&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste
Washington, D.C 20460
EPA/530-SW-88-0009-C
April 1988
Solid Waste
Best
Demonstrated
Available Technology
^j j
(BOAT) Background
Document for
Petroleum Refining
Treatability Group
(K048, K049, K050,
K051, K052)
Proposed
Volumes
-------
.; BEST DEMONSTRATED AND AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (BOAT)
) BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
3 SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED
^ LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS RULE
FOR
FIRST THIRD WASTES
VOLUME 3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTE CODES
K048, K049, K050, K051, K052
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
James R. Berlow, Chief
Treatment Technology Section
March 18, 1988
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
7^T^,Ubfary(pl--12J)
'' west Jackson Boulevard. ]2th Floor
Chicago, JL 60604-3590 ^
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
1 .0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Legal Background 1-1
1.1.1 Requirements Under HSWA 1-1
1.1.2 Schedule for Developing Restrictions 1-4
1.2 Summary of Promulgated BOAT Methodology 1-5
1.2.1 Waste Treatability Groups 1-7
1.2.2 Demonstrated and Available Treatment
Technologies 1-7
(1) Proprietary or Patented Processes 1-10
(2) Substantial Treatment 1-10
1.2.3 Collection of Performance Data 1-11
(1) Identification of Facilities for Site
Visits 1-12
(2) Engineering Site Visit 1-14
(3) Sampling and Analysis Plan 1-14
(4) Sampling Visit 1-16
(5) Onsite Engineering Report 1-17
1.2.4 Hazardous Constituents Considered and
Selected for Regulation 1-17
(1) Development of BOAT List 1-17
(2) Constituent Selection Analysis 1-27
(3) Calculation of Standards 1-29
1.2.5 Compliance with Performance Standards 1-30
1.2.6 Identification of BOAT 1-32
(1) Screening of Treatment Data 1-32
(2) Comparison of Treatment Data 1-33
(3) Quality Assurance/Quality Control 1-34
1.2.7 BOAT Treatment Standards for "Derived From"
and "Mixed" Wastes 1-36
(1) Wastes from Treatment Trains
Generating Multiple Residues 1-36
(2) Mixtures and Other Derived From
Residues 1-37
(3) Residues from Managing Listed Wastes
or that Contain Listed Wastes 1-38
1.2.8 Transfer of Treatment Standards 1-40
1.3 Variance from the BOAT Treatment Standard 1-41
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
2.0 INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 2-1
2.1 Industry Affected and Process Description 2-2
2.2 Waste Characterization 2-14
2.3 Determination of Waste Treatability Group 2-14
3.0 APPLICABLE/DEMONSTRATED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 3-1
3.1 Applicable Treatment Technologies 3-1
3.2 Demonstrated Treatment Technologies 3-2
3.3 Available Treatment Technologies 3-12
3.4 Detailed Description of Treatment Technologies 3-12
3.4.1 Incineration 3-13
3.4.2 Solvent Extraction 3-40
3.4.3 Sludge Filtration 3-50
3.4.4 Stabilization of Metals 3-56
3.4.5 Hexavalent Chromium Reduction 3-65
3.4.6 Chemical Precipitation 3-72
4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED AND AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY 4-1
4.1 Review of Performance Data 4-2
4.2 Accuracy Correction of Performance Data 4-4
4.2.1 Nonwastewaters 4-5
4.2.2 Wastewaters 4-9
4.3 Statistical Comparison of Performance Data 4-10
4.4 BOAT for K048-K052 Wastes 4-12
5.0 SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS 5-1
5.1 BOAT List Constituents Detected in the Untreated
Waste 5-2
5.2 Constituents Detected in Untreated Waste But Not
Considered for Regulation 5-4
5.3 Constituents Selected for Regulation 5-7
5.3.1 Selection of Regulated Constituents in
Nonwastewater 5-7
5.3.2 Selection of Regulated Constituents in
Wastewater 5-13
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
6.0 CALCULATION OF TREATMENT STANDARDS 6-1
6.1 Calculation of Treatment Standards for Nonwastewater
Forms of K048-K052 6-3
6.2 Calculation of Treatment Standards for Wastewater
Forms of K048-K052 6-8
7.0 CONCLUSIONS 7-1
8.0 REFERENCES 8-1
APPENDICES
A. 1 F VALUE DETERMINATION FOR ANOVA TEST A-1
A.2 VARIABILITY FACTOR A-2
B MAJOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS FOR
K048-K052 B-1
C SUMMARY OF PETROLEUM REFINERY PLANT CODES C-1
D ANALTICAL QA/QC D-1
E STRIP CHARTS FOR THE SAMPLING EPISODE AT PLANT A,
PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS AND INCINERATION TEMPERATURES E-1
F OTHER TREATMENT DATA F-1
G ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS G-1
H DETECTION LIMITS FOR UNTREATED WASTES H-1
I WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE 1-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1-1 BOAT CONSTITUENT LIST 1-18
2-1 FACILITIES PRODUCING K048-K052 WASTES BY STATE 2-3
2-2 FACILITIES PRODUCING K048-K052 WASTES BY EPA REGION 2-4
2-3 GENERATION OF WASTEWATERS IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING
INDUSTRY 2-9
2-4 AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K048 2-17
2-5 AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K049 2-19
2-6 AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K050 2-21
2-7 AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K051 2-23
2-8 AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K052 2-25
3-1 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET #1 . 3-86
3-2 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET #2 . 3-89
3-3 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET #3 . 3-92
3-4 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET #4 . 3-95
3-5 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET #5 . 3-98
3-6 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET #6 . 3-101
3-7 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTES, PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT
EXTRACTION 3-104
3-8 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT I - STABILIZATION OF INCINERATOR ASH 3-113
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
3-9 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR
K049, PLANT J - MICROENCAPSULATION/POZZOLANIC
STABILIZATION 3-115
3-10 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR
K051, PLANT J - MICROENCAPSULATION/POZZOLANIC
STABILIZATION 3-116
3-11 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR
PETROLEUM REFINERY WASTES, PLANT J - MICROENCAPSULATION/
POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION 3-117
3-12 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR
K051 AND K052, PLANT J - MICROENCAPSULATION/POZZOLANIC
STABILIZATION 3-118
3-13 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR
PETROLEUM REFINERY WASTES, PLANT J - SODIUM SILICATE/
POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION 3-119
3-14 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR
K051 AND K052, PLANT J - SODIUM SILICATE/POZZOLANIC
STABILIZATION 3-120
3-15 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR
PETROLEUM REFINERY WASTES, PLANT J - CEMENT, FLY ASH, AND
LIME STABILIZATION 3-121
3-16 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR
K051 AND K052, PLANT J - CEMENT, FLY ASH, AND LIME
STABILIZATION 3-122
3-17 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR
PETROLEUM REFINERY WASTES, PLANT J - SODIUM SILICATE/
POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION 3-123
3-18 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR
K051 AND K052, PLANT J - SODIUM SILICATE/POZZOLANIC
STABILIZATION 3-124
4-1 TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR
ASH CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY: PLANT A 4-14
4-2 TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR TCLP EXTRACTS OF STABILIZED
INCINERATOR ASH CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY: PLANT I 4-17
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
4-3 TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR BOAT LIST ORGANIC
CONSTITUENTS CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY (K019 SCRUBBER
4-4
4-5
5-1
5-2
5-3
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR BDAT LIST METAL CONSTITUENTS
CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY (K062 AND METAL-BEARING CHARAC-
TERISTIC WASTES)
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST COMPARING
FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION AND FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
FOLLOWED BY ASH STABILIZATION
BDAT LIST CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN UNTREATED K048-K052
WASTES
BDAT LIST CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION
BDAT LIST CONSTITUENTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION
CORRECTED TOTAL CONCENTRATION DATA FOR ORGANICS AND
INORGANICS IN FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
CORRECTED TCLP DATA FOR METALS IN STABILIZED (LIME AND FLY
ASH) INCINERATOR ASH
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K048
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K049
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K050
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K051
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K052
CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K048
M- IO
4-19
4-20
5-20
5-28
5-30
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-17
6-19
6-21
6-23
6-25
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
6-9 CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K049 6-26
6-10 CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K050 6-27
6-11 CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K051 6-28
6-12 CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K052 6-29
7-1 BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048-K052 NONWASTEWATERS 7-6
7-2 BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048-K052 WASTEWATERS 7-7
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
FACILITIES PRODUCING K048-K052 WASTES BY STATE AND EPA
REGION
GENERATION OF K048, K049, K050, K051, AND K052
LIQUID INJECTION INCINERATOR
ROTARY KILN INCIERATOR
FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR
FIXED HEARTH INCINERATOR
TWO-STAGE MIXER-SETTLER EXTRACTION SYSTEM
EXTRACTION COLUMNS WITH NONMECHANICAL AGITATION
CONTINUOUS HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REDUCTION SYSTEM
CONTINUOUS CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
CIRCULAR CLARIFIERS
INCLINED PLANE SETTLER
Page
2-5
2-8
3-17
3-18
3-20
3-22
3-44
. 3-45
3-67
3-75
3-78
3-79
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BOAT Treatment Standards
K048, K049, K050, K051 and K052
Pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) enacted
on November 8, 1984 and in accordance with the procedures for establishing
treatment standards under section 3004(m) of the Resource, Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
treatment standards for the listed wastes, K048, K049, K050, K051 and K052,
based on the performance of the treatment technologies determined by the
Agency to represent Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT). This
background document provides the detailed analyses that support this determi-
nation.
These BDAT treatment standards represent maximum acceptable concen-
tration levels for selected hazardous constituents in the wastes or residuals
from treatment and/or recycling. These levels are established as a prerequi-
site for land disposal of these wastes in accordance with 40 CFR Part 268
(Code of Federal Regulations). Wastes that when generated contain the regu-
lated constituents at concentrations that do not exceed the treatment stan-
dards are not restricted from land disposal. The Agency has chosen to set
levels for these wastes rather than designate the use of a specific treatment
technology. The Agency believes that this allows the generators of these
wastes a greater degree of flexibility in selecting a technology or train of
technologies that can achieve these standards.
-------
These standards become effective no later than August 8, 1988, as
described in the schedule set forth in 40 CFR 268.10. However, because of the
lack of nationwide incineration capacity at this time, the Agency is proposing
to grant a two year nationwide variance to the effective date of the land
disposal restrictions for these wastes.
According to 40 CFR 261.32 (hazardous wastes from specific sources)
waste codes K048, K049, K050, K051 and K052 (referred to collectively as
K048-K052) are from the petroleum refining industry and are listed as follows:
K048: Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the petroleum
refining industry;
K049: Slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining
industry;
K050: Heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum
refining industry;
K051: API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry;
and
K052: Tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining
industry.
Descriptions of the industry and specific processes generating these
wastes, as well as descriptions of the physical and chemical waste character-
istics, are provided in Section 2.0 of this document. The four digit Standard
Industry Classification (SIC) code most often reported for the industry
generating this waste code is 2911 (petroleum refining). The Agency estimates
that there are approximately 193 facilities that may generate wastes identi-
fied as K048-K052.
11
-------
The Agency has determined that K048-K052 collectively represent one
general waste treatability group with two subgroups - wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. For the purpose of the land disposal restrictions rule,
wastewaters are defined as wastes containing less than 1$ (weight basis)
filterable solids and less than 1/5 (weight basis) total organic carbon (TOC).
Wastes not meeting this definition are classified as nonwastewaters.
These waste treatability subgroups represent classes of wastes that
have similar physical and chemical properties within the treatability group.
EPA believes that each waste within these subgroups can be treated to the same
concentrations when similar treatment technologies are applied. The Agency
has examined the sources of these five petroleum refining wastes, the specific
similarities in waste composition, applicable and demonstrated technologies,
and attainable treatment performance in order to support a simplified regula-
tory approach. While the Agency has not, at this time, specifically identi-
fied additional wastes that fall into this treatability group or two sub-
groups, this does not preclude the Agency from using the treatment performance
data used to establish these standards to establish standards for other
similar wastes, in the future. A detailed discussion of applicable and
demonstrated treatment technologies is provided in Section 3.0 of this docu-
ment.
K048-K052, as generated, are oily sludges with moderate water
content and are typically classified as nonwastewaters. Solid residuals from
the treatment of these oily sludges (such as incinerator ash and
iii
-------
solidification residues) also fall into this classification. K048-K052
wastewaters are generated primarily as a result of the "derived-from rule" and
the "mixture-rule" as outlined in 40 CFR 261.3 (definition of hazardous
waste). The most common K048-K052 wastewaters are aqueous residues from
treatment (such as scrubber water and direct contact cooling waters) and
inadvertent mixtures of K048-K052 with other aqueous wastes.
The Agency is proposing BOAT treatment standards for the two treat-
ability subgroups of K048-K052 wastes - wastewaters and nonwastewaters. In
general, these treatment standards have been proposed for a total of seventeen
(17) organic constituents, eight (8) metal constituents and one inorganic
constituent; the Agency believes these constituents are indicators of effec-
tive treatment for all of the BOAT hazardous constituents that have been
identified as present in the individual K048-K052 wastes. The organic con-
stituents that are proposed for regulation in one or more of these five waste
codes are: benzene, toluene, xylene, acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, chrysene, ortho-cresol, para-cresol, 2,4-dimethyl-
phenol, di-n-butyl phthalate, fluorene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, phenol and
pyrene. The metals and inorganic constituents that are proposed for regula-
tion in one or more of these waste codes are arsenic, total chromium, copper,
lead, nickel, selenium, vanadium, zinc and cyanide. Not all constituents are
proposed for regulation in all five waste codes, since they were not found in
treatable quantities in all of the untreated wastes. A detailed discussion of
the selection of constituents to be regulated is presented in section 5.0 of
this document.
IV
-------
BDAT treatment standards for K048-K052 nonwastewater are proposed
based on performance data from a treatment train that consisted of full scale
fluidized bed incineration followed by ash stabilization. Ash stabilization
was achieved using lime and fly ash as stabilization agents. Testing was
performed on representative samples of nonwastewater K048 and K051. The
treatment performance data were then transferred to develop standards for
nonwastewater K049, K050 and K052. Fluidized bed incineration followed by ash
stabilization was determined to represent the best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT) based on a comparison of performance data from this
treatment train with performance data from other treatment technologies.
These included solvent extraction, thermal drying, pressure filtration, and
stabilization (without incineration). The Agency has determined that the data
for these technologies generally indicated a lower level of performance.
However, some of the data were not used because insufficient information were
available on the quality assurance procedures performed necessary for the
Agency to statistically compare the performance. A detailed discussion of the
identification of BDAT is presented in Section 4.0 of this document.
BDAT organic constituent treatment standards for K048-K052 waste-
waters are proposed based on a transfer of treatment performance data for the
scrubber water residual from the incineration of K019 nonwastewater (K019 is
listed as heavy ends from the distillation of ethylene dichloride in ethylene
dichloride production). Standards for inorganic constituents were developed
based on treatment of K062 and metal-bearing characteristic wastes from
chromium reduction, lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration.
-------
Treatment performance data were transferred on a constituent basis from either
the same constituent or, in the case of organic constituents, from constitu-
ents judged to be similar in physical and chemical properties. A detailed
discussion of the transfer of the data is presented in section 6.0 of this
document.
The following tables list the specific BOAT treatment standards for
wastes identified as K048, K049, K050, K051 and K052. The Agency is setting
standards based on analysis of total constituent concentration for organic and
inorganic constituents and based on analysis of leachate for metal
constituents K048-K052 nonwastewaters. Standards are based on analysis of
total constituent concentration for K048-K052 wastewaters. The leachate is
obtained by use of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) found
in Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 268. The units for total constituent
concentration are in parts per million (mg/kg) on a weight by weight basis for
nonwastewater and in parts per million (mg/1) on a weight by volume basis for
wastewater. The units for leachate analysis are in parts per million (mg/1)
on a weight by volume basis.
vi
-------
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K048-K052 NONWASTEWATERS
Regulated Organic
Constituents
4. Benzene
43. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal-
ate
80. Chrysene
81. ortho-Cresol
82. para-Cresol
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
121. Naphthalene
141. Penanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
Regulated Metal
Constituents
155. Arsenic
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Regulated Inorganic
Constituents
169. Cyanide
Total Concentration (mg/kg)
K048 K049 K050 K051 K052
NA 3.93 NA NA NA
3.93 3.93 NA 3.93 3.93
8.54 8.54 NA 8.54 8.54
NA NA 0.84 NA NA
4.18 NA NA NA NA
0.84 0.84 NA 0.84 NA
NA NA NA NA 0.84
NA NA NA NA 0.84
4.18 NA NA 4.18 NA
0.84 0.84 NA 0.84 0.84
0.84 0.84 NA 0.84 0.84
0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
NA 1.06 NA 1.06 NA
TCLP (mg/1)
K048
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
K049
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
K050
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
K051
Total Concentration (mg/kg)
K052
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
K048
1.48
K049
1.48
K050
1.48
K051
1.48
K052
1.48
NA - Not applicable.
for this waste.
This constituent is not being proposed for regulation
VII
-------
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048-K052 WASTEWATERS
Total Concentration (mg/1)
H-
H-
Regulated Constituents
4. Benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
52. Acenaphthene
57. Anthracene
81. ortho-Cresol
82. para-Cresol
96. 2,4-dimethylphenol
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
159. Chromium (total)
162. Lead
169. Zinc
K048
NA
0.007
0.007
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
K049
0.023
0.007
0.007
NA
0.007
NA
NA
0.007
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
K050
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
K051
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
K052
0.023
NA
0.007
NA
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
NA - Not Applicable. This constituent is not being proposed for regulation for this waste.
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This section of the background document presents a summary of the
legal authority pursuant to which the BOAT treatment standards were
developed, a summary of EPA's promulgated methodology for developing
BOAT, and finally a discussion of the petition process that should be
followed to request a variance from the BOAT treatment standards.
1.1 Legal Background
1.1.1 Requirements Under HSWA
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), enacted on
November 8, 1984, and which amended the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), impose substantial new responsibilities on
those who handle hazardous waste. In particular, the amendments require
the Agency to promulgate regulations that restrict the land disposal of
untreated hazardous wastes. In its enactment of HSWA, Congress stated
explicitly that "reliance on land disposal should be minimized or
eliminated, and land disposal, particularly landfill and surface
impoundment, should be the least favored method for managing hazardous
wastes" (RCRA section 1002(b)(7), 42 U.S.C. 6901(b)(7)).
One part of the amendments specifies dates on which particular groups
of untreated hazardous wastes will be prohibited from land disposal
unless "it has been demonstrated to the Administrator, to a reasonable
degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the
wastes remain hazardous" (RCRA section 3004(d)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5), 42
U.S.C. 6924 (d)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5)).
1-1
-------
For the purpose of the restrictions, HSWA defines land disposal "to
include, but not be limited to, any placement of ... hazardous waste in
a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land
treatment facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, or
underground mine or cave" (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C. 6924(k)).
Although HSWA defines land disposal to include injection wells, such
disposal of solvents, dioxins, and certain other wastes, known as the
California List wastes, is covered on a separate schedule (RCRA section
3004(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (f)(2)). This schedule requires that EPA
develop land disposal restrictions for deep well injection by
August 8, 1988.
The amendments also require the Agency to set "levels or methods of
treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste
or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are minimized" (RCRA section 3004(m)(l),
42 U.S.C. 6924 (m)(l)). Wastes that meet treatment standards established
by EPA are not prohibited and may be land disposed. In setting treatment
standards for listed or characteristic wastes, EPA may establish
different standards for particular wastes within a single waste code with
differing treatability characteristics. One such characteristic is the
physical form of the waste. This frequently leads to different standards
for wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
1-2
-------
Alternatively, EPA can establish a treatment standard that is applicable
to more than one waste code when, in EPA's judgment, all the waste can be
treated to the same concentration. In those instances where a generator
can demonstrate that the standard promulgated for the generator's waste
cannot be achieved, the Agency also can grant a variance from a treatment
standard by revising the treatment standard for that particular waste
through rulemaking procedures. (A further discussion of treatment
variances is provided in Section 1.3.)
The land disposal restrictions are effective when promulgated unless
the Administrator grants a national variance and establishes a different
date (not to exceed 2 years beyond the statutory deadline) based on "the
earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity which protects human health and the environment will be
available" (RCRA section 3004(h)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (h)(2)).
If EPA fails to set a treatment standard by the statutory deadline
for any hazardous waste in the First Third or Second Third of the
schedule (see section 1.1.2), the waste may not be disposed in a landfill
or surface impoundment unless the facility is in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements specified in section 3004(o) of RCRA.
In addition, prior to disposal, the generator must certify to the
Administrator that the availability of treatment capacity has been
investigated and it has been determined that disposal in a landfill or
surface impoundment is the only practical alternative to treatment
currently available to the generator. This restriction on the use of
1-3
-------
landfills and surface impoundments applies until EPA sets a treatment
standard for the waste or until May 8, 1990, whichever is sooner. If the
Agency fails to set a treatment standard for any ranked hazardous waste
by May 8, 1990, the waste is automatically prohibited from land disposal
unless the waste is placed in a land disposal unit that is the subject of
a successful "no migration" demonstration (RCRA section 3004(g), 42
U.S.C. 6924(g)). "No migration" demonstrations are based on case-
specific petitions that show there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the unit for as long as the waste remains hazardous.
1.1.2 Schedule for Developing Restrictions
Under Section 3004(g) of RCRA, EPA was required to establish a
schedule for developing treatment standards for all wastes that the
Agency had listed as hazardous by November 8, 1984. Section 3004(g)
required that this schedule consider the intrinsic hazards and volumes
associated with each of these wastes. The statute required EPA to set
treatment standards according to the following schedule:
(a) Solvents and dioxins standards must be promulgated by
November 8, 1986;
(b) The "California List" must be promulgated by July 8, 1987;
(c) At least one-third of all listed hazardous wastes must be
promulgated by August 8, 1988 (First Third);
(d) At least two-thirds of all listed hazardous wastes must be
promulgated by June 8, 1989 (Second Third); and
(e) All remaining listed hazardous wastes and all hazardous wastes
identified as of November 8, 1984, by one or more of the
characteristics defined in 40 CFR Part 261 must be promulgated
by May 8, 1990 (Third Third).
1-4
-------
The statute specifically identified the solvent wastes as those
covered under waste codes F001, F002, F003, F004, and F005; it identified
the dioxin-containing hazardous wastes as those covered under waste codes
F020, F021, F022, and F023.
Wastes collectively known as the California List wastes, defined
under Section 3004(d) of HSWA, are liquid hazardous wastes containing
metals, free cyanides, PCBs, corrosives (i.e., a pH less than or equal to
2.0), and any liquid or nonliquid hazardous waste containing halogenated
organic compounds (HOCs) above 0.1 percent by weight. Rules for the
California List were proposed on December 11, 1986, and final rules for
PCBs, corrosives, and HOC-containing wastes were established
August 12, 1987. In that rule, EPA elected not to establish standards
for metals. Therefore, the statutory limits became effective.
On May 28, 1986, EPA published a final rule (51 FR 19300) that
delineated the specific waste codes that would be addressed by the First
Third, Second Third, and Third Third. This schedule is incorporated into
40 CFR 268.10, .11, and .12.
1.2 Summary of Promulgated BOAT Methodology
In a November 7, 1986, rulemaking, EPA promulgated a technology-based
approach to establishing treatment standards under section 3004(m).
Section 3004(m) also specifies that treatment standards must "minimize"
long- and short-term threats to human health and the environment arising
from land disposal of hazardous wastes.
1-5
-------
Congress indicated in the legislative history accompanying the HSWA
that "[t]he requisite levels of [sic] methods of treatment established by
the Agency should be the best that has been demonstrated to be
achievable," noting that the intent is "to require utilization of
available technology" and not a "process which contemplates
technology-forcing standards" (Vol. 130 Cong. Rec. S9178 (daily ed.,
July 25, 1984)). EPA has interpreted this legislative history as
suggesting that Congress considered the requirement under 3004(m) to be
met by application of the best demonstrated and achievable (i.e.,
available) technology prior to land disposal of wastes or treatment
residuals. Accordingly, EPA's treatment standards are generally based on
the performance of the best demonstrated available technology (BOAT)
identified for treatment of the hazardous constituents. This approach
involves the identification of potential treatment systems, the
determination of whether they are demonstrated and available, and the
collection of treatment data from well-designed and well-operated systems.
The treatment standards, according to the statute, can represent
levels or methods of treatment, if any, that substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration
of hazardous constituents. Wherever possible, the Agency prefers to
establish BOAT treatment standards as "levels" of treatment
(i.e., performance standards) rather than adopting an approach that would
require the use of specific treatment "methods." EPA believes that
concentration-based treatment levels offer the regulated community greater
1-6
-------
flexibility to develop and implement compliance strategies as well as an
incentive to develop innovative technologies.
1.2.1 Waste Treatability Group
In developing the treatment standards, EPA first characterizes the
waste(s). As necessary, EPA may establish treatability groups for wastes
having similar physical and chemical properties. That is, if EPA
believes that wastes represented by different waste codes could be
treated to similar concentrations using identical technologies, the
Agency combines the codes into one treatability group. EPA generally
considers wastes to be similar when they are both generated from the same
industry and from similar processing stages. In addition, EPA may
combine two or more separate wastes into the same treatability group when
data are available showing that the waste characteristics affecting
performance are similar or that one waste would be expected to be less
difficult to treat.
Once the treatability groups have been established, EPA collects and
analyzes data on identified technologies used to treat the wastes in each
treatability group. The technologies evaluated must be demonstrated on
the waste or a similar waste and must be available for use.
1.2.2 Demonstrated and Available Treatment Technologies
Consistent with legislative history, EPA considers demonstrated
technologies to be those that are used to treat the waste of interest or
a similar waste with regard to parameters that affect treatment selection
(see November 7, 1986, 51 FR 40588). EPA also will consider as treatment
those technologies used to separate or otherwise process chemicals and
1-7
-------
other materials. Some of these technologies clearly are applicable to
waste treatment, since the wastes are similar to raw materials processed
in industrial applications.
For most of the waste treatability groups for which EPA will
promulgate treatment standards, EPA will identify demonstrated
technologies either through review of literature related to current waste
treatment practices or on the basis of information provided by specific
facilities currently treating the waste or similar wastes.
In cases where the Agency does not identify any facilities treating
wastes represented by a particular waste treatability group, EPA may
transfer a finding of demonstrated treatment. To do this, EPA will
compare the parameters affecting treatment selection for the waste
treatability group of interest to other wastes for which demonstrated
technologies already have been determined. The parameters affecting
treatment selection and their use for this waste are described in
Section 3.4 of this document. If the parameters affecting treatment
selection are similar, then the Agency will consider the treatment
technology also to be demonstrated for the waste of interest. For
example, EPA considers rotary kiln incineration a demonstrated technology
for many waste codes containing hazardous organic constituents, high
total organic content, and high filterable solids content, regardless of
whether any facility is currently treating these wastes. The basis for
this determination is data found in literature and data generated by EPA
confirming the use of rotary kiln incineration on wastes having the above
characteristics.
1-8
-------
If no commercial treatment or recovery operations are identified for
a waste or wastes with similar physical or chemical characteristics that
affect treatment selection, the Agency will be unable to identify any
demonstrated treatment technologies for the waste, and, accordingly, the
waste will be prohibited from land disposal (unless handled in accordance
with the exemption and variance provisions of the rule). The Agency is,
however, committed to establishing treatment standards as soon as new or
improved treatment processes are demonstrated (and available).
Operations only available at research facilities, pilot- and bench-
scale operations will not be considered in identifying demonstrated
treatment technologies for a waste because these technologies would not
necessarily be "demonstrated." Nevertheless, EPA may use data generated
at research facilities in assessing the performance of demonstrated
technologies.
As discussed earlier, Congress intended that technologies used to
establish treatment standards under Section 3004(m) be not only
"demonstrated," but also available. To decide whether demonstrated
technologies may be considered "available," the Agency determines whether
they (1) are commercially available and (2) substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration
of hazardous constituents from the waste.
EPA will only set treatment standards based on a technology that
meets the above criteria. Thus, the decision to classify a technology as
"unavailable" will have a direct impact on the treatment standard. If
1-9
-------
the best technology is unavailable, the treatment standard will be based
on the next best treatment technology determined to be available. To the
extent that the resulting treatment standards are less stringent, greater
concentrations of hazardous constituents in the treatment residuals could
be placed in land disposal units.
There also may be circumstances in which EPA concludes that for a
given waste none of the demonstrated treatment technologies are
"available" for purposes of establishing the 3004(m) treatment
performance standards. Subsequently, these wastes will be prohibited
from continued placement in or on the land unless managed in accordance
with applicable exemptions and variance provisions. The Agency is,
however, committed to establishing new treatment standards as soon as new
or improved treatment processes become "available."
(1) Proprietary or Patented Processes. If the demonstrated
treatment technology is a proprietary or patented process that is not
generally available, EPA will not consider the technology in its
determination of the treatment standards. EPA will consider proprietary
or patented processes available if it determines that the treatment
method can be purchased or licensed from the proprietor or is
commercially available treatment. The services of the commercial
facility offering this technology often can be purchased even if the
technology itself cannot be purchased.
(2) Substantial Treatment. To be considered "available," a
demonstrated treatment technology must "substantially diminish the
1-10
-------
toxicity" of the waste or "substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents" from the waste in accordance with
section 3004(m). By requiring that substantial treatment be achieved in
order to set a treatment standard, the statute ensures that all wastes
are adequately treated before being placed in or on the land and ensures
that the Agency does not require a treatment method that provides little
or no environmental benefit. Treatment will always be deemed substantial
if it results in nondetectable levels of the hazardous constituents of
concern. If nondetectable levels are not achieved, then a determination
of substantial treatment will be made on a case-by-case basis. This
approach is necessary because of the difficulty of establishing a
meaningful guideline that can be applied broadly to the many wastes and
technologies to be considered. EPA will consider the following factors
in an effort to evaluate whether a technology provides substantial
treatment on a case-by-case basis:
(a) Number and types of constituents treated;
(b) Performance (concentration of the constituents in the
treatment residuals); and
(c) Percent of constituents removed.
If none of the demonstrated treatment technologies achieve
substantial treatment of a waste, the Agency cannot establish treatment
standards for the constituents of concern in that waste.
1.2.3 Collection of Performance Data
Performance data on the demonstrated available technologies are
evaluated by the Agency to determine whether the data are representative
1-11
-------
of well-designed and well-operated treatment systems. Only data from
well-designed and well-operated systems are included in determining
BOAT. The data evaluation includes data already collected directly by
EPA and/or data provided by industry. In those instances where
additional data are needed to supplement existing information, EPA
collects additional data through a sampling and analysis program. The
principal elements of this data collection program are: (a) identifi-
cation of facilities for site visits, (b) engineering site visit,
(c) Sampling and Analysis Plan, (d) sampling visit, and (e) Onsite
Engineering Report.
(1) Identification of Facilities for Site Visits. To identify
facilities that generate and/or treat the waste of concern, EPA uses a
number of information sources. These include Stanford Research
Institute's Directory of Chemical Producers, EPA's Hazardous Waste Data
Management System (HWDMS), the 1986 Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facility
(TSDF) National Screening Survey, and EPA's Industry Studies Data Base.
In addition, EPA contacts trade associations to inform them that the
Agency is considering visits to facilities in their industry and to
solicit assistance in identifying facilities for EPA to consider in its
treatment sampling program.
After identifying facilities that treat the waste, EPA uses this
hierarchy to select sites for engineering visits: (1) generators treating
single wastes on site; (2) generators treating multiple wastes together
on site; (3) commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
1-12
-------
(TSDFs); and (4) EPA in-house treatment. This hierarchy is based on two
concepts: (1) to the extent possible, EPA should develop treatment
standards from data produced by treatment facilities handling only a
single waste, and (2) facilities that routinely treat a specific waste
have had the best opportunity to optimize design parameters. Although
excellent treatment can occur at many facilities that are not high in
this hierarchy, EPA has adopted this approach to avoid, when possible,
ambiguities related to the mixing of wastes before and during treatment.
When possible, the Agency will evaluate treatment technologies using
commercially operated systems. If performance data from properly
designed and operated commercial treatment methods for a particular waste
or a waste judged to be similar are not available, EPA may use data from
research facilities operations. Whenever research facility data are
used, EPA will explain why such data were used in the preamble and
background document and will request comments on the use of such data.
Although EPA's data bases provide information on treatment for
individual wastes, the data bases rarely provide data that support the
selection of one facility for sampling over another. In cases where
several treatment sites appear to fall into the same level of the
hierarchy, EPA selects sites for visits strictly on the basis of which
facility could most expeditiously be visited and later sampled if
justified by the engineering visit.
1-13
-------
(2) Engineering Site Visit. Once a treatment facility has been
selected, an engineering site visit is made to confirm that a candidate
for sampling meets EPA's criteria for a well-designed facility and to
ensure that the necessary sampling points can be accessed to determine
operating parameters and treatment effectiveness. During the visit, EPA
also confirms that the facility appears to be well operated, although the
actual operation of the treatment system during sampling is the basis for
EPA's decisions regarding proper operation of the treatment unit. In
general, the Agency considers a well-designed facility to be one that
contains the unit operations necessary to treat the various hazardous
constituents of the waste as well as to control other nonhazardous
materials in the waste that may affect treatment performance.
In addition to ensuring that a system is reasonably well designed,
the engineering visit examines whether the facility has a way to measure
the operating parameters that affect performance of the treatment system
during the waste treatment period. For example, EPA may choose not to
sample a treatment system that operates in a continuous mode, for which
an important operating parameter cannot be continuously recorded. In
such systems, instrumentation is important in determining whether the
treatment system is operating at design values during the waste treatment
period.
(3) Sampling and Analysis Plan. If after the engineering site visit
the Agency decides to sample a particular plant, the Agency will then
develop a site-specific Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) according to the
Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Land Disposal Restriction
1-14
-------
Program ("BOAT"), EPA/530-SW-87-011. In brief, the SAP discusses where
the Agency plans to sample, how the samples will be taken, the frequency
of sampling, the constituents .to be analyzed and the method of analysis,
operational parameters to be obtained, and specific laboratory quality
control checks on the analytical results.
The Agency will generally produce a draft of the site-specific
Sampling and Analysis Plan within 2 to 3 weeks of the engineering visit.
The draft of the SAP is then sent to the plant for review and comment.
With few exceptions, the draft SAP should be a confirmation of data
collection activities discussed with the plant personnel during the
engineering site visit. EPA encourages plant personnel to recommend any
modifications to the SAP that they believe will improve the quality of
the data.
It is important to note that sampling of a plant by EPA does not mean
that the data will be used in the development of treatment standards for
BOAT. EPA's final decision on whether to use data from a sampled plant
depends on the actual analysis of the waste being treated and on the
operating conditions at the time of sampling. Although EPA would not
plan to sample a facility that was not ostensibly well-designed and
well-operated, there is no way to ensure that at the time of the sampling
the facility will not experience operating problems. Additionally, EPA
statistically compares its test data to suitable industry-provided data,
where available, in its determination of what data to use in developing
treatment standards. The methodology for comparing data is presented
later in this section.
1-15
-------
(Note: Facilities wishing to submit data for consideration in the
development of BOAT standards should, to the extent possible, provide
sampling information similar to that acquired by EPA. Such facilities
should review the Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Land
Disposal Restriction Program ("BOAT"), which delineates all of the
quality control and quality assurance measures associated with sampling
and analysis. Quality assurance and quality control procedures are
summarized in Section 1.2.6 of this document.)
(4) Sampling Visit. The purpose of the sampling visit is to collect
samples that characterize the performance of the treatment system and to
document the operating conditions that existed during the waste treatment
period. At a minimum, the Agency attempts to collect sufficient samples
of the untreated waste and solid and liquid treatment residuals so that
variability in the treatment process can be accounted for in the
development of the treatment standards. To the extent practicable, and
within safety constraints, EPA or its contractors collect all samples and
ensure that chain-of-custody procedures are conducted so that the
integrity of the data is maintained.
In general, the samples collected during the sampling visit will have
already been specified in the SAP. In some instances, however, EPA will
not be able to collect all planned samples because of changes in the
facility operation or plant upsets; EPA will explain any such deviations
from the SAP in its follow-up Onsite Engineering Report.
1-16
-------
(5) Onsite Engineering Report. EPA summarizes all its data
collection activities and associated analytical results for testing at a
facility in a report referred to as the Onsite Engineering Report (OER).
This report characterizes the waste(s) treated, the treated residual
concentrations, the design and operating data, and all analytical results
including methods used and accuracy results. This report also describes
any deviations from EPA's suggested analytical methods for hazardous
wastes (Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846, Third Edition,
November 1986).
After the Onsite Engineering Report is completed, the report is
submitted to the plant for review. This review provides the plant with a
final opportunity to claim any information contained in the report as
confidential. Following the review and incorporation of comments, as
appropriate, the report is made available to the public with the
exception of any material claimed as confidential by the plant.
1.2.4 Hazardous Constituents Considered and Selected for Regulation
(1) Development of BOAT List. The list of hazardous constituents
within the waste codes that are targeted for treatment is referred to by
the Agency as the BOAT constituent list. This list, provided as Table
1-1, is derived from the constituents presented in 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix VII and Appendix VIII, as well as several ignitable constituents
used as the basis of listing wastes as F003 and F005. These sources
provide a comprehensive list of hazardous constituents specifically
regulated under RCRA. The BOAT list consists of those constituents that
can be analyzed using methods published in SW-846, Third Edition.
1-17
-------
Table 1-1 BOAT Constituent List
BOAT
reference
no.
222
1
2
3
4
5
6.
223
7
8
9.
10.
11.
12
13.
14.
15.
16
17.
18.
19.
20.
21
22
23
24.
25
25
27.
28
29
224
225.
226
30
227
31.
214
32.
Parameter
Volatiles
Acetone
Acetonitri le
Acrolein
Acrylonitri le
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon tetrachlor ide
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l,3-butadiene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
1 , 2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Oibromomethane
Trans -1 , 4-Dichloro-2-butene
Oichlorodif luoromethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Oichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
Trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Oichloropropane
Trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
cis-1 ,3-Oichloropropene
1 ,4-Dioxane
2-Ethoxyethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
CAS no.
67-64-1
75-05-8
107-02-8
107-13-1
71-43-2
75-27-4
74-83-9
71-36-3
56-23-5
75-15-0
108-90-7
126-99-8
124-48-1
75-00-3
110-75-8
67-66-3
74-87-3
107-05-1
96-12-8
106-93-4
74-95-3
110-57-6
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-60-5
78-87-5
10061-02-6
10061-01-5
123-91-1
110-80-5
141-78-6
100-41-4
107-12-0
60-29-7
97-63-2
75-21-8
74-88-4
1-18
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no.
33.
228
34
229.
35.
37
38
230.
39.
40.
41.
42
43.
44.
45
46.
47
48.
49.
231.
50
215.
216.
217
51
52.
53
54
55
56
57.
58
59.
218
60
61
62.
Parameter
Volatiles (continued)
Isobutyl alcohol
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methacrylonitri le
Methylene chloride
2-Nitropropane
Pyridine
1,1,1 , 2-Tetrachloroethane
1, 1 ,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tribromomethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromonof luoromethane
1 ,2,3-Tnchloropropane
1, 1,2-Tnchloro- 1,2,2- tr if luoro-
ethane
Vinyl chloride
1,2-Xylene
1.3-Xylene
1 ,4-Xy lene
Semivolat i les
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2 -Acety lam inof luorene
4-Ammobipheny 1
Am 1 me
Anthracene
Aramite
Benz(a)anthracene
Benza 1 chloride
Benzenethiol
Deleted
Benzo(a)pyrene
CAS no.
78-83-1
67-56-1
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
126-98-7
75-09-2
79-46-9
110-86-1
630-20-6
79-34-6
127-18-4
108-88-3
75-25-2
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
96-18-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
97-47-6
108-38-3
106-44-5
208-96-8
83-32-9
96-86-2
53-96-3
92-67-1
62-53-3
120-12-7
140-57-8
56-55-3
98-87-3
108-98-5
50-32-8
1-19
-------
Table l-L (continued)
BOAT
reference
no.
63
64
65.
66.
67
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76
77.
78.
79.
80.
81
82.
232.
83
84.
85
86.
87.
88.
89.
90
91
92.
93
94
95
96
97.
98.
99.
100
101
Parameter
Semivolat i les (continued)
Benzof b) f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
p-Benzoqumone
Bis(2-chloroethoxy (methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2- sec-Butyl -4. 6-dinitrophenol
p-Chloroani 1 me
Chlorobenzi late
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitr i le
Chrysene
ortho-Creso)
para-Cresol
Cyclohexanone
0 i benz ( a, h) anthracene
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene
Dibenzo(a, i (pyrene
m-Oichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2.6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3.3'-Qimethoxybenz \dine
p-0 1 me thy Idminoazoben^ene
3,3' -Dimethyl benz id me
2, 4-Oimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1,4-Dmitrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Omitrophenol
CAS no.
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
106-51-4
111-91-1
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
101-55-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
106-47-8
510-15-6
59-50-7
91-58-7
95-57-8
542-76-7
218-01-9
95-48-7
106-44-5
108-94-1
53-70-3
192-65-4
189-55-9
541-73-1
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
120-83-2
87-65-0
84-66-2
119-90-4
60-11-7
119-93-7
105-67-9
131-11-3
84-74-2
100-25-4
534-52-1
51-28-5
1-20
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
102.
103
104.
105.
106
219.
107
108.
109
110.
111.
112
113
114
115
116.
117
118.
119.
120
36
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129.
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
13o.
Parameter
Semivolati les (continued)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Oinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propy Initrosamine
Diphenylamine
Dipheny Initrosamine
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isosaf role
Methapyn lene
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4'-Methylenebis
(2-chloroani 1 me)
Methyl methanesu Ifonate
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqumone
1-Naphthylamme
2-Naphthylamme
p-Nitroani 1 me
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nit rosodl -n-buty lam me
N-Nitrosodiethylamme
N-N it rosodl me thy lam me
N-Nit rosomethy let hy lamine
N-Nitrosomorphol me
N-Nitrosopiperidme
n-N itrosopyrrol id me
5-Nitro-o-toluidme
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentach loroethane
Pentach loron 1 1 robenzene
CAS no.
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
621-64-7
122-39-4
86-30-6
122-66-7
206-44-0
86-73-7
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47-4
67-72-1
70-30-4
1888-71-7
193-39-5
120-58-1
91-80-5
56-49-5
101-14-4
66-27-3
91-20-3
130-15-4
134-32-7
91-59-8
100-01-6
98-95-3
100-02-7
924-16-3
55-18-5
62-75-9
10595-95-6
59-B9-2
100-75-4
930-55-2
99-65-8
608-93-5
76-01-7
82-68-8
1-23
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no.
139.
140.
141.
142.
220.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158
159.
221.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
Parameter
Semivolat i les (continued)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacet in
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phthalic anhydride
2-Picoline
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorcinol
Saf role
1 ,2, 4, 5-Tetrach lorobenzene
2 , 3 , 4 , 6-Tet rach loropheno 1
1 , 2, 4-Tnch lorobenzene
2, 4, 5-Tnch loropheno 1
2,4,6-Tnchlorophenol
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)
phosphate
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl lium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Tha 1 1 lum
Vanadium
Zinc
Inorqan ics
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulf ide
CAS no.
87-86-5
62-44-2
85-01-8
108-95-2
85-44-9
109-06-8
23950-58-5
129-00-0
108-46-3
94-59-7
95-94-3
58-90-2
120-82-1
95-95-4
88-06-2
126-72-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
-
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
57-12-5
16964-48-8
8496-25-8
1-22
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
172.
173.
174.
175
176.
177
178
179
180
1B1.
182
183
184.
1H5.
186
187
188.
189
190.
191
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197
198
199.
200.
201.
202
Parameter
Orqanochlonne pesticides
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma -BHC
Chlordane
ODD
DDE
DOT
Dteldr in
Endosu Ifan I
Endosulfan II
Endnn
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Isodr in
Kepone
Methoxyclor
Toxaphene
Phenoxvacet ic acid herbicides
2,4-Oichlorophenoxyacet ic acid
Si Ivex
2,4,5-T
OrqanoDhosphorous insecticides
Disulfoton
Famphur
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Phorate
PCBs
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
CAS no.
309-00-2
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
57-74-9
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
60-57-1
939-98-8
33213-6-5
72-20-8
7421-93-4
76-44-8
1024-57-3
465-73-6
143-50-0
72-43-5
8001-35-2
94-75-7
93-72-1
93-76-5
298-04-4
52-85-7
298-00-0
56-38-2
298-02-2
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
1-23
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference Parameter CAS no.
no.
PCBs (continued)
203. Aroclor 1242 53469-21-9
204. Aroclor 1248 12672-29-6
205. Aroclor 1254 11097-69-1
206. Aroclor 1260 11096-82-5
Dioxins and furans
207. Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxms
208. Hexachlorodibenzofurans
209. Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
210 Pentachlorodibenzofurans
211 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
212. Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
213. 2,3.7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1746-01-6
1-24
-------
The initial BOAT constituent list was published in EPA's Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan, March 1987 (EPA/530-SW-87-011).
Additional constituents will be added to the BOAT constituent list as
additional key constituents are identified for specific waste codes or as
new analytical methods are developed for hazardous constituents. For
example, since the list was published in March 1987, eighteen additional
constituents (hexavalent chromium, xylene (all three isomers), benzal
chloride, phthalic anhydride, ethylene oxide, acetone, n-butyl alcohol,
2-ethoxyethanol, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methanol,
methyl isobutyl ketone, 2-nitropropane, l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-
trifluoroethane, and cyclohexanone) have been added to the list.
Chemicals are listed in Appendix VIII if they are shown in scientific
studies to have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on
humans or other life-forms, and they include such substances as those
identified by the Agency's Carcinogen Assessment Group as being
carcinogenic. Including a constituent in Appendix VIII means that the
constituent can be cited as a basis for listing toxic wastes.
Although Appendix VII, Appendix VIII, and the F003 and F005
ignitables provide a comprehensive list of RCRA-regulated hazardous
constituents, not all of the constituents can be analyzed in a complex
waste matrix. Therefore, constituents that could not be readily analyzed
in an unknown waste matrix were not included on the initial BOAT list.
As mentioned above, however, the BOAT constituent list is a continuously
growing list that does not preclude the addition of new constituents when
analytical methods are developed.
1-25
-------
There are 5 major reasons that constituents were not included on the
BOAT constituent list:
(a) Constituents are unstable. Based on their chemical structure,
some constituents will either decompose in water or will
ionize. For example, maleic anhydride will form maleic acid
when it comes in contact with water and copper cyanide will
ionize to form copper and cyanide ions. However, EPA may choose
to regulate the decomposition or ionization products.
(b) EPA-approved or verified analytical methods are not available.
Many constituents, such as 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene, are not
measured adequately or even detected using any of EPA's
analytical methods published in SW-846 Third Edition.
(c) The constituent is a member of a chemical group designated in
Appendix VIII as not otherwise specified (N.O.S.). Constituents
listed as N.O.S., such as chlorinated phenols, are a generic
group of some types of chemicals for which a single analytical
procedure is not available. The .individual members of each such
group need to be listed to determine whether the constituents
can be analyzed. For each N.O.S. group, all those constituents
that can be readily analyzed are included in the BOAT
constituents list.
(d) Available analytical procedures are not appropriate for a
complex waste matrix. Some compounds, such as auramine, can be
analyzed as a pure constituent. However, in the presence of
other constituents, the recommended analytical method does not
positively identify the constituent. The use of high pressure
liquid chromotography (HPLC) presupposes a high expectation of
finding the specific constituents of interest. In using this
procedure to screen samples, protocols would have to be
developed on a case-specific basis to verify the identity of
constituents present in the samples. Therefore, HPLC is not an
appropriate analytical procedure for complex samples containing
unkown constituents.
(e) Standards for analytical instrument calibration are not
commercially available. For several constituents, such as
benz(c)acridine, commercially available standards of a
"reasonably" pure grade are not available. The unavailability
of a standard was determined by a review of catalogs from
specialty chemical manufacturers.
1-26
-------
Two constituents (fluoride and sulfide) are not specifically included
in Appendices VII and VIII; however, these compounds are included on the
BOAT list as indicator constituents for compounds from Appendices VII and
VIII such as hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen sulfide, which ionize in
water.
The BOAT constituent list presented in Table 1-1 is divided into the
following nine groups:
Volatile organics
Semivolatile organics
Metals
Other inorganics
Organochlorine pesticides
Phenoxyacetic acid herbicides
Organophosphorous insecticides
PCBs
Dioxins and furans
The constituents were placed in these categories based on their chemical
properties. The constituents in each group are expected to behave
similarily during treatment and are also analyzed, with the exception of
the metals and inorganics, by using the same analytical methods.
(2) Constituent Selection Analysis. The constituents that the
Agency selects for regulation in each treatability group are, in general,
those found in the untreated wastes at treatable concentrations. For
certain waste codes, the target list for the untreated waste may have
been shortened (relative to analyses performed to test treatment
technologies) because of the extreme unlikelihood of the constituent
being present.
1-27
-------
In selecting constituents for regulation, the first step is to
summarize all the constituents that were found in the untreated waste at
treatable concentrations. This process involves the use of the
statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, described in Section
1.2.6, to determine if constituent reductions were significant. The
Agency interprets a significant reduction in concentration as evidence
that the technology actually "treats" the waste.
There are some instances where EPA may regulate constituents that are
not found in the untreated waste but are detected in the treated
residual. This is generally the case where presence of the constituents
in the untreated waste interferes with the quantification of the
constituent of concern. In such instances, the detection levels of the
constituent are relatively high, resulting in a finding of "not detected"
when, in fact, the constituent is present in the waste.
After determining which of the constituents in the untreated waste
are present at treatable concentrations, EPA develops a list of potential
constituents for regulation. The Agency then reviews this list to
determine if any of these constituents can be excluded from regulation
because they would be controlled by regulation of other constituents in
the list.
EPA performs this indicator analysis for two reasons: (1) it reduces
the analytical cost burdens on the treater and (2) it facilitates
implementation of the compliance and enforcement program. EPA's
rationale for selection of regulated constituents for this waste code is
presented in Section 5 of this background document.
1-28
-------
(3) Calculation of Standards. The final step in the calculation of
the BOAT treatment standard is the multiplication of the average
treatment value by a factor referred to by the Agency as the variability
factor. This calculation takes into account that even well-designed and
well-operated treatment systems will experience some fluctuations in
performance. EPA expects that fluctuations will result from inherent
mechanical limitations in treatment control systems, collection of
treated samples, and analysis of these samples. All of the above
fluctuations can be expected to occur at well-designed and well-operated
treatment facilities. Therefore, setting treatment standards utilizing a
variability factor should be viewed not as a relaxing of 3004(m)
requirements, but rather as a function of the normal variability of the
treatment processes. A treatment facility will have to be designed to
meet the mean achievable treatment performance level to ensure that the
performance levels remain within the limits of the treatment standard.
The Agency calculates a variability factor for each constituent of
concern within a waste treatability group using the statistical
calculation presented in Appendix A. The equation for calculating the
variability factor is the same as that used by EPA for the development of
numerous regulations in the Effluent Guidelines Program under the Clean
Water Act. The variability factor establishes the instantaneous maximum
based on the 99th percentile value.
There is an additional step in the calculation of the treatment
standards in those instances where the ANOVA analysis shows that more
1-29
-------
than one technology achieves a level of performance that represents
BOAT. In such instances, the BOAT treatment standard is calculated by
first averaging the mean performance value for each technology for each
constituent of concern and then multiplying that value by the highest
variability factor among the technologies considered. This procedure
ensures that all the BOAT technologies used as the basis for the
standards will achieve full compliance.
1.2.5 Compliance with Performance Standards
All the treatment standards reflect performance achieved by the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT). As such, compliance with these
standards only requires that the treatment level be achieved prior to
land disposal. It does not require the use of any particular treatment
technology. While dilution of the waste as a means to comply with the
standard is prohibited, wastes that are generated in such a way as to
naturally meet the standard can be land disposed without treatment. With
the exception of treatment standards that prohibit land disposal, all
treatment standards proposed are expressed as a concentration level.
EPA has used both total constituent concentration and TCLP analyses
of the treated waste as a measure of technology performance. EPA's
rationale for when each of these analytical tests is used is explained in
the following discussion.
For all organic constituents, EPA is basing the treatment standards
on the total constituent concentration found in the treated waste. EPA
based its decision on the fact that technologies exist to destroy the
1-30
-------
various organics compounds. Accordingly, the best measure of performance
would be the extent to which the various organic compounds have been
destroyed or the total amount of constituent remaining after treatment.
(NOTE: EPA's land disposal restrictions for solvent waste codes
F001-F005 (51 PR 40572) uses the TCLP value as a measure of performance.
At the time that EPA promulgated the treatment standards for F001-F005,
useful data were not available on total constituent concentrations in
treated residuals and, as a result, the TCLP data were considered to be
the best measure of performance.)
For all metal constituents, EPA is using both total constituent
concentration and/or the TCLP as the basis for treatment standards. The
total constituent concentration is being used when the technology basis
includes a metal recovery operation. The underlying principle of metal
recovery is the reduction of the amount of metal in a waste by separating
the metal for recovery; therefore, total constituent concentration in the
treated residual is an important measure of performance for this
technology. Additionally, EPA also believes that it is important that
any remaining metal in a treated residual waste not be in a state that is
easily Teachable; accordingly, EPA is also using the TCLP as a measure of
performance. It is important to note that for wastes for which treatment
standards are based on a metal recovery process, the facility has to
comply with both the total constituent concentration and the TCLP prior
to land disposal.
1-31
-------
In cases where treatment standards for metals are not based on
recovery techniques but rather on stabilization, EPA is using only the
TCLP as a measure of performance. The Agency's rationale is that
stabilization is not meant to reduce the concentration of metal in a
waste but only to chemically minimize the ability of the metal to leach.
1.2.6 Identification of BOAT
(1) Screening of Treatment Data. This section explains how the
Agency determines which of the treatment technologies represent treatment
by BOAT. The first activity is to screen the treatment performance data
from each of the demonstrated and available technologies according to the
following criteria:
(a) Design and operating data associated with the treatment data
must reflect a well-designed, well-operated system for each
treatment data point. (The specific design and operating
parameters for each demonstrated technology for this waste code
are discussed in Section 3.4 of this document.)
