TD1064 United States Office of June 1989
r»33 Environmental Protection Solid Waste
* Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
1989
V. 1 Solid Waste
f -\ < At-x-
N ii oM
-'
&EPA Background Document For
Second Third Wastes To
Support 40 CFR Part 268
Land Disposal Restrictions
Final Rule
Second Third Waste Volumes,
Characteristics, and Required and
Available Treatment Capacity
Volume I
fii fir
-------
-------
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
FOR
SECOND THIRD WASTES TO SUPPORT 40 CFR
PART 268 LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
FINAL RULE
SECOND THIRD WASTE VOLUMES, CHARACTERISTICS,
AND REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE TREATMENT CAPACITY
Volume I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
June 8, 1989
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
FOR
SECOND THIRD WASTES TO SUPPORT 40 CFR
PART 268 LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
FINAL RULE
SECOND THIRD WASTE VOLUMES, CHARACTERISTICS,
AND REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE TREATMENT CAPACITY
Volume II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
June 8, 1989
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
Volume I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Legal Background 1-1
1.1.1 General Requirements Under HSWA 1-1
1.1.2 Schedule for Developing Restrictions 1-1
1.1.3 Variance from the Schedule 1-3
1.2 Summary of Previous Land Disposal Restrictions 1-4
1.2.1 Solvents and Dioxins 1-4
1.2.2 California List 1-6
1.2.3 First Third Wastes 1-8
1.2.4 Underground Injected Wastes 1-9
1.3 Introduction to the Second Thirds Final Rule 1-12
1.3.1 Summary of the Second Thirds Proposed Rule 1-12
1.3.2 Response to Major Capacity-Related Comments
on the Second Thirds Proposed Rule 1-18
1.3.3 Major Revisions to the Second Thirds Final Rule . 1-20
2.0 CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS 2-1
2.1 General Methodology 2-1
2.1.1 Data Set Development 2-1
2.1.2 Capacity Analysis Methodology 2-10
2.2 Results 2-15
2.2.1 All RCRA Wastes 2-15
2.2.2 Solvents 2-18
2.2.3 Nonsolvent RCRA Wastes Containing
Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOCs) 2-22
2.2.4 First Third Wastes 2-26
2.2.5 Underground Injected Solvent Wastes 2-35
2.2.6 Underground Injected California List Wastes 2-38
2.2.7 Underground Injected First Third Wastes 2-41
2.2.8 Determination of Available Capacity for Second
Third Final Rule -... 2-46
2.2.9 Second Third Promulgated Wastes 2-50
2.2.10 Waste Code-Specific Capacity Analyses for
Second Third Promulgated Wastes (Nonsoils) 2-67
2.2.11 Contaminated Soils 2-133
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page No,
3.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 3-1
3.1 Determination of Required Treatment Capacity 3-1
3.1.1 Waste Volumes Affected 3-1
3.1.2 Treatability Analysis 3-6
3.2 Determination of Available Treatment Capacity 3-13
3.2.1 Determination of Combustion Capacity 3-14
3.2.2 Determination of Other Treatment
System Capacities 3-19
3.2.3 Development of the Treatment Capacity
Data Set and Results 3-36
3.3 Capacity Analysis (Comparison of Required and
and Available Treatment Capacity) 3-42
4.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 4-1
Volume II
APPENDICES
Appendix A - F006 Analysis in Support of the Second Third
Final Rule A-l
Appendix B - Reanalysis of Sludge Combustion Capacity
Requirements for Wastewater Treatment Sludges
at DuPont's Chambers Works Facility B-l
Appendix C - Raw Data Used for Capacity Analysis C-l
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis for Second Third Promulgated
Wastes D-l
Appendix E - Waste Volume and Characterization Data for
Underground Injected K009 and K010 Waste Used
to Support the Second Third Final Rule E-l
Appendix F - Capacity Analysis for Contaminated Soil Wastes F-l
Appendix G - Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technology Groups .... G-l
Appendix H - Alternative Treatment/Recovery Technologies H-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 1-1 Second Third Promulgated Waste Codes 1-13
Table 1-2 Commercial Stabilization Facilities Added to the
TSDR Survey Capacity Data Base Since the Second
Third Proposed Rule 1-22
Table 1-3 List of Commercial Stabilization Facilities
Contacted to Verify/Update Capacity Information
Reported in the TSDR Survey 1-24
Table 2-1 Overview of All Surface Land Disposed
RCRA Hazardous Waste 2-16
Table 2-2 Overview of Surface Land Disposed Solvents 2-19
Table 2-3 Solvent Capacity Analysis 2-21
Table 2-4 Overview of Surface Land Disposed Potential
California List Wastes Containing
Halogenated Organic Compounds 2-23
Table 2-5 Overview of Surface Land Disposed First Third
Promulgated Wastes Containing Halogenated
Organic Compounds 2-24
Table 2-6 Overview of All Other Surface Land Disposed
Wastes Containing Halogenated Organic
Compounds 2-25
Table 2-7 Capacity Analysis for HOC Wastes 2-27
Table 2-8 Overview of All Surface Land Disposed First
Third Wastes 2-29
Table 2-9 Overview of Surface Land Disposed First Third
Promulgated Wastes 2-30
Table 2-10 1988 Capacity Analysis for First Third
Promulgated Wastes 2-32
Table 2-11 Overview of Surface Land Disposed Soft Hammer
First Third Wastes 2-34
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 2-12 Capacity Analysis for Underground Injected Solvent
Wastes 2-36
Table 2-13 Capacity Analysis for Underground Injected
California List Wastes 2-39
Table 2-14 Capacity Analysis for Underground Injected First
Third Wastes 2-42
Table 2-15 Determination of Available Capacity for Second
Third Wastes 2-49
Table 2-16 Overview of Second Third Promulgated Wastes 2-51
Table 2-17 1988 Capacity Analysis for Surface Disposed
Second Third Promulgated Wastes 2-53
Table 2-18 1988 Capacity Analysis for Underground Injected
Second Third Promulgated Wastes 2-56
Table 2-19 Overview of Land Disposed Soft Hammer First
Third and Second Third Wastes 2-60
Table 2-20 Capacity Analysis for First Third Nonsoil Soft
Hammer Wastes 2-62
Table 2-21 Capacity Analysis for Second Third Nonsoil Soft
Hammer Wastes 2-63
Table 2-22 Capacity Analysis for Soils Contaminated with
First Third Soft Hammer Wastes 2-64
Table 2-23 Capacity Analysis for Soils Contaminated with
Second Third Soft Hammer Wastes 2-65
Table 2-24 Analysis of F006 Generation at RCRA-Permitted
and Interim Status Facilities 2-74
Table 2-25 Summary of Cyanide Concentration Data
Supporting the F006 Analysis 2-77
Table 2-26 Capacity Analysis for F007 2-82
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 2-27 Capacity Analysis for F008 2-33
Table 2-28 Capacity Analysis for F009 2-44
Table 2-29 Capacity Analysis for F010 2-86
Table 2-30 Capacity Analysis for F011 2-90
Table 2-31 Capacity Analysis for F012 2-91
Table 2-32 Capacity Analysis for F024 2-93
Table 2-33 Capacity Analysis for K009 2-96
Table 2-34 Capacity Analysis for K010 2-97
Table 2-35 Capacity Analysis for K011 2-100
Table 2-36 Capacity Analysis for K013 2-101
Table 2-37 Capacity Analysis for K014 2-102
Table 2-38 Capacity Analysis for K027 2-105
Table 2-39 Capacity Analysis for K115 2-106
Table 2-40 Capacity Analysis for U221 2-107
Table 2-41 Capacity Analysis for U223 2-108
Table 2-42 Capacity Analysis for K093 2-110
Table 2-43 Capacity Analysis for K094 2-111
Table 2-44 Capacity Analysis for P029 2-117
Table 2-45 Capacity Analysis for P030 2-118
Table 2-46 Capacity Analysis for P063 2-119
Table 2-47 Capacity Analysis for P098 2-120
Table 2-48 Capacity Analysis for P106 2-121
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 2-49 Capacity Analysis for P039 2-123
Table 2-50 Capacity Analysis for P071 2-124
Table 2-51 Capacity Analysis for P089 2-125
Table 2-52 Capacity Analysis for P094 2-126
Table 2-53 Capacity Analysis for U087 2-128
Table 2-54 Capacity Analysis for U028 2-130
Table 2-55 Capacity Analysis for U069 2-131
Table 2-56 Capacity Analysis for U190 2-132
Table 2-57 Volume of Contaminated Soils Land Disposed 2-135
Table 2-58 Contaminated Soils Capacity Analysis 2-136
Table 2-59 Capacity Analysis for F007 (Soil and Debris) 2-137
Table 2-60 Capacity Analysis for F008 (Soil and Debris) 2-138
Table 2-61 Capacity Analysis for F009 (Soil and Debris) 2-139
Table 2-62 Capacity Analysis for F010 (Soil and Debris) 2-140
Table 2-63 Capacity Analysis for F011 (Soil and Debris) 2-141
Table 2-64 Capacity Analysis for K011 (Soil and Debris) 2-142
Table 2-65 Capacity Analysis for K013 (Soil and Debris) 2-143
Table 2-66 Capacity Analysis for K113 (Soil and Debris) 2-144
Table 2-67 Capacity Analysis for P029 (Soil and Debris) 2-145
Table 2-68 Capacity Analysis for P030 (Soil and Debris) 2-146
Table 2-69 Capacity Analysis for P044 (Soil and Debris) 2-147
Table 2-70 Capacity Analysis for P063 (Soil and Debris) 2-148
vn
-------
Table 2-71
Table 2-72
Table 2-73
Table 2-74
Table 2-75
Table 2-76
Table 2-77
Table 2-78
Table 2-79
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Capacity Analysis for P071 (Soil and Debris) 2-149
Capacity Analysis for P089 (Soil and Debris) 2-150
Capacity Analysis for P094 (Soil and Debris) 2-151
Capacity Analysis for P106 (Soil and Debris) 2-152
Capacity Analysis for U028 (Soil and Debris) 2-153
Capacity Analysis for U069 (Soil and Debris) 2-154
Capacity Analysis for U190 (Soil and Debris) 2-155
Capacity Analysis for U221 (Soil and Debris) 2-156
Capacity Analysis for U223 (Soil and Debris) 2-157
Commercial Hazardous Waste Incineration
Capacity 3-38
Commercial Capacity for Reuse as Fuel of
Hazardous Waste
3-39
Table 3-3 Commercial Treatment System Capacities 3-43
vm
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document supports the final rule for the Second Third of the
wastes scheduled for restriction from land disposal under section 3004(m)
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). It presents the
estimates of the quantities of wastes that will require alternative
treatment and recovery prior to land disposal. It also presents
estimates of alternative treatment and recovery capacity available to
manage wastes restricted from land disposal, taking into account the
demands already placed on that capacity by previous land disposal
restrictions.
To date, the Land Disposal Restrictions Program has promulgated final
rules on the surface disposal (treatment or storage in waste piles;
treatment, storage, or disposal in surface impoundments; and disposal in
landfills and land treatment units) of solvent and dioxin-containing
wastes, California List wastes, and wastes from the First Third of the
"scheduled" wastes. It has also promulgated final rules on the
underground injection of solvent and dioxin-containing wastes, California
List wastes, and certain wastes included within the First Third scheduled
wastes. From this point forward, restrictions on surface disposal and
underground injection become concurrent. This document, therefore,
includes capacity analyses for both surface disposal and underground
injection wastes.
All capacity analyses supporting the land disposal restrictions
program are now based primarily on data developed from the National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling
E-l
-------
Facilities (the TSDR Survey). This survey was designed as a census of all
RCRA-permitted and interim status hazardous waste treatment, disposal,
and recycling facilities. It also contains a representative sample of
hazardous waste storage facilities. Data developed from the TSDR Survey
provide detailed information on the volume and characteristics of wastes
sent to land disposal, as well as on capacity for treatment and
recovery. Before the TSDR Survey was available, earlier rules relied
primarily on the 1981 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Mail Survey.
Since all analyses using these data have been reevaluated using TSDR
Survey data, previous results based on the old data are not mentioned
here unless the new data have led to regulatory revisions.
Legal Background
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA, enacted on
November 8, 1984, set basic new priorities for hazardous waste
management. Land disposal, which has been the most widely used method
for managing hazardous waste, is now the least preferred option. Under
HSWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must promulgate
regulations restricting the land disposal of hazardous wastes according
to a strict statutory schedule. As of the effective date of each
regulation, land disposal of untreated wastes covered by that regulation
is prohibited unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no
migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit for as long as
the waste remains hazardous.
E-2
-------
HSWA's schedule divided hazardous wastes into three broad
categories. The first category, which contained wastes restricted under
regulations issued on November 7, 1986, includes generic solvent and
dioxin wastes. The second category, whose final rule was issued on
July 8, 1987, covers wastes originally listed by the State of California
and adopted intact within HSWA. The "California List" comprises the
following classes of wastes: liquid hazardous wastes with a pH of less
than or equal to 2.0 (acidic corrosive wastes); all liquid hazardous
wastes containing free cyanides, various metals, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) exceeding statutory concentration levels; and all wastes
(liquid, sludge, or solid) containing halogenated organic compounds
(HOCs) in concentrations greater than or equal to specified statutory
levels. All other hazardous wastes fall into the last category, referred
to as "scheduled" wastes. HSWA requires EPA to promulgate regulations
for these wastes on a timetable that would restrict at least one-third of
them by August 8, 1988, at least two-thirds of them by June 8, 1989
(today's final rule), and the remainder by May 8, 1990, i.e., the First,
Second, and Third Third scheduled wastes, respectively.
Under the land disposal restriction program, EPA must identify levels
or methods of treatment that substantially reduce the toxicity of a waste
or the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste.
Where possible, EPA prefers to define treatment in terms of performance
(i.e., levels of treatment, expressed as a concentration of hazardous
constituents in residuals from treatment) rather than in terms of
specific treatment methods. HSWA requires, however, that levels
E-3
-------
specified in the regulations be demonstrated and available. Accordingly,
EPA's standards are generally based on the performance of the best
demonstrated available technology (BOAT), as documented by treatment data
collected at well-designed and well-operated systems using that
technology, or are based on data derived from the treatment of similar
wastes that are as difficult or more difficult to treat.
The land disposal restrictions are effective immediately upon
promulgation unless the Agency grants a national variance from the
statutory date because of a lack of available capacity. For every waste
group, EPA considers, on a national basis, both the capacity of
commercially available treatment or recovery technologies and the
quantity of restricted wastes currently sent to land disposal for which
onsite capacity is not available. If the Agency determines that adequate
alternative treatment or recovery capacity is available for a particular
waste or waste group, the land disposal restriction goes into effect
immediately. If not, the Agency establishes an alternative effective
date based on the earliest date on which adequate treatment or recovery
capacity will be available, or 2 years, whichever is less.
Summary of Capacity Analyses for Previous Rules
Estimates of the need for, and availability of, alternative hazardous
waste management capacity for previous land disposal restrictions rules
are described below.
Solvents and Dioxins
EPA promulgated the first rule under the land disposal restriction
program on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572). This rule established
treatment standards expressed as concentrations in waste extracts for
E-4
-------
spent solvent wastes (F001-F005) and wastes contaminated with dioxin
(F020-F023 and F026-F028). It prohibited land disposal of wastes in
these categories unless they contain less than the specified
concentrations.
EPA's original capacity analysis for solvent wastes, based on the RIA
Mail Survey, indicated shortfalls in available capacity for wastewater
treatment and incineration. The Agency therefore granted a 2-year
national capacity variance for Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) wastes and RCRA corrective
action wastes, small quantity generator wastes, and all wastes containing
less than 1 percent total F001-F005 solvent constituents. When the
initial analysis was later reevaluated using TSDR Survey data, however,
EPA found that capacity is adequate for these wastes.
The original capacity analysis for dioxin-containing wastes showed
that there was no available incineration capacity for these wastes. The
November 7, 1986, rule, therefore, also granted a 2-year national
capacity variance for these wastes. Current capacity estimates for these
wastes are unchanged.
California List Hastes
The California List defines wastes in terms of general
characteristics rather than waste codes. It covers classes of wastes
originally listed by the State of California and adopted intact within
HSWA, including all liquid hazardous wastes with a pH of less than or
equal to 2.0 (acidic corrosive wastes), all liquid hazardous wastes
containing free cyanide, metals, or PCBs in concentrations greater than
E-5
-------
or equal to limits specified in HSWA, and all hazardous wastes (liquid,
sludge, or solid) containing HOCs in amounts greater than or equal to
1imits specified in HSWA.
EPA promulgated its final rule on the California List wastes on
July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760). For HOC wastes, EPA specified incineration
as the required treatment and did not set a concentration-based limit for
treatment. For PCB wastes, the Agency specified thermal treatment in
accordance with 40 CFR 761.60 as the treatment standard. For acidic
corrosive wastes, the Agency prohibited all land disposal of wastes with
a pH of less than or equal to 2.0, but did not specify a treatment
standard. The final rule did not establish prohibition levels for metal
or cyanide wastes, so the prohibition limits specified in the statute
took effect.
The capacity analysis for the California List rule was originally
based on the RIA Mail Survey, which indicated that incineration capacity
for HOC wastes was inadequate. The Agency had therefore granted a 2-year
national variance for HOC wastes. Capacity was found to be adequate for
all other California List wastes. The HOC variance was rescinded on
November 8, 1988, however, because the later capacity analysis using the
TSDR Survey found incineration capacity to be adequate and the variance
unnecessary.
First Third Wastes
EPA promulgated the final rule for certain First Third wastes on
August 17, 1988. The remaining First Third wastes, for which treatment
standards were not established, thus became covered by the "soft hammer"
E-6
-------
requirements. Under the soft hammer requirements, such wastes may
continue to be disposed of in a landfill or surface impoundment in
compliance with the minimum technological requirements specified in RCRA
section 3004(o) only after it has been certified to EPA that no treatment
capacity is available and that disposal is the only practical
alternative. Such continued land disposal is allowed until EPA sets a
standard for the waste in question. If the Agency has not set a standard
by May 8, 1990, the waste is automatically prohibited from further land
disposal.
The capacity analysis for the First Third wastes indicated that
adequate treatment capacity exists for all First Third wastes except the
following:
. Petroleum refining wastes (K048, K049, K050, K051, K052), for
which BOAT is sludge incineration or solvent extraction;
High zinc (greater than or equal to 15 percent zinc) electric
arc furnace dust (K061), for which BOAT is high temperature metals
recovery; and
Mercury cell chlorine production waste (K071), for which BOAT is
acid leaching.
The Agency therefore granted 2-year national capacity variances to
all these wastes. In the case of high zinc K061 wastes, however, it
required these wastes to be treated to meet the standard for low zinc
wastes based on stabilization during the variance period.
Underground Injected Wastes
EPA has promulgated two final rules restricting the underground
injection of certain wastes and proposed a third. The first final rule,
promulgated on July 26, 1988, addressed solvent and dioxin wastes. Using
E-7
-------
the TSDR Survey data, EPA found that capacity is adequate for underground
injected solvent wastes containing greater than or equal to 1 percent
total F001-F005 solvent constituents, for which the BOAT technology is
incineration; thus, no variance was granted to these wastes.
On the other hand, the TSDR Survey data indicated that alternative
treatment capacity is inadequate for underground injected solvent wastes
containing less than or equal to 1 percent total F001-F005 solvent
constitutents, for which the BOAT technology is wastewater treatment.
The Agency therefore granted a national capacity variance for these
wastes until August 8, 1990.
In addition, the Agency also found that no dioxin-containing wastes
are being underground injected, so no alternative treatment capacity is
required for these wastes, and they were not granted a capacity variance.
The second final rule, promulgated on August 16, 1988 (53 FR 30908),
addressed underground injection of California List wastes and certain
First Third wastes (K049-K052, K062, K071, and K104). This analysis
showed inadequate alternative treatment capacity for almost all
underground injected California List wastes, the only exceptions being
for liquid wastes containing greater than 50 ppm PCBs and liquid and
nonliquid wastes containing greater than 1,000 ppm of HOCs, all of which
require incineration. It also found that alternative treatment capacity
is inadequate for all underground injected First Third wastes covered by
the rule. EPA therefore granted national capacity variances until
August 8, 1990, for all underground injected First Third wastes and all
underground injected California List wastes for which treatment capacity
is inadequate.
E-8
-------
On October 26, 1988 (53 FR 43400), EPA proposed its regulatory
approach for underground injected First Third wastes not included in the
August 16 rule. Where BOAT standards had been promulgated under the
First Third final rule (August 17, 1988), the approach proposed to adopt
those standards by reference. Where BOAT standards had not been
promulgated, the wastes will continue to be covered by the soft hammer
requirements.
In the case of dilute K016 (<1 percent) wastewaters, EPA found that
insufficient capacity exists for treatment and therefore proposed to
grant a national capacity variance. In all other cases, adequate
treatment capacity exists for all underground injected First Third wastes
for which BOAT treatment standards have been promulgated and did not
propose to grant any other variances. EPA plans to finalize this rule in
June 1989.
Data Sources for the Current Capacity Analysis
TSDR Survey
The TSDR Survey was originally mailed to approximately 2,400
RCRA-permitted or interim status facilities in August 1987. Since that
date, an additional 225 new or previously overlooked facilities have been
included. By April 1989, the cutoff date for the capacity analysis for
the Second Third wastes, over 2,500 surveys had been received, reviewed
for completeness and accuracy, and analyzed.
Of the approximately 2,500 facilities, 475 reported onsite land
disposal/land placement of 63 billion gallons of RCRA hazardous waste in
the baseline year 1986. Of the total facilities, 236 reported having
E-9
-------
commercially available treatment/recovery technologies onsite in 1988;
these facilities accounted for 11.4 billion gallons of treatment capacity
in 1988. Of this 11.4 billion gallons of capacity, however, only a
subset of facilities offered BOAT treatment technologies applicable to
the rules promulgated to date (the final rules summarized above, plus the
current Second Third final rule). Some facilities offered various
applicable BOAT noncombustion technologies, mostly wastewater treatment,
accounting for an estimated total capacity of 8.7 billion gallons per
year in 1988. Sixty facilities reported commercial combustion processes,
i.e., incineration or reuse as fuel, applicable for burning hazardous
wastes currently land disposed. The facilities accounted for a maximum
of 579 million gallons of capacity in 1988.
Generator Survey
EPA recently conducted the National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators (the Generator Survey). The Generator Survey was designed to
gather data on waste generation and exempt hazardous waste treatment and
recovery capacity, and it includes detailed hazardous waste
characterization data. Although the majority of these data are not yet
available, EPA used a small subset of the data to evaluate the amount of
alternative treatment capacity required by electroplating wastes, i.e.,
F006 waste streams.
Data available for the F006 analysis included about 550 Generator
Surveys from facilities not having a RCRA permit or interim status but
with exempt hazardous waste treatment capacity onsite (non-TSDRs).
E-10
-------
The Agency also reviewed preliminary waste characterization data from
the Generator Survey for about 950 TSDR facilities with land disposal or
commercial treatment/recovery operations (these data have not yet
undergone comprehensive technical review and QA/QC procedures).
Methodology for Capacity Analysis
To evaluate the adequacy of alternative treatment capacity for
specific waste categories, EPA first puts restricted wastes into
"treatability groups" that require similar treatment or management
practices; for instance, all wastes requiring sludge incineration would
be placed in the same treatability group. Where wastes present
particular problems in treatment, the Agency may identify "treatment
trains" of multiple technologies operating in sequence. Volumes of
wastes in each treatability group are adjusted to reflect the November
1988 deadline regarding minimum technology requirements for surface
impoundments. The net total volume of currently land disposed hazardous
waste requiring alternative treatment capacity becomes the required
capacity for that treatability group. EPA then assigns the volumes of
waste in each treatability group to treatment technologies or treatment
trains.
