 297 represented poor design and operation. We confirmed
this judgment using the outlier test (refer to Table II-8,
Appendix II). The outlying data point was deleted. Data for
steam stripping at plant 246 were deleted on the basis of design
and performance. Based on the disproportionately low removals
relative to other treatment systems for wastes containing
nitrobenzene, EPA judged this system to be poorly designed and
operated. This system achieved a reduction of only 35.7 percent
as compared with 93.8 to 99.9 percent for other systems treating
wastes containing nitrobenzene.
Data for biological treatment and biological treatment followed by
activated carbon adsorption at plant 246 were also deleted.
During the sampling episode, this plant experienced high
discharges of polyoxypropylene glycol, or "polyol", a product at
the plant, into the treatment system. The discharge of polyol is
normally closely controlled at this plant since the polyol
interferes with removals of nitrobenzene in the treatment system.
The data for this plant were not considered in developing BDAT
treatment standards since the treatment system was not
well-operated at the time of sampling.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for each data set as shown in Table 5-21.
3. Steam stripping and steam stripping followed by activated carbon
adsorption of nitrobenzene at plant 297 were compared with the
analysis of variance method to determine whether the performance
of one technology was significantly better than the other for
treatment of the same waste. It was shown that the addition of
activated carbon adsorption to steam stripping significantly
5-77
-------
improved treatment performance. Therefore, the treatment
concentration level for plant 297 is 0.66 mg/L based on steam
stripping followed by activated carbon adsorption. (Refer to the
statistical calculations and results in Table II-9, Appendix II.)
The analysis of variance method could not be used to compare
treatments on .any other wastes because data were not available for
more than one treatment for any other waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-21 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastewaters containing nitrobenzene spent solvents.
The highest treatment level within the treatability subgroup was
selected for BOAT (0.66 mg/L from plant 297) to ensure that the
standard could be achieved for all waste matrices within the waste
treatability subgroup. The technology basis was steam stripping
followed by activated carbon adsorption.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for nitrobenzene represents treatment
of a waste matrix generated by process streams from the
manufacture of at least four different products. The untreated
waste concentration of nitrobenzene ranged from 87 mg/L to 330
mg/L in this waste matrix. This waste was treated to the BDAT
treatment standard or below (0.66 mg/L). We believe these
constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the
spent solvent wastes containing nitrobenzene and substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of nitrobenzene from spent
solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
nitrobenzene was <0.010 mg/L based on biological treatment (see Table 13,
51 FR 1725). The difference between the proposed and promulgated
treatment standards is primarily due to the incorporation of a
variability factor in derivation of the promulgated treatment standard.
Other lesser factors affecting the change in the treatment standard are
the changes in data editing (data editing rules are presented in Section
5.3) and deletion of some data points in the final rule because they
represent poor operation of the treatment system (see the discussion of
the outlier test in Section 5.4.)]
5-78
-------
Table 5-20
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR NITROBENZENE
Plant 246
Steam Stripping
Influent
(ua/L)
290,780
226,415
196,530
155,310
363,560
1,965,760
361,510
675,000
290,460
344,720
91,200
201,990
230,540
233,786
237,940
Plant
Bioloaical
Influent
(ug/L)
5,559
2,779
2,405
3,796
4,400
2,838
3,656
1 ,214
2,319
1 ,420
2,062
821
1,145
876
Effluent
-------
Table 5-20 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR NITROBENZENE
Plant 246
Biological Treatment3
and Activated Plant 246
Carbon Adsorption Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ua/U (ug/L.) Aniline
Dinitrotoluene (mixed)
5,559 982 Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
2,779 1,902 Nitrobenzene
3,405 141 Polymeric methylene diphenyl
3,796 538 diisocyanate
4,400 537 Polyoxypropylene glycol
2,838 79 Toluene diamine (mixture)
3,656 420 Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
2,015 16 Polymeric methylene diamline
1,214 10 Polyurethane resins
2,319 233
1,420 10
2,063 10
821 10
1,145 10
876 10
87,000 230b
45,030 179b
90,500 38b
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
bln the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 248, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
5-80
-------
Table 5-20 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR NITROBENZENE
Plant 297 Plant 297
Steam Stripping Products Manufactured
Nitrobenzene
Nitrototuene
Aniline
o-Toluidine
Influent
(ug/L)
330,000
190,000
267,160
309,920
106,995
144,860
139,530
87,000
139,340
189,054
Effluent
(ug/L)
14,377
10,545
8,752
4,600
6.098
11,072
21,992
17,065
12,264
11,163
Plant 297
Steam Stripping Followed by Plant 297
Activated Carbon Adsorption Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Same as Plant 297 - Steam
Stripping
330,000
190,000
267,160
309,920
106,995
144,860
139,530
87,000
139.340
189.054
374
150
143
330
372
140
4,900a
135
331
251
aln EPA's judgment, this data point represented poor design and
operation. We confirmed this judgment using the outlier test
(refer to Table II-8, Appendix II) and this data point was
deleted.
5-81
-------
Table 5-21
CALCULATION OF BOAT FOR NITROBENZENE
Average
Treatment Treatment Con-
Plant Concentration Variability centration Level
No. Technology (ug/L) Factor Avg. x VF (ug/L)
297 Steam Stripping 11,793 2.68 31,605
297 Steam Stripping 247 2.65 655
followed by
Activated
Carbon
5-82
-------
5.5.20 Pyridine Wastewaters
The Agency has no data for wastewater treatment for the removal of
pyridine. For reasons presented in Section 5.5.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment standards to pyridine
spent solvent wastewaters. Specifically, we transferred the treatment
data from toluene because, like pyridine, toluene contains the aromatic
ring functional group. Toluene had the least stringent treatment
standard in the non-halogenated aromatics structural group. Using
performance data from toluene, the BDAT treatment standard for pyridine
is 1.12 mg/L. The technology basis for this treatment is biological
treatment followed by activated carbon adsorption.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for pyridine spent solvent
wastewaters represents substantial treatment. We would expect untreated
pyridine wastes to be similar to untreated toluene wastes, from which we
transferred treatment data. As discussed on page 5-91, in reference to
toluene, we believe these constituent reductions substantially diminish
the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing pyridine and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of pyridine from spent
solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for pyridine
was estimated at the detection level of <0.500 mg/L based on biological
treatment (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The principal difference between
the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's change
in the criteria for data transfer. (See Section 5.5.1, page 5-14, for a
discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-83
-------
5.5.21 Tetrachloroethylene Wastewaters
The Agency has biological treatment data for tetrachloroethylene at
plants 225 and 280 in the OCPSF data base. Wet air oxidation treatment
data are also available for treatment of wastewater containing
tetrachloroethylene (Reference 10). The Agency also has data from two
pilot-scale air strippers treating solvent spiked tap water (Reference 6,
Site 1) and industrial discharge contaminated groundwater (Reference 6,
Site 2), and from full-scale biological treatment of wastewater from
organic chemicals manufacturing (commercially available PACT® process,
Reference 4). The data are summarized in Table 5-22 and calculation of
the BDAT treatment standard is shown in Table 5-23.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for tetrachloroethylene:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. In
EPA's judgment, one data point in the data set for biological
treatment at plant 225 represented poor design and operation. We
confirmed this judgment using the outlier test (refer to Table
11-11, Appendix II). The outlying data point was deleted. Data
for pilot-scale air stripping treatment at Sites 1 and 2 and for
bench-scale wet air oxidation were deleted because, in
consideration of the amount of full-scale data available for
tetrachloroethylene, we believe it is appropriate to exclude
pilot-scale data.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for each data set as shown in Table 5-23.
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment at plant 280 because all effluent values were reported
as less than or equal to the detection limit of 10 ug/L. We would
expect some variability in the data because the actual
concentrations would range from 0 to the detection limit of
10 ug/L. To estimate the variability, the Agency used the average
variability factor for BDAT biological treatment, 3.39.
(Calculation of the average variability factor is shown in Table
5-4, page 5-18.)
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment by the PACT® process because there is only one data
pair available from this process. Therefore, the average
variability factor for BDAT biological treatment, 3.39, was used.
(Calculation of the average variability factor is shown in
Table 5-4, page 5-18.)
5-84
-------
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown .in Table 5-23 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastewaters containing tetrachloroethylene spent
solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT (0.079 mg/L from plant
225) to ensure that the standard could be achieved for all waste
matrices within the waste treatability subgroup. The technology
basis was biological treatment.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for tetrachloroethylene represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices generated by process
streams from the manufacture of over 17 different products. The
untreated waste concentration of tetrachloroethylene ranged from
0.062 mg/L to 31.5 mg/L in these waste matrices. All of these
wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment standard or below (0.079
mg/L). We believe these constituent reductions substantially
diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing
tetrachloroethylene and substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of tetrachloroethylene from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
tetrachloroethylene was <0.010 mg/L based on biological treatment (see
Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The difference between the proposed and
promulgated treatment standards is primarily due to the incorporation of
a variability factor in derivation of the promulgated treatment
standard. Other lesser factors affecting the change in the treatment
standard are the changes in data editing (data editing rules are
presented in Section 5.3) and deletion of some data points in the final
rule because they represent poor operation of the treatment system (see
the discussion of outlier test in Section 5.4).]
5-85
-------
Table 5-22
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Plant 225 Plant 225
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Polyvinyl chloride
Perch!oroethylene
2,251 10 Chlorinated paraffins
95 10 Chlorine
132 10 Hydrogen chloride
482 19 Sodium methylate
169 10
186 10
288 10
913 10
1,617 10
374 10
746 10
714 10
470 10
252 12
302 10
17,500 476b>c
31,500 150b
24,000 55b
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
bln the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 227, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
cln EPA's judgment, this data point represented poor design and
operation. We confirmed this judgment using the outlier test
(refer to Table 11-11, Appendix II) and this data point was
deleted.
5-86
-------
Table 5-22 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Plant 280 . Plant 280
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (uq/L) Adipic acid, di(2-ethy1hexyl)
ester
413 10 Alkylphenols (incl. p-t-butyl)
401 10 Fatty acid esters
858 10 Phosphate esters, mixed triaryl
998 10 Phosphate esters, tributyl
405 10 Phosphate esters, tricresyl
258 10 Phosphate esters, tris(b-
110 10 chloroalkyl)
1,270 10 Phosphate esters, trixylenyl
1,748 10 Phosphates, alkyl acid, pyro-
572 10 phosphates & salts
729 10 Phosphonates, diethyl bis(2-
399 10 hydroxyethyl) aminomethyl
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-87
-------
Table 5-22 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
D.G. Mutton, 1979.
Biological Treatment3-13
Influent Effluent
(ua/L) (ua/L)
62
7.3
Description of
Waste Treated
Wastewater from organic chemi-
cal manufacturing.
Love and Eilers, 1982
Pilot-Scale Air Striooer. Site 1
Average
Influent
Concentration
(ug/L)
1 ,025
636
338
114
107
Average Effluent Concentration at
Various Air-to-Water Ratios (ug/L)
1:1 2:1 3:1 4:1 8:1 16:1 20:1
698 416 304 156 16
161 177 46 34 8 <1 <1
139 103 47 34 4 1 2
32 17 7 4 <1 <1 <1
32 17 7 4 <1 <1 <1
Description
of
Waste Treated
Tap water was
spiked with
tetrachloro-
ethylene and
trichloro-
ethylene.
Love and Eilers, 1982
Pilot-Scale Air
Stripper. Site 2
Average
Effluent
Concen-
Average tration for
Influent 4:1 Air-to-
Concentration Water Ratio
(uo/L) (ug/L)
94 9
Description of
Waste Treated
Ground water was contaminated
by industrial discharge; pilot-
scale column was run continu-
ously for over one year.
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
''Commercially available patented PACT® process.
5-1
-------
Table 5-22 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Data Submitted by Zimpro,
Inc., 1986 Description of
Met Air Oxidation Waste Treated
Oxidation
Raw Waste Product General organic.
(ug/L) (uo/L)
41,000 <1,000
5-89
-------
Table 5-23
CALCULATION OF BOAT FOR TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Plant
No. Technology
225 Biological
280 Biological
I*3 Biological
Average
Treatment Treatment Con-
Concentration Variability centration Level
(ug/L) Factor Avg. x VF (uo/L)
21.5
10
7.3
3.65
3.39a
3.39a
79
34
25
aAverage variability factor for all BOAT biological treatment
data (see Table 5-4 and the discussion on page 5-17).
bCoirniercially available patented PACT® process.
5-90
-------
5.5.22 Toluene Wastewaters
The Agency has biological treatment data for toluene at plants 202,
206, 208, 210, 211, 215, 217, 221, 223, 230, 234, 240, 242, 244, 246,
251, 257, 265, and 286 in the OCPSF data base. Also available from the
OCPSF data base are data for biological treatment followed by activated
carbon adsorption at plant 246, steam stripping data at plant 246, and
data for steam stripping followed by activated carbon adsorption at plant
297. The Agency also has data from pilot-scale steam stripping and air
stripping of solvent contaminated groundwater (Reference 2), full-scale
biological treatment of wastewater from organic chemicals manufacturing
(commercially available patented PACT® process, Reference 4), and
pilot-scale activated carbon adsorption of runoff water from a waste
disposal site's containment dikes (Reference 7). The Agency also has
data from the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Development Document
(Reference 9) and wet air oxidation data submitted by Zimpro, Inc.
(Reference 10). The data are summarized in Table 5-24 and calculation of
the BOAT treatment standard is shown in Table 5-25.
The following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for toluene:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. In
EPA's judgment, two data points in the data set for biological
treatment at plant 234 represented poor design and operation. We
confirmed this judgment using the outlier test (refer to Table
11-12, Appendix II,). The outlying data point was deleted.
Data for biological treatment at plant 253 (consisting of three
data points) were deleted on the basis of poor design and
performance. Based on the disproportionately low removals
relative to other treatment systems for wastes containing toluene,
EPA judged this system to be poorly designed and operated. This
system achieved a reduction of only 34.6 percent as compared with
86.3 to 99.9 percent for other systems treating wastes containing
toluene.
Individual paired data points for steam stripping treatment at
plant 246 were deleted when the influent concentrations were below
the 0.05 mg/L quantification level for toluene.
Data for biological treatment at plant 206 were deleted because
the treatment system at this plant was shown to be poorly designed
and/or operated based on the wide variation in influent
concentrations. The nature of biological treatment systems
requires sufficient control of influent concentrations through the
use of equalization to prevent "shock loading" of the biomass.
