Evaluation Of Emission Controls For Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities




Unites States       Office cf Air Qua!.;/
Environmental Protecron  Planning and Standards
A^encv          Research Triangle P?rk NC 27711
—  ——	
                                                EPA-450/3-84-017
                                                Novemcer 1 934
                  Evaluation of
                  Emission Controls
                  For Hazardous Waste
                  I reatment, Storage,
                 And Disposal
                 Facilities
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                       JAN 24 1335

                    LIBRARY
n[%«Tjjjp nv»j»"noMMiiiiT-ri^^--rr i!••!••              	     **t m**m* 11in •• i <^ i fcuji iMhiii i fc |>MaJ___l_jLjJlLL—MlfljlJiL, iH^iriiliBifciSrilfV^Ti-t -3*u''w**'



•mw -^v!>' __ ^	                              ^^^^^^^^    •aatJfiiiJiTilr'r^i n*jg*3fc-*i tf^irit *- •g^r—^^y,^ ^ m |r,t'

-------
                                 EPA-450/3-84-017
 Evaluation of Emission  Controls
for Hazardous Waste Treatment,
 Storage, and Disposal Facilities
                  Prepared bv

              Arthur D Little, Incorporated
            Under EPA Contract No. 68-01 -6~1 60
                  Prepared for:

           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
         Emission Standards and Engineering Division
         Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                 November 1984

-------
                                       DISCLAIMER

This report has been reviewed by the Off ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication as received from Arthur D. Little,  Incorporated.
Approval does not signify that  the contents necessarily  reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation  for use. Copies  of this  report are available  from the  National
Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161

-------
                            TA3LZ OF  CONTENTS



                                                                  Page

I.   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                                       1-1

II.  INTRODUCTION                                                 II-1

     A.   Objective                                               II-l
     3.   Framework for the Analysis                              II-l
     C.   Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal         II-5
          Disposal Facility—Definitions and Descriptions

          1.   Landfills                                          II-5
          2.   Land Treatment                                     II-6
          3.   Surface Impoundments                               II-6
          4.   Storage and Treatment Tanks                        II-7

     D.   Controls/Definitions and Description                    II-7

          1. . Pretraatment Controls                              II-7
          2.   Design and Operating Practices                    II-3
          3.   In-Situ Controls                                  II-3
          4.   Post-Treatment Techniques                         II-S

          References                                             11-10

III.  CONTROLS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS                          III-l

     A.   Surface Impoundment Description                       III-l

          1.   Definition                                       III-l
          2.   Types,  Construction  and Uses                      III-l
          3.   Operation                                        III-2

     3.   Emission Sources and Models                           III-7

          1.   General Description  of Factors  Affseeing         III-7
               Emissions
          2.   Emission Models                                  III-9
          3.   Parameters  That Control  Emissions                 111-16

     C.   Potential Controls                                    111-17

          1.   Introduction                                      I~~-i
          2.    Pretraatmer.t                                     III-I3
          3.    Design and  Operating Practices                   111-13
          4.    In-Situ Controls                                 111-23
          5.    Post-Traatment                                   111-32
                                n

-------
 >--"*~""^"t";7*:-' Vie 3T--•^i^\?-^"'-'>.ty^'c;^--^.V'^A'';f-rt-j>V.v-j'.'r:-yTAin^r^^-V^va^^" »?'
  ^^••i^at^MpgtaM^^
                             TABLE  OF CONTENTS
                                 (continued)

                                                                     Page

V.    LANDFILLS                                                      V-l

      A.    Landfill  Description                                     7-1
      B.    Emission  Sourcas and Models                              V-2

           1 .   General                                             V_2
           2.   Emission Models                                     V-3
           3.   Controlling Paranetars                              V-7

      C.    Controls                                                  V-7

           1 .   Introduction                                         V-7
           2.   Pre treatment                                        V-3
           3.   Design  and  Operating Practices                      V-8
           4.   In-Situ Controls                   .                 V-15
           5.   Post-Traatnent                                      7-16

      D.    Effectiveness                                  '          V-17

           I.   Introduction                                        V-17
           2.   Effectiveness                                        V-17
           3.   Costs                                                V-25
           4.   Cost-Effectiveness                                  V-28

      E.    Suszary                                                   V-2 9

      F.    References                                                7-30

TTT    T * TH  **^ T * "**XT^T^i' "" «  «^T-- -*-»*-*"-^^                                     »r-^  ^
v j. .   L-nJU  i. J.jlAi.lZ..i - r.-iu ^._ J-.-ii                                     V i— i.
     A.   Descripcion                                             71- 1
     3.   Emission Sourcas  and Models                            71-2