Determinations of available capacity take several factors into
account. Some treatment processes will generate various treatment
residuals, which then have to be assigned to, and accounted for within,
other treatabil ity groups. Available capacity the difference between
currently utilized capacity and the total capacity of the treatment
systemmust take into account the commercial status of each facility
managing waste within a treatability group:
E-ll
-------
Available treatment capacity at onsite facilities used
exclusively by the waste generator cannot be considered available
to other generators.
All commercially available capacity at commercial facilities is
considered fully available to any generator.
Capacity analysis begins at the facility level and aggregates upward
toward the national level, assigning available excess capacity by
observing the above rules. For example, available capacity at private
treatment systems applies only to wastes currently land disposed at the
same site. Remaining wastes are assigned to commercial capacity.
Each regulation within the Land Disposal Restrictions Program
accounts for the sequential and cumulative effects of all previous
regulations and for projected capacity changes after 1986, as reported in
the TSDR Survey. Solvents and dioxins were considered first, followed by
California List wastes, First Third promulgated wastes, and, finally, the
Second Third wastes. Available capacity has been assigned first to all
affected surface disposed wastes and then to all underground injected
wastes. EPA sets this priority because it believes that land disposal in
surface units may represent a greater threat to human health and the
environment than does underground injection.
Revisions to Proposed Rule
Since publication of the Second Third proposed rule, EPA has made a
number of revisions to the capacity determinations for wastes subject to
the Second Third final rule. Major revisions are summarized below.
Recently, EPA amended the schedule for prohibiting hazardous wastes
from land disposal to include multisource leachates (and residuals from
their treatment) under the same schedule as Third Third wastes. As a
E-12
-------
result, one 16 mill ion-gallon solvent waste stream, which required sludge
incineration, is no longer subject to the solvent land disposal
restrictions. Consequently, the 16 million gallons of sludge/solid
incineration capacity previously assigned to this waste is now available
for the Second Third final rule.
For the proposed rule, EPA included capacity from several commercial
incinerators and industrial kilns that were scheduled to be operational
prior to promulgation of the Second Third final rule. However, EPA was
unable to confirm that these units have in fact become operational and
therefore has not included this capacity in its determinations for this
final rule.
In addition, EPA has included, for the sake of completeness, the
capacity of commercial industrial boilers and furnaces previously
excluded. Consequently, this final rule reflects an increase in the
amount of liquids combustion capacity.
EPA has also revised its determination of available stabilization
capacity, based on new data from late reporting facilities and updated
data received since publication of the proposed rule. Although not
affecting any capacity variance determination, the data were included for
the sake of completeness.
Finally, EPA is continually revising and adding to the TSDR Survey
capacity data base to reflect the addition of new data from late
reporting facilities and any corrections made during further evaluation
of the data. Again, although none of these revisions have affected any
E-13
-------
capacity determinations, they have been included for the sake of
completeness. The data contained in this document, therefore, represent
the most complete data currently available to EPA.
Results of the Capacity Analysis
Table 1 shows commercial capacity remaining to manage all Second
Third wastes, taking into account the capacity already allocated to other
wastes under all previous land disposal restrictions. Remaining Second
Third capacity is estimated by subtracting requirements for previously
restricted wastes from the capacity available in 1988. This table
represents the most current data available to the Agency and includes all
revisions described in the previous subsection.
Using the remaining capacity for Second Third wastes as a base,
Table 2 shows the capacity needs for all Second Third wastes that are not
underground injected. This table shows that sufficient capacity exists
to treat all wastes that are currently land disposed in surface units.
However, in order to allow time, if needed, for modifications to
treatment systems, EPA is delaying implementation of the cyanide
standards for the electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, and F009) for
30 days. In addition, for heat treating wastes (F011 and F012), EPA is
delaying implementation of the cyanide standards until December 8, 1989,
to allow time for generators to segregate these wastes for proper
treatment. Between July 8, 1989, and December 8, 1989, however, heat
treating wastes will be subject to the cyanide standards applicable to
electroplating wastes.
E-14
-------
Subtracting out capacity for surface-disposed wastes, Table 3
allocates remaining capacity to underground injected Second Third
wastes. In this case, the table shows that capacity shortages exist for
underground injected wastes requiring liquids combustion, steam stripping
followed by biological treatment, and alkaline chlorination and chemical
precipitation. Consequently, EPA has granted a 2-year national capacity
variance to underground injected F007 wastes requiring alkaline
chlorination and chemical precipitation; K009 wastes requiring steam
stripping followed by biological treatment; and K011, K013, and K014
wastes requiring liquids combustion. Furthermore, in order to allow
time, if needed, for modifications to treatment systems, EPA is delaying
implementation of the cyanide standards for the electroplating wastes
(F006, F007, FOOB, and F009) for 30 days. In addition, for heat treating
wastes (F011 and F012), EPA is delaying implementation of the cyanide
standards until December 8, 1989, to allow time for generators to
segregate these wastes for proper treatment. Between July 8, 1989, and
December 8, 1989, however, heat treating wastes will be subject to the
cyanide standards applicable to electroplating wastes.
Table 4 further summarizes the results of Tables 2 and 3 by waste
code, indicating the capacity needs for each surface-disposed or
underground injected waste, and whether or not available capacity is
adequate.
E-15
-------
9
»
to
U1
o
f**
in
10
to
OJ
to
.5
D
F
^«
c
o
u
01
L_
o
^
0 ^
Q. -Ss"
fo ""Z
^ Bl
a; c
'n O
. r"~
> ^
< *"
u-
o
c
o
"
ro
c
g
01
CJ
a
1
0)
^)
ro
h-
t-
o
Ol «-
c
- X
C 4->
5 Q,
CJ
^
.0
>
U
8
ro
U
1
3
O
01
T3
-C
C
4-> ro
to
._
LL.
4-1
to
U
"~
LJ~
^2
to
4-1
C
QJ
"5
c/1
to
J
5
to
c
OJ
o
c/)
_ _~ __. _
01
JD
§rO
01 *
ro
4£
CO
o
u
-C
-o
c
o
u
01
t/>
'i
=9
4-1
to
1
^
u
CO
L-
r
^
^
5
to
o
ai
3
U
_^ ^_
X
U
8.
ro
U
X
°
"o
u
0)
t
CX P^ & CNJ CNJ CNJ V
00 «
CNJ U">
-HO O O O -H
V V V
-H CO O O O O
v m
ex
r-. o O O O o
in v
ex o o o r».
v v
-H ex v o o o CNJ
ex
O r-K CNI CNI CNI m
v v -n in
n i^
4-1
c
c c g
C O O 4-1
to 4-> - Q. ro t.
"O ro CL u *O 4-1
CD D. O
c 1- to X
O O 4-Jlou-Doro
to >- CJ 4J (0 CJ
C V) >. 4-1 U--10 (-
Q-DOI ro OJC C " Ol
3 - Ol O 4-" ro OJ
^3 i to ^a 4-i toux-a
E ro to U
O 1 I 4-* ro O 1 1 1 1
CJ 00 3 K-
PO CTi O
ro O ro
~*
O O O
o
PO 0 i
00 0
o o o
-HO 0
V
tC CJ)
"^
c c c c c
ro O O ro O
.,- -D ... .,-
CZ 4-» C 4-> - 4-»
O ro to ro C ro
§*"* a. o 5. c" .M a.
00 -
f- (J 4J CJ "~ 3 O
t- CO O CD 4-> *O 0)
O t- 3 U O. 0) L.
i a. T: Q. u t. a.
0 "io "« -o S 'io
OJ o E U ro - o
Jt U U U i- U U
i £ ro
< CJ CJ
ro
^
O
O
m
ro of
D 0) LL.
CU X
4-J ro
o u in
S. TJ
ai c
to in ro
i- C
* o LI-> eo
L- * in -H
-C ro CO O
4-> CJ» ex ro
O i i
u- O5 CO
in o i o
y) « CD
ai to en o
c ex ro
c o
3 - at at
x - ^ ^
O> - ro ro
> E m in
3 egg
- 6 S
g g ^ ^
CO (U "O ^
t ^ QJ QJ
fe -M -M
5 U U
C <0 TO
QJ i. U
U " ^J -M
1- X X
3 < bJ LU
O
CD fl .O U
g
"2
ro
C
ro
to
1
C
ro
X
U
.c
I*.
0
C
o
ro
r
e
O
0.
1
L.
l*-
4_l
3
(0
e
X
4-1
U
8.
rg
(j
L.
o
"S
$
c
1
c
o
o
01
to
V
to
s
tc
o
o
u.
t-
o
h*-
X
4-*
u
Q. CT
ro CO
U (7)
^ 1
.b °°
3 01
cr c
aj 3
a: -3
o
to
01
4-)
CO
ro
3
TJ
01
4-1
0)
*-)
c
Underground
n
»
o
E-16
-------
5740s
Table 2 Summary of 1988 Capacity Analysis for
Second Third Promulgated Wastes3
Technology
Combustion
- L i quids
- Sludges/solids
Uastewater treatment
- Alkaline chlorination
- Steam stripping followed
Available
capacity
(mi 11 ion gal/yr)
282
17
33 c
0
Requ i red
capacity
(million gal/yr) Comment
<1 No capacity variance
9 No capacity variance
2 No capacity variance
0 No capacity variance
by biological treatment
- Electrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline
chlonnat ion
- Carbon adsorption
- Biological treatment
Stab i 1 uat ion
2
44
516
No capacity variance
No capacity variance
No capacity variance
No capacity variance
a Volumes do not include underground injected waste and soils/debris.
These wastes have been included with the waste requiring alkaline chlorination.
c Alkaline ch lor mat ion capacity has been adjusted to account for 13 million gallons of capacity
that may be needed for F006 wastes
E-17
-------
5740s
Table 3 Summary of 1988 Capacity Analysis for Underground
Injected Second Third Promulgated Wastes
Technology
Available
capacity
(mil>ion gal/yr)
Required
capacity
(million gal/yr)
Comment
Combustion
- Liquids
Uastewater treatment
- Alkaline chlonnation
- Biological treatment
- Steam stripping followed
by biological treatment
- Carbon adsorption
Stabilization
282
31
44
0
2
514
379
126
79
National capacity
variance (IC011 and K013)
National capacity
variance (F007)
No capacity variance
National capacity
variance (K009)
No capacity variance
No capacity variance
E-18
-------
5740s
Table 4 Sunmary of 1988 Capacity Analysis for Second Third Wastes by Waste Code
Wastes streams other than soil and debris
Waste Code
F007
F008
F009
F010
F011
F012
F024
K005
K007
K009
K010
K011
K013
K014
K023
K027
K028
K029
K036
K038
K039
K040
K043
K093
K094
K095
K096
K113
IU14
Surface disposed
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(million gal/yr)
1.3
2.7
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.1
<0.1
0
7.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
Adcqua te a 1 terna 1 1 ve
capacity available
(yes/no)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Underground injected
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(million gal/yr)
127.6
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
5
173.4
173.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adequate alternative
capacity available
(yes/no)
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Total
(million
gal/yr)
128.9
2.7
0.3
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0
0
79
5
173.6
173.5
<0.1
0
7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
-------
5740s
Table 4 (Continued)
Wastes streams other than soil and debris
Waste Code
K115
U16
P013
P021
P029
P030
P039
P040
P041
P043
P044
P062
P063
P071
P074
P085
P089
P094
P097
P098
P099
PI 04
P106
P109
Pill
P121
U028
U058
U069
Surface disposed
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(million gal/yr)
0.2
0
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
Adequate alternative
capacity available
(yes/no)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Underground injected
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(mi 11 ion gal/yr)
0
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adequate alternative
capacity available
(yes/no)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Total
(mi 11 ion
gal/yr)
0.2
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
-------
5740s
Table 4 (Continued)
Wastes streams other than soil and debris
Waste Code
Surface disposed
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(million gal/yr)
Underground injected
Adequate alternative volume requiring
capacity available alternative capacity
(yes/no)
(million gal/yr)
Adequate alternative Total
capacity available (million
(yes/no) gal/yr)
U087
UOB8
U102
U107
U190
U221
U223
U235
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0.3
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
0
0
0
<0.1
26.8
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
0
0
0
<0.1
27.1
Total
13.1
585.5
598.3
E-21
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This section contains a brief summary of the legal background on the
Land Disposal Restrictions Program, a summary of the results of capacity
analyses to support prior restrictions, and an introduction to the
capacity analysis for those wastes analyzed for this rule.
Section 2 contains the detailed results of the capacity analysis for
the Second Third promulgated wastes, including a capacity analysis for
each waste code (Subsection 2.2.10). Section 3 details the Agency's
capacity analysis methodology. Section 4 lists the references used to
prepare this document.
1.1 Legal Background
1.1.1 General Requirements Under HSWA
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), enacted on
November 8, 1984, amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) of 1976 in several significant ways. Among other initiatives, the
amendments require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
promulgate regulations restricting the land disposal of hazardous wastes
according to a strict, detailed schedule. This effort is generally
referred to as the Land Disposal Restrictions Program.
1.1.2 Schedule for Developing Restrictions
HSWA set a strict schedule for establishing treatment standards,
based generally on priorities related to the volume and intrinsic hazards
of different types of wastes. Two groups received early attention:
(1) solvent and dioxin wastes, to be regulated within 24 months of HSWA's
1-1
-------
passage, and (2) the so-called "California List" wastes, to be regulated
within 32 months. The solvent/dioxin waste group identified in HSWA
includes those solvent wastes covered under waste codes F001, F002, F003,
F004, and F005, as well as the dioxin-containing wastes covered under
waste codes F020, F021, F022, and F023 (RCRA section 3004(e)). The final
dioxin regulation also established treatment standards for F026, F027,
and F028.
The California List wastes, a group of wastes originally listed by
the State of California and adopted intact within HSWA, include liquid
hazardous wastes containing metals, free cyanides, PCBs, acidic
corrosives (pH of less than or equal to 2.0), and any liquid or nonliquid
hazardous waste containing halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) above
0.1 percent (1,000 ppm) by weight.
Priorities for all other hazardous wastes listed under RCRA section
3001 were established separately, based on considerations of volume and
intrinsic hazard, in a formal schedule submitted to Congress on
November 8, 1986 (RCRA section 3004(g)(l)). This schedule requires all
final land disposal restrictions to be in place by May 8, 1990.
Consistent with the requirements of HSWA, EPA divided all other listed
hazardous wastes into three groups (the "Thirds"), to be regulated in
successive stages over a period of 66 months from the passage of HSWA on
November 8, 1984.
The overall schedule for the Land Disposal Restriction Program is as
follows:
Solvents and dioxins: Final standards promulgated on
November 7, 1986.
1-2
-------
California List wastes: Final standards promulgated on July 8,
1987.
"First Third" scheduled wastes: Final standards promulgated on
August 8, 1988.
"Second Third" scheduled wastes: Final standards to be
promulgated on or before June 8, 1989.
"Third Third" scheduled wastes: Final standards to be
promulgated on or before May 8, 1990.
1.1.3 Variance from the Schedule
The land disposal restrictions are effective when promulgated unless
the Administrator grants a national capacity 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 or
recovery capacity which protects human health and the environment will be
available" (RCRA section 3004(h)(2)).
In addition, if EPA fails to set a treatment standard by the
statutory deadline for any hazardous waste, the waste becomes subject to
the so-called "soft hammer" requirements. Under the soft hammer
requirements, the waste may continue to be disposed of in a landfill or
surface impoundment, but only if the facility is in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements specified in RCRA section 3004(o).
Furthermore, prior to such disposal, generators must certify to EPA that
they have "investigated available treatment capacity and [have]
determined that the use of such landfill or surface impoundment is the
only practical alternative to treatment currently available to the
generator" (RCRA section 3004(g)(6)). Such continued land disposal is
allowed until EPA sets a standard for the waste in question, or until
1-3
-------
May 8, 1990, whichever is sooner. If the Agency has not set a standard
by May 8, 1990, the waste is automatically prohibited from further land
disposal. The only exceptions are for facilities performing land disposal
in a unit that has made a successful "no migration" demonstration and
facilities that meet the requirements for a case-by-case extension. "No
migration" demonstrations are based on case-by-case petitions that must
show that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the
disposal unit for as long as the waste remains hazardous. Case-by-case
extensions are granted by the Agency for up to 1 year (renewable once)
from a ban effective date if the applicant demonstrates that a binding
contract has been entered into to construct or otherwise provide
alternative capacity that cannot reasonably be made available by the
applicable effective date because of circumstances beyond the applicant's
control.
1.2 Summary of Previous Land Disposal Restrictions
Capacity analyses to support previous land disposal restrictions were
performed using the best data available at the time to develop national
estimates of both the amount of waste land disposed and the available
alternative commercial treatment and recovery capacity. Analyses of
affected wastes considered the combination of waste code, physical/
chemical form, and type of restricted management practice to determine the
amount of alternative capacity required.
1.2.1 Solvents and Dioxins
The Land Disposal Restriction Program began with the promulgation of
the solvents and dioxins rule on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572). The
final rule included spent solvent wastes (F001-F005) and dioxin-containing
1-4
-------
wastes (F020-F023 and F026-F028), and established treatment standards
expressed as concentrations in the waste extract. The rule prohibits land
disposal of solvent and dioxin wastes unless the wastes contain less than
the specified concentrations of hazardous constituents.
Initially, the Agency used the 1981 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
Mail Survey (Ref. 1) to identify the volume of land disposed solvent
wastes subject to the restrictions. Although EPA did not establish
required treatment technologies for these wastes, the Agency used the
physical and chemical characteristics that were reported for each waste
stream to identify the technology or technologies that EPA assumed would
be used to meet the treatment standards. The waste volumes were
distributed among the applicable technologies as shown below:
Applicable treatment and
Waste stream recovery technologies
Solvent-water mixtures Wastewater treatment
Organic liquids Distillation
Fuel substitution
Incineration
Organic sludges Fuel substitution
Incineration
Inorganic sludges or solids Incineration
After identifying the required alternative capacity for solvent
wastes, the Agency analyzed the available commercial capacity for these
technologies.
Analysis of available commercial capacity (supply) and required
capacity (demand) showed shortfalls in available capacity for wastewater
treatment and incineration. Consequently, the Agency granted a 2-year
1-5
-------
national capacity variance to CERCLA and RCRA corrective action wastes;
small quantity generator (SQG) wastes; and all wastes containing less
than 1 percent total F001-F005 solvent constituents, i.e., solvent-water
mixtures, solvent-containing sludges, and solvent-contaminated soil
(40 CFR 268.30 and Ref. 2).
EPA determined the volume of dioxin-containing waste generated
annually and affected by the restrictions. Incineration capacity for
these dioxin wastes was determined to be nonexistent; therefore, a 2-year
national capacity variance was granted (51 FR 40617).
The final rule for the First Third Wastes, published on August 17,
1988 (53 FR 31138), included a reanalysis of available and required treat-
ment capacity for solvent wastes using data from EPA's new data set based
on the results of EPA's National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (the TSDR Survey). The
results of this reanalysis demonstrated that adequate capacity exists for
solvent wastes. The Agency therefore allowed the capacity variances to
expire on November 8, 1988.
1.2.2 California List
Unlike the solvents and dioxins rule, the California List rule is not
waste code specific. The California List includes all liquid hazardous
waste with a pH of less than or equal to 2.0 (i.e., acidic corrosive
waste); all liquid hazardous wastes containing free cyanide, metals, or
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in concentrations greater than or equal
to those specified in 40 CFR 268.32; and all hazardous wastes (liquid or
nonliquid) containing halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) in amounts
greater than or equal to the levels specified in 40 CFR 268.32.
1-6
-------
The California List final rule was promulgated on July 8, 1987
(52 FR 25760). This rule required the use of specific technologies rather
than the establishment of performance-based standards for California List
PCB wastes and certain California List HOC wastes. Specifically, the
rule requires incineration in accordance with 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart 0,
or Part 265, Subpart 0, for HOC wastes (except HOC wastewaters) and
thermal treatment in accordance with 40 CFR 761.60 or 761.70 for PCB
wastes. EPA codified the statutory prohibition level (RCRA section
3004(d)(2)) for acidic corrosive wastes (those with a pH of <2.0), but did
not promulgate a treatment standard for these wastes. The final rule did
not establish prohibition levels for metal or cyanide wastes; therefore,
upon promulgation, the RCRA section 3004(d)(2) statutory levels became
effective.
The Agency originally used data from the 1981 RIA Mail Survey
(Ref. 1) to determine the maximum potential volume of land disposed waste
subject to the California List restrictions. To determine the required
alternative treatment capacity for these waste volumes, EPA identified
those technologies that it believed would generally be used to treat
California List wastes. The Agency then determined the commercially
available alternative treatment capacity for these wastes.
A comparison of required and available treatment capacity for the
California List wastes for which BOAT has been established showed that
incineration capacity for HOC wastes was inadequate. Consequently, the
Agency granted a 2-year national capacity variance to HOC wastes requiring
incineration. On the other hand, the Agency determined that adequate
1-7
-------
capacity for PCB wastes did exist and thus did not grant a variance for
these wastes. EPA believes that acidic corrosive, cyanide, and metal
wastes can be treated to below the California List statutory levels by
tank treatment methods including neutralization, cyanide oxidation,
chromium reduction, and chemical precipitation. Furthermore, since the
rule applies only to liquid wastes, they may still be land disposed after
being rendered nonliquid. Consequently, the Agency believes that adequate
capacity for these wastes exists and did not grant a capacity variance for
them (Ref. 3).
The final rule for the First Third wastes, however, included a
reanalysis of required and available treatment capacity for California
List HOC wastes based on the TSDR Survey data. The results indicated
significant changes in waste management practices and capacity,
specifically, substantial increases in commercial incineration capacity.
As a result, the Agency determined that capacity variances were no longer
needed for HOC wastes, except for HOC-contaminated soils, and therefore
rescinded the California List HOC variance effective November 8, 1988.
1.2.3 First Third Wastes
On August 17, 1988, the Agency published the final rule for the First
Third wastes. This final rule promulgated treatment standards for some
of the First Third wastes. The remaining First Third wastes for which
treatment standards were not established were covered by the soft hammer
requirements.
The Agency used the TSDR Survey data set to determine affected waste
volumes requiring alternative capacity and available commercial treatment/
recovery capacity. Required alternative capacity was then compared with
1-8
-------
available commercial treatment/recovery capacity. This comparison showed
adequate capacity for all First Third wastes except petroleum refining
wastes (K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052) for which BOAT is sludge
incineration or solvent extraction; high zinc (greater than or equal to
15 percent zinc) electric arc furnace dust (K061) for which BOAT is high
temperature metals recovery; and mercury cell chlorine production waste
(K071) for which BOAT is acid leaching. Consequently, the Agency granted
a 2-year national capacity variance to K048-K052 and K071 wastes. The
Agency also granted a 2-year national variance from the high temperature
metals recovery-based standards to high zinc K061 wastes, but in the
interim is requiring these wastes to meet the standard for low zinc K061
based on stabilization (Ref. 4).
1.2.4 Underground Injected Wastes
To date, the Agency has promulgated two final rules restricting the
underground injection of certain wastes and has proposed a third. The
first of these rules, published on July 26, 1988 (53 FR 28118),
restricted solvent and dioxin wastes. For this final rule, the Agency
used the results of the TSDR Survey to perform an analysis of required
and available treatment/recovery capacity. The results of the analysis
showed that inadequate capacity exists for the volume of underground
injected solvent wastes containing less than 1 percent total F001-F005
solvent constituents for which the BOAT standard is based on wastewater
treatment (steam stripping, biological treatment, wet air oxidation, or
carbon adsorption). Consequently, the Agency granted a 2-year national
capacity variance from the treatment standard until August 8, 1990, to
1-9
-------
underground injected solvent wastes containing less than 1 percent total
F001-F005 solvent constituents that are disposed of by injection in
Class I wells.