(b) Sufficient QA/QC data must be available to determine the true
values of the data from the treated waste. This screening
criterion involves adjustment of treated data to take into
account that the type value may be different from the measured
value. This discrepancy generally is caused by other
constituents in the waste that can mask results or otherwise
interfere with the analysis of the constituent of concern.
(c) The measure of performance must be consistent with EPA's
approach to evaluating treatment by type of constituents (e.g.,
total concentration data for organics, and total concentration
and TCLP for metals in the leachate from the residual).
In the absence of data needed to perform the screening analysis, EPA
will make decisions on a case-by-case basis of whether to include the
data. The factors included in this case-by-case analysis will be the
1-32
-------
actual treatment levels achieved, the availability of the treatment data
and their completeness (with respect to the above criteria), and EPA's
assessment of whether the untreated waste represents the waste code of
concern. EPA's application of these screening criteria for this waste
code are provided in Section 4 of this background document.
(2) Comparison of Treatment Data. In cases in which EPA has
treatment data from more than one technology following the screening
activity, EPA uses the statistical method known as analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to determine if one technology performs significantly better.
This statistical method (summarized in Appendix A) provides a measure of
the differences between two data sets. If EPA finds that one technology
performs significantly better (i.e., the data sets are not homogeneous),
BOAT treatment standards are the level of performance achieved by the
best technology multiplied by the corresponding variability factor for
each regulated constituent.
If the differences in the data sets are not statistically
significant, the data sets are said to be homogeneous. Specifically, EPA
uses the analysis of variance to determine whether BOAT represents a
level of performance achieved by only one technology or represents a
level of performance achieved by more than one (or all) of the
technologies. If the Agency finds that the levels of performance for one
or more technologies are not statistically different, EPA averages the
performance values achieved by each technology and then multiplies this
value by the largest variability factor associated with any of the
1-33
-------
acceptable technologies. A detailed discussion of the treatment
selection method and an example of how EPA chooses BOAT from multiple
treatment systems is provided in Section A-l.
(3) Quality Assurance/Quality Control. This section presents the
principal quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures employed
in screening and adjusting the data to be used in the calculation of
treatment standards. Additional QA/QC procedures used in collecting and
screening data for the BOAT program are presented in EPA's Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program
("BOAT") (EPA/530-SW-87-001, March 1987).
To calculate the treatment standards for the Land Disposal
Restriction Rules, it is first necessary to determine the recovery value
for each constituent (the amount of constituent recovered after spiking,
which is the addition of a known amount of the constituent, minus the
initial concentration in the samples divided by the amount added) for a
spike of the treated residual. Once the recovery value is determined,
the following procedures are used to select the appropriate percent
recovery value to adjust the analytical data:
(a) If duplicate spike recovery values are available for the
constituent of interest, the data are adjusted by the lowest
available percent recovery value (i.e., the value that will
yield the most conservative estimate of treatment achieved).
However, if a spike recovery value of less than 20 percent is
reported for a specific constituent, the data are not used to
set treatment standards because the Agency does not have
sufficient confidence in the reported value to set a national
standard.
1-34
-------
(b) If data are not available for a specific constituent but are
available for an isomer, then the spike recovery data are
transferred from the isomer and the data are adjusted using the
percent recovery selected according to the procedure described
in (a) above.
(c) If data are not available for a specific constituent but are
available for a similar class of constituents (e.g., volatile
organics, acid-extractable semivolatiles), then spike recovery
data available for this class of constituents are transferred.
All spike recovery values greater than or equal to 20 percent
for a spiked sample are averaged and the constituent
concentration is adjusted by the average recovery value. If
spiked recovery data are available for more than one sample, the
average is calculated for each sample and the data are adjusted
by the lowest average value.
(d) If matrix spike recovery data are not available for a set of
data to be used to calculate treatment standards, then matrix
spike recovery data are transferred from a waste that the Agency
believes is a similar matrix (e.g., if the data are for an ash
from incineration, then data from other incinerator ashes could
be used). While EPA recognizes that transfer of matrix spike
recovery data from a similar waste is not an exact analysis,
this is considered the best approach for adjusting the data to
account for the fact that most analyses do not result in
extraction of 100 percent of the constituent. In assessing the
recovery data to be transferred, the procedures outlined in (a),
(b), and (c) above are followed.
The analytical procedures employed to generate the data used to
calculate the treatment standards are listed in Appendix D of this
document. In cases where alternatives or equivalent procedures and/or
equipment are allowed in EPA's SW-846, Third Edition (November 1986)
methods, the specific procedures and equipment used are also documented
in this Appendix. In addition, any deviations from the SW-846, Third
Edition, methods used to analyze the specific waste matrices are
documented. It is important to note that the Agency will use the methods
and procedures delineated in Appendix D to enforce the treatment
1-35
-------
standards presented in Section 6 of this document. Accordingly,
facilities should use these procedures in assessing the performance of
their treatment systems.
1.2.7 BOAT Treatment Standards for "Derived-From" and "Mixed" Wastes
(1) Wastes from Treatment Trains Generating Multiple Residues. In a
number of instances, the proposed BOAT consists of a series of operations
each of which generates a waste residue. For example, the proposed BOAT
for a certain waste code is based on solvent extraction, steam stripping,
and activated carbon adsorption. Each of these treatment steps generates
a waste requiring treatment -- a solvent-containing stream from solvent
extraction, a stripper overhead, and spent activated carbon. Treatment
of these wastes may generate further residues; for instance, spent
activated carbon (if not regenerated) could be incinerated, generating an
ash and possibly a scrubber water waste. Ultimately, additional wastes
are generated that may require land disposal. With respect to these
wastes, the Agency wishes to emphasize the following points:
(a) All of the residues from treating the original listed wastes are
likewise considered to be the listed waste by virtue of the
derived-from rule contained in 40 CFR Part 261.3(c)(2). (This
point is discussed more fully in (2) below.) Consequently, all
of the wastes generated in the course of treatment would be
prohibited from land disposal unless they satisfy the treatment
standard or meet one of the exceptions to the prohibition.
(b) The Agency's proposed treatment standards generally contain a
concentration level for wastewaters and a concentration level
for nonwastewaters. The treatment standards apply to all of the
wastes generated in treating the original prohibited waste.
Thus, all solids generated from treating these wastes would have
1-36
-------
to meet the treatment standard for nonwastewaters. All
derived-from wastes meeting the Agency definition of wastewater
(less than 1 percent TOC and less than 1 percent total
filterable solids) would have to meet the treatment standard for
wastewaters. EPA wishes to make clear that this approach is not
meant to allow partial treatment in order to comply with the
applicable standard.
(c) The Agency has not performed tests, in all cases, on every waste
that can result from every part of the treatment train.
However, the Agency's treatment standards are based on treatment
of the most concentrated form of the waste. Consequently, the
Agency believes that the less concentrated wastes generated in
the course of treatment will also be able to be treated to meet
this value.
(2) Mixtures and Other Derived-From Residues. There is a further
question as to the applicability of the BOAT treatment standards to
residues generated not from treating the waste (as discussed above), but
from other types of management. Examples are contaminated soil or
leachate that is derived from managing the waste. In these cases, the
mixture is still deemed to be the listed waste, either because of the
derived-from rule (40 CFR Part 261.3(c)(2)(i)) or the mixture rule
(40 CFR Part 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) or because the listed waste is
contained in the matrix (see, for example, 40 CFR Part 261.33(d)). The
prohibition for the particular listed waste consequently applies to this
type of waste.
The Agency believes that the majority of these types of residues can
meet the treatment standards for the underlying listed wastes (with the
possible exception of contaminated soil and debris for which the Agency
is currently investigating whether it is appropriate to establish a
separate treatability subcategorization). For the most part, these
1-37
-------
residues will be less concentrated than the original listed waste. The
Agency's treatment standards also make a generous allowance for process
variability by assuming that all treatability values used to establish
the standard are lognormally distributed. The waste also might be
amenable to a relatively nonvariable form of treatment technology such as
incineration. Finally, and perhaps most important, the rules contain a
treatability variance that allows a petitioner to demonstrate that its
waste cannot be treated to the level specified in the rule (40 CFR Part
268.44(a). This provision provides a safety valve that allows persons
with unusual waste matrices to demonstrate the appropriateness of a
different standard. The Agency, to date, has not received any petitions
under this provision (for example, for residues contaminated with a
prohibited solvent waste), indicating, in the Agency's view, that the
existing standards are generally achievable.
(3) Residues from Managing Listed Wastes or that Contain Listed
Wastes. The Agency has been asked if and when residues from
managing hazardous wastes, such as leachate and contaminated ground
water, become subject to the land disposal prohibitions. Although the
Agency believes this question to be settled by existing rules and
interpretative statements, to avoid any possible confusion the Agency
will address the question again.
Residues from managing First Third wastes, listed California List
wastes, and spent solvent and dioxin wastes are all considered to be
subject to the prohibitions for the underlying hazardous waste. Residues
1-38
-------
from managing California List wastes likewise are subject to the
California List prohibitions when the residues themselves exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste. This determination stems directly
from the derived-from rule in 40 CFR Part 261.3(c)(2) or in some cases
from the fact that the waste is mixed with or otherwise contains the
listed waste. The underlying principle stated in all of these provisions
is that listed wastes remain listed until delisted.
The Agency's historic practice in processing delisting petitions
addressing mixing residuals has been to consider them to be the listed
waste and to require that delisting petitioners address all constituents
for which the derived-from waste (or other mixed waste) was listed. The
language in 40 CFR Part 260.22(b) states that mixtures or derived-from
residues can be delisted provided a delisting petitioner makes a
demonstration identical to that which a delisting petitioner would make
for the underlying waste. These residues consequently are treated as the
underlying listed waste for delisting purposes. The statute likewise
takes this position, indicating that soil and debris that are
contaminated with listed spent solvents or dioxin wastes are subject to
the prohibition for these wastes even though these wastes are not the
originally generated waste, but rather are a residual from management
(RCRA section 3004(e)(3}). It is EPA's view that all such residues are
covered by the existing prohibitions and treatment standards for the
listed hazardous waste that these residues contain and from which they
are derived.
1-39
-------
1.2.8 Transfer of Treatment Standards
EPA is proposing some treatment standards that are not based on
testing of the treatment technology of the specific waste subject to the
treatment standard. Instead, the Agency has determined that the
constituents present in the subject waste can be treated to the same
performance levels as those observed in other wastes for which EPA has
previously developed treatment data. EPA believes that transferring
treatment performance for use in establishing treatment standards for
untested wastes is valid technically in cases where the untested wastes
are generated from similar industries, similar processing steps, or have
similar waste characteristics affecting performance and treatment
selection. Transfer of treatment standards to similar wastes or wastes
from similar processing steps requires little formal analysis. However,
in the case where only the industry is similar, EPA more closely examines
the waste characteristics prior to concluding that the untested waste
constituents can be treated to levels associated with tested wastes.
EPA undertakes a two-step analysis when determining whether wastes
generated by different processes within a single industry can be treated
to the same level of performance. First, EPA reviews the available waste
characteristic data to identify those parameters that are expected to
affect treatment selection. EPA has identified some of the most
important constituents and other parameters needed to select the
treatment technology appropriate for a given waste. A detailed
discussion of each analysis, including how each parameter was selected
for each waste, can be found in the background document for each waste.
1-40
-------
Second, when an individual analysis suggests that an untested waste
can be treated with the same technology as a waste for which treatment
performance data are already available, EPA analyzes a more detailed list
of constituents that represent some of the most important waste
characteristics that the Agency believes will affect the performance of
the technology. By examining and comparing these characteristics, the
Agency determines whether the untested wastes will achieve the same level
of treatment as the tested waste. Where the Agency determines that the
untested waste is easier to treat than the tested waste, the treatment
standards can be transferred. A detailed discussion of this transfer
process for each waste can be found in later sections of this document.
1.3 Variance from the BOAT Treatment Standard
The Agency recognizes that there may exist unique wastes that cannot
be treated to the level specified as the treatment standard. In such a
case, a generator or owner/operator may submit a petition to the
Administrator requesting a variance from the treatment standard. A
particular waste may be significantly different from the wastes
considered in establishing treatability groups because the waste contains
a more complex matrix that makes it more difficult to treat. For
example, complex mixtures may be formed when a restricted waste is mixed
with other waste streams by spills or other forms of inadvertent mixing.
As a result, the treatability of the restricted waste may be altered such
that it cannot meet the applicable treatment standard.
Variance petitions must demonstrate that the treatment standard
established for a given waste cannot be met. This demonstration can be
1-41
-------
made by showing that attempts to treat the waste by available
technologies were not successful or by performing appropriate analyses of
the waste, including waste characteristics affecting performance, which
demonstrate that the waste cannot be treated to the specified levels.
Variances will not be granted based solely on a showing that adequate
BOAT treatment capacity is unavailable. (Such demonstrations can be made
according to the provisions in Part 268.5 of RCRA for case-by-case
extensions of the effective date.) The Agency will consider granting
generic petitions provided that representative data are submitted to
support a variance for each facility covered by the petition.
Petitioners should submit at least one copy to:
The Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
An additional copy marked "Treatability Variance" should be submitted
to:
Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Petitions containing confidential information should be sent with
only the inner envelope marked "Treatability Variance" and "Confidential
Business Information" and with the contents marked in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 2 (41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976, amended by
43 FR 4000).
The petition should contain the following information:
1-42
-------
(1) The petitioner's name and address.
(2) A statement of the petitioner's interest in the proposed action.
(3) The name, address, and EPA identification number of the facility
generating the waste, and the name and telephone number of the
plant contact.
(4) The process(es) and feed materials generating the waste and an
assessment of whether such process(es) or feed materials may
produce a waste that is not covered by the demonstration.
(5) A description of the waste sufficient for comparison with the
waste considered by the Agency in developing BOAT, and an
estimate of the average and maximum monthly and annual
quantities of waste covered by the demonstration. (Note: The
petitioner should consult the appropriate BOAT background
document for determining the characteristics of the wastes
considered in developing treatment standards.)
(6) If the waste has been treated, a description of the system used
for treating the waste, including the process design and
operating conditions. The petition should include the reasons
the treatment standards are not achievable and/or why the
petitioner believes the standards are based on inappropriate
technology for treating the waste. (Note: The petitioner should
refer to the BOAT background document as guidance for
determining the design and operating parameters that the Agency
used in developing treatment standards.)
(7) A description of the alternative treatment systems examined by
the petitioner (if any); a description of the treatment system
deemed appropriate by the petitioner for the waste in question;
and, as appropriate, the concentrations in the treatment
residual or extract of the treatment residual (i.e., using the
TCLP where appropriate for stabilized metals) that can be
achieved by applying such treatment to the waste.
(8) A description of those parameters affecting treatment selection
and waste characteristics that affect performance, including
results of all analyses. (See Section 3.0 for a discussion of
waste characteristics affecting performance that the Agency has
identified for the technology representing BOAT.)
(9) The dates of the sampling and testing.
(10) A description of the methodologies and equipment used to obtain
representative samples.
1-43
-------
(11) A description of the sample handling and preparation techniques,
including techniques used for extraction, containerization, and
preservation of the samples.
(12) A description of analytical procedures used including QA/QC
methods.
After receiving a petition for a variance, the Administrator may
request any additional information or waste samples that may be required
to evaluate and process the petition. Additionally, all petitioners must
certify that the information provided to the Agency is accurate under
40 CFR Part 268.4(b).
In determining whether a variance will be granted, the Agency will
first look at the design and operation of the treatment system being
used. If EPA determines that the technology and operation are consistent
with BOAT, the Agency will evaluate the waste to determine if the waste
matrix and/or physical parameters are such that the BOAT treatment
standards reflect treatment of this waste. Essentially, this latter
analysis will concern the parameters affecting treatment selection and
waste characteristics affecting performance parameters.
In cases where BOAT is based on more than one technology, the
petitioner will need to demonstrate that the treatment standard cannot be
met using any of the technologies, or that none of the technologies are
appropriate for treatment of the waste. After the Agency has made a
determination on the petition, the Agency's findings will be published in
the Federal Register, followed by a 30-day period for public comment.
1-44
-------
After review of the public comments, EPA will publish its final
determination in the Federal Register as an amendment to the treatment
standards in 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart D.
1-45
-------
2.0 INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
As described in Section 1.0, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend-
ments (HSWA) specify dates when particular groups of hazardous wastes are
prohibited from land disposal. The amendments also require the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish treatment standards for each waste that, when
met, allow that waste to be land disposed. Wastes generated by the refining
industry are part of the first third of listed wastes to be evaluated by the
Agency. The purpose of this section is to describe the industry affected by
the land disposal restrictions for petroleum refining wastes and to present
available characterization data for these wastes.
Under 40 CFR 261.32 (hazardous wastes from specific sources), wastes
identified as K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 are specifically generated by
the petroleum refining industry and are listed as follows:
K048: Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the petroleum
refining industry;
K049: Slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining
industry;
K050: Heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum
refining industry;
K051: API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry;
and
K052: Tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining
industry.
The Agency has determined that these wastes (K048-K052) represent a
separate waste treatability group based on their similar physical and chemical
2-1
-------
characteristics. Additionally, the Agency expects that these wastes will
typically be mixed prior to treatment. As a result, EPA examined the specific
similarities in waste composition, applicable and demonstrated treatment
technologies, and attainable treatment performance in order to support a
single regulatory approach for all five petroleum refinery wastes.
2.1 Industry Affected and Process Description
Under 40 CFR 261.32 (hazardous wastes from specific sources) wastes
identified as K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 are specifically generated by
the petroleum refining industry. The four digit standard industrial classifi-
cation (SIC) code most often reported for the petroleum refining industry is
2911. The Agency estimates that there are approximately 193 facilities that
may produce the listed wastes K048, K049, K050, K051 and K052. Information
from trade associations provides a geographic distribution of the number of
petroleum refineries across the United States. Table 2-1 lists the number of
facilities by state. Table 2-2 summarizes the number of facilities for each
EPA region. Figure 2-1 illustrates this data geographically on a map of the
United States.
The petroleum refining industry consists of individual facilities
that convert crude oil into numerous products including gasoline, kerosene,
fuel oils, lubricating oils, petrochemical feedstocks, and miscellaneous
byproducts. Petroleum refineries range in complexity and size from small
plants with tens of employees to some of the largest industrial complexes in
2-2
-------
Table 2-1
FACILITIES PRODUCING K048-K052 WASTES BY STATE
State
(EPA Region)
Alabama (IV)
Alaska (X)
Arizona (IX)
Arkansas (VI)
California (IX)
Colorado (VIII)
Connecticut (I)
Delaware (III)
Washington, DC (III)
Florida (IV)
Georgia (IV)
Hawaii (IX)
Idaho (X)
Illinois (V)
Indiana (V)
Iowa (VII)
Kansas (VII)
Kentucky (IV)
Louisiana (VI)
Maine (I)
Maryland (III)
Massachusetts (I)
Michigan (V)
Minnesota (V)
Mississippi (IV)
Missouri (VII)
Number of
Facilities
2
6
1
4
29
2
0
1
0
1
2
2
0
7
4
0
7
2
18
0
0
0
4
2
5
0
State
(EPA Region)
Montana (VIII)
Nebraska (VII)
Nevada (IX)
New Hampshire (I)
New Jersey (II)
New Mexico (VI)
New York (II)
North Carolina (IV)
North Dakota (VIII)
Ohio (V)
Oklahoma (VI)
Oregon (X)
Pennsylvania (III)
Puerto Rico (II)
Rhode Island (I)
South Carolina (IV)
South Dakota (VIII)
Tennessee (IV)
Texas (VI)
Utah (VIII)
Vermont (I)
Virginia (III)
Virgin Islands (II)
Washington (X)
West Virginia (III)
Wisconsin (V)
Wyoming (VIII)
Number of
Facilities
5
0
1
0
6
3
0
0
2
5
6
1
8
1
0
0
0
1
31
6
0
1
1
7
2
1
6
Reference: Cantrell, Ailleen. "Annual Refining Survey." Oil and Gas Journal.
Vol. 83, No. 13. March 30, 1987.
2-3
-------
Table 2-2
FACILITIES PRODUCING K048-K052 WASTES BY EPA REGION
Totals by Region
EPA Number of
Region Facilities
I 0
II 8
III 12
IV 13
V 23
VI 62
VII 7
VIII 21
IX 33
X jjt
TOTAL 193
Reference: Cantrell, Ailleen. "Annual Refining Survey." Oil and Gas Journal.
Vol. 83, No. 13. March 30, 1987.
2-4
-------
FIGURE 2-1
FACILITIES PRODUCING K048-K052 WASTES BY STAtE AND EPA REGION
-------
the United States. A number of unit operations are used in the refining of
crude oil. The unit operations employed at an individual refinery depend upon
the type of crude oil processed; the size, location, and age of the facility;
and the market for the petroleum products.
The initial processing unit operation at a refinery and the only
unit operation that is used at every refinery is distillation of the crude
oil. Distillation separates the raw material (crude oil) into several streams
with different boiling point ranges, including light gaseous streams, gaso-
line, diesel oil, furnace oil, and heavy ends. Generally, the different
streams are further processed to produce finished petroleum products.
The light gaseous streams are usually burned in process heaters or
boilers to provide heat or steam for the refinery. The heavier gaseous
products, propane and butane, are liquified and sold as products. The gaso-
line stream is further treated at the refinery to improve its octane rating to
allow it to be burned in modern automobile engines. Downstream unit opera-
tions such as isomerization or catalytic reforming are used to increase the
octane rating to the desired specifications. The diesel and furnace oil
streams are processed to remove undesirable sulfur compounds. The heavier or
higher boiling streams can either be processed into lighter products or made
into lubricating or specialty oils. Fluid catalytic cracking units, hydrogen
cracking units, and coking units can be used to convert the heavier distilla-
tion products into gases, gasolines, fuel oils, and petroleum coke. For
production of lubricating oils, the heavy distillation products are dewaxed,
2-6
-------
solvent-refined, or hydrogen-treated. It is possible to make a wide range of
miscellaneous products at a petroleum refinery, including aromatic organic
compounds (benzene, toluene, and xylene), greases, waxes, and asphalt. Many
additional unit operations (separation steps) are required to manufacture this
wide variety of products.
Wastes are generated by the various operations conducted by the
refining industry. The generation of K048-K052 is depicted in Figure 2-2.
Wastewaters are generated throughout the refining process and are
commonly treated at wastewater treatment facilities within the refineries.
The listed wastes K048, K049, and K051 are generated as residuals from waste-
water treatment operations. A list of unit operations typically found in the
petroleum refining industry and the types of wastewater generated by these
operations is presented in Table 2-3. In distillation operations, steam is
sometimes injected into the columns to facilitate the separation. The con-
densed steam forms a wastewater stream containing oil. Steam is also used to
produce the vacuum conditions under which some unit operations are conducted.
Again, the steam condenses to form a wastewater in which oil is a contaminant.
Another source of wastewater is the water that is present in the crude oil
when it arrives at the refinery. These sources of wastewater, along with any
cooling water that contains oil, make up most of the flow to a refinery's
wastewater treatment plant.
2-7
-------
I
00
; ,
Crude oil J Crude [ ^ Process _ Tank ' ^ Refinery S&»°nd
1 distillation | ""~ units """ farm products Water
K050 K052
(Heat exchanger (Leaded tank
bundle cleaning bottoms)
1 sludge) 1 11
Oil
Q|_._ ..[I
treatment
Water Chemical nuft«n°nbalance
r - t I
^ API Plate 1 Air Eaualization fc. Biol°9ical fc. Retention .
^ separator ^ separators flotation ^ "• treatment Pona
1 T
Sanitary
, , 1 sewage
1
u
1
K051(API Separator Sludge)
Figure 2-2
Generation of K048, K049, K050. K051 and K052
-------
Table 2-3
GENERATION OF WASTEWATERS IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Unit operation
Desalting
Fractionation:
vacuum, atmospheric
flash, distillation
Cracking: catalytic,
visbreaking, thermal,
hydrocracking
Reforming
Alkylation
Hydrotreating
Polymerization
Isomerization
Function
Reduce inorganic salts and
and suspended solids in
crude to prevent fouling of
equipment; remove inorganic
impurities that poison
catalysts
Separate constituents of
crude oil
Convert heavy oil fractions
into lighter oil fractions
Convert naphthas to finished
high-octane gasoline
Convert gaseous hydrocarbons
to high-octane fuel
Saturate olefins and remove
contaminants such as sulfur,
nitrogen and oxygen compounds,
Convert olefins to high-octane
gasoline
Convert light gasoline
materials into high-octane
isomers for fuel
Waste generated
Desalting sludge;
desalter brine
Wastewater from over-
head accumulators;
discharge from oil
sampling lines; oil
emulsions from con-
densers; barometric
condenser water
Wastewater from over-
head accumulators and
steam strippers
Wastewater from over-
head accumulators on
stripping towers.
Wastewater from over-
head accumulators in
fractionation section;
alkylation reactor;
caustic wash
Wastewater from over-
head accumulators on
fractionators and steam
strippers; sour water
stripper bottoms
Wastewater from caustic
scrubbers and pretreat-
ment washwater towers
Wastewater from leaks
and spills
2-9
-------
Table 2-3 (continued)
GENERATION OF WASTEWATERS IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Unit operation
Solvent refining
and extraction of
oil stocks
Dewaxing
Coking
Aromatic
extraction
Deasphalting
Drying and
sweetening
Grease
manufacture
Lubricating
oil finishing
Hydrogen
manufacture
Function
Obtain lube oil fractions and
aromatics from feedstocks
containing hydrocarbons and
undesirable materials
Remove wax from lube oil
stocks to produce products
with low pour points and to
recover wax for further pro-
cessing
Convert heavy oil fractions
into lighter oil fractions
and into solid petroleum coke
Recovery of benzene, toluene,
and xylene from gasoline
stocks
Separate asphalts or resins
from vacuum distillation
residuals; recover paraffinic
catalytic cracking stock from
distillation residuals
Remove sulfur compounds; im-
prove color, odor; oxidation
stability; inhibitor response;
remove water, carbon dioxide,
and other impurities
Produce wide range of lubri-
cating greases
Produce motor oils and lubri-
cating greases
Produce hydrogen needed for
refining processes
Waste generated
Wastewater from bottom
of fractionation towers
Wastewater from leaks
and spills
Cutting water blowdown;
fractionation section
overhead accumulator
waters
Wastewater from over-
head accumulator on
stripping towers and
condensers
Sour water from over-
head condensers on
steam strippers; spills
Spent caustic; waste-
water from water wash-
ing of treated product;
regeneration of treat-
ing solution
Wastewater from leaks
and washing of batch
process units
Wastewater from rinses
and clay treatment;
sludge from sampling;
leaks
Wastewater from desul-
furization unit
2-10
-------
Table 2-3 (continued)
GENERATION OF WASTEWATERS IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Unit operation
Storage tanks
Sulfur recovery
Blending and
packaging
Cooling water
system
Surface and
storm water
collection
Utilities
Marine terminals
General
wastewaters
Function
Storage of crude oil, inter-
mediates, and final products
Removal of sulfur compounds
from hydrocarbon streams and
recovery of sulfur product
Produce and package final
products
Heat exchanger operation
Treatment of storm and
surface drainage
Steam and electricity
generation
Load and unload marine vessels
with crude oil and refined
products
Maintenance
Waste generated
Settled water and
sludge from tank
bottoms and cleaning
Spent caustics; spent
amine solution; spent
stretford solution
Wastewater from tank
wash; vessel cleaning
water
Slowdown from cooling
tower systems; once-
through cooling water
Wastewater from storm
and surface drainage
Boiler blowdown
Ballast water
Wash water; pump gland
water; leaks and spills
on every operation
Sources:
Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Management, 196?
(Reference 3).
Jones, H.R. Pollution Control (Reference 11)
Gloyna and Ford, Characteristics and Pollutional Problems (Reference 12).
2-11
-------
Some basic wastewater treatment operations are common to most
wastewater treatment facilities within petroleum refineries. Oil and solids
are separated from the wastewater in gravity separators. Operations such as
air flotation can be used to further enhance oil removal from wastewater.
Aeration and biological activity are then used to reduce the organic content
of the waste, and filtration can be used to remove any suspended solids.
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is used by petroleum refineries for
separating suspended and colloidal materials from process wastewater. The DAF
unit separates oily wastes and suspended solids from water by introducing tiny
air bubbles into the water. The bubbles become attached to the oil droplets
and suspended solids that are dispersed through the wastewater. The resultant
oil/air bubbles rise through the wastewater and collect on the water's sur-
face, where they are removed by surface-skimming devices. The material
skimmed from the surface, referred to as "DAF float" is the listed waste K048.
Some settling of solids in the DAF unit may occur resulting in the generation
of a solids residual during unit cleanout.
Process wastewater from refining operations is in many cases treated
in an oil/water/solids separator where the waste separates by gravity into a
multiphase mixture. The skimmings from the primary separator generally
consist of a three-phase mixture of water, oil, and an emulsified (insepara-
ble) layer. These skimmings are collected in a "slop oil system" where the
three phases are separated. The emulsified layer is the listed waste K049-
2-12
-------
Heat exchangers are utilized throughout petroleum refining pro-
cesses. Bundles (groupings of tubes) from these heat exchangers are periodi-
cally cleaned to remove deposits of scale and sludge. Depending upon the
characteristics of the deposits, the outsides of the tube bundles may be
washed, brushed, or sandblasted, while the tube insides can be wiped, brushed,
or rodded out. The solids or sludge resulting from this cleaning operation
forms the listed waste K050.
API separators are used in petroleum refining operations to remove
floating oil and suspended solids from the wastewater. In an API separator,
oily wastewater enters one end of a rectangular channel, flows through the
length of the channel, and discharges at the other end. A sufficient resi-
dence time is provided to allow oil droplets to float and coalesce at the
surface of the wastewater. An oil skimmer is provided near the end of the
separator to collect floating oil. Solids that have settled out of the water
are scraped along the channel bottom to a sludge collecting hopper. The API
separator sludge is the listed waste K051.
Leaded petroleum products are stored in tanks after being separated
in distillation columns. As cooling occurs, water separates from the hydro-
carbon phase and is drained into the refinery wastewater system. Solids form
as corrosion products in the storage tank. These solids are periodically
removed during tank cleaning, generating the listed waste K052.
2-13
-------
2.2 Waste Characterization
The approximate concentrations of major constituents comprising
K048-K052 wastes are included in the following table. The percent concentra-
tions in the wastes were estimated using available chemical analyses. Calcu-
lations supporting these estimates are presented in Appendix B.
Concentration
Constituent K048 K049 K050 K051 K052
Water 81 50 44 60 18
Oil and grease 12 37 7 17 12
Dirt, sand, and other solids 6 12 48 22 69
BOAT List constituents 11 11 11 11 11
Total 100* 100* 100* 100* 100*
BDAT List constituents (organics and inorganics) cumulatively comprise less
than one percent of each waste stream. Tables 2-4 through 2-8 present, by
waste code, the ranges of BDAT List constituents (volatiles, semivolatiles,
metals, and other inorganics) and other parameters identified as present in
the waste. These data were obtained from a variety of sources including
literature, and sampling and analysis episodes. Each waste contains mono- and
poly-nuclear aromatic compounds such as toluene, xylene, phenol, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, and pyrene. The wastes also contain metals including arsenic,
chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc. Additionally, the
wastes are characterized by high concentrations of filterable solids.
2.3 Determination of Waste Treatability Group
Fundamental to waste treatment is the concept that the type of
treatment technology used and the level of treatment achieved depend on the
2-14
-------
physical and chemical characteristics of the waste. In cases where EPA
believes that constituents present in wastes represented by different codes
can be treated to similar concentrations by using the same technologies, the
Agency combines the codes into one treatability group. The five listed wastes
from the petroleum refining industry (K048-K052) are generated by the treat-
ment of refinery process wastewaters, from heat exchanger cleaning, and from
product storage operations.
Based on a careful review of the generation of these wastes and all
available data characterizing these wastes, the Agency has determined that
these wastes (K048-K052) represent a separate waste treatability group, due to
the fact that all of these wastes are generated by the refining process, and
the belief that constituents present in these wastes can be treated to similar
concentrations using the same technologies. Specifically, K049 waste (slop
oil emulsion solids) is generated by the treatment of refinery process waste-
waters as are K048 (DAF float) and K051 (API separator sludge). K050 waste
(heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge) is generated within a refinery by the
cleaning of heat exchangers. Heat exchangers are used throughout the refining
process to provide the heat exchange between refinery process streams. K052
waste (leaded tank bottoms) is generated within a refinery by the storage of
leaded petroleum products. These refinery process wastes contain the same
types of constituents, as shown on Tables 2-2 and 2-4 through 2-8, and are
expected to be treatable to similar levels using the same technology.
The wastes in this treatability group are comprised of water, oil
and grease, dirt, sand, and other solids, and organic and metal BDAT List
2-15
-------
constituents. Typically, organic constituents present in these wastes are
mono- and poly-nuclear aromatic compounds such as toluene, xylene, phenol,
naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene. Metal constituents present in these
wastes include arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc.
Although the concentrations of specific constituents will vary from facility
to facility, all of the wastes contain similar levels of BOAT organics and
metals and have high filterable solids content. Additionally, the Agency
expects that these wastes will typically be mixed and treated together in the
same treatment system. As a result, EPA has examined the sources and charac-
teristics of the wastes, applicable technologies, and attainable treatment
performance in order to support a single regulatory approach for these five
refinery wastes.
2-16
-------
Table 2-4
ro
l
Source of Data:
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K048
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
(a)
BDAT ORGANICS
Volatiles
21 .
226.
43.
215-
217.
62.
70.
80.
98.
109.
121 .
141 .
142 .
145.
BDAT
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161 .
162.
163.
164.
165.
167.
168.
(a)
(b)
Dichlorodifluorome thane
Ethyl benzene
To 1 uene
Xylene (total)
Semi vo 1 at i 1 es
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl )ph thai ate
Chrysene
Di-n-butylph thai ate
F 1 uorene
Naphthal ene
Phenathrene
Phenol
Pyrene
METALS
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium (total )
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Sel enium
Si 1 ver
Vanadi um
Zinc
U.S. EPA, Amoco Onsite Engini
Jacobs Engineering Company, I
<14-310
<14-120
22-120
<14-120
<20
<20-59
<20-22
67-190
31-32
93-110
77-86
<20
31-35
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
0.004-1.75
3.0-210
<6-7
4.9-6. 1
59-67
<0. 1
0.4-0.7
810-960
47-56
330-410
0.11-0.16
13-16
7.5-1 1
<0.9
370-460
380-450
-
0.05-10.5
-
0.0012-0.25
-
28-260 1
0.05-21 .3
2.3-1 ,250
0.07-0.89
0.025-15
0.1-4.2
0.0013-2.8
0.05-0. 15
10-1825
-
<3.0
172-349
-
<0.25
,057-3,435
-
1 .6-450
1-2
-
4-6
<0.3
-
-
270-560
4.9-33
4-6
<0.3
0.04-0.11 2.5-10.94
0.05-13.8 6.5-73
(c) Delisting petition #386 (Reference 17).
(d) Delisting petition #469 (Reference 20),
(e) Delisting petition #421 (Reference 19).
(f) Delisting petition #396 (Reference 18).
Data are not available for this constituent.
Range
<14-310
<14-120
22-120
<14-120
0.004-<20
<20-59
<20-22
67-190
31-32
93-110
77-86
3.0-210
31-35
<6
0.05
59
0.0012
<0. 25
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.025
0. 1
0.0013
0.05
10
•7
-10.5
-349
-0.25
-0.7
•3,435
•56
•1 ,250
-0.89
-16
-1 1
-6
-460
•1 ,825
-------
Table 2-4 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K048
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
Source of Data: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Range
BDAT INORGANICS
169. Cyanide <0.1-1.0 0.01-1.1 - - - - 0.01-1.1
171. Sulfide 130-2800 - 130-2800
OTHER PARAMETERS
Filterable solids (%) 69
Oil and grease content (%) 129
Water content (%) 819
to
I
M
Co (a) U.S. EPA, Amoco Onsite Engineering Report, February 29, 1988 (Reference 6).
(b) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(c) Delisting petition #386 (Reference 17).
(d) Delisting petition #469 (Reference 20).
(e) Delisting petition #421 (Reference 19).
(f) Delisting petition #396 (Reference 18).
(g) Calculations in Appendix B.
Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
N>
I
Table 2-5
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K049
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
Source of Data:
BOAT ORGANICS
Volatiles
4. Benzene
8. Carbon disulfide
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles
57. Anthracene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
80. Chrysene
96. 2,4-dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
BOAT METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(e)
0.002-0.18
5.7-127
7.4
0.0025
0.19
525
95
ND
120
210
150
<40
<40
<40
40
<40
<40
87
<40
<40
<3.2
3.9
115
<0.1
<0.4
134
<0.05
ND-1600
0.15-0.96
_
240-18,000
-
ND-58
-
ND-29
ND-44
ND-3.3
160-680
ND-390
ND-8.9
33-110
ND-19
3-30
87-370
ND-0.29
0.7-4.4
150-1400
-
Range
476
<2.2-9.6
28-54.2
0.35
28.8
28.9-512.5
0.02-O.9
ND-1,600
ND-0.96
120
210-18,000
150
ND-58
0.002-<40
ND-<40
ND-44
ND-<40
<40-680
ND-390
ND-127
33-110
ND-19
<2.2-30
28-370
ND-0.35
0.19-28.8
28.9-1,400
0.02-<1.9
(a) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(b) U.S. EPA, Conoco Characterization Report, February 22, 1988 (Reference 13).
(c) Delisting petition #503 (Reference 14).
(d) API, Refinery Solid Waste Survey, 1983 (Reference 2).
(e) Delisting petitions #481,#386,#530,#264,#426, and #469 (References 21, 17, 23, 24, 25, and 20).
ND The compound was not detected above the detection limit; the detection limit was not reported.
- Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
I
NJ
O
Table 2-5 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K049
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
Source of Data:
(a)
BOAT METALS (Continued)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
BOAT INORGANICS
169. Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
OTHER PARAMETERS
BTU content (Btu/lb)
Filterable solids (%)
Oil and grease content (%)
Water content (%)
pH (standard units)
TOX (?)
48
28.1
0.59
50
1.0
0.4
25
250
0.000012-52.5
1501
128
378
7.4
Negligible1
(b)
65.3
31.9
0.6
9.2
<5.0
<0.6
2.5
142
<0.5
1.31
34.4
(c)
28-3900
ND-32
20-86
ND-4.6
13-60
302
(e)
79.8
21.95-2146
0.15
50.62
<0.44-4.8
<0.38-<4.0
5.56
72.8
Range
48-79.8
21.95-3,900
ND-32
9.2-86
ND-5.0
<0.38-<4.0
2.5-60
72.8-250
0.000012-52.5
1.31
34.4
(a) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(b) U.S. EPA, Conoco Characterization Report, February 22, 1988 (Reference 13).
(c) Delisting petition #503 (Reference 14).
(d) API, Refinery Solid Waste Survey, 1983 (Reference 2).
(e) Delisting petitions 1481,1386,1530,1264,1126, and #469 (References 21, 17, 23, 24, 25, and 20),
(f) Environ Corporation, Characterization of Listed Waste Streams (Reference 15).
(g) Calculations in Appendix B.
ND The compound was not detected above the detection limit.
- Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
t-0
I
l-o
Source of Data:
BOAT ORGANICS
Semivolatiles
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
142. Phenol
BOAT METALS
155. Arsenic
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
BOAT INORGANICS
169. Cyanide
Table 2-6
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K050
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
(a)
11-1,600
25-1,100
(b)
(c)
(d)
0.7-3.6
8-18.5
10.2-11
0.05-0.34
1-1.5
310-311
67-75
0.5-155
0.14-3.6
61-170
2.4-52
0.0007-0.01
0.7-50
91-297
0.0004-3.3
206-492
0.01-0.016
13.7-166
42-226
Range
0.7-3.6
8-18.5
10-2.11
0.05-0.34
1.0-1.5
11-1,600
0.01-<1.0
67-75
0.5-1,100
0.14-3.6
61-170
2.4-52
0.0007-0.01
0.7-50
91-297
0.0004-3.3
(a) API, Refinery Solid Waste Survey, 1983 (Reference 2).
(b) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Wastes Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(c) Delisting petition #481 (Reference 21).
(d) Delisting petition #386 (Reference 17).
- Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
ISJ
I
NO
Ni
Table 2-6 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K050
OTHER PARAMETERS
BTU content (BTU/lb) 1,500a
Filterable solids (%) 48b
Oil and grease content (%) 7b
Water content (%) 44b
pH (standard units) 7a
TOX (%) Negligible3
a Environ Corporation, Characterization of Listed Waste Streams (Reference 15),
Calculations in Appendix B.
-------
Table 2-7
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K051
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
Source of
BOAT ORGANICS
Volati les
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
Semi vol at i 1 es
52. Acenaphthene
59. Benz(a)anthracene
62. Benzo (a)pyrene
Data: (a)
46-52
33-71
71-83
33
22-29
0.002-45
(b) (c) (d) (e)
0.002-4.5
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl )phthalate 26-30
M
1
to
OJ
80. Chrysene
98. Di-n-butylphthalate
109. Fluorene
121 . Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
BOAT METALS
154. Antimony
1 55 . Arseni c
156. Barium
157. Beryl 1 i urn
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
45-51
43-230
33-37
150-170
1 10-120
<20
62-74
9-18
5.4-9.7
72-120
<0. 1
1.3-1.7
730-1 100
22®
130-170
640-940
0.07-0.31
30-37
0.5-1 .6
1 .4
260-350
570-820
(a) U.S. EPA, Amoco Onsite Engineering Report,
(b) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of
(c) Delisting petition #481
(d) Delisting petition #386
(e) Delisting petition #205
(f) Delisting petition #469
— Data are not available
(Reference 21 ).
(Reference 17).
(Reference 16) .
(Reference 20) .
3.8-156.7
0.1-32 <3.0
188-412
0.0012-0.24
0.024-3.0 <0.25
0.1-6790 800-3220 150-875 535-3679
<1.0 0.010-0.036
2.5-550
0.25-1290 2120-2480 9.5-23.3 53-173
0.04-6.2 3.0
0.25-150.4
0.005-7.6 2-12
0.05-3 <0.3
1-48.5
25-6596
February 29, 1988 (Reference 6).
Hazardous Waste Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(f) Range
46-52
33-71
71-83
33
22-29
0.002-45
26-30
45-51
43-230
33-37
150-170
110-120
3.8-156.7
62-74
9-18
0. 1-32
72-412
0.0012-0.24
0.024-3.0
160-740 0.1-6790
0.01-22®
2.5-550
7.7-440 0.25-2480
0.04-6.2
0.25-150.4
0.005-12
0.05-3
1-350
25-6596
for this constituent.
@ Colorimetric interference may have occurred in analysis of this sample.
-------
Table 2-7 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K051
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
Source of Data: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Range
BDAT ORGANICS
169. Cyanide 0.5-1.4 0.00006-51.4 0.00006-51.4
171. Sulfide 2,900-4,800 2,900-4,800
OTHER PARAMETERS
Filterable solids (%) 229
Oil and grease content (X) 179
Water content (%} 609
(a) U.S. EPA,Amoco Onsite Engineering Report, February 29, 1988 (Reference 6).
(b) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(c) Delisting petition #481 (Reference 21).
(d) Delisting petition #386 (Reference 17).
(e) Delisting petition #205 (Reference 16).
(f) Delisting petition #469 (Reference 20).
(g) Calculations In Appendix B.
— Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
10
I
N3
Source of Data:
BOAT ORGANICS
Volatiles
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
13. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles
62. Benz(o)pyrene
81. ortho-Cresol
82. para-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
BOAT METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Table 2-8
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K052
(a)
650
2,300
6,400
3,500
13
13
4.2
13
1.4
111
242
8
<0.1
0.82
48.8
146
99.4
2.4
97.2
<100
<6.0
<6.0
17.1
(b)
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
(c)
(d)
1.0-504
11.0-5,800
0.02-0.4
2.1-250
63-525
0.0025
4.5-8.1
9.0-13.7
110-172
158-1,421
0.19-0.94
235-392
3.1-10.8
0.05-1.7
1.0-9.8
1,183-17,000
42-2,060
(a) U.S. EPA, Conoco Characterization Report, February 22, 1988 (Reference 13).
(b) API, Refinery Solid Waste Survey, 1983 (Reference 2).
(c) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(d) Delisting petition #386 (Reference 17).
— Data are not available for this constituent.
Range
650
2,300
6,400
3,500
0.02-<1.8
13
13
4.2
13
1.4
<1.8-250
111
63-525
8
0.0025-<0.1
0.82-8.1
1.0-504
110-172
11-5800
0.19-2.4
97.2-392
3.1-OOO
0.05-<6.0
1.0-9.8
17.1-17,000
-------
Source of Data:
BOAT INORGANICS
169. Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
OTHER PARAMETERS
Filterable solids (%)
Oil and grease content (/&)
Water content (%)
Table 2-8 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K052
(a)
1.89
955
111
69e
12e
186
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Range
1.89
955
111
N>
I
(a) U.S. EPA, Conoco Characterization Report, February 22, 1988 (Reference 13).
(b) API, Refinery Solid Waste Survey, 1983 (Reference 2).
(c) Jacobs" Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(d) Delisting petition #386 (Reference 17).
(e) Calculations in Appendix B.
— Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
3.0 APPLICABLE/DEMONSTRATED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
In the previous section of this document, petroleum refining wastes
(K048-K052) were characterized and a separate waste treatability group was
established for these wastes. In this section, treatment technologies appli-
cable for treatment of wastes in this waste group are identified. Detailed
descriptions of the technologies that are demonstrated on these wastes or on
wastes judged to be similar are presented in this section along with available
performance data.
3.1 Applicable Treatment Technologies
The Agency has identified the following treatment technologies as
being applicable for nonwastewater forms of K048-K052 wastes and nonwastewater
generated from treatment of K048-K052: incineration (fluidized bed and rotary
kiln), solvent extraction, pressure filtration, thermal drying, and
stabilization. Since K048-K052 wastes contain both organic and inorganic
hazardous constituents, applicable technologies include those which destroy or
reduce the total amount of various organic compounds in the waste (i.e.,
incineration, solvent extraction, pressure filtration, and thermal drying) and
those which reduce the leachability of BOAT metals in the waste (i.e.,
stabilization).
The Agency has identified the following treatment technologies as
being applicable for wastewater forms of K048-K052 and wastewater generated
3-1
-------
from the treatment of K048-K052: biological treatment, carbon adsorption, and
chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation, and sedimentation or
filtration. Since these wastewaters may contain both organic and inorganic
hazardous constituents, applicable technologies include those which destroy or
reduce the total amount of various organic compounds in the treated residual
(i.e., biological treatment and carbon adsorption) and those which reduce the
concentration of BOAT metals in the treated residual (i.e., chromium reduction
and chemical precipitation.)
The selection of treatment technologies applicable for treating BDAT
List constituents is based on current literature sources, field testing, and
data submitted by equipment manufacturers and industrial concerns.
3.2 Demonstrated Treatment Technologies
The demonstrated technologies that the Agency has identified for
treatment of organics in nonwastewater forms of K048-K052 are incineration
(fluidized bed and rotary kiln), solvent extraction, pressure filtration, and
thermal drying. The Agency has identified stabilization as a demonstrated
technology for the immobilization of metals in nonwastewater (incinerator ash)
generated from treatment of K048-K052.
For metals in wastewater residuals, EPA has identified the following
demonstrated treatment train: chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide
3-2
-------
precipitation, and vacuum filtration. This treatment train is commonly used
for metal containing wastewaters.
The Agency is not aware of any facilities that treat wastewater
forms of K048-K052. Therefore, EPA has not identified any demonstrated
technologies for treatment of wastewater forms of K048-K052.
Detailed descriptions of these technologies are included in the
following subsections. Treatment performance data for each technology are
included in the following subsections or in Appendix F as referenced in the
text. A key summarizing the plant codes is included in Appendix C.
A. Incineration. Incineration provides for destruction of the
organics in the waste. As described in Section 1.0, the best measure of
performance for a destruction technology is the extent to which a constituent
is destroyed or the total amount of constituent remaining after treatment.
Incineration generally results in the formation of two treatment residuals:
ash and scrubber water. Incineration is demonstrated for treatment of refin-
ery wastes from the K048-K052 treatability group. The Agency tested a fluid-
ized bed incineration process at plant A for treatment of K048 and K051
wastes. A more detailed discussion of incineration is presented in Section
3.4.
Prior to incineration at plant A, DAF float (K048) waste was mixed
with waste biological sludge, and the mixture was dewatered using two belt
3-3
-------
filter presses. To improve dewatering capabilities, a polymer solution was
added to the undewatered DAF float mixture. The dewatering step increased the
total solids content of the waste from 30-46 percent to 79-91 percent.
Dewatered DAF float mixture and API separator sludge (K051) were separately
injected into the fluidized bed for combustion. Combustion gases with elutri-
ated flyash entered a cyclone for particulate removal and were then treated in
a scrubber system prior to discharge to the atmosphere. Fluidized bed incin-
erator ash was collected from the ash conveyer from the cyclone.
Tables 3-1 through 3-6 at the end of this section present, by sample
set, the BDAT List constituents detected in the untreated (dewatered DAF float
mixture and API separator sludge) and treated (fluidized bed incinerator ash)
wastes and the operating data from the fluidized bed incinerator treatment
system. Testing procedures used to analyze these constituents are specifi-
cally identified in the analytical quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
discussion of this background document (Appendix D).
No data on the treatment of organic constituents in K048-K052
wastewater were available to the Agency. However, the Agency determined that
combustion gas scrubber discharge water from the rotary kiln incineration of
K019 waste represents treatment of organics in wastewaters judged to be
similar to K048-K052 wastewater. In addition, the Agency determined that
treatment performance data from the treatment of K062 and metal-bearing
characteristic wastes represent treatment of metals in wastewaters judged to
be similar to K048-K052 wastewaters. These data are included in Section 4.0.
3-4
-------
Between proposal and promulgation the Agency plans to evaluate treatment
performance data for K048-K052 wastewaters (scrubber water) from the fluidized
bed incineration of K048 at plant A.
B. Solvent Extraction. Solvent extraction provides for the
separation of organics from the waste. This technology results in the forma-
tion of two treatment residuals: the treated waste and the extract. Treat-
ment performance data for a solvent extraction process at plant F were submit-
ted by industry to support solvent extraction as a demonstrated technology for
treatment of K049 and K051. Treatment performance data for a solvent extrac-
tion process at plant G were submitted to support solvent extraction as a
demonstrated technology for treatment of K048-K052. In addition, treatment
performance data for a solvent extraction process at plant K were submitted to
support solvent extraction as a demonstrated technology for treatment of
petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste codes treated were not
reported). A more detailed discussion of solvent extraction is presented in
Section 3.4.
As discussed in Section 1.0, the Agency is developing treatment
standards for organic constituents based on the total concentration in the
waste. However, treatment performance data submitted from plants F and G did
not include total waste concentration data for the untreated wastes or for the
treated residuals. The submitted TCLP data were not used for the development
of treatment standards. The submitted TCLP data can be found in Sections F.5
and F.6 of Appendix F for plants F and G, respectively.
3-5
-------
Two sets of treatment performance data (referred to as Report 1 and
Report 2) were submitted from plant K. However, data presented in Report 1
did not include total waste concentration data for the untreated wastes or for
the treated residuals. The submitted TCLP data were not used for the develop-
ment of treatment standards. The TCLP data submitted in Report 1 can be found
in Section F.8 of Appendix F. Table 3-7 presents the BOAT constituents
detected in the untreated and treated wastes and the operating data for the
solvent extraction treatment system at plant K (Report 2).
Additionally, treatment performance data for a solvent extraction
process at plant L has been submitted to support solvent extraction as a
demonstrated technology for treatment of K051. These data became available to
the Agency too late to be used in the development of treatment standards for
the proposed rule. These data will be considered in the development of
treatment standards for the final rule. Data submitted from plant L can be
found in Section F.9 of Appendix F.
C. Pressure Filtration. Pressure filtration provides for the
separation of liquid and solid phases of a waste. Pressure filtration results
in the formation of two treatment residuals: the filter cake and the fil-
trate. Treatment performance data for a belt filter press process at plant B
were submitted by industry to support pressure filtration as a demonstrated
technology for treatment of K051. Treatment performance data for a belt
filter press process at plant C were submitted by industry to support pressure
filtration as a demonstrated technology for treatment of petroleum refinery
3-6
-------
wastes (the specific waste codes treated were not reported). Treatment
performance data for a plate filter press process at plant D were submitted by
industry to support pressure filtration as a demonstrated technology for
treatment of a mixture of K048, K049 and K051. In addition, treatment perfor-
mance data for a plate filter press process at plant E were submitted by
industry to support pressure filtration as a demonstrated technology for
treatment of a mixture of K051 and K052. A more detailed discussion of
pressure filtration including belt and plate filtration is presented in
Section 3.4.
As discussed in Section 1.0, the Agency is developing treatment
standards for organic constituents based on the total concentration in the
waste. However, treatment performance data submitted from plants B, C, D, and
E did not include total waste concentration data for the untreated wastes or
for the treated residuals. The submitted TCLP data were not used for the
development of treatment standards. The submitted TCLP data can be found in
Sections F.1, F.2, F.3, and F.4 of Appendix F for plants B, C, D, and E,
respectively.
D. Thermal Drying. Thermal drying provides for the separation of
organics from the waste. Thermal drying generally results in the formation of
two treatment residuals: the treated waste and the condensate or scrubber
water. Treatment performance data for a thermal drying treatment system at
plant H were submitted to support thermal drying as a demonstrated technology
for treatment of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste codes treated
3-7
-------
were not reported) and of a mixture of K051 and K052. The unspecified petro-
leum refinery wastes that were treated by thermal drying had been previously
treated by belt filter press filtration at plant C, and the mixed K051 and
K052 had been previously treated by plate filter press filtration at plant E.
As discussed in Section 1.0, the Agency is developing treatment
standards for organic constituents based on the total concentration in the
waste. However, treatment performance data submitted from plant H did not
include total waste concentration data for the filter cakes or for the treated
residuals. The submitted TCLP data were not used for the development of
treatment standards. The submitted TCLP data from plant H can be found in
Section F.7 of Appendix F.