          1.    General                                            71-2
          2.    Eaission Models                                   71-2
          3.    Controlling  Parameters                            71-5

     C.   Controls                                                VI -6

          I .    Introduction                                       71-6
          2.    Pretraatsent                                       71-6
          3.    Operating Practices                                71-6
          4.    In-Situ Controls                                   71-7
          5.    Post -Treatment                                     71-7

-------
                      TABLE 0? CONTENTS
                         (continued)
                                                            Page
D.   Effectiveness                                          VI-8

     1.    Introduction                                      VI-8
     2.    Emissions Reduction and Effectiveness             VI-3
     3.    Costs                                             VI-12
     4.    Cost Effectiveness                                VI-12

E.   References                                             VI-I3

-------
                      ^
                             LIST OF TABLES



 TABLE  NO.                                                         page

   1-1      RANGES  Or  EMISSION CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS                 1-3

  II-l      EMISSIONS  FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,  STORAGE      II-4
           AND  DISPOSAL FACILITIES

  II-2      PRETREATMENT PROCESSES AND COSTS                       II-9

 III-l      EVAPORATION  SUPPRESSION BY SHADES                      111-25

 III-2      SPHERE  REQUIREMENT PER UNIT AREA AND  VOLUME            111-29

 III-3      MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS                            111-37

 III-4      TYPICAL VALUES  FOR WASTE PARAMETERS                    111-41

 in-5      SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT SIZES                              111-43

 III-5      SITE AND IMPOUNDMENT  PARAMETER  VALUES                  111-44

 III-7      "TYPICAL"  INDIVIDUAL  k VALUES FOR SURFACE              111-45
           IMPOUNDMENTS  WITHOUT  CONTROLS

 III-S     MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS  (lb-aol/f-2-hr) FOR         111-46
           SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS  WITHOUT CONTROLS

 III-9      EMISSIONS  FROM  SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS WITHOUT            111-47
           CONTROLS (Ib-aoi/hr)

 III-LO    CONTROLLABLE  PARAMETERS  TO  REDUCE EMISSION RATES

 III—1 1    EMISSIONS  REDUCTIONS  .-ND EF"-"rCI"r>rC~'rc O7 TN— "	
          CONTROLS

          UNIT MATERIAL COSTS FOR  SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT            111-57
          EMISSION REDUCTION  IN-3ITU TECHNOLOGIES
           ("Dollars per  Square Foot,  Su-zaer 1984 Dollars)

          ANNUAL COSTS  FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROLS,         III-39
          5/YR (SuEnsr  1984 Dollars)

          RELATIVE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION/MAINTENANCE        111-50
          COSTS

111-15     CAPITAL COSTS FOR COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR POST-          111-63
          TREATMENT  'Su=;er 1934 Dollars)

          COMPARATIVE COST-EFFECTIVENESS  FOR  IN-SITU             111-65

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES
                               (continued)


TABLE NO.                                                        Page

 IV-1     RELATIONSHIPS DESCRIBING EMISSION LOSSES IN TANKS      IV-4

 IV-2     PARAMETERS FOR TANK EMISSION RELATIONSHIPS             IV-5

 IV-3     PARAMETER VALUES FOR TANKS                  -           IV-12

 IV-4     EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND EFFICIENCIES OF CONTROLS      IV-13
          IN TANKS

 IV-5     TOTAL COSTS AND ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR CONTROLS          IV-16
          (Sumner 1984 Dollars)

 IV-6     COMPARATIVE COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR TANK IN-SITU        IV-18
          CONTROLS

  V-l     RANKING OF USCS SOIL TYPES ACCORDING TO PERFORMANCE     V-10
          OF COVER FUNCTION

  7-2     RELATIVE DIFFTSI7ITY AS A FUNCTION OF SOIL POROSITY     V-12

  V-3     UNIT EMISSIONS THROUGH 12-INCH SOIL COVERS FOR          V-18
          SOILS OF DIFFERENT DRY POROSITY

  V-<1     UNIT EMISSIONS THROUGH MEMBRANE CAPS                    V-21

  V-5     ANNUAL EMISSIONS                                        V-24

  v-6     ESTIMATED UNIT COSTS FOR SOME COVER LAYERS              v-26

  V-7     POST-TREATMENT COLLECTION SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES    '     V-27