Conversely, the analysis also showed that adequate capacity did exist
for the volume of solvent wastes containing greater than or equal to
1 percent total F001-F005 solvent constituents for which the BOAT standard
is based on incineration. Consequently, these wastes were restricted from
underground injection on August 8, 1988. Furthermore, available data
showed that no dioxin wastes are being injected, and thus the Agency did
not grant a variance from the August 8, 1988, effective date for
restricting the underground injection of these wastes.
The second final rule (53 FR 30908) restricted the underground
injection of California List wastes and certain First Third wastes,
specifically K062, K049-K052, K071, and K104. For this rule, the Agency
used data from the Hazardous Waste Injection Well Data Base (HWIWDB) and
the TSDR Survey to perform a capacity analysis for these wastes. This
analysis showed inadequate capacity for all underground injected
California List wastes except for those containing greater than 50 ppm
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) requiring thermal treatment and wastes
containing HOCs greater than 1,000 ppm requiring incineration or reuse as
fuel. Furthermore, the analysis identified insufficient capacity for all
the First Third wastes subject to the rulemaking (K062, K049-K052, K071,
and K104). The Agency granted a 2-year national capacity variance to
underground injected California List wastes (except PCB wastes greater
than 50 ppm and HOC wastes greater than 1,000 ppm) and K049-K052, K062,
K071, and K104 wastes.
1-10
-------
The Agency published its proposed approach for the remainder of the
underground injected First Third wastes on October 26, 1988 (53 FR 43400).
Underground injected First Third wastes (including P and U wastes) for
which EPA has not set treatment standards will continue to be subject to
the soft hammer provisions of RCRA.
This proposed rule also identified those First Third wastes for which
BOAT has been established but which current data indicate are not being
underground injected. EPA proposed to ban these wastes from underground
injection upon the date of final promulgation of this rule. These wastes
include: K001, K015, K018, K020, K024, K037, K044, K045, K047, K048,
K087, K099, K101, and K102 wastes; nonwastewater forms of K004, K008,
K021, K022, K025, K036, K060, K061, and K100; the no ash nonwastewater
component of K083; the noncalcium sulfate nonwastewater form of K069; and
K086 solvent washes.
Finally, EPA proposed to establish effective dates for those under-
ground injected First Third wastes for which BOAT has been established
but were not addressed in the August 16, 1988, final rule for underground
injection wastes discussed previously. The Agency determined that
sufficient capacity exists for K019 and K030 wastes for which BOAT is
biological degradation, and for concentrated K016 wastes (J>1 percent) and
K103 for which BOAT is liquid incineration. For dilute K016 (<1 percent)
wastes for which BOAT is biological treatment followed by wet air
oxidation, however, the Agency determined that sufficient capacity does
not exist. Consequently, for K019, K030, K103, and concentrated K016 (.>!
percent) underground injected wastes, the Agency did not propose to grant
1-11
-------
a national capacity variance. For dilute K016 (<1 percent) underground
injected wastes, however, the Agency did propose to grant a national
capacity variance until August 8, 1990. EPA plans to finalize this
proposed rule in June 1989.
1.3 Introduction to the Second Third Final Rule
Today the Agency is finalizing treatment standards for some of the
Second Third wastes, for some of the First Third wastes previously subject
to the soft hammer provisions, and also for some of the wastes that were
originally Third Third wastes. These wastes, hereafter referred to as
Second Third "promulgated" wastes, are listed in Table 1-1. This table
also identifies into which of the Thirds the waste was originally placed.
1.3.1 Summary of the Second Third Proposed Rule
For the Second Third proposed rule (54 FR 1056), the Agency used the
TSDR Survey to estimate the volume of affected wastes requiring
alternative capacity and the amount of available commercial capacity.
The results of this analysis showed that adequate commercial capacity does
exist for all Second Third proposed wastes currently surface disposed
(i.e., treatment or storage in waste piles; treatment, storage, or
disposal in surface impoundments; and disposal by land treatment and
landfills). The Agency, therefore, did not propose to grant a capacity
variance to any surface disposed Second Third proposed wastes. The
analysis also showed that inadequate commercial capacity existed for the
volume of underground injected wastes requiring liquid incineration or
reuse as fuel, cyanide destruction, and wastewater treatment for organics.
1-12
-------
5702s
Table 1-1 Second Third Promulgated Waste Codes
Original
Waste code Description Third
F006a> Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations 1
except from the following processes: (1) sulfuric acid
anodizing of aluminum; (Z) tin plating on carbon steel;
(3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel;
(4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel;
(5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc, and
a limn nun plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching
and milling of aluminum
F007 Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating 1
operations
F008 Plating sludges from the bottom of plating baths from 1
electroplating where cyanides are used in the process
F009 Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions from 1
electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the
process
F010 Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal heat 2
treating operations where cyanides are used in the process
F011 Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning from 2
metal heat treating operations
F012 Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from metal heat 2
treating operations where cyanides are used in the process
F024 Wastes, including but not limited to, distillation residues, 2
heavy ends, tars, and reactor cleanout wastes from the
production of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, having
carbon content from one to five, utilizing free radical
catalyzed processes
K005C Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of chrome 3
green pigments
K007C Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of 3
iron blue pigments
a Standards for metal constituents were promulgated in the First Third rule. Cyanide
standard is promulgated in the Second Third rule.
Standards for nonwastewaters only. Wastewater will continue to be subject to the soft
hammer requirements since this is a First Third waste.
c Standards for nonwastewaters only, wastewaters will be regulated as a Third Third as originally
scheduled.
1-13
-------
5702s
Table 1-1 (Continued)
Waste code
Description
Original
Third
K009
KD10
K013
K014b
K023
K027
K028
K029D
K036e
K038
K039
K040
K043
Distillation bottoms front the production of acetaldehyde 2
from ethylene
Distillation side cuts from the production of acetaldehyde 2
from ethylene
Bottom stream from the wastewater stripper in the production 1
of acrylomtri le
Bottom stream from the acetonitrile column in the production 1
of acrylomtri le
1
Bottoms from the acetonitrile purification column in the
production of acrylonitrile
Distillation light ends from the production of phthalic
anhydride from naphthalene
Centrifuge and distillation residues from toluene
diisocyanate production
Spent catalyst from the hydrochlorinator reactor in the
production of 1,1,1-tnchloroethane
Waste from the product steam stripper in the production
of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
Still bottoms from toluene reclamation distillation in the
production of disulfoton
Wastewater from the washing and stripping of phorate 2
product ion
Filter cake from the filtration of diethylphosphorodithioi1 2
acid in the production of phorate
Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of phorate 2
2,6-Dichlorophenol waste from the production of 2,4-D 2
Wastewaters are being soft hammered.
Only wastewaters are being regulated as a Second Third waste, nonwastewaters were regulated
as First Third wastes.
1-14
-------
5702s
Table 1-1 (Continued)
Original
Waste code Description Third
K093 Distillation light ends from the production of 3
phthalic anhydride from ortho-xylene
£094 Distillation bottoms from the production of phthalic 3
anhydride from ortho-xylene
M)95d Distillation bottoms from the production of 1.1.1- 2
trichloroethane
K096 Heavy ends from the heavy ends column from the 2
production of 1,1,1-tnchloroethane
K113 Condensed liquid light ends from the purification of
toluenediamine in the production of toleunediamme via
hydrogenation of dinitrotoluene
K114 Vicinals from the purification of toluenediamine in the
production of toluenediamine via hydrogenation of
dinitrotoluene
K115 Heavy ends from the purification of toluenediamine in the
production of toluenediamine via hydrogenation of
dinitrotoluene
K116 Organic condensate from the solvent recovery column in the
production of toluene diisocyanate via phosgenation of
toluenedidmme
P013 Barium cyanide 3
P021 Calcium cyanide 3
P029 Copper cyanides 2
P030 Cyanides (soluble cyanide salts), not elsewhere 1
specified (t)
P039 Disulfoton(t); 0.0-Diethyl S-[Z-(ethyIthiojethyl] 1
phosphorothioate(t)
P040 Phosphorothioic acid. 0.0-diethyl 0-pyrazinyl ester; 2
0.0-Diethyl 0-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate
Newly listed hazardous wastes.
1-15
-------
5702s
Table 1-1 (Continued)
Waste code
Description
Original
Third
P041
P043
P044
P062
P063
P071
P074
P085
P089
P094
P097
P098
P099
P104
PI 06
P109
Pill
P121
Diethyl-p-nitrophenyl phosphate; Phosphoric acid, 1
diethyl-p-nitrophenyl ester
Oiisopropyl fluoropnosphate; Fluoridic acid, 2
bis(l-methylethyl) ester; Pnosphorofluoridic acid,
bis(l-methylethyl) ester
Dimethoate (t); Phospnorodithioic acid, 0.0-dimethyl 2
S-(2(methylamino)-2-oxoethyl)ester (t)
Hexaethyl tetraphosphate; Tetraphosphoric acid, 2
hexaethyl ester
Hydrocyanic acid; Hydrogen cyanide 1
0.0-Dimethyl 0-p-nitriphenyl phosphorothioate; Methyl 1
parathion
Nickel (II) cyanide; Nickel cyanide 2
Diphosphoramide, octamethyl-; Octanethylpyrophosphoramide 2
Parathion (t); Phosphorothioic acid.O.O-diethyl 0- 1
(p-nitrophenylJester (t)
Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-(ethylthio)methyl ester 1
(t); Phorate (t)
Famphur; Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl 1
0-[p-( (ditnethylamino)-sulfonyl)phenyl]ester
Potassium cyanide 2
Potassium silver cyanide 3
SiIver cyanide 2
Sodium cyanide 2
Dithiopyrophosphonc acid, tetraethyl ester; 3
Tetraethy Idith iopyrophosphate
Tetraethylpyrophosphate; Pryophosphoric acid, 2
tetraethyl ester
Zinc cyjnide 3
1-16
-------
5702s
Table 1-1 (Continued)
Original
Waste code Description Third
U028 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate; 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic 2
acid. [bis(2-ethylhexyl)]ester
U058 2H-l,3,2-Oxazaphosphorine,2-[bis(2-chloroethyl)ainino]- 2
tetrahydro-2 oxide; Cyclophosphamide
U069 Dibutyl phthalate; 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 3
dibutyl ester
U087 Phosphorodithioic acid.O.O-diethyl-. S-methyl-ester; 3
0.0-Diethyl-S-methyl-dithiophosphate
U088 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester; Oiethyl 3
phthalate
U102 Dimethyl phthalate; 1-2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 3
dimethyl ester
U107 Di-n-octyl phthalate; 1-2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid. 2
di-n-octyl ester
U190 Phthalic anhydride; 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid. 3
anhydride
U221 Toluene diamine; Diaminotoluene 1
U223 Toluene diisocyanate (r.t); Benzene. 1,3- 1
di isocydnantonethyl-(r,t)
U235 1-Propanol. 2.3-dibromo-.phosphate (3:1); Tris(2.3- 2
dibromopropyl) phosphate
1-17
-------
Consequently, the Agency proposed to grant a 2-year national capacity
variance to underground injected K011, K013, and K014 wastes, for which
BOAT was proposed as incineration or wet air oxidation followed by
biological treatment; to underground injected K009 and K010 wastes, for
which BOAT was proposed as steam stripping and/or biological treatment;
and to underground injected F007 wastes, for which BOAT was proposed as
cyanide destruction (Ref. 5).
1.3.2 Response to Major Capacity-Related Comments on the Second Third
Proposed Rule
Several commenters questioned the Agency's stated belief that F006
wastes were being pretreated onsite for cyanides and therefore no
additional treatment capacity was needed. In response to these comments
and revaluation of data, the Agency has significantly raised the BOAT
treatment standards for cyanides in F006 (from 110 mg/kg total cyanides
and 0.064 mg/kg amenable cyanides to 590 mg/kg total cyanides and
30 mg/kg amenable cyanides). In addition, the Agency performed an
analysis of TSDR Survey and Generator Survey data from approximately
1,500 facilities to estimate the volume of F006 wastes that may require
treatment for cyanides as a result of this rule.
The TSDR Survey contained data on 358 facilities generating F006
waste in 1986. Of the total volume generated, 69 percent is generated at
facilities with onsite cyanide treatment, and 27 percent was determined
to be noncyanide-bearing F006. Consequently, only 4 percent of the F006
waste reported as generated in the TSDR Survey would probably need
alternative offsite treatment capacity for cyanides.
1-18
-------
EPA also evaluated a subset of Generator Survey data currently avail-
able. This subset consisted primarily of large facilities. The analysis
involved evaluating data from almost 1,500 facilities. The analysis
identified 322 facilities generating F006 waste. Since the Generator
Survey contains waste concentration data, EPA was able to identify the
volume of wastes with the following: cyanide concentrations above and
below the treatment standards; with unknown cyanide concentration; and
where the presence of cyanide is unknown. This analysis showed that only
7 percent of the F006 waste for this data subset was not analyzed for the
presence of cyanide, or the cyanide concentration in the waste was unknown
or had a cyanide concentration in excess of the treatment standard.
However, about 1 percent of the volume of the F006 waste had a cyanide
concentration above the treatment standard or had cyanides with unknown
concentration levels. In other words, a minimum of 93 percent of this
sample reported generating F006 sludge with total cyanide concentrations
that already meet the treatment standard. This percentage of compliance
could be as high as 99 percent. (For instance, EPA believes if wastes
contain cyanides in concentrations above the treatment standard, the
generators would at least know and report that cyanides were present.)
Although EPA has only evaluated data from a subset of F006
generators, it believes this pattern to be representative of the total
census of F006 wastes. In addition, the data on total cyanide submitted
to EPA in the public comments to the rulemaking also showed greater than
90 percent compliance with the final treatment standard. Therefore, EPA
1-19
-------
believes that, as a worst case, 10 percent of F006 waste may need
alternative commercial treatment capacity. EPA therefore assumes for this
rule that 10 percent of the 129 million gallons of land disposed F006 (or
about 13 million gallons) may require alternative commercial treatment.
Sufficient commercial alkaline chlorination capacity exists to treat this
volume of waste. Appendix A contains the detailed results of these
analyses.
1.3.3 Major Revisions to the Second Third Final Rule
Since proposal of the Second Third rule, EPA has revised the capacity
analysis. This section discusses the results of these revisions and their
cause.
One such revision involves multisource leachate wastes. On
February 27, 1989 (54 FR 8264), EPA amended the schedule for prohibiting
hazardous waste from land disposal to include multisource leachates under
the same schedule as Third Third wastes. EPA defined multisource
leachate as "leachate that is derived from disposal of more than one
listed hazardous waste." This rulemaking also included residuals from
the treatment of multisource leachates, as well as soil and ground water
contaminated only with multisource leachates. This action, taken to allow
EPA more time to fully evaluate the treatability and capacity issues
involved with these wastes, means that multisource leachate will not be
subject to the land disposal restrictions until May 1990.
For the proposed rule. EPA included incineration and reuse as fuel
capacity that was planned to be operational prior to the Second Third
final rule. Since the publication of the Second Third proposed rule, EPA
1-20
-------
determined that this capacity is not yet operational and consequently has
not included it as available for the final rule. However, one facility
reported land disposing about 16 million gallons of F001-F005 biological
treatment sludge in 1986. This waste stream was determined to require
sludge/solid incineration. The waste stream is only hazardous, however,
because it treats multisource leachates bearing the F001-F005 waste
codes. As a result of EPA's recent rulemaking on multisource leachates
(described above), this waste stream is no longer subject to the solvent
land disposal restriction rule (refer to Appendix B for further detail).
Consequently, the 16 million gallons of sludge/solid incineration
capacity assigned to this waste stream during the capacity analysis for
the solvents rule would now be available for Second Third wastes and has
been included in this capacity analysis.
Since the Second Third proposed rule, information has been received
indicating an increase in the amount of stabilization capacity available
for Second Third wastes. This increase in capacity is the result of
additional data from late-reporting facilities that have been included in
the TSDR Survey data base and updated capacity information received from
stabilization facilities since the Second Third proposed rule. Table 1-2
shows the late-reporting facilities that were added to the TSDR Survey
since the proposed rule and the stabilization capacity considered to be
available at each facility for the final rule. A total stabilization
capacity increase of 240 million gallons per year is available at these
*
facilities.
1-21
-------
5702s
Table 1-2 Commercial Stabilization Facilities Added
to the TSOft Survey Capacity Data Base
Since the Second Third Proposed Rule
Fac i1i ty name
Location
EPA ID No.
Available capacity
for Second Third
final rule
(million gallons
per year)
IT, Imperial Valley
Enrx Inc.
Halone Services
East Coast
Environmental
Solidtek Inc.
Frontier Chemical
Waste Process Inc.
ThermalKem Inc.
CyanoKem Inc.
Stab lex of Canada
Martinez, CA
Buffalo. NY
Texas City, TX
New Haven, CT
Morrow, GA
Devon. NY
Rock Hill, SC
Detroit, Ml
Quebec, Canada
TOTAL
CAD000633164
NYD99129178Z
TXD027147115
CTD089631956
GAD096629282
NYD057770109
SCD044442333
MID098011992
NYD980756415
81
1
16
0.08
10
120
5
2
5
240
1-22
-------
The facilities listed in Table 1-3 are all the other commercial
facilities that were contacted to confirm or update the stabilization
capacity information that was originally reported in their TSDR Surveys.
Nine facilities confirmed the information they had originally reported
and four reported changes.
The resulting net change in available stabilization capacity based on
facility contacts was an increase of 11 million gallons per year.
Overall, the information received indicates that approximately 252 million
gallons per year of additional commercial capacity is available. This
increases the available stabilization capacity for Second Third wastes
from 264 million gallons to 516 million gallons. The increase in stabili-
zation capacity did not affect any of the variance determinations made for
this rule. It has been included in the capacity analysis performed for
this rule for the sake of completeness.
This rule also reflects an increase in the amount of available liquid
combustion capacity from that estimated for the Second Third proposed
rule. This increase is the result of the inclusion of commercial
industrial boilers and furnaces as available capacity. The available
capacity of these units has been included with the available capacity of
commercial incinerators and industrial kilns for the combustion of
liquids (Ref. 6). The Agency has included these types of units because
it believes they will be capable of meeting the treatment standards for
waste for which the BOAT technology is incineration or reuse as fuel, as
long as they are well designed and well operated. The inclusion of these
technologies increases the available liquids combustion capacity for
1-23
-------
5702s
Table 1-3 List of Commercial Stabilization Facilities
Contacted to Verify/Update Capacity
Information Reported in the TSDR Survey
Faci lity name
Chemical Waste Management
Petroleum Waste Inc.
Chemical Waste Management
Cecos I nternat i ona 1
Environmental Waste Resources
Peoria Disposal
CID Landfill
Cecos International
Rollins Environmental Services
Erieway Pollution Control
USPCI
GSX Services
Rollins Environmental Services
Envirosafe Services
Cecos International (Gulf west)
USPCI, Grassy
Mountain
Location
Erne lie. AL
Bakersfield. CA
Kettleman City. CA
Commerce City, CO
Waterbury, CT
Peoria, IL
Calumet City, IL
Sulphur, LA
Baton Rouge, LA
Independence, OH
Waynoka. OK
Pinewood, SC
Deer Park, TX
Devers, TX
Houston, TX
Stansbury Park, UT
EPA ID No.
ALD000622464
CAD980675276
CAT000646117
COD99 1300484
CTD072138969
ILD000805912
ILD010284248
LAD0006 18298
LAD010395127
OHD055522429
OKD065438376
SCD070375985
TXD055141378
TXD980748107
TX0980864078
UTD991301749
Crosby and Overton
Kent, WA
WAD991281767
1-24
-------
Second Third wastes by 28 million gallons per year. This increase in
capacity did not affect any of the variance determinations made for this
rule. It has been included in the capacity analysis performed for this
rule for the sake of completeness.
Since publication of the Second Third proposed rule, EPA has decided
to delay the effective date for F006 nonwastewaters and for F007, F008,
F009, F011, and F012 wastes (both wastewaters and nonwastewaters). The
Agency's capacity analysis conducted for these wastes shows that
sufficient commercial capacity does exist for these wastes; therefore, no
long-term national capacity variance is warranted. However, in order to
allow time (if any is truly needed) for facilities to adjust existing
cyanide treatment processes to operate more efficiently, EPA has decided
to grant a 30-day extension for these wastes.
In addition, because F011 and F012 heat treating wastes are often
commingled with F006, F007, F008, and F009 electroplating wastes, EPA
expects that they will have to be segregated and treated separately. To
allow some time to adjust processes to segregate these heat treating
(F011, F012) and electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, F009), EPA is
deferring the total and amenable cyanide standards for F011 and F012 heat
treating wastes until December 8, 1989. However, between July 8, 1989,
and December 8, 1989, these wastes will be subject to the same cyanide
standards as the electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, F009).
1-25
-------
2. CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS
This section presents general discussions of the source(s) of data
and the methodology used for the capacity analyses in support of the
Second Third final rule. Also presented are the results of the analyses
of required and available capacity conducted for the Second Third
promulgated wastes, as well as for previous rulemakings.
2.1 General Methodology
2.1.1 Data Set Development
(1) National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,
and Recycling Facilities
(a) Background. To improve the quality of data used for
capacity analyses of hazardous waste volumes and management practices in
support of the land disposal restrictions, EPA conducted the National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling
Facilities (the TSDR Survey). The TSDR Survey was designed as a census
of RCRA-permitted or interim status treatment, disposal, and recycling
facilities, with no weighting factors for statistical extrapolations -to
project national estimates. The survey also included a sample of storage-
only facilities. The survey results thus provide a comprehensive source
of data on waste volumes land disposed and treatment, recovery, and
disposal capacity.
Receipt of the completed surveys was followed by extensive technical
review and detailed analysis of the facility responses, including
facility contact when necessary. Certain facility responses and data
2-1
-------
elements derived from the facility-level analysis were then incorporated
into a specialized capacity data base (a series of data sets) developed
on land disposal facilities and commercial treatment and recovery
facilities. (See Section 3 for a detailed discussion of the capacity
data base.)
(b) Schedule and status. The TSDR Survey was originally mailed
to over 2,400 facilities in August 1987. Facilities were allowed 60 days
to complete and return the surveys. Many facilities requested and were
granted extensions of 30 days. Since August 1987, an additional
225 facilities that either were initially overlooked or are new have been
identified and sent the TSDR Survey. Over 2,500 facilities had returned
their surveys as of April 1989, the deadline for review and analysis of
data for support of this final rule.
A total of 475 facilities reported onsite land disposal/land placement
(surface disposal and underground injection) of 63 billion gallons of RCRA
hazardous wastes during 1986, the baseline year for the survey. All data
were reviewed and have been included in the data set used to support this
final rule.
Five facilities with surface land disposal have not returned their
surveys to date or did not provide sufficient land disposal data for
inclusion in the data set. Some did provide limited information,
however. These facilities represent about 150 million gallons of land
disposed waste, accounting for about 6 percent of the adjusted 1988 total
volume of surface disposed wastes. The Agency is assuming that the wastes
at these late responding facilities will reflect patterns similar to those
2-2
-------
of the wastes reported, and therefore does not believe that inclusion of
these facilities would have affected variance decisions for this final
rule.
A total of 236 facilities with commercial treatment/recovery
technologies in 1988 have completed and returned surveys, accounting for
a maximum of 11.4 billion gallons per year of commercial hazardous waste
alternative capacity in 1988. Some of these facilities also reported
land disposal onsite and are included among the 475 facilities noted
above.
One hundred and ninety-five facilities reported having commercial
processes in 1988 other than combustion, mostly wastewater treatment
capacity, that may be applicable as alternative treatment/recovery of
Second Third promulgated wastes, accounting for a maximum capacity of
8.7 billion gallons of commercial noncombustion treatment/recovery
capacity in 1988.