E. Stabilization. Stabilization reduces the leachability of
metals in the wastes. This technology results in the formation of a single
chemically or structurally stabilized treatment residual. As discussed in
Section 1.0, the Agency is developing treatment standards for metal
constituents treated by stabilization based on the constituent concentration
in the TCLP extract.
The Agency tested incinerator ash from treatment of K048 and K051
wastes at plant A using a stabilization process at plant I. In addition,
treatment performance data from three stabilization processes at plant J were
submitted by industry to support stabilization as a demonstrated technology
for treatment of K048-K052 wastes. A more detailed discussion of stabili-
zation is presented in Section 3.4.
3-8
-------
Incinerator ash from plant A was stabilized at plant I. The stabil-
ization process involves the addition of water and binder material to the
incinerator ash followed by mixing and a cure period. The process was run
three times using three different binders for a total of nine tests. The
three types of binder materials used were: portland cement, kiln dust, and a
lime and fly ash mixture. At the end of the 28 days cure period for each
test, TCLP was performed on stabilized ash samples. Table 3-8 presents the
analytical results for BDAT metals detected in the TCLP extracts of untreated
(incinerator ash) and treated (stabilized ash) wastes and the design and
operating data from the ash stabilization treatment system. Testing proce-
dures used to analyze these constituents are specifically identified in the
analytical quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) discussion of this
background document (Appendix D).
Slop oil emulsion solids (K049) and API separator sludge (K051) were
stabilized individually without prior treatment at plant J using a two-step
process. The first step involved the addition of a proprietary chemical to
microencapsulate the organic matter. The second step involved the addition of
pozzolanic material (e.g., fly ash, cement, and kiln dust) to solidify the
entire waste. Table 3-9 presents the BDAT constituents detected in the
treated and untreated K049 waste from the stabilization treatment system.
Table 3-10 presents the BDAT constituents detected in the treated and
untreated K051 wastes from the stabilization treatment system. Design and
operating data were not submitted for these stabilization processes.
3-9
-------
Filter cakes from treatment of petroleum refinery wastes (the
specific waste codes treated were not reported) at plant C and from treatment
of a mixture of K051 and K052 wastes at plant E were stabilized separately at
plant J using the same two-step process as described above. Tables 3-11 and
3-12 present the BOAT constituents detected in the untreated (filter cakes)
and treated (stabilized filter cakes) wastes from plants C and E, respec-
tively.
Filter cakes from plants C and E from treatment of petroleum refin-
ery wastes (the specific waste codes were not reported) and a mixture of K051
and K052, respectively, were stabilized separately at plant J using a soluble
sodium silicate/pozzolanic process. Tables 3-13 and 3-14 present the BDAT
constituents detected in the untreated (filter cake) and treated (stabilized
filter cake) wastes from plants C and E, respectively.
Filter cakes from plants C and E from treatment of petroleum refin-
ery wastes (the specific waste codes were not reported) and a mixture of K051
and K052, respectively, were stabilized separately at plant J using a mixture
of cement, fly ash, and lime. Tables 3-15 and 3-16 present the BDAT consti-
tuents detected in the untreated (filter cake) and treated (stabilized filter
cake) wastes from plants C and E, respectively.
Two thermally dried filter cakes from plant H were stabilized
separately at plant J using a soluble sodium silicate/pozzolanic process. The
filter cakes treated at plant H were generated from plants C and E from
3-10
-------
treatment of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste codes were not
reported) and a mixture of K051 and K052 wastes, respectively. Tables 3-17
and 3-18 present the BOAT constituents detected in the untreated (filter
cakes) and treated (stabilized filter cakes) wastes originally from plants C
and E, respectively.
F. Chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation
and vacuum filtration. Chromium reduction reduces the concentration of
hexavalent chromium in the wastes by converting hexavalent chromium to the
trivalent state. Lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration removes
metals from the wastewater forming a precipitate sludge. Vacuum filtration
separates the precipitated sludge from the wastewater. No data on the treat-
ment of hexavalent chromium or other metals in K048-K052 wastewaters were
available to the Agency. However, the Agency determined that treatment
performance data for chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipi-
tation and vacuum filtration presented in the Envirite Onsite Engineering
Report (Reference 27) represent treatment of hexavalent chromium and metals in
wastewaters judged to be similar to wastewater forms of K048-K052 wastes.
These data are included in Section 4.0. More detailed discussions of the
chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, and filtration technologies are
presented in Section 3.4.
3-11
-------
3.3 Available Treatment Technologies
As defined in Section 1.0, an available treatment technology is one
that (1) is not a proprietary or patented process that cannot be purchased or
licensed from the proprietor (in other words, is commercially available), and
(2) substantially diminishes the toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduces the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste.
The demonstrated technologies for treatment of nonwastewater forms of
K048-K052, incineration technologies including fluidized bed and rotary kiln,
solvent extraction, pressure filtration, thermal drying, and stabilization,
are considered to be commercially available technologies. The demonstrated
technology for treatment of wastewater forms of K048-K052, chromium reduction
followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration, is also
considered to be commercially available.
3.4 Detailed Description of Treatment Technologies
The demonstrated treatment technologies discussed in Section 3.2 are
described in more detail in Sections 3.4.1-3.4.6, as shown below.
Technology Description Subsection
Incineration 3.4.1
Solvent Extraction 3.4.2
Sludge Filtration 3.4.3
Stabilization 3.4.4
Chromium Reduction 3.4.5
Chemical Precipitation 3.4.6
3-12
-------
3.4.1 Incineration
This section addresses the commonly used incineration technologies:
Liquid injection, rotary kiln, fluidized bed incineration, and fixed hearth.
A discussion is provided regarding the applicability of these technologies,
the underlying principles of operation, a technology description, waste
characteristics that affect performance, and finally important design and
operating parameters. As appropriate, the subsections are divided by type of
incineration unit.
Applicability and Use of Incineration
Liquid Injection
Liquid injection is applicable to wastes that have viscosity values
sufficiently low so that the waste can be atomized in the combustion chamber.
A range of literature maximum viscosity values are reported with the low being
100 SSU and the high being 10,000 SSU. It is important to note that viscosity
is temperature dependent so that while liquid injection may not be applicable
to a waste at ambient conditions, it may be applicable when the waste is
heated. Other factors that affect the use of liquid injection are particle
size and the presence of suspended solids. Both of these waste parameters can
cause plugging of the burner nozzle.
3-13
-------
Rotary Kiln/Fluidized Bed/Fixed Hearth
These incineration technologies are applicable to a wide range of
hazardous wastes. They can be used on wastes that contain high or low total
organic content, high or low filterable solids, various viscosity ranges, and
a range of other waste parameters. EPA has not found these technologies to be
demonstrated on wastes that are comprised essentially of metals with low
organic concentrations. In addition, the Agency expects that some of the high
metal content wastes may not be compatible with existing and future air
emission limits without emission controls far more extensive than currently
practiced.
Underlying Principles of Operation
Liquid Injection
The basic operating principle of this incineration technology is
that incoming liquid wastes are volatilized and then additional heat is
supplied to the waste to destabilize the chemical bonds. Once the chemical
bonds are broken, these constituents react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide
and water vapor. The energy needed to destabilize the bonds is referred to as
the energy of activation.
3-14
-------
Rotary Kiln and Fixed Hearth
There are two distinct principles of operation for these incinera-
tion technologies, one for each of the chambers involved. In the primary
chamber, energy, in the form of heat, is transferred to the waste to achieve
volatilization of the various organic waste constituents. During this vola-
tilization process some of the organic constituents will oxidize to CC>2 and
water vapor. In the secondary chamber, additional heat is supplied to over-
come the energy requirements needed to destabilize the chemical bonds and
allow the constituents to react with excess oxygen to form carbon dioxide and
water vapor. The principle of operation for the secondary chamber is similar
to liquid injection.
Fluidized Bed
The principle of operation for this incineration technology is
somewhat different than for rotary kiln and fixed hearth incineration, in that
there is only one chamber which contains the fluidizing sand and a freeboard
section above the sand. The purpose of the fluidized bed is to both
volatilize the waste and combust the waste. Destruction of the waste organics
can be accomplished to a better degree in this chamber than in the primary
chamber of the rotary kiln and fixed hearth because of 1) improved heat
transfer from fluidization of the waste using forced air and 2) the fact that
the fluidization process provides sufficient oxygen and turbulence to convert
the organics to carbon dioxide and water vapor. The freeboard generally does
3-15
-------
not have an afterburner; however, additional time is provided for conversion
of the organic constituents to carbon dioxide, water vapor, and hydrochloric
acid if chlorine is present in the waste.
Description of Incineration Process
Liquid Injection
The liquid injection system is capable of incinerating a wide range
of gases and liquids. The combustion system has a simple design with virtu-
ally no moving parts. A burner or nozzle atomizes the liquid waste and
injects it into the combustion chamber where it burns in the presence of air
or oxygen. A forced draft system supplies the combustion chamber with air to
provide oxygen for combustion and turbulence for mixing. The combustion
chamber is usually a cylinder lined with refractory (i.e., heat resistant)
brick and can be fired horizontally, vertically upward, or vertically down-
ward. Figure 3-1 illustrates a liquid injection incineration system.
Rotary Kiln
A rotary kiln is a slowly rotating, refractory-lined cylinder that
is mounted at a slight incline from the horizontal (see Figure 3-2). Solid
wastes enter at the high end of the kiln, and liquid or gaseous wastes enter
3-16
-------
WATER
AUXILIARY FUEL
MBURNER
AIR-
LIQUID OR GASEOUS.
WASTE INJECTION
»|BURNER
PRIMARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
AFTERBURNER
(SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER)
SPRAY
CHAMBER
GAS TO AIR
->• POLLUTION
CONTROL
HORIZONTALLY FIRED
LIQUID INJECTION
INCINERATOR
ASH
WATER
FIGURE 3-1
UQUD INJECTION INCINERATOR
-------
GAS TO
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
AUXILIARY
FUEL
AFTERBURNER
SOLID
WASTE
INFLUENT
FEED
MECHANISM
COMBUSTION
GASES
LIQUID OR
GASEOUS
WASTE
INJECTION
ASH
FIGURE 3-2
ROTARY KLN NONERATOR
3-18
-------
through atomizing nozzles in the kiln or afterburner section. Rotation of the
kiln exposes the solids to the heat, vaporizes them, and allows them to
combust by mixing with air. The rotation also causes the ash to move to the
lower end of the kiln where it can be removed. Rotary kiln systems usually
have a secondary combustion chamber or afterburner following the kiln for
further combustion of the volatilized components of solid wastes.
Fluidized Bed
A fluidized bed incinerator consists of a column containing inert
particles such as sand which is referred to as the bed. Air, driven by a
blower, enters the bottom of the bed to fluidize the sand. Air passage
through the bed promotes rapid and uniform mixing of the injected waste
material within the fluidized bed. The fluidized bed has an extremely high
heat capacity (approximately three times that of flue gas at the same tempera-
ture), thereby providing a large heat reservoir. The injected waste reaches
ignition temperature quickly and transfers the heat of combustion back to the
bed. Continued bed agitation by the fluidizing air allows larger particles to
remain suspended in the combustion zone. (See Figure 3-3)
Fixed Hearth Incineration
Fixed hearth incinerators, also called controlled air or starved air
incinerators, are another major technology used for hazardous waste incinera-
tion. Fixed hearth incineration is a two-stage combustion process
3-19
-------
WASTE
INJECTION
BURNER
FREEBOARD
SAND BED
GAS TO
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
MAKE-UP
SAND
AIR
ASH
FIGURE 3-3
FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR
3-20
-------
(see Figure 3-4). Waste is ram-fed into the first stage, or primary chamber,
and burned at less than stoichiometric conditions. The resultant smoke and
pyrolysis products, consisting primarily of volatile hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide, along with the normal products of combustion, pass to the secondary
chamber. Here, additional air is injected to complete the combustion. This
two-stage process generally yields low stack particulate and carbon monoxide
(CO) emissions. The primary chamber combustion reactions and combustion gas
are maintained at low levels by the starved air conditions so that particulate
entrainment and carryover are minimized.
Air Pollution Controls
Following incineration of hazardous wastes, combustion gases are
generally further treated in an air pollution control system. The presence of
chlorine or other halogens in the waste requires a scrubbing or absorption
step to remove HC1 and other halo-acids from the combustion gases. Ash in the
waste is not destroyed in the combustion process. Depending on its composi-
tion, ash will either exit as bottom ash, at the discharge end of a kiln or
hearth for example, or as particulate matter (fly ash) suspended in the
combustion gas stream. Particulate emissions from most hazardous waste
combustion systems generally have particle diameters less than one micron and
require high efficiency collection devices to minimize air emissions. In
addition, scrubber systems provide additional buffer against accidental
releases of incompletely destroyed waste products due to poor combustion
efficiency or combustion upsets, such as flame outs.
3-21
-------
U)
I
hO
WASTE
INJECTION
AIR
GAS TO AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
PRIMARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
GRATE
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
AUXILIARY
FUEL
2-STAGE FIXED HEARTH
INCINERATOR
ASH
RQURE3-4
FIXED HEARTH INCINERATOR
-------
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
Liquid Injection
In determining whether liquid injection is likely to achieve the
same level of performance on an untested waste as a previously tested waste,
the Agency will compare bond dissociation energies of the constituents in the
untested and tested waste. This parameter is being used as a surrogate
indicator of activation energy which, as discussed previously, is the amount
of energy required to destabilize molecular bonds. Other energy effects
(e.g., vibrational, the formation of intermediates, and interactions between
different molecular bonds) may have a significant influence on activation
energy.
Because of the shortcomings of bond energies in estimating activa-
tion energy, EPA analyzed other waste characteristic parameters to determine
if these parameters would provide a better basis for transferring
treatment standards from a tested waste to an untested waste. These param-
eters include heat of combustion, heat of formation, use of available kinetic
data to predict activation energies, and general structural class. All of
these were rejected for reasons provided below.
The heat of combustion only measures the difference in energy of the
products and reactants; it does not provide information on the transition
state (i.e., the energy input needed to initiate the reaction). Heat of
3-23
-------
formation is used as a predictive tool for whether reactions are likely to
proceed; however, there are a significant number of hazardous constituents for
which these data are not available. Use of kinetic data were rejected because
these data are limited and could not be used to calculate free energy values
(AG) for the wide range of hazardous constituents to be addressed by this
rule. Finally, EPA decided not to use structural classes because the Agency
believes that evaluation of bond dissociation energies allows for a more
direct determination of whether a constituent will be destabilized.
Rotary Kiln/Fluidized Bed/Fixed Hearth
Unlike liquid injection, these incineration technologies also
generate a residual ash. Accordingly, in determining whether these technolo-
gies are likely to achieve the same level of performance on an untested waste
as a previously tested waste, EPA would need to examine the waste characteris-
tics that affect volatilization of organics from the waste, as well as
destruction of the organics, once volatilized. Relative to volatilization,
EPA will examine thermal conductivity of the entire waste and boiling point of
the various constituents. As with liquid injection, EPA will examine bond
energies in determining whether treatment standards for scrubber water residu-
als can be transferred from a tested waste to an untested waste. Below is a
discussion of how EPA arrived at thermal conductivity and boiling point as the
best method to assess volatilization of organics from the waste;
3-24
-------
the discussion relative to bond energies is the same for these technologies as
for liquid injection and will not be repeated here.
(1) Thermal Conductivity. Consistent with the underlying princi-
ples of incineration, a major factor with regard to whether a particular
constituent will volatilize is the transfer of heat through the waste. In the
case of rotary kiln, fluidized bed, and fixed hearth incineration, heat is
transferred through the waste by three mechanisms: radiation, convection, and
conduction. For a given incinerator, heat transferred through various wastes
by radiation is more a function of the design and type of incinerator than the
waste being treated. Accordingly, the type of waste treated will have a
minimal impact on the amount of heat transferred by radiation. With regard to
convection, EPA also believes that the type of heat transfer will generally be
more a function of the type and design of incinerator than the waste itself.
However, EPA is examining particle size as a waste characteristic that may
significantly impact the amount of heat transferred to a waste by convection
and thus impact volatilization of the various organic compounds. The final
type of heat transfer, conduction, is the one that EPA believes will have the
greatest impact on volatilization of organic constituents. To measure this
characteristic, EPA will use thermal conductivity; an explanation of this
parameter, as well as how it can be measured is provided below. Heat flow by
conduction is proportional to the temperature gradient across the material.
The proportionality constant is a property of the material and referred to as
the thermal conductivity. (Note: The analytical method that EPA has identi-
fied for measurement of thermal conductivity is named "Guarded, Comparative,
3-25
-------
Longitudinal Heat Flow Technique"; it is described in an Appendix to this
technology section.) In theory, thermal conductivity would always provide a
good indication of whether a constituent in an untested waste would be treated
to the same extent in the primary incinerator chamber as the same constituent
in a previously tested waste.
In practice, thermal conductivity has some limitations in assessing
the transferability of treatment standards; however, EPA has not identified a
parameter that can provide a better indication of heat transfer characteris-
tics of a waste. Below is a discussion of both the limitations associated
with thermal conductivity, as well as other parameters considered.
Thermal conductivity measurements, as part of a treatability compar-
ison for two different wastes through a single incinerator, are most meaning-
ful when applied to wastes that are homogeneous (i.e., major constituents are
essentially the same). As wastes exhibit greater degrees of non-homogeneity
(e.g., significant concentration of metals in soil), then thermal conductivity
becomes less accurate in predicting treatability because the measurement
essentially reflects heat flow through regions having the greatest conductiv-
ity (i.e., the path of least resistance) and not heat flow through all parts
of the waste.
Btu value, specific heat, and ash content were also considered for
predicting heat transfer characteristics. These parameters can no better
account for non-homogeneity than thermal conductivity; additionally, they are
3-26
-------
not directly related to heat transfer characteristics. Therefore, these
parameters do not provide a better indication of heat transfer that will occur
in any specific waste.
(2) Boiling Point. Once heat is (transferred to a constituent
within a waste, then removal of this constituent from the waste will depend on
its volatility. As a surrogate of volatility, EPA is using boiling point of
the constituent. Compounds with lower boiling points have higher vapor
pressures and, therefore, would be more likely to vaporize. The Agency
recognizes that this parameter does not take into consideration the impact of
other compounds in the waste on the boiling point of a constituent in a
mixture; however, the Agency is not aware of a better measure of volatility
that can easily be determined.
Incineration Design and Operating Parameters
Liquid Injection
For a liquid injection unit, EPA's analysis of whether the unit is
well designed will focus on (1) the likelihood that sufficient energy is
provided to the waste to overcome the activation level for breaking molecular
bonds and (2) whether sufficient oxygen is present to convert the waste
constituents to carbon dioxide and water vapor. The specific design param-
eters that the Agency will evaluate to assess whether these conditions are met
are: temperature, excess oxygen, and residence time. Below is a discussion
3-27
-------
of why EPA believes these parameters to be important, as well as a discussion
of how these parameters will be monitored during operation.
It is important to point out that, relative to the development of
land disposal restriction standards, EPA is only concerned with these design
parameters when a quench water or scrubber water residual is generated from
treatment of a particular waste. If treatment of a particular waste in a
liquid injection unit would not generate a wastewater stream, then the Agency,
for purposes of land disposal treatment standards, would only be concerned
with the waste characteristics that affect selection of the unit, not the
above-mentioned design parameters.
(1) Temperature. Temperature is important in that it provides an
indirect measure of the energy available (i.e., Btus/hr) to overcome the
activation energy of waste constituents. As the design temperature increases,
the more likely it is that the molecular bonds will be destabilized and the
reaction completed.
The temperature is normally controlled automatically through the use
of instrumentation which senses the temperature and automatically adjusts the
amount of fuel and/or waste being fed. The temperature signal transmitted to
the controller can be simultaneously transmitted to a recording device,
referred to as a strip chart, and thereby continuously recorded. To fully
assess the operation of the unit, it is important to know not only the exact
3-28
-------
location in the incinerator that the temperature is being monitored but also
the location of the design temperature.
(2) Excess Oxygen. It is important that the incinerator contain
oxygen in excess of the stoichiometric amount necessary to convert the organic
compounds to carbon dioxide and water vapor. If insufficient oxygen is
present, then destabilized waste constituents could recombine to the same or
other BOAT list organic compounds and potentially cause the scrubber water to
contain higher concentrations of BOAT list constituents than would be the case
for a well operated unit.
In practice, the amount of oxygen fed to the incinerator is con-
trolled by continuous sampling and analysis of the stack gas. If the amount
of oxygen drops below the design value, then the analyzer transmits a signal
to the valve controlling the air supply and thereby increases the flow of
oxygen to the afterburner. The analyzer simultaneously transmits a signal to
a recording device so that the amount of excess oxygen can be continuously
recorded. Again, as with temperature, it is important to know the location
from which the combustion gas is being sampled.
(3) Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide is an important operating
parameter because it provides an indication of the extent to which the waste
organic constituents are being converted to CC>2 and water vapor. As the
carbon monoxide level increases, it indicates that greater amounts of organic
waste constituents are unreacted or partially reacted. Increased carbon
3-29
-------
monoxide levels can result from insufficient excess oxygen, insufficient
turbulence in the combustion zone, or insufficient residence time
Waste Feed Rate. The waste feed rate is important to monitor
because it is correlated to the residence time. The residence time is associ-
ated with a specific Btu energy value of the feed and a specific volume of
combustion gas generated. Prior to incineration, the Btu value of the waste
is determined through the use of a laboratory device known as a bomb colorim-
eter. The volume of combustion gas generated from the waste to be incinerated
is determined from an analysis referred to as an ultimate analysis. This
analysis determines the amount of elemental constituents present which include
carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen, nitrogen, and halogens. Using this analysis
plus the total amount of air added, the volume of combustion gas can be
calculated. Having determined both the Btu content and the expected combus-
tion gas volume, the feed rate can be fixed at the desired residence time.
Continuous monitoring of the feed rate will determine whether the unit was
operated at a rate corresponding to the designed residence time.
Rotary Kiln
For this incineration, EPA will examine both the primary and secon-
dary chamber in evaluating the design of a particular incinerator. Relative
to the primary chamber, EPA's assessment of design will focus on whether it is
likely that sufficient energy will be provided to the waste in order to
volatilize the waste constituents. For the secondary chamber, analogous to
3-30
-------
the sole liquid injection incineration chamber, EPA will examine the same
parameters discussed previously under "Liquid Injection." These parameters
will not be discussed again here.
The particular design parameters to be evaluated for the primary
chamber are: kiln temperature, residence time, and revolutions per minute.
Below is a discussion of why EPA believes these parameters to be important, as
well as a discussion of how these parameters will be monitored during opera-
tion.
(1) Temperature. The primary chamber temperature is important in
that it provides an indirect measure of the energy input: (i.e., BTU/hr) that
is available for heating the waste. The higher the temperature is designed to
be in a given kiln, the more likely it is that the constituents will volatil-
ize. As discussed earlier under "Liquid Injection", temperature should be
continuously monitored and recorded. Additionally, it is important to know
the location of the temperature sensing device in the kiln.
(2) Residence Time. This parameter is important in that it affects
whether sufficient heat is transferred to a particular constituent in order
for volatilization to occur. As the time that the waste is in the kiln is
increased, a greater quantity of heat is transferred to the hazardous waste
constituents. The residence time will be a function of the specific configu-
ration of the rotary kiln including the length and diameter of the kiln, the
waste feed rate, and the rate of rotation.
3-31
-------
(3) Revolutions Per Minute (RPM). This parameter provides an
indication of the turbulence that occurs in the primary chamber of a rotary
kiln. As the turbulence increases, the quantity of heat transferred to the
waste would also be expected to increase. However, as the RPM value
increases, the residence time decreases resulting in a reduction of the
quantity of heat transferred to the waste. This parameter needs to be care-
fully evaluated because it provides a balance between turbulence and residence
time.
Fluidized Bed
As discussed previously, in the section on "Underlying Principles of
Operation", the primary chamber accounts for almost all of the conversion of
organic wastes to carbon dioxide, water vapor, and acid gas if halogens are
present. The secondary chamber will generally provide additional residence
time for thermal oxidation of the waste constituents. Relative to the primary
chamber, the parameters that the Agency will examine in assessing the effec-
tiveness of the design are temperature, residence time, and bed pressure
differential. The first two were discussed under rotary kiln and will not be
discussed here. The latter, bed pressure differential, is important in that
it provides an indication of the amount of turbulence and, therefore, indi-
rectly the amount of heat supplied to the waste. In general, as the pressure
drop increases, both the turbulence and heat supplied increase. The pressure
drop through the bed should be continuously monitored and recorded to ensure
that the design value is achieved.
3-32
-------
Fixed Hearth
The design considerations for this incineration unit are similar to
a rotary kiln with the exception that rate of rotation (i.e., RPM) is not an
applicable design parameter. For the primary chamber of this unit, the
parameters that the Agency will examine in assessing how well the unit is
designed are the same as discussed under rotary kiln; for the secondary
chamber (i.e., afterburner), the design and operating parameters of concern
are the same as previously discussed under "Liquid Injection."
3-33
-------
Incineration References
Ackerman DG, McGaughey JF, Wagoner, DE, "At Sea Incineration of
PCB-Containing Wastes on Board the M/T Vulcanus," USEPA, 600/7-83-024,
April 1983.
Bonner TA, et al., Engineering Handbook for Hazardous Waste Incineration.
SW-889 Prepared by Monsanto Research Corporation for U.S. EPA, NTIS PB
81-248163. June 1981.
Novak RG, Troxler WL, Dehnke TH, "Recovering Energy from Hazardous Waste
Incineration," Chemical Engineer Progress 91:146 (1984).
Oppelt ET, "Incineration of Hazardous Waste"; JAPCA; Volume 37, No. 5;
May, 1987.
Santoleri JJ, "Energy Recovery-A By-Product of Hazardous Waste Incineration
Systems," in Proceedings of the 15th Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste
Conference on Toxic and Hazardous Waste, 1983.
U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT) Background Document
for F001-F005 Spent Solvents," Volume 1, EPA/530-SW-86-056, November 1986.
Vogel G, et al., "Incineration and Cement Kiln Capacity for Hazardous Waste
Treatment," in Proceedings of the 12th Annual Research Symposium.
Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. Cincinnati, Ohio.
April 1986.
3-34
-------
The comparative method of measuring thermal
conductivity has been proposed as an ASTM test method under
the name "Guarded, Comparative, Longitudinal Heat Flow
Technique". A thermal heat flow circuit is used which is
the analog of an electrical circuit with resistances in
series. A reference material is chosen to have a thermal
conductivity close to that estimated for the sample.
Reference standards (also known as heat meters) having the
same cross-sectional dimensions as the sample are placed
above and below the sample. An upper heater, a lower
heater, and a heat sink are added to the "stack" to complete
the heat flow circuit. See Figure 1.
3-35
-------
GUARD
GRADIENT.
STACK
GRADIENT
r^Q
THERMOCOUPLE
CLAMP
UPPER STACK
HEATER
I
TOP REFERENCE
SAMPLE
I
J
TESTXSAMPLE
j _f
-------
The temperature gradients (analogous to potential
differences) along the stack are measured with type K
(chromel/alumel) thermocouples placed at known separations.
The thermocouples are placed into holes or grooves in the
references and also in the sample whenever the sample is
thick enough to accommodate them.
For molten samples, pastes, greases, and other
materials that must be contained, the material is placed
into a cell consisting of a top and bottom of Pyrex 7740 and
a containment ring of marinite. The sample is 2 inch in
diameter and .5 inch thick. Thermocouples are not placed
into the sample but rather the temperatures measured in the
Pyrex are extrapolated to give the temperature at the top
and bottom surfaces of the sample material. The Pyrex disks
also serve as the thermal conductivity reference material.
The stack is clamped with a reproducible load to
insure intimate contact between the components. In order to
produce a linear flow of heat down the stack and reduce the
amount of heat that flows radially, a guard tube is placed
around the stack and the intervening space is filled with
insulating grains or powder. The temperature gradient in
the guard is matched to that in the stack to further reduce
radial heat flow.
The comparative method is a steady state method of
measuring thermal conductivity. When equilibrium is reached
the heat flux (analogous to current flow) down the stack can
be determined from the references. The heat into the sample
is given by
Reference: VSR-1 3-37 January 1988
-------
and the heat out of the sample is given by
Qout - Xbottom(dT/dx>bottom
where
X = thermal conductivity
dT/dx = temperature gradient
and top refers to the upper reference while bottom refers to
the lower reference. If the heat was confined to flow just
down the stack, then Q^n and Qout would be equal. If Q^n
and Qout are in reasonable agreement, the average heat flow
is calculated from
The sample thermal conductivity is then found from
Reference: VSR-1 3-38 January 1988
-------
^sample = Q/
-------
3.4.2 Solvent Extraction
Solvent extraction is a treatment technology used to remove a
constituent from a waste by mixing the waste with a solvent that is immiscible
with the waste and in which the waste constituent of concern is preferentially
soluble. Solvent extraction is commonly called liquid extraction or liquid-
liquid extraction. EPA also uses this term to refer to extraction of BOAT
List organics from a solid waste. When BDAT List metals are extracted using
acids, EPA uses the term acid leaching.
Applicability and Use of Solvent Extraction
Theoretically, solvent extraction has broad applicability in that it
can be used for wastes that have high or low concentrations of a range of
waste characteristics including total organic carbon, filterable solids,
viscosity, and BDAT List metals content. The key to its use is whether the
BDAT List constituents can be extracted from the waste matrix containing the
constituents of concern. For a waste matrix with high filterable solids this
would mean that the solids could be land disposed following solvent extrac-
tion. For a predominately liquid waste matrix with low filterable solids, the
extracted liquid (referred to as the raffinate) could be reused. Solvent
extraction can seldom be used without additional treatment (e.g., incinera-
tion) of the extract; however, some industries may be able to recycle the
solvent stream contaminated with the BDAT List constituents back to the
process.
3-40
-------
Underlying Principles of Operation
For solvent extraction to occur, the BOAT List constituents of
concern in the waste stream must be preferentially soluble in the solvent and
the solvent must be essentially immiscible with the waste stream. In theory,
the degree of separation that can be achieved is provided by the selectivity
value; this value is the ratio of the equilibrium concentration of the con-
stituent in the solvent to the equilibrium concentration of the constituent in
the waste.
The solvent and waste stream are mixed to allow mass transfer of the
constituent(s) from the waste stream to the solvent. The solvent and waste
stream are then allowed to separate under quiescent conditions.
The solvent solution, containing the extracted contaminant is called
the extract. The extracted waste stream with the contaminants removed is
called the raffinate. The simplest extraction system comprises three compo-
nents: (1) the solute, or the contaminant to be extracted; (2) the solvent;
and (3) the nonsolute portion of the waste stream. For simple extractions,
solute passes from the waste stream to the solvent phase. A density differ-
ence exists between the solvent and waste stream phases. The extract can be
either the heavy phase or the light phase.
3-41
-------
Description of Solvent Extraction Process
The simplest method of extraction is a single stage system. The
solvent and waste stream are brought together; clean effluent and solvent are
recovered without further extraction. The clean effluent is referred to as
the raffinate, and the solvent containing the constituents that were removed
from the waste stream are known as the extract. The amount of solute
extracted is fixed by equilibrium relations and the quantity of solvent used.
Single stage extraction is the least effective extraction system.
Another method of extraction is simple multistage contact extrac-
tion. In this system, the total quantity of solvent to be used is divided
into several portions. The waste stream is contacted with each of these
portions of fresh solvent in a series of successive steps or stages. Raffi-
nate from the first extraction stage is contacted with fresh solvent in a
second stage, and so on.
In countercurrent, multistage contact, fresh solvent and the waste
stream enter at opposite ends of a series of extraction stages. Extract and
raffinate layers pass continuously and countercurrently from stage to stage
through the system.
In order to achieve a reasonable approximation of phase equilibrium,
solvent extraction requires the intimate contacting of the phases. Several
types of extraction systems are used for contact and separation; two of these,
mixer-settler systems and column contactors, are discussed below.
3-42
-------
(1) Mixer-Settler Systems. Mixer-settler systems are comprised of
a mixing chamber for phase dispersion, followed by a settling chamber for
phase separation. The vessels may be either vertical or horizontal. Disper-
sion in the mixing chamber occurs by pump circulation, nonmechanical in-line
mixing, air agitation, or mechanical stirring. In a two-stage mixer-settler
system the dispersed phase separates in a horizontal settler. The extract
from the second settler is recycled to the first settler (see Figure 3-5).
Extract properties such as density or specific constituent concentration may
be monitored to determine when the extract must be sent to solvent recovery
and fresh or regenerated solvent added to the system. Mixer-settler systems
can handle solids or highly viscous liquids. Design scaleup is reliable, and
mixer-settlers can handle difficult dispersion systems. Intense agitation to
provide high rates of mass transfer can produce solvent-feed dispersions that
are difficult to separate into distinct phases.
(2) Column Contactors. Packed and sieve-tray are two different
types of column contactors that do not require mechanical agitation. Figure
3-6 presents schematics of the two types of extraction columns.
A packed extractor contains packing materials, such as saddles,
rings, or structured packings of gauze or mesh. Mass transfer of the solute
3-43
-------
RECYCLED SOLVENT FROM
RECOVERY/FRESH SOLVENT
MAKEUP
RAFFINATE
RECYCLED
SOLVENT
EXTRACT
EXTRACT TO RECOVERY
FIGURE 3-5
TWO-STAGE MIXER-SETTLER EXTRACTION SYSTEM
-------
UJ
I
SOLVENT
LIQUID*
INTERFACE
SOLVENT-
WASTE »
RAFFINATE
1111
\
SOLVENT
PACKING
SUPPORT
REDISTRIBUTOR
\ PACKING
SUPORT
EXTRACT
RAFFINATE
^_j
SOLVENT
LIQUID
INTERFACE
DOWNCOMER
WASTE
EXTRACT
A. PACKED EXTRACTOR B. SIEVE TRAY EXTRACTOR
FIGURE 3-6
EXTRACTION COLUMNS WITH NONMECHANICAL AGITATION
-------
to the extract is promoted because of breakup and distortion of the dispersed
phase as it contacts the packing.
The sieve-tray extractor is similar to a sieve-tray column used in
distillation. Tray perforations result in the formation of liquid droplets to'
aid the mass transfer process. The improved transfer is accomplished by the
fact that the droplets allow for more intimate contact between extract and
raffinate.
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
In determining whether solvent extraction is likely to achieve the
same level of performance on an untested waste as a previously tested waste,
the Agency will focus on the waste characteristics that provide an estimate of
the selectivity value previously described. EPA believes that the selectivity
value can best be estimated by analytically measuring the partitioning coeffi-
cients of the waste constituents of concern and the solubility of the waste
matrix in the extraction solvent.
Accordingly, EPA will use partitioning coefficients and solubility
of the waste matrix as surrogates for the selectivity value in making deci-
sions regarding transfer of treatment standards.
3-46
-------
Design and Operating Parameters
EPA's analysis of whether a solvent extraction system is well
designed will focus on whether the BDAT List constituents are likely to be
effectively separated from the waste. The particular design and operating
parameters to be evaluated are: (1) the selection of a solvent, (2) equilib-
rium data, (3) temperature and pH, (4) mixing, and (5) settling time.
(1) The Selection of a Solvent. In assessing the design of a
solvent extraction system, the most important aspect to evaluate is the
solvent used and the basis on which the particular solvent was selected.
Solvent selection is important because, as indicated previously, different
waste constituents of concern will have different solubilities in various
solvents, and it is the extent to which the waste constituents are preferen-
tially soluble in the selected solvent that determines the effectiveness of
this technology. In addition to this information, EPA would also want to
review any empirical extraction data used to design the system.
(2) Equilibrium Data. For solvent extraction systems that are
operated in a continuous mode, the extraction process will generally be
conducted using a series of equilibrium stages as discussed previously. The
number of equilibrium stages and the associated flow rates of the waste and
solvent will be based on empirical equilibrium data. EPA will evaluate these
data as part of assessing the design of the system. EPA would thus want to
3-47
-------
know the type of mixers used and the basis for determining that this system
would provide sufficient mixing.
(3) Temperature and pH. Temperature and pH changes can affect
equilibrium conditions and, consequently, the performance of the extraction
system. Thus, EPA would attempt to monitor and record these values on a
continuous basis.
(4) Mixing. For mixer-settler type extraction processes, mixing
determines the amount of contact between the two immiscible phases and,
accordingly, the degree of mass transfer of the constituents to be extracted.
(5) Settling Time. For batch systems, adequate settling time must
be allowed to ensure that separation of the phases has been completed.
Accordingly, in assessing the design of a system, EPA would want to know
settling time allowed and the basis for selection.
3-48
-------
Solvent Extraction References
Hanson, C. August 26, 1968. Solvent extraction theory, equipment,
commercial operations, and economics. Chem. Eng. p. 81.
De Renzo, D.J. (editor). 1978. Unit operations for treatment of
hazardous industrial wastes. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Data Corporation.
Gallacher, Lawrence V. February 1981. Liquid ion exchange in metal
recovery and recycling. 3rd Conference on Advanced Pollution Control for
the Metal Finishing Industry. U.S. EPA 600/2-81-028. pp. 39-41.
Hackman, E. 1978. Toxic organic chemicals, destruction and waste
treatment. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Data Corporation, pp. 109-111.
Humphrey, J.L., J.A. Rocha, and J.R. Fair. September 17, 1984. The
essentials of extraction. Chemical Engineering, pp. 76-95.
Lo, Teh C., M.H.I. Baird, and C. Manson (editors). 1983. Handbook of
solvent extraction. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 53-89.
Perry, R.H. and C.H. Chilton. 1973. Chemical engineer's handbook, 5th
edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp. 15-1 to 15-24.
3-49
-------
3.4.3 Sludge Filtration
Applicability and Use of Sludge Filtration
Sludge filtration, also known as sludge dewatering or cake-formation
filtration, is a technology used on wastes that contain high concentrations of
suspended solids, generally higher than one percent. The remainder of the
waste is essentially water. Sludge filtration is applied to sludges, typi-
cally those that have settled to the bottom of clarifiers, for dewatering.
After filtration, these sludges can be dewatered to 20 to 50 percent solids.
Underlying Principle of Operation
The basic principle of filtration is the separation of particles
from a mixture of fluids and particles by a medium that permits the flow of
the fluid but retains the particles. As would be expected, larger particles
are easier to separate from the fluid than smaller particles. Extremely small
particles, in the colloidal range, may not be filtered effectively and may
appear in the treated waste. To mitigate this problem, the wastewater should
be treated prior to filtration to modify the particle size distribution in
favor of the larger particles, by the use of appropriate precipitants, coagu-
lants, flocculants, and filter aids. The selection of the appropriate precip-
itant or coagulant is important because it affects the particles formed. For
example, lime neutralization usually produces larger, less gelatinous parti-
cles than does caustic soda precipitation. For larger particles that become
3-50
-------
too small to filter effectively because of poor resistance to shearing, shear
resistance can be improved by the use of coagulants and flocculants. Also, if
pumps are used to feed the filter, shear can be minimized by designing for a
lower pump speed, or by use of a low shear type of pump.
Description of Sludge Filtration Process
For sludge filtration, settled sludge is either pumped through a
cloth-type filter media (such as in a plate and frame filter that allows solid
"cake" to build up on the media) or the sludge is drawn by vacuum through the
cloth media (such as on a drum or vacuum filter, which also allows the solids
to build). In both cases the solids themselves act as a filter for subsequent
solids removal. For a plate and frame type filter, removal of the solids is
accomplished by taking the unit off line, opening the filter and scraping the
solids off. For the vacuum type filter, cake is removed continuously. For a
specific sludge, the plate and frame type filter will usually produce a drier
cake than a vacuum filter. Other types of sludge filters, such as belt
filters, are also used for effective sludge dewatering.
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
The following characteristics of the waste will affect performance
of a sludge filtration unit:
o size of particles, and
o type of particles.
3-51
-------
(1) Size of particles. The smaller the particle size, the more the
particles tend to go through the filter media. This is especially true for a
vacuum filter. For a pressure filter (like a plate and frame), smaller
particles may require higher pressures for equivalent throughput, since the
smaller pore spaces between particles create resistance to flow.
(2) Type of particles. Some solids formed during metal precipita-
tion are gelatinous in nature and cannot be dewatered well by cake-formation
filtration. In fact, for vacuum filtration a cake may not form at all. In
most cases solids can be made less gelatinous by use of the appropriate
coagulants and coagulant dosage prior to clarification, or after clarification
but prior to filtration. In addition, the use of lime instead of caustic soda
in metal precipitation will reduce the formation of gelatinous solids. Also
the addition of filter aids to a gelatinous sludge, such as lime or diatoma-
ceous earth, will help significantly. Finally, precoating the filter with
diatomaceous earth prior to sludge filtration will assist in dewatering
gelatinous sludges.
Design and Operating Parameters
For sludge filtration, the following design and operating variables
affect performance:
o type of filter selected,
o size of filter selected,
o feed pressure, and
o use of coagulants or filter aids.
3-52
-------
(1) Type of filter. Typically, pressure type filters (such as a
plate and frame) will yield a drier cake than a vacuum type filter and will
also be more tolerant of variations in influent sludge characteristics.
Pressure type filters, however, are batch operations, so that when cake is
built up to the maximum depth physically possible (constrained by filter
geometry), or to the maximum design pressure, the filter is turned off while
the cake is removed. A vacuum filter is a continuous device (i.e., cake
discharges continuously), but will usually be much larger than a pressure
filter with the same capacity. A hybrid device is a belt filter, which
mechanically squeezes sludge between two continuous fabric belts.
(2) Size of filter. As with in-depth filters, the larger the
filter, the greater its hydraulic capacity and the longer the filter runs
between cake discharge.
(3) Feed pressure. This parameter impacts both the design pore
size of the filter and the design flow rate. It is important that in treating
waste that the design feed pressure not be exceeded, otherwise particles may
be forced through the filter medium resulting in ineffective treatment.
(4) Use of coagulants. Coagulants and filter aids may be mixed
with filter feed prior to filtration. Their effect is particularly signifi-
cant for vacuum filtration in that it may make the difference in a vacuum
filter between no cake and a relatively dry cake. In a pressure filter,
coagulants and filter aids will also significantly improve hydraulic capacity
3-53
-------
and cake dryness. Filter aids, such as diatomaceous earth, can be precoated
on filters (vacuum or pressure) for particularly difficult to filter sludges.
The precoat layer acts somewhat like an in-depth filter in that sludge solids
are trapped in the precoat pore spaces. Use of precoats and most coagulants
or filter aids significantly increases the amount of sludge solids to be
disposed of. However, polyelectrolyte coagulant usage usually does not
increase sludge volume significantly because the dosage is low.
3-54
-------
Sludge Filtration References
Eckenfelder, W.W. 1985. Wastewater Treatment, Chemical Engineering. 85:72.
Grain, Richard W. Solids 1981. Removal and Concentration. In Third Confer-
ence on Advanced Pollution Control for the Metal Finishing Industry. Cincin-
nati, Ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 56-62.
Kirk-Othmer. 1980. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed., New York.
John Wiley and Sons, Vol. 10.
Perry, Robert H. and Cecil H. Chilton. 1973. Chemical Engineers' Handbook.
Fifth Edition. New York. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Section 19.
3-55
-------
3.4.4 Stabilization of Metals
Stabilization refers to a broad class of treatment processes that
chemically reduce the mobility of hazardous constituents in a waste. Solidi-
fication and fixation are other terms that are sometimes used synonymously for
stabilization or to describe specific variations within the broader class of
stabilization. Related technologies are encapsulation and thermoplastic
binding; however, EPA considers these technologies to be distinct from stabi-
lization in that the operational principles are significantly different.
Applicability and Use of Stabilization
Stabilization is used when a waste contains metals that will leach
from the waste when it is contacted by water. In general, this technology is
applicable to wastes containing BDAT list metals, having a high filterable
solids content, low TOC content, and low oil and grease content. This tech-
nology is commonly used to treat residuals generated from treatment of elec-
troplating wastewaters. For some wastes, an alternative to stabilization is
metal recovery.
Underlying Principles of Operation
The basic principle underlying this technology is that stabilizing
agents and other chemicals are added to a waste in order to minimize the
amount of metal that leaches. The reduced leachability is accomplished by the
3-56
-------
formation of a lattice structure and/or chemical bonds that bind the metals to
the solid matrix and, thereby, limit the amount of metal constituents that can
be leached when water or a mild acid solution comes into contact with the
waste material.
There are two principal stabilization processes used; these are
cement-based and lime/pozzolan-based. A brief discussion of each is provided
below. In both cement-based or lime/pozzolan-based techniques, the stabiliz-
ing process can be modified through the use of additives, such as silicates,
that control curing rates or enhance the properties of the solid material.
Portland Cement-Based Process
Portland cement is a mixture of powdered oxides of calcium, silica,
aluminum, and iron, produced by kiln burning of materials rich in calcium and
silica at high temperatures (i.e., 1400°C to 1500°C). When the anhydrous
cement powder is mixed with water, hydration occurs and the cement begins to
set. The chemistry involved is complex because many different reactions occur
depending on the composition of the cement mixture.
As the cement begins to set, a colloidal gel of indefinite composi-
tion and structure is formed. Over a period of time, the gel swells and forms
a matrix composed of interlacing, thin, densely-packed silicate fibrils.
Constituents present in the waste slurry (e.g., hydroxides and carbonates of
various heavy metals), are incorporated into the interstices of the cement
3-57
-------
matrix. The high pH of the cement mixture tends to keep metals in the form of
insoluble hydroxide and carbonate salts. It has been hypothesized that metal
ions may also be incorporated into the crystal structure of the cement matrix,
but this hypothesis has not been verified.
Lime/Pozzolan-Based Process
Pozzolan, which contains finely divided, noncrystalline silica
(e.g., fly ash or components of cement kiln dust), is a material that is not
cementitious in itself, but becomes so upon the addition of lime. Metals in
the waste are converted to silicates or hydroxides which inhibit leaching.
Additives, again, can be used to reduce permeability and thereby further
decrease leaching potential.
Description of Stabilization Processes
In most stabilization processes, the waste, stabilizing agent, and
other additives, if used, are mixed and then pumped to a curing vessel or area
and allowed to cure. The actual operation (equipment requirements and process
sequencing) will depend on several factors such as the nature of the waste,
the quantity of the waste, the location of the waste in relation to the
disposal site, the particular stabilization formulation to be used, and the
curing rate. After curing, the solid formed is recovered from the processing
equipment and shipped for final disposal.
3-58
-------
In instances where waste contained in a lagoon is to be treated, the
material should be first transferred to mixing vessels where stabilizing
agents are added. The mixed material is then fed to a curing pad or vessel.
After curing, the solid formed is removed for disposal. Equipment commonly
used also includes facilities to store waste and chemical additives. Pumps
can be used to transfer liquid or light sludge wastes to the mixing pits and
pumpable uncured wastes to the curing site. Stabilized wastes are then
removed to a final disposal site.
Commercial concrete mixing and handling equipment generally can be
used with wastes. Weighing conveyors, metering cement hoppers, and mixers
similar to concrete batching plants have been adapted in some operations.
Where extremely dangerous materials are being treated, remote-control and
in-drum mixing equipment, such as that used with nuclear waste, can be
employed.
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
In determining whether stabilization is likely to achieve the same
level of performance on an untested waste as on a previously tested waste, the
Agency will focus on the characteristics that inhibit the formation of either
the chemical bonds or the lattice structure. The four characteristics EPA has
identified as affecting treatment performance are the presence of (1) fine
particulates, (2) oil and grease, (3) organic compounds, and (4) certain
inorganic compounds.
3-59
-------
(1) Fine Particulates. For both cement-based and lime/pozzolan-
based processes, the literature states that very fine solid materials (i.e.,
those that pass through a No. 200 mesh sieve, 74 urn particle size) can weaken
the bonding between waste particles and cement by coating the particles. This
coating can inhibit chemical bond formation and decreases the resistance of
the material to leaching.
(2) Oil and Grease. The presence of oil and grease in both cement-
based and lime/pozzolan-based systems results in the coating of waste parti-
cles and the weakening of the bonding between the particle and the stabilizing
agent. This coating can inhibit chemical bond formation and thereby, decrease
the resistance of the material to leaching.
(3) Organic Compounds. The presence of organic compounds in the
waste interferes with the chemical reactions and bond formation which inhibit
curing of the stabilized material. This results in a stabilized waste having
decreased resistance to leaching.
(4) Sulfate and Chlorides. The presence of certain inorganic
compounds will interfere with the chemical reactions, weakening bond strength
and prolonging setting and curing time. Sulfate and chloride compounds may
reduce the dimensional stability of the cured matrix, thereby increasing
leachability potential.
3-60
-------
Accordingly, EPA will examine these constituents when making deci-
sions regarding transfer of treatment standards based on stabilization.
Design and Operating Parameters
In designing a stabilization system, the principal parameters that
are important to optimize so that the amount of leachable metal constituents
is minimized are (1) selection of stabilizing agents and other additives, (2)
ratio of waste to stabilizing agents and other additives, (3) degree of
mixing, and (4) curing conditions.
(1) Selection of stabilizing agents and other additives. The
stabilizing agent and additives used will determine the chemistry and struc-
ture of the stabilized material and, therefore, will affect the leachability
of the solid material. Stabilizing agents and additives must be carefully
selected based on the chemical and physical characteristics of the waste to be
stabilized. For example, the amount of sulfates in a waste must be considered
when a choice is being made between a lime/pozzolan and a Portland cement-
based system.
In order to select the type of stabilizing agents and additives, the
waste should be tested in the laboratory with a variety of materials to
determine the best combination.
3-61
-------
(2) Amount of stabilizing agents and additives. The amount of
stabilizing agents and additives is a critical parameter in that sufficient
stabilizing materials are necessary in the mixture to bind the waste constitu-
ents of concern properly, thereby making them less susceptible to leaching.
The appropriate weight ratios of waste to stabilizing agent and other addi-
tives are established empirically by setting up a series of laboratory tests
that allow separate leachate testing of different mix ratios. The ratio of
water to stabilizing agent (including water in waste) will also impact the
strength and leaching characteristics of the stabilized material. Too much
water will cause low strength; too little will make mixing difficult and, more
importantly, may not allow the chemical reactions that bind the hazardous
constituents to be fully completed.
(3) Mixing. The conditions of mixing include the type and duration
of mixing. Mixing is necessary to ensure homogeneous distribution of the
waste and the stabilizing agents. Both undermixing and overmixing are unde-
sirable. The first condition results in a nonhomogeneous mixture; therefore,
areas will exist within the waste where waste particles are neither chemically
bonded to the stabilizing agent nor physically held within the lattice struc-
ture. Overmixing, on the other hand, may inhibit gel formation and ion
adsorption in some stabilization systems. As with the relative amounts of
waste, stabilizing agent, and additives within the system, optimal mixing
conditions generally are determined through laboratory tests. During treat-
ment it is important to monitor the degree (i.e., type and duration) of mixing
to ensure that it reflects design conditions.
3-62
-------
(4) Curing conditions. The curing conditions include the duration
of curing and the ambient curing conditions (temperature and humidity). The
duration of curing is a critical parameter to ensure that the waste particles
have had sufficient time in which to form stable chemical bonds and/or lattice
structures. The time necessary for complete stabilization depends upon the
waste type and the stabilization used. The performance of the stabilized
waste (i.e., the levels of constituents in the leachate) will be highly
dependent upon whether complete stabilization has occurred. Higher tempera-
tures and lower humidity increase the rate of curing by increasing the rate of
evaporation of water from the solidification mixtures. However, if tempera-
tures are too high, the evaporation rate can be excessive and result in too
little water being available for completion of the stabilization reaction.
The duration of the curing process should also be determined during the design
stage and typically will be between 7 and 28 days.
3-63
-------
Stabilization References
Ajax Floor Products Corp. n.d. Product literature: technical data sheets,
Hazardous Waste Disposal System. P.O. Box 161, Great Meadows, N.J. 07838.
Austin, G.T. 1984. Shreve's chemical process industries, 5th ed., New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Bishop, P.L., Ransom, S.B., and Grass, D.L. 1983. Fixation Mechanismsin
Solidification/Stabilization of Inorganic Hazardous Wastes. In Proceedings
of the 38th Industrial Waste Conference, 10-12 May 1983, at Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Conner, J.R. 1986. Fixation and Solidification of Wastes. Chemical
Engineering. Nov. 10, 1986.
Cullinane, M.J., Jr., Jones, L.W., and Malone, P.G. 1986. Handbook for
stabilization/solidification of hazardous waste. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. EPA report No. 540/2-86/001. Cincinnati,
Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Electric Power Research Institute. 1980. FGD sludge disposal manual, 2nd ed.
Prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. EPRI CS-1515 Project 1685-1, Palo Alto,
California: Electric Power Research Institute.
Mishuck, E. Taylor, D.R., Telles, R. and Lubowitz, H. 1984. Encapsulation/
Fixation (E/F) mechanisms. Report No. DRXTH-TE-CR-84298.
Prepared by S-Cubed under Contract No. DAAK11-81-C-0164.
Pojasek RB. 1979. "Solid-Waste Disposal: Solidification" Chemical
Engineering 86(17): 141-145.
USEPA. 1980. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Guide to the disposal of chemically
stabilized and solidified waste. Prepared for MERL/ORD under Interagency
Agreement No. EPA-IAG-D4-0569. PB81-181505, Cincinnati, Ohio.
3-64
-------
3.4.5 Hexavalent Chromium Reduction
Applicability and Use of Hexavalent Chromium Reduction
The process of hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) reduction involves conver-
sion from the hexavalent form to the trivalent form of chromium. This tech-
nology has wide application to hexavalent chromium wastes including plating
solutions, stainless steel acid baths and rinses, "chrome conversion" coating
process rinses, and chromium pigment manufacturing wastes. Because this
technology requires the pH to be in the acidic range, it would not be applica-
ble to a waste that contains significant amounts of cyanide or sulfide. In
such cases, lowering of the pH can generate toxic gases such as hydrogen
cyanide or hydrogen sulfide. It is important to note that additional treat-
ment is required to remove trivalent chromium from solution.