5-91
-------
Data on pilot-scale steam stripping, pilot-scale air stripping,
pilot-scale carbon adsorption, and bench-scale wet air oxidation
treatment were deleted because, in consideration of the amount of
full-scale data available for toluene, we believe it is
appropriate to exclude pilot-scale data. The data from the Iron
and Steel Manufacturing Development Document were not used because
insufficient information exists in some cases to determine the
concentrations treated and, in other cases, which technology was
achieving removal. Also, in some cases, the treated values
represented significant dilution of the wastestream.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for each data set as shown in Table 5-25.
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment at plant 217 because there is an insufficient number of
data points available from this process to allow a meaningful
estimation of process variability for the plant. Therefore, the
average variability factor for BOAT biological treatment, 3.39,
was used (calculation of the average variability factor is shown
in Table 5-4, page 5-18).
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment at plants 202, 208, 210, 211, 215, 221, 223, 230, 240,
242, 244, 251, and 265 because all effluent values were reported
as less than or equal to the detection limit of 10 ug/L. We would
expect some variability in the data because the actual
concentrations would range from 0 to the detection limit of 10
ug/L. To estimate the variability, the Agency used the average
variability factor for BOAT biological treatment, 3.39.
(Calculation of the average variability factor is shown in Table
5-4, page 5-18.}
Process variability could not be calculated for full-scale
biological treatment of wastewater from organic chemicals
manufacturing (the Zimpro PACT® process) because there was only
one data point available for this process. Therefore, the average
variability factor for BOAT biological treatment, 3.39, was used
(calculation of the average variability factor is shown in
Table 5-4, page 5-18).
3. Biological treatment and biological treatment followed by
activated carbon adsorption of toluene at plant 246 were compared
with the analysis of variance method to determine whether the
performance of one technology was significantly better than the
other for treatment of the same waste. It was shown that the
addition of activated carbon adsorption to biological treatment
5-92
-------
significantly improved treatment performance. Therefore, the
treatment concentration level for plant 246 is 1.12 mg/L based
upon biological treatment followed by activated carbon
adsorption. (Refer to the statistical calculations and results in
Table 11-13, Appendix II.) The analysis of variance method could
not be used to compare treatments on other wastes because data
were not available for more than one treatment for any other waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-25 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastewaters containing toluene spent solvents. The
least stringent treatment level within the treatability subgroup
was selected for BOAT (1.12 mg/L from plant 246) to ensure that
the standard could be achieved for all waste matrices within the
waste treatability subgroup. The technology basis was biological
treatment followed by activated carbon adsorption.
5. The BOAT treatment standard for toluene represents treatment of a
variety of waste matrices generated by process streams from the
manufacture of 150 different products. The untreated waste
concentration of toluene ranged from 0.010 mg/L to 160 mg/L in
these waste matrices. All of these wastes were treated to the
BDAT treatment standard or below (1.12 mg/L). We believe these
constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the
spent solvent wastes containing toluene and substantially reduce
the likelihood of migration of toluene from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for toluene
was 0.016 mg/L based on activated carbon adsorption (see Table 13, 51 PR
1725). The difference between the proposed and promulgated treatment
standards is primarily due to the incorporation of a variability factor
in derivation of the promulgated treatment standard. Other less
significant factors affecting the change in the treatment standard are
the changes in data editing (data editing rules are presented in
Section 5.3) and deletion of some data points in the final rule because
they represent poor operation of the treatment system (see the discussion
of the outlier test in Section 5.4).]
5-93
-------
Table 5-24
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 202
Biological Treatment3
Influent
(ug/L)
122
130
144
126
107
139
154
150
155
148
81
95
95
73
138
94
107
87
67
60
Plant
Bioloaical
Influent
(ua/L)
3,486
19,707
17,697
4,001
57,475
8,327
49,379
834
14,877
24,264
Effluent
(ug/U
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
206
Treatment3
Effluent
(ua/U
231
212
220
7,411
320
6,087
14
344
17
52
Plant 202
Products Manufactured
Disperse dye coupler
Disperse dyes
Naphthalene sulfonic acid
Organic pigments
p-Phenylene diamine
Sulfur dyes
Vat dyes
Xylenesulfonic acid, sodium
salt
2-Bromo-4,6-dinitroaniline
2,4-Dinitroaniline
2,4-Dinitrochlorobenzene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4,6-Trinitrophenol
4-Chloro-2,6-dinitrobenzene
sulfonic acid, potassium salt
Plant 206
Products Manufactured
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Polyurethane resins
Orthochloroaniline
Benzophenone
2-Sulfophthalic acid
2,6-Dichloronitroaniline
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-94
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 208
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(uq/L) (ug/L)
370
285
251
283
140
345
514
587
472
449
635
724
593
640
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Plant 208
Products Manufactured
Cyclic (coal tar) intermediates
Tar, tar crudes, and tar
pitches
Plant 210
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L)
5,805
135
10
10b
Plant 210
Products Manufactured
Acetic acid
Acetone cyanohydrin
Acrylic acid
Acrylic acid esters
Acrylic resins, oil additives
Alkyl amines
Ethoxylates
Methacrylic acid esters
Methyl methacrylate
Alkyl phenols
Acetylene
Methacrylic acid
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
^In the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 282, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
5-95
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 211
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ua/L)
4,000
2,082
3,024
1,220
1,546
1,154
1,315
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Plant 211
Products Manufactured
Coal tar solvent
Coatings
Cresols (mixed)
Ethyl benzene
Methyl naphthalene
Naphthalene
Pitch tar residue
Pyridines (tar bases)
2.4-Xylenol (dimethyl phenol)
Phenol
Plant 215
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L)
4,550
3,300
3,700
10
10
10
Plant 215
Products Manufactured
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes (mixed)
Cyclohexane
Isobutylene
Propylene
Polypropylene
Butyl rubber
Paraffins
Plant 217
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(UQ/l) (UQ/L)
60,000
47,300
34,400
10
108
102
Plant 217
Products Manufactured
Phthalic anhydride
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Benzyl chloride
Tetrachlorophthalic anhydride
Phosphate esters
Phthalate esters
Polybenzyl ethyl benzene
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-96
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 221 Plant 221
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ua/Ll (uQ/U Di-isodecyl phthalate ester
Ethylene
323 10 Propylene
190 10 Isopropanol
10 10 Petroleum hydrocarbon resins
1,3-Butadiene
Butylenes
Cyclopentadiene dimer
Isobutylene
Isoprene
Plant 223 Plant 223
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/U (ug/U Acrylic acid esters
Caprolactam
265 10 Cyclohexanone
179 10 Isobutanol
99 10 n-Butyl alcohol
2-Ethyl hexanol
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-97
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 230 Plant 230
Biological Treatmenta Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/U Benzene
Ethylene
15,891 10 Hydrogen
4,649 10 Propylene
4,904 10 Pyrolysis gasoline
20,065 10 Polyethylene resin
4,534 10 Polypropylene
19,848 10 Polypropylene resin
3,867 10 1,3-Butadiene
30,347 10 Butylenes
4,426 10
3,806 10
3,942 10
3,538 10
3,882 10
3,789 10
3,503 10
aThe data do not represent paired data (I.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-98
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 234
Biological Treatment8
Influent Effluent
(UQ/Ll (UQ/L)
16,000
6,200
3,750
7,600
8.700
5,750
6,800
6,500
9,800
5,300
4,100
26,000
3,825
3,400
6,450
13,000
35,000
5,950
5,310
5,476
11,060
4,700
2,350
4,806
6,650
15,000
32,500
7,700
25,750
6,150
16,000
4,487
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
21
19
37
10
10
10
10
10
11
12
15
10
10
67"
10
235b
12
10
10
10
10
Plant 234
Products Manufactured
Acetic acid
Acetic anhydride
Acetone
Acetaldehyde
Propionic acid
PET resins/fibers
Acetoacetanil ide
Terephthalic acid
n-Propyl acetate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
di-n-Butyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexylJphthalate
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Isopropoacetate
Isobutyl acetate
Hydroquinone
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
^In EPA's judgment, this data point represented poor design
and operation. We confirmed this judgment using the outlier
test (refer to Table 11-12, Appendix II) and this data point was
deleted.
5-99
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 240
Biological Treatment8
Influent Effluent
(UQ/L1 (uq/L) Acetic acid
22,700
10
Plant 240
Products Manufactured
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylic acid esters
Benzene
Cyclohexanone
Diethylene glycol
Epoxidized esters
Ethylamines (mono, di, tri)
Ethylene
Ethylene dimer
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene glycol monomethyl
ether
Ethylene oxide
Isopropyl amines (mono, di)
Peracetic acid
Polyethylene glycol
Polyethylene polyamines
Propylene
Toluene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Butylenes
Xylenes (mixed)
Plant 242
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(UQ/L) (Ud/U
1,533
1,200
10
10
Plant 242
Products Manufactured
Alkyd resins
Epoxy resins
Glyoxal-urea formaldehyde tex-
tile resin
Unsaturated polyester resins
Acrylic resins
Melamine resins
Urea resins
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-100
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 244 Plant 244
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Cyclohexanol
C4 hydrocarbons
1,109 10 Ethylene
Ethylene-methacrylic acid
copolymer
Polyethylene polyvinyl acetate
copolymers
Propylene
Hexamethylenedlamine
Polyethylene resins
Adiponitrile
Plant 246 Plant 246
Steam Stripping Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Aniline
Dinitrotoluene (mixed)
98 12 Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
80 10 Nitrobenzene
57 10 Polymeric methylene diphenyl
72 10 diisocyanate
Polyoxypropylene glycol
Toluene diamine (mixture)
Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
Polymeric methylene dianiline
Polyurethane resins
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-101
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 246
Biological Treatment3
Followed by
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Influent Effluent
(ua/L) (UQ/D
4,372
77
4,881
2,273
244
12,938
4,166
10,375
12,864
180
5,397
1,371
3,899
5,400
5,500
6,575
98
b
b
b
53
30
91
330
437
21
b
b
b
50C
10C
10C
Plant 246
Products Manufactured
Aniline
Dinitrotoluene (mixed)
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
Nitrobenzene
Polymeric methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate
Polyoxypropylene glycol
Toluene diamine (mixture)
Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
Polymeric methylene dianiline
Polyurethane resins
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
°The treatment effluent was not sampled on this sampling day.
cln the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 219, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
5-102
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 246 Plant 246
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Aniline
Dinitrotoluene (mixed)
4,372 736 Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
77 168 Nitrobenzene
4,881 14 Polymeric methylene diphenyl
2,273 308 diisocyanate
244 b Polyoxypropylene glycol
12,938 94 Toluene diamine (mixture)
4,166 661 Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
10,375 1,453 Polymeric methylene dianiline
12,864 b Polyurethane resins
180 2,136
4,308 b
5,397 102
1,371 b
3,899 b
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
bThe treatment effluent was not sampled on this sampling day.
5-103
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 251
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(ua/Ll (ug/U
15,840
26,060
21,700
10
10
10
Plant 251
Products Manufactured
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Butylenes (mixed)
Dialkylbenzene, by-product
Oiphenyl oxide (diphenyl ether)
Ethane
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene
Formaldehyde
Iminodiacetic acid
Naphthalene
Nitrilotriacetic acid
o-Xylene
Phenol
Propylene
Resin tars
Sorbic acid, salts
Toluene
1,3-Pentadiene (piperylene)
Phenolic resins
Cumene
1,3-Butadiene
Cyclopentadiene dimer
Isoprene
Xylenes (mixed)
Plant 253
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(UQ/D (ua/L)
175
230
66
38
140
130
Plant 253
Products Manufactured
Polypropylene resins
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-104
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 257
Biological Treatmenta
Influent Effluent
(ua/U (ua/U
1,330
1,800
2,090
1 ,730
3,365
3,720
3,746
,660
,964
,482
,040
,510
4,933
4,665
4,707
3,836
3,160
2,627
450
684
600
4,121
5,290
4,985
7,417
12,900
11,400
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
16b
45b
10b
Plant 257
Products Manufactured
Acetone
Ally! chloride
Bisphenol-A
Butylenes (mixed)
Diacetone alcohol
Ethylene
Isobutylene
Phenol
Propylene
Vinyl chloride
Epichlorohydrin
Acetone
Epoxy resins
Isopropanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
n-Butyl alcohol
Cumene
Ethanol
sec-Butyl alcohol
Butadiene
Isoprene
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e.. the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
bln the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 259, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
5-105
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Plant 265 Plant 265
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Tar, tar crudes, and tar
pitches
37,750 10
44,000 10
50,000 10
Plant 286 Plant 286
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Formaldehyde
Phenolic resins
160,000 38 Urea resins
52,000 80
24,000 110
Plant 297
Steam Stripping
Followed by Activated Plant 297
Carbon Adsorption Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Nitrobenzene
Nitrotoluene
8,650 10b Aniline
640 I4b Toluidine
750 10b
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
bln the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 248, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
5-106
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Stover and Kincannon, 1.983
Pilot-Scale Steam Stripper
Influent Effluent
(uq/L) (uq/L)
92,000
92.000
92.000
92.000
92,000
126
10
10
10
S3
Description of
Waste Treated
Pilot-scale study of ground-
water near a waste disposal
dump site which contained
household refuse, demolition
materials, chemical sludges,
and hazardous liquid chemicals
D.G. Hutton, 1979
Biological Treatmenta-b
Influent Effluent
(uq/L) (uq/L)
680
4.1
Description of
Waste Treated
Wastewater from organic chemi-
cals manufacturing.
Stover and Kincannon, 1983
Pilot-Scale Air Stripper
Influent Effluent
(UQ/L) (uq/L)
92,000
92,000
92.000
92,000
92,000
92.000
30.000
23,300
19,000
17,100
6,600
44,800
Description of
Waste Treated
Pilot-scale study of ground-
water near a waste disposal
dump site which contained
household refuse, demolition
materials, chemical sludges,
and hazardous liquid chemicals
Becker and Wilson, 1978
Pilot-Scale Granular Activated
Carbon Column
Influent
(ug/L)
120
Effluent
(ug/L)
0.3
Description of
Waste Treated
Runoff water from a waste dis-
posal site's containment dikes
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
^Commercially available patented PACT® process.