Sixty facilities reported commercial combustion processes
(incineration or reuse as fuel) that may be applicable for burning
hazardous waste currently being land disposed, accounting for a maximum
capacity of 499 million gallons of commercial liquid combustion capacity
and 68 million gallons of commercial sludge and solid combustion capacity
in 1988.
A total of 15 commercial treatment/recovery facilities have not
returned their surveys to date. To fill known data gaps, these late
facilities were contacted to gather critical capacity information; where
available, other data sources were also used.
2-3
-------
(c) Technology capacity information. The TSDR Survey was
designed to provide comprehensive information on all current and planned
hazardous waste treatment, disposal, and recycling processes at all RCRA-
permitted and interim status facilities, including information on exempt
processes at these facilities (e.g., recycling, wastewater treatment).*
The baseline year for the survey was 1986. Information was requested on
any planned changes to existing processes, including closures, and any
new processes planned prior to 1992.
The survey included the following information on treatment and
recycling processes, including those taking place in land placement units:
General categories
(including new or planned
processes)
Key parameters
Waste types
Capacity
Residuals
- Type of process
- Operating status
- Commercial status
- RCRA permit status (exempt,
interim status, final)
- Feed rates (by physical form)
- Operating hours
- Pollution controls
- Waste codes managed in 1986
- Restrictions or specifications for
waste managed (for commercial
facilities only)
- Maximum capacity (by physical form)
- Utilization rate for 1986
- Planned changes through 1992
r Quantities generated (by physical
form, percent hazardous)
- Further management
Exceptions include totally enclosed treatment facilities (TETFs) and
closed loop recycling (CLR), which were not required to be reported.
Also, the TSDR Survey did not gather information on facilities having
exempt processes only.
2-4
-------
Equipment - Tanks
(type of unit) - Containers
- Thermal treatment units
- Land placement units (i.e., surface
impoundments, waste piles)
For more details, refer to the complete set of questionnaires and
instructions in the RCRA docket (Ref. 7).
(d) Waste volumes land disposed. The TSDR Survey was also
designed to provide information on the types and quantities of all RCRA
hazardous waste managed, by specific land disposal/placement practices,
at all RCRA-permitted and interim status facilities. The survey provides
limited but adequate characterization data (refer to Subsection 3.1.2) to
assess the treatability potential of the wastes and to identify applicable
alternative treatment/recovery technologies, including:
RCRA waste code (or codes, if more than one is applicable);
Waste description (physical/chemical form and qualitative
information on hazardous characteristics and constituents);
Industry description (general description of the industries that
generated each type of waste at a facility);
Quantity that entered land disposal/placement in 1986; and
Residual information (whether this waste was actually a residual
from onsite hazardous waste management operations).
The TSDR Survey also provides valuable detailed information on the
individual units in which land disposal/placement is occurring, including
plans for closures and upgrading/retrofitting to meet the minimum
technology requirements. Through review of the questionnaire responses
and the facility schematics, it is possible to track individual waste
streams managed in more than one type of land disposal unit or managed by
2-5
-------
more than one process (treatment, storage, or disposal) in surface
impoundments and waste piles, to avoid double-counting of waste volumes.
The information gathered included:
General categories - Type of process
- Permit status
(interim status, final)
- Commercial status
- Operating status
- Closure plans
Key parameters - Liner type (plans for upgrading)
- Pollution controls
Waste types - Waste types and quantities
managed in 1986
- Restrictions or specifications
for waste managed (for commercial
facilities only)
Capacity - Design capacity
- Utilization rate for 1986
- Remaining capacity
- Planned changes through 1992
Residuals - Quantities of effluents and
dredged solids
- Further management
For more details, refer to the complete set of questionnaires contained
in the RCRA docket (Ref. 7).
(e) Overview of data handling, technical review, and quality
assurance. Extensive technical review of TSDR Survey data was required to
ensure completeness, consistency, and accuracy on a per-facility basis.
To achieve this goal, the review process was designed to promote the
consistent and efficient identification and resolution of any errors,
inconsistencies, and omissions, including any required facility follow-up.
The review procedures were comprehensive and required the consideration
2-6
-------
and analysis of the facility responses to essentially every question in
the survey (if applicable to that facility), as well as the review of
general and detailed schematics of all onsite hazardous waste management
operations. The detailed review procedures are presented in the report
Technical Review Procedures for the TSDR Survey (Ref. 8).
All surveys from TSDR facilities with onsite land disposal/placement
(whether private or commercial) or commercial treatment/recovery
operations were considered critical for support of the land disposal
restrictions. Therefore, they were categorized as "priority" surveys and
were given immediate technical review and analysis, including facility
contact to resolve any major technical problems discovered in their
responses. The required data entry forms were completed for either land
disposal/placement and/or commercial treatment/recovery, and the survey
package underwent a preliminary quality control (QC) review by the
technical supervisors. As part of this preliminary QC, the supervisor
then worked with the reviewer to correct or resolve any problems
identified during the survey review. Every survey underwent preliminary
QC review. (See Ref. 8 for details on the survey screening, distribution,
and review procedures.)
Treatability assessments of each land disposed waste stream were then
conducted, as described in Subsection 3.1.2, to identify potentially
applicable alternative technologies.
The last step in the review process involved a detailed, or final, QC
on approximately 25 percent of the surveys. (See Ref. 9 for detailed
information on QC procedures.) After QC, the technical review/analysis
was considered to be complete.
2-7
-------
(2) National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
(a) Background. The primary purposes of the Generator Survey
were (1) to gather waste characterization data on hazardous waste streams
generated in the United States and (2) to gather information about exempt
treatment and recovery processes at generation facilities used to manage
these wastes. Late in 1987, Generator Surveys were sent to approximately
10,000 hazardous waste generator facilities. Over 300 additional
facilities were sent Generator Surveys in a second mailing of surveys in
early 1988. These facilities were considered representative of the
hazardous waste generators in their States (based on the 1985 Biennial
Report data). They included all facilities that were sent a TSDR Survey
as well as the largest (non-TSDR) hazardous waste generators in each
State, including the 1,000 largest generators in the U.S.
The Generator Survey consisted of nine questionnaires (Questionnaires
GA through GI). Questionnaire GA requested general facility information
and information about waste minimization practices, hydrogeology, and
solid waste management units (SWMUs). Questionnaire GB requested waste
characterization and minimization data for each hazardous waste stream
generated at a facility, and Questionnaire GI requested information on
tanks used to manage hazardous waste. The remaining questionnaires asked
for information about specific exempt treatment and recovery operations.
As with the TSDR Survey, historical data for calendar year 1986 activities
and estimated data for planned (treatment and recovery) activities through
1992 were requested.
2-8
-------
(b) Schedule and status. Between November 1987 and March 1988,
Generator Surveys were sent to 10,424 facilities throughout the United
States. As of March 31, 1989, 6,255 facilities had returned their
surveys. Of the facilities that did not return surveys, 2,865 are Small
Quantity Generators, undeliverable or duplicate mailings to facilities,
non-generator facilities, or facilities that are no longer in business.
The remaining 1,304 facilities had not responded as of March 31, 1989.
Selected Generator Surveys (those that report exempt treatment or
recovery operations) are currently undergoing technical review of their
waste characterization and exempt treatment and recovery data. The
reviewed treatment and recovery data will be used to establish a Generator
Survey data base similar to the capacity data base for the TSDR Survey,
while the reviewed waste characterization data are scheduled to be
entered into a Generator Survey mainframe computer data base. Both data
bases are to be used in any remaining regulatory support activities for
the Land Disposal Restrictions Program. Currently, about 1,500 generator
facilities with exempt treatment and recovery have returned their
Generator Surveys. Over 400 of these surveys have undergone or are
currently undergoing technical review as of May 30; about an additional
125 surveys are scheduled for review by June 30, 1989.
(c) F006 subset. EPA evaluated a subset of Generator Survey
data currently available. This subset consisted primarily of large
facilities. The analysis involved evaluating data from almost 1,500
facilities. The analysis identified 322 facilities generating F006 waste.
Since the Generator Survey contains waste concentration data, EPA was able
2-9
-------
to identify the volume of wastes with the following: cyanide concentra-
tions above and below the treatment standards; with unknown cyanide
concentration; and where the presence of cyanide is unknown. This
analysis was performed to estimate the volume of F006 waste that had a
cyanide concentration above the treatment standard.
(3) Other data sources. The TSDR Survey was used as the primary
source of data on the volumes and characteristics of wastes land
disposed, and on treatment/recovery capacity to support the land disposal
restrictions under this final rule. Additional data sources were used
only when necessary to fill obvious data gaps in the TSDR Survey. These
sources were used to provide supplemental data for facilities that were
late in responding to the survey or for facilities that had provided
incomplete responses and either would not or could not assist in
completing the responses. One such data source was the EPA Office of
Drinking Water's (ODW's) Hazardous Waste Injection Well Data Base
(HWIWDB). The HWIWDB was used to estimate the volume of some underground
injected wastes for which the TSDR Survey did not have data (Ref. 10).
Other data were obtained from published literature (as described in
Subsection 3.1.2).
2.1.2 Capacity Analysis Methodology
This section presents a brief description of the Agency's capacity
analysis methodology, as well as any modifications required for the
analysis of the Second Third promulgated wastes. A detailed explanation
of the methodology is contained in Section 3.
2-10
-------
EPA assesses capacity requirements by comparing "required" capacity
with "available" capacity. The following sections briefly describe how
required and available capacities were determined.
(1) Required capacity. Required capacity, or capacity demand,
consists of those volumes of wastes currently land disposed that will
require alternative treatment or recovery when they are restricted from
land disposal, and also includes the residuals generated by treatment of
these wastes. The waste streams potentially affected by the land
disposal restrictions were identified by type of land disposal, including
treatment, storage, or disposal in a surface impoundment; treatment or
storage in a waste pile; disposal by land treatment; and disposal in a
landfill or an underground injection well. Unlike the previous land
disposal restrictions in which underground injected wastes were considered
under a separate rulemaking, both surface disposed and underground
injected wastes are included in the Second Third final rule.
Salt dome formations, salt bed formations, and underground mines and
caves are additional methods of land disposal that are affected by this
rulemaking. Since insufficient information is available to document the
volume of wastes disposed of by these three methods, they are not
addressed in the analysis of volumes and required alternative capacity.
The volumes of waste reported in the TSDR Survey as land disposed in
1986 that require alternative treatment/recovery capacity were adjusted
to reflect the fact that treatment in surface impoundments after November
1988 may be conducted only in impoundments meeting minimum technological
requirements. Volumes of waste that were reported as undergoing
2-11
-------
treatment in impoundments meeting these requirements in 1988, or in
impoundments being replaced by tank systems by 1988, were dropped from
further analysis. Residuals from the treatment of these wastes in
minimum technology impoundments or tanks were assumed to require further
treatment prior to land disposal and therefore are included in the
capacity analysis for this rulemaking. The waste volumes requiring
alternative capacity were identified by RCRA waste code(s) and by their
land disposal ban regulatory status (i.e., solvents and dioxins, First
Thirds, Second Thirds, Third Thirds, and California List). A detailed
discussion of this methodology is presented in Subsection 3.1.1.
To determine the type of alternative capacity required by the
affected wastes, a "treatability analysis" was performed on each waste
stream. Wastes were placed into "treatability groups" using the waste
code, the physical/chemical form data, and information on prior management
and the type of land disposal, and then considering the identified BOAT
technologies. For example, all wastes requiring liquid incineration
would be placed in the same treatability group. The physical/chemical
form data were provided by the facility using qualitative technical
criteria, not regulatory definitions. For example, liquid wastes were
identified as "highly fluid" rather than as "wastes failing the Paint
Filter Liquids Test."
Waste groups (i.e., waste streams described by more than one waste
code) present special treatability concerns because they often contain
constituents requiring different types of treatment (e.g., organics and
metals). To treat these wastes, a treatment train must be developed that
2-12
-------
can treat all waste types in the group. A more detailed description of
the treatability analysis methodology, including treatment train
development, is presented in Subsection 3.1.2.
A number of the treatment technologies to which wastes have been
assigned create treatment residuals that will require further treatment
prior to land disposal (e.g., stabilization of incinerator ash). In these
cases, the Agency has estimated the amount of residuals that would be
generated by treatment of the original volume of waste and has included
these residuals in the volumes requiring treatment capacity. A more
detailed description of the determination of residual volumes is presented
in Subsection 3.1.2(4).
For a number of wastes, BOAT includes treatment of incinerator
scrubber water. Based on TSDR Survey responses, the RCRA-permitted incin-
erators have adequate air pollution control devices (APCDs) (including
scrubber water treatment at those facilities with wet scrubbers), and
therefore no additional analysis of the volume of scrubber water was made.
However, if the resultant scrubber water treatment sludge would likely
require further treatment (e.g., stabilization), these residuals were
included in the volumes requiring treatment capacity.
(2) Available capacity. To obtain estimates of available capacity
that could be compared with the capacity requirements of affected wastes,
a "systems" approach was taken. A system is defined as one or more
different processes used together in one or more different units to treat
or recover hazardous waste. The capacity of the treatment/recovery system
2-13
-------
may be limited by the capacity of one or more of the unit processes
within the system. The available capacity of the system is determined by
subtracting the utilized capacity of the system from the maximum capacity
of the system. A detailed discussion of system capacity determination
can be found in Subsection 3.2.2.
Comparing required capacity with available capacity begins at the
facility level and moves to the national level, as dictated by the
available capacity and commercial status of applicable treatment/recovery
systems. The available capacity of systems identified as private is
considered only when it is BOAT, and only for the wastes reported as being
land disposed at that facility. Waste volumes assigned to onsite BOAT
technologies are not considered in the national totals of required
commercial capacity.
The remaining volumes of waste still requiring treatment capacity are
added to determine the national demand for commercial capacity of each
alternative technology. Consequently, all estimates of capacity presented
in this document represent commercially available (not private) capacity.
By comparing the required capacity with the available commercial
capacity, the Agency can identify capacity shortfalls and make
determinations concerning variances. The comparative capacity analysis
accounts for the sequential and cumulative effects of previous land
disposal restrictions, capacity variances, and projected capacity changes
after 1986 (the baseline year). Solvents and dioxin wastes were assigned
to available capacity first, followed by First Third promulgated wastes,
2-14
-------
California List HOCs (other than those that are also First Third
promulgated wastes), underground injected wastes, and finally Second
Third promulgated wastes. In addition, available capacity was first
assigned to all affected wastes land disposed in "surface" units (i.e.,
waste piles, surface impoundments, landfills, and land treatment, but not
underground injection wells), and then to underground injected wastes.
The Agency believes that land disposal in surface units may represent a
greater threat to human health and the environment than does the
underground injection of wastes.
2.2 Results
The following subsections present the results of the capacity analyses
conducted for this and previous rulemakings. All land disposed hazardous
wastes, including those capable of being treated onsite in BOAT systems
and wastes stored only in land disposal units, are included in the
overview tables. As mentioned earlier, land disposed wastes capable of
being treated onsite in a BOAT system have not been included in the
national estimates of required capacity; therefore, only commercially
available capacity is presented in this document. In addition, the amount
of commercial capacity available for each rulemaking always considers the
amount used by previous rulemakings.
2.2.1 All RCRA Wastes
Table 2-1 presents estimates of the volumes of RCRA wastes that are
surface land disposed annually. These volumes were compiled by adding
all waste stream volumes managed by treatment, storage, or disposal in
surface land disposal units. Separate waste volumes are shown for
2-15
-------
5704s
Table 2-1 Overview of All Surface Land
Disposed RCRA Hazardous Waste
Land disposed volume
(million ga!/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles 92
- Surface impoundments 1Z6
Treatment
- Waste piles 63
- Surface impoundments 1,521
Disposal
- Landfills 600
- Land treatment 83
- Surface impoundments 218
lotal 2,703
a Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
August 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofitted to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-16
-------
storage and treatment in waste piles; treatment, storage, and disposal in
surface impoundments; and disposal in landfills and land treatment units.
The baseline data for determining the volumes in Table 2-1 were the 1986
data from responses to the TSDR Survey. Data reported in tons were
converted to gallons (using the conversion factor of 240 gallons/ton,
based on the density of water), to allow comparisons to available
capacity in a standard unit. These reported 1986 volumes were adjusted
by subtracting the volumes of waste managed in treatment surface
impoundments that have undergone closure and have been replaced by tanks
or that have been retrofitted to meet minimum technology requirements.
To avoid double-counting of wastes that underwent more than one
management operation in the same type of unit (e.g., storage and
treatment in a waste pile), the following procedures were used:
In tabulating volumes of waste managed in surface impoundments
and waste piles, any wastes that underwent treatment in an
impoundment or waste pile were reported in the "treatment"
volume.
Wastes stored in a surface impoundment or waste pile that never
underwent treatment in the impoundment or waste pile were reported
in the "storage only" volumes.
In tabulating surface impoundment volumes, wastes that were
disposed of in surface impoundments but not also treated in the
impoundment were included among "disposal" surface impoundment
volumes.
Not represented in the estimates presented in Table 2-1 are volumes
of surface land disposed waste from facilities that did not return their
TSDR Surveys before April 1989 or did not provide sufficient data on land
disposal. Based on the limited information provided by these facilities,
2-17
-------
EPA estimates that these facilities accounted for approximately
150 million gallons of land disposed waste in 1986. This represents less
than 6 percent of the reported 1988 adjusted volume of surface land
disposed hazardous waste. Sufficient data were not available to determine
specific management practices and RCRA waste codes associated with these
volumes.
2.2.2 Solvents
For the First Third final rule, EPA performed a reanalysis of required
and available treatment capacity for surface land disposed solvent wastes
(Ref. 4). This subsection summarizes the results of that analysis. The
First Third final rule did not include a capacity analysis for underground
injected wastes. A capacity analysis for underground injected wastes was
performed for a separate rulemaking.
Table 2-2 presents estimates of the volume of solvents that are
surface land disposed annually, by management practice and by type of land
disposal unit. The same procedures described for the analysis of all RCRA
wastes were used for estimating solvent volumes. The entire volume of
any waste stream, for both single waste streams and waste groups (waste
described by more than one waste code), was considered if the waste stream
contained any solvent wastes.
The volume of surface land disposed solvent wastes requiring
alternative commercial treatment capacity is less than the volume of
solvents land disposed. This is because the Agency has assumed that the
13 million gallons of solvent wastes that were only stored in impoundments
or waste piles do not require alternative treatment capacity (although
2-18
-------
5704s
Table 2-2 Overview of Surface Land Disposed Solvent Wastes
Land disposed volume6
Management practice . (million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles 2
- Surface impoundments 11
Treatment
- Waste piles 3
- Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
- Landfills 71
- Land treatment <1
- Surface inpoundments 26
Total 113
a Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
August 1988). adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofitted to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-19
-------
they may require alternative storage capacity) because they are treated or
disposed of elsewhere. Furthermore, the facility-level waste treatability
and technology capacity analyses conducted on solvent wastes being land
disposed determined that 34 million gallons of these wastes either had
already been treated using the BOAT technology or could be treated onsite,
and therefore were not included in the volumes requiring alternative
commercial treatment/recovery capacity. Based on this, the Agency
estimates that 66 million gallons of solvent wastes will require
alternative treatment/recovery capacity on a commercial basis. This
volume includes 25 million gallons of soil; therefore, it is estimated
that only 41 million gallons of nonsoil solvent wastes will require
alternative commercial treatment capacity.* Finally, the Agency estimates
that treatment of this 41 million gallons will generate 4 million gallons
of waste residuals that will also require additional alternative
treatment capacity.
Table 2-3 presents the estimates of available commercial capacity for
the alternative technologies that are applicable to solvent wastes. Also
presented are the estimates of annual surface land disposed waste volumes
that require alternative commercial capacity based on the facility-level
treatability and capacity analyses (not including contaminated soils or
* This includes 16 million gallons of solvent-contaminated wastewater
treatment sludge that was deemed to require incineration. The sludge,
however, results from the treatment of multisource leachate and
consequently is to be evaluated under the same schedule as Third Third
wastes and is not now subject to the solvents rule (see
Subsection 1.3.3).
2-20
-------
5704s
Table 2-3 Solvent Capacity Analysis
Available Required
capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
- Liquids 275 1
- Sludges/soltds 47 38a
Stabilization of 499 4
incinerator ash
Uastewater treatment
- Cyanide oxidation, chemical 159 <1
precipitation, and
sett 1ing/fiItrat ion
- Steam stripping, 66 2
carbon adsorption,
biological treatment, or
wet air oxidation
a This includes 16 million gallons of solvent-contaminated wastewater
treatment sludge that was deemed to require incineration. The sludge.
however, results from the treatment of multisource leachate and
consequently is to be evaluated under the same schedule as Third Third
wastes and is not subject to the solvents rule.
2-21
-------
underground injected wastes). As evident from the table, the Agency
determined that, based on the new data available from results of the TSDR
Survey, there was adequate capacity for all of the solvent wastes that
will require alternative capacity (Ref. 4).
2.2.3 Nonsolvent RCRA Wastes Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds
(HOCs)
For the First Third final rule, EPA performed a reanalysis of required
and available treatment capacity for California List HOCs (Ref. 4). This
subsection summarizes the results of that analysis. The First Third final
rule did not include a capacity analysis for underground injected wastes.
A capacity analysis for underground injected wastes was performed for a
separate rulemaking.
Tables 2-4 through 2-6 present estimates of annual surface land
disposed volumes for nonsolvent RCRA wastes that are potential California
List wastes containing HOCs at concentrations of 1,000 mg/kg or greater.
Separate tables are presented for total HOC wastes, HOC wastes that are
also First Third promulgated wastes, and all other HOC wastes. The same
procedures used for tabulating all RCRA wastes apply to HOC volumes.
However, the total volume for each management practice in Tables 2-4
through 2-6 represents the sum of all single HOC waste streams (in that
table's regulatory group) and all waste groups containing at least one
potential HOC waste (in that table's regulatory group) but containing no
solvents.
The volume of land disposed HOC wastes requiring alternative
commercial treatment capacity is less than the volume of HOC wastes land
disposed. This is because the facility-level treatability and capacity
2-22
-------
5704s
Table 2-4 Overview of Surface Land Disposed Potential
California List Wastes Containing
Halogenated Organic Compounds
Land disposed volume3
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles 1
- Surface impoundments <1
Treatment
- Waste piles 7
- Surface impoundnents 6
Disposal
- Landfills 20
- Land treatment <1
- Surface impouncinents <1
Total 34
a Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
August 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofitted to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-23
-------
5704s
T.ible ?-5 Overview of Surface Land Disposed
first Third Promulgated Wastes Containing
Halogenated Organic Compounds
Land disposed volume3
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste pi les 1
- Surface impouncinents <1
Treatment
- Waste piles 7
- Surface impouncfcnents <1
Disposal
- Landfills 8
- Land treatment <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Total 16
a Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
August 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impouncknents that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofitted to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-24
-------
5704s
Table 2-6 Overview of All Other Surface Land Disposed Wastes
Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds
Land disposed volume3
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Treatment
- Waste piles <1
- Surface impoundments 6
Disposal
- Landfills 12
- Land treatment <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Total 18
a Baseline was TSOR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
August 1988), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment standards
retrofitted to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-25
-------
analyses conducted on the HOC wastes being land disposed determined that
3 million gallons of these wastes could be treated onsite and therefore
were not included in the volume requiring alternative commercial treatment
capacity. Based on this, the Agency estimates that 15 million galTons of
HOC wastes will require alternative treatment capacity on a commercial
basis. This volume includes 6 million gallons of soils, which are
discussed in a separate section of the document (2 million gallons of HOC
soils were assigned to onsite treatment); therefore, it is estimated that
only 9 million gallons of nonsoil HOC wastes will require alternative
commercial treatment capacity.