Underlying Principles of Operation
The basic principle of treatment is to reduce the valence of chro-
mium in solution (in the form of chromate or dichromate ions) from the valence
state of six (+6) to the trivalent (+3) state. "Reducing agents" used to
effect the reduction include sodium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, sulfur
dioxide, sodium hydrosulfide, or the ferrous form of iron.
A typical reduction equation, using sodium sulfite as the reducing
agent, is:
3-65
-------
H2Cr207 + 3Na2S03 + (804)3 —> Cr2(S04)3 + 3Na2S04 + 4H20
The reaction is usually accomplished at pH values in the range of 2 to 3.
At the completion of the chromium reduction step, the trivalent
chromium compounds are precipitated from solution by raising the pH to a value
exceeding about 8. The less soluble trivalent chromium (in the form of
chromium hydroxide) is then allowed to settle from solution. The precipita-
tion reaction is as follows:
Cr2(S04)3 + 3Ca(OH)2 —> 2Cr(OH)3 + CaS04
Description of Chromium Reduction Process
The chromium reduction treatment process can be operated in a batch
or continuous mode. A batch system will consist of a reaction tank, a mixer
to homogenize the contents of the tank, a supply of reducing agent, and a
source of acid and base for pH control.
A continuous chromium reduction treatment system, as shown in Figure
3-7, will usually include a holding tank upstream of the reaction tank for
flow and concentration equalization. It will also include instrumentation to
automatically control the amount of reducing agent added and the pH of the
reaction tank. The amount of reducing agent is controlled by the use of a
sensor called an oxidation reduction potential (ORP) cell. The ORP sensor
3-66
-------
REDUCING
AGENT
FEED
SYSTEM
ACID
FEED
SYSTEM
HEXAVALENT-
CHROMIUM
CONTAINING
WASTEWATER
ALKALI
FEED
SYSTEM
r
DD
ORP pH
SENSORS
TO SETTLING
REDUCTION
PRECIPITATION
ELECTRICAL CONTROLS
o
MIXER
FIGURES-/
CONTINUOUS HEXAVALENT
CHROMIUM REDUCTION SYSTEM
-------
electronically measures, in millivolts, the level to which the redox reaction
has proceeded at any given time. It must be noted though, that the ORP
reading is very pH dependent. Consequently, if the pH is not maintained at a
steady value, the ORP will vary somewhat, regardless of the level of chromate
reduction.
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
In determining whether chromium reduction can treat an untested
waste to the same level of performance as a previously tested waste, EPA will
examine waste characteristics that affect the reaction involved with either
lowering the pH or reducing the hexavalent chromium. EPA believes that such
characteristics include the oil and grease content of the waste, total dis-
solved solids, and the presence of other compounds that would undergo reduc-
tion reaction.
(1) Oil and Grease. EPA believes that these compounds could
potentially interfere the oxidation-reduction reactions, as well as cause
monitoring problems by fouling of instrumentation (e.g., electrodes). Oil and
grease concentrations can be measured by EPA Methods 9070 and 9071.
(2) Total Dissolved Solids. These compounds can interfere with the
addition of treatment chemicals into solution and possibly cause monitoring
problems.
3-68
-------
(3) Other Reducible Compounds. These compounds would generally
consist of other metals in the waste. Accordingly EPA will evaluate the type
and concentration of other metals in the waste in evaluating transfer of
treatment performances.
Design and Operating Parameters
The parameters that EPA will examine in assessing the design and
operation of a chromium reduction treatment system are discussed below.
(1) Treated and Untreated Design Concentration. EPA will need to
know the level of performance that the facility is designed to achieve in
order to ensure that the design is consistent with best demonstrated prac-
tices. This parameter is important in that a system will not usually perform
better than design. As well as knowing the treated design concentration, it
is also important to know the characteristics of the untreated waste that the
system is designed to handle. Accordingly, EPA will obtain data on the
untreated wastes to ensure that waste characteristics fall within design
specifications.
(2) Reducing Agent. The choice of a reducing agent establishes the
chemical reaction upon which the chromium reduction system is based. The
amount of reducing agent needs to be monitored and controlled in both batch
and continuous systems. In batch systems, reducing agent is usually con-
trolled by analysis of the hexavalent chromium remaining in solution. For
3-69
-------
continuous systems, the ORP reading is used to monitor and control the addi-
tion of reducing agent.
ORP will slowly change until the correct amount of reducing agent
has been added, at which point ORP will change rapidly, indicating reaction
completion. The set point for the ORP monitor is approximately the reading
just after the rapid change has begun. The reduction system must then be
monitored periodically to determine whether the selected setpoint needs
further adjustment.
(3) 2H. For batch and continuous systems, pH is an important
parameter because of its affect on the reduction reaction. For a batch
system, it can be monitored intermittently during treatment. For continuous
systems, the pH should be continuously monitored because of its affect on ORP.
In evaluating the design and operation of a continuous chromium reduction
system, it is important to know the pH on which the design ORP value is based,
as well as, the designed ORP value.
(4) Retention Time. Retention time should be adequate to ensure
that the hexavalent chromium reduction reaction goes to completion. In the
case of the batch reactor, the retention time is varied by adjusting treatment
time in the reaction tank. If the process is continuous, it is important to
monitor the feed rate to ensure that the designed residence time is achieved.
3-70
-------
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction References
Aldrich, James R. 1985. "Effects of pH and proportioning of ferrous and
sulfide reduction chemicals on electroplating waste treatment sludge
production." In Proceeding of the 39th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference,
May 8, 9, 10, 1984. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth Publishers.
Cherry, Kenneth F. 1982. Plating Waste Treatment. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc., Michigan.
Lanouette, Kenneth H. 1977. "Heavy metals removal." Chemical Engineering,
October 17, 1977, pp. 73-80.
Patterson, James W. 1985. Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology, 2nd
Ed. Butterworth Publishers; Stoneham, MA.
Rudolfs, William. 1953. Industrial Wastes. Their Disposal and Treatment.
L.E.C. Publishers Inc., Valley Stream, NY. p. 294
3-71
-------
3.4.6 Chemical Precipitation
Applicability and Use of Chemical Precipitation
Chemical precipitation is used when dissolved metals are to be
removed from solution. This technology can be applied to a wide range of
wastewaters containing dissolved BOAT list metals and other metals as well.
This treatment process has been practiced widely by industrial facilities
since the 1940s.
Underlying Principles of Operation
The underlying principle of chemical precipitation is that metals in
wastewater are removed by the addition of a treatment chemical that converts
the dissolved metal to a metal precipitate. This precipitate is less soluble
than the original metal compound, and therefore settles out of solution,
leaving a lower concentration of the metal present in the solution. The
principal chemicals used to convert soluble metal compounds to the less
soluble forms include: lime (Ca(OH>2), caustic (NaOH), sodium sulfide (Na2S),
and, to a lesser extent, soda ash (Na2C03), phosphate, and ferrous sulfide
(FeS).
The solubility of a particular compound will depend on the extent to
which the electrostatic forces holding the ions of the compound together can
be overcome. The solubility will change significantly with temperature; most
3-72
-------
metal compounds are more soluble as the temperature increases. Additionally,
the solubility will be affected by the other constituents present in a waste.
As a general rule, nitrates, chlorides, and sulfates are more soluble than
hydroxides, sulfides, carbonates, and phosphates.
An important concept related to treatment of the soluble metal
compounds is pH. This term provides a measure of the extent to which a
solution contains either an excess of hydrogen or hydroxide ions. The pH
scale ranges from 0 to 14; with 0 being the most acidic, 14 representing the
highest alkalinity or hydroxide ion (OH~) content, and 7.0 being neutral.
When hydroxide is used, as is often the case, to precipitate the
soluble metal compounds, the pH is frequently monitored to ensure that suffi-
cient treatment chemicals are added. It is important to point out that pH is
not a good measure of treatment chemical addition for compounds other than
hydroxides; when sulfide is used, for example, facilities might use an oxida-
tion-reduction potential meter (ORP) correlation to ensure that sufficient
treatment chemical is used.
Following conversion of the relatively soluble metal compounds to
metal precipitates, the effectiveness of chemical precipitation is a function
of the physical removal, which usually relies on a settling process. A
particle of a specific size, shape, and composition will settle at a specific
velocity, as described by Stokes1 Law. For a batch system, Stokes' law is a
good predictor of settling time because the pertinent particle parameters
3-73
-------
remain essentially constant. Nevertheless, in practice, settling time for a
batch system is normally determined by empirical testing. For a continuous
system, the theory of settling is complicated by factors such as turbulence,
short-circuiting, and velocity gradients, increasing the importance of the
empirical tests.
Description of Chemical Precipitation Process
The equipment and instrumentation required for chemical precipita-
tion varies depending on whether the system is batch or continuous. Both
operations are discussed below; a schematic of the continuous system is shown
in Figure 3-8.
For a batch system, chemical precipitation requires only a feed
system for the treatment chemicals and a second tank where the waste can be
treated and allowed to settle. When lime is used, it is usually added to the
reaction tank in a slurry form. In a batch system, the supernate is usually
analyzed before discharge, thus minimizing the need for instrumentation.
In a continuous system, additional tanks are necessary, as well as
instrumentation to ensure that the system is operating properly. In this
system, the first tank that the wastewater enters is referred to as an equal-
ization tank. This is where the waste can be mixed in order to provide more
uniformity, minimizing wide swings in the type and concentration of constitu-
ents being sent to the reaction tank. It is important to reduce the
3-74
-------
WASTEWATER
FEED
EQUALIZATION
TANK
PUMP
OJ
I
ELECTRICAL CONTROLS
WASTEWATER FLOW
MIXER
1
1
<
Q
X
9
4
7
AO
TREATMENT
CHEMICAL
FEED
SYSTEM
1 ,.
ll ^
d
pH
MONITOR
ATMENT
EMICAL
:EED
rSTEM
COAGULANT OR
FLOCCULANT FEED SYSTEM
EFFLUENT TO
DISCHARGE OR
SUBSEQUENT
TREATMENT
SLUDGE TO
OEWATERING
FIGURE 3-8
CONTINUOUS CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
-------
variability of the waste sent to the reaction tank because control systems
inherently are limited with regard to the maximum fluctuations that can be
managed.
Following equalization, the waste is pumped to a reaction tank where
treatment chemicals are added; this is done automatically by using instrumen-
tation that senses the pH of the system and then pneumatically adjusts the
position of the treatment chemical feed valve such that the design pH value is
achieved. Both the complexity and the effectiveness of the automatic control
system will vary depending on the variation in the waste and the pH range that
is needed to properly treat the waste.
An important aspect of the reaction tank design is that it be
well-mixed so that the waste and the treatment chemicals are both dispersed
throughout the tank, in order to ensure commingling of the reactant and the
treatment chemicals. In addition, effective dispersion of the treatment
chemicals throughout the tank is necessary to properly monitor and, thereby,
control the amount of treatment chemicals added.
After the waste is reacted with the treatment chemical, it flows to
a quiescent tank where the precipitate is allowed to settle and subsequently
be removed. Settling can be chemically assisted through the use of flocculat-
ing compounds. Flocculants increase the particle size and density of the
precipitated solids, both of which increase the rate of settling. The partic-
ular flocculating agent that will best improve settling characteristics will
vary depending on the particular waste; selection of the flocculating
3-76
-------
agent is generally accomplished by performing laboratory bench tests. Set-
tling can be conducted in a large tank by relying solely on gravity or be
mechanically assisted through the use of a circular clarifier or an inclined
separator. Schematics of the latter two separators are shown in Figures 3-9
and 3-10.
Filtration can be used for further removal of precipitated residuals
both in cases where the settling system is underdesigned and in cases where
the particles are difficult to settle. Polishing filtration is discussed in a
separate technology section.
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
In determining whether chemical precipitation is likely to achieve
the same level of performance on an untested waste as a previously tested
waste, we will examine the following waste characteristics: (1) the concen-
tration and type of the metal(s) in the waste, (2) the concentration of
suspended solids (TSS), (3) the concentration of dissolved solids (TDS), (4)
whether the metal exists in the wastewater as a complex, and (5) the oil and
grease content. These parameters either affect the chemical reaction of the
metal compound, the solubility of the metal precipitate, or the ability of the
precipitated compound to settle.
(1) Concentration and Type of Metals. For most metals, there is a
specific pH at which the metal hydroxide is least soluble. As a result, when
3-77
-------
SLUDGE
INFLUENT
CENTER FEED CLARIFIER WITH SCRAPER SLUDGE REMOVAL SUSTEM
INFLUENT
SLUDGE
RIM FEED - CENTER TAKEOFF CLARIFIER WITH
HYDRAULIC SUCTION SLUDGE REMOVAL SYSTEM
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
SLUDGE
RIM FEED - RIM TAKEOFF CLARIFIER
FIGURE 3-9
CRCULAR CLARFER8
3-78
-------
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
RGURE3-10
INCLINED PLANE SETTLER
3-79
-------
a waste contains a mixture of many metals, it is not possible to operate a
treatment system at a single pH which is optimal for the removal of all
metals. The extent to which this affects treatment depends on the particular
metals to be removed, and their concentrations. An alternative can be to
operate multiple precipitations, with intermediate settling, when the optimum
pH occurs at markedly different levels for the metals present. The individual
metals and their concentrations can be measured using EPA Method 6010.
(2) Concentration and type of total suspended solids (TSS).
Certain suspended solid compounds are difficult to settle because of either
their particle size or shape. Accordingly, EPA will evaluate this character-
istic in assessing transfer of treatment performance. Total suspended solids
can be measured by EPA Wastewater Test Method 160.2.
(3) Concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS). Available
information shows that total dissolved solids can inhibit settling. The
literature states that poor flocculation is a consequence of high TDS and
shows that higher concennntrations of total suspended solids are found in
treated residuals. Poor flocculation can adversely affect the degree to which
precipitated particles are removed. Total dissolved solids can be measured by
EPA Wastewater Test Method 160.1.
(4) Complexed metals. Metal complexes consist of a metal ion
surrounded by a group of other inorganic or organic ions or molecules (often
3-80
-------
called ligands). In the complexed form, the metals have a greater solubility
and, therefore, may not be as effectively removed from solution by chemical
precipitation. EPA does not have an analytical method to determine the amount
of complexed metals in the waste. The Agency believes that the best measure
of complexed metals is to analyze for some common complexing compounds (or
complexing agents) generally found in wastewater for which analytical methods
are available. These complexing agents include ammonia, cyanide, and EDTA.
The analytical method for cyanide is EPA Method 9010. The method for EDTA is
ASTM Method D3113. Ammonia can be analyzed using EPA Wastewater Test Method
350.
(5) Oil and grease content. The oil and grease content of a
particular waste directly inhibits the settling of the precipitate. Suspended
oil droplets float in water and tend to suspend particles such as chemical
precipitates that would otherwise settle out of the solution. Even with the
use of coagulants or flocculants, the separation of the precipitate is less
effective. Oil and grease content can be measured by EPA Method 9071.
Design and Operating Parameters
The parameters that EPA will evaluate when determining whether a
chemical precipitation system is well designed are: (1) design value for
treated metal concentrations, as well as other characteristics of the waste
used for design purposes (e.g., total suspended solids), (2) pH, (3) residence
time, (4) choice of treatment chemical, and (5) choice of
3-81
-------
coagulant/flocculant. Below is an explanation of why EPA believes these
parameters are important to a design analysis; in addition, EPA explains why
other design criteria are not included in EPA's analysis.
(1) Treated and untreated design concentrations. EPA pays close
attention to the treated concentration the system is designed to achieve when
determining whether to sample a particular facility. Since the system will
seldom out-perform its design, EPA must evaluate whether the design is consis-
tent with best demonstrated practice.
The untreated concentrations that the system is designed to treat
are important in evaluating any treatment system. Operation of a chemical
precipitation treatment system with untreated waste concentrations in excess
of design values can easily result in poor performance.
(2) p_H. The pH is important, because it can indicate that suffi-
cient treatment chemical (e.g., lime) is added to convert the metal constitu-
ents in the untreated waste to forms that will precipitate. The pH also
affects the solubility of metal hydroxides and sulfides, and therefore
directly impacts the effectiveness of removal. In practice, the design pH is
determined by empirical bench testing, often referred to as "jar" testing.
The temperature at which the "jar" testing is conducted is important in that
it also affects the solubility of the metal precipitates. Operation of a
treatment system at temperatures above the design temperature can result in
poor performance. In assessing the operation of a chemical precipitation
3-82
-------
system, EPA prefers continuous data on the pH and periodic temperature condi-
tions throughout the treatment period.
(3) Residence time. The residence time is important because it
impacts the completeness of the chemical reaction to form the metal precipi-
tate and, to a greater extent, amount of precipitate that settles out of
solution. In practice, it is determined by "jar" testing. For continuous
systems, EPA will monitor the feed rate to ensure that the system is operated
at design conditions. For batch systems, EPA will want information on the
design parameter used to determine sufficient settling time (e.g., total
suspended solids).
(4) Choice of treatment chemical. A choice must be made as to what
type of precipitating agent (i.e., treatment chemical) will be used. The
factor that most affects this choice is the type of metal constituents to be
treated. Other design parameters, such as pH, residence time, and choice of
coagulant/flocculant agents, are based on the selection of the treatment
chemical.
(5) Choice of coagulant/flocculant. This is important because
these compounds improve the settling rate of the precipitated metals and
allows for smaller systems (i.e., lower retention time) to achieve the same
degree of settling as a much larger system. In practice, the choice of the
best agent and the required amount is determined by "jar" testing.
3-83
-------
(6) Mixing. The degree of mixing is a complex assessment which
includes, among other things, the energy supplied, the time the material is
mixed, and the related turbulence effects of the specific size and shape of
the tank. EPA will, however, consider whether mixing is provided and whether
the type of mixing device is one that could be expected to achieve uniform
mixing. For example, EPA may not use data from a chemical precipitation
treatment system where an air hose was placed in a large tank to achieve
mixing.
3-84
-------
Chemical Precipitation References
Cherry, Kenneth F. 1982. Plating Waste Treatment. Ann Arbor, MI; Ann Arbor
Science, Inc. pp 45-67.
Cushnie, George C., Jr. 1985. Electroplating Wastewater Pollution Control
Technology. Park Ridge, NJ; Noyes Publications, pp 48-62, 84-90.
Cushnie, George C., Jr. 1984. Removal of Metals from Wastewater:
Neutralization and Precipitation. Park Ridge, NJ; Noyes Publications, pp
55-97.
U.S. EPA, "Treatability Manual," Volume III, Technology for Control/Removal
of Pollutnats, EPA-600 /2-82-001C, January 1983. pp 111.3.1.3-2.
Gurnham, C.F. 1955. Principles of Industrial Waste Treatment. New York; John
Wiley and Sons, pp 224-234.
Kirk-Othmer. 1980. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd ed.,
"Flocculation", Vol. 10. New York; John Wiley and Sons, pp 489-516.
3-85
-------
Table 3-1
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #1
Untreated Waste
K048*
Concentration
Detected BOAT mg/kg
Organic Constituents (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene <14
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane 310
226. Ethyl benzene 46
38. Methylene chloride <70
43. Toluene 120
47. Trichloroethene <14
215-217. Xylene (total) 120
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <20
80. Chrysene 22
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 67
109. Fluorene 31
121. Naphthalene 100
141. Phenanthrene 85
145. Pyrene 35
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
48
<70
50
<14
80
33
29
28
46
150
33
160
120
66
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
10
3
<2
<2
<0.2
<0.2
<1.0
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
*K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-86
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #1 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide
171. Sulfide
K048*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<6
6.1
63
<0.1
0.6
<0.05
890
52
400
<0.02
13
10
<0.9
430
420
0.7
130
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
9
8.2
120
<0.1
1.6
22
730
150
940
0.19
36
1.6
<0.9
260
820
0.8
2900
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
16
14
130
<0.1
2.4
21
1400
190
940
<0.02
60
<0.3
<4
690
1000
<50
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.06
0.016
0.18
<0.001
<0.003
NA
2.2
0.02
<0.05
0.0003
<0.02
0.033
<0.009
2.8
0.079
NA = Not Analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-87
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #1 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In. H20) +
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1213-1240
1240-1253
22.3
43
10.7-18.7
90.4-102.4
8.2-16.2
50-135
2.2-9.0
+Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA Not applicable
3-88
-------
Table 3-2
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #2
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane
226. Ethyl benzene
38. Methylene chloride
43. Toluene
47. Trichloroethene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene
59. Benz(a)anthracene
K048*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
260
120
<70
22
<14
110
<20
<20
70.
80.
98.
109.
121.
141.
145.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <20
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
<20
74
31
110
79
31
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
46
<70
44
<14
71
<20
25
<20
47
73
37
160
120
67
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<10
<2
<2
<2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
*K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-89
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #2 (Continued)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
K048* K051 Incinerator Ash
Concentration Concentration Concentration TCLP
Detected BOAT Metal rag/kg rag/kg mg/kg mg/L
and Inorganic Constituents (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
METALS
154. Antimony 7 <6 13 0.06
155. Arsenic 5.4 6.7 19 0.008
156. Barium 67 73 160 0.24
157. Beryllium <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.001
158. Cadmium 0.7 1.3 3 <0.003
221. Chromium (hexavalent) <0.05 <0.05 24 NA
159. Chromium (total) 940 860 1500 2.6
160. Copper 55 150 240 0.02
161. Lead 390 670 1100 <0.05
162. Mercury 0.11 0.23 <0.02 <0.0002
163. Nickel 14 30 74 <0.02
164. Selenium 9.9 1.1 <0.3 <0.02
165. Silver <0.9 <0.9 <4.0 <0.009
167. Vanadium 450 290 730 2.5
168. Zinc 450 580 1100 0.086
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide <0.1 0.5 0.4
171. Sulfide 200 3600 <50
NA = Not analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-90
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #2 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In.
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1227-1323
1253-1293
22.3
53
8.7-18.0
91.2-104.0
9.2-16.0
80-355
2.3-8.1
+Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA = Not applicable.
3-91
-------
Table 3-3
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #3
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
K048* K051 Incinerator Ash
Concentration Concentration Concentration
Detected BOAT mg/kg rag/kg mg/kg
Organic Constituents (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene <14 <14 <2
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane <14 <14 <2
226. Ethyl benzene 33 52 <2
38. Methylene chloride <70 <70 <10
43. Toluene 59 42 <2
47. Trichloroethene <14 <14 <2
215-217. Xylene (total) 100 73 <2
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20 <20 <0.2
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20 22 <0.2
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate <20 30 <1.0
80. Chrysene 21 45 <0.2
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 160 200 <1.0
109. Fluorene 32 35 <0.2
121. Naphthalene 110 150 <0.2
141. Phenanthrene 84 110 <0.2
145. Pyrene 33 62 <0.2
*K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-92
-------
Table 3-3 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #3 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide
171. Sulfide
K048*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<6
5.7
68
o!4
<0.05
960
56
410
0.12
16
7.5
<0.9
460
450
2300
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration TCLP
18
9.7
100
1.5
<0.05
900
160
790
0.28
35
1.2
< 0.5
300
670
3200
mg/kg
(ppm)
13
13
140
0.5
2
23
1300
200
1100
<0.02
51
<0.3
<4
690
1000
<50
mg/L
(ppm)
0.09
0.022
0.17
<0.001
<0.003
NA
2.1
0.02
<0.05
<0.0002
<0.02
0.085
<0.009
3.1
0.087
NA = Not Analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-93
-------
Table 3-3 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #3 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1227-1287
1253-1287
22.3-22.4
50
9.3-18.7
91.2-104.0
9.5-16.8
45-140
2.2-8.6
+Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA = Not analyzed.
3-94
-------
Table 3-4
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #4
Untreated Waste
K048*
Concentration
Detected BOAT mg/kg
Organic Constituents (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene <14
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane <14
226. Ehtyl benzene <14
38. Methylene chloride <70
43. Toluene 28
47. Trichloroethene <14
215-217. Xylene (total) 79
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 59
80. Chrysene <20
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 190
109. Fluorene 31
121. Naphthalene 93
141. Phenanthrene 77
145. Pyrene 31
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
50
<70
33
<14
72
<20
23
26
48
170
35
150
120
74
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
5.8
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
*K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-95
-------
Table 3-4 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #4 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide
171. Sulfide
K048*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<6
4.9
61
<0.1
<0.3
<0.05
840
49
340
0.13
14
8.7
<0.9
390
400
2500
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
15
7.5
92
<0.1
1.4
<0.05
960
140
690
0.07
37
0.9
<0.9
320
650
1.4
4800
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration TCLP
mg/kg mg/L
(ppm) (ppm)
17
14
180
0.7
2
24
1600
240
1200
<0.02
80
<0.3
<4
790
1100
0.5
<50
0.06
0.015
0.25
<0.001
<0.003
NA
2.3
0.02
<0.05
0.0003
<0.02
0.11
<0.009
2.7
0.086
NA = Not Analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-96
-------
Table 3-4 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #4 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In.
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In.
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1200-1260
1253-1273
22.3-22.4
61
8.7-18.3
91.2-105.6
10.5-17.0
40-340
2.8-7.9
+Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA = Not applicable.
3-97
-------
Table 3-5
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #5
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT
Organic Constituents
K048*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene <14
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane <14
226. Ethyl benzene 41
38. Methylene chloride <70
43. Toluene 41
47. Trichloroethene <14
215-217. Xylene (total) 110
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 21
80. Chrysene 22
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 74
109. Fluorene 32
121. Naphthalene 94
141. Phenanthrene 83
145. Pyrene 34
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
49
<70
34
<14
71
<20
24
28
47
230
37
160
120
74
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(PPm)
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
<0.2
<0.2
<1.0
<0.2
<1.0
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
*K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-98
-------
Table 3-5 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #5 (Continued)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
K048* K051 Incinerator Ash
Concentration Concentration Concentration TCLP
Detected BOAT Metal mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/L
and Inorganic Constituents (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
METALS
154. Antimony <6 9 16 0.06
155. Arsenic 5.5 8.3 13 0.022
156. Barium 59 100 180 0.20
157. Beryllium <0.1 <0.1 0.6 <0.001
158. Cadmium <0.3 1.7 2 <0.003
221. Chromium (hexavalent) <0.05 <0.05 40 NA
159. Chromium (total) 810 1100 1600 2.4
160. Copper 47 170 240 0.02
161. Lead 330 700 1300 <0.05
162. Mercury 0.16 0.31 <0.02 0.0003
163. Nickel 14 37 70 <0.02
164. Selenium 11 0.5 <0.3 0.12
165. Silver <0.9 1.4 <4 <0.009
167. Vanadium 370 350 830 2.9
168. Zinc 380 680 1100 0.079
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
171. Sulfide 2800 4000 <50
NA = Not Analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-99
-------
Table 3-5 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #5 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In.
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1220-1253
1253-1267
22.3
53
8.7-18.7
92.8-105.6
10.8-17.3
30-910
2.8-7.5
+Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA = Not applicable.
3-100
-------
Table 3-6
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #6
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane
226. Ethyl benzene
38. Methylene chloride
43. Toluene
47. Trichloroethene
215-217. Xylene (total)
K048*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
49
<70
34
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <20
80. Chrysene <20
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 130
109. Fluorene 31
121. Naphthalene 98
141. Phenanthrene 86
145. Pyrene 31
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
52
<70
71
<14
83
<20
25
<20
51
43
36
170
120
67
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
*K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-101
-------
Table 3-6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #6 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
K048*
Concentration
Detected BOAT Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
221.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
167.
168.
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
ing/kg
(ppm)
<6
5.4
61
<0.1
0.4
<0.05
830
48
350
0.14
13
11
<0.9
380
390
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide
171. Sulfide
0.9
360
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<6
5.4
72
<0.1
1.2
<0.05
840
130
640
0.11
26
0.9
<0.9
280
570
0.6
3400
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
15
16
180
<0.1
3.1
30
1700
250
1100
<0.02
73
<0.3
<4
910
1200
0.5
<50
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.07
0.025
0.21
<0.001
<0.003
NA
2.1
0.02
<0.05
<0.0002
0.03
0.12
<0.009
3.6
0.11
NA = Not Analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
3-102
-------
Table 3-6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #6 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F) +
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1220-1240
1253-1267
22.3
61
10.0-18.0
92.8-105.6
10.8-16.0
50-770
5.7-7.7
+Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA = Not applicable.
3-103
-------
Table 3-7
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
FOR PETROLEUM REFINING WASTES
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BOAT Organic Constituents*
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
16
51
42
9.7
16
20
Treated Waste
5.7
12
28
7.5
6.8
8.5
22
33
54
17
24
30
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA = Not Analyzed.
^Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
*The untreated waste consists of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
3-104
-------
Table 3-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
FOR PETROLEUM REFINING WASTES
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BOAT Organic Constituentsn
SEMIVOLATILES
215-217. Xylene (total)
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
Treated Waste
57. Anthracene
16.3
48
62
21.9
30
36
<0.013
1.2
0.45
5.2
<0.4
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.5
1.9
1.3
7.2
3
4.1
2.9
2.5
4.2
4.2
NA
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.05
0.071
<0.05
0.153
0.089
132
161
118
185
0.185
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
59. Benzo(a)anthracene
0.014
0.78
0.36
4.6
<0.4
2.2
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
0.8
<0.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA = Not Analyzed.
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
*The untreated waste consists of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
3-105
-------
Table 3-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
FOR PETROLEUM REFINING WASTES
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
TCLP Concentration TCLP
mg/L mg/L mg/L
Detected BOAT Organic Constituents (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
62. Benzo(a)pyrene <0.013 <0.6 <0.01
0.51 <0.6 <0.01
0.21 0.6 <0.01
3.5 <0.6 <0.01
<0.04 <0.6 <0.01
1.5 <0.6 <0.01
<0.6 <0.01
<0.6 <0.01
<0.6 <0.01
<0.6 <0.01
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <0.013 1.7 <0.01
<0.2 <1.6 <0.01
<0.2 <1.6 <0.01
<3 <1.6 <0.01
<0.04 <1.6 <0.01
<1.3 1.8 0.047
<1.6 <0.01
<1.6 <0.01
<1.6 <0.01
80. Chrysene 0.028 NA <0.01
1.3 <0.01
0.5 <0.01
6.3 <0.01
<1.2 <0.01
3 <0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA = Not Analyzed.
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
*The untreated waste consists of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
3-106
-------
Table 3-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
FOR PETROLEUM REFINING WASTES
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BOAT Organic Constituents*
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
Treated Waste
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenathrene
0.061
<0.3
<0.2
<3.0
<0.4
0.47
4.2
2.5
28
3.2
7.3
0.25
4.7
2.5
4.6
8.9
24
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
7.8
18
6.6
8.5
8
16
14
18
5.3
NA
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.021
0.084
0.023
0.022
0.046
0.11
0.1
0.058
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA = Not Analyzed.
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
*The untreated waste consists of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
3-107
-------
Table 3-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
FOR PETROLEUM REFINING WASTES
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Untreated Waste* Treated Waste
TCLP Concentration TCLP
mg/L mg/L mg/L
Detected BOAT Organic Constituents* (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
142. Phenol 0.017 NA <0.01
<0.3 <0.01
<0.2 <0.01
<3.0 <0.01
<0.4 <0.01
<1.3 <0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
145. Pyrene 0.051 NA <0.01
1.5 <0.01
0.65 <0.01
9.4 <0.01
1.7 <0.01
4.1 <0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA = Not Analyzed.
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
*The untreated waste consists of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
3-108
-------
Table 3-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
FOR PETROLEUM REFINING WASTES
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BOAT Metal Constituents*
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
Treated Waste
<0.03
0.01
<0.03
BDL
<0.8
<0.03
1.4
1.8
1.4
5.3
2.3
3.4
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
15
22
19
27
22
11
10
10
18
9.8
11
10
13
8.8
12
12
10
14
810 <1
800 <1
990 <1
1,300 <1
940 1
880 <1
800 <1
760 <1
3,200 <1
NA = Not Analyzed
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
*The untreated waste consists of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
BDL = Below Detection Limit.
0.008
0.028
0.022
0.026
0.018
0.024
0.024
<0.056
<0.006
3-109
-------
Table 3-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
FOR PETROLEUM REFINING WASTES
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BOAT Metal Constituents*
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
Treated Waste
METALS (Continued)
157. Beryllium
NA
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
158. Cadmium
NA
159. Chromium (total)
NA = Not Analyzed
0.12
2.4
1.7
14
5.9
10
1.3
1.4
<0.8
1.0
1.6
1.1
NA
1.9
590
610
650
820
620
650
570
550
820
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.11
<0.05
^Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
*The untreated waste consists of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit was not reported.
3-110
-------
Table 3-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
FOR PETROLEUM REFINING WASTES
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Untreated Waste* Treated Waste
TCLP Concentration TCLP
mg/L mg/L mg/L
Detected BOAT Metal Constituents+ (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
METALS (Continued)
161. Lead NA 31 NA
42
27
36
27
37
28
39
162. Mercury NA 1.5 NA
2.2
1.8
2.1
2.0
2.5
2.1
1.0
2.0
163. Nickel <0.08 58 0.8
0.16 51 <0.2
0.12 41 <0.2
0.27 45 <0.2
0.13 56 0.2
<0.13 50 <0.2
43 <0.2
42 0.7
53 0.6
NA = Not Analyzed
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
*The untreated waste consists of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
3-111
-------
Table 3-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
FOR PETROLEUM REFINING WASTES
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Untreated Waste* Treated Waste
TCLP Concentration TCLP
mg/L rag/L mg/L
Detected BOAT Metal Constituents* (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
METALS (Continued)
164. Selenium NA <0.4 NA
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
2.7
3.1
2.3
1.6
167. Vanadium NA 30 NA
43
34
36
40
34
34
30
36
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
NA = Not Analyzed
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
*The untreated waste consists of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
3-112
-------
Table 3-8
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT I - STABILIZATION OF INCINERATOR ASH
I
h->
M
U>
Treated Waste
Untreated Waste
Detected TCLP Extracts
BOAT
of K048 and
Metal K051 Inciner-
Constituents
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
221.
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
(total)
Chromium
ator Ash
0.06-0.09
0.008-0.025
0.17-0.25
0.001
<0.003
2.1-2.6
(hexavalent) NA
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.02
<0.05
0.0002-0.0003
0.02-0.03
0.033-0.12
<0.009
NA
2.5-3.6
0.055-0.11
TCLP Extracts of Stabilized Fluidized Bed Incinerator Ash
Cement Binder
Run 1
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
<0.004
0.277
<0.001
<0.003
2.11
0.415
<0.003
<0.006
NA
<0.018
0.025
<0.006
<0.001
1.4
0.058
Run 2
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
<0.004
0.28
<0.001
<0.003
2.12
0.326
<0.003
<0.006
NA
<0.018
0.022
<0.006
0.009
1.21
0.047
Run 3
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
<0.004
0.278
<0.001
<0.003
2.16
2.47
0.015
0.011
NA
<0.018
0.024
<0.006
<0.001
1.29
0.086
Kiln
Run 1
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
0.005
0.203
<0.001
<0.003
1.78
0.38
<0.003
0.02
NA
<0.018
0.044
<0.006
<0.001
1.53
0.048
Dust Binder
Run 2
mg/L
(ppm)
0.178
0.005
0.2
<0.001
<0.003
1.92
0.395
<0.003
0.009
NA
<0.018
0.043
<0.006
<0.001
1.64
0.042
Run 3
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
0.005
0.204
<0.001
<0.003
1.87
2.13
<0.003
<0.006
NA
<0.018
0.04
<0.006
<0.001
1.56
0.031
Lime and Fly Ash
Run 1
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
<0.004
0.558
<0.001
<0.003
1.13
0.331
<0.003
<0.006
NA
<0.018
0.013
<0.006
<0.001
0.148
0.02
Run 2
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
<0.004
0.524
<0.001
<0.003
1.21
0.259
<0.003
<0.006
NA
<0.018
0.016
<0.006
<0.001
0.149
0.022
Binder
Run 3
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
0.006
0.599
<0.001
<0.003
1.08
0.071
0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.018
0.017
<0.006
<0.001
0.156
0.052
NA = Not analyzed.
-------
Table 3-8 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT I - STABILIZATION OF INCINERATOR ASH
Stabilization
Design and
Operating Parameters
Binder to Ash Ratio
Lime to Ash Ratio
Fly Ash to Ash Ratio
Water to Ash Ratio
Ambient Temperature (°C)
H; Mixture pH
4>
Cure Time (Days)
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Run 1
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
23
11.6
28
943.5
Cement
Run 2
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
23
11.5
28
921.6
Process
Kiln Dust
Run 3
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
23
11.5
28
1270
Run 1
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
19
12.1
28
222.8
Run 2
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
19.5
12.1
28
267.7
Run 3
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
20
12.1
28
241.0
Lime
Run 1
NP
0.2
0.2
0.5
19
12.0
28
565.8
and Fly
Run 2
NP
0.2
0.2
0.5
19
12.1
28
512.6
Ash
Run 3
NP
0.2
0.2
0.5
19
12.1
28
578.8
(Ib/in*)
NP = Not applicable.
-------
Table 3-9
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K049
PLANT J - MICROENCAPSULATION/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION
Detected BOAT Constituent
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
26
27
51
101
0.05
0.06
0.27
0.1
0.02
BDL
1.4
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.16
0.13
0.66
0.63
0.07
0.07
0.22
0.01
0.94
0.01
1.4
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
*The untreated waste is slop oil emulsion solids (K049).
+Analyses were not performed for all BDAT list organic and metal
constituents.
BDL - Below detection limit; detection limit not reported.
3-115
-------
Table 3-10
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K051
PLANT J - MICROENCAPULATION/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION
Detected BOAT Constituents*
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene
59. Benzo(a)anthracene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
80. Chrysene
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
159. Chromium (total)
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
22
8
28
33
3.6
0.49
38
99
25
25
10.2
<0.06
2.4
1.2
0.01
1.3
0.89
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.04
0.11
0.24
0.57
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.01
0.01
0.16
0.01
0.03
<0.005
<0.002
1.9
<0.025
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
*The untreated waste is API separator sludge (K051).
^Analyses were not performed for all BOAT organic and metal constituents.
3-116
-------
Table 3-11
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR PETROLEUM REFINERY WASTES
PLANT J - MICROENCAPSULATION/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION
Detected BOAT Constituents*
VOLATILES
4 . Benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
121. Naphthalene
14 1. Phenanthrene
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
1.3
2.2
1.8
0.1
<0.01
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
< 0.0005
0.01
0.14
BDL
0.01
METALS
156. Barium 1.0 2.2
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
*The untreated waste is the filter cake from the belt filter press at plant C
generated from treatment of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT organic and metal constituents.
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit not reported.
3-117
-------
Table 3-12
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K051 AND K052
PLANT J - MICROENCAPSULATION/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION
Detected BOAT Constituents*
VOLATILES
4 . Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2, 4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenan thr ene
142. Phenol
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.8
0.22
2.2
1.42
0.2
0.01
0.16
0.00**
0.1
0.00**
0.57
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.01
NA
0.09
0.47
NA
NA
NA
0.22
BDL
BDL
2.0
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
*The untreated waste is the filter cake from the plate filter press at
plant E generated from treatment of a mixture of K051 and K052.
**Value was reported as 0.00.
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT organic and metal constituents.
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit was not reported.
NA = Not Analyzed
3-118
-------
Table 3-13
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR PETROLEUM REFINERY WASTES
PLANT J - SODIUM SILICATE/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
Detected BOAT Constituents+
VOLATILES
4. Benzene 1.3 0.48
43. Toluene 2.2 1.8
215-217. Xylene (total) 1.8 1.2
SEMIVOLATILES
81. ortho-Cresol 0.02
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.04
121. Naphthalene 0.1 0.18
METALS
155. Arsenic <0.1 0.01
156. Barium 1.0 BDL
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
*The untreated waste is the belt filter cake from plant C generated from
treatment of unknown petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste codes were
not reported).
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
3-119
-------
Table 3-14
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K051 AND K052
PLANT J - SODIUM SILICATE/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION
Detected BOAT Constituents*
VOLATILES
4 . Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMI VOLATILES
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
14 1. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.80
0.22
2.2
1.42
0.02
0.01
0.16
0.00**
0.1
0.00**
0.57
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.79
NA
3.1
2.1
BDL++
BDL-n-
0.17
BDL
BDL++
0.00**
BDL
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
*The untreated waste is the plate filter cake from plant E generated from
treatment of a mixture of K051 and K052.
**Value was reported as 0.00.
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal
constituents.
++The sum of phenols, cresols, and 2,4-dimethylphenol was below the detection
limit.
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit not reported.
NA = Not analyzed.
3-120
-------
Table 3-15
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR PETROLEUM REFINERY WASTES
PLANT J - CEMENT, FLY ASH, AND LIME STABILIZATION
Untreated Waste* Treated Waste
TCLP TCLP
mg/L mg/L
Detected BOAT Constituents* (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene 1.5 0.01
43. Toluene 2.5 0.13
215-217. Xylene 1.8 0.39
SEMIVOLATILES
121. Naphthalene 0.1 0.00**
141. Phenanthrene BDL 0.01
METALS
155. Arsenic BDL 0.02
156. Barium 1.0 1.2
Design and Operating Parmeters
No data were submitted.
*The untreated waste is the belt filter cake from plant C generated from
treatment of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste codes were not
reported).
**Value was reported as 0.00.
+Analyses were not performed for all BDAT list organic and metal constituents.
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit not reported.
3-121
-------
Table 3-16
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K051 AND K052
PLANT J - CEMENT, FLY ASH, AND LIME STABILIZATION
Detected BOAT Constituents*
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
43 . Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMI VOLATILES
121. Naphthalene
1 4 1 . Phenan threne
142. Phenols++
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.8
2.2
1.4
0.16
0.004
0.16
0.00**
0.57
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.03
0.26
0.59
0.1
0.01
0.07
0.01
1.5
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
*The untreated waste is the plate filter cake from plant E generated from
treatment of a mixture of K051 and K052.
**Value was reported as 0.00.
^Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal
constituents.
++The phenol analysis is the sum of phenols, cresols, and 2,4-dimethylphenol.
3-122
-------
Table 3-17
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR PETROLEUM REFINERY WASTES
PLANT J - SODIUM SILICATE/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.89
0.06
0.13
0.05
<0.04
0.57
BDL
0.04
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.01
NA
0.01
0.02
Detected BOAT Constituents* _
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
*The untreated waste is the thermally dried (550°F) belt filter cake from
plant H generated from treatment of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific
waste codes were not reported) at plant C.
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal
constituents.
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit not reported.
NA = Not analyzed.
BDL
BDL
0.02
BDL
0.05
0.02
3-123
-------
Table 3-18
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K051 AND K052
PLANT J - SODIUM SILICATE/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION
Detected BOAT Constituents*
VOLATILES
4 . Benzene
43 . Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
70. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
81. ortho-Cresol
121. Naphthalene
142. Phenol
METALS
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.025
0.03
<0.05
0.012
0.02
0.01
0.08
1.3
0.02
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.00**
0.01
0.02
NA
NA
BDL
NA
0.5
BDL
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
*The untreated waste is the thermally dried plate filter cake from plant H
generated from treatment of a mixture of K051 and K052 at plant E.
**Value was reported as 0.00.
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT organic and metal constituents.
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit not reported.
NA = Not analyzed.
3-124
-------
4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED AND AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
As discussed in the previous section of this document, (Section
3.0), the Agency identified five demonstrated treatment technologies to be
considered for BOAT for the nonwastewater form of the refinery waste group
(K048-K052). The five technologies are: incineration including fluidized bed
and rotary kiln incineration, solvent extraction, stabilization, thermal
drying, and pressure filtration. Chromium reduction followed by lime and
sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration is a demonstrated technology for
treating metal bearing wastewaters such as wastewater forms of refinery wastes
K048-K052.
This section presents the rationale behind the determination of
fluidized bed incineration followed by lime and fly ash stabilization of the
incinerator ash as the proposed BOAT for nonwastewater forms of wastes
included in the refinery waste group (K048-K052). It also presents the
rationale behind the determination of chromium reduction followed by lime and
sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration as the proposed BOAT for metals in
wastewater forms of K048-K052.
As described in Section 1,0, the best demonstrated and available
technology (BOAT) for treatment of these wastes is determined based on perfor-
mance data available to the Agency. (All performance data available to the
Agency are discussed in Section 3.0) Prior to being used to establish treat-
ment standards, performance data are screened to determine whether they
4-1
-------
represent operation of a well-designed and operated system, whether sufficient
quality assurance/quality control measures were employed to ensure the accu-
racy of the data, and whether the appropriate measure of performance was used
to assess the performance of the treatment technology. All remaining perform-
ance data are then adjusted based on recovery data in order to take into
account analytical interference associated with the chemical make-up of the
sample. Finally, treatment data from each technology are statistically
compared (technology to technology) to determine whether any technology
performs better than the others.
4.1 Review of Performance Data
Nonwastewaters
The available treatment performance data for nonwastewater forms of
K048-K052, presented in Section 3.0 were reviewed and assessed to determine
whether they represent operation of a well-designed and operated system,
whether sufficient quality assurance/quality control measures were employed to
ensure the accuracy of the data, and whether appropriate measures of perform-
ance were used to assess the performance of the treatment technology.
Data provided to the Agency on the treatment of refinery wastes
using thermal drying and pressure filtration technologies do not represent the
appropriate measure of performance used to assess the performance of the
treatment technology and to establish treatment standards (i.e., total
4-2
-------
constituent concentration data for organics). Since appropriate performance
data were not available for these technologies, thermal drying and pressure
filtration were not considered further in the determination of BOAT. Some
data provided to the Agency on the treatment of refinery wastes using solvent
extraction do not represent the appropriate measure of performance (total
constituent concentration data for organics); these data were deleted. How-
ever, other solvent extraction data provided to the Agency do represent the
appropriate measure of performance and were used in the determination of BDAT.
The Agency did not delete any of the remaining technologies in the determina-
tion of BDAT because the Agency had no reason to believe that any of the
treatment systems were not well-designed or operated or that insufficient
quality assurance/quality control measures were employed. The treatment
performance data that remained after applying the screening methods were for
incineration, solvent extraction, and stabilization technologies.
Wastewaters
As discussed in Section 3.0, treatment performance data were not
available for wastewater forms of refinery wastes K048-K052. However, the
Agency does have treatment performance data for BDAT List organics in scrubber
water residuals generated from incineration of K019. EPA believes that
similar levels of performance for destruction of BDAT List organics can be
achieved through incineration of K048-K052. Operating data collected during
treatment testing of K019 show that the technology was properly operated;
4-3
-------
accordingly, all of the performance data for the scrubber water residual were
transferred to K048-K052.
The Agency also has treatment performance data for BDAT List metals
in wastes that it believes are sufficiently similar to K048-K052 wastewater
residuals such that the performance data can be transferred. The data were
collected by EPA from one facility treating K062 and metal-bearing character-
istic wastes using chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipita-
tion and vacuum filtration. Operating data collected during this treatment
performance test indicate that the technology was properly operated; accord-
ingly all of the data were transferred to K048-K052 for development of BDAT
treatment standards.
4.2 Accuracy Correction of Performance Data
Following the review of all available treatment performance data and
the deletion of performance data, as appropriate, the remaining treatment
performance data for demonstrated and available technologies were adjusted to
account for analytical interferences associated with the chemical make-up of
the treated sample. Generally, performance data were corrected for accuracy
as follows: (1) a matrix spike recovery was determined, as explained below,
for each BDAT list constituent detected in the untreated or treated waste;
(2) an accuracy correction factor was determined for each of the above con-
stituents by dividing 100 by the matrix spike recovery (percent) for that
constituent; and (3) treatment performance data for each BDAT List constituent
4-4
-------
detected in the untreated or treated waste were corrected by multiplying the
reported concentration of the constituent by the corresponding accuracy
correction factor.
Matrix spike recoveries are developed by analyzing a sample of a
treated waste for a constituent and then reanalyzing the sample after the
addition of a known amount of the same constituent (i.e., spike) to the
sample. The matrix spike recovery represents the total amount of constituent
recovered after spiking minus the initial concentration of the constituent in
the sample, and the result divided by the known amount of constituent added.
4.2.1 Nonwastewaters
Descriptions, by technology, of how treatment performance data were
adjusted for each BDAT List constituent detected in the untreated or treated
waste are presented below.
Fluidized Bed Incineration
Table D-4 (presented in Appendix D of this background document)
presents matrix spike recoveries for BDAT List organic, metal, and inorganic
constituents detected in the untreated waste or the fluidized bed incinerator
ash.
4-5
-------
For most volatiles and inorganic constituents, Table D-4 shows that
the matrix spike recovery was determined from the result of one matrix spike
performed for each constituent.
However, for constituents for which no matrix was performed, the
matrix spike recovery was derived from the average matrix spike recovery of
the appropriate group of constituents (volatile or inorganic constituents) for
which recovery data were available. For example, no matrix spike was per-
formed for dichlorodifluoromethane; the matrix spike recovery used for this
constituent was the result obtained by averaging the matrix spike recoveries
for all volatile constituents that had recovery data.
Duplicate matrix spikes were performed for some BOAT List semivola-
tile constituents. If duplicate matrix spikes were performed for a semivola-
tile constituent, the matrix spike recovery used for that constituent was the
lower of the two values from the first matrix spike and the duplicate spike.
Where a matrix spike was not performed for a semivolatile constitu-
ent, a matrix spike recovery for that constituent was based on semivolatile
constituents for which there were recovery data from the two matrix spikes.
In these cases, the matrix spike recoveries for all semivolatiles from the
first matrix spikes were averaged. Similarly, an average matrix spike recov-
ery was calculated for the duplicate matrix spike recoveries. The lower of
the two average matrix spike recoveries of semivolatile constituents was used
for any semivolatile constituent for which no matrix spike was performed. For
4-6
-------
example, no matrix spike was performed for di-n-butyl phthalate, a base/-
neutral fraction semivolatile, in fluidized bed incinerator ash; however, the
treatment performance data for this constituent were adjusted for accuracy
using a matrix spike recovery of 67%. This recovery was selected after
averaging the matrix spike recoveries calculated for all base/neutral fraction
semivolatiles in the first matrix spike (69%) and the duplicate spike (67%).
The lower average matrix spike recovery of 67% was selected to subsequently
calculate the accuracy correction factor for di-n-butyl phthalate.
Where a matrix spike was not performed for a BOAT list metal in the
TCLP extract of incinerator ash and matrix spike data were available for the
extract of that BDAT list metal from a similar matrix (i.e., stabilized
incinerator ash), the analytical data were adjusted using the average matrix
spike recovery for the metal in the TCLP extracts of stabilized incinerator
ash.
The accuracy correction factors for fluidized bed incinerator ash
data are summarized in Table D-7. The corrected treatment concentrations for
BDAT List constituents detected in the untreated waste are presented in Table
4-1.
Solvent Extraction
The quality assurance/quality control information required to adjust
the data values for accuracy was not provided for plant K. Therefore, the
4-7
-------
solvent extraction treatment performance data have not been adjusted. The
treated waste values from solvent extraction treatment are presented in Table
3-7 in section 3.0.
Stabilization
(a) Plant I. Table D-5 (Appendix D) presents the matrix spike
recoveries determined for TCLP extracts of stabilized incinerator ash for BDAT
List metals detected in the untreated or treated waste at plant I. In the
case of the kiln dust binder, two matrix spike analyses were performed. The
lowest percent recovery value from the two matrix spike analyses for a con-
stituent was used as the recovery factor for that constituent in the extract
from the kiln dust stabilized ash. In cases where a matrix spike was not
performed for a BDAT List metal in the stabilized ash and matrix spike data
were available for the extract of that BDAT list metal from a similar matrix
(i.e., ash stabilized using other binders), the analytical data were adjusted
using the average matrix spike recovery for the metal in the waste stabilized
with other binders. For example, a matrix spike was not performed for anti-
mony in cement stabilized ash; therefore, the analytical data were adjusted
using 74/J which was the average percent recovery for antimony in kiln dust
(66% and 81.5/J) and lime and fly ash (75.1/&) stabilized ashes.
The accuracy correction factors for the stabilization data are
summarized in Table D-8. The corrected treatment concentrations for stabi-
lized incinerator ash are presented in Table 4-2.
4-8
-------
(b) Plant J. The quality assurance/quality control information
required to adjust the data values for accuracy was not provided for plant J.
Therefore, the stabilization data have not been adjusted and are the same as
the treated waste values presented in Tables 3-9 through 3-18 in Section 3.0.
A review of the untreated and treated data for the stabilization tests con-
ducted at plant J did not indicate that the TCLP leachates from the treated
waste were lower than those from the untreated waste. Therefore, these data
do not demonstrate treatment and the data were not used to determine BDAT.
4.2.2 Wastewaters
Presented below are descriptions of how transferred treatment
performance data were adjusted for each BDAT List constituent detected in the
untreated or treated waste.
Organics Data From K019 Scrubber Water
The adjustment for accuracy of scrubber water data for BDAT List
organics in K019 are presented in detail in Section 4.0 of "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Chlorinated Organics
Treatability Group (K016, K018, K019, K020, K030)."
Table 4-3 presents the corrected treatment concentrations for BDAT
list organics detected in the untreated K019 or the scrubber water.
4-9
-------
Metals Data From K062 and Metal-Bearing Characteristic Wastes
The quality assurance/quality control information required to adjust
the data values for accuracy was not provided for the treatment of K062 and
metal-bearing characteristic wastes in the Onsite Engineering Report for
Envirite (Reference 27). Therefore, matrix spike recoveries for BOAT list
metal constituents were transferred from the TCLP extract of residual slag
from the Onsite Engineering Report for Horsehead (Reference 28). Table D-6
presents the matrix spike recoveries for BOAT List metal constituents that
were regulated in K048-K052 wastewater. The matrix spike recovery used for
each constituent was the lower of the two values from the first matrix spike
and the duplicate spike.
The accuracy correction factors for BDAT list metal constituents
that were regulated in K048-K052 wastewater are summarized in Table D-9. The
corrected treatment concentrations for BDAT list metal constituents that were
regulated in K048-K052 wastewater are presented in Table 4-4.
4.3 Statistical Comparison of Performance Data
In cases where EPA has treatment performance data from more than one
technology, EPA uses the statistical method known as analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to determine if one technology performs significantly better than
others. In cases where a particular treatment technology achieves signifi-
cantly better performance, that technology will be selected as BDAT.