-------
Table 5-24 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOLUENE
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Development Document, 1980
Multiple Treatment Technologies
Average Average
Influent Effluent
(ug/U (ug/L) Plant
Description of
ijaste Treated
8,920
5,450
6,130
40
73
003 Excess ammonia liquor
and miscellaneous
wastewaters
008 Excess ammonia liquor
and benzol plant
wastewaters
009 Excess ammonia liquor
and benzol plant
wastewaters
Data Submitted by Zimpro, Inc., 1986
Wet Air Oxidation
Raw Waste
(ug/L)
Diluted
Feed
(ug/L)
Oxidation
Product
(uq/L)
Description of
Waste Treated
34,100,000 8,500,000
200,000
General organic
5-108
-------
Table 5-25
CALCULATION OF BOAT FOR TOLUENE
Average
Treatment Treatment Con-
centration Level
Avo. x VF (ua/Ll
13
34
34
34
34
34
248
34
34
34
22
34
34
34
11,100
34
22
34
247
1,118
18
Plant
246
202
208
210
211
215
217
221
223
230
234
240
242
244
246
251
257
265
286
246
297
l"
Concentration Variability
Technology (ua/L) Factor
Steam Stripping
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological fol-
lowed by
Activated
Carbon
Steam Stripping
followed by
Activated Carbon
Biological
10.5
10
10
10
10
10
73.3
10
10
10
11.9
10
10
10
630
10
11.6
10
76
113
11.3
4.1
1.23
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
1.87
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
17.61
3.39a
1.89
3.39a
3.25
9.89
1.55
3.39a
14
aAverage variability factor for BOAT biological treatment data
(see Table 5-4 and the discussion on page 5-17).
Commercially available patented PACT® process.
5-109
-------
5.5.23 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Wastewaters
The Agency has full-scale biological treatment data for
1,1,1-trichloroethane from plant 240 in the OCPSF data base. The Agency
also has data from pilot-scale steam stripping and pilot-scale air
stripping of solvent contaminated groundwater (Reference 2), pilot-scale
air stripping of industrial discharge contaminated groundwater (Reference
6), and bench-scale wet air oxidation of a general organic waste
(Reference 10). The data are summarized in Table 5-26 and calculation of
the BDAT treatment standard is shown in Table 5-27.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for 1,1,1-trichloroethane:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. Data
from pilot-scale wet air oxidation treatment were deleted because
the concentration of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in the diluted feed to
the wet air oxidation process was not reported and because the
detection limit of 1,000 ug/L for 1,1,1-trichloroethane in the
oxidation product is too high for the data to be meaningful with
regard to how well the system will perform.
Data on pilot-scale steam stripping and pilot-scale air stripping
were not deleted because, in consideration of the amount of
full-scale treatment data available for this constituent, we
believe that it is appropriate to include this pilot-scale data in
derivation of the BDAT treatment standard for 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for each data set as shown in Table 5-27,
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment at plant 240 because all effluent values were reported
as less than or equal to the detection limit of 10 ug/L. We would
expect some variability in the data because the actual
concentrations would range from 0 to the detection limit of 10
ug/L. To estimate the variability, the Agency used the average
variability factor for BDAT biological treatment, 3.39.
(Calculation of the average variability factor is shown in Table
5-4, page 5-18.)
To account for full-scale process variability in the pilot-scale
steam stripping data, the average variability factor for BDAT
full-scale steam stripping, 2.26, was used. (Calculation of the
average variability factor is shown in Table 5-4, page 5-18.)
5-110
-------
Process variability could not be calculated for the pilot-scale
air stripper at Site 2 because there is only one data pair
available from this process. Therefore, the average variability
factor for all BOAT wastewater treatment, 3.56, was used.
(Calculation of the average variability factor is shown in Table
5-4, page 5-18.)
3. Steam stripping and air stripping of 1,1,1-trichloroethane at the
pilot-plant (Reference 2) were compared with the analysis of
variance method to determine whether the performance of one
technology was significantly better than the other for treatment
of the same waste. It was shown that steam stripping provided
significantly better removals of 1,1,1-trichloroethane compared
with air stripping (refer to Table 11-15, Appendix II).
Therefore, the treatment standard for the pilot-plant is 1,046
ug/L based upon steam stripping.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-26 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastewaters containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane spent
solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BOAT (1.05 mg/L from
pilot-scale steam stripping) to ensure that the standard could be
achieved for all waste matrices within the waste treatability
subgroup.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for 1,1,1-trichloroethane represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices generated by process
streams from the manufacture of over 28 different products. The
untreated waste concentration of 1,1,1-trichloroethane ranged from
0.010 mg/L to 150 mg/L in these waste matrices. All of these
wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment standard or below (1.05
mg/L). We believe these constituent reductions substantially
diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing
1,1,1-trichloroethane and substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of 1,1,1-trichloroethane from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
1,1,1-trichloroethane was 0.457 based on steam stripping (see Table 13,
51 PR 1725). The difference between the proposed and promulgated
treatment standards is primarily due to the incorporation of a
variability factor in derivation of the promulgated treatment standard.
Other less significant factors affecting the change in the treatment
standard are the changes in data editing (data editing rules are
presented in Section 5.3).]
5-111
-------
Table 5-26
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR 1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Stover and Kincannon, 1981
Pilot-Scale Steam Stripper
Influent Effluent
(ug/U (ug/L)
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
10
10
150
2,135
10
Description of
Waste Treated
Pilot-scale study of ground-
water near a waste disposal
dump site which contained
household refuse, demolition
materials, chemical sludges,
and hazardous liquid chemicals.
Plant 240
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(mq/U (mq/L)
215
10
95
10
10
10
Plant 240
Products Manufactured
Acetic acid
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylic acid esters
Benzene
Cyclohexanone
Diethylene glycol
Epoxidized esters
Ethylamines (mono, di, tri)
Ethylene
Ethylene dimer
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene glycol monomethyl
ether
Ethylene oxide
Isopropyl amines (mono, di)
Peracetic acid
Polyethylene glycol
Polyethylene polyamines
Propylene
Toluene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Butylenes
Xylenes (mixed)
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-112
-------
Table 5-26 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Stover and Kincannon, 1983.
Pilot-Scale Air Stripper
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/U
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
53,000
66,000
60,000
39,200
7,600
66,300
Description of
Waste Treated
Pilot-scale study of ground-
water near a waste disposal
dump site which contained
household refuse, demolition
materials, chemical sludges,
and hazardous liquid chemicals.
Love and Eilers, 1982
Pilot-Scale Air Stripper. Site 2
Average
Influent
Concentration
(ug/L)
237
Average Effluent Concentration for
4:1 Air-to-water Ratio (ug/L)
23
Data Submitted by Zimpro,
Inc., 1986
Wet Air Oxidation
Raw Waste
(ug/L)
370,000
Oxidation
Product
(ug/L)
<1,000
Description
of
Waste Treated
Ground water
was contami-
nated by
industrial
discharge;
pilot-scale
column was
run continu-
ously for
over one
year.
Description of
Waste Treated
General organic.
5-113
-------
Table 5-27
CALCULATION OF BOAT FOR 1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Average
Treatment Treatment Con-
Plant Concentration Variability centration Level
No. Technology (ug/L) Factor Avg. x VF (ug/Ll
PS Air Stripping 48,683 5.80 282,361
PS Steam Stripping 463 2.26a 1,046
240 Biological 10 3.39b 34
PS,2 Air Stripping 23 3.56C 82
aAverage variability factor for BOAT full-scale steam stripping
(see Table 5-4 and the discussion on page 5-17).
''Average variability factor for BOAT biological treatment (see
Table 5-4 and the discussion on page 5-17).
aAverage variability factor for all BOAT wastewater treatment
(see Table 5-4 and the discussion on page 5-17).
5-114
-------
5.5.24 1,1,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane Wastewaters
The Agency has no data for wastewater treatment for the removal of
1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane. For reasons presented in
Section 5.5.1, EPA used chemical structure as the basis for transferring
treatment data to 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane spent solvent
wastewaters. Specifically, we transferred the treatment data from
1,1,1-trichloroethane because, like 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoro-
ethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane contains the halogen functional group.
1,1,1-trichloroethane had the least stringent treatment standard in the
halogenated aliphatics structural group. Using performance data from
1,1,1-trichloroethane, the BOAT treatment standard for
1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane is 1.05 mg/L. The technology basis
for this treatment is steam stripping.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for 1,1,2-trichloro-
1,2,2-trifluoroethane spent solvent wastewaters represents substantial
treatment. We would expect untreated 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoro-
ethane wastes to be similar to untreated 1,1,1-trichloroethane wastes,
from which we transferred treatment data. As discussed on page 5-110, in
reference to 1,1,1-trichloroethane, we believe these constituent
reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent
wastes containing 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane and substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-tri-
fluoroethane from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane was 0.457 mg/L based on steam
stripping (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The principal difference between
the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's change
in the criteria for data transfer. (See Section 5.5.1, page 5-14, for a
discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-115
-------
5.5.25 Trichloroethylene Wastewaters
The Agency has biological treatment data for trichloroethylene at
plants 213, 217, and 253 in the OCPSF data base. The Agency also has
data from steam stripping at plant 284 and biological treatment followed
by activated carbon adsorption at plant 246 in the OCPSF data base. Data
are available for pilot-scale activated carbon adsorption (Reference 8).
Full-scale biological treatment data of wastewater from organic chemicals
manufacturing (commercially available patented PACT® process, Reference
4) and data from pilot-scale air stripping of tap water spiked with the
constituent (Reference 6) are also available. The data are summarized in
Table 5-28 and calculation of the BDAT treatment standard is shown in
Table 5-29.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for trichloroethylene:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment, systems. In
EPA's judgment, one data point in the data set for steam stripping
at plant 284 represented poor design and operation. We confirmed
this judgment using the outlier test (refer to Table 11-17,
Appendix II). The outlying data point was deleted. Another data
point was deleted because the influent was less than the
quantification level (0.05 mg/L).
In consideration of the amount of full-scale data available for
trichloroethylene, we believe it is appropriate to exclude data on
pilot-scale activated carbon adsorption and pilot-scale air
stripping treatment.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average effluent concentration and
the variability factor for each data set as shown in Table 5-29.
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment at plant 253 and biological treatment by the PACT®
process because there was only one data pair available for each
process. Therefore, the average variability factor for BDAT
biological treatment, 3.39, was used (calculation of the average
variability factor is shown in Table 5-4, page 5-18).
Process variability could not be calculated for biological
treatment at plants 213 and 217 and for biological treatment
followed by activated carbon adsorption at plant 246 because all
effluent values were reported as less than or equal to the
detection limit of 10 ug/L. We would expect some variability in
5-116
-------
the data because the actual concentrations would range from 0 to
the detection limit of 10 ug/L. To estimate the variability, the
Agency used the average variability factor for BDAT biological
treatment, 3.39, for plants 213 and 217 and the average
variability factor for BDAT biological treatment followed by
activated carbon adsorption, 6.17, for plant 246 (calculation of
the average variability factors is shown in Table 5-4, page 5-18).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-27 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastewaters containing trichloroethylene spent
solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT (0.062 mg/L from plant
246) to ensure that the standard could be achieved for all waste
matrices within the waste treatability subgroup. The technology
basis was biological treatment followed by activated carbon
adsorption.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for trichloroethylene represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices generated by process
streams from the manufacture of over 50 different products. The
untreated waste concentration of trichloroethylene ranged from
0.010 mg/L to 10.3 mg/L in these waste matrices. All of these
wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment standard or below (0.062
mg/L). We believe these constituent reductions to substantially
diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing
trichloroethylene and substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of trichloroethylene from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
trichloroethylene was <0.019 mg/L based on steam stripping (see Table 13,
51 FR 1725). The difference between the proposed and promulgated
treatment standards is primarily due to the incorporation of a
variability factor in derivation of the promulgated treatment standard.
Other less significant factors affecting the change in the treatment
standard are the changes in data editing (data editing rules are
presented in Section 5.3) and deletion of some data points in the final
rule because they represent poor operation of the treatment system (see
the discussion of the outlier test in Section 5.4).]
5-117
-------
Table 5-28
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Plant 213 Plant 213
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Acetylenic alcohols & diols
Ethylene-vinyl acetate
16 10 copolymer
67 10 Polyvinyl alcohol resin
76 10 PVC copolymers, ethylene-vinyl
chloride
Polyvinyl acetate resins
Polyvinyl chloride
Plant 217 Plant 217
Biological Treatment3 Products Manufactured
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L) Phthalic anhydride
Butyl benzyl phthalate
98 10 Benzyl chloride
200 10 Tetrachlorophthalic anhydride
224 10 Phosphate esters
Phthalate esters
Polybenzyl ethyl benzene
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
5-118
-------
Table 5-28 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Plant 246
Biological Treatment3
Followed by
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L)
SO
70
40
10B
10b
10b
Plant 246
Products Manufactured
Aniline
Dinitrotoluene (mixed)
Methylene dipnenyl diisocyanate
Nitrobenzene
Polymeric methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate
Polyoxypropylene glycol
Toluene diamine (mixture)
Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
Polymeric methylene dianiline
Polyurethane resins
Plant 253
Biological Treatment3
Influent Effluent
(uo/L) (up/Li
484
16
Plant 253
Products Manufactured
Polypropylene resins
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
''in the data base from which this data was taken, the sampling
data was designated using a different code, plant 219, because
it represented a different sampling episode.
5-119
-------
Table 5-28 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Plant 284
Steam Stripping
Influent
(ua/L)
1,650
5,200
5,000
1,720
1,560
59
10,300
90
84
83
210
1 ,600
160
204
10
Effluent
(ug/L)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
27
10
85a
10b
D.G. Hutton, 1979
Biological Treatmentc'd
Influent Effluent
(ug/L) (ug/L)
Plant 284
Products Manufactured
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Ethylene
Propylene
Methylene chloride
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Vinylidine chloride
1,2,3-Trichloropropene
1,2-Oichloropropane
Propylene oxide
Ethylene oxide
Propylene glycol
Dipropylene glycol
Tripropylene glycol
Ethylene glycol
Methyl chloride
Diethylene glycol
Triethylene glycol
Tetraethylene glycol
Ethanol amines
Polypropylene
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachlonde
1,2-Dichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
Description of
Waste Treated
Wastewater from organic chemi-
cals manufacturing.
60
5.8
aln EPA's judgment, this data point represented poor design
and operation. We confirmed this judgment using the outlier
test (refer to Table 11-17, Appendix II) and this data point
was deleted.
^This data point was deleted from analyses because the
influent
is less than the quantification level (50 ug/L).
cThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
"^Commercially available patented PACT® process.