Table 2-7 presents the results of the facility-level treatability and
capacity analyses for HOC-containing wastes (not including underground
injected waste volumes). To eliminate double-counting, this table does
not include wastes that contain First Third promulgated wastes or
solvents.
Based on the data from the TSDR Survey, the Agency determined that
adequate capacity exists for the volume of HOC wastes requiring
combustion. Consequently, the Agency rescinded the national capacity
variance previously granted to these wastes (Ref. 4).
2.2.4 First Third Wastes
In support of the First Third final rule, EPA performed facility-
level treatability and capacity analyses on First Third waste streams
(Ref. 4). This subsection documents the results of the capacity analysis
for the First Third wastes. As previously mentioned, the First Third
final rule did not include underground injected wastes.
2-26
-------
5704s
Table 2-7 Capacity Analysis for HOC Wastes
(Excluding First Third Proposed HOCs)
Technology
Available
capacity
(million gal/yr)
Required
capacity
(million gal/yr)
Combustion
- Liquids 274
- Sludges/so lids 9
Wastewater treatment (for organics) 64
Stabilization of incinerator ash 495
2-27
-------
(1) All First Third wastes. Table 2-8 presents the estimates of all
First Third wastes (as listed in 40 CFR 268.10) that are surface land
disposed annually, by management practice and by type of disposal unit.
The total volume for each category in Table 2-8 represents the sum of all
single First Third waste streams and all waste groups containing at least
one First Third waste but no solvents. This prevents double-counting of
multiple waste streams that contain both First Third wastes and solvents.
(2) First Third wastes for which formal treatment standards have
been promulgated. Table 2-9 presents estimates of the annual volume of
First Third wastes surface land disposed for which treatment standards
were promulgated, by management practice and by type of disposal unit.
These wastes are referred to hereafter as First Third promulgated wastes.
The same procedures described for the analysis of all RCRA wastes were
used for estimating First Third promulgated waste volumes. The total
volume for each category in Table 2-9 represents the sum of all single
First Third promulgated waste streams and all waste groups containing at
least one First Third promulgated waste but no solvents. This prevents
double-counting of multiple waste streams that contain First Third
promulgated wastes and solvents.
The volume of land disposed First Third promulgated wastes requiring
alternative commercial treatment capacity is less than the volume of
First Third promulgated wastes land disposed. This is because the Agency
has assumed that 35 million gallons of the 45 million gallons that were
only stored in impoundments or waste piles do not require alternative
treatment capacity because they are treated or disposed of elsewhere
2-28
-------
5704s
Uble 2-8 Overview of All Surface Land
Disposed First Third Wastes
Land disposed volume3
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles 49
- Surface impoundments 6
Treatment
- Waste piles 29
- Surface impoundments 328
Disposal
- Landfills 302
- Land treatment 76
- Surface impoundments 71
Total 861
a Baseline was 1SDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
August 1988). adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofitted to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-29
-------
5701s
Table 2-9 Overview of Surface Land Disposed
First Third Promulgated Wastes
Land disposed volume
Management practice (million gal'/yr)
Storage only
- Waste pi les 41
- Surface impoundments 4
Treatment
- Waste piles 27
- Surface impoundments 320
Disposal
- Landfills 274
- Land treatment 76
- Surface impoundments 70
Total 812
First Third promulgated wastes are those wastes for which treatment
standards were finalized on August 8, 1988.
Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
August 1988). adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofitted to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-30
-------
(although they may require alternative storage capacity). The 10 million
gallons of "stored only" wastes that do require alternative capacity were
determined to have undergone "long-term storage" and therefore would not
have been reported elsewhere as treated or disposed of. Furthermore, the
facility-level waste treatability and technology capacity analyses
conducted on First Third wastes being land disposed determined that
341 million gallons of these wastes either had already been treated or
could be treated onsite using the BOAT technology and therefore do not
require alternative commercial treatment capacity. This volume includes
290 million gallons of wastewater from one facility assigned to onsite
dewatering in tanks.
Table 2-10 presents estimates of available commercial capacity for
the alternative technologies applicable to the First Third promulgated
wastes. Also presented are the estimates of annual land disposed waste
volumes requiring alternative commercial capacity, excluding First Third
promulgated wastes that are underground injected or soils contaminated
with First Third promulgated wastes. In most cases, adequate capacity was
available to treat all of the First Third promulgated wastes and mixed
waste groups containing a First Third promulgated waste.
As Table 2-10 shows, four technologies had required capacity exceeding
the available capacity: acid leaching of sludges, high temperature metals
recovery, solvent extraction, and combustion of sludges/solids.
BOAT for K071 was identified as acid leaching of the sludge. Because
of the shortfall of acid leaching capacity, the Agency granted a 2-year
national capacity variance for K071 wastes.
2-31
-------
5704s
Table 2-10 1988 Capacity Analysis for
first Third Promulgated Wastes
Requ i red
Available commercial
capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
- Liquids 274 <1
- Sludges/bol ids 7 6 - 160a
Stabilization 495 231 b
Solvent extract ion 1 0-154
Metals recovery
- High tempenHure metals 34 62
recovery (not secondary
smelting)
Uastewater treatment
- Chromium reduction, chemical 260 40
precipitation, and
settling/I i Itration
- Carbon adsorption and 12 1
chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, and
sett 1ing/fiItrution
Sludge Treatment
- Acid leachiiKj, chemical 0 4
oxidation, and dewatering of
sludge and sulfide precipi-
tation of ctf luent
a Six million gallons of non-K048-K052 wastes require sludge/solids
combustion. Amount of K048-K052 sludge/solids requiring combustion may
be as much as 154 million gallons. The alternative BOAT technology for
these wastes is solvent extraction.
This volume IML ludes 62 million gallons of "high zinc" K061 also
assigned to high temperature metals recovery.
2-32
-------
High temperature metals recovery (HTMR) was identified as the BOAT
for "high zinc" K061 (i.e., K061 containing ^15 percent zinc). Because
of the shortfall of HTMR capacity, the Agency granted a 2-year capacity
variance to the HTMR standard for high zinc K061. However, during this
2-year variance period, the Agency is requiring that high zinc K061 meet
the standard for low zinc K061, which is based on stabilization.
Therefore, 62 million gallons of K061 waste have been "double-counted" on
Table 2-10 under both stabilization and HTMR.
The required capacity for the combustion of sludges/solids was divided
into two numbers: the total amount of waste that requires sludge/solid
combustion, 160 million gallons, and the amount of First Third promulgated
waste other than K048-K052 waste that requires sludge/solid combustion,
6 million gallons. The BOAT standard for K048-K052 was also based on
solvent extraction, however, and thus the required capacities for these
technologies are presented as ranges on Table 2-10. The total volume of
K048-K052 wastes requiring capacity has been determined to be 154 million
gallons. Consequently, because of a shortfall of sludge/solid
incineration and solvent extraction capacity, the Agency granted a 2-year
national capacity variance for K048-K052 wastes.
(3) Soft hammer wastes from the First Third final rule. Table 2-11
presents estimates of annual surface land disposed volumes for "soft
hammer" First Third wastes from the First Third final rule, by management
practice and by type of disposal unit. These are the First Third wastes
for which treatment standards were not promulgated in the First Third
2-33
-------
5704s
Table 2-11 Overview of Surface Land Disposed
Soft Hamner First Third Wastes3
Land disposed volume
Management practice (million gaT/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles 8
- Surface impoundments 2
Treatment
- Waste piles 2
- Surface impoundments 7
Disposal
- Landfills 28
- Land treatment
-------
final rule. Treatment standards for some of the soft hammer wastes from
the First Third final rule are being promulgated in the Second Third final
rule. Volume estimates for the First Third soft hammer wastes remaining
after the Second Third final rule (First Third wastes for which treatment
standards were not promulgated in the First Third or Second Third final
rules), as well as volume estimates for Second Third soft hammer wastes
(Second Third wastes for which treatment standards were not promulgated
in the Second Third final rule), are presented in the next subsection.
The same procedures described for the analyses of all RCRA wastes were
used for estimating soft hammer waste volumes. The total volume for each
category in Table 2-11 represents the sum of all single, First Third soft
hammer waste streams and all waste groups containing at least one First
Third soft hammer waste, but no First Third promulgated wastes or
solvents. This prevents double-counting of multiple waste streams that
contain First Third soft hammer wastes, First Third promulgated wastes,
and solvents.
2.2.5 Underground Injected Solvent Wastes
On July 26, 1988 (53 FR 28118), EPA published the final rule
regulating underground injection of F001-F005 solvents and of F020-F023
and F026-F028 dioxin wastes. The results of the capacity analysis for
these wastes are presented in Table 2-12.
EPA used the data resulting from the TSDR Survey to estimate the
amount of required alternative commercial treatment capacity. For this
rule, the Agency estimated that 317 gallons of solvent wastes are
underground injected annually. The TSDR Survey does not contain detailed
2-35
-------
5704s
Idble 2-12 Capacity Analysis for Underground
Injected Solvent Wastes3
Available Required
capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
- liquids 339 57
Wastewater treatment
- stream stripping,
carbon adsorption. 75 260
biological treatment.
or wet air oxidation
a Based on 53 FR 28118-28155.
2-36
-------
data on the concentration of contaminants in wastes; however, based on
waste descriptions, EPA estimated that at least 260 million gallons were
solvent-water mixtures containing less than 1 percent total F001-F005
solvent constituents at the point of generation. The appropriate
treatment for these wastes was identified as wastewater treatment for
organics (steam stripping, carbon adsorption, biological treatment, or
wet air oxidation). Using the TSDR Survey, the Agency identified only
75 million gallons of available commercial wastewater treatment for
organics. Consequently, EPA granted a national capacity variance for
solvent-water mixtures with less than 1 percent total F001-F005 solvent
constituents until August 8, 1990.
EPA estimated that the remaining 57 million gallons of underground
injected solvent wastes contained F001-F005 constituents in concentra-
tions greater than or equal to 1 percent at the point of generation. The
BOAT standard for these wastes is based on the performance of liquid
combustion. Using the TSDR Survey, the Agency identified 339 million
gallons of available liquid combustion capacity. EPA, therefore, did not
grant a national capacity variance to those wastes.
EPA determined that F020-F023 and F026-F028 dioxin wastes were not
being underground injected and that restricting them would have a
negligible effect on available treatment capacity; EPA, therefore, did
not grant a 2-year capacity variance to these wastes.
2-37
-------
2.2.6 Underground Injected California List Wastes
On August 16, 1988, EPA published its regulatory approach for
underground injected California List wastes. The results of the capacity
analysis for these wastes are shown on Table 2-13. This subsection
summarizes the capacity determinations for each California List waste
type.
(1) Free cyanides. For this rule, EPA determined that 1.36 billion
gallons of cyanide wastes are underground injected annually. The Agency
estimated that at least 170 million gallons of this waste exceeded the
statutory prohibition level of 1,000 mg/1. Using the TSDR Survey, EPA
identified only 162 million gallons of available cyanide oxidation
capacity. Consequently, EPA granted a national capacity variance to
underground injected California List cyanide wastes until August 8, 1990.
(2) Metals. EPA estimated that 234 million gallons of waste
exceeding the California List standards for metals (other than chromium)
are underground injected annually. Using the TSDR Survey, the Agency
identified 128 million gallons of available commercial chemical
precipitation capacity. Consequently, EPA granted a national capacity
variance to underground injected California List metal-bearing wastes
until August 8, 1990.
(3) Chromium wastes. EPA identified 105 million gallons of wastes
with chromium levels exceeding the California List limits. EPA also
identified an additional 237 million gallons of wastes that could
potentially exceed the chromium levels. Using the TSDR Survey, the
Agency determined that 109 million gallons of chromium reduction,
2-38
-------
5704s
Table 2-13 Capacity Analysis for Underground
Injected California List Wastes'1
Technology
Combustion
- liquids
Cyanide oxidation
Chemical precipitation
Neutralization
Available
capacity
(million gal/yr)
246
162
128
30
Required
capacity
(million gal/yr)
b
>170
234
>1.000
Wastewater treatment
for organics
50
245
- steam stripping,
carbon adsorption,
biological treatment,
or wet air oxidation
Chromium reduction,
chemical precipitation,
and settling or filtration
109
105-342
Based on 53 FR 30908-30918.
Exact volume is not known; determined to be "substantially less" than
available capacity.
2-39
-------
chemical precipitation, and settling or filtration capacity was available
to treat these wastes. Thus, EPA decided to grant a national capacity
variance to underground injected California List chromium wastes until
August 8, 1990.
(4) Corrosives. EPA identified over 1 billion gallons of underground
injected acidic corrosive (pH <2) wastes subject to the California List
prohibitions. Using the TSDR Survey, the Agency identified only about
30 million gallons of available commercial neutralization capacity.
Consequently, EPA granted a national capacity variance to underground
injected California List corrosive wastes until August 8, 1990.
(5) Haloqenated organic compounds (HOCs). EPA divided California
List HOC wastes into two subgroups: concentrated HOC wastes containing
greater than or equal to 10,000 mg/1 (1 percent) HOC constituents, and
dilute wastewaters with HOC concentrations between 1,000 and 10,000 mg/1.
The Agency determined that the volume of concentrated HOC wastes being
underground injected was substantially less than the amount of available
liquid combustion capacity (the specified BOAT for these wastes). EPA,
therefore, did not grant a national capacity variance to underground
injected California List wastes with HOC concentrations greater than or
equal to 10,000 mg/1.
Using the TSDR Survey, EPA identified 245 million gallons of
underground injected dilute HOC wastewaters (HOCs between 1,000 and
10,000 mg/1). EPA identified only 50 million gallons of available
wastewater treatment capacity applicable to these wastes (steam stripping,
2-40
-------
carbon adsorption, biological treatment, or wet air oxidation).
Consequently, EPA granted a national capacity variance to underground
injected dilute California List HOC wastewaters until August 8, 1990.
(6) Polvchlorinated biphenvls (PCBs). EPA identified 25,000 gallons
of underground injected PCBs; however, EPA does not believe that these
wastes exceed the statutory prohibition level of 50 ppm. Furthermore,
data from both the TSDR Survey and the RIA Mail Survey indicate that
treatment capacity for these wastes (liquid combustion) substantially
exceeds the volume injected. EPA, therefore, did not grant a national
capacity variance to underground injected California List PCB wastes.
2.2.7 Underground Injected First Third Wastes
EPA's regulatory approach for underground injected First Third wastes
was outlined in two parts. The first part, published on August 16, 1988
(53 FR 30908), covered underground injected K049-K052, K062, K071, and
K104 wastes. EPA's proposed regulations on the remaining underground
injected First Third wastes were published on October 26, 1988 (53 FR
43400). EPA plans to finalize this rule in June of 1989. Table 2-14
summarizes the capacity analyses for First Third wastes.
(1) K062 wastes. EPA determined that between 128 and 148 million
gallons of K062 wastes, spent pickle liquor, are underground injected
each year. The BOAT standard for K062 wastes is based on chromium
reduction, chemical precipitation, and sludge dewatering. Using the TSDR
Survey, the Agency identified only 109 million gallons of available
chromium reduction capacity. Consequently, EPA granted a national
capacity variance to K062 wastes until August 8, 1990.
2-41
-------
5704s
Table 2 14 Capacity Analysis for Underground
Injected First Third Wastes3
Technology
Available
capacity
(million gal/yr)
Required
capacity
(million gal/yr)
Combustion
- liquids
Chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, and settling
or filtration
246
109
128-148
Solvent extraction followed
by steam stripping and
carbon adsorption
57
Acid leaching followed
by chemical oxidation,
dewatering of sludges,
and sulfide precipitation
<1
Biological treatment
followed by wet air
oxidation
118
Based on 53 fR 30908-30918 and 53 FR 40400-40408.
2-42
-------
(2) K049. K050. K051, and K052 wastes. K049-K052 are petroleum
refining wastes. The BOAT standard for these wastes is based on sludge
incineration or solvent extraction followed by stabilization. EPA
determined that about 656,000 gallons of these wastes are underground
injected annually. Based on the limited treatment capacity available, and
the decision to allocate available treatment first to surface disposed
wastes, the Agency granted a national capacity variance to underground
injected K049-K052 wastes until August 8, 1990.
(3) K104 wastes. K104 wastes are wastewaters generated from
production of nitrobenzene and aniline. The BOAT standard for K104
wastes was based on solvent extraction followed by steam stripping and
carbon adsorption. The TSDR Survey indicates that nearly 57 million
gallons of K104 are being underground injected each year. EPA, however,
identified only 1 million gallons of available solvent extraction
capacity. Consequently, EPA granted a national capacity variance to
underground injected K104 wastes until August 8, 1990.
(4) K071 wastes. K071 waste is brine purification muds from mercury
cell production of chlorine. The BOAT standard for K071 is based on acid
leaching followed by chemical oxidation, dewatering of sludges, and
sulfide precipitation of metals in the effluent. Although EPA determined
that only about 45,000 gallons of K.071 waste is underground injected each
year, the Agency believes that there is inadequate capacity to treat
these wastes. Consequently, EPA granted a national capacity variance to
underground injected K071 wastes until August 8, 1990.
2-43
-------
(5) K016 wastes. K016 waste is heavy ends or distillation residues
from the production of certain halogenated hydrocarbons. The BOAT
standard for dilute (less than 1 percent) K016 wastes is based on
biological treatment followed by wet air oxidation; for K016 wastes in
concentrations equal to or greater than 1 percent, the BOAT standard is
based on liquid combustion. Using the TSDR Survey, EPA identified
118 million gallons of underground injected dilute (less than 1 percent)
K016 wastes. EPA identified only 72 million gallons of available capacity
for dilute K016 wastes, however. Consequently, EPA proposed to grant a
national capacity variance to underground injected dilute (less than
1 percent) K016 wastes until August 8, 1990.
Using the TSDR Survey, EPA identified only 170,000 gallons of
underground injected concentrated K016 wastes (greater than 1 percent)
and 246 million gallons of available liquid combustion capacity. EPA,
therefore, did not propose to grant a national capacity variance to
underground injected concentrated (greater than 1 percent) K016 wastes.
(6) K019 wastes. K019 is heavy ends or distillation residues from
the production of ethylene dichloride. EPA determined that only
65,000 gallons of relatively dilute K019 wastes are being underground
injected and that the most appropriate treatment would be biological
degradation. Using the TSDR Survey, the Agency identified 72 million
gallons of available biological treatment capacity. EPA, therefore, did
not propose to grant a national capacity variance to underground injected
K019 wastes.
2-44
-------
(7) K030 wastes. K030 is column bottoms and heavy ends from
production of trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene. Using the TSDR
Survey, EPA identified 30,000 gallons of underground injected K030. As
with K019, EPA determined that the underground injected K030 waste is
relatively dilute and is best treated by biological treatment. EPA,
therefore, did not propose to grant a national capacity variance for
underground injected K030 wastes.
(8) K103 wastes. K103 wastes are residues from the production of
analine. The Agency determined that 31,560 gallons of K103 waste was
being underground injected annually. The Agency believes that these
wastes are relatively concentrated and would therefore require liquid
combustion. EPA identified 246 million gallons of available liquid
combustion capacity. EPA, therefore, did not propose to grant a national
capacity variance to underground injected K103 wastes.
(9) First Third promulgated wastes with established BOAT that are
not being underground injected. EPA determined that a number of First
Third promulgated wastes for which BOAT standards have been established
are not being underground injected. The Agency believes that restricting
these wastes from underground injection would have a negligible effect on
available treatment capacity. EPA, therefore, did not propose to grant a
national capacity variance to the following underground injected First
Third promulgated wastes:
Wastewater and nonwastewater forms of K001, K015, K018, K020,
K024, K037, K044,-K045, K047, K048, K087, K099, K101, and K102;
. Nonwastewater forms only of F006, K004, K008, K021, K022, K025,
K036, K060, K061, and K100;
2-45
-------
K046 nonexplosive nonwastewaters, K069 noncalcium sulfate
nonwastewaters, K083 no-ash nonwastewaters, and K086 solvent
wastes.
2.2.8 Determination of Available Capacity for the Second Third Final
Rule
This section presents the Agency's determination of the amount of
commercial treatment capacity available for Second Third promulgated
wastes,
(1) Revisions to available capacity. Since publication of the
Second Third proposed rule, EPA has made a number of revisions to its
determination of available commercial treatment capacity. This subsection
discusses the reasons behind these revisions and their effects.
After publication of the Second Third proposed rule, EPA amended the
schedule for prohibiting hazardous wastes from land disposal to include
multisource leachates under the same schedule as Third Third wastes
(54 FR 8264). As a result of this rule, one solvent waste stream of
16 million gallons, which was assigned to sludge incineration, is no
longer subject to the solvent land disposal restriction rule (see
Appendix B). Consequently, the 16 million gallons of sludge/solid
incineration capacity that had been assigned to this waste stream during
the capacity analysis for the solvents rule is now available for Second
Third wastes and has been included in the capacity analysis for Second
Third promulgated wastes.
In the proposed rule, EPA included incineration and reuse as fuel
capacity that was planned to be operational prior to promulgation of the
Second Third final rule. However, EPA was unable to confirm that this
2-46
-------
capacity is indeed operational and therefore did not include it as
available for the final rule.
This final rule also reflects an increase in the amount of available
liquid combustion capacity. In the Second Third proposed rule, EPA
included only available capacity from commercial incinerators and
industrial kilns. For today's rule, however, EPA has included commercial
industrial boilers and furnaces in its determination of available
capacity. The Agency has included these types of units because it
believes that they will be capable of meeting the treatment standards for
waste for which the BOAT technology is incineration or reuse as fuel, as
long as they are well designed and well operated. The inclusion of these
technologies increases the amount of available liquid combustion capacity
for Second Third wastes by 28 million gallons per year. This increase
did not affect any of the variance determinations made for this rule; it
has been included for the sake of completeness.
Since the Second Third proposed rule, EPA has received information
indicating an increase in the amount of stabilization capacity available
for Second Third wastes. This increase in capacity is due to additional
data from facilities late in reporting and updated capacity information
received from stabilization facilities after publication of the Second
Third proposed rule. The information received indicates that
approximately 252 million gallons per year of additional commercial
capacity is available (refer to Subsection 1.3.3 for more detail). This
increases the available stabilization capacity for Second Third wastes
from 264 million gallons to 516 million gallons. Although this increase
2-47
-------
did not affect any capacity variance determinations, it has been included
for the sake of completeness.
Finally, EPA is continuously revising and adding to the TSDR Survey
capacity data base to reflect the addition of new data from late-reporting
facilities and corrections made during QC of the data. Although none of
these revisions have affected any capacity determinations, they have been
included for the sake of completeness. The data contained in this
document, therefore, represent the most complete data currently available
to EPA.
(2) Effects of previous land disposal restrictions. Table 2-15
shows the effects of previous land disposal restrictions on available
capacity for Second Third promulgated wastes. The table shows the
Agency's latest estimate of 1988 available capacity for each technology
(i.e., these estimates include all the revisions discussed in the
previous subsection). The table also presents the amount of capacity
required by each of the previous land disposal restrictions in order of
promulgation. The amount required by previous rules is subtracted from
the 1988 available capacity for each technology to determine the amount
remaining, and therefore available, for the Second Third promulgated
wastes. Table 2-15 also accounts for the 13 million gallons of alkaline
chlorination capacity that may be required as a result of the Second
Third final rule. EPA developed this estimate based on an analysis of
data from the TSDR Survey, the Generator Survey, and from public comments.
A detailed discussion of the findings of these analyses is contained in
Appendix A.
2-48
-------
«
LT)
O
LP
T3
fl
CJ
to
i
i:
_c
c
c
o
s
o on
.n
u
.c =
^ "U *J
4-> fi
(A _J
£ 2
4J -O
CO U
> f-
-O £
U. H-
4-f
U
S>0
w
S c
01 3
u 'o
t/1
3
S
OS *J
w w
_j O
2
vt
4-1
C D
QJ ^~
^ U
^
JH
CO 13
CO U
fl Q.