4-10
-------
Nonwastewaters
To determine BOAT for nonwastewater forms of K048 and K051, EPA
performed the ANOVA test to compare three technologies: fluidized bed incin-
eration, solvent extraction, and fluidized bed incineration followed by
stabilization. The ANOVA test was performed using corrected treatment concen-
trations.
First, fluidized bed incineration and solvent extraction were
compared by using the ANOVA test on the total composition data for the BOAT
List organics. The test was only performed on total xylene and naphthalene
because for both treatment technologies, most other organic constituents were
not detected in the treated waste. (A comparison of detection limits between
technologies would not provide an indication of which technology provides
better treatment). The ANOVA test was also not performed on 1-methylnaph-
thalene because the constituent was not analyzed in the fluidized bed inciner-
ator ash. The results indicate that fluidized bed incineration provides
equivalent treatment for total xylene and significantly better treatment for
naphthalene as compared with solvent extraction. Based on these results, EPA
believes that fluidized bed incineration provides better treatment for organ-
ics than solvent extraction. The results of the ANOVA test are presented in
Appendix G.
Second, fluidized bed incineration and fluidized bed incineration
followed by stabilization were compared using the ANOVA test on the TCLP
4-11
-------
extract values for BDAT List metals. All three binder stabilization systems
(cement, kiln dust, and lime and fly ash) were compared. The ANOVA test was
not performed on beryllium, cadmium, lead, and silver because these metals
were not detected in the TCLP extract of the unstabilized incinerator ash.
The test was also not performed on hexavalent chromium and thallium because
these metals were not analyzed in the TCLP extract of the unstabilized ash.
The results of the ANOVA test are presented in Table 4-5. The results indi-
cate that, overall, fluidized bed incineration followed by lime and fly ash
stabilization provides significantly better or equivalent treatment for most
metal constituents (except for antimony and barium) than fluidized bed incin-
eration alone or fluidized bed incineration followed by cement or kiln dust
stabilization of the incinerator ash.
Wastewaters
For wastewaters generated from incineration of refinery wastes
K048-K052, EPA has transferred treatment performance data for metal constitu-
ents (Section 4.1). Therefore, the ANOVA test was not performed and chromium
reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration is
determined as BDAT for metals in wastewater forms of K048-K052.
4.4 BDAT for K048-K052 Wastes
For nonwastewater forms of K048 and K051, the best demonstrated and
available technology has been determined to be fluidized bed incineration
4-12
-------
followed by lime and fly ash stabilization. Treatment standards have been
developed for metals and organics in the nonwastewater and for organics in the
wastewater residuals from this BDAT treatment train. For metals in wastewater
residuals from treatment of K048-K052, the best demonstrated and available
technology has been determined to be chromium reduction followed by lime and
sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration. As discussed in Section 2.0, EPA
has determined that refinery waste group K048-K052 represents a waste treat-
ability group; therefore, since fluidized bed incineration followed by lime
and fly ash stabilization has been determined to be BDAT for nonwastewater
forms of K048 and K051 wastes, this treatment train is also BDAT for
nonwastewater forms of K049, K050, and K052. Similarly, the treatment train,
chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum
filtration, is also BDAT for metals in wastewater forms of K049, K050, and
K052.
4-13
-------
Table 4-1
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATOR ASH CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY:
PLANT A
Sample Set
Constituent
VOLATILES
21. Dichlorodifluoro-
methane
(Concentration)
43. Toluene
(Concentration)
Xylene
(Concentration)
SEMIVOLATILES
59. Benz(a)anthracene
(Concentration)
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
(Concentration)
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
(Concentration)
80. Chrysene
(Concentration)
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
(Concentration)
109. Fluorene
(Concentration)
121. Naphthalene
(Concentration)
141. Phenanthrene
(Concentration)
145. Pyrene
(Concentration)
1 2 3 4 5 6
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60
3.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
2.60 2.60 2.60 7.53 2.60 2.60
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
4-14
-------
Table 4-1 (Continued)
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATOR ASH CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY:
PLANT A
Sample Set
Constituent
METALS
154. Antimony
(TCLP)
155. Arsenic
(TCLP)
156. Barium
(TCLP)
157. Beryllium
(TCLP)
158. Cadmium
(TCLP)
159. Chromium (total)
(TCLP)
160. Copper
(TCLP)
161. Lead
(TCLP)
162. Mercury
(TCLP)
163. Nickel
(TCLP)
164. Selenium
(TCLP)
165. Silver
(TCLP)
167. Vanadium
(TCLP)
168. Zinc
(TCLP)
123456
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
0.08 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.09
0.01 0.006 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02
0.19 0.26 0.18 0.27 0.22 0.23
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
2.76 3.26 2.63 2.89 3.01 2.63
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04
0.04 0.02 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.15
0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012
3.63 3.24 4.02 3.50 3.76 4.67
0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.15
4-15
-------
Table 4-1 (Continued)
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATOR ASH CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY:
PLANT A
Sample Set
1 2 ;
Constituent
INORGANICS
169. Total Cyanide 0.096 0.38 0.096 0.48 0.096 0.48
(Concentration)
171. Sulfide 61 61 61 61 61 61
(Concentration)
1
(ppm)
2
(ppm)
3
(ppm)
4
(ppm)
5
(PPm)
6
(ppm)
4-16
-------
Table 4-2
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR TCLP EXTRACTS OF
STABILIZED INCINERATOR ASH CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY: PLANT I
I
M
^J
Cement Binder
Kiln Dust Binder
Lime and Fly Ash Binder
CONSTITUENT
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
(total)
Chromium
(hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Run 1
(ppm)
0.22
0.003
0.29
0.001
0.004
2.65
0.66
0.003
0.006
0.025
0.03
0.008
0.002
1.02
0.078
Run 2
(ppm)
0.22
0.003
0.30
0.001
0.004
2.66
0.52
0.003
0.006
0.025
0.026
0.008
0.015
1.57
0.063
Run 3
(ppm)
0.22
0.003
0.30
0.001
0.004
2.71
3.94
0.017
0.011
0.025
0.029
0.008
0.002
1.67
0.12
Run 1
(ppm)
0.25
0.004
0.22
0.001
0.004
2.37
0.37
0.004
0.026
0.027
0.059
0.008
0.002
3.49
0.068
Run 2
(ppm)
0.27
0.004
0.22
0.001
0.004
2.55
0.39
0.004
0.012
0.027
0.057
0.008
0.002
4.20
0.059
Run 3
(ppm)
0.25
0.004
0.23
0.001
0.004
2.49
2.09
0.004
0.008
0.027
0.053
0.008
0.002
3.56
0.044
Run 1
(ppm)
0.22
0.003
0.58
0.001
0.004
1.47
1.43
0.004
0.008
0.026
0.015
0.008
0.002
0.16
0.029
Run 2
(ppm)
0.22
0.003
0.54
0.001
0.004
1.58
1.12
0.004
0.008
0.026
0.019
0.008
0.002
0.16
0.032
Run 3
(ppm)
0.22
0.004
0.62
0.001
0.004
1.41
0.74
0.008
0.008
0.026
0.020
0.008
0.002
0.17
0.076
-------
Table 4-3
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR BOAT LIST ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY
(K019 SCRUBBER WATER)
Sample Set
Constituent
7. Carbon tetrachloride
9. Chlorobenzene
14. Chloroform
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane
22. 1,1-Dichloroethane
23. 1,2-Dichloroethane
42. Tetrachloroethene
43. Toluene
45. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
47. Trichloroethene
68. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
88. p-Dichlorobenzene
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
109. Fluorene
110. Hexachlorobenzene
113. Hexachloroethane
121. Naphthalene
136. Pentachlorobenzene
141. Phenanthrene
148. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.006
150. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1
(ppm)
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.012
0.012
0.002
0.012
0.002
0.006
0.008
2
(ppm)
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.008
0.002
0.012
0.012
0.002
0.012
0.002
0.006
0.008
3
(ppm)
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.002
0.012
0.012
0.002
0.012
0.002
0.006
0.008
4
(ppm)
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.018
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.006
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.002
0.012
0.012
0.002
0.012
0.002
0.006
0.008
5
(ppm)
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.012
0.012
0.002
0.012
0.002
0.006
0.008
6
(ppm)
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.012
0.012
0.002
0.012
0.002
0.006
0.008
4-18
-------
Table 4-4
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR BDAT LIST METAL CONSTITUENTS CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY
(K062 AND METAL-BEARING CHARACTERISTIC WASTES)
Corrected Treatment Concentration (ppm)
Sample Set 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12
Constituent
159. Chromium (total) 0.18 0.18 0.29 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.15 0.18 0.23
162. Lead 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
169. Zinc 0.13 0.12 0.14 1.6 0.13 0.097 0.12 0.13 0.061 0.071 0.10
I
M
-------
Table 4-5
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
AND FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION FOLLOWED BY ASH STABILIZATION
Fluidized Bed Incineration Followed by Ash
Stabilization Using the Following Binders*
Fluidized Bed
BOAT Metals
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
* The numbers in the table indicate the results of the statistical comparison
(ANOVA) of treatments. A ranking of 1 to 4 is shown for each constituent
and treatment test where a "1" indicates the best performance and a "4"
indicates the worst performance. Two treatments with the same number for a
constituent indicates that there was no significant difference between the
treatment effectiveness.
Fluidized Bed
Incineration
1
4
1
) 4
4
1
4
4
4
Cement
2
1
2
4
1
1
2
2
1
Kiln Dust
4
1
1
2
1
1
3
4
1
Lime and
Fly Ash
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
4-20
-------
5.0 SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
This section presents the methodology and rationale for selection of
the constituents that are being proposed for regulation in wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of K048-K052 wastes.
The Agency initially considers for regulation all constituents on
the BOAT List (see Table 1-1, Section 1.0). Table 5-1 presents a summary of
the BOAT List constituents that were detected in untreated K048-K052. All
BDAT List constituents that were detected in the untreated waste were further
considered for regulation in that waste, unless a constituent was deleted from
consideration for one of the following reasons: (1) the constituent was not
present at treatable levels in the untreated wastes; or (2) the constituent
was detected in an untreated waste at treatable levels but treatment perform-
ance data demonstrating effective treatment by BDAT were unavailable for that
constituent in the waste or for a waste judged to be similar. Table 5-2
presents constituents from the BDAT constituent list that were considered for
regulation following deletion of certain constituents for the reasons
described above. The constituents selected for regulation in wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of K048-K052 are presented in Table 5-3.
Not all BDAT List constituents considered for regulation and shown
on Table 5-2 were selected for regulation. The Agency selects constituents
for regulation after consideration of the concentration of the constituent in
the untreated waste, the relative difficulty associated with achievement of
5-1
-------
effective treatment of the constituent by BDAT, and the level of control of
the constituent that can be expected through treatment required to comply with
treatment standards established for other constituents in the waste.
The following subsections describe in more detail the selection of
constituents proposed for regulation in K048-K052.
5.1 BDAT List Constituents Detected in the Untreated Waste
BDAT List constituents that were detected in untreated K048-K052
were considered for regulation. A BDAT List constituent was not considered
for regulation if: (1) the constituent was not detected in the untreated
waste; (2) the constituent was not analyzed in the untreated waste; or (3)
detection limits or analytical results were not obtained for the constituent
due to analytical or accuracy problems. The constituents that were not
considered for regulation for these reasons are identified in Table 5-1; each
reason is explained in more detail below. Some constituents that were
detected in the untreated wastes were deleted from consideration for regu-
lation as discussed in Section 5.2. The steps describing the selection of
regulated constituents are presented in Section 5.3.
Constituents That Were Not Detected in the Untreated Waste. Con-
stituents that were not detected in the untreated waste (labelled ND or ND* in
Table 5-1) were not considered for regulation. Analytical detection limits
were, in most cases, practical quantification limits. In some cases, where
5-2
-------
data were submitted to the Agency by outside sources, the nature of the
detection limits and whether or not the waste was analyzed for a constituent
are unknown (labelled ND* in Table 5-1). Since detection limits vary depend-
ing upon the nature of the waste matrix being analyzed, the detection limits
determined in the characterization of these wastes are included in Appendix H.
Constituents That Were Not Analyzed. Some constituents on the BOAT
List were not considered for regulation because they were not analyzed in the
untreated wastes (labelled NA, MA*, or NA** in Table 5-1). Some constituents
were not analyzed in the untreated wastes based on the judgment that it is
extremely unlikely that the constituent would be present in the wastes (NA**).
Other constituents were not analyzed in the untreated waste because they were
not on the BOAT List of constituents at the time of analysis (NA*). In cases
where data were submitted to the Agency by outside sources, it may not be
known if and/or why constituents were not analyzed (NA).
Constituents For Which Analytical Results Were Not Obtained Due to
Analytical or Accuracy Problems. Some constituents on the BDAT List were not
considered for regulation because detection limits or analytical results were
not obtained due to analytical or accuracy problems (labelled A in Table 5-1).
The analytical and accuracy problems include: (1) laboratory QA/QC analyses
indicated inadequate recoveries and, therefore, the accuracy of the analysis
for the constituent could not be ensured; (2) a standard was not available for
the constituent and, therefore, system calibration could not be performed for
5-3
-------
the constituent; and (3) colorimetric interferences occurred during analysis
for the constituent and, therefore, accurate analyses could not be performed.
5.2 Constituents Detected in Untreated Waste But Not Considered for
Regulation
BOAT List constituents that were detected in the untreated K048-K052
wastes were not considered for regulation if: (1) available treatment perfor-
mance data for the constituent did not show effective treatment by BOAT; or
(2) treatment performance data were not available for the constituent; or (3)
the constituent was not present at treatable concentrations in the waste. The
specific constituents deleted from further consideration for regulation for
these reasons are discussed below. In addition, one constituent, dichloro-
difluoromethane, was deleted from consideration for regulation in nonwaste-
water and wastewater. Dichlorodifluoromethane was detected in two of six
samples of untreated K048 collected by EPA from Plant A; however, the constit-
uent was also detected at a higher concentration in another waste (biosludge)
that was mixed with K048 prior to the collection of the K048 sample. Addi-
tionally, dichlorodifluoromethane was not reported as present in K048 in other
data sources, as shown in Table 2-4. Therefore, dichlorodifluoromethane was
not considered for regulation in K048. BOAT List constituents that were
further considered for regulation following the deletions described in this
section are listed on Table 5-2.
5-4
-------
Nonwastewater. BDAT List constituents that were present in an
untreated K048-K052 waste but were not effectively treated by the BDAT tech-
nology, were deleted from consideration for regulation for the nonwastewater
forms of the K048-K052 waste treatability group. Accordingly, sulfide was not
considered for regulation in nonwastewater because the technology determined
to be BDAT for K048-K052 (fluidized bed incineration followed by lime and fly
ash stabilization) does not provide effective treatment for this constituent.
Moreover, the Agency is unaware of any demonstrated technology for treatment
of sulfide in K048-K052.
Similarly, antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, lead, mercury, and
silver were not considered for regulation in nonwastewater because stabiliza-
tion of fluidized bed incinerator ash did not show effective treatment for
these constituents. Hexavalent chromium and fluoride were not considered for
regulation in nonwastewater because they were not analyzed in both the
unstabilized and stabilized incinerator ash and therefore the effectiveness of
treatment could not be evaluated for these constituents.
Wastewater. Sulfide and barium were deleted from further consider-
ation for regulation in wastewaters because they were not effectively treated
by the BDAT technologies. Sulfide was not regulated in wastewater because the
Agency is not aware of a demonstrated technology for reducing sulfide in
K048-K052 waste. Barium was not regulated in wastewater because it is not
effectively treated by chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precip-
itation and vacuum filtration.
5-5
-------
Cyanide was deleted from further consideration for regulation in
wastewaters because, based on the concentration of cyanide in the untreated
wastes, EPA believes that it would not be present at treatable concentrations
in the wastewater residual.
Some BDAT List organic constituents were deleted from consideration
for regulation in wastewater because treatment performance data are not
available for the constituents and because adequate control of the constit-
uents could not be shown based on their bond dissociation energies. The
Agency does not currently have data on BDAT List organics in wastewater
residuals that specifically reflect treatment of K048-K052. Therefore,
treatment performance data for BDAT List organics were transferred to
K048-K052 from data for scrubber water residuals generated from incineration
of K019.
For organics in wastewater, determination of adequate control was
based on an evaluation of the characteristics of the constituents that would
affect performance of incineration relative to the scrubber water residual,
specifically, the estimated bond dissociation energies for the constituents.
In general, a constituent is believed to be controlled by regulation of
another constituent that has a higher bond dissociation energy. Based on a
comparison of bond dissociation energies, it cannot be shown that benz(a)-
anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, chrysene, di-n-butyl
phthalate, and pyrene will be controlled by regulation of another constituent
and performance data are not available from K019 scrubber water for
5-6
-------
transfer to these constituents. The bond dissociation energies for these
constituents exceed the bond energies of all constituents detected in the
untreated K019. Constituents with bond dissociation energies that exceed the
bond dissociation energies for all constituents in the transferred data were
deleted from consideration for regulation. The Agency has collected six
scrubber water residual samples generated from incineration of K048 and is
currently analyzing these samples. The Agency will consider these data
between proposal and promulgation in the selection of constituents for regu-
lation and in establishing final BOAT treatment standards applicable to
wastewater.
5.3 Constituents Selected for Regulation
BDAT List constituents selected for regulation in K048-K052 are
presented in Table 5-3. The selection of regulated constituents for nonwaste-
water is discussed in Section 5.3.1 and for wastewater in Section 5.3.2.
5.3.1 Selection of Regulated Constituents in Nonwastewater
Regulated organic and inorganic constituents in nonwastewater were
selected from those BDAT List organic and inorganic constituents detected in
the untreated wastes that were treated by fluidized bed incineration. Regu-
lated metal constituents were selected from those BDAT List metal constituents
detected in the untreated wastes that were treated by stabilization of ash
from fluidized bed incineration.
5-7
-------
As explained in Section 1,the Agency is not regulating all of the
constituents considered for regulation (Table 5-2) due to the costs associated
with compliance. Table 5-3 presents the constituents selected for regulation
after consideration of: (1) constituent concentration levels in the untreated
waste; (2) whether the constituents are adequately controlled by the regu-
lation of another constituent; and (3) the relative difficulty associated with
achieving effective treatment of the constituent by BOAT. For organics,
determination of adequate control was based on an evaluation of the character-
istics of the constituents that would affect performance of fluidized bed
incineration, specifically, the boiling point of the constituents. In gen-
eral, a constituent is believed to be controlled by regulation of another
constituent that has a higher boiling point. Boiling points for all BOAT List
constituents considered for regulation are tabulated in Appendix I. For
metals, the Agency is regulating all treated constituents because the charac-
teristics that affect the performance of stabilization do not provide for
control of other constituents. The constituents selected for regulation are
discussed below for each waste code.
K048
(i) Organic and Inorganic Constituents. Toluene, xylene, bis(2-
ethylhexyDphthalate, chrysene, di-n-butyl phthalate, naphthalene, phenan-
threne, phenol, and cyanide were selected for regulation in K048 nonwaste-
water. Ethylbenzene, benzo(a)pyrene, fluorene, and pyrene were considered for
regulation but were not selected because these constituents were found at
5-8
-------
lower concentrations in the untreated waste and they are believed to be
adequately controlled by incineration of other constituents which have been
selected for regulation. This decision was based on a comparison of boiling
points of those constituents considered for regulation. EPA believes that
ethylbenzene (bp 136°C) will be adequately controlled by regulation of xylene
(bp 140°C), bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (bp 385°C), chrysene (bp 448°C),
naphthalene (bp 218°C), phenanthrene (bp 340°C), and phenol (bp 182°C).
Benzo(a)pyrene (bp 311°C) and fluorene (bp 295°C) will be adequately con-
trolled by regulation of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (bp 385°C), chrysene (bp
448°C), di-n-butyl phthalate (bp 340°C), and phenanthrene (bp 340°C). Pyrene
(bp 404°C) will be adequately controlled by regulation of chrysene (bp 448°C).
(ii) Metal Constituents. In addition to the organic and inorganic
constituents, all of the metal constituents further considered for regulation
(arsenic, total chromium, copper, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc) were
selected for regulation in K048 nonwastewater.
K049
(i) Organic and Inorganic Constituents. Benzene, toluene, xylene,
chrysene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, phenol, pyrene, and cyanide were selected
for regulation in K049 nonwastewater. Carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene, anthra-
cene, benzo(a)pyrene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and 2,4-dimethylphenol were
considered for regulation but were not selected because these constituents
were found at lower concentrations in the untreated waste and they are
5-9
-------
believed to be adequately controlled by incineration of other constituents
which have been selected for regulation. This decision was based on a compar-
ison of boiling points of those constituents considered for regulation. EPA
believes that carbon disulfide (bp 46°C) will be adequately controlled by
regulation of benzene (bp 80°C), toluene (bp 111°C), xylene (bp 140°C),
chrysene (bp 448°C), naphthalene (bp 218°C), phenanthrene (bp 340°C), phenol
(bp 182°C), and pyrene (404°C). Ethylbenzene (bp 136°C) will be adequately
controlled by regulation of xylene (bp 140°C), chrysene (bp 448°C), naphthal-
ene (bp 218°C), phenanthrene (bp 340°C), phenol (bp 182°C), and pyrene (bp
404°C). Anthracene (bp 342°C) and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (bp 385°C) will
be adequately controlled by regulation of chrysene (bp 448°C) and pyrene (bp
404°C). Benzo(a)pyrene (bp 311°C) will be adequately controlled by regulation
of chrysene (bp 448°C) phenanthrene (bp 340°C), and pyrene (bp 404°C).
2,4-Dimethylphenol (bp 212°C) will be adequately controlled by regulation of
chrysene (bp 448°C), naphthalene (bp 218°C), phenanthrene (bp 340°C), and
pyrene (bp 404°C).
(ii) Metal Constituents. In addition to the organic and inorganic
constituents, all of the metal constituents further considered for regulation
(arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc) were
selected for regulation in K049 nonwastewater.
5-10
-------
K050
(i) Organic, Metal, and Inorganic Constituents. All of the
organic, metal, and inorganic constituents further considered for regulation
(benzo(a)pyrene, phenol, arsenic, total chromium, copper, nickel, selenium,
vanadium, zinc, and cyanide) were selected for regulation in K050 nonwaste-
water.
K051
(i) Organic and Inorganic Constituents. Toluene, xylene, chrysene,
di-n-butyl phthalate, naphthalene, phenanthrene, phenol, pyrene, and cyanide
were selected for regulation in K051 nonwastewater. Ethylbenzene, acenaph-
thene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and
fluorene were considered for regulation but were not selected because these
constituents were found at lower concentrations in the untreated waste and
they are believed to be adequately controlled by incineration of other con-
stituents which have been selected for regulation. This decision was based on
a comparison of boiling points of those constituents considered for regula-
tion. EPA believes that ethylbenzene (bp 136°C) will be adequately controlled
by regulation of xylene (bp 140°C), chrysene (bp 448°C), di-n-butyl phthalate
(bp 340°C), naphthalene (bp 218°C), phenanthrene (bp 340°C), phenol (bp
182°C), and pyrene (bp 404°C). Acenaphthene (bp 279°C), benzo(a)pyrene (bp
311°C), and fluorene (bp 295°C) will be adequately be controlled by the
regulation of chrysene (bp 448°C), di-n-butyl phthalate (bp 340°C), phenan-
threne (bp 340°C), and pyrene (bp 404°C). Benz(a)anthracene (bp 435°C) will
5-11
-------
be adequately controlled by the regulation of chrysene (bp 448°C). Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate (bp 385°C) will be adequately controlled by the regula-
tion of chrysene (bp 448°C) and pyrene (bp 404°C).
(ii) Metal Constituents. In addition to the organic and inorganic
constituents, all of the metal constituents further considered for regulation
(arsenic, total chromium, copper, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc) were
selected for regulation in K051 nonwastewater.
K052
(i) Organic and Inorganic Constituents. Toluene, xylene, ortho-
cresol, para-cresol, naphthalene, phenanthrene, phenol, and cyanide were
selected for regulation in K052 nonwastewater. Benzene, ethylbenzene, benzo-
(a)pyrene, and 2,4-dimethylphenol were considered for regulation but were not
selected because these constituents were found at lower concentrations in the
untreated waste and they are believed to be adequately controlled by incinera-
tion of other constituents which have been selected for regulation. This
decision was based on a comparison of boiling points of those constituents
considered for regulation. EPA believes that benzene (bp 80°C) will be
adequately controlled by the regulation of toluene (bp 111°C), xylene (bp
140°C), ortho-cresol (bp 192°C), para-cresol (bp 202°C), naphthalene (bp
218°C), phenanthrene (bp 340°C), and phenol (bp 182°C). Ethylbenzene (bp
136°C) will be adequately controlled by regulation of xylene (bp 140°C),
ortho-cresol (bp 192°C), para-cresol (bp 202°C), naphthalene (bp 218°C),
phenanthrene (bp 340°C), and phenol (bp 182°C). Benzo(a)pyrene (bp 311°C)
5-12
-------
will be adequately controlled by the regulation of phenanthrene (bp 340°C).
2,4-Dimethylphenol (bp 212°C) will be adequately controlled by the regulation
of naphthalene (bp 218°C), and phenanthrene (bp 340°C).
(ii) Metal Constituents. In addition to the organic and inorganic
constituents, all of the metal constituents further considered for regulation
(arsenic, total chromium, copper, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc) were
selected for regulation in K052 nonwastewater.
5.3.2 Selection of Regulated Constituents in Wastewater
Regulated organic constituents in wastewater were selected from the
BDAT List organic constituents detected in the untreated wastes and similar
wastes that showed treatment using incineration. Regulated metal and inor-
ganic constituents were selected from BDAT List metal and inorganic constitu-
ents detected in the untreated wastes and similar wastes that showed treatment
using incineration followed by wastewater treatment using chromium reduction,
lime and sulfide precipitation, and vacuum filtration.
As explained in Section 1.0, the Agency is not regulating all of the
constituents considered for regulation (Table 5-2) due to the costs associated
with compliance. Table 5-3 presents the constituents selected for regulation
after consideration of: (1) constituent concentration in the untreated waste;
(2) whether the constituents are adequately controlled by the regulation of
5-13
-------
another constituent; and (3) the relative difficulty associated with achieving
effective treatment of the constituent by BDAT.
As discussed in Section 5.2, determination of adequate control for
organics in the scrubber water residual was based on the calculated bond
dissociation energies (BDE) for the constituents. In general, a constituent
is believed to be controlled by regulation of another constituent that has a
higher bond dissociation energy. Bond dissociation energies for all BDAT List
constituents considered for regulation are tabulated in Appendix I.
Treatment performance data for metals in K048-K052 wastewater were
transferred from treatment of K062 and metal-bearing characteristic wastes.
The BDAT technology is chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precip-
itation and vacuum filtration. For inorganics and metals, determination of
adequate control was based on an evaluation of the characteristics of the
constituents that would affect performance of the BDAT wastewater treatment
system.
The constituents selected for regulation and the constituents con-
trolled by regulating other constituents are discussed below by waste code.
K048
(i) Organic Constituents. The organic constituents for regulation
in K048 wastewater are toluene, xylene, fluorene, naphthalene, phenanthrene,
5-14
-------
and phenol. Ethylbenzene was considered for regulation but was not selected
because it was found at lower concentrations in the untreated waste and it is
believed to be adequately controlled by incineration of other constituents
that were selected for regulation. This decision was based on a comparison of
bond dissociation energies (BDE) of those constituents considered for regu-
lation. EPA believes that ethylbenzene (BDE 1,920 kcal/mole) will be ade-
quately controlled by regulation of naphthalene (BDE 2,095 kcal/mole),
fluorene (BDE 2,700 kcal/mole), and phenanthrene (BDE 2,900 kcal/mole).
(ii) Metals and Inorganic Constituents. Total chromium, lead, and
zinc were selected for regulation in K048 wastewater. Antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and vanadium
were considered for regulation but were not selected because these constitu-
ents were found at lower concentrations in the untreated waste than other
constituents and they are believed to be adequately controlled by standards
established for total chromium, lead, and zinc. Control is provided by the
use of chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and
vacuum filtration treatment. By removing the metals present at the highest
concentrations in the untreated waste, adequate treatment will be provided for
other metals present at treatable concentrations.
K049
(i) Organic Constituents. The organic constituents selected for
regulation in K049 wastewater are benzene, toluene, xylene, anthracene,
5-15
-------
2,4-dimethylphenol, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and phenol. Carbon disulfide
and ethyl benzene were considered for regulation but were not selected because
they were found at lower concentrations in the untreated waste and they are
believed to be adequately controlled by incineration of other constituents
that were selected for regulation. This decision was based on a comparison of
bond dissociation energies (BDE) of those constituents considered for regu-
lation. EPA believes that carbon disulfide (BDE 279 kcal/mole) will be
adequately controlled by regulation of benzene (BDE 1,320 kcal/mole), toluene
(BDE 1,235 kcal/mole), xylene (BDE 1,220 kcal/mole), anthracene (BDE 2,870
kcal/mole), 2,4-dimethylphenol (BDE 1,390 kcal/mole), naphthalene (BDE 2,095
kcal/mole), phenanthrene (BDE 2,900 kcal/mole), and phenol (BDE 1,421
kcal/mole). Ethylbenzene (BDE 1,920 kcal/mole) will be adequately controlled
by regulation of naphthalene (BDE 2,095 kcal/mole), anthracene (BDE 2,870
kcal/mole), and phenanthrene (BDE 2,900 kcal/mole).
(ii) Metals and Inorganic Constituents. Total chromium, lead, and
zinc were selected for regulation in K049 wastewater. Antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium
silver, vanadium, and fluoride were considered for regulation but were not
selected because these constituents were found at lower concentrations in the
untreated waste than other constituents and they are believed to be adequately
controlled by standards established for total chromium, lead, and zinc.
Control is provided by the use of chromium reduction followed by lime and
sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration treatment. By removing the metals
5-16
-------
present at the highest concentrations in the untreated waste, adequate treat-
ment will be provided for other metals present at treatable concentrations.
K050
(i) Organic Constituents. The organic constituent further
considered for regulation (phenol) was selected for regulation in K050
wastewater.
(ii) Metals and Inorganic Constituents. Total chromium, lead, and
zinc were selected for regulation in K050 wastewater. Arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and
vanadium were considered for regulation but were not selected because these
constituents were found at lower concentrations in the untreated waste than
other constituents and they are believed to be adequately controlled by
standards established for total chromium, lead, and zinc. Control is provided
by the use of chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation
and vacuum filtration treatment. By removing the metals present at the
highest concentrations in the untreated waste, adequate treatment will be
provided for other metals present at treatable concentrations.
K051
(i) Organic Constituents. The organic constituents selected for
regulation in K051 wastewater are toluene, xylene, acenaphthene, fluorene,
naphthalene, phenanthrene, and phenol. Ethylbenzene was considered for
5-17
-------
regulation but was not selected because it was found at lower concentrations
in the untreated waste and it is believed to be adequately controlled by
incineration of other constituents that were selected for regulation. This
decision was based on a comparison of bond dissociation energies (BDE) of
those constituents considered for regulation. EPA believes that ethylbenzene
(BDE 1,920 kcal/mole) will be adequately controlled by regulation of naphtha-
lene (BDE 2,095 kcal/mole), acenaphthene (BDE 2,406 kcal/mole), fluorene (BDE
2,700 kcal/mole), and phenanthrene (BDE 2,900 kcal/mole).
(ii) Metals and Inorganic Constituents. Total chromium, lead, and
zinc were selected for regulation in K051 wastewater. Antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium,
silver, and vanadium were considered for regulation but were not selected
because these constituents were found at lower concentrations in the untreated
waste than other constituents and they are believed to be adequately con-
trolled by standards established for total chromium, lead, and zinc. Control
is provided by the use of chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide
precipitation and vacuum filtration treatment. By removing the metals present
at the highest concentrations in the untreated waste, adequate treatment will
be provided for other metals present at treatable concentrations.
K052
(i) Organic Constituents. The organic constituents selected for
regulation in K052 wastewater are benzene, xylene, ortho-cresol, para-cresol,
5-18
-------
2,4-dimethylphenol, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and phenol. Ethyl benzene and
toluene were considered for regulation but were not selected because they were
found at lower concentrations in the untreated waste and they are believed to
be adequately controlled by incineration of other constituents that were
selected for regulation. This decision was based on a comparison of bond
dissociation energies (BDE) of those constituents considered for regulation.
EPA believes that ethyl benzene (BDE 1,920 kcal/mole) will be adequately
controlled by regulation of naphthalene (BDE 2,095 kcal/mole) and phenanthrene
(BDE 2,900 kcal/mole). Toluene (BDE 1,235 kcal/mole) will be adequately
controlled by regulation of benzene (BDE 1,320 kcal/mole), 2,4-dimethylphenol
(BDE 1,390 kcal/mole), ortho-cresol (BDE 1,405 kcal/mole), para-cresol (BDE
1,405 kcal/mole), naphthalene (BDE 2,095 kcal/mole), and phenanthrene (BDE
2,900 kcal/mole).
(ii) Metals and Inorganic Constituents. Total chromium, lead, and
zinc were selected for regulation in K052 wastewater. Antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, vanadium, and
fluoride were considered for regulation but were not selected because these
constituents are present at lower concentrations in the untreated waste than
other constituents and they are believed to be adequately controlled by
standards established for total chromium, lead, and zinc. Control is provided
by the use of chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation
and vacuum filtration treatment. By removing the metals present at the
highest concentrations in the untreated waste, adequate treatment will be
provided for other metals present at treatable concentrations.
5-19
-------
Table 5-1
BDAT LIST CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN UNTREATED K048-K052 WASTES
K048
Volatiles
K049
K050
K051
K052
222. Acetone NA* NA* NA NA*
1 . Acetonitrile ND ND ND* ND
2. Acrolein ND ND ND* ND
3. Acrylonitrile ND ND ND* ND
4. Benzene ND D ND* ND
5. Bromodichloromethane ND ND ND* ND
6. Bromomethane ND ND ND* ND
223. n-Butyl alcohol NA* NA* NA NA*
7. Carbon tetrachloride ND ND ND* ND
8. Carbon disulfide A D ND* A
9. Chlorobenzene ND ND ND* ND
10. 2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene ND ND ND* ND
1 1 . Chlorodibromomethane ND ND ND* ND
12. Chloroethane ND ND ND* ND
13. 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether A ND ND* A
14. Chloroform ND ND ND* ND
15. Chloromethane ND ND ND* ND
16. 3-Chloropropene ND ND ND* ND
17. 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND ND* ND
18. 1,2-Dibromoethane ND ND ND* ND
19. Dibromomethane ND ND ND* ND
20. trans- 1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene ND ND ND* ND
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane D ND ND* ND
22. 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND* ND
23. 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND* ND
24. 1,1-Dichloroethylene ND ND ND* ND
25. trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND* ND
26. 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND* ND
27. trans- 1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND* ND
28. cis- 1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND* ND
29. 1,4-Dioxane A ND ND* A
224. 2-Ethoxyethanol NA* NA* NA NA*
225. Ethyl acetate NA* NA* NA NA*
226. Ethyl benzene D D NA D
A - Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical
not obtained due to analytical problems.
D - Constituent was detected in the untreated waste.
NA*
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
NA*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA*
NA*
D
result was
NA - Believe that untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent.
NA* - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent because
not on the BDAT List at the time of analysis.
NA** - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent due to
unlikelihood that it would be present.
ND - Constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
it was
extreme
ND* - Believe that constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
5-20
-------
Table 5-1 (Continued)
BDAT LIST CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN UNTREATED K048-K052 WASTES
K048 K049 K050 K051
Volatiles (Cont.)
30. Ethyl cyanide ND ND ND* ND
227. Ethyl ether NA* NA* NA NA*
31. Ethyl methacrylate ND ND ND* ND
214. Ethylene Oxide NA* NA* NA NA*
32. lodomethane ND ND ND* ND
33. Isobutyl alcohol ND ND ND* ND
228. Methanol NA* NA* NA NA*
34. Methyl ethyl ketone ND ND ND* ND
229. Methyl isobutyl ketone NA* NA* NA* NA*
35. Methyl methacrylate ND ND ND* ND
37. Methacrylonitrile ND ND ND* ND
38. Methylene chloride ND ND ND* ND
230. 2-Nitropropane NA* NA* NA NA*
39. Pyridine ND ND ND* ND
40. 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND* ND
41. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND* ND
42. Tetrachloroethene ND ND ND* ND
43. Toluene D D ND* D
44. Tribromomethane ND ND ND* ND
45. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND ND* ND
46. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND ND* ND
47. Trichloroethene ND ND ND* ND
48. Trichloromonofluoromethane ND ND ND* ND
49. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND ND* ND
231. 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2,- NA* NA* NA NA*
trifluoroethane
50. Vinyl chloride ND ND ND* ND
215. 1,2-Xylene D* D* ND* D*
216. 1,3-Xylene D* D* ND* D*
217. 1,4-Xylene D* D* ND* D*
Semivolatiles
51. Acenaphthalene ND ND ND* ND
52. Acenaphthene ND ND ND* D
53. Acetophenone ND ND ND* ND
K052
ND
NA*
ND
NA*
ND
ND
NA*
ND
NA*
ND
ND
ND
NA*
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA*
ND
D*
D*
D*
ND
ND
ND
A -
D
D*
Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was
not obtained due to analytical problems.
Constituent was detected in the untreated waste.
Xylene was detected in the untreated waste. Analyses for individual
isomers are not available.
NA - Believe that untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent.
NA* - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent because it was
not on the BDAT List at the time of analysis.
NA** - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent due to extreme
unlikelihood that it would be present.
ND - Constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
ND* - Believe that constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
5-21
-------
Table 5-1 (Continued)
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN UNTREATED K048-K052 WASTES
Semivolatiles (Cont.)
K048
K049
K050
K051
K052
54. 2-Acetylaminofluorene A ND ND* A
55. 4-Aminobiphenyl ND ND ND* ND
56. Aniline ND ND ND* ND
57. Anthracene ND D ND* ND
58. Aramite A A ND* A
59. Benz(a)anthracene ND ND ND* D
218. Benzal chloride NA* NA* NA NA*
60. Benzenethiol A A ND* A
62. Benzo(a)pyrene D D D D
63. Benzo(b)fluoranthene A ND ND* A
64. Benzo(ghi)perylene ND ND ND* ND
65. Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND ND ND* ND
66. p-Benzoquinone A A ND* A
67. Bis (2-chloroethoxy) ethane ND ND ND* ND
68. Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether ND ND ND* ND
69. Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether ND ND ND* ND
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate D D ND* D
71. 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ND ND ND* ND
72. Butyl benzyl phthalate ND ND ND* ND
73. 2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol A ND ND* A
74. p-Chloroaniline ND ND ND* ND
75. Chlorobenzilate A A ND* A
76. p-Chloro-m-cresol ND ND ND* ND
77. 2-Chloronaphthalene ND ND ND* ND
78. 2-Chlorophenol ND ND ND* ND
79. 3-Chloropropionitrile A A ND* A
80. Chrysene D D ND* D
81. ortho-Cresol ND ND ND* ND
82. para-Cresol ND ND ND* ND
232. Cyclohexanone NA* NA* NA NA*
83. Dibenz( a, h) anthracene ND ND ND* ND
84. Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene A A ND* A
85. Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene A A ND* A
86. m-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND* ND
A - Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical
not obtained due to analytical problems.
D - Constituent was detected in the untreated waste.
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
NA*
A
D
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
D
D
NA*
ND
A
A
ND
result was
NA - Believe that untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent.
NA* - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent because
not on the BOAT List at the time of analysis.
NA** - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent due to
unlikelihood that it would be present.
ND - Constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
it was
extreme
ND* - Believe that constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
5-22
-------
Table 5-1 (Continued)
BDAT LIST CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN UNTREATED K048-K052 WASTES
K048
K049
K050
Semivolatiles (Cont.)
K051
K052
87. o-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND* ND
88. p-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND* ND
89. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ND ND ND* ND
90. 2,4-Dichlorophenol ND ND ND* ND
91. 2,6-Dichlorophenol ND A ND* ND
92. Diethyl phthalate ND ND ND* ND
93. 3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine ND ND ND* ND
94. p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene ND ND ND* ND
95. 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine A A ND* A
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol ND D ND* ND
97. Dimethyl phthalate ND ND ND* ND
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate D ND ND* D
99. 1,4-Dinitrobenzene ND ND ND* ND
100. 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ND ND ND* ND
101. 2,4-Dinitrophenol ND ND ND* ND
102. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND ND ND* ND
103. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND ND ND* ND
104. Di-n-octyl phthalate ND ND ND* ND
105. Di-n-propylnitrosamine ND ND ND* ND
106. Diphenylamine/ ND ND ND* ND
diphenylnitrosamine
219. Diphenylnitrosamine NA* NA* NA NA*
107. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ND ND ND* ND
108. Fluoranthene ND ND ND* ND
109. Fluorene D ND ND* D
110. Hexachlorobenzene ND ND ND* ND
111. Hexachlorobutadiene ND ND ND* ND
112. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND ND ND* ND
113. Hexachloroe thane ND ND ND* ND
114. Hexachlorophene A A ND* A
115. Hexachloropropene ND A ND* ND
116. Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND ND ND* ND
117. Isosafrole A ND ND* A
A - Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical
not obtained due to analytical problems.
D - Constituent was detected in the untreated waste.
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
A
ND
ND
result was
NA - Believe that untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent.
NA* - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent because
not on the BDAT List at the time of analysis.
NA** - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent due to
unlikelihood that it would be present.
ND - Constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
it was
extreme
ND* - Believe that constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
5-23
-------
Table 5-1 (Continued)
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN UNTREATED K048-K052 WASTES
K048
K049
K050
K051
K052
Semivolatiles (Cont.)
118.
119.
120.
36.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
220.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
Methapyrilene
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4'-Methylenebis
(2-chloroaniline)
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1 -Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
n-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pnetachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phthalic anhydride
2-Picoline
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorcinol
Safrole
A
A
A
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
NA*
ND
ND
D
ND
A
A
ND
ND
A
D
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
D
D
NA*
ND
A
D
A
ND
ND»
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
D
NA
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
A
A
A
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
NA*
ND
ND
D
ND
A
A
ND
ND
A
D
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
D
D
NA*
ND
A
ND
A
ND
A - Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was
not obtained due to analytical problems.
D - Constituent was detected in the untreated waste.
NA - Believe that untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent.
NA* - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent because it was
not on the BOAT List at the time of analysis.
NA** - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent due to extreme
unlikelihood that it would be present.
ND - Constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
ND* - Believe that constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
5-24
-------
Table 5-1 (Continued)
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN UNTREATED K048-K052 WASTES
Semivolatiles (Cont.)
148. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
149. 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
150. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
151. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
152. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
153. Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)
phosphate
Metals
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Berryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
166. Thallium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Inorganics
K048
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K049
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
D
D
D
D
ND
D
D
D
D
D
D
ND
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ND
D
D
K050
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
D
ND*
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ND*
D
D
K051
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ND
D
D
K052
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
D
D
D
D
NA*
D
D
D
D
D
D
ND
D
D
169.
170.
171.
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
D
ND
D
D
D
D
D
ND*
ND*
D
ND
D
D
D
D
A - Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was
not obtained due to analytical problems.
D - Constituent was detected in the untreated waste.
NA - Believe that untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent.
NA* - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent because it was
not on the BOAT List at the time of analysis.
NA** - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent due to extreme
unlikelihood that it would be present.
ND - Constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
ND* - Believe that constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
5-25
-------
Table 5-1 (Continued)
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN UNTREATED K048-K052 WASTES
K048 KOU9 K050 K051 K052
Organochlorine Pesticides
172. Aldrin NA*» NA*» NA NA** NA»*
173. alpha-BHC NA** NA*» NA NA»* NA*»
174. beta-BHC NA*» NA»* NA NA*» NA»*
175. delta-BHC NA** NA*» NA NA*» NA»*
176. gamma-BHC NA** NA** NA NA»* NA»*
177. Chlordane NA** NA»* NA NA** NA»*
178. ODD NA*» NA*» NA NA*» NA»»
179. DDE NA** NA»* NA NA*» NA»*
180. DDT NA»* NA** NA NA*» NA*»
181. Dieldrin NA** NA** NA NA** NA»*
182. Endosulfan I NA** NA** NA NA»* NA»»
183. Endosulfan II NA»* NA*» NA NA** NA*»
184. Endrin NA** NA** NA NA*» NA»»
185. Endrin aldehyde NA*» NA** NA NA** NA*«
186. Heptachlor NA»* NA*» NA _ NA»* NA*»
187. Heptachlor epoxide NA** NA** NA NA** NA»*
188. Isodrin NA** NA*» NA NA*» NA**
189. Kepone NA** NA»* NA NA»* NA»*
190. Methoxychlor NA** NA»* NA NA*» NA»*
191. Toxaphene NA** NA»* NA NA*» NA**
Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides
192. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic NA*» NA»* NA NA** NA»*
acid
193. Silvex NA»* NA** NA NA** NA»*
194. 2,4,5-T NA*» NA** NA NA*» NA»*
Organophosphorus Insecticides
195. Disulfoton NA*» NA** NA NA** NA»*
196. Famphur NA»* NA»* NA NA»* NA»*
A - Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was
not obtained due to analytical problems.
D - Constituent was detected in the untreated waste.
NA - Believe that untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent.
NA* - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent because it was
not on the BOAT List at the time of analysis.
NA** - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent due to extreme
unlikelihood that it would be present.
ND - Constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
ND* - Believe that constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
5-26
-------
Table 5-1 (Continued)
BDAT LIST CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN UNTREATED K048-K052 WASTES
Organophosphorus Insecticides (Cont.)
197. Methyl parathion
198. Parathion
199. Phorate
PCBs
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Dioxins and Furans
207. Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
208. Hexachlorodibenzofuran
209. Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
210. Pentachlorodibenzofuran
211. Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
212. Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
213. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin
K048
NA*»
NA**
NA»*
NA*»
NA**
NA»*
NA»*
NA*»
NA»*
NA**
NA»*
NA*»
NA*»
NA**
NA**
NA**
NA*»
K049
NA**
NA»*
NA*»
NA*»
NA»*
NA**
NA*»
NA»*
NA**
NA*»
NA*»
NA**
NA*»
NA**
NA»*
NA**
NA*»
K050
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K051
NA*»
NA**
NA»*
NA»»
NA**
NA»*
NA»*
NA**
NA*»
NA»*
NA»*
NA»*
NA*»
NA*»
NA*»
NA»*
NA»*
K052
NA»*
NA**
NA**
NA*»
NA»*
NA»*
NA**
NA»*
NA»*
NA»*
NA»*
NA*»
NA**
NA**
NA»*
NA»*
NA*»
A -
Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was
not obtained due to analytical problems.
Constituent was detected in the untreated waste.
Believe that untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent.
Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent because it was
not on the BDAT List at the time of analysis.
NA** - Untreated waste was not analyzed for this constituent due to extreme
unlikelihood that it would be present.
Constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
Believe that constituent was not detected in the untreated waste.
D
NA
NA*
ND
ND* -
5-27
-------
Ul
I
00
Table 5-2
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION*
K048
K049
NONWASTEWATER
K050
K051
K052
226.
43.
62.
70.
80.
98.
109.
121.
141.
142.
145.
155.
159.
160.
163.
164.
167.
168.
169.
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene**
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)phthal-
ate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl
phthalate
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Arsenic
Chromium( total )
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
4.
8.
226.
43.
57.
62.
70.
80.
96.
121.
141.
142.
145.
155.
159.
160.
163.
164.
167.
168.
169.
Benzene
Carbon disul-
fide
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene**
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl) phthal-
ate
Chrysene
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Arsenic
Chromium( total)
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
62.
142.
155.
159.
160.
163.
164.
167.
168.
169.
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenol
Arsenic
Chromium( total)
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
226.
43.
52.
59.
62.
70.
80.
98.
109.
121.
141.
142.
145.
155.
159.
160.
163.
164.
167.
168.
169.
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene**
Acenaphthene
Benz(a)anthra-
cene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl) phthal-
ate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl
phthalate
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Arsenic
Chromium( total )
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
4.
226.
43.
62.
81.
82.
96.
121.
141.
142.
155.
159.
160.
163.
164.
167.
168.
169.
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene**
Benzo(a)pyrene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Arsenic
Chromium( total)
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
*A11 constituents on this list were detected in the untreated K048-K052 wastes and were either selected
for regulation (as shown in Table 5-3) or are believed to be controlled by regulation of another
constituent.
**Includes BOAT List constituents 1,2-xylene (#215), 1,3-xylene (#216), and 1,4-xylene (#217).
-------
Table 5-2 (Continued)
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION*
WASTEWATER
K048
K049
K050
K051
K052
43.
226.
109.
121.
141.
142.
154.
155.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
167.
168.
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium ( total )
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
4.
8.
226.
43.
57.
96.
121.
141.
142.
155.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
167.
168.
170.
Benzene
Carbon disul-
fide
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Anthracene
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium( total)
Chromium(hexa-
valent )
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Fluoride
142.
155.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
167.
168.
Phenol
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium( total)
Chromium
(hexavalant)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
226.
43.
52.
109.
121.
141.
142.
154.
155.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
167.
168.
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium( total )
Chromium
(hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
4.
226.
43.
81.
82.
96.
121.
141.
142.
154.
155.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
167.
168.
170.
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium( total )
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Fluoride
*A11 constituents on this list were detected in the untreated K048-K052 wastes and were either selected
for regulation (as shown in Table 5-3) or are believed to be controlled by regulation of another
constituent.
**Includes BOAT List constituents 1,2-xylene (#215), 1,3-xylene (#216), and 1,4-xylene (#217).
-------
Table 5-3
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION
NONWASTEWATER
i
u>
o
K048
K049
43. Toluene 4.
Xylene* 43.
70. Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyDphthal- 80.
ate 121.
80. Chrysene 141.
98. Di-n-butyl 142.
phthalate 145.
121. Naphthalene 155.
141. Phenanthrene 159.
142. Phenol 160.
155. Arsenic 163.
159. Chromium(total) 164.
160. Copper 167.
163. Nickel 168.
164. Selenium 169.
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
169. Cyanide
Benzene 62.
Toluene 142.
Xylene* 155.
Chrysene 159.
Naphthalene 160.
Phenanthrene 163.
Phenol 164.
Pyrene 167.
Arsenic 168.
Chromium(total) 169.
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
K050
K051
Benzo(a)pyrene 43.
Phenol
Arsenic 80.
Chromium(total) 98.
Copper
Nickel 121.
Selenium 141.
Vanadium 142.
Zinc 145.
Cyanide 155.
159.
160.
163.
164.
167.
168.
169.
K052
Toluene 43.
Xylene*
Chrysene 81.
Di-n-butyl 82.
phthalate 121.
Naphthalene 141.
Phenanthrene 142.
Phenol 155.
Pyrene 159.
Arsenic 160.
Chromium(total) 163.
Copper 164.
Nickel 167.
Selenium 168.
Vanadium 169.
Zinc
Cyanide
Toluene
Xylene*
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Arsenic
Chromium(total)
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
"Includes BOAT List constituents 1,2-xylene (#215), 1,3-xylene (#216), and 1,4-xylene (#217).
-------
Table 5-3 (Continued)
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION
43.
109.
121.
141.
142.
159.
161.
168.
K048
Toluene
Xylene*
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Chromium( total)
Lead
Zinc
4.
43.
57.
96.
121.
141.
142.
159.
161.
168.
K049
Benzene 142.
Toluene 159.
Xylene* 16 1.
Anthracene 168.
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Chromium( total)
Lead
Zinc
WASTEWATER
K050
Phenol 43.
Chromium (total)
Lead 52.
Zinc 109.
121.
141.
142.
159.
161.
168.
K051
Toluene
Xylene*
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Chromium ( total )
Lead
Zinc
4.
81.
82.
96.
121.
141.
142.
159.
161.
168.
K052
Benzene
Xylene*
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Chromium( total )
Lead
Zinc
Includes BDAT List constituents 1,2-xylene (#215), 1,3-xylene (#216), and 1,4-xylene (#217).
-------
6.0 CALCULATION OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
In Section 4.0 of this document, the best demonstrated and available
technologies for treatment of the petroleum refinery waste treatability group
(K048-K052) were chosen based on available performance data. In Section 5.0,
the regulated constituents were selected to ensure effective treatment of the
wastes. The purpose of Section 6.0 is to calculate treatment standards for
the proposed regulated constituents using the available treatment data from
the BOAT treatment technologies. Included in this section is a step-by-step
discussion of the calculation of treatment standards for the nonwastewater and
wastewater forms of K048-K052 wastes.
BOAT treatment standards for K048-K052 nonwastewater are proposed
based on performance data from a treatment train that consisted of full scale
fluidized bed incineration followed by ash stabilization. Ash stabilization
was achieved using lime and fly ash as stabilization agents. Testing was
performed on representative samples of nonwastewater K048 and K051. The
treatment performance data were than transferred to develop standards for
nonwastewater K049, K050, and K052.
BOAT organic constituent treatment standards for K048-K052 waste-
waters are proposed based on a transfer of treatment performance data for the
scrubber water residual from the incineration of K019 nonwastewater (K019 is
listed as heavy ends from the distillation of ethylene dichloride in ethylene
dichloride production.) Standards for inorganic constituents were developed
6-1
-------
based on treatment of K062 and metal-bearing characteristic wastes from
chromium reduction, lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration.
Treatment performance data were transferred on a constituent basis from either
the same constituent or, in the case of organic constituents, from constitu-
ents judged to be similar in physical and chemical properties.
Incineration generally results in the generation of two treatment
residuals: ash (a nonwastewater form of K048-K052) and combustion gas scrub-
ber water (a wastewater form of K048-K052). The best measure of performance
for a destruction technology, such as incineration, is the total amount of
constituent remaining after treatment. Therefore, proposed BDAT treatment
standards for organic constituents were calculated based on total constituent
concentration data. Lime and fly ash stabilization reduces the leachability
of metals in the waste. The best measure of performance for stabilization
technologies is the analyses of the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) extract. Therefore, proposed BDAT treatment standards for metals in
nonwastewater forms of K048-K052 wastes were calculated based on TCLP data.
Chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum
filtration is a removal technology for metals in the wastewater residual. The
best measure of performance for a removal technology is the total amount of
constituent remaining after treatment. Therefore, proposed BDAT treatment
standards for metals in wastewater forms of K048-K052 were calculated based on
total constituent concentration data.
6-2
-------
6.1 Calculation of Treatment Standards for Nonwastewater Forms of
K048-K052
K048 and K051 Wastes
Six data sets (untreated and treated data points) for fluidized bed
incineration and three data sets for lime and fly ash stabilization were used
to calculate the nonwastewater treatment standards for K048 and K051 wastes.
Table 6-1 presents the six values of total concentration treated waste data
(organics) for fluidized bed incineration and Table 6-2 presents the three
values of TCLP treated waste data (metals) for lime and fly ash stabilization.
Values are presented for all constituents proposed for regulation in K048-K052
wastes for which treatment data are available from treatment of K048 and K051
wastes at plant A. The concentration data presented in Tables 6-1 and 6-2
have been corrected to account for analytical recovery as described in Section
4.0.
Nonwastewater treatment standards were calculated for each regulated
constituent for K048 and K051 as shown in Tables 6-3 and 6-6. The following
three steps were used to calculate the treatment standards: (1) The arithme-
tic average of the corrected treatment values for each regulated constituent
was calculated using the six data points presented in Table 6-1 for organic
constituents and the three data points presented in Table 6-2 for metal
constituents. (2) Using these same data, a variability factor was calculated
that represents the variability inherent in performance of treatment systems,
6-3
-------
collection of treated samples, and analysis of samples. Where concentrations
in the treated waste were reported as less than or equal to the detection
limit for all the data points in the data set, variability is still expected
since the actual concentration could range from zero to the detection limit.
In these cases, the Agency assumed a lognormal distribution of data points
between the detection limit and a value 1/10 of the detection limit and
calculated a variability factor of 2.8. (3) The treatment standard for each
regulated constituent was calculated by multiplying the arithmetic average of
the corrected treatment values by the variability factor. The analytical
methods for analysis of each regulated constituent for K048 and K051 are
included in Tables 6-3 and 6-6. A detailed discussion of these analytical
methods is presented in Appendix D.
One exception from the methodology for calculation of treatment
standards for K048 and K051 wastes presented above is phenol. Phenol was
selected for regulation for K048 and K051 wastes in Section 5.0 based on
available waste characterization data from a variety of sources; however,
phenol was not detected in the untreated K048 and K051 wastes treated at plant
A. The Agency determined that it would be inappropriate to base treatment
standards on not detected values in the treatment residual if the constituent
was not detected in the untreated waste. Therefore, data were transferred to
phenol from another organic constituent detected in the untreated K048 and
K051 wastes based on the boiling points of those constituents. (Boiling point
is a waste characteristic that affects the performance of fluidized bed
incineration as discussed in detail in Section 3.4. Appendix I presents
6-4
-------
information on waste characteristics that affect performance). The constitu-
ent with the same or the closest higher boiling point for which the Agency had
treatment data from K048 and K051 wastes at plant A was selected for transfer
of data. The treatment standard for phenol (bp 182°C) was based on data
transferred from treatment of naphthalene (bp 218°C); the Agency expects that
phenol can be treated to concentration levels as low or lower than
naphthalene.
K049. K050. and K052 Wastes
Treatment performance data are not available for K049, K050, and
K052 wastes. Therefore, the Agency is transferring data from treatment of
K048 and K051 at Plant A to K049, K050, and K052. The calculation of treat-
ment standards for K049, K050, and K052 are presented in Tables 6-4, 6-5, and
6-7, respectively. The transfer of such treatment data is supported by the
determination that K048-K052 wastes represent a single waste treatability
group as discussed in Section 2.0. The determination of the waste treatabil-
ity group is based on the similarity of the composition of the untreated
wastes and the fact that all of these wastes are generated by petroleum
refineries.
Where treatment data are available from treatment of K048 and K051
for a proposed regulated constituent in K049, K050, and K052 wastes, the data
were transferred to that constituent to calculate the treatment standard for
each waste code. Treatment performance data were transferred in this way for
6-5
-------
all regulated metals and inorganic constituents and for most regulated organic
constituents in K049, K050, and K052 wastes.
Treatment performance data were not available from treatment of K048
and K051 at plant A for some organic constituents proposed for regulation in
K049, K050, and K052. This is because the constituents proposed for regula-
tion for each waste code are based on available waste characterization data
from a variety of sources. Performance data used to calculate treatment
standards are based on a performance test for K048 and K051 waste generated at
plant A. Therefore, some regulated constituents for K049, K050, and K052
waste codes may not have been detected in the K048 and K051 wastes treated at
plant A. The Agency believes that it is inappropriate to base treatment
standards on not detected values in the treatment residual from K048 and K051
if the constituent was not detected in the untreated waste. In such cases,
data were transferred to that organic constituent from another organic con-
stituent detected in the untreated K048 and K051 wastes based on the boiling
points of those constituents. (Boiling point is a waste characteristic that
affects the performance of the fluidized bed incineration as discussed in
Section 3.4. Appendix I presents information on waste characteristics that
affect performance.) The constituent with the same or the closest higher
boiling point for which the Agency had treatment data from K048 and K051
wastes at plant A was selected for transfer of data. Cases where such a
transfer of data occurred are summarized below and are noted on Tables 6-4,
6-5, and 6-7, which show the calculations of the treatment standards for K049,
K050, and K052 waste, respectively.
6-6
-------
4. Benzene (K049). The treatment standard for benzene (bp 80°C)
for K049 waste is based on data transferred from treatment of toluene (bp
110°C). Based on the discussion of waste characteristics affecting treatment
performance of fluidized bed incineration in Section 3.4, the Agency expects
that benzene can be treated to concentration levels as low or lower than
toluene.
81. ortho-Cresol (K052) and 82. para-Cresol (K052). The treatment
standards for ortho-cresol (bp 192°) and para-cresol (bp 202°C) for K052 waste
are based on data transferred from treatment of naphthalene (bp 218°C). Based
on the discussion of waste characteristics affecting treatment performance of
fluidized bed incineration in Section 3.4, the Agency expects that ortho-
cresol and para-cresol can be treated to concentration levels as low or lower
than naphthalene.
142. Phenol (K049. K050. K052). The treatment standard for phenol
(bp 182°C) for K049, K050, and K052 wastes is based on data transferred from
treatment of naphthalene (bp 218°C). Based on the discussion of waste charac-
teristics affecting treatment performance of fluidized bed incineration in
Section 3.4, the Agency expects that phenol can be treated to concentration
levels as low or lower than naphthalene.
6-7
-------
6.2 Calculation of Treatment Standards for Wastewater Forms of K048-K052
Neither characterization data for wastewater forms of K048-K052 nor
treatment performance data for wastewater forms of K048-K052 were available to
the Agency. As described in Section 5.0, constituents were selected for
regulation in wastewater forms of K048-K052 based on their presence in the
untreated nonwastewater forms of K048-K052 wastes. This is based on the fact
that during incineration of K048-K052 nonwastewaters, uncombusted constituents
may be stripped from the incinerator off-gases and collected in the scrubber
water.
The Agency has no treatment performance data for K048-K052 waste-
waters; therefore, data were transferred from other sources. Treatment stan-
dards for the organic constituents were based on treatment performance data
transferred from wastewater (scrubber water) generated by the rotary kiln
incineration of K019 waste (heavy ends from the distillation of ethylene
dichloride in ethylene dichloride production). Treatment standards for metal
constituents were based on treatment data transferred from wastewater treat-
ment data (chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and
vacuum filtration) available to the Agency for K062 and other metal-bearing
characteristic wastes (Reference 27). The calculations of wastewater treat-
ment standards for K048-K052 wastewaters are presented in Tables 6-8 through
6-12 and are described in more detail below.
Organic Constituents. For organic constituents selected for regula-
tion in K048-K052 wastewaters that are also selected for regulation in K019
6-8
-------
wastewater (such as naphthalene), the treatment data for that constituent are
transferred from K019 wastewater to K048-K052 wastewaters. For organic con-
stituents selected for regulation in K048-K052 wastewaters that are not
selected for regulation K019 wastewater, data were transferred from a K019
wastewater constituent based on similarities in bond dissociation energy
(BDE). The bond dissociation energies are presented for each constituent in
Appendix I. (Bond dissociation energy is a waste characteristic affecting the
performance of incineration as discussed in detail in Section 3.4). The
constituent with the same or the closest higher bond dissociation energy for
which the Agency had treatment data from K019 scrubber water was selected for
transfer of data. Cases where such a transfer of data occurred are summarized
below and are noted on Tables 6-8 through 6-12 which show the calculations of
the treatment standards for each waste.
4. Benzene (K049 and K052). The treatment standard for benzene
(BDE 1320 kcal/mole) for K049 and K052 wastes is based on data transferred
from treatment of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (BDE 1320 kcal/mole). Based on the
discussion of waste characteristics affecting treatment performance of fluid-
ized bed incineration in Section 3.4, the Agency expects that benzene can be
treated to concentration levels as low or lower than 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene.
43. Toluene (K048. K049. K051). The treatment standard for toluene
(BDE 1235 kcal/mole) for K048, K049, and K051 wastes is based on data trans-
ferred from treatment of bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (BDE 1290 kcal/mole). Based
on the discussion of waste characteristics affecting treatment performance of
fluidized bed incineration in Section 3.4, the Agency expects that toluene can
6-9
-------
be treated to concentration levels as low or lower than bis(2-chloroethyl)-
ether.
215-217. Xylene (K048. K049. K051. K052). The treatment standard
for xylene (BDE 1220 kcal/mole) for K048, K049, K051, and K052 wastes is based
on data transferred from treatment of bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (BDE 1290
kcal/mole). Based on the discussion of waste characteristics affecting
treatment performance of fluidized bed incineration in Section 3.4, the Agency
expects that xylene can be treated to concentration levels as low or lower
than bis(2-chloroethyl) ether.
52. Acenaphthene (K051). The treatment standard for acenaphthene
(BDE 2400 kcal/mole) for K051 waste is based on data transferred from treat-
ment of fluorene (BDE 2700 kcal/mole). Based on the discussion of waste
characteristics affecting performance of fluidized bed incineration in Section
3.4, the Agency expects that acenaphthene can be treated to concentration
levels as low or lower than fluorene.
57. Anthracene (K049). The treatment standard for anthracene (BDE
2870 kcal/mole) for K049 waste is based on data transferred from treatment of
phenanthrene (BDE 2900 kcal/mole). Based on the discussion of waste charac-
teristics affecting treatment performance of fluidized bed incineration in
Section 3.4, the Agency expects that anthracene can be treated to concentra-
tion levels as low or lower than phenanthrene.
6-10
-------
81. ortho-Cresol (K052). The treatment standard for ortho-cresol
(BDE 1405 kcal/mole) for K052 waste is based on data transferred from treat-
ment of naphthalene (BDE 2095 kcal/mole). Based on the discussion of waste
characteristics affecting treatment performance of fluidized bed incineration
in Section 3.4, the Agency expects that ortho-cresol can be treated to concen-
tration levels as low or lower than naphthalene.
82. para-Cresol (K052). The treatment standard for para-cresol
(BDE 1405 kcal/mole) for K052 waste is based on data transferred from treat-
ment of naphthalene (BDE 2095 kcal/mole). Based on the discussion of waste
characteristics affecting treatment performance of fluidized bed incineration
in Section 3.4, the Agency expects that para-cresol can be treated to concen-
tration levels as low or lower than naphthalene.
96. 2.4-Dimethylphenol (K049. K052). The treatment standard for
2,4-dimethylphenol (BDE 1390 kcal/mole) for K049 and K052 wastes is based on
data transferred from treatment of naphthalene (BDE 2095 kcal/mole). Based on
the discussion of waste characteristics affecting treatment performance of
fluidized bed incineration in Section 3.4, the Agency expects that 2,4-
dimethylphenol can be treated to concentration levels as low or lower than
naphthalene.
142. Phenol (K048. K049. K050. K051. K052). The treatment standard
for phenol (BDE 1421 kcal/mole) for K048-K052 wastes is based on data trans-
ferred from treatment of naphthalene (BDE 2095 kcal/mole). Based on the
6-11
-------
discussion of waste characteristics affecting treatment performance of fluid-
ized bed incineration in Section 3.4, the Agency expects that phenol can be
treated to concentration levels as low or lower than naphthalene.
Metal Constituents. Treatment data for each metal constituent
proposed for regulation in wastewater forms of K048-K052 were transferred from
data collected by EPA from one facility treating K062 and metal-bearing
characteristic wastes (Reference 27). These wastes were treated using chro-
mium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtra-
tion. As discussed in Section 4.0, the Agency believes that the K062 and
metal-bearing characteristic wastes are sufficiently similar to K048-K052
wastewater residuals such that performance data can be transferred.
Treatment data are available from the K062 and metal-bearing charac-
teristic wastes for the proposed regulated metals in K048-K052 wastewaters.
Because these treatment data are available, the data for each regulated metal
in K048-K052 were transferred from K062 and metal-bearing characteristic
wastes to K048-K052.
6-12
-------
Table 6-1
CORRECTED TOTAL CONCENTRATION DATA FOR ORGANICS AND INORGANICS
IN FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
Corrected Concentrations
in the Treated Waste, ppm
Data Set:
Constituent
Volatiles
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Seraivolatiles
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
80 . Chrysene
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
121. Naphthalene
14 1. Phenanthrene
145. Pyrene
Inorganics
1
3.75
2.60
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.38
2
2.50
2.60
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.38
3
2.50
2.60
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.38
4
2.50
7.53
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.38
5
2.50
2.60
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.38
6
2.50
2.60
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.38
169. Cyanide 0.096 0.38 0.096 0.48 0.096 0.48
6-13
-------
Table 6-2
CORRECTED TCLP DATA FOR METALS IN
STABILIZED (LIME AND FLY ASH) INCINERATOR ASH
Data Set
Corrected TCLP Extracts
in the Treated Waste, ppm
1 2 3
Constituent
Metals
155. Arsenic 0.003 0.003 0.004
159. Chromium (total) 1.47 1.58 1.41
160. Copper 0.004 0.004 0.008
163. Nickel 0.026 0.026 0.026
164. Selenium 0.015 0.019 0.020
167. Vanadium 0.16 0.16 0.17
168. Zinc 0.029 0.032 0.076
6-14
-------
Table 6-3
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048
I
M
Ln
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)»«
Volatiles (8240)
(Total Composition)
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles (8270)
(Total Composition)
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
80. Chrysene
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
Inorganics (9010)
(Total Composition)
169. Cyanide
Untreated K048
at Plant A*
Range (ppm)
22-120
<14-120
<20-59
<20-22
67-190
93-110
77-86
93-170+
<0.1-1.0
Arithmetic**
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
2.71
3.42
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.27
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Naphthalene
NA
Variability
Factor (VF)
1.45
2.50
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
5.44
Treatment++
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
3.93
8.54
4.18
0.84
4.18
0.84
0.84
0.84
1.48
"Concentration values for the untreated waste have not been corrected for recovery.
**For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based,
see Appendix D.
•••Phenol was not detected in the untreated K048 waste; however, in other characterization data, phenol was
shown to be present in K048 (see Table 2-4). The range presented is the range of naphthalene in the
untreated K048 and K051 waste. Treatment performance data were transferred to phenol from naphthalene.
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
ND Not detected
NA Not applicable
-------
Table 6-3 (Continued)
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)**
Metals (TCLP)
155. Arsenic (7060)
159. Chromium (total) (6010)
160. Copper (6010)
163. Nickel (6010)
164. Selenium (7740)
167. Vanadium (6010)
168. Zinc (6010)
Unstabilized
Ash*
Range (ppm)
0.006-0.018
2.64-3.26
0.023
0.027-0.041
0.025-0.15
3.24-4.67
0.11-0.15
Arithmetic++
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.003
1.48
0.005
0.026
0.018
0.16
0.046
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Variability
Factor (VF)
1.69
1.14
2.40
1.79
1.38
1.09
3.09
Treatment++
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
*TCLP extract concentrations for the untreated waste have been corrected for recovery.
**For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based,
see Appendix D.
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
NA Not applicable
-------
I
(-1
~J
Table 6-4
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K049
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)1
Volatiles (8240)
(Total Composition)
4. Benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles (8270)
(Total Composition)
80. Chrysene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenan threne
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
Inorganics (9010)
(Total Composition)
169. Cyanide
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Toluene
Toluene
Xylene
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Cyanide
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)**
22-120
22-120
•C14-120
Arithmetic**
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
<20-51
93-170
77-120
93-170
62-74
2.71
2.71
3.42
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.38
0.27
Variability
Factor (VF)
1.45
1.45
2.50
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
5.44
Treatment**
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
3.93
3.93
8.54
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
1.06
1.48
For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based,
see Appendix D.
*Data were transferred from K048-K051.
**This is the untreated concentration in K048 and K051 of each constituent from which treatment data were
transferred.
*+The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
-------
I
h-'
00
Table 6-4 (Continued)
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K049
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)
1
Metals (TCLP)
155. Arsenic
159. Chromium
160. Copper
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
(total)
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Untreated
Arithmetic++
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Concentration** Values (ppm)
Variability
Factor (VF)
0.006-0.018
2.64-3.26
0.023
0.027-0.041
0.025-0.15
3.24-4.67
0.11-0.15
0.003
1.48
0.005
0.026
0.018
0.16
0.046
1.69
1.14
2.40
1.79
1.38
1.09
3.09
Treatment++
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based,
see Appendix D.
*Data were transferred from K048-K051.
**This is the untreated concentration in K048 and K051 of each constituent from which treatment data were
transferred.
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
-------
Table 6-5
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K050
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)**
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)1
Volatiles (8240)
(Total Composition)
(No volatile constituents are regulated for K050 wastes)
Arithmetic-M-
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
Treatment-^
Standard
Variability (Average x VF)
Factor (VF) (ppm)
I
h-»
VO
Semivolatiles (8270)
(Total Composition)
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
142. Phenol
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.002-45
93-170
0.30
0.30
2.8
2.8
0.84
0.84
Inorganics (9010)
(Total Composition)
169. Cyanide
Cyanide
0.27
5.44
1.48
For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based,
see Appendix D.
*Data were transferred from K048 and K051.
**This is the untreated concentration in K048 and K051 of each constituent from which treatment data were
transferred.
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
-------
I
o
Table 6-5 (Continued)
CALCULATION OF MONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K050
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)
Metals (TCLP)
155. Arsenic
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
1
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)**
Arithmetic++
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.006-0.018
2.64-3.26
0.023
0.027-0.041
0.025-0.15
3.24-4.67
0.11-0.15
0.003
1.48
0.005
0.026
0.018
0.16
0.046
Variability
Factor (VF)
1.69
1.14
2.40
1.79
1.38
1.09
3.09
Treatment**
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
1For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based,
see Appendix D.
*Data were transferred from K048 and K051.
**This is the untreated concentration in K048 and K051 of each constituent from which treatment data were
transferred.
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
-------
Table 6-6
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K051
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)**
Volatiles (8240)
(Total Composition)
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles (8270)
(Total Composition)
80. Chrysene
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
Inorganics (9010)
(Total Composition)
169. Cyanide
Untreated K051
at Plant A*
Range (ppm)
Arithmetic**
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred
33-71
71-83
45-51
43-230
150-170
110-120
93-170+
62-74
2.71
3.42
NA
NA
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
Naphthalene
NA
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.5-1.4
0.27
NA
Variability
Factor (VF)
1.45
2.50
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
Treatment**
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
3.93
8.54
0.84
4.18
0.84
0.84
0.84
1.06
5.44
1.48
Concentration values for the untreated waste have not been corrected for recovery.
**For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based,
see Appendix D.
*Phenol was not detected in the untreated K051 waste; however, phenol was shown in other characterization
data to be present in K051 (see Table 2-7). The range presented is the range of naphthalene in the
untreated K048 and K051. Treatment performance data were transferred to phenol from naphthalene.
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
ND Not detected
NA Not applicable
-------
Table 6-6 (Continued)
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K051
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)**
Metals (TCLP)
155. Arsenic (7060)
159. Chromium (total) (6010)
160. Copper (6010)
163. Nickel (6010)
164. Selenium (7740)
167. Vanadium (6010)
168. Zinc (6010)
Unstabilized
Ash*
Range (ppm)
Arithmetic**
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.006-0.018
2.64-3.26
0.023
0.027-0.041
0.025-0.15
3.24-4.67
0.11-0.15
0.003
1.48
0.005
0.026
0.018
0.16
0.046
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Variability
Factor (VF)
1.69
1.14
2.40
1.79
1.38
1.09
3.09
Treatment**
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
0.006
1.68
0.13
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
I
t-0
[S3
*TCLP extract concentrations for the untreated waste have been corrected for recovery.
**For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based,
see Appendix D.
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
NA Not applicable
-------
Table 6-7
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K052
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)1
Volatiles (8240)
(Total Composition)
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles (8270)
(Total Composition)
cr*
1
fO
w
81.
82.
121.
141.
142.
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Inorganics (9010)
(Total Composition)
169. Cyanide
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Toluene
Xylene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Cyanide
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)**
22-120
<14-120
93-170
93-170
93-170
77-120
93-170
Arithmetic**
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
2.71
3.42
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
Variability
Factor (VF)
1.45
2.50
Treatment**
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.93
8.54
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.5-1.4
0.27
5.44
1.48
1For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based,
see Appendix D.
*Data were transferred from K048-K051.
**This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in K048 and K051 from which treatment data were
transferred.
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
-------
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)
Metals (TCLP)
155. Arsenic
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
1
Table 6-7 (Continued)
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K052
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)**
0.006-0.018
2.64-3.26
0.023
0.027-0.041
0.025-0.15
3.24-4.67
0.11-0.15
Arithmetic**
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.003
1.48
0.005
0.026
0.018
0.16
0.046
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Treatment**
Var lability
Factor (VF)
1.69
1.14
2.40
1.79
1.38
1.09
3.09
Standard
(Average x
(ppm)
0.006
1.68
0.13
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
VF)
'For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based,
see Appendix D.
*Data were transferred from K048-K051.
**This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in K048 and K051 from which treatment data were
transferred.
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
-------
I
ho
Ln
Regulated Constituent
(SH-846 Method Number)*
Volatiles (8240)
(Total Composition)
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles (8270)
(Total Composition)
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenan threne
142. Phenol
Metals
(Total Composition)
159. Chromium (total)
(7190)
161. Lead (7420)
168. Zinc (289.1)
Table 6-8
CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)**
Arithmetic**
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
Bis(2-chloroethyl)- 280-340
ether
Bis(2-chloroethyl)- 280-340
ether
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Chromium (total) 393-2581
Lead 0.02-210
Zinc 1.0-171
0.002
0.002
0.19
0.013
0.25
Treatment**
Standard
Variability (Average x VF)
Factor (VF) (ppm)
2.8
2.8
0.007
0.007
16-22
314-470
11-21
314-470
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
1.09
2.8
1.62
0.20
0.037
0.40
*For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based, see
Appendix D.
**This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in the waste from which treatment data were
transferred.
+ Volatiles and semivolatiles were transferred from K019 wastewater (Reference 26); metals
were transferred from the Envirite Report (Reference 27).
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
-------
I
N3
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)*
Volatiles (8240)
(Total Composition)
4. Benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles (8270)
(Total Composition)
Anthracene
Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
57.
86.
121.
141.
142.
Metals
(Total Composition)
159. Chromium (total)
(7190)
161. Lead (7420)
168. Zinc (289.1)
Table 6-9
CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K049
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)**
65-100
280-340
280-340
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Bis(2-chloroethyl)-
ether
Bis(2-chloroethyl)-
ether
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Chromium (total) 393-2581
Arithmetic**
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.008
0.002
0.002
Lead
Zinc
0.02-210
1.0-171
0.19
0.013
0.25
Variability
Factor (VF)
2.8
2.8
2.8
11-21
314-470
314-470
11-21
314-470
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
Treatment**
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
0.023
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
1.09
2.8
1.62
0.20
0.037
0.40
*For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based, see
Appendix D.
**This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in the waste from which treatment data were
transferred.
+ Volatiles and semivolatiles were transferred from K019 wastewater (Reference 26); metals
were transferred from the Envirite Report (Reference 27).
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
-------
I
N5
—I
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)*
Semivolatiles (8270)
(Total Composition)
142. Phenol
Metals
(Total Composition)
159. Chromium (total)
(7190)
161. Lead (7420)
168. Zinc (289.1)
Table 6-10
CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K050
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Naphthalene
Chromium (total)
Lead
Zinc
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)**
314-470
393-2581
0.02-210
1.0-171
Arithmetic**
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.002
0.19
0.013
0.25
Treatment**
Standard
Variability (Average x VF)
Factor (VF) (ppm)
2.8
1.09
2.8
1.62
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
*For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based, see
Appendix D.
**This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in the waste from which treatment data were
transferred.
+ Volatiles and semivolatiles were transferred from K019 wastewater (Reference 26); metals
were transferred from the Envirite Report (Reference 27).
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
-------
Table 6-11
CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K051
Regulated Constituent
(SW-846 Method Number)*
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)««
Arithmetic**
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
Treatment**
Standard
Variability (Average x VF)
Factor (VF) (ppm)
Volatiles (8240)
(Total Composition)
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles (8270)
(Total Composition)
g 52 . Acenaphthene
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
14 1. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)-
ether
Bis (2-chloroethyl ) -
ether
Fluorene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
280-340
280-340
16-22
16-22
314-470
11-21
314-470
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
Metals
(Total Composition)
159. Chromium (total)
(7190)
161. Lead (7420)
168. Zinc (289.1)
Chromium (total)
Lead
Zinc
393-2581
0.02-210
1.0-171
0.19
0.013
0.25
1.09
2.8
1.62
0.20
0.037
0.40
*For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based, see
Appendix D.
**This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in the waste from which treatment data were
transferred.
+ Volatiles and semivolatiles were transferred from K019 wastewater (Reference 26); metals
were transferred from the Envirite Report (Reference 27).
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
-------
Table 6-12
CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K052
Regulated Constituent
(SH-846 Method Number)*
Volatiles (8240)
(Total Composition)
46. Benzene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles (8270)
(Total Composition)
81. ortho-Cresol
82. para-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
Metals
(Total Composition)
159. Chromium (total)
(7190)
161. Lead (7420)
168. Zinc (289.1)
Constituent From
Which Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)**
Arithmetic**
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 65-100
Bis(2-chloroethyl)- 280-340
ether
Naphthalene 314-470
Naphthalene 314-470
Naphthalene 314-470
Naphthalene 314-470
Phenanthrene 11-21
Naphthalene 314-470
Chromium (total) 393-2581
Lead 0.02-210
Zinc 1.0-171
0.008
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.19
0.013
0.25
Variability
Factor (VF)
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
.8
.8
2.8
2.8
2.
2.
1.09
2.8
1.62
Treatment**
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
0.023
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
*For detailed discussion of the analytical methods upon which these treatment standards are based, see
Appendix D.
**This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in the waste from which treatment data were
transferred.
* Volatiles and semivolatiles were transferred from K019 wastewater (Reference 26); metals
were transferred from the Envirite Report (Reference 27).
++The values shown on this table for arithmetic averages and treatment standards have been rounded to show
significant figures only.
-------
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
The Agency has proposed treatment standards for the listed refinery
waste codes K048-K052. Standards for nonwastewater forms of these wastes are
presented in Table 7-1 and standards for wastewater forms of these wastes are
presented in Table 7-2.
The treatment standards proposed for K048-K052 have been developed
consistent with EPA's promulgated methodology for BOAT (November 7, 1986, 51
FR 40572). These five wastes are generated by the treatment of refinery
process wastewaters and from heat exchanger cleaning and product storage
operations. Based on a careful review of the industry processes which gener-
ate these wastes and all available data characterizing these wastes, the
Agency has determined that these wastes (K048-K052) represent a separate waste
treatability group. Wastes in this treatability group are comprised of water,
oil and grease, dirt, sand and other solids, and organic and metal BOAT List
constituents.
The BDAT List constituents generally present in wastes of this
treatability group are benzene, toluene, xylene, acenaphthene, anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, chrysene, ortho-cresol, para-
cresol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, di-n-butyl phthalate, fluorene, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, phenol, pyrene, arsenic, total chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
selenium, vanadium, zinc and cyanide. Although the concentrations of specific
constituents will vary from facility to facility, all of the wastes are
7-1
-------
expected to contain similar BDAT List organics and metals and have high
filterable solids content. As a result, EPA has examined the sources of the
wastes, applicable technologies, and attainable treatment performance in order
to support a single regulatory approach for these five listed refinery wastes.
Through available data bases, EPA's technology testing program, and
data submitted by industry, the Agency has identified the following demon-
strated technologies for treatment of organic constituents present in the
wastes which are part of this treatability group: incineration technologies
including fluidized bed and rotary kiln incineration; solvent extraction;
thermal drying; and pressure filtration. Additionally, stabilization is
demonstrated for treatment of the BDAT List metal constituents present in
nonwastewater residuals. For metals in the wastewater residuals, EPA has
identified the following demonstrated treatment train: chromium reduction
followed by chemical precipitation, and filtration or sedimentation.
EPA has determined that for BDAT List organics in K048-K052 wastes,
fluidized bed incineration achieves a level of performance that represents
treatment by BDAT. For metals in the incinerator ash, EPA has determined that
stabilization using a lime and fly ash binder achieves a level of performance
that represents treatment by BDAT. For BDAT List metals in wastewater, EPA
has identified chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation
and vacuum filtration as achieving a level of performance for metals that
represents treatment by BDAT.
7-2
-------
Regulated organic and inorganic constituents in nonwastewaters were
selected from those BOAT List organic and inorganic constituents detected in
the untreated wastes that were treated by fluidized bed incineration. Regu-
lated metal constituents in nonwastewaters were selected from those BOAT List
metal constituents detected in the untreated wastes that were treated by
stabilization of ash from fluidized bed incineration. Some BDAT List organic
constituents were not regulated because these constituents were believed to be
adequately controlled by regulation of other constituents.
Regulated organic constituents in wastewater were selected from the
BDAT List organic constituents detected in the untreated wastes that show
treatment using incineration. Regulated metal and inorganic constituents were
selected from BDAT List metal and inorganic constituents detected in the
untreated wastes and similar wastes that showed treatment using incineration
followed by wastewater treatment using chromium reduction, lime and sulfide
precipitation, and vacuum filtration. Some BDAT List organic, metal and
inorganic constituents were not regulated because these constituents were
believed to be adequately controlled by regulation of other constituents.
BDAT treatment standards for K048-K052 were derived from analytical
data that have been adjusted to take into account analytical interference
associated with the chemical make-up of the sample. Subsequently, the average
adjusted concentration was multiplied by a variability factor to derive the
BDAT treatment standard. The variability factor represents the variability
inherent in the treatment process and sampling and analytical methods.
7-3
-------
Variability factors were determined by statistically calculating the variabil-
ity seen for a number of data points for a given constituent. For constitu-
ents for which specific variability factors could not be calculated, a vari-
ability factor of 2.8 was used.
The Agency is proposing BDAT treatment standards for the two treat-
ability subgroups of K048-K052: wastewaters and nonwastewaters. BDAT treat-
ment standards for K048-K052 nonwastewater are proposed based on performance
data from a treatment train that consisted of full scale fluidized bed incin-
eration followed by ash stabilization. Ash stabilization was achieved by
using lime and fly ash as stabilization agents. BDAT List organic constituent
treatment standards for K048-K052 wastewaters are proposed based on a transfer
of treatment performance data for the scrubber water residual from the incin-
eration of K019 nonwastewaters (K019 is listed as heavy ends from the distil-
lation of ethylene dichloride in ethylene dichloride production). BDAT List
metal constituent treatment standards for K048-K052 wastewaters are proposed
based on transferred treatment performance data from chromium reduction, lime
and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration treatment of K062 and metal-
bearing characteristic wastes.
Petroleum refining wastes K048-K052 may be land disposed if they
meet the standards at the point of disposal. The BDAT technologies upon which
the treatment standards are based (fluidized bed incineration followed by
stabilization, and chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipi-
tation and vacuum filtration) need not be specifically utilized prior to land
7-4
-------
disposal, provided that an alternate technology utilized achieves the stan-
dards.
These standards become effective no later than August 8, 1988, as
per the schedule set forth in 40 CFR 268.10. Due to the lack of nationwide
incineration capacity at this time, the Agency has proposed to grant a 2-year
nationwide variance to the effective date of the land disposal ban for these
wastes. A detailed discussion of the Agency's determination that a lack of
nationwide incineration capacity exists is presented in the Capacity
Background Document which is available in the Administrative Record for this
rule.
7-5
-------
Table 7-1
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K048-K052 NONWASTEWATERS
Regulated Organic
Constituents
4. Benzene
43. Toluene
215- ,\
217. Xylene" (total)-
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal-
ate
,7#. Chrysene
81. ortho-Cresol
82. para-Cresol
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
121. Naphthalene
141. Penanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
Regulated Metal
Constituents
155. Arsenic
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Regulated Inorganic
Constituents
169. Cyanide
Total Concentration (mg/kg)
K048
NA
3.93
8.54
NA
4.18
0.84
NA
NA
4.18
0.84
0.84
0.84
NA
K048
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
K048
1.48
K049
3.93
3.93
8.54
NA
NA
0.84
NA
NA
NA
0.84
0.84
0.84
1.06
K049
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
Total
K049
1.48
K050
NA
NA
NA
0.84
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.84
NA
TCLP (mg/1)
K050
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
Concentration
K050
1.48
K051
NA
3.93
8.54
NA
NA
0.84
NA
NA
4.18
0.84
0.84
0.84
1.06
K051
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
(mg/kg)
K051
1.48
K052
NA
3.93
8.54
NA
NA
NA
0.84
0.84
NA
0.84
0.84
0.84
NA
K052
0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
K052
1.48
NA - Not applicable.
for this waste.
This constituent is not being proposed for regulation
7-6
-------
Table 7-2
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048-K052 WASTEWATERS
Total Concentration (mg/1)
Regulated Constituents
4. Benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
52. Acenaphthene
57. Anthracene
81. ortho-Cresol
82. para-Cresol
96. 2,4-dimethylphenol
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
159. Chromium (total)
162. Lead
169. Zinc
K048
NA
0.007
0.007
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
K049
0.023
0.007
0.007
NA
0.007
NA
NA
0.007
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
K050
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
K051
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
K052
0.023
NA
0.007
NA
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
NA
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
NA - Not Applicable. This constituent is not being proposed for regulation for this waste.
-------
8.0 REFERENCES
1. Jacobs Engineering Company. Alternatives for Hazardous Waste Management
in the Petroleum Refining Industry. 1979.
2. American Petroleum Institute. 1983. 1982 Refinery Solid Waste Survey.
Prepared by Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
3. Rosenberg, D.G. Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices in the Petroleum
Refining Industry. Jacobs Engineering Company, Pasadena, CA. June 1976.
4. Cantrell, Ailleen. "Annual Refining Survey." Oil and Gas Journal. Vol.
85, No. 13. March 30, 1987.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Under RCRA, Subtitle C, Section 3001, Background Docu-
ment. May 1981.
6. U.S. EPA. Onsite Engineering Report of Treatment Technology Performance
and Operation for Amoco Oil Company, Whiting, Indiana. February 29,
1988.
7. U.S. EPA. Onsite Engineering Report of Stabilization of Fluidized Bed
Incineration Ash at Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
February 19, 1988.
8. American Petroleum Institute. Evaluation of Treatment Technologies for
Listed Petroleum Refinery Wastes: Interim Report. April 27, 1987.
9. Sohio Oil Co. 1987. Demonstration of a Solvent Extraction Process for
Treating Listed Petroleum Refinery Wastes. Submitted to U.S. EPA on June
12, 1987.
10. Resources Conservation Co. 1987. B.E.S.T. Clean Up, BOAT Performance
Test Results. May 19, 1987 Report Submitted to EPA.
11. Jones, H.R. Pollution Control in the Petroleum Industry. Noyes Data
Corp., Park Ridge, NJ. 1973.
12. Gloyna, E., and D. Ford. The Characteristics and Pollutional Problems
Associated with Petrochemical Wastes. Engineering Science Inc., Austin,
TX. 1970.
13. USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Characteriza-
tion Report of Waste Characterization for Conoco, Inc., Ponca City,
Oklahoma. February 22, 1988.
14. Delisting Petition #503.
8-1
-------
REFERENCES K048 - K052 (Continued)
15. Environ Corporation. Characterization of Waste Streams Listed in the 49
CFR Section 261 Waste Profiles. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Solid
Waste, Waste Identification Branch, Characterization and Assessment
Division.
16. Delisting Petition #205.
17. Delisting Petition #386.
18. Delisting Petition #396.
19. Delisting Petition #421.
20. Delisting Petition #469.
21. Delisting Petition #481.
22. Askew, M.W. et al. "Meet Environmental Needs for Refinery Expansions."
Hydrocarbon Processing. October 1983. pp 65-70.
23. Delisting Petition #530.
24. Delisting Petition #264.
25. Delisting Petition #426.
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Best Demonstrated and Available
Technology (BOAT) Background Document Supporting the Proposed Land
Disposal Restrictions Rule for First Third Wastes. Volume 2. Organic
Chemicals Waste Codes K016. K018. K019. K020. K030. March 18, 1988.
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Onsite Engineering Report
of Treatment Technology Performance and Operation for Envirite Corpora-
tion. Prepared by Versar for Office of Solid Waste, USEPA, under Con-
tract No. 68-01-7053. December 1986.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Onsite Engineering Report for
Horsehead Resource Development Company for K061. Draft Report. March
1988.
29. BP Oil Company. 1987. BP Oil Company - Alliance Refinery Petition for
the Exclusion from Hazardous Waste Regulation of a Solid Waste Residue
from the Solvent Extraction Treatment of Petroleum Refining Wastes.
Submitted to U.S. EPA on October 28, 1987. P.O. Box 395, Bell Chase,
Louisiana 70037.
8-2
-------
REFERENCES K048 - K052 (Continued)
30. C.F. Systems Corporation. 1987. Company literature: C.F. Systems Units
to Render Refinery Wastes Non-Hazardous. March 30, 1987.
31. Windholz, Martha, editor. 1983. The Merck Index. 10th edition.
Rathway, NJ: Merck & Company.
32. Verchueren Karel. 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic
Chemicals. 2nd edition, pp. 575-576. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, Inc.
33. Weast, R.C., editor. 1980. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st
edition, p. C-134. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.
34. Dean, J.A., editor. 1979. Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, 12th edition.
pp. 10-118-9. NY: McGraw-Hill.
35. Sanderson, R.T. 1971. Chemical Bonds and Bond Energy. Volume 21 in
Physical Chemistry. NY: Academic Press.
8-3
-------
APPENDIX A
A.I F Value Determination for ANOVA Test
As noted earlier in Section 1.0, EPA is using the statistical method
known as analysis of variance in the determination of the level of
performance that represents "best" treatment where more than one
technology is demonstrated. This method provides a measure of the
differences between data sets. If the differences are not statistically
significant, the data sets are said to be homogeneous.
If the Agency found that the levels of performance for one or more
technologies are not statistically different (i.e., the data sets are
homogeneous), EPA would average the long term performance values achieved
by each technology and then multiply this value by the largest
variability factor associated with any of the acceptable technologies.
If EPA found that one technology performs significantly better (i.e., the
data sets are not homogeneous), BOAT would be the level of performance
achieved by the best technology multiplied by its variability factor.
To determine whether any or all of the treatment performance data
sets are homogeneous using the analysis of variance method, it is
necessary to compare a calculated "F value" to what is known as a
"critical value." (See Table A-l.) These critical values are available
in most statistics texts (see, for example, Statistical Concepts and
Methods by Bhattacharyya and Johnson, 1977, John Wiley Publications, New
York).
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
A-l
-------
necessary to perform a "pair wise F" test to determine if any of the sets
are homogeneous. The "pair wise F" test must be done for all of the
various combinations of data sets using the same method and equation as
the general F test.
The F value is calculated as follows:
(i) All data are natural logtransformed.
(ii) The sum of the data points for each data set is computed (T.).
(iii) The statistical parameter known as the sum of the squares
between data sets (SSB) is computed:
SSB =
where:
k = number of treatment technologies
n^ = number of data points for technology i
N = number of data points for all technologies
T.J = sum of natural logtransformed data points for each technology.
(iv) The sum of the squares within data sets (SSW) is computed:
•
k
X
V^
1
^
r k
I ^
1 = 1
N
t. *
SSW
where:
x
Z I
k
- I
i = the natural logtransformed observations (j) for treatment
' technology (i).
(v) The degrees of freedom corresponding to SSB and SSW are
calculated. For SSB, the degree of freedom is given by k-1. For SSW,
the degree of freedom is given by N-k.
A-2
-------
(vi) Using the above parameters, the F value is calculated as
follows:
MSB
F = MSW
where:
MSB = SSB/(k-l) and
MSW = SSW/(N-k).
A computational table summarizing the above parameters is shown below.
Computational Table for the F Value
Source
Between
Within
Degrees of
freedom
K-l
N-k
Sum of
squares
SSB
SSW
Mean square
MSB = SSB/k-1
MSW = SSW/N-k
F
MSB/MSW
Below are three examples of the ANOVA calculation. The first two
represent treatment by different technologies that achieve statistically
similar treatment; the last example represents a case where one
technology achieves significantly better treatment than the other
technology.
A-3
-------
Table A-l
F Distribution at the 95 Percent Confidence Level
Denominator
degrees of
freedom 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
40
60
120
00
161 4
1851
10 13
7 71
661
5 99
559
532
5.12
496
484
475
467
460
454
449
445
441
438
435
432
430
428
426
424
423
421
420
418
4 17
408
400
392
3.84
2
1995
1900
955
694
579
5.14
4 74
446
426
4 10
398
389
381
374
368
363
359
355
352
349
347
344
342
3.40
339
337
335
334
333
332
323
3.15
307
3.00
3
2157
1916
928
659
5.41
476
435
407
386
3.71
359
349
341
334
329
324
3.20
316
313
310
307
305
303
301
299
298
296
295
2.93
292
284
2.76
2.68
2.60
Numerator degrees of freedom
456
2246
1925
912
639
5.19
453
4 12
384
363
348
336
3.26
3.18
311
306
301
296
293
290
287
284
282
280
2.78
276
274
273
271
2.70
269
2.61
253
2.45
237
2302
1930
901
626
505
439
397
3.69
3.48
3.33
3.20
3.11
303
2.96
2.90
2.85
281
2.77
274
271
268
2.66
2.64
262
260
259
257
256
255
253
245
237
229
2.21
2340
19.33
894
6 16
495
428
3.87
3.58
337
322
3.09
3.00
292
2.85
2.79
2.74
2.70
266
2.63
260
2.57
2.55
2.53
2.51
249
247
246
2.45
243
242
2.34
2.25
2.17
2.10
7
2368
19.35
889
6.09
488
421
3.79
3.50
3.29
3.14
3.01
2.91
2.83
2.76
2.71
2.66
2.61
258
2.54
2.51
2.49
2.46
244
2.42
240
2.39
2.37
2.36
2.35
2.33
2.25
2.17
2.09
2.01
8
2389
1937
885
6.04
482
415
3.73
344
323
3.07
2.95
2.85
2.77
2.70
2.64
2.59
255
251
2.48
2.45
2.42
2.40
2.37
236
2.34
232
231
2.29
2.28
2.27
2.18
2.10
2.02
1 94
9
2405
1938
881
6.00
477
4 10
368
339
3.18
302
2.90
2.80
2.71
265
259
254
249
246
242
239
237
234
232
2.30
228
2.27
225
2.24
2.22
2.21
2.12
204
1 96
1 88
A-4
-------
Example 1
Methylene Chloride
Steam stripping
Influent Effluent
Ug/D
1550.00
1290.00
1640.00
5100.00
1450.00
4600.00
1760.00
2400.00
4800.00
12100.00
Ug/i)
10.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Biological treatment
In(effluent) [ln(eff luent)]2 Influent Effluent In(effluent)
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.48
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
Ug/1) Ug/1)
5.29 1960.00 10.00 2.30
5.29 2568.00 10.00 2.30
5.29 1817.00 10.00 2.30
6.15 1640.00 26.00 3.26
5.29 3907.00 10.00 2.30
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
[1n( effluent)]2
5.29
5.29
5.29
10.63
5.29
Sum:
23.18
53.76
12.46
31.79
Sample Size:
10 10
Mean:
3669
10.2
Standard Deviation:
3328.67 .63
Variability Factor:
10
2.32
.06
2378
923.04
1.15
13.2
7.15
2.48
2.49
.43
ANOVA Calculations:
SSB
SSU =
U-
1=1 n,
n,
MSB = SSB/(k-l)
MSW = SSU/(N-k)
f Jl
N
I.J
-U-l
1=1 [ n, J
A-5
-------
Example 1 (continued)
F = MSB/MSW
where:
k = number of treatment technologies
n. = number of data points for technology i
N = number of natural log transformed data points for all technologies
T = sum of log transformed data points for each technology
X = the nat. log transformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
n = 10, n = 5. N = 15, k = 2. T = 23.18, T = 12.46, T = 35.64, T = 1270.21
T2 = 537.31 T2 = 155.25
10 5
SSW = (53.76 + 31.79) -
MSB = 0.10/1 = 0.10
MSW = 0.77/13 = 0.06
F = °'10 =1.67
0.06
1270.21
15
0.10
10
0.77
ANOVA Table
Degrees of
Source freedom
Between (B) 1
Uithin(W) 13
SS MS F
0.10 0.10 1.67
0.77 0.06
The critical value of the F test at the 0.05 significance level is 4.67. Since
the F value is less than the critical value, the means are not significantly
different (i.e., they are homogeneous).
Note: All calculations were rounded to two decimal places. Results may differ
depending upon the number of decimal places used in each step of the calculations.
A-6
-------
Example 2
Trichloroethylene
jteam stripping
Influent
Ug/D
1650.00
5200.00
5000.00
1720.00
1560.00
10300.00
210.00
1600.00
204.00
160.00
Effluent
Ug/i)
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
27.00
85.00
10.00
ln(eff luent)
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
3.30
4.44
2.30
[In(effluent)]2
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
10.89
19.71
5.29
Influent
Ug/i)
200.00
224.00
134.00
150.00
484.00
163.00
182.00
Biological treatment
Effluent
(W/D
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
16.25
10.00
10.00
In(effluent)
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.79
2.30
2.30
[In(effluent)]2
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
7.78
5.29
5.29
Sum:
Sample Size:
10 10
Mean:
2760
19.2
Standard Deviation:
3209.6 23.7
Vanabi llty Factor:
3.70
26.14
10
2.61
.71
72.92
220
120.5
10.89
2.36
1.53
16.59
2.37
.19
39.52
ANOVA Calculations:
SSB =
"l
k
ssw =
MSB = SSB/(k-l)
MSW = SSW/(N-k)
N
2 1
A-7
-------
Example 2 (continued)
F = MSB/MSW
where:
k = number of treatment technologies
n = number of data points for technology i
N = number of data points for all technologies
T. = sum of natural log transformed data points for each technology
X. . = the natural log transformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
N, = 10, N, = 7, N = 17, k = 2. T, = 26.14, T = 16.59, T = 42.73, T= 1825.85,
683.30,
T = 275.23
683.30
10
275.23
_
7
1825.85
17
0.25
SSW * (72.92* 39.521 .,^.30^275.23
10 7
4.79
MSB = 0.25/1 = 0.25
MSW = 4.79/15 = 0.32
F-lfL-0.78
0.32
ANOVA Table
Source
Between(B)
Uithin(W)
Degrees of
freedom
1
15
SS
0.25
4.79
MS F
0.25 0.78
0.32
The critical value of the F test at the 0.05 significance level is 4.54. Since
the F value is less than the critical value, the means are not significantly
different (i.e., they are homogeneous).
Note: All calculations were rounded to two decimal places. Results may differ
depending upon the number of decimal places used in each step of the calculations.
A-8
-------
Example 3
Chlorobenzene
Activated sludge followed by carbon adsorption
Biological treatment
Influent
Ug/D
Effluent
Ug/D
In(effluent) [ln(eff luentJr Influent
Effluent
Ug/l)
In(effluent) ln[(effluent)]2
7200.00
6500.00
6075.00
3040.00
80.00
70.00
35.00
10.00
4.38
4.25
3.56
2.30
19.18
18.06
12.67
5.29
9206.00
16646.00
49775.00
14731.00
3159.00
6756.00
3040.00
1083.00
709.50
460.00
142.00
603.00
153.00
17.00
6.99
6.56
6.13
4.96
6.40
5.03
2.83
48.86
43.03
37.58
24.60
40.96
25.30
8.01
Sum:
Sample Size:
4
Mean:
5703
49
Standard Deviation:
1835.4 32.24
Variability Factor:
14.49
55.20
3.62
.95
14759
16311.86
7.00
452.5
379.04
15.79
38.90
5.56
1.42
228.34
ANOVA Calculations
SSB= * f7'2
1 = 1 I ~
ssu- * ='
MSB = SS8/(k-l)
HSU = SSU/(N-k)
F = MSB/HSU
r k
1=1
N
k f
- E
-12
T,Z|
"i J
A-9
-------
Example 3 (continued)
where,
k = number of treatment technologies
n. = number of data points for technology i
N = number of data points for all technologies
T = sum of natural log transformed data points for each technology
X. . = the natural log transformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
Nj = 4, N2= 7, N = 11, k = 2, T = 14.49, T? = 38.90, T = 53.39, T2= 2850.49, T2 = 209.96
= 1513.21
2
SSB
SSW - (55.20 * 228.34) .
. 9.52
MSB = 9.52/1 = 9.52
MSW = 14.88/9 = 1.65
F = 9.52/1.65 = 5.77
ANOVA Table
Degrees of
Source freedom
SS
MS
Between (B)
Uithin(U)
1
9
9.53
14.89
9.53
1.65
5.77
The critical value of the F test at the 0.05 significance level is 5.12. Since
the F value is larger than the critical value, the means are significantly
different (i.e., they are heterogeneous).
Note: All calculations were rounded to two decimal places. Results may differ depending
upon the number of decimal places used in each step of the calculations.
A-10
-------
A.2. Variability Factor
_Cg9_
VF = Mean
where:
VF = estimate of daily maximum variability factor determined from
a sample population of daily data.
Cgg = Estimate of performance values for which 99 percent of the
daily observations will be below. Cgg is calculated using
the following equation: C99 = Exp(y + 2.33 Sy) where y and
Sy are the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of the
logtransformed data.
Mean = average of the individual performance values.
EPA is establishing this figure as an instantaneous maximum because
the Agency believes that on a day-to-day basis the waste should meet the
applicable treatment standards. In addition, establishing this
requirement makes it easier to check compliance on a single day. The
99th percentile is appropriate because it accounts for almost all process
variability.
In several cases, all the results from analysis of the residuals from
BOAT treatment are found at concentrations less than the detection
limit. In such cases, all the actual concentration values are considered
unknown and hence, cannot be used to estimate the variability factor of
the analytical results. Below is a description of EPA's approach for
calculating the variability factor for such cases with all concentrations
below the detection limit.
It has been postulated as a general rule that a lognormal
distribution adequately describes the variation among concentrations.
A-ll
-------
Agency data shows that the treatment residual concentrations are
distributed approximately lognormally. Therefore, the lognormal model
has been used routinely in the EPA development of numerous regulations in
the Effluent Guidelines program and is being used in the BOAT program.
The variability factor (VF) was defined as the ratio of the 99th
percentile (C ) of the lognormal distribution to its arithmetic mean
(Mean).
VF = C99 (^
Mean
The relationship between the parameters of the lognormal distribution
and the parameters of the normal distribution created by taking the
natural logarithms of the lognormally-distributed concentrations can be
found in most mathematical statistics texts (see for example:
Distribution in Statistics-Volume 1 by Johnson and Kotz, 1970). The mean
of the lognormal distribution can be expressed in terms of the
mean (n) and standard deviation (a) of the normal distribution as
follows:
C9g = Exp U + 2.33a) (2)
Mean = Exp (M + .5a2) (3)
Substituting (2) and (3) in (1) the variability factor can then be
expressed in terms of a as follows:
VF = Exp (2.33 a - .5a2) (4)
For residuals with concentrations that are not all below the
detection limit, the 99 percentile and the mean can be estimated from
the actual analytical data and accordingly, the variability factor (VF)
A-12
-------
can be estimated using equation (1). For residuals with concentrations
that are below the detection limit, the above equations can be used in
conjunction with the assumptions below to develop a variability factor.
Step 1: The actual concentrations follow a lognormal distribution. The
upper limit (UL) is equal to the detection limit. The lower limit (LL)
is assumed to be equal to one tenth of the detection limit. This
assumption is based on the fact that data from well-designed and
well-operated treatment systems generally falls within one order of
magnitude.
Step 2: The natural logarithms of the concentrations have a normal
distribution with an upper limit equal to In (UL) and a lower limit equal
to In (LL).
Step 3: The standard deviation (a) of the normal distribution is
approximated by
o = [(In (UL) - In (LL)] / [(2)(2.33)] = [ln(UL/LL)] / 4.66
when LL = (0.1)(UL) then a = (InlO) / 4.66 = 0.494
Step 4: Substitution of the value from Step 3 in equation (4) yields the
variability factor, VF.
VF = 2.8
A-13
-------
Appendix B
MAJOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS FOR K048-K052
K048 % Water
Amoco OER* (Reference 6) 15
API, 1983 (Reference 2) 81.9
Jacobs, 1976 (Reference 3) 82
Petition #264 (Reference 24) 82
BP Report ** (Reference 29) 80
Average: 81.5
Adjusted Average: 81
% Solids
% Oil and Grease
14
8.7
12.5
12
15
12
12
K049 % Water
Conoco OER (Reference 13) 60
API, 1983 (Reference 2) 63.1
Jacobs, 1976 (Reference 3) 40
Petition #481 (Reference 21) 31.9
Petition #421 (Reference 19) 62
BP Report (Reference 29) 47
Average: 50.7
Adjusted Average: 50
% Solids
% Oil and Grease
30
21.7
48
51.7
35
47
43.9
37
*These data represent dewatered DAF float and were not used in these
calculations.