5-120
-------
Table 5-28 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Love and Eilers, 1982
Pilot-Scale Air Stripper. Site 1
Average
Influent Average Effluent Concentration at
Concentration Various Air-to-Water Ratios (uo/L)
(ua/L) HI 111 HI 4j_L 8_il 16:1 20:1
1,064 796 614 508 319 53
397 223 273 102 82 22 <1 <1
241 136 110 61 53 8 2 3
110 40 28 18 9 3 <1 <1
73 22 14 8 6 1 <1 <1
Description
of
Waste Treated
Tap water
spiked with
tetrachloro-
ethylene and
trichloro-
ethylene.
Ruggiero and Ausubel, 1982
Pilot-Scale Granular Activated
Carbon Column
Influent
(ug/L)
171
Effluent
(ug/L)
0.59
Description of
Waste Treated
Contaminated drinking
water supply.
5-121
-------
Table 5-29
CALCULATION OF BOAT FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Average
Treatment Treatment Con-
Avg. x VF (ug/L)
20
34
34
54
62
Plant
No.
284
213
217
253
246
Concentration Variability
Technology (ua/L) Factor
Steam Stripping 11.3
Biological 10
Biological 10
Biological 16
Biological fol- 10
lowed by
Activated
Carbon
1.81
3.39a
3.39a
3.39a
6.17b
lc Biological 5.8 3.39a 20
aAverage variability factor for BOAT biological treatment (see
Table 5-4 and the discussion on page 5-17).
''Average variability factor for BOAT biological treatment fol-
lowed by activated carbon adsorption (see Table 5-4 and the
discussion on page 5-17).
"-Commercially available patented PACT® process.
5-122
-------
5.5.26 Trichlorofluoromethane Wastewaters
The Agency has trichlorofluoromethane treatment data from full-scale
biological treatment of wastewater from organic chemicals manufacturing
(commercially available patented PACT® process, Reference 4). The data
are summarized in Table 5-30.
The following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for trichlorofluoromethane:
1. We evaluated the data set to determine whether the data represent
poor design or operation of the treatment system. The available
data and information did not show any of the data to represent
poor design and operation. Accordingly, none of the data were
deleted on this basis.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for the data set. The average effluent
concentration is 13 ug/L. Process variability could not be
calculated for this plant because there is only one data pair
available from this process. Therefore, the average variability
factor for BOAT biological treatment, 3.39, was used (calculation
of the average variability factor is shown in Table 5-4, page
5-18).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. Sufficient data did not exist to identify separate waste
treatability subgroups; therefore, one waste treatability subgroup
was established for all sources of wastewaters containing
trichlorofluoromethane spent solvents. The BOAT treatment level
for trichlorofluoromethane was selected (0.044 mg/L from Hutton,
1979) by multiplying the process effluent concentration, 0.013
mg/L by the average variability factor from BDAT biological
treatment, 3.39. This calculated treatment standard is below the
quantification level and could not be used as the treatment
standard; therefore, the treatment standard was set at the
quantification level of 0.05 mg/L. The technology basis was
biological treatment.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for trichlorofluoromethane represents
treatment of a waste matrix generated by process streams from the
manufacture of organic chemicals. The untreated waste
5-123
-------
concentration of trichlorofluoromethane was as high as 0.920 mg/L
in this waste matrix. This waste was treated to a concentration
below the BDAT treatment standard (0.050 mg/L). We believe these
constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the
spent solvent wastes containing trichlorofluoromethane and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of
trichlorofluoromethane from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
trichlorofluoromethane was 0.457 mg/L based on steam stripping (see
Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The principal differences between the proposed
and promulgated treatment standards are EPA's consideration of
quantification levels in setting the standard (see the discussion of the
use of quantification levels in Section 5.5, page 5-12) arid use of
biological treatment performance data at promulgation that were not used
at proposal. (The data were deleted at proposal because the influent
concentration was below the screening level for trichlorofluoromethane.)
The incorporation of a variability factor in derivation of the
promulgated treatment standard also contributed to the change in the
treatment standard since proposal.]
5-124
-------
Table 5-30
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
D.G. Mutton, 1979 Description of
Biological Treatment3•^ Waste Treated
Influent Effluent
(ug/T) (ug/L) Wastewater from organic chemi-
cals manufacturing.
920 13
aThe data do not represent paired data (i.e., the samples were
not collected so as to fully account for the retention time in
the treatment system).
Commercially available patented PACT® process.
5-125
-------
5.5.27 Xylene Wastewaters
The Agency has wet air oxidation data (Reference 10), activated
carbon adsorption followed by steam stripping data (Reference 9), and
carbon adsorption data (Reference 7) for xylene. The data are summarized
in Table 5-31.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for xylene:
1. We evaluated each data set to determine whether any of the data
represent poor design or operation of the treatment systems. The
data for wet air oxidation were deleted because the detection
limit of 500 ug/L for xylene in the oxidation product is too high
for the data to be meaningful with regard to how well the system
will perform. The data from the Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Development Document were not used because insufficient
information exists in some cases to determine the concentrations
treated and, in other cases, which technology was achieving
removal. Also, in some cases, the treated values represented
significant dilution of the wastestream.
2. We calculated the arithmetic average treatment concentration and
the variability factor for the data set. Process variability
could not be calculated for activated carbon adsorption at the
pilot-scale plant because there is only one data pair available
from this process. Therefore, the average variability factor for
all BDAT activated carbon adsorption, 4.54, was used (calculation
of the average variability factor is shown in Table 5-4).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. Sufficient data did not exist to identify separate waste
treatability subgroups; therefore, one waste treatability subgroup
was established for all sources of wastewaters containing xylene
spent solvents. The BDAT treatment level for xylene was selected
(0.0005 mg/L from Becker and Wilson, 1978) by multiplying the
process effluent concentration, 0.0001 mg/L by the average
variability factor from BDAT activated carbon adsorption, 4.54.
This calculated standard is below the guantification level and
could not be used as the treatment standard. Therefore, the
treatment standard was set at the quantification level of 0.05
mg/L. The technology basis was activated carbon adsorption.
5-126
-------
5. The BDAT treatment standard for xylene represents treatment of a
waste matrix from a disposal site. The untreated waste
concentration of xylene was as high as 0.140 mg/L in this waste
matrix. This waste was treated to a concentration below the BDAT
treatment standard (0.050 mg/L). We believe these constituent
reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent
solvent wastes containing xylene and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of xylene from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for xylene was
<0.005 mg/L based on activated carbon adsorption followed by steam
stripping (see Table 13, 51 FR 1725). The principal differences between
the proposed and promulgated treatment standards are EPA's consideration
of quantification levels in setting the standard (see the discussion on
the use of quantification levels in Section 5.5 on page 5-12) and the
incorporation of a variability factor in derivation of the promulgated
treatment standard. Other less significant factors affecting the change
in the treatment standard are the changes in data editing (data editing
rules are presented in Section 5.3) and deletion of some data points in
the final rule because they represent poor operation of the treatment
system (see the discussion of the outlier test in Section 5.4).]
5-127
-------
Table 5-31
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR XYLENE
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Development Document, 1980
Multiple Treatment Technologies
Average Average
Influent Effluent
(ug/U (ug/U Plant
101,000
Description of
Waste Treated
009 Excess ammonia liquor
and benzol plant
wastewaters
Data Submitted by Zimpro, Inc., 1986
Wet Air Oxidation
Raw Waste
(uq/L)
Diluted
Feed
(Ud/U
Oxidation
Product
(ug/L)
Description of
Waste Treated
212,000
21,200
<500
General organic
Becker and Wilson, 1978
Pilot-Scale Granular
Activated Carbon Column
Influent Effluent
(ug/U (ug/U
140 <0.1
Description of
Waste Treated
Runoff water from a waste dis-
posal site's containment dikes
5-128
-------
5.6 Development of BDAT Treatment Standards for F001-F005 Spent
Solvent Wastes (Other Than Wastewater)
BDAT treatment standards for F001-F005 spent solvent wastes (other
than wastewater) are presented in Table 5-2. BDAT treatment standards
for spent solvent wastes other than wastewaters are based on incineration
of the waste. Treatment standards were calculated from data on the
analysis of the TCLP extract of incinerator residue. Descriptions of how
the treatment standards were derived for spent solvent wastes other than
wastewaters are presented in this section. Treatment performance data
for each constituent are also presented in this section. Data sets
including all constituents and all pollutant parameters analyzed in the
wastes treated at each incinerator are included in Appendix I. Where
data on the TCLP extract were not available, treatment data were
transferred based on structural similarity. Transfer of incineration
treatment data is discussed in Section 5.6.1.
The derivation of BDAT treatment standards includes a variability
analysis as discussed in Section 5.4. For some data sets, we had
insufficient data to develop variability factors. Therefore, to account
for process variability, an average variability factor was calculated
from data available from TCLP extracts of incinerator ash from the
burning of waste containing acetone, methylene chloride, and toluene.
Calculation of the average variability factor is discussed in Section
5.6.2.
In some cases, the treatment standard derived from the data was below
the EPA published analytical quantification level for a specific
constituent. In these instances, the BDAT treatment standard was set at
the quantification level, which is the lowest level at which EPA can
support analytical quantification over the range of wastes that will be
subject to this rule.
5-129
-------
5.6.1 Transfer of Incineration Treatment Data
Where data on the TCLP extract of incinerator ash were not available
to the Agency, treatment data were transferred from other constituents
for which data were available. For this rulemaking, treatment data were
transferred based on similarity of chemical structure. Chemical
structure is commonly used to predict how organic compounds will react
with other compounds and under various conditions. Constituents
considered to be similar in chemical structure contain the same
functional groups. Functional groups such as double bonds, hydroxyl
groups, ketone groups, and amino groups, are the parts of the molecule
where most chemical reactions occur (including combustion reactions which
occur during incineration). A compound's chemical, physical, and
thermodynamic properties are also dependent on chemical structure.
Included in Table 5-32 are the structural groups upon which the transfer
of treatment standards was based.
Although parameters such as the heat of combustion could be used to
indicate the amenability of a compound to incineration, the Agency
believes that for the wide range of wastes covered for this particular
rulemaking, a broader approach to data transfer is warranted. Therefore,
the Agency transferred treatment standards based on general chemical
structure rather than on a single physical, chemical, or thermodynamic
property specific to the treatment technology.
The F001-F005 hazardous wastes were grouped according to chemical
structures as listed in Table 5-32. To best account for the range of
physical and chemical properties within a structural group that affect
treatment, the Agency transferred data from the compound with the least
stringent treatment standard for any member of that structural group. If
no treatment data were available for any member of a particular
structural group, data representing the least stringent treatment
standard from the next most similar structural group were transferred.
For example, no treatment data were available for any member of the
alcohols, esters, and ethers structural groups. The ketones were
considered to be the next most similar structural group, based on the
oxygen containing, electron-releasing functional groups present in all
four structural groups. Therefore, data representing the least stringent
treatment standard for constituents in the ketones group were transferred
to the alcohols, ethers, and esters groups.
5-130
-------
Table 5-32
GROUPING OF SPENT SOLVENT CONSTITUENTS FOR TRANSFER OF
BOAT TREATMENT DATA FOR ALL OTHER F001 - F005
SPENT SOLVENTS
Name of
Structural Group
Functional
Group
Consti tuent
Treatment
Standard
(mg/L in TCLP
Extract of
Incinerator Ash)
Constituent From Which
Data Were Transferred
I
h->
CO
Halogenated R-X
Aliphati cs
Non-Hal ogenated /("")\-R
Aromati cs
Halogenated R=R'
Alkenes
Halogenated /^T\
Aromati cs \O)~X
Carbon tetrachloride 0.96a
Methylene chloride 0.96
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.41
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-
trif1uoroethane 0.96a
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.96a
Ethylbenzene 0.053b
Toluene 0.33
Xylene 0.15
Nitrobenzene 0.125b
Pyridine 0.33a
Tetrachloroethylene 0.05b
Trichloroethylene 0.091
Chlorobenzene 0.05b
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.125b
Methylene Chloride
Methylene Chloride
Methylene Chloride
To!uene
Ketones
R-C-R1 Acetone 0.59
|| Cyclohexanone 0.75a
0 Methyl ethyl ketone 0.75
Methyl isobutyl ketone 0.33
Methyl ethyl ketone
transferred treatment data.
"Treatment standard shown is the quantification level for the constituent.
-------
Table 5-32 (Continued)
GROUPING OF SPENT SOLVENT CONSTITUENTS FOR TRANSFER OF
BOAT TREATMENT DATA FOR ALL OTHER F001 - F005
SPENT SOLVENTS
Name of Functional
Structural Group Group
Consti tuent
Treatment
Standard
(mg/L in TCLP
Extract of
Incinerator Ash)
Constituent From Which
Data Were Transferred
en
1— *
CO
Al cohols
Ethers
Esters
Phenol s
Organic Sulfur
Compounds
R-OH n-Butyl alcohol
Isobutanol
Methanol
R-O-R' Ethyl ether
R-C-OR1 Ethyl acetate
II
0
/O\-OH Cresols
R = S Carbon disulfide
5.0a'b Methyl ethyl ketone
5.0a-b Methyl ethyl ketone
0.75a Methyl ethyl ketone
0.75a Methyl ethyl ketone
0.75a Methyl ethyl ketone
0.75a Methyl ethyl ketone
4.81
transferred treatment data.
"Treatment standard shown is the quantification level for the constitutent.
-------
5.6.2 Derivation of An Average Variability Factor for Incineration
The derivation of BOAT treatment standards includes a variability
analysis as discussed in Section 5.4.1. For some data sets, we had
insufficient data to develop variability factors; in these cases we used
a variability factor that represented the average of the variability
factors from available data sets. Calculation of the average variability
factors is shown in Table 5-33, page 5-134.
5-133
-------
Table 5-33
VARIABILITY FACTORS FOR INCINERATION DATA*
Constituent Site Variability Factor
Methylene Chloride 2 9.05
Acetone 2 1.629
AVERAGE 5.34
"The variability factors for methylene chloride and acetone
shown in the above table are generated from a plant sampled
subsequent to proposal. Analysis of the samples were
completed after the Agency's September 5, 1986 Notice of Data
Availability (51 FR 31783). The average variability factor
calculated from these data is somewhat higher than the
variability factor generated from data available at proposal
and presented in the Notice of Data Availability (5.34
compared to 3.56). In addition, since this value is based on
incineration data, it provides a better representation of the
variability experienced in a full-scale incinerator than does
the previous value derived from wastewater treatment
technlogies. The specific data used to generate the
individual variability factors for methylene chloride and
acetone has been claimed to be confidential.