 VI-I     ANNUAL LOSSES FROM 1 ACRE OF LAND TREATMENT            VI-10
                                 VI 1 1

-------
                               LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO.                                                        ?ase

 H-1          GENERALIZED  FLOW OF VOLATILE EMISSIONS            H-l

III-l          CROSS-SECTION-SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT                III-3

m-2          SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENT CLOSURE KEY STEPS            nr-5

III-3          EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON  EMISSIONS               111-51
               (50th Parcantiie Size Icpoundnent)

III-4          EFFECT OF WIND  SPEED  ON EMISSIONS                111-52
               (50th Parcentiie Size Int
-II-5          EFFECT OF GEOMETRY CHANGE ON EMISSIONS            111-53
               (50th Parcsr.tila Size Impoundment')

III-6          COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF IN-SITU SURFACE             111-66
               IMPOUNDMENT CONTROLS

HI-"          COST -EFFECTIVENESS OF SURFACE IMPCUNDMZNT         III-67
               CONTROLS VERSUS THROUGHPUT
               (50th Percsntila Size)

III-8          CGST-EFFECTIVE:iES3 OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT         111-53
               CONTROLS VERSUS REDUCTION

 ''<"-!          EFFICIE:-rCIES OF IN-SITU CONTROLS FOR TANKS         IV- li

 ~-2          COMPARATIVE COST-EFFZCTIVZ:TZ33 OF IN-3ITU          17-19
               CONTROLS FOR TA^S
 I""-3           COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROLS ON TANKS            17-20
               VERSUS THROUGHPUT

 -V—           CQST-EFFECTIVE:-rE33 OF CONTROLS ON TA.\1-o            IV-2I
               VERSUS REDUCTION

  V-I           RELATIVE DIFFJSIVirr IN SOIL COVERS                V-ll

  V-2           EXAMPLE STANDARD COMPACTION CURVES FOR             V-13
               VARIOUS SOIL TYPES

  V-3           TYPICAL LAYERED COVER SYSTEMS                      v-^2

  V-«l           UNIT EMISSIONS THROUGH L2"  SOIL COVER OVER         T'~-19
               A  LANDFILL

               PERCENT OF VCLATILE5 LOST TO ATMOSPHERE           ?I-S

               REDUCTION EFF.Cir.ICY FOR SUBSURFACE INJECTION

-------
1                                    I.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
                   Volatile  emissions  from hazardous  waste  treatment,  storage  and
              disposal  facilities  (TSDFs)  represent   a major  source  of  organic
              contaminants  entering  the atmosphere.   The  emissions contain  a wide
              range  of  organic  constituents,   which   contribute   to  both  oxidant
              generation  and   also   to  exposure  to   potentially  hazardous  air
              pollutants.  Previous studies prepared for EPA estimate that volatile
              emissions  from  surface  impoundments,  storage  and   treatment  tanks,
              landfills  and  land- treatment  facilities range from 1.6  to  about  5
              million  metric tons per  year.   The  lower estimate  represents  about
              one-third  of  emissions of  some  54 organic chemicals  from  all sources
              including  industry  and transportation.   These  54  chemicals  are  the
              most volatile  and toxic compounds  appearing  in wastes regulated under
              RCRA.

                   Surface   impoundments  are  the  largest   source  of   emissions,
|             providing  about  half of  the total.  Treatment and storage  tanks make
•              up  about one-third  of  the total, with  treatment tanks  contributing
              about 50 times as much as  storage  tanks.   Landfills  produce  about  12%
              and land treatment adds the remainder, about 3%.

                   TSDFs,  particularly  offsite  commercial   operations,   generally
              treat complex  mixtures of  wastes.   The wastes deposited in  landfills
              historically have included a wide  range  of  solvents,  PC3s,  industrial
I             wastes,   sludges   and  still  bottoms,  etc.   The  resultant  emissions
\             integrate  volatile  species  from   all  of  the  wastes  present  in  the
|             landfill.  Impoundments at large industrial facilities often  serve  the
2             entire complex,  receiving  wastes  of  many different  types.   Treatment
1             tanks and land-treatment  facilities,  on  the other hand, are more oftan
^             dedicated to a narrower mix of wastes.
a
i                  The  principal   focus   of   the current  Federal  ar.d  state TSDF
!             regulatory  program  has   been   on  the   prevention   of   groundwater
3             contamination during and  after the  active life  of disposal  facilities,
=i             the prevention of exposure from atmospheric emissions  of the  products
g             of  incineration,  and   the  prevention   of  accidental  exposures   in
3f             general.    There  has been  little  emphasis on  prevention of  exposure
3             from direct emissions of volatile  compounds in  the wastes.  This  study
5|.            examines  the  availability  of  controls   for  four principal  types  of
2             TSDFs and evaluates  the cost and effectiveness  of each.
|
3,                 Four different  classes of controls are examined.   These  are:

*i                  o    pretreatment
                   o    design  and operating practices
                   o    in-situ controls
                   o    nost-treatment  techniaues
                                               1-1

-------
 Pratreatment includes  technical controls and  administrative measures
 (bans)  that,  in essence,  prevent volatile  vastas  from  reaching the
 TSDF in the first place.  These types of controls obviously reduce the
 quantity of organics that  will ultimately be  emitted  fron TSDFs, and
 also reduce the rate of loss since the processes that control emission
 are proportional to waste  concentration.  The  volatile materials that
 have been removed must  be subsequently treated  or disposed, however.

      Design and operating practices and in-situ  techniques can  reduce
 the rate of loss from the facility.   These controls  include approaches
 such as floating covers for impoundments and  tanks,  improved temporary
 and permanent  cover design and moisture control  for'  landfills,  and
 subsurface  injection at  landfills.  The  use  of wind screens  to  lower
 wind speed  over impoundments in order  to  reduce mass  transfer from the
 surface also falls  into this class.

      Finally,   post-treatment  can  be   used   to  catch  emissions  that
 escape  even if  other   approaches are used.   This  type  of  system
 involves some  sort  of   collection system coupled  with' 'a process to
 remove or  destroy  the  volatile  components.   Air-inflated "structures
 have been installed at  several locations including an  aerated surface
 impoundment  (about  0.4  acra).   This   system  includes  a   carbon
 adsorption  unit designed to remove the volatilas  and recycle them to
 the aerated impoundment where  biological  degradation ultimately  will
 destroy the wastes.  Thermal  incinerators could  be used instead of
 adsorption  system to destroy the volatile compounds.

     The effectiveness   of   the  four  types   of  controls  ranges  from
 moderately  effective to very high, potentially 99* or above  (Sae Table
 !-!).    The  values  in   Table   I-L have been   generated   frc=  first
 principles  or  have  been taken  from  experience  at  raiatad  tvpes of
 facilities.   The validity  at  real hazardous  waste TSDFs  is unknown.
 The  values  shown  may  be  overly  optimistic  or,  in   some  cases,
 conservative.   Substantial  experimental  work   is  needed,  as  noted
 further  below,  co verify the estimates  developed and praser.tad herein.

     Pratraatment and posc-traatment can  achieve removal (and in  seme
 cases  destruction)   efficiencies  of  90".    Wasess  removed  but  not
 destroyed must  be  handled  in  additional  steps to pravant emissions
 from  occurring.  Recycling  as  feedstocks, reclaimed  solvents,  etc.
 represents essentially complete control.  The  figures  for oretraatment
 and  post-treatment  ara  quite  reliable  as  the  treatment technologies
have  been  demonstrated  on  process  straams  comparable to  hazardous
wastes.   Inflated covers  as  large  as  six acras  have bean  shown  to be
 practical.   Systems  of  this siza would fit most  existing  facilities.
Future  facilities  could be  designed with  operating units  compatible
with the largest cover then available.

     Pretreatment works  best on wastes  of reasonably  well-defined  and
constant  properties.  The  most  likely  opportunities  ara  at  on-sita
 industrial  plants   and  for  solvent recovery.   On  the  other  hand,
pratraatment may not fit  well  with :ha camplas wastes  going  off-site

-------

                          TABLE  1-1
                 OF  EMISSION CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS
Pretreatment      > 90%  (removal)

Post-Treatment    > 90%  (removal)

Operating Practices and  In-Situ Controls (rate reduction)

     Surface Impoundments

          Rafts/Spheres           '      80 - 90%
          Wind Screens                  10 - 15%

     Tanks (relative  to open tanks)

          Rafts/Spheres                 80%
          Fixed Roof                     90%
          Floating Roof (axtamsl)       90%
          Floating Roof (internal)     >  95%

     Landfills

          Improved Cover  Practices     >  90%

     Land  Treatment

          Subsurface Injection           20  - 90%


Source:  Arthur D. Little, Inc.