> 13
>
?
]
*
POP^ID CVJCMCSJ^ PO qi O
CO ^ ^ ^ PO O PO
ru m < i
-^o ooo o o o
V V V
u
t£> o o o o n o
V PO V
esj
rs,o*-4 o o o o o o o
LO V
-^CM-^ OOOrv O O O
V V
CNJ « OOOCSJ -^ O O
CM v
O ^ < CJCMOOPO IO m -^
^- ^ m un ^- ^ ro
m P^
c c c c c
4-» TJ O O *D O
OJ C J-» C 4-> 4-1
4-i CCE OT3 T9r« CT9
C O O 4-» 4J 4^ O4->
m Q) ,- .^. nj 4J C - -
» E C ^ -M QJ (00. O 0. C-MO.
o *j "- a. IB (- c -^ "- o u
n Q. f- T3 4-> -^O -<-»O '"-3CJ
oJ Q.O1" L. (U UU 4J^iJ
O C U - « X ^ Ot- 3U Q.OJU
« o 4-»«i_"Oora a. "Do. eua.
- - ^ "^s. (J 4-» f^ O .C flJ O
O PI fl (DC C CT «3 fO "O3fO
3 Tj N *-* ^ £ O ffl O QJ U S'-' *^ "^ ^
« xt_nju4-io "~5 '"E c^5
f^ 4-1 en u x .a fo ^: o ^ ^2 x -c
II *0 (/) U ^ U t_(J t- O U
^* fl O i i i t * J^ 13
CJ t/1 ^ 14 < tJ U
§
g
1
1
c
10
u
1
o
c
o
4^
10
^
§
L.
a.
5
g
L.
g>
^
ii
3
01
L.
X
u
s.
10
u
I 1
ro TJ
V m
§ c
S £
*f 4W
Q£ C
"a u. o
* - -s
O in al
C V)
v c S
« rg
. vt
* in co aj
C in -w
«) ^ OT «
^ CO O T3
4J CM rn i
O i i
CO 00 10
VI ^-i O O
tn 01 o
OJ CO O U.
"-" CM PO
C 1-
3 oi ae O
U_ LL. ^*-
X
OJ PO PO >>
> in- m *-*
3 E g U
to O O t3
u u a. 01
gU- y- fT3 00
u 01
t/l "O ^ --
L- 0) QJ "D
4-J 4-» QJ
CJ U t- 00
fO (0
0) U U 3 0)
O *j 4-» O- C
t- X X 0) 3
3 LkJ UJ OC "^
o
CO
yi
.3
O
S
c
_
rgroun
1
^
3
2-49
-------
2.2.9 Second Third Promulgated Wastes
(1) Overview. The Agency is today finalizing its regulatory approach
for Second Third wastes. As previously mentioned, however, the Agency is
not setting standards for all Second Third wastes at this time, but
instead is allowing the soft hammer requirements to take effect for those
Second Third wastes for which standards are not now being promulgated.
In addition, the Agency is today establishing treatment standards for
some "soft hammer" First Third wastes as well as some wastes that were
originally Third Third wastes. Those wastes for which the Agency is today
setting treatment standards are listed in Table 1-1. These wastes will
hereafter be referred to as Second Third promulgated wastes. Waste code-
specific capacity analyses for the Second Third promulgated wastes are
presented in the next subsection. Today's rule also includes capacity
analyses for underground injected Second Third promulgated wastes.
Table 2-16 presents estimates of the volume of Second Third
promulgated wastes land disposed annually, by management practice and by
type of land disposal unit. These estimates include the entire volume of
any waste stream, for both single waste streams and waste groups, if the
waste stream contained any Second Third promulgated waste but no solvent,
First Third waste for which a standard has been finalized, or California
List HOC wastes. The estimates also include volumes for waste streams
containing soft hammer First Third wastes and Third Thirds wastes for
which treatment standards are being promulgated today. The volumes for
these wastes have thus been counted in Table 2-16 as well as in
Table 2-11.
2-50
-------
5704s
Table 2-16 Overview of Second Third Promulgated Wastes3
Land disposed volume
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles 1
- Surface impoundments 3
Treatment
- Waste piles 5
- Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
- Landfills 10
- Land treatment <1
Surface impoundments <1
- Underground injection 604
Tota 1 623
a Second Third promulgated wastes are those wastes for which standards
are being finalized today and include some soft hammer First Third and
Third Third wastes.
Baseline was FSOR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of
April 1989), adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments that will be replaced by tanks or treatment impoundments
retrofitted to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-51
-------
The volume of land disposed Second Third promulgated wastes requiring
alternative commercial treatment capacity is less than the volume of
Second Third promulgated wastes land disposed. This is because the
Agency has assumed that the 4 million gallons that were only stored in
impoundments or waste piles do not require alternative treatment capacity
because they are treated or disposed of elsewhere (although they may
require alternative storage capacity; for more detail on "stored only"
waste volumes see Subsection 3.1.1). Furthermore, the facility-level
waste treatability and technology capacity analyses conducted on Second
Third promulgated wastes being land disposed determined that 22 million
gallons of these wastes either had already been treated or could be
treated onsite using the BOAT technology and therefore do not require
alternative commercial treatment capacity.
Based on this analysis, the Agency estimates that 597 million gallons
of Second Third promulgated wastes will require alternative commercial
treatment capacity. This volume includes 2 million gallons of soils,
which are discussed in a separate section of this document; therefore, it
is estimated that 595 million gallons of nonsoil Second Third promulgated
wastes will require alternative commercial treatment capacity. Finally,
the Agency estimates that treatment of the 595 million gallons will
generate 3 million gallons of waste residuals that will require additional
alternative treatment capacity.
(2) Surface disposed Second Third wastes. Table 2-17 presents the
estimates of available commercial capacity applicable to surface disposed
Second Third promulgated wastes. The amount of available commercial
2-52
-------
5704s
Table 2-1 / 1988 Capacity Analysis for Surface Disposed
Second Third Promulgated Wastes
Technology
Available Required
capacity capacity
(million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
- Liquids
- Sludges/sol ids
Wastewater treatment
- Alkaline chlonnation
- Eletrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline
chlorination
- Carbon adsorption
- Biological treatment
- Steam stripping followed
by biological treatment
Stabilization
282
17
33
0
2
44
0
516
Volumes do not include underground injected waste and soils/debris.
Alkaline chlorinat ion capacity has been adjusted to account for
13 million gallons of capacity that may be needed for F006 wastes.
c These wastes have been included with the wastes requiring alkaline
chlorination
2-53
-------
capacity presented is that amount remaining after accounting for surface
land disposed spent solvent, California List HOC, and First Third wastes
previously restricted (see Tables 2-3, 2-7, and 2-9, respectively). The
table also accounts for 57 million gallons of underground injected spent
solvent waste previously restricted (see 53 FR 28124). No other
underground injected wastes previously restricted affect the amount of
available capacity for- Second Third promulgated wastes. In addition, the
available commercial capacity data presented in this table have been
updated to reflect new data received since publication of the proposed
rule. These updates do not affect any variance determinations and have
been included only for completeness (see Subsection 1.3.3 for additional
description of these updates).
Table 2-17 also shows the estimates of the volume of surface land
disposed Second Third promulgated wastes'that will require alternative
commercial treatment recovery capacity as a result of today's rule (i.e.,
required capacity excluding soil and debris). These estimates are based
on the results of the TSDR Survey.
A comparison of required and available treatment/recovery capacity
shows adequate capacity for all surface disposed Second Third promulgated
wastes affected by today's rulemaking. However, in order to allow time
(if any is needed) for facilities to adjust existing cyanide treatment
processes to operate more efficiently, EPA has determined to grant a
30-day variance from the cyanide standards for F006 nonwastewaters and
F007, F008, and F009 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
2-54
-------
In addition, because F011 and F012 heat treating wastes are often
commingled with F006, F007, F008, and F009 electroplating wastes, EPA
expects that they will have to be segregated and treated separately. In
order to allow some time to adjust processes to segregate these heat
treating (F011, F012) and electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, F009),
EPA is deferring the total and amenable cyanide standards for F011 and
F012 heat treating wastes until December 8, 1989. However, between
July 8, 1989, and December 8, 1989, these wastes will be subject to the
same cyanide standards as the electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008,
F009).
The Agency is not granting a national capacity variance to any other
surface disposed Second Third promulgated wastes. Subsection 2.2.6
contains a detailed capacity analysis for each Second Third promulgated
waste code.
(3) Underground injected Second Third wastes. Table 2-18 presents
the amount of required and available commercial treatment recovery
capacity for underground injected wastes affected by today's rule. The
amount of available commercial capacity presented is that amount remaining
after accounting for surface disposed Second Third wastes. The amount of
available commercial capacity and most of the required capacity were
estimated using the TSDR Survey. For some waste codes for which the TSDR
Survey did not contain data on the volume being underground injected, the
Agency used the Office of Drinking Water's (ODW's) Hazardous Waste
Injection Well Data Base (HWIWDB) to estimate the volume of these wastes
underground injected (Ref. 10). Wastes for which this data base was used
are identified in Subsection 2.2.10.
2-55
-------
5704s
Table 2-18 1988 Capacity Analysis for Underground
Injected Second Third Promulgated Wastes
Technology
Available Required
capacity ' capacity
(million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
- Liquids
Wastewater treatment
- Alkaline chlormdtion
- Electrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline
ch lor mat ion
- Carbon adsorption
- Biological treatment
- Steam stripping followed
by biological treatment
Stabilization
282
31
0
2
44
0
514
379
126
79
2-56
-------
The table shows shortfalls in available capacity for cyanide
destruction, incineration, and wastewater treatment of organics.
Treatment standards based on alkaline chlorination are today being
promulgated for F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, F019, P013, P021, P029,
P030, P063, P074, P098, P099, P104, P106, and P121 wastes. EPA estimates
that about 126 million gallons per year of underground injected Second
Third promulgated wastes will require alkaline chlorination. However,
one F007 waste stream accounts for 126 million gallons per year of the
required capacity. Excluding this stream, adequate capacity exists to
treat the small volumes required for the remainder of these wastes.
Consequently, of the waste requiring alkaline chlorination, the Agency is
today granting a 2-year national capacity variance only for F007 wastes,
which are underground injected. However, because F007 waste was
originally scheduled as a First Third waste, the maximum extension
available is until August 8, 1990.
In addition, as previously mentioned, EPA is granting a 30-day
variance from the cyanide standards to F006 nonwastewaters and F007,
F008, and F009 wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPA is also deferring the
cyanide standards for F011 and F012 until December 8, 1989. However,
between July 8, 1989, and December 8, 1989, F011 and F012 wastes will be
subject to the same cyanide standards as the electroplating wastes (F006,
F007, F008, and F009).
The treatment standard for K009 nonwastewaters is based on
incineration; for wastewaters it is based on steam stripping followed by
biological treatment. In the capacity analysis for K009 wastes, only
2-57
-------
wastewaters were identified as requiring alternative treatment.
Table 2-18 shows that insufficient wastewater treatment capacity exists
for the volume of K009 waste that is underground injected. The Agency is
therefore granting a 2-year national capacity variance to underground
injected K009 wastes.
The treatment standard for K011 and K013 nonwastewaters is based on
incineration; for wastewaters, EPA is not finalizing the proposed
treatment standards. K011 and K013 wastewaters will therefore be subject
to the soft hammer requirements. Table 2-18 shows that insufficient
capacity exists for the volume of underground injected K011 and K013
nonwastewaters requiring incineration. The Agency is therefore granting
a national capacity variance to underground injected K011 and K013 wastes,
The Agency has determined that sufficient capacity does exist for the
remainder of the underground injected Second Third promulgated wastes.
However, as previously mentioned, to allow time (if any is needed) for
facilities to adjust existing cyanide treatment processes to operate more
efficiently, EPA has determined to grant a 30-day variance from the
cyanide standards for F006 nonwastewaters and F007, F008, and F009
wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
In addition, because F011 and F012 heat treating wastes are often
commingled with F006, F007, F008, and F009 electroplating wastes, EPA
expects that they will have to be segregated and treated separately. To
allow some time to adjust processes to segregate these heat treating
(F011, F012) and electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, F009), EPA is
deferring the total and amenable cyanide standards for F011 and F012 heat
2-58
-------
treating wastes until December 8, 1989. However, between July 8, 1989,
and December 8, 1989, these wastes will be subject to the same cyanide
standards as the electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, F009).
(4) Soft hammer First Third and Second Third wastes from the Second
Third final rule. Table 2-19 presents estimates of annual land disposed
volumes for "soft hammer" First Third and Second Third wastes from the
Second Third final rule. These are the First Third and Second Third
wastes for which treatment standards were not promulgated in the First
Third or Second Third final rules. The same procedures described for the
analyses of all RCRA wastes were used for estimating these soft hammer
waste volumes. The total volume for each category in Table 2-19
represents the sum of all single waste streams and all waste groups
containing at least one First Third or Second Third soft hammer waste,
but no First Third or Second Third promulgated wastes, California List
HOCs, or solvents. This prevents double-counting of multiple waste
streams that contain First Third and Second Third soft hammer wastes,
First Third and Second Third promulgated wastes, California List HOCs,
and solvents.
The results of the TSDR Survey were used to perform a capacity
analysis for the First Third and Second Third soft hammer wastes. As
previously indicated, these are wastes for which treatment standards were
not promulgated in the First Third or Second Third final rules; therefore,
they are subject to the soft hammer provisions. The soft hammer
provisions require that wastes be treated where treatment is practically
2-59
-------
5704s
Table 2-19 Overview of Land Disposed Soft Hamner First Third
and Second Third Wastes3
Land disposed volume
for First Third soft
hamner wastes
(million gal/yr)
Land disposed volume
for1 Second Third
soft hamner wastes
(million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles
- Surface impoundments
Treatment
- Waste piles
- Surface impoundments
Disposal
- Landfills
- Land treatment
- Surface impoundments
- Underground injection
0
2
1
0
17
0
1
1.334
2
0
<1
134
Total
1,355
136
The First Third and Second Third wastes for which treatment standards were not
finaliied in the First Third or Second Third final rules.
Baseline was TSDR Survey data for 1986 (facility responses as of August 1988),
adjusted for volumes of waste managed in surface impoundments that will be replaced by
tanks or treatment impoundnents retrofitted to meet minimum technology requirements.
2-60
-------
available. If generators can certify the lack of practically available
treatment capacity, they can land dispose the waste in minimum technology
units with limited or no treatment. Tables 2-20 and 2-21 present the
results of the capacity analysis conducted for First Third and Second
Third nonsoil soft hammer wastes. Tables 2-22 and 2-23 present the
results of the capacity analysis conducted for soils contaminated with
First Third and Second Third soft hammer wastes. These tables list the
types of treatment technologies believed to be applicable to these wastes
as well as the available and required capacities. The available capacity
listed for each technology is the treatment capacity available after
treatment of restricted wastes (i.e., spent solvents, California List
HOCs, First Third promulgated wastes, and Second Third promulgated
wastes).
As indicated in the tables, adequate available treatment exists for
treatment of these soft hammer wastes except for those requiring
wastewater treatment for organics, mercury retorting, and vitrification.
The TSDR Survey indicates that no commercial mercury retorting or
vitrification capacity exists. Therefore, certification as to the lack
of practically available mercury retorting and vitrification capacity
would not be difficult. The waste streams assigned to wastewater
treatment for organics are predominantly large-volume underground
injected waste streams. Of the total volume of First Third and Second
Third soft hammer wastes assigned to wastewater treatment for organics
2-61
-------
5704s
Table 2-20 Capacity Analysis for First Third Nonsoil Soft Hamner Wastes
Technology
Current
available
capacity3
(million gal/yr)
Required capacity
(million qal/yr)
Volume Volume
surface land underground
disposed injected
Combustion of liquids
Combustion of sludges/solids
Wastewater treatment
- Wastewater treatment
for organics
250
6
50
30
1.304
- Alkaline chlonnation
- Chromium reduction
- Neutralization
- Chemical precipitation
- Sulfide precipitation
Stabi lization
Mercury retorting
Vitrification
Management of lab pack wastes
Totals
29 °
109
36
3,010
252
511
0
0
c
6 0
1 <1
<1
<1
<1 0
13 <1
<1 0
<1 0
<1
21 1,334
Capacity given is the current available capacity after (treatment of
the estimated volumes of restricted wastes requiring alternative treatment
(i.e., spent solvents, California List HOCs. First Third promulgated wastes,
and Second Third promulgated wastes).
Available capacity has also been adjusted for 13 million gallons per year
of capacity that may be needed for F006 wastes.
c Lab pack wastes will require several different treatment technologies
including incineration and wastewater treatment. Because of the small
volume (5,840 gallons), adequate treatment capacity is considered to be
avai lable.
2-62
-------
5704s
Table 2-21 Capacity Analysis for Second Third Nonsoil Soft Hammer Wastes
Required capacity
Current (mi Ilion qal/yrl
available Volume Volume
capacity3 surface land underground
Technology (million gal/yr) disposed injected
Combustion of liquids 250 <1 28
Combustion of sludges/solids 8 20
Wastewater treatment
- Wastewater treatment 50 0 106
for organics (wet air
oxidation, carbon
adsorption, steam
stripping, or biological
treatment
- Chromium reduction 109 0 <1
Stabilization 511 <1 0
Management of lab pack wastes <1 <1
Totals 2 134
a Capacity given is the current available capacity after treatment of
the estimated volumes of restricted wastes requiring alternative treatment
(i.e., spent solvents, California List HOCs. First Third promulgated wastes,
and Second Third promulgated wastes).
Lab pack wastes will require several different treatment technologies
including incineration and wastewater treatment. Because of the small
volume (10,320 gallons), adequate treatment capacity is considered to be
avallable.
2-63
-------
5704s
Table 2-22 Capacity Analysis for Soils Contaminated with
First Third Soft Hammer Wastes
Required capacity
Current (million gal/yr)
available Volume Volume
capacity9 surface land underground
Technology (million gal/yr) disposed injected
Combustion of sludges/so lids 8 3 <1
Stabilization 512 1 0
Vitrification 0 <1 0
Mercury retorting 0 <1 0
Totals 4 <1
a Capacity given is the current available capacity after treatment of
the estimated volumes of restricted wastes requiring alternative treatment
(i.e., spent solvents, California List HOCs, First Third promulgated wastes,
and Second Third promulgated wastes).
2-64
-------
5704s
Table 2 23 Capacity Analysis for Soils Contaminated with
Second Third Soft Hammer Wastes
Technology
Current
avai lable
capacity3
(million gal/yr)
Required capacity
fmi11 ion qal/vr)
Volume Volume
surface land underground
disposed injected
Combustion of sludges/so lids
Stabi1ization
Vitrification
a
495
0
Totals
Capacity given is the current available capacity after treatment of
the estimated volumes of restricted wastes requiring alternative treatment
(i.e., spent solvents, California List HOCs, First Third promulgated wastes,
and Second Third promulgated wastes).
2-65
-------
(1,410 million gallons per year), approximately 1,396 million gallons per
year, or 99 percent, are from large-volume underground injected waste
streams. The volume of each of these waste streams is over 27 million
gallons per year. Because the total volume of these waste streams
significantly exceeds the amount of available capacity, and because each
of these waste streams would require over one-half of the available
treatment capacity (50 million gallons per year), it is believed that
certifying a lack of practically available treatment capacity for these
waste streams, if necessary, would not be difficult. Therefore, the
generators of these waste streams will not be forced to compete for
alternative treatment capacity. Additionally, the estimated volume of
Second Third promulgated wastes requiring wastewater treatment for
organics is very small (less than 1 million gallons per year). Based on
this capacity analysis, it is believed that the only soft hammer waste
streams that may exceed available alternative treatment capacity are the
large-volume underground injected waste streams that would require
wastewater treatment for organics. However, as previously described,
there is a severe capacity shortfall for these waste streams. The
generators of these waste streams should have no problem certifying a
lack of practically available capacity. Therefore, it is believed that
the potential utilization of available treatment capacity for First Third
and Second Third soft hammer wastes would not deplete available capacity
to the point where sufficient capacity is not available for Second Third
promulgated wastes.
2-66
-------
Soft hammer wastes that are sent to sludge/solid incineration will
reduce the amount of capacity available for other restricted wastes.
However, analysis indicates that although the available capacity is
limited, there is currently adequate sludge/solid incineration capacity
for both restricted wastes and soft hammer wastes. For future rules, EPA
will continue to evaluate the impact of soft hammer wastes.
2.2.10 Waste Code-Specific Capacity Analyses for Second Third
Promulgated Wastes (Nonsoils)
This subsection presents the results of the analyses of required
capacity for each alternative technology on a waste code-specific basis
for the Second Third promulgated wastes. Tables 2-24 through 2-54,
located later in this subsection, present waste code-specific analyses of
the alternative capacity required by the Second Third promulgated
wastes. The capacity analysis for soils contaminated with Second Third
promulgated wastes is presented in Subsection 2.2.11.
The land disposed waste volume data from the TSDR Survey were sorted
by waste code and type of alternative treatment/recovery required. This
information was then combined and summarized to create technology-
specific and waste code-specific capacity analysis tables for the Second
Third promulgated wastes. The raw data used to develop the capacity
analysis tables are included in Appendix C. Appendix D contains, for
each technology, the amount of required capacity for Second Third
promulgated wastes.
In a limited number of instances, it was not feasible to assign waste
streams directly to the BOAT technology; however, these wastes were
assigned to alternative technologies. In these cases, the waste code
2-67
-------
discussions explain why the waste stream could not be assigned directly
to BOAT and how the stream was handled. (Subsection 3.1.2 explains the
methodology used to assign alternative technologies.)
Some Second Third promulgated wastes were reported in the TSDR Survey
as mixed waste streams containing wastes that were included in previous
land disposal restriction rulemakings (i.e., solvents, California List
HOCs, and/or First Third promulgated wastes). The entire volume of these
waste streams was included in the capacity analyses made for the previous
rulemakings. To avoid double-counting, these waste streams are not
included in the capacity analysis made for this rule. See Section 3 for
a more detailed description of the capacity analysis methodology.
This subsection also presents discussions for each Second Third
promulgated waste code requiring alternative treatment. Each discussion
contains a description of the waste, identifies the hazardous constituents
for which it is listed, and identifies the BOAT technology used to set
the treatment standard.
In today's rule, treatment standards are being promulgated for K029
nonwastewaters; K023, K028, and K036 wastewaters; and K038, K039, K040,
K043, K095, K096, K1J3, K114, K116, P013, P021, P040, P041, P043, P044,
P062, P074, P085, P097, P099, P104, P109, Pill, P121, U058, U088, U102,
U107, and U235. However, these wastes are not included in this section
because no nonsoil wastes with these codes were reported in the TSDR
Survey as being land disposed and therefore will not require alternative
treatment. Consequently, the Agency is not granting capacity variances
for these wastes.
2-68
-------
In the Second Third proposed rule, the Agency proposed treatment
standards for F019 wastes based on cyanide treatment. However, the
Agency has decided not to finalize the proposed treatment standards for
F019. Since F019 is a First Third waste, its land disposal will continue
to be restricted by the soft hammer provisions.
The Agency has also decided not to finalize the treatment standard of
"no land disposal based on total recycling" proposed for K002, K003,
K004, K006, and K008 nonwastewaters in the Second Third proposed rule.
K002, K003, and K006 are Third Third wastes; therefore, they are not
subject to the soft hammer provisions. The Agency will develop treatment
standards for the wastewater and nonwastewater forms of these wastes
prior to May 8, 1990, if there is an identified need for such standards.