5-134
-------
5.6.3 Acetone (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of acetone (Reference 11). The data are summarized in
Table 5-34.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for acetone:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
Data from one facility (site 6) were deleted because the
incineration system control devices were not properly designed and
operated. The facility is under a Consent Decree to replace and
improve the current incinerator control system. Data from another
facility (site 2) were deleted because the Agency judged that the
system was not properly operated at the time the data were
collected. A follow-up sampling visit confirmed the Agency's
judgment. The new data were not used in the determination of the
long-term performance average for incineration of acetone;
however, the data were used to develop a variability factor for
incineration.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit. Two
residue concentration levels were reported for site 5, one for
each incinerator at the site. These were considered as two
separate data points.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-34 could be associated with
5-135
-------
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing acetone spent
solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT (0.59 mg/L for site 7
obtained by multiplying the variability factor by the highest
average residue concentration level) to ensure that the standard
could be achieved for all waste matrices within the waste
treatability subgroup. The technology basis was incineration.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for acetone represents treatment of a
variety of waste matrices incinerated at six different sites. The
untreated waste concentration of acetone ranged from 36 mg/kg to
160,000 mg/kg in these waste matrices. All of these wastes were
treated to the BDAT treatment standard or below (0.59 mg/L). We
believe these constituent reductions substantially diminish the
toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing acetone and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of acetone from
spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for acetone
was estimated at the detection limit of <0.050 mg/L based on incineration
(see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between the proposed and
promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of additional data
gathering subsequent to proposal. The new data were presented in EPA's
Notice of Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In addition, a variability
analysis was incorporated into the development of the treatment standards
for promulgation.]
5-136
-------
Table 5-34
INCINERATION DATA FOR ACETONE
01
i
Si te Type of Incinerator
1 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
3 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
5 Fixed Hearth (Two
Separate Incinera-
tion Systems)
7 Fixed Hearth with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
PCB Contaminated Dirt
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent (mg/kg)
36
Drum Feed Solids 160,000
Liquid Waste Fuel
(From Furniture Manu- 13,500
facturing Industry) 13,500
Solvent Wastes
High-Btu Liquid Wastes
Low-Btu Liquid Wastes
Lacquer-Coated Cardboard
High-Btu Liquids 3,120
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feed
Inci nerator
Residue*
<5
<500
<500
<500
TCLP
(ug/L) Footnotes
<5 a
<2.5 <5
<5
<5
110
Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Liquid
Injection Combustor
Liquid Waste Fuel
86,000
<2.5 <5
'Values shown as "<" were reported as below the indicated detection limits.
(a) Influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) Influent concentration is an arithmetic average.
-------
Table 5-34 (Continued)
INCINERATION DATA FOR ACETONE
Site Type of Incinerator
9 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feedb
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent (ma/ka)
Incinerator
Residue*
Total TCLP
(mg/kg) (ug/L) Footnotes
223,335
<2.5
67
en
CO
CO
"Values shown as "<" were reported as below the indicated detection limits.
(a) Influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) Gel and filter press residue.
-------
5.6.4 n-Butyl Alcohol (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has no data on TCLP extracts of residue from incineration
of n-butyl alcohol to use in the derivation of the BDAT treatment
standard. For reasons presented in Section 5.6.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to n-butyl alcohol
spent solvent wastes other than wastewaters. Specifically we transferred
treatment data from methyl ethyl ketone, which contains the ketone
functional group, to n-butyl alcohol, which contains the hydroxyl
functional group. The alcohols structural group is most structurally
similar to the ketones group based upon their oxygen-containing,
electron-releasing functional groups.
The Agency has data on the analysis of the TCLP extract of
incineration residue for three compounds in the ketones structural
group: acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone. To
best account for the range of physical and chemical properties within a
structural group that affect treatment by a specific technology, the
Agency transferred data representing the least stringent treatment
standard from the compounds for which data were available in the ketones
structural group. The data from which the treatment standard for
incineration of methyl ethyl ketone was derived were transferred to
n-butyl alcohol. The treatment standard is 0.75 mg/L based on the
transferred data. The transferred value is below the quantification
level for n-butyl alcohol and could not be used as the treatment
standard. Therefore, the treatment standard is set at the quantification
level of 5.0 mg/L.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for n-butyl alcohol spent
solvent wastes (other than wastewater) represents substantial treatment.
We would expect untreated n-butyl alcohol wastes to be similar to
untreated methyl ethyl ketone wastes from which we transferred treatment
data since they are used in many similar manufacturing processes, as
shown in Section 2 of this document. As discussed on page 5-163, in
reference to methyl ethyl ketone, we believe these constituent reductions
substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes
containing n-butyl alcohol and substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of n-butyl alcohol from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for n-butyl
alcohol was estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based on
incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The principal difference
between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's
change in the criteria for data transfer (see Section 5.6.1, page 5-130,
for a discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-139
-------
5.6.5 Carbon Bisulfide (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of carbon disulfide (Reference 11). The data are
summarized in Table 5-35.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for carbon disulfide:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
The available data and information did not show any of the data to
represent poor design and operation. Accordingly, none of the
data were deleted on this basis.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-35 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing carbon
disulfide spent solvents. The least stringent treatment level
within the treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT (4.81 mg/L
from site 3 obtained by multiplying the variability factor by the
highest average residue concentration level) to ensure that the
standard could be achieved for all waste matrices within the waste
treatability subgroup. The technology basis was incineration.
5-140
-------
5. The BDAT treatment standard for carbon disulfide represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices incinerated at two
sites. The untreated waste concentration of carbon disulfide was
as high as 400 mg/kg in these waste matrices. All of these wastes
were treated to the BDAT treatment standard or below (4.81 mg/L).
We believe these constituent reductions substantially diminish the
toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing carbon disulfide
and substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of carbon
disulfide from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for carbon
disulfide was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L based on
incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between the
proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of
additional data gathering subseguent to proposal. The new data were
presented in EPA's Notice of Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In
addition, a variability analysis was incorporated into the development of
the treatment standards for promulgation.]
5-141
-------
Table 5-35
INCINERATION DATA FOR CARBON DISULFIDE
Site Type of Incinerator
3 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
8 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Liquid
Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
Drum Feed Sol ids
Liquid Waste Fuel
Liquid Waste Fuel
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent* (mo/kg)
<400
<400
Incinerator
Residue*
Total
2.8
<2.0
TCLP
(ug/L) Footnotes
900 a
ro
•Values shown as "<" were reported as below the indicated detection limits.
(a) Influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
-------
5.6.6 Carbon Tetrachloride (Other than Wastewater)
The Agency has no data on TCLP extracts of residue from incineration
of carbon tetrachloride to use in the derivation of the BDAT treatment
standard. For reasons presented in Section 5.6.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to carbon
tetrachloride spent solvent wastes other than wastewaters. Specifically
we transferred treatment data from methylene chloride to carbon
tetrachloride; both contain the halogen functional group.
The Agency has data on the analysis of the TCLP extract of
incineration residue for two compounds in the halogenated aliphatics
structural group: methylene chloride and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. To best
account for the range of physical and chemical properties within a
structural group that affect treatment by a specific technology, the
Agency transferred data representing the least stringent treatment
standard from the compounds for which data were available in the
halogenated aliphatics structural group. The data from which the
treatment standard for incineration of methylene chloride was derived
were transferred to carbon tetrachloride. The treatment standard is
0.96 mg/L based on the transferred data.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for carbon tetrachloride spent
solvent wastes (other than wastewater) represents substantial treatment.
We would expect untreated carbon tetrachloride wastes to be similar to
untreated methylene chloride wastes from which we transferred treatment
data. As discussed on page 5-159, in reference to methylene chloride, we
believe these constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity
of the spent solvent wastes containing carbon tetrachloride and
subsequently reduce the likelihood of migration of carbon tetrachloride
from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for carbon
tetrachloride was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L based
on incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The principal difference
between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's
change in the criteria for data transfer (see Section 5.6.1, page 5-130,
for a discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.}]
5-143
-------
5.6.7 Chlorobenzene (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of chlorobenzene (Reference 11). The data are
summarized in Table 5-36.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for chlorobenzene:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
The available data and information did not show any of the data to
represent poor design and operation. Accordingly, none of the
data were deleted on this basis. Data were deleted from one site
because chlorobenzene was reported as below the detection limits
for both the influent and the TCLP extract of the ash.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-36 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing chlorobenzene
spent solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT (0.016 mg/L for sites
8 and 9 obtained by multiplying the variability factor by the
highest average residue concentration level) to ensure that the
standard could be achieved for all waste matrices within the waste
treatability subgroup. This calculated standard is below the
quantification level and could not be used as the treatment
5-144
-------
standard; therefore, the treatment standard is set at the
quantification level of 0.05 mg/L. The technology basis was
incineration.
5. The BOAT treatment standard for chlorobenzene represents treatment
of a variety of waste matrices incinerated at two sites. The
untreated concentration of chlorobenzene was as high as 1,100
mg/kg in these waste matrices. All of these wastes were treated
to the BDAT treatment standard or below (0.05 mg/L). We believe
these constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity
of the spent solvent wastes containing chlorobenzene and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of chlorobenzene
from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
chlorobenzene was estimated at the detection limit of <0.020 mg/L based
on incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between the
proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of
additional data gathering subsequent to proposal and use of the
analytical quantification level as the treatment standard since the
standard derived from the data is below the EPA published analytical
quantification level for chlorobenzene (see Table 5-1 and the discussion
on page 5-17). The new data were presented in EPA's Notice of
Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In addition, a variability analysis
was incorporated into the development of the treatment standards for
promulgation.]
5-145
-------
Table 5-36
INCINERATION DATA FOR CHLOROBENZENE
Site Type of Incinerator
8 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Liquid
Injection Combustor
9 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
Liquid Waste Fuel
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feedc
Flow-Wei ghted
Average
Influent (ma/kg)
1,100
,034
Incinerator
Residue*
TCLP
(ug/L) Footnotes
<1.5 <3 a
<3
"Values shown as "<" were reported as below the indicated detection limits.
(a) Influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) Influent concentration is an arithmetic average.
(c) Gel and filter press residue.
-------
5.6.8. Cresols (Cresylic Acid) (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has no data on TCLP extracts of residue from incineration
of cresols (cresylic acid) to use in the derivation of the BDAT treatment
standard. For reasons presented in Section 5.6.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to cresols
(cresylic acid) spent solvent wastes other than wastewaters.
Specifically we transferred treatment data from methyl ethyl ketone,
which contains the ketone functional group, to cresol (cresylic acid),
which contains the phenol functional group. The phenols structural group
is most structurally similar to the ketones group based upon their
oxygen-containing, electron-releasing functional groups.
The Agency has data on the analysis of the TCLP extract of
incineration residue for three compounds in the ketones structural
group: acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone. To
best account for the range of physical and chemical properties within a
structural group that affect treatment by a specific technology, the
Agency transferred data representing the least stringent treatment
standard from the compounds for which data were available in the ketones
structural group. The data from which the treatment standard for
incineration of methyl ethyl ketone was derived were transferred to
cresols (cresylic acid). The treatment standard is 0.75 mg/L based on
the transferred data.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for cresols (cresylic acid)
spent solvent wastes (other than wastewater) represents substantial
treatment. We would expect untreated cresols (cresylic acid) wastes to
be similar to untreated methyl ethyl ketone wastes from which we
transferred treatment data. As discussed on page 5-163, in reference to
methyl ethyl ketone, we believe these constituent reductions
substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes
containing cresols (cresylic acid) and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of cresols (cresylic acid) from spent solvent
wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for methyl
ethyl ketone was estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based on
incineration (see Table 11, 51 PR 1722). The principal difference
between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's
change in the criteria for data transfer (see section 5.6.1, page 5-130,
for a discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-147
-------
5.6.9 Cyclohexanone (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has no data on TCLP extracts of residue from incineration
of cyclohexanone to use in the derivation of the BDAT treatment
standard. For reasons presented in Section 5.6.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to cyclohexanone
spent solvent wastes other than wastewaters. Specifically we transferred
treatment data from methyl ethyl ketone because, like cyclohexanone,
methyl ethyl ketone contains the ketone functional group.
The Agency has data on the analysis of the TCLP extract of
incineration residue for three compounds in the ketones structural
group: acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone. To
best account for the range of physical and chemical properties within a
structural group that affect treatment by a specific technology, the
Agency transferred data representing the least stringent treatment
standard from the compounds for which data were available in the ketones
structural group. The data from which the treatment standard for
incineration of methyl ethyl ketone was derived were transferred to
cyclohexanone. The treatment standard is 0.75 mg/L based on the
transferred data.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for cyclohexanone spent
solvent wastes (other than wastewater) represents substantial treatment.
We would expect untreated cyclohexanone wastes to be similar to untreated
methyl ethyl ketone wastes from which we transferred treatment data since
they are used in many similar manufacturing processes, as shown in
Section 2 of this document. As discussed on page 5-163, in reference to
methyl ethyl ketone, we believe these constituent reductions
substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes
containing cyclohexanone and substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of cyclohexanone from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
cyclohexanone was estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based
on incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The principal difference
between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's
change in the criteria for data transfer (see Section 5.6.1, page 5-130,
for a discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-148
-------
5.6.10 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of 1,2-dichlorobenzene (Reference 11). The data are
summarized in Table 5-37.
The.following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for 1,2-dichlorobenzene:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
Data from one facility (site 2) were deleted because the Agency
judged that the system was not properly operated at the time the
data were collected. A follow-up sampling visit confirmed the
Agency's judgment. The new data were -hot used in the
determination of the long-term performance average for
incineration of 1,2-dichlorobenzene; however, the data were used
to develop a variabiity factor for incineration. Data from
another site were deleted because 1,2-dichlorobenzene was reported
below the detection limits for both the influent and the TCLP
extract of the ash.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit. Two
residue concentration levels were reported for site 5, one for
each incinerator at the site. These were considered as two
separate data points.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-37 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
5-149
-------
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing
1,2-dichlorobenzene spent solvents. The least stringent treatment
level within the treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT
(0.011 mg/L for site 7 obtained by multiplying the variability
factor by the highest average residue concentration level) to
ensure that the standard could be achieved for all waste matrices
within the waste treatability subgroup. This calculated standard
is below the quantification level and could not be used as the
treatment standard; therefore, the treatment standard is set at
the quantification level of 0.125 mg/L. The technology basis was
incineration.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for 1,2-dichlorobenzene represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices incinerated at two
sites. The untreated waste concentration of 1,2-dichlorobenzene
ranged from 92 mg/kg to 1,085 mg/kg in these waste matrices. All
of these wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment standard or
below (0.125 mg/L). We believe these constituent reductions
substantially diminish the toxicity of spent solvent wastes
containing 1,2-dichlorobenzene and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of 1,2-dichlorobenzene from spent solvent
wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
1,2-dichlorobenzene was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L
based on incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between
the proposed and promulgated treated standards is primarily a result of
additional data gathering subsequent to proposal and use of the
analytical quantification level as the treatment standard since the
standard derived from the data is below the EPA published analytical
quantification level for 1,2-dichlorobenzene (see Table 5-1 and the
discussion on page 5-17). The new data were presented in EPA's Notice of
Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In addition, a variability analysis
was incorporated into the development of the treatment standards for
promulgation.]