-------
 to conmercial TSDFs.  The volume  and  composition  of  the wastes may be
 so variable  chat  pretreatment would noc be  technically feasible, or,
 if feasible, would  cost  more  than the figures used in' this  and other
 studies.

     ^In-situ controls and improved design, and  operating practices are
 promising.   The values shown  in the table are, as noted above,  based
 on theoretical  principles  as  there are  little or no  data  extant  on
 emission  controls  at  these  types  of  facilities.'   Several  of  the
 in-situ technologies  (shades, wind  screens,   for  example)  have  been
 used in similar,  but  distinctly different settings.   The validity  of
 these   techniques  at  hazardous  waste TSDFs   should  be  established.
 Using   improved  soils  and controlling   moisture in   temporary  and
 permanent  cavers  at landfills  can,  according to  the  estimates  made
 below,  reduce  emissions  essentially  to  zero.   In practice, however,
 there  will be  limitations  to  achieving such efficiencies.  There  are
 no  data  available   to   determine  how  closely   this   limit   can  be
 approached.

     Pretreatment  appears to be  a cost effective control relative  to
 the other  types of  controls particularly  if  only small quantities  of
 volatiles  are present in  the wastes.  Pretreatment costs according  to
 another EPA  study  are about  $2-4,000 per megagram  (Mg)($l-2 per pound)
 of volatiles,   fSpivey   et  al.,   1984).   Post-treatment  costs  are
 considerably more.   Tae  treatment  portion  alone  ranges  from about
 $11,000 per^ megagram  removed  ($5  per  pound)  upwards.   The  lower
 figures are  for catalytic incineration  or regenerative adsorption.   If
 the recovered wastes have  market or  fuel value  the costs 'will drop
 substantially.    Thermal   incineration  without   heat   recovery  and
 non-regenerative   carbon  adsorption   cost   upwards  of  333,000  per
 megagran (315  per  pound)  of volatilas  rsaoved.  The collection svstem
 will add to  this  figure,  but for large facilities the added cost'will
 be incremental  to  the treatment case on a pound removed basis.

     The cost  effectiveness of in-situ approaches  can  ootanciallv be
    very  high  for  those  operating   practices  that  require  little
 additional  labor  or equipment.   Moisture  control at  landfills  or
 subsurface injection at  land treatment facilities  are  gccd  examples'
 The added  cost  of these practices is very small relative  co  cha'cost
 of  conventional practices,  so  that the control  potentially achievable
 per  dollar  would  be  high.    On  the  other" hand,   the   absolute
 effectiveness that is achievable in practice  may not attain acceptable
 levels.  In  these cases,  pre- or  post-treatment  may be  used "as  an
 adjunct.

     At  the  conclusion  of the  analysis there  remain many  unanswered
questions generally  as  a  result of the lack  of good  data  character-
izing  emissions or  the  performance of controls"at  hazardous vaste
TSDFs.    It   is  recommended  that  field and  laboratory  programs be
carried out  to  obtain  such  data.   In particular,  data 'describing  the
effectiveness of cover practices  at landfills;  injection,  cultivation,

-------
and  application density  practices  at  land-treatment  facilities; and
rafts, floating spheres and covers at impoundments and tanks should be
developed.

     The  estimates  developed  in  this  report  assume no  losses occur
through  degradative  processes  in  the  TSDF  or  equivalent!/  that
volatilization  and  reaction  are  uncoupled.   This  assumption  is not
valid  in  reality at  these  facilities.   Reducing emission  losses may
change the overall  degradative  efficiency  per  pound  of volatile waste
entering  the  system.   The  direction  of such  change is not  clear  at
this time.  Studies examining this coupling should be carried out both
in the laboratory and field and also through theoretical modeling.
Reference

Spivey,  J.J.,  et  al.,   Preliminary  Assessment  of  Hazardous  Waste
Pretreatment as an Air Pollution Control Technique.   Research Triangle
Institute for the USEPA (February 1984).