**Includes DAF bottoms.
B-l
-------
Appendix B (Continued)
MAJOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS FOR K048-K052
K050 % Water
Petition #481 (Reference 21) 37.8
Jacobs, 1976 (Reference 3) 53
API, 1983 (Reference 2) 42.8
Average: 44.5
Adjusted Average: 44
% Solids
52.5
36
55.4
48
48
% Oil and Grease
K051 % Water
Petition #426 (Reference 25) 81
Amoco OER (Reference 6) 30
API, 1983 (Reference 2) 67.4
Jacobs, 1976 (Reference 3) 53
Petition #481 (Reference 21) 51.6
BP Report (Reference 29) 76
Average: 59.8
Adjusted Average: 60
% Solids
7
54
21.1
24.4
22.3
5
22.3
22
% Oil and Grease
10
15
12.6
22.6
22.4
19
16.9
17
K052 % Water
API, 1983 (Reference 2) 37.9
Jacobs, 1976 (Reference 3) 0.3
Conoco OER (Reference 13) 18
Average: 18.7
Adjusted Average: 18
% Solids
59
79.7
70
69.6
69
% Oil and Grease
B-2
-------
Appendix C
SUMMARY OF PETROLEUM REFINERY PLANT CODES
Plant Code Plant Name
A Amoco Oil Company, Whiting, Indiana
B Unknown
C Unknown
D Unknown
E Unknown
F Unknown
G General Refining Superfund Site,
Garden City, Georgia
H Unknown
I Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi
J Unknown
K SOHIO Oil Alliance Refining, Louisiana
L Unknown
Data Source
EPA Testing
API Report
API Report
API Report
API Report
API Report
Resources
Conservation
Company
API Report
EPA Testing
API Report
Standard Oil
Company
CF Systems
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
ANALYTICAL QA/QC
The analytical methods used for analysis of the regulated constitu-
ents identified in Section 5.0 are presented in this Appendix. Methods are
presented for those technologies determined to be BDAT. Table D-1 presents
the methods used for analysis of the fluidized bed incinerator ash. Analyses
presented for organics and cyanide were performed on the fluidized bed
incinerator ash, while analyses presented for metals were performed on the
stabilized fluidized bed incinerator ash. The methods used for analysis of
organics in the fluidized bed incinerator wastewater are presented in
Reference 26 (K019), while the methods used for analysis of metals in this
wastewater are presented in Reference 27 (Envirite).
SW-846 methods (EPA's Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste:
Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846) are used in most cases for determining
total constituent concentration. Leachate concentrations were determined
using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), published in 51
FR 40643, November 7, 1986.
In some instances it was necessary to deviate from the SW-846
methods. Deviations from SW-846 methods required to analyze the fluidized bed
incinerator ash are listed in Table D-2. SW-846 allows for the use of
alternative or equivalent procedures or equipment; these are noted in Table
D-3 for the fluidized bed incinerator ash and the stabilized ash. These
D-1
-------
alternatives or equivalents included the use of different sample preparation
methods and/or different extraction techniques to reduce matrix interferences.
The accuracy determination for a constituent is based on the matrix
spike recovery values. Tables D-4 and D-5 present the matrix spike recovery
data for volatile, semivolatile, and metal constituents in nonwastewater
residuals from fluidized bed incineration and fluidized bed incineration
followed by ash stabilization. Table D-6 presents matrix spike data for metal
constituents in wastewater residuals. Matrix spike data for organic
constituents in wastewater residuals from incineration are presented in
Reference 26 (K019).
Duplicate matrix spikes were performed for some volatile, semi-
volatile, and metal constituents in the residuals from fluidized bed inciner-
ation and fluidized bed incineration followed by stabilization. If duplicate
matrix spikes were performed for an organic constituent, the matrix spike
recovery used for that constituent was the lower of the two values from the
first matrix spike and the duplicate spike.
Where a matrix spike was not performed for an organic constituent, a
matrix spike recovery for that constituent was derived from the average matrix
spike recoveries of the appropriate constituent group (volatile or semi-
volatile) for which recovery data were available. In these cases, the matrix
spike recoveries for volatiles and semivolatiles from the first matrix spikes
were averaged. Similarly, average matrix spike recoveries were calculated for
D-2
-------
the duplicate matrix spike recoveries. The lower of the two average matrix
spike recoveries of the volatile or semivolatile was used for any volatile or
semivolatile constituent for which no matrix spike was performed. For
example, no matrix spike was performed for di-n-butyl phthalate, a base/neu-
tral fraction semivolatile in fluidized bed incinerator ash; however, the
treatment performance data for this constituent were adjusted for accuracy
using a matrix spike recovery of 67%. This recovery was selected after
averaging the matrix spike recoveries calculated for all base/neutral fraction
semivolatiles in the first matrix spike (69$) and the duplicate spike (67%).
The lower average matrix spike recovery of 67% was selected to subsequently
calculate the accuracy correction factor for di-n-butyl phthalate.
Where a matrix spike was not performed for a metal constituent in a
TCLP extract, a matrix spike recovery for that constituent was derived from
the average matrix spike recoveries for that metal constituent in TCLP
extracts. For example, no matrix spike was performed for antimony in the
cement sample from the stabilized fluidized bed incinerator ash. The percent
recovery for this constituent was 74$, which is the average of the percent
recoveries from the kiln dust sample and the fly ash sample for antimony.
The accuracy correction factors for volatile, semivolatile and metal
constituents detected in the kiln ash and scrubber water residuals as well as
untreated K019 are summarized in Table D-7 through D-9. Table D-7 presents
the accuracy correction factors for constituents in the fluidized bed inciner-
ator ash. Table D-8 presents accuracy correction factors for metals in the
D-3
-------
stabilized fluidized bed incinerator ash. Table D-9 presents accuracy cor-
rection factors for metals in the fluidized bed incineration wastewater.
Accuracy correction factors for organics in fluidized bed incineration waste-
water are presented in Reference 26 (K019). The accuracy correction factors
were determined for each constituent by dividing 100 by the matrix spike
recovery for that constituent.
D-4
-------
Table D-1
ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR REGULATED CONSTITUENTS IN K048-K052 NONWASTEWATER
FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Total Composition
Regulated Constituent Preparation Method Analytical Method References
Volatiles
43. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
Purge and Trap
(Method 5030)
Semivolatiles
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
80. Chrysene
98. Di-n-butyl
phthalate Soxhlet Extraction
121. Naphthalene (Method 3540)
141. Phenanthrene
145. Pyrene
Inorganics
169. Cyanide
Gas Chromatography/
Mass Spectrometry for
Volatile Organics
(Method 8240)
1
Gas Chromatography/
Mass Spectrometry for
Semivolatile Organics:
Capillary Column
Technique (Method 8270)
Colorimetric, Manual
(Method 9010)
' Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Third Edition, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, November, 1986.
D-5
-------
Table D-1 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR REGULATED CONSTITUENTS IN K048-K052 NONWASTEWATER
STABILIZATION
TCLP Extract
Regulated Constituent
Metals
155. Arsenic
159. Chromium (total)
161. Copper
164. Nickel
165. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Preparation Method Analytical Method References
51 Federal Register
40643, 11/7/86
Atomic Absorption, Furnace
Technique (Method 7060)
Inductively Coupled Plasma
Atomic Emission
Spectroscopy (Method 6010)
Atomic Absorption, Furnace
Technique (Method 7740)
Inductively Coupled Plasma
Atomic Emission
Spectroscopy (Method 6010)
1 Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Third Edition, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, November, 1986.
D-6
-------
Table D-2
Deviations from SW-846
Analysi s
Method
SW-846 Specification
Deviation from SW-846
Method
Rationale for Deviation
Fluidized Bed Incineration
Semivolati1e Organic
Const i tuents
(Total Composition)
3540 Add 1.0 ml of solution
containing 100 ug/ml of
the acid surrogates and
200 ug/ml of the base/
neutral surrogates.
Additional amounts of the
surrogates are added if
high concentration
samples are expected.
0.1 ml of solution contain-
ing 1,000 ug/ml of the
acid surrogates and 2,000
ug/ml of the base/neutral
surrogates were added to
the samples. The final
concentration of the
surrogates in the
extracts is the same as
specified in SW-846.
8270 The internal standards
recommended are
1 ,4-dich1orobenzene-d4,
napthalene-dg,
acenaphthene-dio>
phenanthrene-di o.
chrysene-di2• and
pery1ene-di2- Other
compounds may be used as
internal standards as
long as the requirements
given in Paragraph 7.3.2
of the method are met.
Each compound is
dissolved with a small
volume of carbon
disulfide and diluted
to volume with methylene
chloride so that the
final solvent is approxi-
mately 20% carbon
disulfide. Most of the
compounds are also
soluble in small volumes
of methanol, acetone, or
toluene, except for
pery1ene-di2- The result-
ing solution will contain
each standard at a concen-
tration of 4,000 ng/uL.
Each 1-mL sample extract
undergoing analysis should
be spiked with 10 uL of
the internal standard
solution, resulting in a
concentration of 40 ng/uL
of each internal standard.
The preparation of the
internal standards was
changed to eliminate
carbon disulfide as a
solvent. The internal
standard concentration was
changed to 50 ng/ul instead
of 40 ng/ul. The standards
were dissolved in methylene
chloride only. Pery1ene-di2
dissolved in methylene
chloride sufficiently to
yield reliable results.
-------
Table D-3
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SW-846 METHODS
Ana 1ysi s
SW-846
Method
Remark
Alternatives or Equivalents
Allowed by SW-846 Methods
Specific Procedures
or Equipment Used
Fluidized Bed Incineration
Volatile Organic Constituents
(Total Composition)
5030
Sample Aliquot: 50
milliliters of liquid or
2 grams of sol id
O
00
o The purge and trap
device to be used is
specified in the method
in Fi gure 1, the
desorber to be used is
described in Figures 2
and 3, and the packing
materials are described
in Section 4.10.2. The
method all QMS equiva-
lents of this equipment
or materials to be used.
o The method specifies
that the trap must be at
least 25 cm long and
have an inside diameter
of at least 0.105 in.
o The surrogates
recommended are toluene-
dB, 4-bromof1uorobenzene,
and 1 , 2-dichloroethane-d4.
The recommended concen-
tration level is 0.25 ug/
ml .
The purge and trap
equipment, the
desorber, and the
packing materials
used were as speci-
fied in SW-846.
o The length of the
trap was 30 cm and
and the diameter was
0.25 cm.
o Al1 surrogates were
added at the concen-
tration recommended
in SW-846.
-------
Table D-3 (Continued)
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SW-846 METHODS
Analysis
SW-846
Method Remark
Alternatives or Equivalents
for Equipment or in Procedure
Specific Equipment or Procedures Used
Fluidlzed Bed Incineration (Continued)
Volat i1e Organi c
Const 1tuents
(Total Composition)
(Cont inued)
8240 Sample o Recommended GC/MS operating conditions:
Prepai—
at ion
Method:
5030
o Actual GC/MS operating conditions:
O
Electron energy:
Mass range:
Scan time:
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature:
Final column holding time:
Injector temperature:
Source temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Carrier gas:
70 vols (nominal)
35-260 amu
To give 5 scans/
peak but not to
exceed 7 sec/scan
45°C
3 min
8°C/min
200°C
15 min
200-225°C
According to
manufacturer's
specificat i on
250-300°C
Hydrogen at 50
cm/sec or helium
at 30 cm/sec
Electron energy:
Mass range:
Scan time:
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature:
Final column holding time:
Injector temperature:
Source temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Carrier gas:
70 ev
35-350 amu
2 sec/scan
10°C
5 mi n
6°C/min
160°C
20 mi n
220°C
250°C
275°C
Helium ® 30
ml/min
o The column should be 6-ft x 0.1 in I.D. glass,
packed with 1% SP-1000 on Cartopact B (60/80
mesh) or an equivalent.
o Samples may be analyzed by purge and trap
technique or by direct injection.
o Additional Information on Actual System Used:
Equipment: Finnegan Mat model 5100 GC/MS/DS
System
Data system: SUPERINCOSR
Mode: Electron impact
NBS library available
Interfact to MS - Jet separator
o The column used was a capillary VOCOL which
is 60 meters long and has an inner diameter
of 0.75 mm and a 1.5 umdf.
o All samples were analyzed using the purge
and trap technique.
-------
Table D-3 (Continued)
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SW-846 METHODS
Analyses
SW-846
Method
Remark
Alternatives or Equivalents
Allowed by SW-846 Methods
Specific Procedures
or Equipment Used
Fluidized Bed Incineration (Continued)
Semivo1 ati1e Organic
Const i tuents
(Total Composition)
I
h-1
O
3540
Sample Aliquot:
10 grams of sol id
The base/neutral
surrogates recommended
are 2-f1uorobipheny1,
nitrobenzene-d5, and
terpheny1-d4. The
acid surrogates
recommended are 2-
f1uorophenol, 2,4,6-
tribromopheno1, and
phenol-d6. Additional
compounds may be used
for surrogates. The
recommended concentra-
tions for low medium
concentrations level
samples are 100 ug/ml
for acid surrogates and
200 ug/ml for base/
neutral surrogates.
Volume of surrogates
added may be adjusted.
Sample grinding may be
required for samples
not passing through a
1 mm standard sieve or
a 1 mm opening.
Surrogates were the
recommended by SW-846
with the exception
that phenol-d5 was
substituted for
phenol-d6. The
concentrations of
surrogates in the
samples were 100 ug/
ml of acid surrogates
and 200 ug/ml of base/
neutral surrogates.
o Sample grinding was
was not required.
-------
Table D-3 (Continued)
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SW-846 METHODS
Analysis
SW-846
Method
Remark
Alternatives or Equivalents
for Equipment or in Procedure
Specific Equipment or Procedures Used
Fluidized Bed Incineration (Continued)
Semivolat i1e
Organi c
Const i tuents
(Continued)
8270
Sample o
Prepar-
at i on
Method:
3520-
Liquids
3540-
Solids
a
Recommended GC/MS operating conditions:
Mass range:
Scan time:
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature
hold:
Injector temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Source temperature:
Injector:
Sample volume:
Carrier gas:
35-500 amu
1 sec/scan
40°C
4 mi n
40-270°C at
10°C/min
270°C. (until
benzo(g,h , i )
perylene has
eluded)
250-300°C
250-300°C
According to
manufacturer's
speci f i cat i on
Grob-type, spli t
less
1-2 uL
Hydrogen at 50 cm/
sec or he 1i urn at
30 cm/sec
Actual GC/MS operating conditions:
Mass range:
Scan time:
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature
hold:
Injector temperature:
Source temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Source temperature
Injector:
Sample volume:
Carrier gas:
35-450 amu
0.5 sec/scan
35°C
10°C min
35°C @ 10°C/min
275°C
275°C
250°C
275°C
250°C
Cool-on-column
at 35°C
0.5 ul of
sample extract
Hydrogen @ 50
cm/sec or
helium at 30
cm/sec
o Additional Information on Actual system Used:
o Equipment: Hewelett Packard 5987A GC/M5
(Operators Manual Revision B)
o Software Package: AQUARIUS NBS library
avai1able
o The column should be 30 m by 0.25 mm I.D.,
1-um film thickness silicon-coated fused silica
capillary column (J&W Scientific DB-5 or
equivalent).
The column used was the J&W scientific DB-5
silica capillary column. It is 30 meters
with a 0.32 mm capillary column inner
diameter and a 0.25 um film.
-------
Table D-3 (Continued)
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SW-846 METHODS
Analysis
SW-846
Method
Remark
Alternatives or Equivalent
Allowed by SW-846 Methods
Specific Procedures
or Equipment Used
Fluidized Bed Incineration (Continued)
Metal Constituents (TCLP) 6010
7421
Equipment Used:
ICPES-Applied Research
Laboratories
(ARD-34000
Equipment Used: Perkin
Elmer 3030
o Operate equipment fol-
lowing instructions
provided by instru-
ment's manufacturer
For operation with
organic solvents,
auxilliary argon gas
inlet is recommended.
o Operate equipment fol-
lowing instruction
provided by instrument's
manufacturer.
o For background
correction, use either
continous correction or
alternatives, e.g.,
Zeeman correction.
o If samples contain large
amount of organic
material, they should be
oxidized by conventional
acid digestion before
being analyzed.
o Equipment operated
using procedures
specified in the
ARL-34000 ICP
Software Guide and
the ARL-34000
Programmer's Guide.
o Auxiliary argon gas
was not required for
sample matrices
analyzed in this
sampling episode.
o Equipment operated
using procedures
specified in Perkin
Elmer 3030
Instruction Manual.
o Background detection
was used. Continuous
correct on Model 303.
Sample preparation was
required to remove
organics.
-------
Table D-3
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN SW-846 METHODS
Analysis
SW-846
Method
Remark
Alternatives or Equivalents
Allowed by SW-846 Methods
Specific Procedures
or Equipment Used
Stabi1izatIon
Metals Constituents (TCLP)
6010
Equipment Used:
Perkin Elmer Plasma II
Emission Spectrophoto-
meter
Operate equipment
following instructions
provided by instru-
ment's manufacturer
o For operation with
organic solvents,
auxilliary argon gas
inlet is recommended.
Equipment operated
using procedures
speci f i ed in
operation manuals
prepared by Perkin
Elmer.
Auxiliary argon gas
was for sample
analyses.
-------
Table D-4
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
o
i
Spike Constituent
VOLATILES
Original
Amount Found
(ppm)
4. Benzene
9. Chlorobenzene
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane
22. 1,1-Dichloroethane
43. Toluene
47. Trichloroethene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
Average
Spike Constituent
SEMIVOLATILES
(BASE/NEUTRAL FRACTION)
52. Acenaphthene
59. Benz(a)anthracene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
80. Chrysene
87. o-Dichlorobenzene
<2
<2
***
<2
<2
<2
«**
<0.2
**
**
*«
<0.2
Amount
Spiked
(ppm)
50
50
50
50
50
Amount
Recovered
(ppm)
44
23
48
40
38
Percent*
Recovery
88
46
96
80
76
77
Sample Result
Original
Amount Found
(ppm)
Amount
Spiked
(ppm)
Amount
Recovered
(ppm)
Percent*
Recovery
(%)
10
6.6
66
10
7.5
75
Duplicate Sample Result
Amount Percent*
Recovered Recovery
(ppm) (%)
6.3
63
7.6
76
"Percent recovery = 100 x (C^ - Co)/Ct, where Cj = amount recovered, C0 = original amount found, and Ct =
amount spiked.
**No matrix spike was performed for this constituent. The percent recovery for this constituent is based on the
lower average percent recovery of the semivolatile (base/neutral) constituents. The lower average percent
recovery is 67% from the duplicate sample.
***No matrix spike was performed for this constituent. The percent recovery is based on the average percent
recovery for the volatile constituent. This value is 77/5.
-------
Table D-4 (Continued)
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
Sample Result
U
\->
t_n
Spike Constituent
98. Di-n-Butyl phthalate
102. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
105. Di-N-propylnitrosamine
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
145. Pyrene
Original
Amount Found
(ppm)
**
<5.0
<0.5
**
x*
**
<0.2
150. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.5
Average
INORGANICS
169. Cyanide
171. Sulfide
<0.51
<50
Amount
Spiked
(ppm)
50
50
10
10
0.10
523
Amount
Recovered
(ppm)
27
35
5.8
9
Percent*
Recovery
(%)
54
70
58
90
0.104
418
69
104
82
Duplicate Sample Result
Amount Percent*
Recovered Recovery
(ppm) (%)
26
35
5.3
8.6
52
70
53
86
67
**No matrix spike was performed for this constituent. The percent recovery for this constituent is based
on the lower average percent recovery of the semivolatile (base/neutral) constituents. The lower average
percent recovery is 67? from the duplicate sample.
-------
Table D-4 (Continued)
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
Sample Result
u
Original
Amount Found
(ppm)
Spike Constituent
METALS (TCLP EXTRACT)
154. Antimony +
155. Arsenic +
156. Barium +
157. Benyllium +
158. Cadmium +
159. Chromium (total) +
221. Chromium (hexavalent) +
160. Copper +
161. Lead +
163. Nickel +
164. Selenium +
165. Silver +
166. Thallium +
167. Vanadium +
168. Zinc +
Amount
Spiked
(ppm)
Amount
Recovered
(ppm)
Percent*
Recovery
(*)
74
136
93
76
75
80
63
88
83
73
81
75
59
77
74
Duplicate Sample Result
Amount Percent*
Recovered Recovery
(ppm) (%)
+No matrix spike was performed for this constituent. The percent recovery is the average percent recovery from
cement, kiln dust, and lime and fly ash TCLP extract for the stabilized ash for this contituent. Table D-5
presents the data for the percent recoveries for cement, kiln dust, and lime and fly ash.
"Percent recovery = 100 x (Cj. - Co)/Ct, where
Ct = amount spiked.
= amount recovered, Co = original amount found, and
-------
Table D-5
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR THE TCLP EXTRACT FOR STABILIZED FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
CEMENT
I
M
^1
CONSTITUENTS (ppm)
BOAT METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium
(hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
166. Thallium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Cement : Run 2
Original
icunt Found
(ppm)
**
<0.004
««
*«
**
**
**
*«
<0.006
**
0.022
**
0.009
**
tt«
Amount Amount
Spiked Recovered
(ppm) (ppm)
0.1 0.136
1.0 0.994
0.05 0.064
1.0 0.612
Percent
Recovery*
(%}
74
136
93
76
75
80
63
88
99
73
84
75
61
77
74
*Percent recovery = 100 x (Cj_ - Co)/Ct, where Ci = amount recovered, Co = original amount found, and
Ct = amount spiked.
**No matrix spike was performed for this constituent. The percent recovery is the average of percent recoveries
from kiln dust and lime and fly ash for this constituent. This average is shown in the percent recovery
column.
-------
I
(-•
00
Table D-5 (Continued)
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR THE TCLP EXTRACT FOR STABILIZED FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
KILN DUST
Kiln Dust: Run 1
Original
Amount
Found
CONSTITUENTS (ppm) (ppm)
BDAT
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
METALS
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chromium
(hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
<0.163
*»
0.203
<0.001
<0.003
1.78
**
<0.003
*«
<0.018
0.044
<0.006
**
1.53
0.048
Amount
Spiked
(ppm)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Amount
Recovered
(ppm)
0.66
1.103
0.706
0.694
2.532
0.721
0.675
0.70
1.968
0.755
Percent
Recovery*
(*)
66
90
71
69
75
72
68
70
44
71
Original
Amount
Found
(ppm)
Kiln Dust: Run 3
Amount Amount Percent
Spiked Recovered Recovery*
(ppm) _
<0.163
0.005
0.204
<0.001
<0.003
1.87
2.13
<0.003
<0.006
<0.018
0.04
<0.006
0.009
1.56
0.031
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.05
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.815
0.137
1.15
0.845
0.834
2.744
3.15
1.17
0.765
0.816
0.0776
0.838
0.573
2.498
0.871
82
132
91
85
83
87
102
117
77
82
75
84
56
94
84
- C0)/Ct, where Cj = amount recovered, Co = original amount found, and
*Percent recovery = 100 x
Cfc = amount spiked.
**No matrix spike was performed for this constituent for run 1 .
-------
Table D-5 (Continued)
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR THE TCLP EXTRACT FOR STABILIZED FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
LIME AND FLY ASH
a
CONSTITUENTS (ppm)
BOAT METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
166. Thallium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Run: 3
Original
Amount
Found
(ppm)
<0.163
0.006
0.599
<0.001
<0.003
1.08
0.171
0.006
<0.006
<0.018
0.017
<0.006
<0.001
0.156
0.052
Amount
Spiked
(ppm)
* *^ r
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.05
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Amount
Recovered
(ppm)
0.751
0.146
1.568
0.728
0.722
1.846
0.403
0.749
0.72
0.698
0.059
0.726
0.583
1.092
0.734
Percent
Recovery*
(*)
75
140
97
73
72
77
23
74
72
70
85
73
58
94
68
*Percent recovery = 100 x
Ct = amount spiked.
- C0)/Ct, where GI = amount recovered, Co = original amount found, and
-------
Table D-6
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR METALS IN WASTEWATER RESIDUALS
Sample Recovery
Duplicate Sample Result
Spike Constituent
159.
161.
168.
Chromium ( total )
Lead
Zinc
Original
Amount Found
(ppb)
<4.0
<5.0
2,640
Amount
Spiked
(ppb)
50
25
10,000
Amount Amount
Recovered Percent Recovery Recovered Percent Recovery*
(ppb) Hi (ppb) HI
35 70 34 68
22
12,600
88
100
19
12,400
76
98
*Percent recovery = 100 x
Ct = amount spiked.
- Co)/Ct, where Cj = amount recovered, Co = original amount found, and
o
o
-------
Table D-7
SUMMARY OF ACCURACY CORRECTION FACTORS FOR NONWASTEWATER
(Fluidized Bed Incineration)
Accuracy Correction Factor*
Constituent Total Concentration TCLP
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.30
43. Toluene 1.25
Xylene 1.30
59. Benz(a)anthracene 1.49
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 1.49
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.49
80. Chrysene 1.49
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 1.49
109. Fluorene 1.49
121. Naphthalene 1.49
141. Phenanthrene 1.49
145. Pyrene 1.89
154. Antimony 1.35
155. Arsenic 0.74
156. Barium 1.08
157. Beryllium 1.32
158. Cadmium 1.33
159. Chromium (total) 1.25
160. Copper 1.14
161. Lead 1.20
163. Nickel 1.34
164. Selenium 1.23
165. Silver 1.33
167. Vanadium 1.30
168. Zinc 1.35
169. Cyanide 0.96
171. Sulfide 1.22
*The Accuracy Correction Factor is equal to 1 divided by the Percent
Recovery.
D-21
-------
Table D-8
SUMMARY OF ACCURACY CORRECTION FACTORS FOR NONWASTEWATER
(Stabilization)
Constituent
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Accuracy Correction Factor*
Cement
1.35
0.74
1.10
1.32
1.33
1.25
1.34
1.01
1.37
1.19
1.33
1.30
1.35
Kiln Dust
1.36
0.76
1.10
1.29
1.31
1.23
1.06
1.31
1.34
1.33
1.30
1.45
1.29
Lime and Fly Ash
1.33
0.71
1.03
1.37
1.39
1.31
1.35
1.39
1.43
1.18
1.38
1.07
1.47
*The Accuracy Correction Factor is equal to 1 divided by the Percent Recovery.
D-22
-------
Table D-9
SUMMARY OF ACCURACY CORRECTION FACTORS FOR METALS IN WASTEWATER
(Chromium Reduction Followed by Lime and Sulfide
Precipitation and Vacuum Filtration)
Constituent Accuracy Correction Factor*
159. Chromium (total) 1.4?
162. Lead 1.32
164. Zinc 1.02
*The Accuracy Correction Factor is equal to 1 divided by the Percent Recovery.
D-23
-------
APPENDIX E
STRIP CHARTS FOR THE SAMPLING EPISODE AT PLANT A
PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS AND INCINERATION TEMPERATURES
Figure E-1: Constriction Plate and Bed Pressure Differentials
Figure E-2: Bed and Freeboard Temperatures
E-1
-------
10 am
(1/15/87)
8 am
6 am
Constriction
Plate
Differential
4 am
2 am
12 am
(1/14/87)
Bed:
Constriction Plate:
Sample Set #2
Sample
Set //I
Bed
Differential
120"H20
50"H20
Figure E-1
CONSTRICTION PLATE AND BED PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS (inches of H20)
E-2
-------
•:;'H
8 pm
(1/15/87)
6 pm
Constriction
Plate
Differential
4 pm
2 pm
12 pm
10 am
(1/15/87)
Bed: 0"H20
Constriction Plate: 0"H20
li!
: j.M
ii. M
;!],[',I Sample Set
Bed
Dif
ferential
Sample
Set #2 (Cont.)
120"H20
50"H20
Figure E-1
CONSTRICTION PLATE AND BED PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS (inches of H20)
(Continued)
E-3
-------
10 am
(1/15/87)
8 am
6 am
Constriction
Plate
Differential
4 am
2 am
12 am
10 pm
(1/15/87)
Bed:
0"H20
Constriction Plate: 0"H20
Figure E-1
Sample Set #5
Bed
Differential
Sample Set #4
120"H2<)
50"H20
CONSTRICTION PLATE AND BED PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS (inches of H20)
(Continued)
E-4
-------
10 pm
(1/15/87)
8 pm
6 pm
Constriction
Plate
Differential
4 pm
2 pm
12 pm
(1/15/87)
Bed:
Constriction Plate: 0"
Figure E-1
Bed
Differential
Sample Set #6
Sample
Set #5 (Cent.)
CONSTRICTION PLATE AND BED PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS (inches of H20)
(Continued)
E-5
-------
6 pa 10
(1/14/87) :
4 pm
2 pm
12 pm
10 am
8 am
6 am
(1/14/87)
Sample Set #3
Sample Set #2
i; Sample Set ll
600 °F
1600 °F
Figure E-2
BED AND FREEBOARD TEMPERATURES (°F)
E-6
-------
6 am
(1/15/87)
4 am
2 am
Bed Temperature
12 am
(1/15/87)
10 pm
8 pm
(1/14/87)
"T '/"I"'
'?, A
^ A '«!• i -.1 CD
0. ;.
HAM • i; "!•! . ir.
i.
••!• !' : ' I i i,1
: ! ; ; i ! | , j'l
:2;*M; : I. | j •:"
! r-,!:
lii ! I ': i - 1 '•'• 'li1
f*~K, •j;::|:,,i
- • I ,•,,,!(
1 1 i I. !
'i I I !.': I-1-- -*
i : I '
i: ,r,
ii.'?.M;
M-i/h' !'l; f:
' i , • I ' ' I i' ! ' , " !
1 ; • i • Uis:1 '-L!-.,',.•
• . • , i' I.I i ! .1 i I: '
Sample Set #4
Freeboard
Temperature
.:IO° ^
,;,-;:. .;,. :|
I'1'! ! .:. •' ' '
P
600 °F
; i;t!d
M <>' i •'
i •,
'' i <: h'JinJ
, i' , i;'i:
• i -.P:I
Sample Set #3 (Cont.)
1600 °F
Figure E-2
BED AND FREEBOARD TEMPERATURES (°F)
(Continued)
E-7
-------
(1/15/87)
6 pm
4 pm
2 pm
12 pm
10 am
8 am
(1/15/87)
Sample Set #6
Samp
le Set #5
t
3l
600 °F
:| Sample Set #4 (Cont.)
*
'I
1600 °F
Figure E-2
BED AND FREEBOARD TEMPERATURES (°F)
(Continued)
E-J
-------
Appendix F
OTHER TREATMENT DATA
Appendix F contains treatment data for K048-K052 wastes which were
not used in the development of treatment standards. Table F-1 is an index of
all data presented in this appendix.
Table F-1
INDEX OF TREATMENT DATA
Plant B
Plant C
Plant D
Plant E
Plant F
Plant G
Plant H
Plant K
Plant
L -
Facility
API Report
API Report
API Report
API Report
API Report
RCC Report
API Report
SOHIO Report
CF Systems Report
Section
F.1
F.2
F.3
F.4
F.5
F.6
F.7
F.8
F.9
F-2
F-4
F-6
F-8
F-9
F-10
F-20
F-24
F-32
F-1
-------
F.1 Treatment Data for Plant B (K051)
PRESSURE FILTRATION (BELT FILTER PRESS)
Treated Waste
Untreated K051 Waste Filter Cake
TCLP TCLP
mg/L mg/L
Detected BOAT List Constituents* (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene 15 0.62
226. Ehtyl benzene 23 0.18
43. Toluene 66 1.5
215-217. Xylene (total) 127 1.2
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene 1.0 <0.015
59. Benzo(a)anthracene 0.61 <0.015
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 <0.015
80. Chrysene 1.0 <0.015
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol <0.15 0.03
108. Fluoranthene 0.4 <0.015
121. Naphthalene 4.6 0.14
141. Phenanthrene 7.3 <0.015
145. Pyrene 1.6 <0.015
METALS
155. Arsenic 0.02 0.02
156. Barium 1.2 0.26
159- Chromium 0.15 0.01
161. Lead 0.13 <0.04
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal
constituents.
F-2
-------
Design and Operating Parameters Operating Range*
Sludge feed rate (gpm) 21.5
Dilution water feed rate (gpm) 3
Polymer solution concentration (wtyt) 1.3
Polymer solution feed rate (gpm) 1.5
Belt tension (psi) 200
Belt speed
Gravity section (ft/min) 20
Pressure section (ft/min) 35
*Design values were not presented in the API report.
F-3
-------
F.2 Treatment Data for Plant C (Specific Waste Codes Not Reported)
PRESSURE FILTRATION (BELT FILTER PRESS)
Treated Waste
Untreated Waste* Filter Cake
TCLP TCLP
mg/L mg/L
Detected BOAT List Constituents* (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene 91 1.3
226. Ehtyl benzene 100 <0.06
43. Toluene 460 2.2
215-217. Xylene (total) 400 1.8
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene 13 <0.01
59. Benzo(a)anthracene 5.4 <0.01
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 4.4 <0.01
80. Chrysene 8". 6 <0.01
81. ortho-Cresol <2.5 0.02
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol BDL 0.04
108. Fluoranthene 4.9 <0.01
121. Naphthalene 77 0.1
141. ' Phenanthrene 102 <0.01
145. Pyrene 17 BDL
METALS
156. Barium 7.7 1.0
159. Chromium (total) 3-9 <0.025
161. Lead 1.1 <0.1
*The untreated waste consists of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal constituents.
BDL = Below detection limit.
F-4
-------
Design and Operating Parameters Operating Range*
Sludge feed rate (gpm) 61-75
Washwater feed rate (gpm) 100
Washwater pressure (psig) 96
Feed temperature (°F) 85
Polymer solution concentration (wt/t) 1.5
Polymer solution feed rate (gph) 225-230
Belt tension
Top Belt (psig) 11
Bottom Belt (psig) 12
*Design values were not presented in the API report.
F-5
-------
F.3
Treatment Data for Plant D (K048. K049, K051)
PRESSURE FILTRATION (PLATE FILTER PRESS)
Detected BOAT List Constituents*
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
130
240
360
750
Treated Waste
Filter Cake
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
1.9
1.2
4.1
3.6
SEMIVOLATILES
80. Chrysene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
145. Pyrene
20
310
23
42
<0.01
0.25
<0.01
<0.01
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
159. Chromium (total)
161. Lead
<0.07
1.5
1.1
0.5
0.01
0.82
<0.025
*The untreated waste is a mixture of K048, K049, K051, and miscellaneous oily
materials.
+Analyses were not performed for all BDAT list organic and metal constituents.
F-6
-------
Design and Operating Parameters Operating Range*
Fill time** (min) 12
Filtration time (min 225
Cake release time (min) 20
Plate Filter Press temperature (°F) 145
Final Feed Pressure (psig) 210
Lime Dosage (% of total sludge feed) 2.5
Type of filter cloth satin weave nylon
*Design values were not presented in the API report.
**At sludge feed rate of 565 gpm.
F-7
-------
F.4
Treatment Data for Plant E (K051 and K052)
PRESSURE FILTRATION (PLATE FILTER PRESS)
Detected BDftT List Constituents*
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
2.7
0.29
3.5
1.71
Treated Waste
Filter Cake
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.80
0.22
2.2
1.42
SEMIVOLATILES
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
0.33
0.10
0.16
0.01
0.85
0.02
0.01
0.16
0.00
0.10
METALS
155. Arsenic 0.01 0.00**
156. Barium 0.95 0.57
162. Mercury 0.00 <0.001
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted
*The untreated waste consists of K051, K052 and unleaded tank bottoms. These
wastes were conditioned with lime before sampling.
**Value was reported as 0.00.
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal
constituents.
F-8
-------
F.5 Treatment Data for Plant F (K049 and K051)
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BOAT List Constituent+
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
42
240
320
Treated Waste
Extracted Residual
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.01
0.01
0.01
SEMIVOLATILES
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
59
75
0.01
<0.005
METALS
159. Chromium (total) 0.39
161. Lead 0.47
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted
*The untreated waste is a mixture of K049 and K051 waste.
+Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal
constituents.
0.11
0.05
F-9
-------
F.6 Treatment Data for Plant G (K048 - K052)
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
F-10
-------
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste (solids)**
Detected Constituents
Organ i cs
80. Chrysene
* N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
* Isophorone
* 2-Methylnaphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
142. Phenol
Total
Composition
frog/kg]
4.7
4.5
5.6
<3.0
5.6
4.8
7.5
8.3
<3.0
36
<3.0
37
22
47
50
<3.0
13
13
16
17
<3.0
3.4
4.2
<3.0
22
28
30
<3.0
4.5
<3.0
TCLP
(mg/L)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.011
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.023
0.027
<0.01
0.11
0.12
Total
Composition TCLP
(ing/kg) (mg/l)
NA <0.01
MA <0.01
NA <0.01
NA <0.01
NA <0.01
NA <0.01
NA <0.01
NA 0.035
0.041
0.040
0.056
0.025
0.033
0.013
0.018
0.017
F-ll
-------
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste (solids)**
Detected Constituents
4. Benzene
266. Ethyl benzene
* Methyl-2-pentanone
43. Toluene
Total
Composition
Ing/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
TCLP
(mg/l]
<0.025
0.030
0.040
0.029
0.043
<0.025
0.054
0.062
<0.05
0.14
0.19
<0.025
Total
Composition TCLP
(mg/kgj [mg/l)
NA 0.050
0.028
NA 0.052
0.060
0.054
0.096
0.120
0.140
0.059
0.042
NA 0.052
0.059
NA 0.17
0.26
0.18
0.35
0.42
0.56
0.22
0.16
0.09
0.11
45. 1 f1f1-Trichloroethane
215-217. Xylene [total]
NA
NA
0.027
0.044
<0.025
0.14
0.19
<0.025
NA
NA
87. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
3.3
<3.0
<0.01
NA
0.28
0.31
0.31
0.51
0.71
0.72
0.31
0.21
0.17
0.097
<0.01
F-12
-------
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste [solids]**
Detected Constituents
108. Fluoranthene
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl] phthalate
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
* 4-Methyl phenol
222. Acetone
34. Methyl ethyl ketone
47. Trichloroethene
* 2-Methyl phenol
145. Pyrene
* Triethylamine
Total
Composition TCLP
[mg/kg] [mg/l]
3.7 <0.01
<3.0
<3.0 0.13
49 <0.01
<3.0 0.081
0.11
<0.01
<3.0 0.21
0.26
<0.01
NA 0.27
<0.12
NA 0.13
<0.12
NA 0.037
<0.025
<3.0 0.010
<0.01
3.6 <0.01
<3.0
NA NA
Total
Composition TCLP
( mg/kg] (mg/l)
NA <0.01
NA <0.01
NA 0.019
0.016
0.013
0.018
0.013
0.013
0.011
0.011
NA 0.037
0.057
0.053
0.071
0.060
0.029
0.057
0.045
0.05
0.044
NA <0.12
NA <0.12
NA 0.030
<0.025
NA <0.01
<0.01
9700
7700
7400
<2000
F-13
-------
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste [solids]**
Detected Constituents
Total
Composition
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(rng/l]
Total
Composition
(mg/kg]
TCLP
Img/l]
PCB's
203. Aroclor 1242
206. Aroclor 1260
5.1
2.7
4.8
2.1
4.1
3.9
1.8
3.2
3.7
1.3
4.6
4.9
3.8
3.4
3.4
1.5
8.7
<0.32
3.5
1.9
2.9
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.8
0.55
2.3
2.3
2.0
1.4
2.2
2.8
2.6
<0.64
<0.0024
0.37
<0.2
<0.0012
<0.005
<0.4
<0.0005
F-14
-------
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste [solids]**
Detected Constituents
Total
Composition
(mg/kg]
TCLP
tmg/lj
Total
Composition
[mg/kg]
TCLP
tmg/l]
Other constituents
170. Fluoride
* 011 and grease
MA
NA
1.3
<0.5
NA
NA
8700
10000
8900
8150
7760
8880
5830
<100
NA
<100
Metals
Aluminum
460
340
380
380
420
330
390
420
420
470
430
380
370
380
360
420
350
<5.0
<0.7
11
6.1
2300
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.9
1.7
2.4
1.6
2.1
<0.3
156. Barium
210
190
250
260
320
160
270
370
310
220
0.01
0.62
0.13
140
<0.03
F-15
-------
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste (solids)**
Detected Constituents
Total
Composition
(mo/kg)
TCLP
(mg/U
Total
Composition TCLP
(mg/kg) (mg/l)
156. Barium [continued]
360
200
180
200
160
230
180
<0.5
159. Chromium (total)
6.2
5
6
6
7
5
7
7
7
5
7
7
6
7
6
6
5
<0.02
0.09
0.07
18
<2
<0.05
160. Copper
23
23
24
24
24
21
25
30
27
21
27
29
26
24
24
23
24
<0.6
<0.02
100
<2
<0.03
F-16
-------
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste [solids]**
Detected Constituents
* Iron
161. Lead
* Manganese
Total
Composition
(mg/kg)
680
670
750
740
770
660
740
770
750
720
770
750
710
700
670
710
670
<5
2700
2700
4000
3100
3600
2200
3400
4300
3700
2800
4100
3300
3200
2900
2700
2900
3200
<5
5.5
4.2
5.4
4.9
5.3
4.6
5.2
5.0
4.9
TCLP
[mg/l]
<0.1
36
19
<0.04
5.1
4.2
<0.01
0.3
0.16
Total
Composition
(mg/kg)
4000
21300
<4
23
TCLP
(mg/U
1.8
1.6
2.8
3.0
4.7
4.1
5.3
5.0
7.1
<0.3
5.9
5.2
11
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.9
12
0.44
0.43
0.45
0.44
0.52
0.49
0.49
0.54
0.61
F-17
-------
Untreated Waste
Detected Constituents
Total
Composition
Img/kg]
TCLP
(mg/l)
Treated Waste (solids]4"*1
Total
Composition TCLP
(mg/kg) [mg/l)
* Manganese (continued]
4.7
5.4
5
4.9
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
<0.5
<0.03
168. Zinc
310
280
300
300
320
270
310
330
310
280
350
330
320
310
300
280
300
<0.02
16
11
930
<2
22
21
22
22
25
25
26
30
33
<0.05
158. Cadmium
* Calcium
0.7
<0.5
740
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
* Magnesium
110
CIO
NA
NA
NA
162. Mercury
<0.05
<0.001
<0.001
0.007
0.002
<0.001
F-18
-------
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste [solids]**
Total
Composition TCLP
Detected Constituents [mg/kg] (mg/l)
164. Selenium <4 <0.008
* Sodium 2900 NA
<5
* Strontium 2.4 NA
<0.5
167. Vanadium 2 NA
Total
Composition
(mg/kg)
<0.004
<8
NA
NA
NA
TCLP
(mg/l)
0.008
0.020
<0.04
NA
NA
NA
* Not a BOAT constituent.
** Treated waste (solids] stream values do not necessarily correspond to the untreated
waste stream values.
*** TCLP values of treated waste [solids] do not necessarily correspond to the total
composition values presented for the treated waste [solids].
NA Not analyzed
F-19
-------
F.7
Treatment Data for Plant H (K048 - K052)
(a) THERMAL DRYING (Specific Waste Codes Not Reported)
Detected BDAT List Constituents+
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
43. Toluene
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
1.1
1.8
Treated Waste
Filter Cake Residue
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
350°F
<0.005
<0.005
550°F
<0.05
<0.05
SEMIVOLATILES
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
159. Chromium (total)
0.02
0.04
0.15
BDL
BDL
BDL
1.0
BDL
BDL
0.01
0.13
0.01
0.01
350°F
0.01
BDL
0.1
0.89
0.06
0.13
0.05
550°F
<0.04
0.57
0.04
*The untreated waste is the filter cake from the belt filter press at plant C
generated from treatment of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not specified).
^Analyses were not performed for all BDAT organic and metal constituents.
BDL = Below Detection Limit.
F-20
-------
Design and Operating Parameters Operating Range*
350°F 550°F
Temperature of heat transfer fluid (°F) 450 650
Retention time (min) 50 36-42
*Design values were not presented in the API report.
F-21
-------
(b) THERMAL DRYING (K051 and K052)
Detected BOAT List Constituents*
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
43. Toluene
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.8
2.2
Treated Waste
Filter Cake Residue
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.01
0.08
550°F
<0.025
<0.03
SEMIVOLATILES
70. Bis(2-ethyIhexy1)phthalate
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
BDL
0.02
0.01
0.16
0.00»*
0.1
BDL
0.02
0.03
0.06
<0.01
0.16
0.012
0.02
<0.005
0.01
<0.005
0.08
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
0.00
0.57
BDL
0.01
0.8
BDL
1.3
0.02
*The untreated waste is the filter cake from the plate filter press at plant
E generated from treatment of K051, K052, and unleaded tank bottoms. These
wastes were conditioned with lime prior to filtration.
**Value was reported as 0.00.
^Analyses were not performed for all BOAT organic and metal constituents.
BDL = Below Detection Limit.
F-22
-------
Design and Operating Parameters Operating Range*
350°F 550°F
Temperature of heat transfer fluid (°F) 450 650
Retention time (min) 50 36-42
*Design values were not presented in the API report.
F-23
-------
F.8 Treatment Data for Plant K (Specific Waste Codes Not Reported)
SOLVENT EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STABILIZATION
F-24
-------
1357g
Table 1 SOHIO Data
Const ituent
Vc'.U ' le Orqan;cs
Benzene
Etnyl Benzene
To:uene
Xylenes. m
Untreated Waste
TCLP
(mg/1)
16
51
42
9 7
16
20
5 7
12.
;s
7 5
6 a
8 5
22
53
54
17
24
30
1 3
27
36
12
17
20
Treated Waste
TCLP
(TOJ/I)
-0 025
<0 025
<0 025
-0 025
^0 325
-0 025
<0 025
-0 025
-0 025
<0 025
-0 025
•-0 025
^0 025
<0 025
-0 025
<0 025
<0 025
<0 025
<0 025
<0.025
-0 025
<0 025
^0 025
<0 025
<0 025
-0 025
-0 025
-0 025
-0 025
-0 025
0 056
-0 025
-0 025
-0 025
0 033
-------
1357g
Table 1 SOHIO Data (continued)
Untreated Waste
TCLP
Constituent (mg/1)
Volatile Oraanics (continued)
Xylenes. o'p
?ase Neutral Orcismcs
Antnracene
Benz(a)antnracene
Benio(a)pyrene
15
21.
^o
9 9
13
16.
-0 013
1.2
0.45
5.2
-0 4
-1.3
0 014
0 78
0.36
4 6
<0 4
t T
(. t.
'0 013
0.51
0 21
3.5
-0.04
1.5
Treated Waste
TCLP
(mg/ 1)
0 37
<0.025
0 046
^0 025
0 12
0 064
0.091
0 099
0 068
0 13
-0 01
<0.01
-0.01
-0 01
<0.01
-0.01
<0 01
<0 01
<0.01
-0.01
<0 01
-J 01
-0 01
-J Gl
O 01
-0 01
-0 01
-0 01
-0 Dl
<0 01
-0 01
-0 01
-0 0!
-0 01
-0 01
<0 01
-0.01
<0 01
-0 01
<0 01
F-26
-------
1357g
Table 1 SOHIO Data (continued)
Const ituent
f\ise ' Neut rci 1 Orqanics
Nitphtna lene
Phenjnthrene
P/re-ie
Ac '3 Orqanics
2.4-Oimethy loneno'
Untreated Waste
TCLP
(mg/1)
(cent inued)
0 47
4 2
2 5
28
3 2
7 3
0 25
4 7
2 5
4.6
8 9
24
0.051
1 5
0 65
9 4
1 7
4 1
0 061
*• 0 3
<0 2
<3.
<0.4
<1 3
Treated Waste
TCLP
(mg/1)
0 85
0.021
0.084
0 023
0 022
0 046
0.11
0 10
0 058
0.050
<0 01
<0 01
<0.01
<0.01
<0 01
<0 01
<0.01
<0 01
<0 01
<0 01
<0.01
<0.01
<0 01
<0 01
<0 01
-0 01
<0 01
<0 01
-0 01
<0 01
-0 01
-------
1357g
Table 1 SOHIO Data (continued)
Constituent
Acid Organic? (continued)
Phenol
Metals
Ant -.rnony
Arsenic
Barium
Untreated Waste
TCLP
(mg/1)
0.017
<0.3
<0.2
<3
<0,4
-1.3
<0 03
0.01
-0.03
<0 03
<0 8
<0 03
1.4
1 8
1 4
5.3
2 3
3 4
Treated
Total
(mg/kg)
15
15
22
19
27
22
LI
18
11
9.8
11
10
13
8 8
12
12
10
14
650
810
800
930
1.300
940
860
800
760
3,200
Waste
TCLP
(mg/1)
<0.01
<0.01
<0 01
<0 01
<0.01
<0.01
<0 01
<0 01
<0.01
<0.01
0 CIS
0 008
0.028
0 022
0 025
0 018
0 024
0 024
-0 006
<0 006
<1
<1
<1
-•1
<1
1
-1
<1
-1
*1
F-28
-------
U57g
Table 1 SOH1Q Data (continued)
Untreated Uaste
TCLP
Constituent (mg/1)
Metd Is (continued)
Beryl 1 lunt
Cddmi urn
Chromium 0 12
2 4
1 7
14
5.9
10
Cobalt <0.02
0 04
0 06
0 02
0.04
0.02
Treated
Total
(mg/kg)
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0 3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0 3
0.3
0 8
1.3
1.4
<0.8
1 0
1 6
1.1
1.9
1 2
1 9
510
590
610
650
820
620
650
570
550
820
11
24
12
12
12
18
9 7
8 7
12
12
Waste
TCLP
(mg/1)
-0.05
<0 05
<0 05
-------
1357g
Table 1 SOHIO Data (continued)
Untreated Waste Treated
Waste
Constituent
Metals (continued)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
TCLP Total
(mg/1) (mg/kg)
33
31
42
27
36
27
37
28
39
1 3
1 5
2 2
1.8
2.1
2 0
2.5
2 1
1.0
2 0
<0.08 51
0 16 58
0.12 51
0.27 41
0 13 45
-0 1 56
50
43
42
53
<0 4
-------
1357g
Tdble 1 SOHIO Data (continued)
Waste
Const ituent
Untreated Waste
TCLP
(mg/1)
Treated
Total TCLP
(mg/kg) (mg/1)
MetjIs (continued)
Vanadium
42
30
43
34
36
40
34
34
30
36
no = indicates not detected
< = following values are detection limits
F-31
-------
F.9 Treatment Data for Plant L (K051)
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
F-32
-------
CORPORATION
March 30, 1987
CF Systems Units to Render
Refinery Wastes Non-Hazardous
The CFS Extraction Process is a solvent extraction technique which,
instead of using a typical solvent such as methylene chloride,
toluene or hexane, uses a liquefied gas such as COa, propane, or
other light hydrocarbon gas. These solvents have high solubilities for
most organic compounds that are listed as hazardous. They are also
inexpensive, non-toxic and can be relatively easily separated from
the extracted compounds. These properties, together with CF
Systems proprietary equipment design, lead to a highly effective
broadly applicable process with low operating costs. In general, the
CF Systems units can extract over 99% of liquid hydrocarbons from
liquids and sludges having solids and hydrocarbons content in any
ratio.
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
A simplified block flow diagram is shown in Figure 1.
Sludge Excavation and Conditioning
For small pits, an open impeller sludge pump is used to slurry the
contents of the pit and pump it to the mixing and conditioning tanks.
For larger pits, a dredge will be used followed by a booster pump to
allow the slurry to be pumped from the pit to the mixing and
conditioning tanks.
The intent of the mixing/conditioning tanks is to produce a
homogeneous mixture capable of being pumped to the solvent
extraction unit. The homogeneous slurry is pumped from the mixing/
conditioning tank to the solvent extraction unit. Out of the mixing/
conditioning tanks the solids size will be adjusted or classified using
a grinder, screens and/or strainers. Particle conditioning is
necessary to ensure stable operations in the solvent extraction unit.
-------
FIGURE 1
COMPRESSOR
Recycled Solvents
Solvents and Organics
Solvent
Feed
EXTRACTOR
SOLVENT
RECOVERY
STILL
SEPARATOR
Solids and Water
SOLID/LIQUID
SEPARATOR
Water
Organics
->• Solids
FLOW DIAGRAM
PIT CLEAN-UP UNIT
-------
PROCESS DESCRIPTION (Continued)
Solvent Extraction
The solvent extraction unit has three basic parts. First, there is
extraction, followed by phase separations and finally, solvent
recovery. The solvent for this unit is a liquefied, light hydrocarbon
gas.
The phase separations are accomplished with a combination of
settling and filtrations. The water solvent separation takes place in
the decanting step after the separator.
The solvent is recovered from the solvent recovery still as the oil is
concentrated. This step uses an energy efficient vapor-
recompression cycle in which the evaporator feed pressure is
reduced and the highly volatile solvent is flashed and removed
overhead. The clean solvent vapors are recompressed. The heat
fromthjj^coj]]Łr^ssion and the compressed-gas latent heafare
Ljge^To'vaporize the soJvenT. &
Products
The oil product can either be recycled to the refinery operations,
used as fuel extenders or incinerated depending on its compositions
and the exigencies of each situation.
The residual solids from this unit are firm and well consolidated. The
solids will pass the paint filter test; i.e., there will be no free liquids in
the solids.
The water product is suitable for sending to a waste water treatment
system or to a retention pond.
F-35
-------
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS AND ANALYSIS
The results of total oil and grease content of several treated refinery
solids are given in Table 1. These results give a general indication of
the ability of the CFS process to extract organics from a variety of
solids.
Detailed and extensive analysis, including the EPA's Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) have been carried out on
two refinery samples. Both are API Separator Bottom Sludge (EPA
Waste tt K050).