5-150
-------
Table 5-37
INCINERATION DATA FOR 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
I
I—«
en
Si te Type of Incinerator
5 Fixed Hearth (Two
Separate Incinera-
tion Systems)
Fixed Hearth with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
(From Furniture Manu-
facturing Industry)
Solvent Wastes
High-Btu Liquid Wastes
Low-Btu Liquid Wastes
Lacquer-Coated Cardboard
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feed
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent (mg/kg)
1,085
1,085
Incinerator
Residue*
Total
(mg/kg)
<100
<100
TCLP
(ug/L)
Footnotes
a
a
92
<2
"Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) The influent concentration is an arithmetic average.
(b) The influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
-------
5.6.11 Ethyl Acetate (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has no data on TCLP extracts of residue from incineration
of ethyl acetate to use in the derivation of the BDAT treatment
standard. For reasons presented in Section 5.6.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to ethyl acetate
spent solvent wastes other than wastewaters. Specifically we transferred
treatment data from methyl ethyl ketone, which contains the ketone
functional group, to ethyl acetate, which contains the ester functional
group. The esters structural group is most structurally similar to the
ketones group based upon their oxygen-containing, electron-releasing
functional groups.
The Agency has data on the analysis of the TCLP extract of
incineration residue for three compounds in the ketones structural
group: acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone. To
best account for the range of physical and chemical properties within a
structural group that affect treatment by a specific technology, the
Agency transferred data representing the least stringent treatment
standard from the compounds for which data were available in the ketones
structural group. The data from which the treatment standard for
incineration of methyl ethyl ketone was derived were transferred to ethyl
acetate. The treatment standard is 0.75 mg/L based on the transferred
data.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for ethyl acetate spent
solvent wastes (other than wastewater) represents substantial treatment.
We would expect untreated ethyl acetate wastes to be similar to untreated
methyl ethyl ketone wastes from which we transferred treatment data since
they are used in many similar manufacturing processes, as shown in
Section 2 of this document. As discussed on page 5-163, in reference to
methyl ethyl ketone, we believe these constituent reductions
substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes
containing ethyl acetate and substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of ethyl acetate from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for ethyl
acetate was estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based on
incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The principal difference
between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's
change in the criteria for data transfer (see Section 5.6.1, page 5-130,
for a discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-152
-------
5.6.12 Ethylbenzene (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of ethylbenzene (Reference 11). The data are
summarized in Table 5-38.
The following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for ethylbenzene:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
Data from one facility (site 6) were deleted because the
incineration system control devices were not properly designed and
operated. The facility is under a Consent Decree to replace and
improve the current incinerator control- system. Data from another
facility (site 2) were deleted because the Agency judged that the
system was not properly operated at the time the data were
collected. A follow-up sampling visit confirmed the Agency's
judgment. The new data were not used in the determination of the
long-term performance average for incineration of ethylbenzene;
however, the data were used to develop a variability factor for
incineration. Data from a third site were deleted because
ethylbenzene was reported as below the detection limits for both
the influent and the TCLP extract of the ash.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit. Two
residue concentration levels were reported for site 5, one for
each incinerator at the site. These were considered as two
separate data points.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
5-153
-------
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-38 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing ethylbenzene
spent solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BOAT (0.053 mg/L for site 7
obtained by multiplying the variability factor by the highest
average residue concentration level) to ensure that the standard
could be achieved for all waste matrices within the waste
treatability subgroup. The technology basis was incineration.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for ethylbenzene represents treatment
of a variety of waste matrices incinerated at five sites. The
untreated waste concentration of ethylbenzene ranged from 780
mg/kg to 43,000 rag/kg in these waste matrices. All of these
wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment standard or below (0.053
mg/L). We believe these constituent reductions substantially
diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing
ethylbenzene and substantially reduce the likelihood of migration
of ethylbenzene from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
ethylbenzene was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L based on
incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between the
proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of
additional data gathering subseguent to proposal. The new data were
presented in EPA's Notice of Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In
addition, a variability analysis was incorporated into the development of
the treatment standards for promulgation.]
5-154
-------
Table 5-38
INCINERATION DATA FOR ETHYLBENZENE
01
i
tn
tn
Site Type of Incinerator
3 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
5 Fixed Hearth (Two
Separate Incinera-
tion Systems)
Fixed Hearth with
Secondary Combustor
Flow-Weighted
Average
Wastes Incinerated Influent (mg/kg)
Drum Feed Sol ids 4,048
Liquid Waste Fuel
(From Furniture Manu- 780
facturing Industry) 780
Solvent Wastes
High-Btu Liquid Wastes
Low-Btu Liquid Wastes
Lacquer-Coated Cardboard
High-Btu Liquids 14,642
Low-Btu Solids
Solids Feed
Inci nerator
Residue*
Total TCLP
(mg/kg) (ug/L) Footnotes
0.5 2 a
<300
<300
<300
<3
<3
10 a
Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Liquid
Injection Combustor
Rotary Ki1n wi th
Secondary Combustor
Liquid Waste Fuel
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feedc
43,000
8,591
<1.5 <3 a
<1.5 <3 a
•Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) The influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) The influent concentration is an arithmetic average.
(c) Gel and filter press residue.
-------
5.6.13 Ethyl Ether (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has no data on TCLP extracts of residue from incineration
of ethyl ether to use in the derivation of the BDAT treatment standard.
For reasons presented in Section 5.6.1, EPA used chemical structure as
the basis for transferring treatment data to ethyl ether spent solvent
wastes other than wastewaters. Specifically we transferred treatment
data from methyl ethyl ketone, which contains the ketone functional
group, to ethyl ether, which contains the ether functional group. The
ethers structural group is most structurally similar to the ketones group
based upon their oxygen-containing, electron-releasing functional
groups.
The Agency has data on the analysis of the TCLP extract of
incineration residue for three compounds in the- ketones structural
group: acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone. To
best account for the range of physical and chemical properties within a
structural group that affect treatment by a specific technology, the
Agency transferred data representing the least stringent treatment
standard from the compounds for which data were available in the ketones
structural group. The data from which the treatment standard for
incineration of methyl ethyl ketone was derived were transferred to ethyl
ether. The treatment standard is 0.75 mg/L based on the transferred data.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for ethyl ether spent solvent
wastes (other than wastewater) represents substantial treatment. We
would expect untreated ethyl ether wastes to be similar to untreated
methyl ethyl ketone wastes from which we transferred treatment data. As
discussed on page 5-163, in reference to methyl ethyl ketone, we believe
these constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the
spent solvent wastes containing ethyl ether and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of ethyl ether from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for ethyl
ether was estimated from the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based on
incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The principal difference
between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's
change in the criteria for data transfer (see Section 5.6.1, page 5-130,
for a discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-156
-------
5.6.14 Isobutanol (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has no data on TCLP extracts of residue from incineration
of isobutanol to use in the derivation of the BDAT treatment standard.
For reasons presented in Section 5.6.1, EPA used chemical structure as
the basis for transferring treatment data to isobutanol spent solvent
wastes other than wastewaters. Specifically we transferred treatment
data from methyl ethyl ketone, which contains the ketone functional
group, to isobutanol, which contains the hydroxyl functional group. The
alcohols structural group is most structurally similar to the ketones
group based upon their oxygen-containing, electron-releasing functional
groups.
The Agency has data on the analysis of the TCLP extract of
incineration residue for three compounds in the-ketones structural
group: acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone. To
best account for the range of physical and chemical properties within a
structural group that affect treatment by a specific technology, the
Agency transferred data representing the least stringent treatment
standard from the compounds for which data were available in the ketones
structural group. The data from which the treatment standard for
incineration of methyl ethyl ketone was derived were transferred to
isobutanol. The treatment standard is 0.75 mg/L based on the transferred
data. The transferred value is below the quantification level for
isobutanol and could not be used as the treatment standard. Therefore,
the treatment standard is set at the quantification level of 5.0 mg/L.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for isobutanol spent solvent
wastes (other than wastewater) represents substantial treatment. We
would expect untreated isobutanol wastes to be similar to untreated
methyl ethyl ketone wastes from which we transferred treatment data. As
discussed on page 5-163, in reference to methyl ethyl ketone, we believe
these constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the
spent solvent wastes containing isobutanol and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of isobutanol from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for isobutanol
was estimated at the detection limit of <0.050 mg/L based on incineration
(see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The principal difference between the
proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's change in
the criteria for data transfer (see Section 5.6.1, page 5-130, for a
discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-157
-------
5.6.15 Methanol (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has no data on TCLP extracts of residue from incineration
of methanol to use in the derivation of the BOAT treatment standard. For
reasons presented in in Section 5.6.1, EPA used chemical structure as the
basis for transferring treatment data to methanol spent solvent wastes
other than wastewaters. Specifically we transferred treatment data from
methyl ethyl ketone, which contains the ketone functional group, to
methanol, which contains the hydroxyl functional group. The alcohols
structural group is most structurally similar to the ketones group based
upon their oxygen-containing, electron-releasing functional groups.
The Agency has data on the analysis of the TCLP extract of
incineration residue for three compounds in the ketones structural
group: acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone. To
best account for the range of physical and chemical properties within a
structural group that affect treatment by a specific technology, the
Agency transferred data representing the least stringent treatment
standard from the compounds for which data were available in the ketones
structural group. The data from which the treatment standard for
incineration of methyl ethyl ketone was derived were transferred to
methanol. The treatment standard is 0.75 mg/L based on the transferred
data.
We believe the BOAT treatment standard for methanol spent solvent
wastes (other than wastewater) represents substantial treatment. We
would expect untreated methanol wastes to be similar to untreated methyl
ethyl ketone wastes from which we transferred treatment data since they
are used in many similar manufacturing processes, as shown in Section 2
of this document. As discussed on page 5-163, in reference to methyl
ethyl ketone, we believe these constituent reductions substantially
diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing methanol and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of methanol from spent
solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for methanol
was estimated at the detection limit of <0.100 mg/L based on incineration
(see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The principal difference between the
proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's change in
the criteria for data transfer (see Section 5.6.1, page 5-130, for a
discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-158
-------
5.6.16 Methylene Chloride (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of methylene chloride (Reference 11). The data are
summarized in Table 5-39.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for methylene chloride:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
Data from one facility (site 6) were deleted because the
incineration system control devices were not properly designed and
operated. The facility is under a Consent Decree to replace and
improve the current incinerator control system. Data from another
facility (site 2) were deleted because the Agency judged that the
system was not properly operated at the time the data were
collected. A follow-up sampling visit confirmed the Agency's
judgment. The new data were not used in the determination of the
long-term performance average for incineration of methylene
chloride; however, the data were used to develop a variability
factor for incineration.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or egual to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit. Two
residue concentration levels were reported for site 5, one for
each incinerator at the site. These were considered as two
separate data points.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is showing in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-39 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
5-159
-------
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing methylene
chloride spent solvents. The least stringent treatment level
within the treatability subgroup was selected for BOAT (0.96 mg/L
for site 5 obtained by multiplying the variability factor by the
highest average residue concentration level) to ensure that the
standard could be achieved for all waste matrices within the waste
treatability subgroup. The technology basis was incineration.
5. The BOAT treatment standard for methylene chloride represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices incinerated at six
sites. The untreated waste concentration of methylene chloride
ranged from 22 mg/kg to 14,875 mg/kg in these waste matrices. All
of these wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment standard or
below (0.96 mg/L). We believe these constituent reductions
substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes
containing methylene chloride and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of methylene chloride from spent solvent
wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for methylene
chloride was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L based on
incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between the
proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of
additional data gathering subsequent to proposal. The new data were
presented in EPA's Notice of Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In
addition, a variability analysis was incorporated into the development of
the treatment standards for promulgation.]
5-160
-------
Table 5-39
INCINERATION DATA FOR METHYLENE CHLORIDE
en
Site Type of Incinerator
1 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
3 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
5 Fixed Hearth (Two
Separate Incinera-
tion Systems)
Fixed Hearth wi th
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
PCB Contaminated Dirt
Drum Feed Soli ds
Liquid Waste Fuel
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent* (mg/kg)
22
9,808
(From Furniture Manu- 5,690
facturing Industry) 5,690
Solvent Wastes
High-Btu Liquid Wastes
Low-Btu Liquid Wastes
Lacquer-Coated Cardboard
High-Btu Liquids <300
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feed
Incinerator
Residue*
Total TCLP
(mg/kg) (ug/L) Footnotes
<3
<300
<300
<300
20
<1.5 23
<3
180
150
Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Liquid
Injection Combustor
Liquid Waste Fuel
6,600
26
"Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) Influent is flow-weighted average.
(b) Influent is an arithmetic average.
-------
Table 5-39 (Continued)
INCINERATION DATA FOR METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Site Type of Incinerator
9 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feedb
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent (ma/ka)
Incinerator
Residue*
Total
TCLP
(ug/L) Footnotes
14,875
100
en
i
CTi
PO
•Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
NA - Not Analyzed
(a) Influent is flow-weighted average.
(b) Gel and filter press residue.
-------
5.6.17 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of methyl ethyl ketone (Reference 11). The data are
summarized in Table 5-40.