In the Second Third proposed rule, the Agency proposed a treatment
standard of "no land disposal based on no generation" for K005 and K007
nonwastewaters. Although several K005 and K007 waste streams were
reported in the TSDR Survey as being land disposed in 1986, recent
information from industry indicates that alternative treatment will not
be required for K005 or K007 nonwastewaters because the waste is no
longer being generated. Therefore, in today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating a treatment standard of "no land disposal based on no
generation" for K005 and K007 nonwastewaters. Treatment standards for
K005 and K007 wastewaters will be promulgated with the Third Third wastes
prior to May 8, 1990.
The Second Third proposed rule also included proposed treatment
standards for K011, K013, and K014 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
However, while finalizing the treatment standards for the K011, K013, and
2-69
-------
K014 nonwastewaters, the Agency has decided not to finalize the treatment
standards for the wastewaters. Because these are First Third wastes, the
K011, K013, and K014 wastewaters will continue to be restricted from land
disposal by the soft hammer provisions.
2-70
-------
-------
F006
RCRA hazardous waste F006 is wastewater treatment sludges from
certain electroplating operations. F006 is listed as hazardous because
of the presence of cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanides
(complexed). In the land disposal restrictions for the First Third final
rule (53 FR 31138), the Agency set treatment standards for the metals in
F006 nonwastewaters based on stabilization. In today's rule, the Agency
has established treatment standards for cyanides in F006 nonwastewaters
based on pretreatment using alkaline chlorination followed by chemical
precipitation, settling, and filtration. Treatment standards are being
promulgated for cyanides in F006 nonwastewaters because the Agency
believes that a pretreatment step to destroy the cyanides should be
performed prior to stabilization. In today's rule, the Agency is not
promulgating treatment standards for F006 wastewaters; these wastes will
be regulated by the soft hammer provisions.
In the First Third final rule, the Agency estimated that 129 million
gallons of surface land disposed F006 wastes would require stabilization
as a result of the metals treatment standards. Adequate stabilization
capacity was determined to be available for this volume of waste. Today,
the Agency is promulgating cyanide treatment standards for F006
nonwastewaters. In response to public comments received on the cyanide
treatment standards, the Agency has significantly raised the treatment
standards for cyanides in F006 (from 110 mg/kg total cyanides and 0.064
mg/kg amenable cyanides to 590 mg/kg total cyanides and 30 mg/kg amenable
cyanides).
2-71
-------
In response to comments on the capacity needed to meet the cyanide
treatment standards for the Second Third final rule, EPA performed an
analysis to estimate the volume of generated F006 wastes that may exceed
the promulgated cyanide standards and therefore require treatment for
cyanides. The information sources EPA relied upon for this analysis
were: (1) the TSDR Survey capacity data base, (2) Generator Surveys from
non-TSDR facilities with exempt hazardous waste treatment capacity,
(3) Generator Surveys from TSDR facilities, and (4) F006 data submitted
by several commenters.
EPA screened the TSDR Survey capacity data base to identify the
facilities that generated F006 and those that also had alkaline
chlorination or another type of cyanide treatment onsite. It was assumed
that these facilities were treating or were able to treat their F006
waste onsite to meet the cyanide standards and would not need commercial
cyanide treatment capacity. The TSDR Surveys for the remaining TSDR
facilities identified as generating F006 were evaluated to determine
which ones generate noncyanide F006 wastes (e.g., facilities that perform
chrome electroplating and therefore do not use cyanides in their process).
As a worst-case scenario, EPA assumed the remaining F006 waste
streams (cyanide-bearing F006 wastes generated at facilities that did not
have onsite cyanide treatment) have cyanide concentrations above the
revised cyanide treatment standards.
The analysis of the TSDR Survey data showed that 104 million gallons
of F006 were generated in 1986 at TSDR facilities. (This volume does not
include F006 wastes generated at facilities without a RCRA permit or
interim status, i.e., non-TSDR facilities.) Of this 104 million gallons,
2-72
-------
72 million gallons (69 percent) are generated at facilities that have
onsite cyanide treatment, and 28 million gallons (27 percent) do not
contain cyanides. Only 4 million gallons (4 percent) of F006 wastes were
generated at these facilities that may, as a worst-case scenario, contain
cyanide concentrations above the revised treatment standards. A summary
of the F006 analysis conducted from the TSDR Survey capacity data base is
presented in Table 2-24.
Generator Survey data available for the F006 analysis included about
550 Generator Surveys from facilities not having a RCRA permit or interim
status but with exempt hazardous waste treatment capacity onsite
(non-TSDRs) and data from about 950 Generator Surveys from TSDR
facilities. This limited subset of Generator Surveys was screened to
identify facilities that reported generating F006 waste streams. Data
were then gathered on the volumes and characteristics of each F006 waste
stream, including the reported cyanide concentrations. The reported
cyanide concentrations were assumed to be total cyanides.
Review of these Generator Surveys resulted in the identification of
322 facilities generating F006 waste streams. The total volume of F006
waste streams generated at the facilities in 1986 was 96 million
gallons. Of this 96 million gallons, 89 million gallons (93 percent)
were reported as not containing cyanides or as having cyanide
concentrations below the revised total cyanide treatment standard;
7 million gallons (7 percent) were reported either as being of unknown
cyanide content, to contain cyanide at unknown concentrations, or to have
cyanide concentrations above the revised total cyanide treatment
2-73
-------
5711s
Table 2-34 Analysis of F006 Generation at RCRA-Permitted
and Interim Status Facilities
Category
Number of
facilities
Percent of
total no. of
faci lities
Generated
volume
(million gallons)
Percent
of total
generated
Facilities with 142 40 72 69
onsite cyanide
treatment
Facilities generating 114 32 28 27
noncyanide F006
Facilities generating 102 28 44
F006 with cyanide
concentrations that
may be above the
revised treatment
standards
TOTAL 358 100 104 100
Source: TSDR Survey.
2-74
-------
standard. However, generators reported that less than 1.6 percent of the
volume of the F006 waste at these facilities have a cyanide concentration
above the treatment standard or had cyanides with unknown concentration
levels. In addition, several of the facilities with unknown cyanide
concentrations have onsite-cyanide treatment. If it is assumed that
these waste streams would meet the BOAT standard, then less than
0.7 percent of the F006 wastes from Generator Survey facilities would
require cyanide treatment capacity.
In the public comments for the Second Third proposed rule, the Agency
received data from two commenters on cyanide concentrations in F006 waste
streams. The data supplied by one commenter included data on the total
cyanide concentrations in 88 F006 waste stream samples from a variety of
generators. Of the reported 88 waste streams, only 8 waste streams
(9 percent) had total cyanide concentrations above the revised treatment
standard. The commenter did not supply waste stream volumes or
conditions of treatment.
The other commenter supplied total and amenable cyanide concentration
data on samples from F006 wastes generated at two of its facilities.
Upon review of the data, the Agency found that none of the 47 samples for
which data were supplied had total cyanide concentrations above the
revised treatment standard, and only 2 out of the 47 samples (4 percent)
had amenable cyanide concentrations above the revised treatment
standard. One sample reported by the commenter was not considered by the
Agency. This sample was assumed to have been erroneously reported
2-75
-------
because the amenable cyanide concentration was greater than the total
cyanide concentration. Waste stream volume information was not supplied
by the commenter.
A summary of the cyanide concentration data from the Generator Survey
and commenter information used to support the F006 analysis is presented
in Table 2-25. Although only data from a subset of F006 generators have
been evaluated, it is believed that these data establish that only a
small percentage of F006 wastes will have cyanide concentrations above
the revised treatment standards. As a worst-case scenario, the Agency
estimates that 10 percent of the F006 wastes generated may have cyanide
concentrations above the revised treatment standards.
Estimates of required capacity for the land disposal restrictions are
based on the volume of waste land disposed, not the volume generated.
For the First Third final rule, EPA estimated that 129 million gallons
per year of land disposed F006 wastes require alternative treatment.
Using the assumption that the percentage of F006 generated that contains
cyanide concentrations above the revised treatment standards is
representative of the percentage of land disposed F006 waste that
contains cyanide concentrations above these standards, the Agency
estimates, as a worst-case scenario, that 10 percent of the 129 million
gallons of F006 waste land disposed, or about 13 million gallons per
year, will require alternative commercial capacity for cyanides.
Sufficient alkaline chlorination capacity (46 million gallons per year)
exists to treat this volume of waste. (Refer to Appendix A for a more
detailed discussion of the analysis of F006 wastes to estimate the
volumes that may exceed the revised treatment standards.)
2-76
-------
to
tn
X
ID
C
to
0
o
U-
Cl
.c
Ol
c
4J
8.
Q.
3
tn
(0
I
c
o
ID
*J
c
Cl
L)
c
o
c
ID
X
O
M-
o
X
L.
tn
CM
CNJ
4?
2:
ID
c
-C ID
IO - 4->
0 X ID
O
U- in 4-»
U- fl -Q
O 01
aj 4-» to
i in u
5 o, 2
O 4-1 C
» in ID
ID X
X U
,
0) ID
4-1 C
ID K-
*
Ol
to c
o
O i
U. "-
ID
U- H-
O
in
E l9
3 0)
O 4-1
> 10
O
ID 01
0 §
1 *-
0
to
o
o
Lu
O
£
J
tn
c
E
<->
fij
§ 1
" 0
4-1 >
ID
4-> ID
01 'o
U 4-1
c
O "4-
u o
p 4->
X c
O 01
c o)
.
1:
in 3
t, "o
TJ
c
ID ID
in "o
C L-
u o
ID C
01 01
L- U
4-1 t.
01
D.
01
tn in
01
to u
O 4J
0 in
U.
Ol tn
- -
ID "-
U
01
c u
01 IB
0>
U
U
o
to
ID
4J
ID
O
C
c
IB
L. 4-1
£ §
4-> O
01 U
O
E in
Ol >-
i -§
« c
ID
0) 4->
4-* in
tn
ID 4J
* C
- i
O 4J
ID
§U
4-1
O
> ID
C
IB u_
3
4J 01
U C
ID
_u ^
h- W-
><
V
IB
Ol
Z
^
X
V
IB
Ol
Z
o
ID
O>
Z
to
en
CSJ
CM
in
X
01
3
in
i-
o
IB
01
C
!£
1/1
C
0
4-J
rD
c
Ol
U
C
o
u
x
c
.*:
c
3
C
IB
fO
*-«
3
tn
c
ID
X
u
to
o
o
LL
u_
0
in
c
o
ID
CT
O
c\-
in
1
^j
o
c
to
ID
X
C
O
4_j
0
c
c
o
§
01
L.
to
01
in
ID
X
to
o
0
g
ID
§
c
c
^
0
c
o
IB
o
o
in
tn
i
ID
g
ID
01
>
o
L.
a
ID
4->
«
1
tn
c
Lu
ID
4->
4-1
O
c
10
x
c
o
4-1
o
c
B
o
i
a>
(-
w
(U
4J
CO ^
T3 QJ
LD >
§ E
LL Q.
Z
J3
§
C
1
to
1 1
o f
C 9
H- 4-*
^3 ID
01 U
4J a.
c
=9
L.
1
ID
,
C
(D
X
U
ID
O
^
^
01
1
C 0)
01 >
N O
x .2
i IB
IB
C in
ID C
o
10
O> 4-1
ID
E=* 4-1
IB C
in 01
L)
01 c
4J 0
in o
IB
x -o
fa.
en.
c
in
Ol 01
*"* Q
in
C 0)
01 4-1
> in
Ol X
i- to
01 O
J3 O
E LL
C 4-J
01 Ol
f LU
* IB
«
C
O
4-*
ID
U
4-1
C
01
u
c
o
u
*
c
QJ
(0
1
2
c
01
o
u
T3
(D
JC
tn
01
1" "D
ID
in 4->
ID in
D
to 01
o tn
o -
u. >
01
4-1 y
U- 4-J
o
01
01 >
c o
o -a
Z IB
-0
in
§
01
ID .a
Ol IB
u
c
O '-
D.
i a.
* ID
e ^_i
0
1 II
IB
01 <
Z Z
2-77
-------
Based on the analysis of the TSDR Survey and Generator Survey
information and the new BOAT levels, the Agency believes that adequate
treatment capacity exists for the volume of F006 wastes requiring cyanide
treatment. Therefore, the Agency is not granting a capacity variance for
this waste.
Complete Agency responses to public comments regarding capacity-
related issues are included in the "Response to Capacity-Related Comments
Submitted on the Second Third Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions Rule,"
which is included in the RCRA public docket for this final rule (Ref. 11),
2-78
-------
F007. F008, and F009
RCRA hazardous wastes F007, F008, and F009 are generated from
electroplating operations. They are listed as hazardous wastes because
of the presence of cyanides. In the Second Third proposed rule, the
Agency established BOAT treatment standards for F007, F008, and F009
based on the performance of wet air oxidation or alkaline chlorination
followed by chemical precipitation, settling, and filtration for
wastewaters and alkaline chlorination followed by chemical precipitation,
settling, and filtration for nonwastewaters. For the Second Third final
rule, the Agency is promulgating revised BOAT treatment standards for
F007, F008, and F009 wastewaters and nonwastewaters based on the
performance of alkaline chlorination followed by chemical precipitation,
settling, and filtration. The BOAT treatment of these wastes also
includes the stabilization of treatment residuals.
Tables 2-26 through 2-28 show the non-deepwell injected and deepwell
injected volumes requiring treatment and the alternative treatment
technologies determined to be necessary for these wastes. As shown in
the tables, most of the wastes requiring alternative treatment were
assigned to alkaline chlorination. One waste stream reported in the TSDR
Survey was a mixed waste of F007, F009, chromium-bearing waste, and
cadmium-bearing waste. Because the waste stream was described as an
acidic aqueous waste, the Agency assumed that cyanides were not present
and assigned the waste stream to chromium reduction followed by chemical
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and stabilization of the wastewater
treatment sludge.
2-79
-------
Several waste streams reported in the TSDR Survey were described as
sludge or solid treatment residues. Some of these waste streams were
reported by facilities that perform cyanide treatment. Other treatment
residues were reported by commercial landfills that have restrictions on
accepting wastes with levels of cyanides exceeding the treatment
standards. Based on this information, the Agency assumed that these
wastes had already been treated for cyanides. Therefore, the Agency
believes that these waste streams would require only stabilization.
Several F008 waste streams were reported in the TSDR Survey as F008
mixed with metal-bearing organic solids. These waste streams were
assigned to solids incineration followed by treatment of the scrubber
water and stabilization of the scrubber water treatment sludge and
incinerator ash.
Based on the TSDR Survey data, the Agency believes that adequate
treatment capacity exists for non-deepwell injected F007, F008, and F009
wastes requiring alternative treatment. The Agency has therefore
determined that no long-term national capacity variance for these wastes
is warranted. However, in order to be cautious and allow time (if any is
needed) for facilities to adjust existing cyanide treatment processes to
operate more efficiently, EPA has determined to grant a 30-day extension
for surface land disposed F007, F008, and F009. TSDR Survey data indicate
that adequate treatment capacity exists for the relatively small volume
of deepwell injected F008 and F009 wastes. However, for the reasons
previously described, the Agency is granting a 30-day extension for
deepwell injected F008 and F009 wastes. The Agency believes that there
2-80
-------
will be ample treatment capacity at the end of 30 days (if not sooner) to
accommodate demand for treatment of non-deepwell injected F007, F008, and
F009 wastes as well as deepwell injected F008 and F009 wastes.
Conversely, the Agency believes that adequate treatment capacity does
not exist for the large volume of deepwell injected F007 wastes.
Therefore, the Agency is granting a 2-year national capacity variance for
the effective date of this rule for F007 wastes that are deepwell
injected.
2-81
-------
5711s
Table 2-26 Capacity Analysis for F007
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination
543,769
126.183,360
Chromium reduction and
chemical precipitation
Stabilization of
wastewater treatment
sludge
Stabilization
446.338
242,018
113.040
1,263.905
2-82
-------
5711s
Table 2-27 Capacity Analysis for F008
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination
Stabilization of wastewater
treatment sludge
Stabilization
Combustion of sludges
Combustion of solids
Stabilization of
incinerator ash
\
Stabilization of scrubber
water treatment sludge
1.022,571
999.070
242.018
2,640
14,760
3,216
174
15.840
3,922
0
0
0
0
2-83
-------
5711s
Table 2-28 Capacity Analysis for F009
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gal Ions/year)
Alkaline chlormation
Chromium reduction and
chemical precipitation
Stabilization of wastewater
treatment sludge
Stab)lization
45.251
0
5,147
266.978
42,480
6,480
489
2-84
-------
F010
RCRA hazardous waste F010 is generated from heat treating operations.
F010 is listed as a hazardous waste because of the presence of cyanides.
The Agency is promulgating the proposed BOAT treatment standards for F010
based on the performance of incineration followed by stabilization of the
incinerator ash and scrubber water treatment sludge for nonwastewaters
and alkaline chlorination followed by chemical precipitation, settling,
and filtration for wastewaters.
As shown in Table 2-29, all of the F010 wastes requiring alternative
treatment were assigned to one of the BOAT technologies based on whether
the waste stream was described as a wastewater or nonwastewater.
Based on the TSDR Survey data, the Agency believes that adequate
treatment capacity exists for the non-deepwell injected F010 wastes
requiring alternative treatment. Therefore, the Agency is not granting a
national capacity variance for the F010 wastes that are not deepwell
injected. Deepwell injected F010 wastes were not identified from the
TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment. Therefore, the Agency is
also not granting a national capacity variance for deepwell injected F010
wastes.
2-85
-------
5711s
Table 2-29 Capacity Analysis for F010
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
incinerator ash
Stabilization of scrubber
water treatment sludge
Alkaline chlorination
Stabilization of wastewater
treatment sludge
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
780
45.600
45,144
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of liquids
Stabi 1 izat ion of
32,400
9.444
0
0
2-86
-------
F01I and F012
RCRA hazardous wastes F011 and F012 are generated from heat treating
operations. They are listed as hazardous wastes because of the presence
of cyanides. The Agency is promulgating BOAT treatment standards for
F011 and F012 based on the performance of alkaline chlorination followed
by chemical precipitation, settling, and filtration for wastewaters and
electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline chlorination, chemical
precipitation, settling, and filtration for nonwastewaters. The BOAT
treatment of these wastes also includes the stabilization of treatment
residuals.
One commenter on the Second Third proposed rule pointed out that no
commercial facilities offer the specific treatment train identified as
BOAT for nonwastewaters (i.e., electrolytic oxidation followed by
alkaline chlorination). The Agency agrees that no commercial facilities
with a treatment train consisting of electrolytic oxidation followed by
alkaline chlorination were identified in the TSDR Survey. However, EPA
believes that alkaline chlorination, as a single process, will be able to
meet the treatment standards. The Agency received numerous public
comments supporting this position. Consequently, EPA included commercial
alkaline chlorination capacity in its estimates of available capacity for
F011 and F012 nonwastewaters.
Tables 2-30 and 2-31 show the non-deepwell injected and deepwell
injected volumes requiring treatment and the alternative treatment
technologies determined to be necessary for F011 and F012 wastes. As
2-87
-------
shown in the tables, most of the wastes requiring alternative treatment
were assigned to alkaline chlorination. One F011 waste stream was
described as a treatment residue. This waste stream was reported by a
commercial landfill that has restrictions on accepting wastes with
cyanide concentrations above the BOAT treatment standards. Therefore,
the Agency believes that this waste stream would only require
stabilization.
Based on TSDR Survey data, the Agency believes that adequate treatment
capacity exists for non-deepwell injected F011 and F012 wastes requiring
alternative treatment. However, if F011 and F012 wastes are commingled
with electroplating wastes (F007, F008, and F009), the entire mixture will
become subject to the lowest treatment standard for common constituents,
in this case 110 mg/kg total cyanide. This limit is not uniformly attain-
able for the electroplating wastes because of significant concentrations
(in some streams, at least) of complexed cyanides. Thus, EPA expects
that F011 and F012 wastes will be segregated and treated separately, an
appropriate result since otherwise the electroplating wastes would
interfere with the treatment of the free (i.e., noncomplexed) cyanides in
the heat treating operation wastes. However, it will take some time to
adjust processes to segregate these heat treating and electroplating
wastes. Accordingly, the Agency is deferring the effective date of the
110 mg/kg total cyanide standard and the 9.1 mg/kg amenable cyanide
standard for the F011 and F012 heat treating wastes until December 8,
1989. Between July 8, 1989, and December 8, 1989, these wastes will be
subject to the same cyanide standards as the electroplating wastes
2-88
-------
(590 mg/kg total cyanide standard and 30 mg/kg amenable cyanide standard)
The alternative is to leave these heat treating wastes subject to no
cyanide standard at all, even though some treatment is available and
achievable.
Although deepwell injected F011 and F012 wastes were not identified
from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment, the Agency is
also deferring the effective date of the cyanide treatment standard for
deepwell injected F011 and F012 wastes. Therefore, these wastes will be
subject to the same schedule as the non-deepwell injected F011 and F012
wastes.
2-89
-------
5711s
Table Z-30 Capacity Analysis for F011
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination
Stabilization of wastewater
treatment sludge
Stabi1ization
82,868
45.517
3,788
2-90
-------
5711s
Table 2-31 Capacity Analysis for F012
Type of alternative
t reatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination
63.620
Stabilization of wastewater
treatment sludge
61.338
2-91
-------
F024
RCRA hazardous waste F024 is generated from the production of
aliphatic hydrocarbons. F024 is listed as a hazardous waste because of
the presence of toxic organics. The Agency is promulgating BOAT
treatment standards for F024 wastewaters and nonwastewaters based on the
performance of incineration followed by stabilization of the incinerator
ash and scrubber water treatment sludge.
As shown in Table 2-32, all of the F024 wastes requiring alternative
treatment were assigned to the BOAT technology. Based on the TSDR Survey
data, the Agency believes that adequate treatment capacity exists for the
non-deepwell injected F024 wastes requiring alternative treatment.
Therefore, the Agency is not granting a national capacity variance for
the F024 wastes that are not deepwell injected. Deepwell injected F024
wastes were not identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative
treatment. Therefore, the Agency is not granting a national capacity
variance for deepwell injected F024 wastes.
2-92
-------
5711s
Table 2-32 Capacity Analysis for F024
Type of alternative
t rea tment/ recovery
Combustion of liquids
Combustion of sludges
Combustion of solids
Stabi 1 izat ion of
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
9.360
46,080
16.800
8.062
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
0
0
0
0
incinerator ash
Stabilization of scrubber
water treatment sludge
723
2-93
-------
K009 and K010
RCRA hazardous wastes K009 and K010 are generated in the production
of acetaldehyde. These wastes are listed as hazardous because of the
presence of toxic organics. The Agency is promulgating BOAT treatment
standards for K009 and K010 based on the performance of incineration for
nonwastewaters and steam stripping followed by biological treatment for
wastewaters. The BOAT technology identified for K009 and K010
nonwastewaters is based on a transfer of the incineration standards for
K019 wastes promulgated with the First Third wastes on August 8, 1988.
As shown in Tables 2-33 and 2-34, all of the K009 and K010 wastes
requiring alternative treatment were assigned to one of the BOAT
technologies based on whether the waste stream was described as a
wastewater or nonwastewater. The BOAT treatment of these wastes does not
normally require stabilization of the treatment residuals, and no waste
streams identified from the TSDR Survey were believed to require this
additional treatment.
Information for the K009 and K010 waste streams generated at one
facility was not taken from the TSDR Survey data base. Public comments
and additional data received from the facility after the Second Third
proposed rule indicated that because of changes in the facility's
production process, the TSDR Survey information originally submitted for
these deepwell injected waste streams is now incorrect. Therefore, the
Agency used the new information supplied by the facility to ascertain the
volumes and analyze characteristics of these waste streams. The
2-94
-------
information was used to determine whether the waste streams were to be
considered wastewaters or nonwastewaters. Based on the information
supplied, a K009 waste stream (79 million gallons per year) was determined
to be a wastewater and a K010 waste stream (5 million gallons per year)
to be a nonwastewater. These were the only waste streams reported as
being deepwell injected. The data supplied by the facility and a letter
from the Agency to the facility indicating the results of the evaluation
of the waste streams are found in Appendix E.