AsJ_hese results show in Table 2, the concentration of thejoxic
organlcTanitTTietalsJn^
standard'srestablished'by'EPAlcTdater- •
TABLE 1
Total Oil and Grease Content of Treated Solids
1 . Oil Contaminated
Refinery Soil
2. Refinery Sludge
(60% Solids)
3. API Separator Bottoms
4. Filter Cake From
Refinery Pit
Component
Feed
Residue Solids
Feed
Residue Solids
Feed
Residue Solids
Feed
Residue Solids
Oil and Grease (%)
34.3
0.6
20.0
2.6
5.0
0.2
12.0
0.5
F-36
-------
TABLE 2
Analytical Results for
API Separator Bottom Sludge Extraction
API Separator Bottom Sludge #1
MATERIAL BALANCE:
Oil & Grease
Oil
Water
Solids
TOTAL METALS
Chromium
Lead
TCLP METALS
Chromium
Lead
TOTAL PURGEABLE ORGANICS
Benzene I
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene, m
Xylene, o & p
TCLP PURGEABLE ORGANICS
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene, m
Xylene, o & p
I TOTALjPNAs AND PHENOLS
Anthracene
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenols
[jCLPJPNAs AND PHENOLS
Anthracene
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenols
UNITS
mg/kg
wt.%
wt.%
wt.%
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/L
mg/L
^•""^"""""•V
^"^g/kg^
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
FEED
NA
3.1
41.7
57.4
400 (0.5)
1100(2)
5100(1100)
13000(2200)
52000 (2200)
49000 (2200)
22000 (4500)
ND (3.0)
ND (57)
50 (36)
20(18)
ND(1800)
TREATED SOLID
520 (50)
NA
NA
NA
560(1)
1300(2)
0.02 (0.01 )
0.31 (0.04)
60 (50)
130(100)
440(100) 7*6
340(100)
250(100)
ND (0.0005)
ND (0.001)
0.0027 (0.001 )
ND (0.001)
ND (0.002)
ND (0.3)
ND(0.1)
0.1 (0.07) -
0.16(0.03)
ND (3.4)
ND (0.0001)
ND (0.0002)
0.0005 (0.0002)
0.001 5 (0.0001 )
ND (0.057)
NA = Not Available
ND = Not Detected
( ) = Detection Level
F-37
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Analytical Results for
API Separator Bottom Sludge Extraction
API Separator Bottom Sludge #2
MATERIAL BALANCE:
Oil & Grease
Oil
Water
Solids
TOTAL METALS
Chromium
Lead
TCLP METALS
Chromium
Lead
TOTAL PURGEABLE ORGANICS
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene, m
Xylene, o & p
TCLP PURGEABLE ORGANICS
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene, m
Xylene, o & p
TOTAL PNAs AND PHENOLS
Anthracene
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenols
TCLP PNAs AND PHENOLS
Anthracene
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenols
UNITS
mg/kg
wt.%
wt.%
wt.%
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/L
mg/L
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
FEED
NA
11.1
44.5
43.8
68(1)
110(4)
4600 (1 300)
ND (2500)
11000(2500)
42000 (2500)
14000(5100)
ND (24)
ND (656)
62 (37)
510(19)
ND(1900)
TREATED SOLID
740 (50)
NA
NA
NA
200 (3)
280(10)
0.33 (0.03)
0.2(0.1)
80 (50)
170(100)
360(100)
560(100)
720 (200)
0.0015(0.0005)
ND (0.001)
0.0032 (0.001 )
0.0014(0.001)
ND (0.002)
ND (0.04)
ND (0.3)
0.15(0.04)
0.55 (0.02)
ND(2)
ND (0.0009)
ND (0.001)
0.002 (0.002)
0.004(0.001)
ND (0.010)
NA = Not Available
ND = Not Detected
( ) = Detection Level
F-38
-------
Appendix G
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS
Table G-1 ANOVA for solvent extraction and fluidized bed
incineration.
Table G-2 ANOVA for fluidized bed incineration and stabilization.
G-1
-------
Table 6-1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT K [REPORT 2]
Analysis of Variance for Xylene
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
1
14
15
Sum of
Squares
0.1178
5.9806
6.0984
Mean Squares
0.1178
0.4272
0.2757
Critical
F Value
4.6
Analysis of Variance for Naphthalene
F Ratio
339.7616
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
1
13
14
Sum of
Squares
45.1891
1 .7289
46.9181
Mean Squares
45.1891
0.1330
Critical
F Value
4.67
G-2
-------
Table G-2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Antimony
Comparison of All Four Treatments
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
3
11
14
Sum of
Squares
3.3051
0.1381
3.4432
Mean Squares F Ratio
1.1017 87.7774
0.0126
Critical
F Value
3. 59
There is a significant difference between the four treatments; fluidized bed incineration
is best.
Analysis of Variance for Antimony
Comparison of Cement, Kiln Dust, and Lime and Fly Ash Stabilization
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
26.4969 5.14
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
2
6
8
0.0487
0.0053
0.0520
0.0233
0.0009
There is a significant difference between cement, kiln dust, and Lime and
fly ash stabilization treatments.
G-3
-------
Table G-2 [Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Antimony
Comparison Between Cement end Kiln Dust Stabilization
Degrees Sun of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Meen Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1
4
5
0.0317
0.0053
0.0370
0.0317 24.0156
0.0013
7.71
There is a significant difference between the cement stabilization and kiln dust
stabilization treatments; cement stabilization treatment is better than kiln
dust stabilization treatment.
Analysis of Variance for Antimony
Comparison Between Cement and Lime end Fly Ash Stabilization
Cement stabilization and lime and fly ash stabilization cannot be compared by AN OVA
because eech data set has a standard deviation of zero. Based on judgement, there
is no significant difference between the two treatments.
Analysis of Variance for Antimony
Comparison Between Kiln Dust and Lime and Fly Ash Stabilization
Degrees Sun of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1
4
5
0.0380
0.0053
0.0433
0.0380 26.7641
0.0013
7.71
There is a significant difference between the kiln dust stabilization and lime and
fly ash stabilization treatments; lime and fly ash stabilization treatment is
better than kiln dust stabilization treatment.
G-4
-------
Table G-2 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Arsenic
Comparison of All Four Treatments
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
3.59
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
3
11
14
6.1370 2.0457
0.8664 0.0788
7.0034
S5.9718
There is a significant difference between the four treatments; fluidized bed incineration
i s worst.
Analysis of Variance for Arsenic
Comparison Between Cement and Kiln Dust Stabilization
Cement stabilization and kiln dust stabilization cannot be compared by AN OVA
because each date set has a standard deviation of zero. Based on judgement! there
is no significant difference between the two treatments.
Analysis of Variance for Arsenic
Comparison Between Cement and Lime and Fly Ash Stabilization
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1
4
5
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000 1.0000
0.0000
7.71
There is not a significant difference between the cement stabilization and lime and fly
ash stabilization treatments.
G-5
-------
Table 6-2 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Arsenic
Comparison Between Kiln Dust and Lime and Fly Ash Stabilization
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1
4
5
0.0552
0.0552
0.1103
0.0552
0.0138
4.0000 7.71
There is not a significant difference between the kiln dust stabilization and lime and fly
ash stabilization treatments.
Analysis of Variance for Barium
Comparison of All Four Treatments
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups 3 2.0377 0.6792 58.3837 3.53
Within Groups 11 0.1280 0.0118
Total 14 2.1656
There is a significant difference between the four treatments; Lime and fly ash
stabilization 1s worst.
G-6
-------
TabLe G-2 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Barium
Comparison of Fluidized Bed Incineration, Cement Stabilization, and Kiln Dust Stabilization
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups 2 0.1972 0.0985 7.4507 4.2B
Within Groups 9 0.1191 0.0132
Total 11 0.3163
There is a significant difference between fluidized bed Incineration, cement stabilization,
and kiln dust stabilization treatments.
Analysis of Variance for Barium
Comparison Between FLuidized Bed Incineration and Cement Stabilization
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups 1 0.0114 0.0114 13.3106 4.74
Within Groups 7 0.0060 0.0009
Totel 8 0.0174
There is a significant difference between the fluidized bed Incineration and cement
stabilization treatments; fluidized bed Incineration treatment is better than
cement stabilization treatment.
G-7
-------
Table 6-2 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Barium
Comparison Between Fluidized Bed Incineration and Kiln Dust Stabilization
Degrees Sun of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups 1 0.0043 0.0043 2.9569 4.10
Within Groups 10 0.0145 0.0015
Total 11 0.0188
There is not a significant difference between the fluidized bed incineration and kiln
dust stabilization treatments.
Analysis of Variance for Barium
Comparison Between Cement and Kiln Dust Stabilization
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups 1 0.1251 0.1251 1517.6621 7.71
Within Groups 4 0.0003 0.0001
Total 5 0.1255
There 1s a significant difference between the cement stabilization and kiln dust
stabilization treatments; kiln dust stabilization treatment 1s better than cement
stabilization treatment.
G-8
-------
Table G-2 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Chromium (total)
Comparison of All Four Treatments
Degrees Sun of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups 3 0.9069 0.3023 74.6522 3.59
Within Groups 11 0.0445 0.0040
Total 14 0.9514
There is a significant difference between the four treatments; lime and fly ash
stabilization is best.
Analysis of Variance for Chromium (total)
Comparison of Fluidized Bed Incineration, Cement Stabilization, and Kiln Dust Stabilization
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squeres Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups 2 0.0435 0.0218 5.1559 4.26
Within Groups 9 0.0380 0.0042
Total 11 0.0813
There is a significant difference between fluidized bed incineration, cement stabilization,
and kiln dust stabilization treatments.
G-9
-------
Table G-2 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Chromium [total]
Comparison Between Fluidized Bed Incineration and Cement Stabilization
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1
7
8
0.0741
0.8984
0.3725
0.0741
0.0426
1.7385 5.59
There is not a significant difference between the fluidized bed incineration and cement
stabilization treatments.
Analysis of Variance for Chromium [total]
Comparison Between Fluidized Bed Incineration and Kiln Dust Stabilization
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups 1 0.8596 0.2596 6.8641 4.96
Within Groups 10 0.3782 0.0378
Total 11 0.6378
There is a significant difference the between fluidized bad incineration and kiln
dust stabilization treatments; kiln dust stabilization treatment is better than
fluidized bed incineration treatment.
G-10
-------
Table 6-2 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Chromium (total)
Comparison Between Cement and Kiln Dust Stabilization
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
1
4
5
Sum of
Squa res
0.0095
0.0033
0.0128
Mean Squares
0.0095
0.0008
F Ratio
11.6573
Critical
F Value
7.71
There is a significant difference between the cement stabilization and kiln dust
stabilization treatments; kiln dust stabilization treatment 1s better than cement
stabilization treatment.
Analysis of Variance for Copper
Comparison of All Four Treatments
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Totel
Degrees
of freedom
3
11
14
Sum of
Squares Mean Squares F Ratio
9.0755 3.0252 14.3052
2.3262 0.2115
11 .4017
Critical
F Value
3.59
There is a significant difference between the four treatments; fluidlzed bed Incineration
is worst.
G-ll
-------
Table 6-2 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Copper
Comparison of Cement, Kiln Dust, and Lime and Fly Ash Stabilization
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
2
6
8
Sum of
Squa res
0.1413
2.3262
2.4675
Mean Squares F Ratio
0.0707 0.1823
0.3877
Critical
F Value
5.14
There is not a significant difference between cement, kiln dust, and lime and fly
ash stabilization treatments.
Anelysis of Variance for Nickel
Comparison of All Four Treatments
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
3
11
14
Sun of
Squeres
0.0506
0.1454
0.1962
Mean Squares
0.0169
0.0132
F Ratio
1.2800
Critical
F Value
3.59
There is not a significant difference between the four treatments.
Source
Analysis of Veriance for Selenium
Comparison of All Four Treatments
Degrees
of freedom
Sum of
Squa res
Mean Squares F Ratio
Critical
F Value
Between Groups 3
Within Groups 11
Total 14
5.5723
2.9624
8.5347
1.8574
0.2693
6.8970
3.59
There is a significant difference between the four treatment; fluidized bed Incineration
is worst.
G-12
-------
Table G-2 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Selenium
Comparison of Cement, Kiln Dust, and Lime and Fly Ash Stabilization
Source
Degrees Sum of Critical
of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
2
6
8
8.0015
0.0643
S.D657
1 .0007
0.0107
93.4250
5.14
There is a significant difference between cement, kiln dust, and lime and fly ash
stabilization treatments.
Analysis of Variance for Selenium
Comparison Between Cement and Kiln Dust Stabilization
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
1
4
5
Sum of
Squares
0.7102
0.0172
0.7274
Mean Squares F Ratio
0.710S 165.3701
0.0043
Critical
F Value
7.71
There is a significant difference between the cement stabilization and kiln dust
stabilization treatments; cement stabilization treatment is better than kiln dust
stabilization treatment.
G-13
-------
Table G-2 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Selenium
Comparison Between Cement and Lime and Fly Ash Stabilization
Degrees Sun of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1
4
5
0.0009
0.0000
0.0008
0.0002 28.2647
0.0000
7.71
There is a significant difference between the cement stabilization and lime and fly
ash stabilization treatments; Lime and fly ash stabilization treatment is better
than cement stabilization treatment.
Analysis of Variance for Selenium
Comparison Between Kiln Dust and Lime and Fly Ash Stabilization
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
7.71
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1
4
5
1.9753
0.0531
2.0284
1.9753 148.8405
0.0133
There is a significant difference between the kiln dust stabilization and lime and
fly ash stabilization treatments; lime and fly ash stabilization treatment Is
better than kiln dust stabilization treatment.
G-14
-------
Table G-2 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Vanadium
Comparison of All Four Treatments
Source
Degrees
of freedom
Sum of
Squares
Mean Squares F Ratio
Critical
F Value
Between Groups 3 88.2776 7.4259 720.1425 3.59
Within Groups 11 0.1134 0.0103
Total 14 22.3910
There is a significant difference between the four treatments; lime and fly ash
stabilization is best.
Analysis of Variance for Vanadium
Comparison of Fluldized Bed Incineration, Cement Stabilization, and Kiln Dust Stabilization
Degrees Sum of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Totel
2
9
11
9.9386
1.5682
11.5068
4.9693
0.1742
28.5188
4.26
There is a significant difference between fluidized bed incineration, cement stabilization,
and kiln dust stabilization treatments.
G-15
-------
Table G-2 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS TOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Vanadium
Comparison Between Fluidized Bed Incineration and Cement Stabilization
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
1
10
11
Sum of
Squa res
0.2596
0.3792
0.6378
Mean Squares F Ratio
0.2596 6.8841
0.0376
CM ti cal
F Value
4.96
There is a significant difference between the fluidlzed bed Incineration and cement
stabilization treatments; cement stabilization treatment Is better than fluidlzed
bed Incineration treatment.
Analysis of Variance for Vanadium
Comparison Between Fluidized Bed Incineration and Kiln Dust Stabilization
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
1
7
8
Sum of
Squares
0.0741
0.2984
0.3725
Mean Squares F Ratio
0.0741 1.7385
0.0426
Critical
F Value
5.59
There is not a significant difference between the fluidlzed bed Incineration and kiln
dust stabilization treatments.
G-16
-------
Table G-2 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Vanadium
Comparison Between Cement and Kiln Dust Stabilization
Source
Between Groups
Wi thin Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
1
4
5
Sum of
Squa res
0.0620
0.0200
0.0820
Mean Squares F Ratio
0.0820 12.4054
0.0050
Critical
F Value
7.71
There is a significant difference between the cement stabilization and kiln dust
stabilization treatments; cement stabilization treatment Is better than kiln dust
stabilization treatment.
Analysis of Variance for Zinc
Comparison of All Four Treatments
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
3
11
14
Sum of
Squares
2.5471
0.9274
3.4745
Mean Squares
0.8490
O.OS43
F Ratio
10.0711
Critical
F Value
3.5S
There is a significant difference between the four treatments; fluldized bed incineration
1 s worst.
G-17
-------
Table G-2 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Zinc
Comparison of Cement, Kiln Dust, and Lime and Fly Ash Stabilization
Source
Between Groups
Wlthl n Groups
Total
Degrees
of freedom
2
6
8
Sum of
Squares
0.0026
0.0032
0.0057
Mean Squares F Ratio
0.0013 2.4124
0.0005
Critical
F Value
5.14
There is not a significant difference between cement, kiln dust, and lime and fly ash
stabilization treatments.
G-18
-------
Appendix H
DETECTION LIMITS FOR UNTREATED WASTES
Table 6-2: Detection limits for the dewatered DAF float
samples - K048.
Table 3-1: Detection limits for the slop oil emulsion solids
samples - K049.
Table 6-7: Detection limits for the API separator sludge
samples - K051.
Table 3-3: Detection limits for the leaded tank bottoms
samples - K052.
Page
H-2
H-9
H-15
H-22
H-l
-------
TABLE 6-21 DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE DENATEREO OAF FLOAT MIXTURE SAMPLES
33
I
to
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
CONSTITUENTS
Ace tonlt rile
Acroleln
Ac rylonl trite
Benzene
BmodichloroM thane
BroaiMM thane
Carbon tatrachlorlde
Carbon dlsulflde
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-1 ,3-butad1ene
ChlorodlbrMOMthane
Chloroa thane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chlorofom
Chloroaa thane
3-Chloropropene
1 ,2-01bro«o-3-chloropropane
1 1 2-01 broaioe thane
DlbroBOMthane
Trana-1 ,4-d1chloro-2-butene
Dlchlorodlfluorom thane
1 ,1-Olchloroethane
1 ,2-Olchloroethane
1 ,1-Dlchloroethylena
Trana-1 ,2-dlchloroethane
1 ,2-Olchloropropane
Trans-1 ,3-dlchloropropene
cls-1 ,3-01chloropropene
1 ,4-Oloxane
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl mthacrylate
lodoaethane
Detection
LlHlt
(PP-)
70
700
70
14
14
14
14
KB
14
14
14
14
NB
14
14
14
14
14
14
70
14
14
14
14
14
35
35
35
NA
700
14
14
-------
TABLE 6-2: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE DEWATERED DAF FLOAT MIXTURE SAMPLES (Continued)
EC
OJ
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
48
50
**
*»
»*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Isobutyl alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Mthacrylate
Methyl •ethanesulfonate
Methylacrylonitrile
Me thy lane chloride
Pyridine
1 §1 i1 »2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrechloroethena
TatrachLoroe thane
Toluene
TribroMwe thane
1 ,1 ,1-THchloroethene
1 (1 ,2— Trichloroethane
Trlchloroethene
TrlchloroMonof luoromthane
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl chloride
Acetone
Allyl alcohol
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene oxide
2-Haxanone
Malononitrila
4-Methy l-2-pentenone
2-Propyn-1-ol
Styrene
TrichloroMethenethiol
Vinyl acetate
Xylene (total)
Detection
L1nit
(PP")
14
70
14
100
70
70
200
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
35
14
70
NA
14
NA
70
NA
70
NA
14
NA
14
14
-------
TABLE 6-2: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE DWATERED OAF FLOAT MIXTURE SAMPLES (Continued)
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SBUVOLATILE
51
62
63
54
56
58
57
58
68
BO
61
Be
63
64
65
66
67
68
68
70
71
72
73
74
76
76
77
78
78
80
81
82
CONSTITUENTS
Acenap the Lena
Acanapthana
Acatopttanona
2-Acaty leal nof luorena
4-A»1nob1phenyl
Anlllna
Anthracene
Arajilta
Benz{ a) anthracene
Banzanathlol
Banzidlne
Benzol a) pyrene
Banzo(b) fluoran thane
Benzol g,h,1)pary Lane
Banzof klriuorantnena
p-BanzoquI none
B1a(2-chloroathoxy]ethane
81 a(2-chloroethyl) ether
B1 •( 2-ch lorol aop ropy I ) athe r
B1a(2-athylhaxyl)phthalate
4-BroMphany I phenyl ether
Butyl banzyl phtnelate
2-sac-Buty L-4tB-d1 nl trophenol
p-Chloroenl Una
Chlorobanzl lata
p-Chloro-m-creeol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloroproplonltrlle
Chrysene
ortho-Creeol
para-Cresol
Detection
Llait
(PP«)
20
20
20
NA
20
50
20
NA
20
NA
20
20
NA
50
20
NA
20
20
20
20
100
20
NA
50
NB
50
20
20
NA
20
20
20
-------
TABLE 6-2: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE DEWATERED DAF FLOAT MIXTURE SAMPLES (Continued)
PS
I
Ln
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILE
83
B4
86
86
87
88
88
80
81
82
83
84
95
86
87
88
88
100
101
108
103
104
106
106
107
108
108
110
111
112
113
114
115
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
01 benz( a ,h) anthracene
D1benzo(a,e)pyrene
01 benzol a , 1 ) py rane
a-Olchlorobenzene
D-Dlchlorobanzena
p-Olchlorobenzene
3,3'-01chlorobenz1d1ne
2, 4-01 chloro phenol
2,8-Oichlorophenol
Dlethyl phthalate
3t3'-OlMthoxybanz1d1ne
p-01 Mthy laai noazobenzene
3 ,3 '-DlMthy Ibanzidine
2.4-DlMthylphanol
DlMthy 1 phthalata
Dl-n-tutyl phthalata
1 ,4-01 nitrobenzene
4,6-Olnl tro— o-craaol
2,4-Olnltrophenol
2,4-Oini tro toluene
2,6-Dlnltrotoluene
Dl-n-octyl phthalata
Dl-n-propy Lnl troaaailna
Dlph any laalna
1 ,2-01phanylhydraz1ne
F I uo ran thane
Fluorane
Hexach lorobanzene
Haxach lo robutad 1 ane
Haxach 1 orocyc lopentadl ene
Hexach I o roe thane
Haxach loroph ane
Haxach loropropane
Detection
Limit
(PP-)
20
NA
NA
20
20
20
100
60
60
20
100
50
NA
SO
20
20
100
500
500
500
100
20
50
20
20
20
20
100
100
100
100
NA
100
-------
TABLE 8-2: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE OEWATEREO DAF FLOAT MIXTURE SAMPLES (Continued)
35
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILE
118
117
118
118
120
121
122
123
124
126
128
127
128
128
130
131
132
133
134
136
136
137
138
138
140
141
142
143
144
146
147
148
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
Indanol 1 ,2 ,3-cd ) py pane
laoaafrola
MathapyrUene
3-Mathy Lcholanthrene
4,4'-Methylenat>iB(2-chloroani Una)
Naphthalana
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthyla*1ne
2-Naphthylaaine
p-Mitro aniline
Nitrobenzene
4-Nltrophanol
N-Nltroeodi-n-buty lamina
N-*1troeod1ethylee)1ne
N-N1 troaodl Mthy laail ne
N-NU roacM thy lathy la«1 na
N-N1 troaoao rphol 1 na
N-Mltroaopi perl dine
N-Nltrosopyrrolldine
6-Ni t ro-o-tolul d 1 na
Pan tech lorobanzana
Pantach loroathana
Pantach loroni trobanzana
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetln
Phananthrana
Phenol
2-Picoline
Prona«1da
Pyrana
Safrole
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Detection
Li ait
(PP-)
50
NA
NB
NA
NA
20
20
20
20
100
60
100
50
100
200
NA
100
100
100
NA
100
100
100
600
20
20
20
200
100
20
NB
50
-------
TABLE 6-2: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE DEWATERED OAF FLOAT MIXTURE SAMPLES (Continued)
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILE
148
150
161
168
•*
**
**
••
**
**
**
••
**
**
*•
**
**
METALS
164
166
15B
157
168
168
168
160
161
162
163
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
1 r2,4-Tr1chlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trlchlorophenol
Bi4r6— Trlchloro phenol
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
4-Chlorophanyl phenyl ether
Dlbenzofuran
D1benzo(a|h)pyrene
7 ,12-OlM thy lbenz( a) anthracene
alpha, alphe-D1«ethylphenethyla«1ne
laophorona
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-NltromlUne
3-Nltroanlllne
2-N1trophenol
N-N1 troaodl pheny leal ne
AntlMiny
Arsenic
Be HIM
BeryllliM
Cadalu*
ChromlUMt haxavalent
Chroulu*, total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Detection
LI nit
(PP-)
100
50
100
100
500
50
50
20
NA
50
100
20
20
100
100
100
20
(PP»)
6
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.3
0.05
0.8
1
5
0.02
2
-------
TABLE 6-2: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE DEWATERED DAF FLOAT MIXTURE SAMPLES (Continued)
Detection
BOAT CONSTITUENT L1«it
METALS (Continued) [ppn]
0.3
0.9
0.2
2
0.6
20
6
1
3
20
Q aO
29
B
50
169 TOTAL CYANIDE (ppn) 0.1
164
185
166
167
166
**
**
**
**
**
**
»*
»*
**
Seleniun
Silver
The I HUB
VanadiiM
Zinc
AlUNinuM
CalciUM
Cobalt
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Tin
171 SULFIDE (POM) 50
NB = The compound was searched using an NBS library database of 42,000 compounds.
NA = The standard is not available; the compound MBS searched using an NBS library
database of 42,000 compounds.
** = This constituent Is not on the list of constituents in the GENERIC QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS PROGRAM ("BOAT"),
EPA/53Q-SW-B7-011, March 1987. It Is a ground-water monitoring constituent as
listed in Appendix IX, Page 26639, of the FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 51, No. 142.
-------
TABLE 3-11 DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE SLOP OIL EMULSION SOLIDS SAMPLES - K04S
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2B
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
38
37
38
39
40
Aoatonltrlla
Acrolaln
AcrylonltrUa
Benzene
BroBodl chloroM thane
Bronoia thane
Carbon tetraehlorlde
Carbon d1sul.f1 da
Chlorobanzena
2-Chtoro-1 ,3-outadlana
Chlorodi broMoaathana
Chl oroathana
2-Chloroathyl vinyl ether
Chlorofor*
Chlorom thane
3-Chloropropene
1 (2-01 broBo-3-cnl oropropana
1 f2-01broB)oathana
DlbroaoMthana
Trana-1 ,4-dl ch I o ro-fi-outena
D1 chlorodl f luoroMthana
1 f1-01 ch I o roe thane
1 ,2-01 ohloroe thane
1, 1-01 chloroa thy lana
Trana-1 ,2-dl chl oroa thane
1 ,2-01 chloropropana
Trana-1 ,3-dlchloropropene
c1 e-1 ,3-01 chloropropana
1 ,4-01oxane
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl a* theory late
lodoae thane
laobutyl alcohol
Methyl ethyl katona
Methyl »e theory late
Methyl •ethanaaulfonate
Methylacrylonltrlle
Me thy lane chloride
Pyrldlna
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-Tetrachloroathana
Da faction
Llalt
(PP»)
1000
1000
1000
50
50
100
50
50
50
1000
50
100
100
50
100
1000
1000
50
50
50
1000
100
50
50
50
50
50
50
2000
1000
1000
500
2000
100
1000
NO
1000
50
4000
50
H-9
-------
TABLE 3-1I DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE SLOP OIL EMULSION SOLIDS SAMPLES - K049 (Continued)
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILES
41
42
43
44
45
48
47
48
48
50
**
**
*•
*•
*»
**
•M-
( Continued)
1 »1 ,2t2-Tetrachloroathane
Tatrachloroathana
Toluana
TrlbroaicMathana
1 ,1 ,1-Trlchloroathana
1 11 ,2-TMchloroethana
Trlchloroathana
TrlchloroMonofluoroMthana
1 ,2,3-Trlchloropropana
Vinyl chlorlda
Aoetona
Ethyl banzana
2-Haxanona
4-Methy l-2-pantanona
Sty ran a
Vinyl acatata
Xylana(total]
SEMIVOLATILES
51
52
53
54
55
58
57
58
59
80
81
82
63
64
65
68
87
68
Acanaphthalana
Aoanaphthana
Acatophanona
2-AoatylaBlnofluorana
4-A»1noto1phenyl
Anlllna
Anthracana
Araalta
Banz ( a ] anth racana
Banana thlol
Banzldlna
Banzo(a)pyrana
Banzo(b)fluoran thane
BanzoIOfht Dparylana
Banzo( k) f luoranthana
p-Banzoqulnona
B1a(2-chloroBathoxy)athana
B1i(2-chloroathyl)»thar
Datactlon
LlHlt
(PP-)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
100
100
50
100
100
50
100
50
(PP-)
40
40
40
80
40
40
40
NA
40
NO
200
40
40
40
40
NO
40
40
H-10
-------
TABLE 3-1 < DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE SLOP OIL EMULSION SOLIDS SAMPLES - K048 (Contlnuad)
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILES (Contlnuad)
89
70
71
72
73
74
75
78
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
88
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
98
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
108
107
Bl8(2-chlorol80pj>opyl)athar
B1 8(2-8 thy lhaxy I ) phthalata
4-BroB)Ophanyl phanyl athar
Butyl banzyl phthalata
2-aec-Butyl-4f8-d1 nl trophenol
p-Chloroanl Una
Chlorobanzl late
p-Chloro-e>-creeol
2-Chloronaphthalane
2-Chlorophanol
3-Chloroproplonl tr1 la
Chryaana
ortho-Creeol
para-Creaol
D1benz[e,h]anthracane
D1benzo(a,e)pyrane
D1banzo(a,1]pyrane
mr-D 1 ch I o roba nz ana
o-OI chl orobenzana
p-Olchlorobanzana
3 ,3'-D1 chlorobanzl dine
2,4-Olchlorophenol
2 ,8-01 chl oro phenol
01 ethyl phthalata
3,3'-OlMthoxybanz1d1ne
p-01 Mthy laail noazobanzene
3,3'-D1»etnylbenz1d1ne
2 ,4-01 Mthy I phenol
DlMthyl phthelate
Dl-n-butyl phthalata
1 ,4-01 nl trobanzane
4,8-01 nl tro-o-creeol
2, 4-01 nltro phenol
2,4-01 n1 trotoluane
2,6-01 nl trotoluane
Dl-n-octyl phthalata
Dl-n-propylnl troaaalne
Dlphenylaeilne
1 ,2-01 phenylhydrazlna
Detection
LI Bit
(PP-)
40
40
40
40
200
40
NA
40
40
40
NA
40
40
40
40
NS
NA
40
40
40
80
40
NO
40
40
80
NO
40
40
40
200
200
200
40
40
40
40
BO
200
H-ll
-------
TABLE 3-1: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE SLOP OIL EMULSION SOLIDS SAMPLES - K049 (Continued)
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
108
109
110
111
118
113
114
115
118
117
118
119
120
181
122
123
124
125
128
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
148
Fluoranthene
Fluorana
Hexechlorobenzene
Haxachlorobutadlana
Hexachtorocyclopantadlana
Haxachloroathana
Hexachlorophane
Haxachloropropana
IndenoM ,2,3-ed)pyrene
laoaafrola
Mathapyrllana
3-Mathylcholanthrane
4t4l-Methylanab1 e(2-chtoroan1 Una]
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqu1none
1-Naphthylaalne
2-Naphthylaailna
p-Nltroanlllna
Nitrobenzene
4-N1trophenol
N-N1 troaodl-n-buty leal na
N-NltroaodlethyleajIne
N-N1 troaodlMthylMlna
N-N1 1 roeo»ethy lathy leal na
M-N1 troeoiorphoUna
N-NltraaopI perl dine
N-N1 troaopy rroll dl ne
5-N1 1 ro-o-tol ul dl na
Pentachlorobanzana
Pantachloroethene
Pentaohloronl trobanzene
Pantachlorophenol
Phaneeatln
Phenenthrane
Phenol
2-P1col1ne
Pronaajl de
Pyrane
Raaorclnol
Detection
LlBlIt
(PP-)
40
40
40
40
40
40
NA
NO
40
80
NS
80
80
40
NA
200
200
200
40
200
NO
NO
40
40
80
40
200
80
ND
NA
400
200
80
40
40
40
ND
40
NA
H-12
-------
TABLE 3-11 DETECTION LIMITS FOB THE SLOP OIL EMULSION SOLIDS SAMPLES - K049 (Continued)
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILES { Continued)
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
**
*»
**
**
**
»»
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
METALS
154
155
156
157
158
159
181
182
183
184
185
168
187
188
189
Safrola
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrechlorobenzene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophanol
1 ,2,4-Trlchlorobenzene
2 ,4,5-Trlchloro phenol
2,4,8-Trlchlorophenol
TrlB(2,3-d1broM>propyl) phoaphate
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Dlbenzofuran
D1benzo(a,h)pyrane
7,12-OlMthylbenz(e)enthracene
alpha, elphe-DlMthylphene thy iBBlna
Isophorone
Malonltrlla
2-Methylnaphthelene
2-N1troan1l1na
3-N1troen1Une
2-N1trophenol
N-N1 troaodl phenyleelne
Antlanny
Arsenic
Berluej
BerylUuei
CadeluB
ChroiluB, totel
Copper
Leed
Mercury
Nickel
Selenlua
Silver
Thallium
Venedlm
21 nc
Detect 1 on
LlMlt
(PP-)
200
SO
NO
50
100
40
NO
200
40
40
40
NS
NO
NS
40
NA
40
200
200
400
40
(PP-)
3.2
2.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.8
5.1
0.2
1.1
5.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.2
H-13
-------
TABLE 3-1: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE SLOP OIL EMULSION SOLIDS SAMPLES - K048 (Continued)
Detection
BOAT CONSTITUENT LI Bit
INORGANICS (ppari
170 Total Cyanide 0.5
171 Fluoride 1.0
178 Sulflde 0.5
NA = Analyala cannot be done by Mthod 8270 et thla tlw due to Inadequate
racoverlea In laboratory QA/QC anelyaea.
ND - Not detected, eatlaated detection Halt hea not been determined.
NS = The standard la not available; the compound was aeerched using en NB8 library
detabaae of 48,000 coeipounda.
++ = Total xylene la the total raault for ortho-Xylane, Mta-Xylane, end pera-Xylane
•1th CAB nuibera 85-47-8, 108-38-3, and 108-48-3, respectively.
•• = Thla constituent IB not on the Hat of constituents In the GENERIC QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS PROGRAM ("BOAT"],
EPA/530-SW-B7-011, Merch 1887. It la a ground-water Monitoring constituent as
listed In Appendix IX, Pege 88838, of the FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 51, No. 148.
H-14
-------
TABLE 6-7: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE API SEPARATOR SLUDGE SAMPLES
EC
I
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE
1
2
3
4
5
B
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
CONSTITUENTS
Acetonltrlle
Acrolaln
Acrylonltrila
Banzana
BroBodlchloroM thane
Bromwethene
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon dlsulfide
Chloro benzene
a-Chloro-1 ,3-butadiena
ChlorodtbroeioM thane
Chloroethene
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloroa* thane
3-Chloro propane
1 ,8-01broa)O-3-chloro pro pane
1,2-Olbroaoethene
DlbrowNM thane
Trana-1 ,4-dichloro-2-butane
DIchlorodlfluorcMM thane
1,1-Oichloroe thane
1 ,2-0 ichloroa thane
1,1-Olchloroe thy lane
Trana-1 ,2-dlchloroe thane
1,2-Olchloropropana
Trana-1 ,3-dlchloropropene
cia-1,3-01chloropropene
1,4-Otoxana
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl Mthacrylete
lodoan thane
Detection
LlMlt
(PP-)
70
700
70
14
14
14
14
NB
14
14
14
14
NB
14
14
14
14
14
14
70
14
14
14
14
14
35
35
35
NA
700
14
14
-------
TABLE 6-7: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE API SEPARATOR SLUDGE SAMPLES (Continued]
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
33
34
36
38
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
**
**
**
*»
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
leobutyl alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl •ethacrylate
Methyl •ethaneeulfonete
Methylacrylonltrile
Mathylane chloride
Pyrldlne
1 (1 11 ,2-Tetrachloroathane
1 r1 ,2 ,2-Tetrachloroathane
Tat rach loroethene
Toluene
TrlbroMOMe thane
1 ,1,1-Trlchloroethane
1 ,1 t2-Tr1chloroathane
Trlchloroethene
TrichloroBtmof luocoae thane
1 ,2,3-Trlchloropropane
Vinyl chloride
Acetone
Ally I alcohol
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene oxide
2-Hexanone
HalononUrHa
4-Methy l-8-pentanone
2-Propyn-^-ol
Styrene
TrichloroMethanethlol
Vinyl acetate
Xylene (total)
Detection
Limit
(PP-)
14
70
14
100
70
70
200
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
35
14
70
NA
14
NA
70
NA
70
NA
14
NA
14
14
-------
TABLE 8-7: DETECTION LIMITS TOR THE API SEPARATOR SLUDGE SAMPLES (Continued)
I
I—'
—1
BOAT CONSTITUENT
8EMIVOLATILE
51
52
53
64
55
SB
57
58
53
60
B1
82
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
78
77
78
79
80
81
82
CONSTITUENTS
Acenapthalene
Ace nap thane
Acetophenone
2- AcatylMlnof luorene
4-Aatnoblphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Araalte
Benz(e)anthracene
Benzene thlol
Benzldlne
Banzo(a)pyrane
Banzo(b)fluoran thane
Benzo(g,h, ilperylena
Banzo(k)fluoran thane
p-BenzoquI none
B1a(2-chLoroethaxy)ethene
BU(2-chloroethy I ] ether
Bia(2-chloro1ao pro py I Jether
Bla(2-athylhexyl)phthalata
4-Braenphenyl phanyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthelata
2-aec-Buty 1-4,6-dl nl tro phenol
p-ChloroanUlna
Chlorobenzllete
p-Ch I o ro-ar-c reeo I
2-Chloronephthelene
2-Chloro phenol
3-Chloroproplonl tr He
Chryaane
ortho-Crasol
pera-Creaol
Detection
LlHlt
(PP-)
20
20
20
NA
20
50
20
NA
20
NA
20
20
NA
50
20
NA
20
20
20
20
100
20
NA
50
NB
50
20
20
NA
20
20
20
-------
TABLE 6-7: DETECTION LIMITS FDR THE API SEPARATOR SLUDGE SAMPLES (Continued)
I
M
00
BOAT CONSTITUENT
8ENIVOLATILE
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
80
91
92
93
94
95
98
87
88
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
D1banz(a,h)anthracane
Oibanzo(a,a)pyrena
D1banzo(a, Opyrene
arO 1 ch lo robanzana
o-Dtchlorobanzane
p-Dlehlorobanzana
3,3'-0
-------
TABLE 6-7: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE API SEPARATOR SLUDGE SAMPLES [Continued)
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILE
118
117
118
119
180
181
188
183
184
125
186
187
188
188
130
131
138
133
134
135
138
137
138
138
140
141
148
143
144
145
147
148
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
Indeno(1l2l3-cd)pyrene
laoaafrota
Mathapyr liana
3-Nathylcholanthrane
4,4l-Mathylanab1a(2-chloraan1lina)
Naphthalene
1,4-Maphthoqulnone
1-NaphthylMina
2-NaphthylMlna
p-NltroanUlne
Nltrobanzana
4-Nitro phenol
N-N1troaod1-n-butylMlne
N-Nttroeodtethyla*ina
N-N1troaodtMthylaKlne
N-NltroaoMthylethylaaine
N-NttroaoMrphollne
N-Nltroaoptparldlna
N-Nitroao pyrrol idine
5-Nltro-o-toluldlna
Pantachlorobanzane
Pentachloroathana
Pentachloronitro benzene
Pentachloro phenol
Phenacatln
Phenanthrane
Phenol
2-P1col1na
Prone* ide
Pyrene
Safrole
1,8,4l5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Detection
L1»it
Ipp-l
50
NA
NB
NA
NA
80
20
80
20
100
50
100
50
100
200
NA
100
100
100
NA
100
100
100
500
20
20
20
200
100
20
NB
50
-------
TABLE 8-7: DETECTION UNITS FDR THE API SEPARATOR SLUDGE SAMPLES (Continued)
EB
NJ
O
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILE
148
150
161
158
*•
•*
**
»«
**
*•
**
**
«•
**
»»
••
•*
METALS
154
155
15S
157
158
159
159
160
161
162
163
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
2,3,4,8-Tatrachloro phenol
1,2,4-Trtchlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichloro phenol
2,4,6-Trichloro phenol
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Dtbenzofuran
D1benzo(a,h)pyrene
7,12-0 tMthylbenz (a) anthracene
alpha, alpha-Die* thy Iphana thy la«1ne
laophorona
2-Mathylnaphthalene
2-NitroanUina
3-N1troan1line
2-Nitrophanol
N-Ni troaodl phany la*ina
Antlaany
Araenic
BariuB
Barylliim
Cadaiiw
Chroailu*, hexavalent
Chnwlua), total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Detection
Liait
(PP-)
100
50
100
100
500
50
50
20
NA
50
100
20
20
100
100
100
20
(PP-)
6
0.3
0.9
0.1
0.3
0.05
0.9
1
5
0.02
2
-------
TABLE 6-7> DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE API SEPARATOR SLUDGE SAMPLES [Continued]
Detection
BOAT CONSTITUENT Li nit
METALS (Continued) [ppm]
0.4
0.9
0.8
2
0.6
20
6
1
3
20
,__( nwiiy«*
-------
TABLE 3-3: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE LEADED TANK BOTTOMS SAMPLES - K052
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
18
13
14
15
18
17
1B
19
80
21
88
83
84
85
86
27
88
89
30
31
38
33
34
35
38
37
38
39
40
CONSTITUENTS
Aoatonltrlla
Acrolaln
Acrylonltrlla
Banzana
Bro*od1 chloroM thane
BroMoaathana
Carbon tatrachlorlda
Carbon dlaulflda
Chlorobanzana
8-Chloro-l (3-butad1 ana
Chlorodl bro»o»athena
Chloroathana
8-Chloroathyl vinyl athar
Chloroform
Chi orom thane
3-Chloropropana
1 ,8-01 broMO-3-chloropropana
1 ,8-01 broMoathane
01 broBOM thane
Trana-1 ,4-d1 chloro-8-butana
01 chlorodl fluoro»e thane
1,1-01 chloroathana
1 ,2-01 chloroathana
1 ,1-01chloroathylana
Trana-1 ,8-dl chloroathana
1 ,2-01chloropropana
Trana-1 ,3-dlchloropropana
cl a-1 ,3-01 chloropropana
1 ,4-01oxana
Ethyl cyanlda
Ethyl Mthacrylate
lodoaathana
laobutyl alcohol
Ma thy I athyl katona
Methyl •ethacrylata
Ma thy I Mthaneaul fonata
Mathylacrylonltrlla
Ma thy I ana chlorlda
Pyrldlna
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-Tatrachloroathana
Da tec t1 on
LlHlt
(PP-)
1000
1000
1000
50
50
100
50
50
50
1000
50
100
100
50
100
1000
1000
50
50
1000
100
50
50
50
50
50
SO
50
2000
1000
1000
50
2000
100
1000
NO
1000
50
4000
50
E-22
-------
TABLE 3-31 DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE LEADED TANK BOTTOMS SAMPLES - KQB2 (Continued)
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILES
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
SO
**
**
*•
**
**
**
•H-
[Continued]
1 f1 »2|2-Tetrechloroethane
Tetrachloroe thane
Toluene
Trl broBOM thane
1 ,1 t1-Tr lento methane
1 f1 »2—Tr1 chloroethane
TMchloroethene
Trl chlorcMon of luoroaw thane
1 ,2,3-Trlchloropropane
Vinyl chloride
Acetone
Ethyl benzene
2-tiaxanona
4-Methy l-2-pentenone
Styrene
Vinyl acetate
Xylanea (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
SB
59
60
61
62
83
64
65
66
87
68
Ace naphthalene
Acanephthene
Acetophenone
2-Acety la»t nof luorane
4-A».1nob1phenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
ArMlte
Benz(e]anthraoene
Benzenethlol
Benzldlne
Benzo(e Ipyrene
Benzo(b]f luoranthane
Benzo(orh,1)perylene
Benzo(k]fluorenthene
p-BenzoquI none
Bta(2-chloro*ethoxy]ethana
B1e(2-chloroethyl]ether
Detection
LlMlt
50
SO
50
SO
50
50
50
50
50
100
100
50
100
100
50
100
50
(PP»)
1.8
1.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
1.8
1.8
NA
1.8
NO
9.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
NO
1.8
1.8
H-23
-------
TABLE 3-3: DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE LEADED TANK BOTTOMS SAMPLES - K052 (Continued)
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued]
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
78
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
88
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
98
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
108
107
B1a[2-chloro1aopropy I ] ether
B1a(2-ethylhexyl]phthalata
4-Broiophenyl phanyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthelata
2-eec-6uty 1-4,8-dl nl tro phenol
p-Chloroan1 Una
Chlorobanzllata
p-Chloro-m-creaol
2-Chloro naphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloroprop1on1tr1le
Chryaene
ortho-Creeol
pere-Creaol
D1benz(e,h)enthrecene
01 benzo(a ,e) py rena
D1benzo(a,1 Ipyrene
•-D1 chl o robe nz ana
o-OI chl orobenzane
p-D 1 ch I o r obe nz e na
3 ,3 '-01 chl oroberul dl na
2(4-01chlorophanol
2 ,8-01 chl oro phenol
01 ethyl phthelate
3 ,3 '-DlMthoxybenzl dl ne
p-01 aa thy la*1 noazobanzane
3,3'-OlMtnylbanz1d1ne
2,4-OlMthylphanol
D1 •ethyl phthalata
D1-n-butyl phthalata
1 ,4-01 nl trobanzana
4,8-01 nl tro-o-craaol
2, 4-01 nl tro phenol
2 ,4-01 nl t rotol uene
2 ,6-01 nl trotol uene
01-n-octyl ph thai eta
Dl-n-propy Inl troaaal na
D1phenylu1na
1 ,2-01 phany I hydrazl ne
Detection
L1»1t
(PP*1
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
9.0
1.8
NA
1.8
1.8
1.8
NA
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
NS
NA
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
NO
1.8
1.8
3.6
NO
1.8
1.8
1.8
9.0
9.0
9.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
3.B
9.0
H-24
-------
TABLE 3-31 DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE LEADED TANK BOTTOMS SAMPLES - K052 [Continued]
BOAT CONSTITUWT
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
118
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
12B
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
138
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
148
147
Ruorenthene
FLuorana
Hexachlorobanzane
Haxachlorobutadl ana
Haxachlorocyclopantadlana
Haxachloroathana
Haxachlorophane
Haxachloropropana
IndanoM ,2,3-cdJpyrene
laoaafrola
Mathapyrllana
3-Methylcholenthrena
4,4l-MatnylanablB(2-chloroanU1na)
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqu1none
1-Naphtnylantne
2-Naphthylwlna
p-NltroanUlne
Nitrobenzene
4-N1tropnenol
N-N1 traaodl-n-buty laail ne
N-NUroaodlethylaMlna
N-N1 troaodl methy la«1 na
N-N1troeo»ethy lathy lamina
N-N1tro80»orphol1ne
N-N1 troaopl parldl na
N-N1 troaopyrroll dine
5-N1 1 ro-o-tol u1 dl na
Pantachlorobanzana
Pantachloroethane
Pentachloronl trobanzane
Pentachlorophanol
Phenacatln
Phenanthrene
Phenol
8-P1col1na
Prona»1 da
Pyrana
Raaorclnol
Safrola
Detection
Llalt
(PP-)
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
NA
NO
1.8
3.8
NS
3.8
3.6
1.8
NA
9.0
9.0
9.0
1.8
9.0
NO
NO
1.8
1.8
3.6
1.8
9.0
3.6
NO
NA
18.0
9.0
3.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
NO
1.8
NA
9.0
K-25
-------
TABLE 3-3: DETECTION LIMITS TOR THE LEADED TANK BOTTOMS SAMPLES - K052 (Contlnuad]
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILES [Contlnuad]
148
149
150
151
152
153
»»
**
**
**
**
*•
**
•*
**
•*
**
**
*»
*•
METALS
154
155
156
157
158
159
181 .
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzana
2,3|4,B-Tatrachlorophanol
1 ,2,4-Trlchlorobenzene
2f4f5-Tr1chloropnenol
2 ,4,8-Trl chlorophanol
Tr1e(2,3-<11bro»opropyl] phoephete
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
4-Chlorophanyl phenyl ether
D1 banzofuran
D1benzo(a,h)pyrene
7,12-OlMthylbenz(e)enthracane
alpha,alpha-OlMthylphenethylMlne
leophorone
Malonltrlla
2-Methylnaphthelene
2-N1troen1Una
3-Nltroanlllna
2-N1tro phenol
N-N1troeod1phenylaBlne
Antimony
Arsanl c
Barium
Beryllium
CadMluH
ChroMluH, total
Copper
Leed
Mercury
Nickel
Selenluei
Silver
Thallium
Vanadl u*
21 nc
Oetectl on
L1*1t
(PP-)
3.6
NO
1.8
9.0
1.8
ND
9.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
NS
ND
NS
1.8
NA
1.8
9.0
9.0
1.8
1.8
(PP-)
3.2
2.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.6
5.1
0.2
1.1
100
6.0
1.0
8.0
0.2
H~26
-------
TABLE 3-31 DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE LEADED TANK BOTTOMS SAMPLES • KOBS (Continued)
Detection
BOAT CONSTITUENT LlMlt
INORGANICS (p|»)
170 Total Cyan!da O.S
171 Fluoride 1.0
172 Sulfl da 0.5
NA = Analyst! cannot ba dona by Mthod 8270 at thle t1*a dua to Inadequate
racovarlaa In laboratory QA/OC analyaaa.
NO = Not datactad, aatlMtad datactlon llMlt haa not baan datanstnad.
NS = The standard la not avallablai tha co*pound was saarchad uatng an NBS library
databaaa of 48fOOO compounds.
++ - Total xylana la tha total raault for ortho-Xylene, Mta-Xylena, and para-Xylanaf
•1th CAS numbers 98-47-6, 108-38-3, and 108-48-3, raapaotlvaly.
** = This constituent la not on tha Hat of constituents In tha GENERIC QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS PROGRAM ("BOAT"),
EPA/530-9W-87-011, March 1887. It la a ground-water Monitoring constituent aa
listed 1n Appendix IX, Page 26639, of tha FEDERAL RE8ISTER, Vol. 51, No. 142.
H-27
-------
Appendix I
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE
Page
List of boiling points for constituents of interest. 1-2
List of bond dissociation energies for constituents
of interest. 1-3
Calculation of thermal conductivity for waste treated
at plant A. 1-4
1-1
-------
Constituent Boiling Points
Constituent Boiling Point (°C) Reference Number
4. Benzene 80-80.1 1
8. Carbon disulfide 46-46.5 1
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane (-30)-(-29.8) 1
226. Ethyl benzene 136.25 1
43. Toluene 110.6-111 1
215. 1,2-Xylene 144 1
216. 1,3-Xylene 139.3 1
217. 1,4-Xylene 137-138 1
52. Acenaphthene 279 1
57. Anthracene 242 1
59. Benz(a)anthracene 435 3
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 310-312 1
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 385 2
80. Chrysene 448 1
81. o-Cresol 191-192 1
82. p-Cresol 201.8-202 1
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol 211.5-212 1
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 340 1
109- Fluorene 295 1
121. Naphthalene 217.9-218 1
141. Phenanthrene 340 1
142. Phenol 182 1
145. Pyrene 404 1
1 = Merck Index (Reference 31).
2 = Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals (Reference 32)
3 = Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (Reference 33).
1-2
-------
Bond Dissociation Energies
Estimated
Constituent Bond Dissociation Energy
4. Benzene 1320
8. Carbon disulfide 279
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane 380
226. Ethyl benzene 1920
43. Toluene 1235
215-217. Xylene 1220
52. Acenaphthene 2570
57. Anthracene 2870
59. Benz(a)anthracene 3580
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 4030
68. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 1290
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 6610
80. Chrysene 3650
81. o-Cresol 1405
82. p-Cresol 1405
87. o-Dimethylbenzene 1325
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1390
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 4340
109. Fluorene 2700
121. Naphthalene 2095
141. Phenanthrene 2900
142. Phenol 1421
145. Pyrene 3240
Sources: Sanderson, R.T., Chemical Bonds and Bond Energy (Reference 35)
Lange's Handbook of Chemistry (Reference 34).
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (Reference 33).
1-3
-------
CALCULATION OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY FOR
WASTE TREATED AT PLANT A
Calculation of weight fractions of K048 and K051 in the total feed stream:
From tables 4-1 through 4-6 in the Amoco OER (Reference 6) the
average K048 and K051 waste feed rates are 53 gpm and 22.3 gpm,
respectively. Since these are the only feeds to the incinerator,
the weight fractions of the wastes feed are calculated as follows:
K048:(100) 53/ (53 + 22.3) = 71* = X K048
K051:(100) 22/ (22.3 + 53) = 29% = X K051
Major constituent analysis:
From sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.2 in the Amoco OER (Reference 6) the
major constituent composition of K048 and K051 is as follows:
Constituent K048 (%) K051 (%)
Water 15 30
Oil 14 15
Sand, Dirt and other soils 70 54
Major constituent composition of the total waste stream:
The composition of the total waste stream is calculated as follows:
% Water = (% water in K048)(X K048) + (% water in K051) (X K051)
= (15X0.71) + (30X.29)
= 20
% Oil = (% oil in K048)(X K048) + (% oil in K05D(X K051)
= (14X0.71) + (15X0.29)
= 14
% Sand & Dirt
= (% Sand & dirt in K048)(X K048) + (% Sand & dirt in
K051XX K051)
= (70)(0.71) + (54)(.29)
= 66
1-4
-------
CALCULATION OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY FOR
WASTE TREATED AT PLANT A (Continued)
Thermal conductivity (k) of major constituents:
From Lange's Handbook of Chemistry (Reference 3*0 the thermal
conductivities (k) for the major constituents are:
k water = 0.329 BTU/hr ft °F
k gasoline = 0.078 BTU/hr ft °F § 86°F
k dry sand = 0.225 BTU/hr ft °F @ 68°F
In the absence of thermal conductivity values for oil and wet sand
and dirt, we have used the thermal conductivity values for gasoline
and dry sand for the purposes of this calculation.
Calculations of the overall waste thermal conductivity:
Using the major constituent compositions of the total waste stream
and the thermal conductivities presented above, the calculations of
the overall waste thermal conductivity is as follows:
k overall = (% water) (k water) + (% oil)(k gasoline) + (% sand
& dirt)(k dry sand)
= (0.20K0.329 BTU/hr ft °F) + (0.14)(0.0?8 BTU/hr ft
°F) + (0.66)(0.225 BTU/hr ft °F)
=0.23 BTU/hr ft °F
1-5
-------
|