The following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for methyl ethyl ketone:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
Data from one facility (site 6) were deleted because the
incineration system control devices were not properly designed and
operated. The facility is under a Consent Decree to replace and
improve the current incinerator control system. Data from another
facility (site 2) were deleted because the Agency judged that the
system was not properly operated at the time the data were
collected. A follow-up sampling visit confirmed the Agency's
judgment. The new data were not used in the determination of the
long-term performance average for incineration of methyl ethyl
ketone; however, the data were used to develop a variability
factor for incineration. Data from a third site were deleted
because methyl ethyl ketone was reported as below the detection
limits for both the influent and the TCLP extract of the ash.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit. Two
residue concentration levels were reported for site 5, one for
each incinerator at the site. These were considered as two
separate data points.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
5-163
-------
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-40 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing methyl ethyl
ketone spent solvents. The least stringent treatment level within
the treatability subgroup was selected for BOAT (0.59 mg/L for
site 7 obtained by multiplying the variability factor by the
highest average residue concentration level) to ensure that the
standard could be achieved for all waste matrices within the waste
treatability subgroup. The technology basis was incineration.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for methyl ethyl ketone represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices incinerated at four
sites. The untreated waste concentration of methyl ethyl ketone
ranged from 28,165 mg/kg to 110,000 mg/kg in these waste
matrices. All of these wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment
standard or below (0.75 mg/L). We believe these constituent
reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent
solvent wastes containing methyl ethyl ketone and substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of methyl ethyl ketone from
spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed BDAT technology-based treatment standard for methyl
ethyl ketone was estimated at the detection limit of <0.050 mg/L based on
incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between the
proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of
additional data gathering subseguent to proposal. The new data were
presented in EPA's Notice of Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In
addition, a variability analysis was incorporated into the development of
the treatment standards for promulgation.]
5-164
-------
Table 5-40
INCINERATION DATA FOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE
Si te Type of Incinerator
3 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
5 Fixed Hearth (Two
Separate Incinera-
tion Systems)
Fixed Hearth with
Secondary Combustor
Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Liquid
Injection Combustor
Flow-Weighted
Average
Wastes Incinerated Influent (mg/kg)
Drum Feed Solids 100,000
Liquid Waste Fuel
(From Furniture Manu- 28,165
facturing Industry) 28,165
Solvent Wastes
High-Btu Liquid Wastes
Low-Btu Liquid Wastes
Lacquer-Coated Cardboard
High-Btu Liquids 35,000
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feed
Liquid Waste Fuel 110,000
Inci nerator
Resi due*
<300
<300
<300
TCLP
(ug/L) Footnotes
<3 a
<3
25
140
<3
'Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) The influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) The influent concentration is an arithmetic average.
-------
5.7.18 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of methyl isobutyl ketone (Reference 11). The data
are summarized in Table 5-41.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for methyl isobutyl ketone:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
Data from one facility (site 6) were deleted because the
incineration system control devices were not properly designed and
operated. The facility is under a Consent Decree to replace and
improve the current incinerator control system. Data from another
facility (site 2) were deleted because the Agency judged that the
system was not properly operated at the time the data were
collected. A follow-up sampling visit confirmed the Agency's
judgment. The new data were not used in the determination of the
long-term performance average for incineration of methyl isobutyl
ketone; however, the data were used to develop a variability
factor for incineration.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit. Two
residue concentration levels were reported for site 5, one for
each incinerator at the site. These were considered as two
separate data points.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because the data are available for
only one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-41 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
5-166
-------
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing methyl
isobutyl ketone spent solvents. The least stringent treatment
level within the treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT (0.33
mg/L for site 7 obtained by multiplying the variability factor by
the highest average residue concentration level) to ensure that
the standard could be achieved for all waste matrices within the
waste treatability subgroup. The technology basis was
incineration.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for methyl isobutyl ketone represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices incinerated at six
sites. The untreated waste concentration of methyl isobutyl
ketone ranged from 15 mg/kg to 32,000 mg/kg-in these waste
matrices. All of these wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment
standard or below (0.33 mg/L). We believe these constituent
reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent
solvent wastes containing methyl isobutyl ketone and substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of methyl isobutyl ketone from
spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed BDAT technology-based treatment standard for methyl
isobutyl ketone was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L based
on incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between the
proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of
additional data gathering subsequent to proposal. The new data were
presented in EPA's Notice of Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In
addition, a variability analysis was incorporated into the development of
the treatment standards for promulgation.]
5-167
-------
Table 5-41
INCINERATION DATA FOR METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
oo
Si te Type of Incinerator
1 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
3 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
5 Fixed Hearth (Two
Separate Incinera-
tion Systems)
Fixed Hearth with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent (mg/kg)
Incinerator
Residue*
Total TCLP
(mg/kg) (ug/L) Footnotes
PCB Contaminated Dirt 15
Drum Feed Solids 30,000
Liquid Waste Fuel
(From Furniture Manu- 315
facturing Industry) 315
Solvent Wastes
High-Btu Liquid Wastes
Low-Btu Liquid Wastes
Lacquer-Coated Cardboard
High-Btu Liquids 10,818
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feed
<2
<200
<200
<200
<2
<2
<2
<2
62
Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Liquid
Injection Combustor
Liquid Waste Fuel
32,000
<2
"Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) Influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) Influent concentration is an arithmetic average.
-------
Table 5-41 (Continued)
INCINERATION DATA FOR METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
Site Type of Incinerator
9 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feedb
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent (mg/kg)
24,905
Incinerator
Residue*
Total TCLP
(mg/kg) (ug/L) Footnotes
<1.0 <2 a
en
i
"Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) Influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) Gel and filter press residue.
-------
5.6.19 Nitrobenzene (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of nitrobenzene (Reference 11). The data are
summarized in Table 5-42.
The following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for nitrobenzene:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
The available data and information did not show any of the data to
represent poor design and operation. Accordingly, none of the
data were deleted on this basis.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-42 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing nitrobenzene
spent solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT (0.011 mg/L for site 7
obtained by multiplying the variability factor by the highest
average residue concentration level) to ensure that the standard
could be achieved for all waste matrices within the waste
treatability subgroup. This calculated standard is below the
quantification level and could not be used as the treatment
standard; therefore, the treatment standard is set at the
quantification level of 0.125 mg/L. The technology was
incineration.
5-170
-------
5. The BDAT treatment standard for nitrobenzene represents treatment
of a variety of waste matrices incinerated at one site. The
untreated waste concentration of nitrobenzene was as high as 79
mg/kg in these waste matrices. This waste was treated to a
concentration below the BDAT treatment standard (0.125 mg/L). We
believe these, constituent reductions substantially diminish the
toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing nitrobenzene and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of nitrobenzene
from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed BDAT technology-based treatment standard for
nitrobenzene was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L based on
incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between the
proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of
additional data gathering subsequent to proposal and use of the
analytical quantification level as the treatment standard since the
standard derived from the data is below the EPA published analytical
quantification level for nitrobenzene (see Table 5-1 and the discussion
on page 5-17). The new data were presented in EPA's Notice of
Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In addition, a variability analysis
was incorporated into the development of the treatment standards for
promulgation.]
5-171
-------
Table 5-42
INCINERATION DATA FOR NITROBENZENE
Site Type of Incinerator
7 Fixed Hearth with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feed
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent (mg/kg)
79
Incinerator
Residue*
TCLP
(ug/L) Footnotes
<2 a
en
i
"Value shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) The influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
t\)
-------
5.6.20 Pyridine (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has no data on TCLP extracts of residue from incineration
of pyridine to use in the derivation of the BOAT treatment standard. For
reasons presented in Section 5.6.1, EPA used chemical structure as the
basis for transferring treatment data to pyridine spent solvent wastes
other than wastewaters. Specifically we transferred treatment data from
toluene to pyridine; both which contain the aromatic ring functional
group.
The Agency has data on the analysis of the TCLP extract of
incineration residue for four compounds in the aromatics structural
group: ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, and nitrobenzene. To best account
for the range of physical and chemical properties within a structural
group that affect treatment by a specific technology; the Agency
transferred data representing the least stringent treatment standard from
the compounds for which data were available in the aromatics structural
group. The data from which the treatment standard for incineration of
toluene was derived were transferred to pyridine. The treatment standard
is 0.33 mg/L based on the transferred data.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for pyridine spent solvent
wastes (other than wastewater) represents substantial treatment. We
would expect untreated pyridine wastes to be similar to untreated toluene
wastes from which we transferred treatment data since they are used in
some of the same manufacturing processes, as shown in Section 2 of this
document. As discussed on page 5-177 in reference to toluene, we believe
these constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the
spent solvent wastes containing pyridine and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of pyridine from spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology based BDAT treatment standard for pyridine
was estimated at the detection limit of <0.500 mg/L based on incineration
(see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The principal difference between the
proposed and promulgated treatment standards is the Agency's change in
the criteria for data transfer (see Section 5.6.1, page 5-130, for a
discussion of the Agency's methodology for data transfer.)]
5-173
-------
5.6.21 Tetrachloroethylene (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of tetrachloroethylene (Reference 11). The data are
summarized in Table 5-43.
The following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for tetrachloroethylene:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
Data from one facility (site 6) were deleted because the
incineration system control devices were not properly designed and
operated. The facility is under a Consent Decree to replace and
improve the current incinerator control system. Data from another
facility (site 2) were deleted because the Agency judged that the
system was not properly operated at the time the data were
collected. A follow-up sampling visit confirmed the Agency's
judgment. The new data were not used in the determination of the
long-term performance average for incineration of
tetrachloroethylene; however, the data were used to develop a
variability factor for incineration. Data from a third site were
deleted because tetrachloroethylene was reported as below the
detection limits for both the influent and the TCLP extract of the
ash.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or egual to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-43 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
5-174
-------
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing
tetrachloroethylene spent solvents. The least stringent treatment
level within the treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT
(0.016 mg/L for sites 1, 3, 8, and 9 obtained by multiplying the
variability factor by the highest average residue concentration
level) to ensure that the standard could be achieved for all waste
matrices within the waste treatability subgroup. This calculated
value is below the quantification level and could not be used as
the treatment standard; therefore, the treatment standard is set
at the quantification level of 0.05 mg/L. The technology basis
was incineration.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for tetrachloroethylene represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices incinerated at four
sites. The untreated waste concentration of tetrachloroethylene
ranged from 4 mg/kg to 17,000 mg/kg in these waste matrices. All
of these wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment standard or
below (0.05 mg/kg). We believe these constituent reductions
substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes
containing tetrachloroethylene and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of tetrachloroethylene from spent solvent
wastes.
[The proposed BDAT technology-based treatment standard for
tetrachloroethylene was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L
based on incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between
the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of
additional data gathering subsequent to proposal and use of the
analytical quantification level as the treatment standard since the
standard derived from the data is below the EPA published analytical
quantification level for tetrachloroethylene (see Table 5-1 and the
discussion on page 5-17). The new data were presented in EPA's Notice of
Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In addition, a variability analysis
was incorporated into the development of the treatment standards for
promulgation.]
5-175
-------
Table 5-43
INCINERATION DATA FOR TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Si te Type of Incinerator
1 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
3 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
8 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Liquid
Injection Combustor
9 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
PCB Contaminated Dirt
Drum Feed Solids
Liquid Waste Fuel
Liquid Waste Fuel
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feedb
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent (ma/kg)
256
17,000
466
Inci nerator
Residue*
Total TCLP
(mg/kg) (ug/L) Footnotes
<3 <3 a
<3
<3
<3
"Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) The influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) Gel and filter press residue.
-------
5.6.22 Toluene (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of toluene (Reference 11). The data are summarized in
Table 5-44.
The followiag steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for toluene:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
Data from one facility (site 6) were deleted because the
incineration system control devices were not properly designed and
operated. The facility is under a Consent Decree to replace and
improve the current incinerator control system. Data from another
facility (site 2) were deleted because the Agency judged that the
system was not properly operated at the time the data were
collected. A follow-up sampling visit confirmed the Agency's
judgment. The new data were not used in the determination of the
long-term performance average for incineration of toluene;
however, the data were used to develop a variability factor for
incineration. Data from a third site were deleted because toluene
was reported as below the detection limits for both the influent
and the TCLP extract of the ash.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit. Two
residue concentration levels were reported for site 5, one for
each incinerator at the site. These were considered as two
separate data points.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (see Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-44 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
5-177
-------
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing toluene spent
solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BOAT (0.33 mg/L for site 7
obtained by multiplying the variability factor by the highest
average residue concentration level) to ensure that the standard
could be achieved for all waste matrices within the waste
treatability subgroup. The technology basis was incineration.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for toluene represents treatment of a
variety of waste matrices incinerated at six sites. The untreated
waste concentration of toluene ranged from 3 mg/kg to 100,357
mg/kg in these waste matrices. All of these wastes were treated
to the BDAT treatment standard or below (0.33 mg/L). We believe
these constituent reductions substantially diminish the toxicity
of the spent solvent wastes containing toluene and substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of toluene from spent solvent
wastes.
[The proposed BDAT technology-based treatment standard for toluene
was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L based on incineration
(see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between the proposed and
promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of additional data
gathering subseguent to proposal. The new data were presented in EPA's
Notice of Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In addition, a variability
analysis was incorporated into the development of the treatment standards
for promulgation.]
5-178
-------
Table 5-44
INCINERATION DATA FOR TOLUENE
Site Type of Incinerator
1 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
3 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
5 Fixed Hearth (Two
Separate Incinera-
tion Systems)
Fixed Hearth with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
PCB Contaminated Dirt
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent (mo/kg)
Drum Feed Solids 38,057
Liquid Waste Fuel
(From Furniture Manu- 12,743
facturing Industry) 12,743
Solvent Wastes
High-Btu Liquid Wastes
Low-Btu Liquid Wastes
Lacquer-Coated Cardboard
High-Btu Liquids 9,562
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feed
Incinerator
Residue*
Total TCLP
(mg/kg) (ug/L) Footnotes
<3 6 a
2.5 27
<300
<300
<300
<3
7
61
Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Liquid
Injection Combustor
Liquid Waste Fuel
43,000
2.1
13
"Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) The influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) The influent concentration is an arithmetic average.
-------
Table 5-44 (Continued)
INCINERATION DATA FOR TOLUENE
Incinerator
Flow-Weighted Residue*
Average Total TCLP
Si te Type of Incinerator Wastes Incinerated Influent (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (ug/L) Footnotes
9 Rotary Kiln with High-Btu Liquids 100,357 <1.5 <3 a
Secondary Combustor Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feedb
'Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) The influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) Gel and filter press residue.
00
O
-------
5.6.23 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (Reference 11). The data are
summarized in Table 5-45.