-------

A. Objective
5

3
i
|
•
i
1

1
wastes. For each
management facility, sources of
and controls representing di4e^ent
compared. The evaluation
-------
X
Covers
Roots
Wotting Down
Raits
Wimlicreens
Stripping
AtJsoiption
Condensation
Hansler £ llandlinu
I Dust toy \
• Design & Opoiating
('radices
• in situ Treatment
• Post Tifutment
t;;
i./
Sonri:«: Artlmr 0. |,|tt le, In,
TSOFs
-------
, »'. rV*-'^l .-^••J.--'.;,.-
once the wastes have left the process boundary and move either offsite
£C-M,V na2ard°US WaSte di*P°^l portions of the generator's
to the other processes, and are not considered further
in eh * study. Waste piles, containers, and transfer and h
°miC-ad> GCA haS MCiM"d the relative
Table II~1
'083) Ts
soec fic?Iv^nSSCi0nh C£l7laCi°n is based °n sone 54 chemicals listed
o? Ill voY;,- hazardous waste regulations. The total emissiors
o. all volatile organics is estimated to be higher as is ^D-'ad by
ov:rworh"/ascaheestr;i siven above- surface ^nd-nt. «pn
over hair tne total emissions. Treatment tanks rank
contributing about one-third of the estimated emission"
^ Small£SC °f Che "cities indued. he
e should be examined. "ons, tk.e
savpr?nCr01 °f e"i3sions from the TSDFs can be accoaDlished through
several means: pretraatment techniques, design and operH^
practices, m-sicu techniques, and oosc-crsaraenc "ec
Pretreatment controls are those administrative or technical' r
. ' --
in caose treatment, disposal, and storaae faciliti
ana operating practices are techniques wi=h±n conc-ol of
aesigner ar.a .operator that can reduce emissions without <°^l-<
d"^"!1' .S2nerally ?ri^^' o^«ctivM. In-situ craamanVs
oe. a«c as_ t.cnnologic means ana are operating oractices eao'cv
'—!",_ anc as a part of the TSDF, that will reduce emission "--
t.iose raciiities. Finally, post-treatment techniques ^ ^J

*
a,e .ras::
a^oljhe^e 8 13FOS^:-0n °' in-si" creacaenc technics to the

To evaluate the effectiveness of emission control method* < t
-------
TABLE II-l

EMISSIONS FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Facility TTB« Estimated Annual Emissions*
*»
C10J Metric Tons/Yr)

Treatment Tanks
Non-Aerated Surface lapoundaent - Storage 4?Q
Non-Aerated Surfaca Impoundment - Treatment 310
Landfill 19(J
Non-Aerated Surface Iapound=ar.c - Disposal 66
Aeratad Surfaca I-poundnent ' g'
Land Applications • 4?
Storage Tanks 1Q

Total 1,635
For 54 selecrad chenicals.
source: 3reton ec ai.. L983.
11-4
-------
as incineration, then such an administrative control can be ve in-
effective. If, on the other hand, the procedure is an alternative
such as extended storage or disposal in a surface impoundment, then
a ban would not be so effective when the potential emissions from the
entire chain of events is accounted for.

As volatile materials move through the hazardous waste management
process, they must be destroyed, accumulated, emitted or recycled to a
prior step at each stage. This report examines in detail the
efrectiveness of design and operating practices and in-situ treatment
techniques, and also the use of post-treatment methods to reduce
subsequent emissions. A similar detailed analysis of pret-eatment
methods is not included. The effectiveness of pretreatment controls
has been the subject of a study being carried out at Research Tr-angia
Institute for the EPA (Spivey et al., 1934). Results of tha- sf-dv
have been incorporated directly as a basis to show comparisons.

The studies referenced above approached the analysis <=-om the
perspective of the types of wastes, particularly the work of Spivev,
et al., (1984). The approach herein is different, examining controls
from the point of view of type of facility. The choice of control
method is largely dictated by facility and environmental seefn* not
by waste properties. In certain cases, however, the effectiveness
depends on waste properties. These cases are spelled out in the text.

Effectiveness is measured primarily by degree of reduction of the
£at£ ot emissions, not by reduction in total emissions over lorg
perioas of time. Many controls serve only to retard this rate of
emission; for example, improved covers at a landfill. Othe-s remo^
the volatile materials entirely, for example, pretreatment or nost
treatment, although the wastes removed may require sub=e<-ue"C
treatment or disposal. Retarding the rate of loss by volat'lizar'cn
r- tine r,. ,-- _0.
possible to predict the "direction of the change, based on'present -atl
ana tneory. Mechanisms leading co either an increase o- de—>»se -a-
be invoked. " ~ "
c- Hazardous Tiaste Treatment, Storage and Disposal :rac,••;-.•-,r
^ecinitions and Descriptions —^——~-- ,—,