The following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for 1,1,1-trichloroethane:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
Data from two sites were deleted because 1,1,1-trichloroethane was
reported as below the detection limits for both the influent and
the TCLP extract of the ash.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit. Two
residue concentration levels were reported for site 5, one for
each incinerator at the site. These were considered as two
separate data points.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-45 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing
1,1,1-trichloroethane spent solvents. The least stringent
treatment level within the treatability subgroup was selected for
5-181
-------
BDAT (0.41 mg/L for site 7 obtained by multiplying the variability
factor by the highest average residue concentration level) to
ensure that the standard could be achieved for all waste matrices
within the waste treatability subgroup. The technology basis was
incineration.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for 1,1,1-trichloroethane represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices incinerated at five
sites. The untreated waste concentration of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
ranged from 463 mg/kg to 29,000 mg/kg in these waste matrices.
All of these wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment standard or
below (0.41 mg/L). We believe these constituent reductions
substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes
containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of 1,1,1-trichloroethane-from spent
solvent wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
1,1,1-trichloroethane was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L
based on incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between
the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of
additional data gathering subsequent to proposal. The new data were
presented in EPA's Notice of Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In
addition, a variability analysis was incorporated into the development of
the treatment standards for promulgation.]
5-182
-------
Table 5-45
INCINERATION DATA FOR 1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
oo
co
Si te Type of Incinerator
3 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
5 Fixed Hearth (Two
Separate Incinera-
tion Systems)
Fixed Hearth with
Secondary Combustor
Flow-Wei ghted
Average
Wastes Incinerated Influent (mg/kg)
Drum Feed Solids 29,000
Liquid Waste Fuel
(From Furniture Manu- 463
factoring Industry) 463
Solvent Wastes
High-Btu Liquid Wastes
Low-Btu Liquid Wastes
Lacquer-Coated Cardboard
High-Btu Liquids 1,920
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feed
Incinerator
Residue*
Total
(mg/kg)
<300
<300
<300
TCLP
(ug/L) Footnotes
<3 a
<3
3
77
8 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Liquid
Injection Combustor
9 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
Liquid Waste Fuel
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feedc
10,000
15,792
<3
<3
'Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) The influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) The influent concentration is an arithmetic average.
(c) Gel and filter press residue.
-------
5.6.24 l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has no data on TCLP extracts of residue from incineration
of l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane to use in the derivation of the
BDAT treatment standard. For reasons presented in Section 5.6.1 EPA used
chemical structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to
1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane spent solvent wastes other than
wastewaters. Specifically we transferred treatment data from methylene
chloride to 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane; both contain the
halogen functional group.
The Agency has data on the analysis of the TCLP extract of
incineration residue for two compounds in the halogenated aliphatics
structural group: methylene chloride and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. To best
account for the range of physical and chemical properties within a
structural group that affect treatment by a specific technology, the
Agency transferred data representing the least stringent treatment
standard from the compounds for which data were available in the
halogenated aliphatics structural group. The data from which the
treatment standard for incineration of methylene chloride was derived
were transferred to 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane. The treatment
standard is 0.96 mg/L based on the transferred data.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for 1,1,2-trichloro-
1,2,2-trifluoroethane spent solvent wastes (other than wastewater)
represents substantial treatment. We would expect untreated
1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane wastes to be similar to untreated
methylene chloride wastes from which we transferred treatment data since
they are used in many similar manufacturing processes, as shown in
Section 2 of this document. As discussed on page 5-159, in reference to
methylene chloride, we believe these constituent reductions to
substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes
containing 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane and substantially reduce
the likelihood of migration of 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane from
spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed BDAT technology-based treatment standard for
1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane was estimated at the detection
limit of <0.010 mg/L based on incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722).
The principal difference between the proposed and promulgated treatment
standards is the Agency's change in the criteria for data transfer (see
Section 5.6.1, page 5-130, for a discussion of the Agency's methodology
for data transfer.)]
5-184
-------
5.6.25 Trichloroethylene (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of trichloroethylene (Reference 11). The data are
summarized in Table 5-46.
The following steps were taken to derive the BDAT treatment standard
for trichloroethylene:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
Data from one facility (site 2) were deleted because the Agency
judged that the system was not properly operated at the time the
data were collected. A follow-up sampling visit confirmed the
Agency's judgment. The new data were not used in-the
determination of the long-term performance average for
incineration of trichloroethylene; however, the data were used to
develop a variability factor for incineration. Data from two
other sites were deleted because trichloroethylene was reported as
below the detection limits for both the influent and the TCLP
extract of the ash.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set equal to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-46 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing
trichloroethylene spent solvents. The least stringent treatment
5-185
-------
level within the treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT
(0.091 mg/L for site 7 obtained by multiplying the variability
factor by the highest average residue concentration level) to
ensure that the standard could be achieved for all waste matrices
within the waste treatability subgroup. The technology basis was
incineration.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for trichloroethylene represents
treatment of a variety of waste matrices incinerated at three
sites. The untreated waste concentration of trichloroethylene
ranged from 1,009 mg/kg to 4,700 mg/kg in these waste matrices.
All of these wastes were treated to the BDAT treatment standard or
below (0.091 mg/L). We believe these constituent reductions
substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent wastes
containing trichloroethylene and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of trichloroethylene from spent solvent
wastes.
[The proposed BDAT technology-based treatment standard for
trichloroethylene was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L
based on incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between
the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is primarily a result of
additional data gathering subsequent to proposal. The new data were
presented in EPA's Notice of Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In
addition, a variability analysis was incorporated into the development of
the treatment standards for promulgation.]
5-186
-------
Table 5-46
INCINERATION DATA FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE
en
HJ
CO
Site Type of Incinerator
7 Fixed Hearth with
Secondary Combustor
8 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Liquid
Injection Combustor
9 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feed
Liquid Waste Fuel
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feedb
Flow-Weighted
Average
Influent (mg/kg)
1,009
4,700
4,244
"Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) The influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) Gel and filter press residue.
Incinerator
Residue*
Total TCLP
fmg/kg) (ug/L) Footnotes
<300
17
<3
<3
-------
5.6.26 Trichlorofluoromethane (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has no data on TCLP extracts of residue from incineration
of trichlorofluoromethane to use in the derivation of the BDAT treatment
standard. For reasons presented in Section 5.6.1, EPA used chemical
structure as the basis for transferring treatment data to
trichlorofluoromethane spent solvent wastes other than wastewaters.
Specifically we transferred treatment data for methylene chloride to
trichlorofluoromethane; both contain the halogen functional group.
The Agency has data on the analysis of the TCLP extract of
incineration residue for two compounds in the halogenated aliphatics
structural group: methylene chloride and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. To best
account for the range of physical and chemical properties within a
structural group that affect treatment by a specific technology, the
Agency transferred data representing the least stringent treatment
standard from the compounds for which data were available in the
halogenated aliphatics structural group. The data from which the
treatment standard for incineration of methylene chloride was derived
were transferred to trichlorofluoromethane. The treatment standard is
0.96 mg/L based on the transferred data.
We believe the BDAT treatment standard for trichlorofluoromethane
spent solvent wastes (other than wastewater) represents substantial
treatment. We would expect untreated trichlorofluoromethane wastes to be
similar to untreated methylene chloride wastes from which we transferred
treatment data since they are used in many similar manufacturing
processes as shown in Section 2 of this document. As discussed on page
5-159, in reference to methylene chloride, we believe these constituent
reductions substantially diminish the toxicity of the spent solvent
wastes containing trichlorofluoromethane and substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of trichlorofluoromethane from spent solvent
wastes.
[The proposed technology-based BDAT treatment standard for
trichlorofluoromethane was estimated at the detection limit of <0.010
mg/L based on incineration (see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The principal
difference between the proposed and promulgated treatment standards is
the Agency's change in the criteria for data transfer (see Section 5.6.1,
page 5-130, for a discussion of the Agency's methodology for data
transfer.)]
5-188
-------
5.6.27 Xylene (Other Than Wastewater)
The Agency has treatment data for the TCLP extract of incinerator ash
from the treatment of xylene (Reference 11). The data are summarized in
Table 5-47.
The following steps were taken to derive the BOAT treatment standard
for xylene:
1. We evaluated the data to determine whether any of the data
represented poor design or operation of the incineration system.
Data from one facility (site 6) were deleted because the
incineration system control devices were not properly designed and
operated. The facility is under a Consent Decree to replace and
improve the current incinerator control system. Data from another
facility (site 2) were deleted because the Agency judged that the
system was not properly operated at the time the data were
collected. A follow-up sampling visit confirmed the Agency's
judgment. The new data were not used in the determination of the
long-term performance average for incineration of xylene; however,
the data were used to develop a variability factor for
incineration. Data from two other sites were deleted because
xylene was reported as below the detection limits for both the
influent and the TCLP extract of the ash.
2. We determined an arithmetic average residue concentration level
and a variability factor for each data set. Residue concentration
levels reported as less than or equal to the reported detection
limit were set egual to the detection limit for statistical
analyses. This is a conservative approach since the actual
concentration would be between zero and the detection limit.
Process variability could not be calculated from the incineration
data because only one influent and effluent data pair was
available for each data set. Therefore, to account for process
variability, an average variability factor was calculated for
incineration, 5.34 (calculation of the average variability factor
is shown in Table 5-33).
3. The analysis of variance method was not used to compare different
treatments of the same waste because data are available for only
one type of treatment for each waste.
4. EPA then analyzed the data to determine if the various treatment
concentration levels shown in Table 5-47 could be associated with
separate waste treatability subgroups. Sufficient data did not
exist to identify separate waste treatability subgroups;
therefore, one waste treatability subgroup was established for all
sources of wastes (other than wastewater) containing xylene spent
5-189
-------
solvents. The least stringent treatment level within the
treatability subgroup was selected for BDAT (0.15 mg/L for site 7
obtained by multiplying the variability factor by the highest
average residue concentration level) to ensure that the standard
could be achieved for all waste matrices within the waste
treatability subgroup. The technology basis was incineration.
5. The BDAT treatment standard for xylene represents treatment of a
variety of waste matrices incinerated at four sites. The
untreated waste concentration of xylene ranged from 7,300 mg/kg to
46,393 mg/kg in these waste matrices. All of these wastes were
treated to the BDAT treatment standard or below (0.15 mg/L). We
believe these constituent reductions substantially diminish the
toxicity of the spent solvent wastes containing xylene and
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of" xylene from
spent solvent wastes.
[The proposed BDAT technology-based treatment standard for xylene was
estimated at the detection limit of <0.010 mg/L based on incineration
(see Table 11, 51 FR 1722). The difference between the proposed and
promulgated treatment standard is primarily a result of additional data
gathering subsequent to proposal. The new data were presented in EPA's
Notice of Availability of Data (51 FR 31783). In addition, a variability
analysis was incorporated into the development of the treatment standards
for promulgation.]
5-190
-------
Table 5-47
INCINERATION DATA FOR XYLENE
Site Type of Incinerator
3 Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
7 Fixed Hearth with
Secondary Combustor
Rotary Kiln wi th
Secondary Liquid
Injection Combustor
Rotary Kiln with
Secondary Combustor
Wastes Incinerated
Drum Feed Sol ids
Liquid Waste Fuel
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feed
Liquid Waste Fuel
High-Btu Liquids
Low-Btu Liquids
Solids Feedb
Flow-Weighted
Average
Incinerator
Residue*
Total TCLP
Influent (mg/ka) (mg/kg) (ug/L) Footnotes
15,863
46,393
7,300
22,039
1.5
<300
15
28
<3
<3
"Values shown as "<" were reported as below indicated detection limits.
(a) The influent concentration is flow-weighted average.
(b) Gel and filter press residue.
-------
REFERENCES - SECTION 5
1. Versar, Incorporated. Physical-Chemical Properties and
Categorization of RCRA Wastes According to Volatility.
EPA-450/3-85-007. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Emissions Standards and Engineering
Division. February 1985.
2. Stover, E.L. and D.F. Kincannon. "Contaminated Groundwater
Treatability - A Case Study." Journal American Water Works
Association. June 1983.
3. IT Enviroscience, Inc. Survey of Industrial Applications of
Aqueous-Phase Activated-Carbon Adsorption for Control of Pollutant
Compounds from Manufacture of Organic Compounds. Prepared for U.S.
EPA, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory. April 1983.
4. Button, D.G. "Removal of Priority Pollutants by the DuPont PACT
Process." Proceedings of the 7th Annual Industrial Pollutant
Conference. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. June 5-7, 1979.
5. Torpy, M.F., L.A. Raphaelian, and R.G. Luthy. Wastewater and Sludge
Control - Technology Options for Synfuels Industries, Volume 2:
Tar-Sand-Combustion Process Water - Removal of Organic Constituents
by Activated-Sludge Treatment. ANL/ES-115. Argonne National
Laboratory. 1981.
6. Love, O.T. and R.G. Eilers. "Treatment of Drinking Water Containing
Trichloroethylene and Related Industrial Solvents." Journal
American Water Works Association. August 1982.
7. Becker, D.L. and S.C. Wilson. "The Use of Activated Carbon for the
Treatment of Pesticides and Pesticidal Wastes." Carbon Adsorption
Handbook. P.N. Cheremisinoff and F. Ellerbusch, eds. Ann Arbor
Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1978.
8. Ruggiero, D.C. and R. Ausubel. "Removal of Organic Contaminants
from Drinking Water Supply at Glen Cove, New York." UbEPA, Office
of Research and Development. Nebolsine Kohlman Ruggiero Engineers,
P.C. NTIS PB82-258963. 1982.
5-192
-------
9. U.S. EPA. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source
Category, Volume II. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Effluent Guidelines Division. EPA 440/l-80-024b. December 1980.
10. Data submitted by Zimpro, Inc. 1986.
11. Acurex Corporation. Characterization of Hazardous Waste
Incineration Residuals. Contract No. 68-03-3241. Prepared for U.S.
EPA, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory. June 1986.
12. Baker, C.D., E.W. Clark, and W.V. Jeserig, The Sherwin Williams Co.,
and C.H. Huether, Westvaco Corporation. "Recovering para-Cresol
from Process Effluent." Chemical Engineering. 69(8): 77+ (August
1973).
13. Notice of Availability of New Information for Establishment of
Effluent Guidelines for Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) Industrial Point Source Category. October 1985.
14. U.S. EPA. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source
Category. EPA 440/1-83-084. September 1983.
15. 51 FR 1722, Table 11
16. 51 FR 31783
17. 51 FR 1725, Table 13
18. Allinger, Norman L., M.P. Cava, D.C. Johgh, C.R. Johnson, N.A.
Norman, and C.L. Stevens. Organic Chemistry, Worth Publishers,
Inc., New York. 1971.
19. Reid, Robert C., J.M. Prausnitx, and T.K. Sherwood. The Properties
of Gases and Liguids, 3rd. ed. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.
1977.
5-193
------- |