Based on TSDR Survey data and data supplied by a facility generating
K009 and K010 wastes, the Agency believes that adequate treatment capacity
does not exist for the volume of deepwell injected K009 wastewaters
requiring alternative treatment. Therefore, the Agency is granting a
2-year national capacity variance from the effective date of this rule
for K009 wastewaters that are deepwell injected. However, the Agency
believes that adequate treatment capacity does exist for all K010 wastes
as well as all K009 nonwastewaters. Therefore, the Agency is not granting
a national capacity variance for these wastes.
2-95
-------
5711s
Table 2-33 Capacity Analysis for K009
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of sludges 1,440 0
Steam stripping and/or 0 79,000,000
biological treatment
2-96
-------
5711s
Table 2-34 Capacity Analysis for K010
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of liquids 0 5.000,000
Combustion of sludges 1.440 0
2-97
-------
K011. K013. and K014
RCRA hazardous wastes K011, K013, and K014 are wastes generated in
the production of acrylonitrile. These wastes are listed as hazardous
because of the presence of toxic organics. K011 and K013 are also listed
as hazardous because they are reactive. The Agency is promulgating BOAT
treatment standards for the nonwastewater forms of K011, K013, and K014
based on the performance of incineration. However, the Agency is not
promulgating BOAT treatment standards for K011, K013, and K014
wastewaters. Because these are First Third wastes, the wastewater forms
will continue to be restricted from land disposal by the soft hammer
provisions.
As shown in Tables 2-35, 2-36, and 2-37, all of the K011, K013, and
K014 nonwastewaters requiring alternative treatment were assigned to the
BOAT technology. The BOAT treatment of these wastes does not normally
require stabilization of treatment residuals. However, several K011
waste streams reported in the TSDR Survey were mixed waste streams
containing metal-bearing wastes. The Agency believes that these waste
streams would require stabilization of the residuals.
Based on the TSDR Survey data, the Agency believes that adequate
treatment capacity exists for the non-deepwell injected K011, K013, and
K014 nonwastewaters requiring alternative treatment. Therefore, the
Agency is not granting a national capacity variance for these wastes that
are not deepwell injected. No deepwell injected K014 wastes were
identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment.
2-98
-------
Therefore, the Agency is not granting a national capacity variance for
deepwell injected K014 nonwastewaters. However, the Agency believes that
adequate treatment capacity does not exist for the volume of K011 and
K013 nonwastewaters that are deepwell injected. Therefore, the Agency is
granting a 2-year national capacity variance from the effective date of
this rule for K011 and K013 nonwastewaters that are deepwell injected.
2-99
-------
5711s
Table 2-35 Capacity Analysis for K011
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
Combustion of liquids
Combustion of sludges
Combustion of solids
Stabi lization of
incinerator ash
Stabilization of scrubber
water treatment sludge
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
49,920
16,000
128,359
120
6
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
173,379,980
0
0
0
0
2-100
-------
5711s
Table 2-36 Capacity Analysis for K013
Type of alternative
t rea tmen t/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of liquids
Combustion of sludges
Combustion of solids
1.920 173.379.980
16.000 0
128,359 0
2-101
-------
5711s
Table 2-37 Capacity Analysis for K014 Nonwastewater
f 1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of sludges 16,000
2-102
-------
K027, K115. U221, and U223
RCRA hazardous wastes K027, K115, U221, and U223 are generated in the
production of toluene diisocyanate and toluenediamine. These wastes are
listed as hazardous because of reactivity and the presence of toxic
organics. The Agency has identified the BOAT technology for these wastes
to be incineration for nonwastewaters and carbon adsorption or direct
incineration for wastewaters. The Agency is requiring these technologies
as a method of treatment rather than developing numerical standards.
As shown in Tables 2-38 through 2-41, all of the K027, K115, U221,
and U223 wastes requiring alternative treatment were assigned to one of
the BOAT technologies based on whether the waste stream was described as a
wastewater or nonwastewater. The only wastewater identified as requiring
alternative treatment was a small volume of deepwell injected U223
wastes. Deepwell injected U223 wastes requiring alternative treatment
were not identified from the TSDR Survey; however, information obtained
from the EPA Office of Drinking Water's Hazardous Waste Injection Well
Data Base indicated that a small volume of U223 wastes may require
alternative treatment (Ref. 10). This volume is included in Table 2-41.
The BOAT treatment of these wastes does not normally require treatment of
scrubber water, incinerator ash, or wastewater treatment sludge, and no
waste streams reported in the TSDR Survey were believed to require this
additional treatment.
2-103
-------
Based on the TSDR Survey and the EPA Office of Drinking Water data,
the Agency believes that adequate treatment capacity exists for
non-deepwell injected and deepwell injected K027, K115, U221, and U223
wastes requiring alternative treatment. Therefore, the Agency is not
granting a national capacity variance for these wastes.
2-104
-------
5711s
Table 2-38 Capacity Analysis for K027
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of sludges 7,465,464
Combustion of solids 21,360
2-105
-------
5711s
Table 2-39 Capacity Analysis for K115
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of sludges 161,760
2-106
-------
5711s
Table 2-40 Capacity Analysis for UZZ1
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of liquids 0 26,824,080
Combustion of solids 305,784 0
2-107
-------
5711s
Table 2-41 Capacity Analysis for UZZ3
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of liquids 59,041 0
Carbon adsorption or 0 9,853
direct combustion of
wastewaters
aBased on the EPA Office of Drinking Water's Hazardous Waste Injection Well Data Base.
2-108
-------
K093 and K094
RCRA hazardous wastes K093 and K094 are generated in the production
of phthalic anhydride from ortho-xylene. These wastes are listed as
hazardous because of the presence of toxic organics. The Agency is
promulgating BOAT treatment standards for K093 and K094 based on the
performance of incineration. This is based on a transfer of the
incineration standards for K024 wastes promulgated with the First Third
wastes on August 8, 1988.
As shown in Tables 2-42 and 2-43, all of the K093 and K094 wastes
requiring alternative treatment were assigned to the BOAT technology. The
BOAT treatment of these wastes does not normally require the treatment of
scrubber water and incinerator ash, and no waste streams reported in the
TSDR Survey were believed to require this additional treatment.
Based on the TSDR Survey data, the Agency believes that adequate
treatment capacity exists for the non-deepwell injected K093 and K094
wastes requiring alternative treatment. Therefore, the Agency is not
granting a capacity variance for these wastes that are not deepwell
injected. Deepwell injected K093 and K094 wastes were not identified
from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment. Therefore, the
Agency is not granting a national capacity variance for these wastes that
are deepwell injected.
2-109
-------
5711s
Table 2-42 Capacity Analysis for K093
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of sludges 36,480
2-110
-------
5711s
Table 2-43 Capacity Analysis for K094
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of sludges 36,480
2-111
-------
P029, P030, P063, P098, and P106
RCRA hazardous wastes P029, P030, P063, P098, and P106 are discarded
commercial chemical product wastes listed as hazardous because of the
presence of cyanides. The Agency is promulgating BOAT treatment
standards for these wastes based on the performance of alkaline
chlorination followed by chemical precipitation, settling, and filtration
for wastewaters and electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination, chemical precipitation, settling, and filtration for
nonwastewaters. This is based on a transfer of the treatment standards
being promulgated in the Second Third final rule for F011 and F012.
One commenter on the Second Third proposed rule pointed out that no
commercial facilities offer the specific treatment train identified as
BOAT for nonwastewaters (i.e., electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination). The Agency agrees that no commercial facilities with a
treatment train consisting of electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination were identified in the TSDR Survey. However, EPA believes
that alkaline chlorination alone will be able to meet the treatment
standards. The Agency received numerous public comments supporting this
position. Consequently, EPA included commercially available alkaline
chlorination capacity in its capacity determinations for these wastes.
As shown in Tables 2-44 through 2-48, all of the P029, P030, P063,
P098, and P106 wastes requiring alternative treatment have been assigned
to alkaline chlorination. The BOAT treatment of these wastes does not
2-112
-------
normally require stabilization of the wastewater treatment sludge, and no
waste streams reported in the TSDR Survey were believed to require this
additional treatment.
When mixed waste streams are reported in the TSDR Survey and no
breakdown of the volumes of the component wastes is given, the total
volume is assumed to be divided equally among the components. This
assumption resulted in over 184 million gallons of required alternative
capacity originally being attributed to P063 (hydrogen cyanide). The
Agency questioned whether such a large volume of P063 waste would actually
be generated.
40 CFR Section 261.33 includes a list of commercial chemical products
that have been assigned "P" and "U" codes. These commercial chemical
products are considered a hazardous waste when they meet one of the
following descriptions: (1) discarded product, (2) off-specification
product, (3) container residue, or (4) spill residue.
The Agency solicited public comments on the volume and
characteristics of P063 wastes. No public comments were received
concerning P063 wastes. Therefore, in order to determine whether these
wastes truly meet the definition of P063 under 40 CFR Section 261.33,
TSDR Survey data, and Generator Survey data, where available, were used
to reevaluate waste generation, characterization, and capacity
requirements for P063 wastes. Using these data sources, large-volume
mixed waste streams containing P063 were identified at two facilities:
(1) Monsanto Co. (EPA ID No. TXD001700806) and (2) Standard Oil Chemical
Co. (EPA ID No. TXD000751172). A detailed analysis, including facility
2-113
-------
contact, was conducted on the TSDR and Generator Survey data from these
facilities. The results of this analysis are detailed below:
Monsanto Co. (EPA ID No. TXp001700806): In the TSDR Survey
originally submitted for this Monsanto facility, two high-volume
underground injected waste streams containing P063 were reported.
One waste stream (330 million gallons per year) was described as a
wastewater mixture of K011, K013, D002, D007, P003, and P063. The
second waste stream (54 million gallons per year) was described as
a wastewater mixture of K011, K013, POOS, P063, and U002. The
Generator Survey completed for this facility indicated that these
waste streams were generated from the production of acrylonitrile
at the facility.
On May 5, 1989, the facility was contacted to confirm the
applicability of waste code P063 to these waste streams. The
facility contact indicated that the Texas Water Commission
requires that a list of constituents be developed for each waste
stream generated onsite. According to the contact, if any of the
constituents in the waste stream had a "P" or "U" code designation
in 40 CFR Section 261.33, then that code was assigned to the waste
stream when the facility responded to the TSDR and Generator
Surveys. For example, P063 was assigned to both waste streams
because hydrogen cyanide is a constituent in the wastes. However,
this is not a proper reason to assign a waste code to a waste
stream under RCRA. As previously described, for a waste stream to
be assigned a "P" or "U" code, the waste must be a discarded
product, off-specification product, container residue, or spill
residue. The "P" or "U" codes assigned to the two underground
injected waste streams at this facility do not meet any of these
descriptions; therefore, it was determined that the "P" and "U"
codes were erroneousl-y assigned and should be deleted from the
surveys. After review of the relevant information, the facility
contact agreed with this determination. Consequently, the "P" and
"U" codes were deleted from these waste streams. For capacity
determinations in the Second Third final rule, these waste streams
were reevaluated as mixed K011 and K013 wastewaters.
. Standard Oil Chemical Co. (EPA ID No. TXD000751172): In the
TSDR Survey originally submitted for this Standard Oil facility,
one high-volume underground injected waste stream (169 million
gallons per year) containing P063 was reported. The waste stream
was described as a nonwastewater mixture of K011, K013, P063, and
U009. A sludge from the filtration of this waste stream
(255,600 gallons per year) was also reported as being landfilled
onsite. The Generator Survey for this facility indicated that
these waste streams are generated from the production of
acrylonitrile at the facility.
2-114
-------
On May 8, 1989, the facility was contacted to confirm the
applicability of waste code P063 to these waste streams. The
facility contact indicated that the underground injected waste
stream is predominantly a K011/K013 waste stream routinely
generated as part of the production process onsite. The 169
million gallons per year reported by the facility is the total
volume of waste that was underground injected in 1986, which
included the routinely generated K011/K013 waste stream and a
small volume of P063 and U009 spill residues. When completing the
TSDR Survey, the facility was unable to differentiate the volumes
of the two waste streams; therefore, the facility reported them as
a single waste stream.
The facility contact was able to estimate that 99.99 percent of
the volume of waste underground injected in 1986 was the routinely
generated K011/K013 waste stream. Based on this estimate, it is
believed that only 16,900 gallons of P063 and U009 spill residues
were underground injected in 1986. Consequently, the TSDR and
Generator Surveys for this facility were revised to include a
separate waste stream of 16,900 gallons per year of P063/U009
spill residue. Because the sludge reported as being landfilled
onsite is from the filtration of the routinely generated K011/K013
waste stream, it is assumed that the sludge should also only be
identified by the waste codes K011 and K013. The facility contact
agreed with these revisions. The change in the waste streams
reported for this facility will be incorporated in the capacity
determinations for the Second Third final rule.
The revisions made to the TSDR Surveys of the facilities mentioned
above result in changes in the estimates of required capacity for certain
Second Third waste codes, namely K011, K013, and P063. For the Second
Third final rule, the total volume of P063 wastes estimated to require
alternative treatment has been reduced from over 184 million gallons per
year to approximately 21,700 gallons per year. Overall, the total volume
of K011 and K013 wastes estimated to require alternative treatment has
been reduced from over 999 million gallons per year to approximately 347
million gallons per year. This is because treatment standards for K011
and K013 wastewaters are not being promulgated in the Second Third final
rule. These wastewaters will therefore be covered by the soft hammer
2-115
-------
provisions, and have been deleted from the estimates of K011 and K013
wastes requiring alternative treatment. When the wastewater volumes that
have been shifted from P063 to K011 and K013, based on the revisions
reported above, are included, a total of 831 million gallons per year of
K011 and K013 wastewaters will be covered by the soft hammer provisions
as a result of the Second Third final rule.
The total amount of combustion capacity required for Second Third
promulgated wastes has not changed because of these revisions. However,
over 56 million gallons per year of liquids combustion capacity and
85,262 gallons per year of solids combustion capacity have been shifted
from P063 to K011 and K013.
Based on the TSDR Survey data, Generator Survey data, and other
available information, the Agency believes that adequate treatment
capacity exists for the non-deepwell injected and deepwell injected P029,
P030, P063, P098, and P106 wastes requiring alternative treatment. The
Agency does not believe that any extension is warranted for these
discarded commercial chemical product wastes because they are generated
in small volumes at sporadic intervals and do not have to be treated in
existing treatment systems that conceivably require minor adjustments.
Therefore, the Agency is not granting a national capacity variance for
these wastes.
2-116
-------
5711s
Table 2-44 Capacity Analysis for P029
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination 0 1,512
2-117
-------
5711s
Table 2-45 Capacity Analysis for P030
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination 21.382 22,552
2-118
-------
5711s
Table 2-46 Capacity Analysis for P063-
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination 4,800 16,900
2-119
-------
5711s
Table 2-47 Capacity Analysis for P098
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination 308 2,952
2-120
-------
5711s
Table 2-48 Capacity Analysis for P106
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination 3,782
2-121
-------
P039. P071. P089, and P094
RCRA hazardous wastes P039, P071, P089, and P094 are organophosphorous
wastes. These hazardous wastes are listed for toxicity. The Agency is
promulgating BOAT treatment standards for these wastes based on the
performance of incineration for nonwastewaters and biological treatment
for wastewaters.
As shown in Tables 2-49 through 2-52, all of the wastes requiring
alternative treatment were assigned to one of the BOAT technologies based
on whether the waste was described as a wastewater or nonwastewater. The
BOAT treatment of these wastes does not normally require treatment of
scrubber water, incinerator ash, or wastewater treatment sludge, and no
waste streams reported in the TSDR Survey were believed to require this
additional treatment.
Based on the TSDR Survey data, the Agency believes that adequate
treatment capacity exists for the non-deepwell injected and deepwell
injected P039, P071, P089, and P094 wastes requiring alternative
treatment. Therefore, the Agency is not granting a national capacity
variance for these wastes.
2-122
-------
5711s
Table 2-49 Capacity Analysis for P039
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of liquids 295
2-123
-------
5711s
Table 2-50 Capacity Analysis for P071
1988 non-deepwe11 volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Biological treatment 0 1,920
Combustion of solids 25,896 0
2-124
-------
5711s
Table 2-51 Capacity Analysis for P089
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of liquids
Combustion of solids
Biological treatment
26.880
480
0
0
0
1.200
2-125
-------
5711s
Table 2-52 Capacity Analysis for P094
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of liquids 1,200
2-126
-------
U087
RCRA hazardous waste U087 is an organophosphorous waste listed for
toxicity. The Agency has identified the BOAT technology for this waste
to be incineration for nonwastewaters and carbon adsorption or
incineration for wastewaters. The Agency is promulgating these
technologies as a method of treatment rather than developing numerical
standards.
As shown in Table 2-53, the U087 wastes requiring alternative
treatment were deepwell injected and have been assigned to the BOAT
technology for nonwastewaters. The BOAT treatment of these wastes does
not normally require treatment of scrubber water and incinerator ash, and
no waste streams reported in the TSDR Survey were believed to require
this additional treatment. U087 waste streams described as wastewaters
were not identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative
treatment.
Based on the TSDR Survey data, the Agency believes that adequate
treatment capacity exists for the deepwell injected U087 wastes requiring
alternative treatment. Therefore, the Agency is not granting a national
capacity variance for U087 wastes that are deepwell-injected.
Non-deepwell injected U087 wastes were not identified from the TSDR
Survey as requiring alternative treatment. Therefore, the Agency is not
granting a national capacity variance for non-deepwell injected U087
wastes.
2-127
-------
5711s
Table 2-53 Capacity Analysis for U087
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of liquids 0 960
2-128
-------
U028, U069, and U190
RCRA hazardous wastes U028, U069, and U190 are phthalate wastes
listed for toxicity. The Agency is promulgating BOAT treatment standards
for these wastes based on the performance of incineration. This is based
on a transfer of the incineration standards for K024 promulgated with the
First Third wastes on August 8, 1988.
As shown in Tables 2-54 through 2-56, all of the U028, U069, and U190
wastes requiring alternative treatment were assigned to the BOAT
technology. Deepwell injected U028, U069, or U190 wastes were not
identified from the TSDR Survey as requiring alternative treatment.
However, information obtained from the EPA Office of Drinking Water's
Hazardous Waste Injection Well Data Base indicates that a small volume of
deepwell injected U190 wastes may require alternative treatment (Ref. 10).
This volume is included in Table 2-54. The BOAT treatment of these
wastes does not normally require the treatment of scrubber water and
incinerator ash, and no waste streams reported in the TSDR Survey were
believed to require this additional treatment.
Based on the TSDR Survey and the EPA Office of Drinking Water data,
the Agency believes that adequate treatment capacity exists for the
non-deepwell injected and deepwell injected U028, U069, and U190 wastes
requiring alternative treatment. Therefore, the Agency is not granting a
capacity variance for these wastes.
2-129
-------
5711s
Table 2-54 Capacity Analysis for U028
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of solids 480
2-130
-------
5711s
Table 2-55 Capacity Analysis for U069
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of liquids 29
2-131
-------
5711s
Table 2-56 Capacity Analysis for U190
1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
Type of alternative requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
treatment/recovery (gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Combustion of liquids 0 9,853 a
Combustion of solids 75,120 0
aBased on the EPA Office of Drinking Water's Hazardous Waste Injection Well Data Base.
2-132
-------
2.2.11 Contaminated Soils
Because of the unique treatability and regulatory issues associated
with contaminated soils, such soils have been handled separately in this
document. Table 2-57 presents estimates based on TSDR Survey data of the
total volume of contaminated soils land disposed at Subtitle C facilities,
as well as a breakdown of the total volume land disposed per regulatory
group, including the waste affected by today's rule. Contaminated soils
were identified by the waste description code associated with each waste
stream and do not include contaminated debris unless specifically
indicated by the facility. The TSDR Survey contains data only on the
volume of contaminated soils land disposed, not on the volume generated.
Furthermore, no data are available on the source generating the waste
volume being land disposed (e.g., corrective actions, spill cleanups,
etc.). Appendix F presents the results of the analysis of required
capacity for each alternative technology for contaminated soils.
Available capacity was first assigned to the nonsoil land disposed
wastes analyzed in this document (i.e., solvent, HOCs, First Third
promulgated wastes, and Second Third promulgated wastes). The remaining
capacity was then used as available capacity for contaminated soils.
Table 2-58 presents the results of the capacity analyses conducted for
soils contaminated with solvents, HOC wastes (excluding First Third
promulgated wastes containing HOCs), First Third promulgated wastes, and
Second Third promulgated wastes. Tables 2-59 through 2-79 present waste
code-by-waste code analysis of the treatment capacity required by soils
contaminated with Second Third promulgated wastes.
2-133
-------
Analysis of the TSDR Survey data indicated that relatively small
volumes of soil contaminated with Second Third promulgated wastes were
land disposed in 1986. However, the Superfund remediation program has
expanded significantly since that time.
An incineration capacity analysis conducted by the Agency (Ref. 12)
indicates that the amount of contaminated soils being sent to offsite
incineration will probably be significantly higher in 1989 and 1990 than
in 1986. This capacity analysis was based on information from the EPA
Hazardous Site Control Division (Ref. 13). The Agency believes that
capacity is still inadequate for incineration of soils contaminated with
Second Third promulgated wastes because of the major increase in the
Superfund remediation program. Therefore, the Agency is granting a
2-year national capacity variance from the effective date of this rule
for soils contaminated with Second Third promulgated wastes that require
incineration.
The Agency is not promulgating a national capacity variance for soils
contaminated with any of the Second Third promulgated cyanide wastes.
The treatment technology on which the Agency based treatment standards is
alkaline chlorination. TSDR Survey data indicate that there is ample
commercial cyanide treatment capacity providing alkaline chlorination.
It is true that this is a wastewater treatment technology, and that
contaminated soils are not liquids. However, contaminated soils could be
slurried into liquid form and so be treatable by this technology.
Therefore, the Agency is not granting a national capacity variance for
these wastes.
2-134
-------
5704s
Table 2-57 Volume of Contaminated Soils Land Disposed
Land disposed volume
Regulatory group (million gal/yr)
Solvents 26
First Third promulgated wastes 18
HOCs containing soft hammer First 2
Third wastes
All other HOC wastes 4
Second Third promulgated wastes 2
Other RCRA wastes 12.
All RCRA wastes 64
2-135
-------
5704s
Table 2-58 Contaminated SoiIs
Capacity Analysis
Available Required
capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion of soi Is
(sludges/solids) 8
- Solvents 26
- First Third promulgated wastes 12
- HOCs (exc lulling above) 4
- Second Third promulgated wastes 1
Alkaline chlormation 31
- Second Thin) promulgated 2
wastes
Stabilization ol soils 512
contaminated with.
- Solvents (combustion residues) 10
- Solvents (other) <1
- First Third promulgated wastes 6
(combustion residues)
- First Third promulgated wastes 11
(other)
- Second Third promulgated wastes
(treatment residues) 2
2-136
-------
5705s
Table 2-59 Capacity Analysis for
F007 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gal Ions/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Alkaline chlormation
Stabilization of wastewater
treatment sludge
764,769
757,121
2-137
-------
5705s
Table 2-60 Capacity Analysis for
F008 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative 1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
treatment/recovery requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination 596,635
Stabilizatton of 590,669
wastewater treatment sludge
2-138
-------
5705s
Table 2-61 Capacity Analysis for
F009 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative 1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
treatment/recovery requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination 242.018 0
Stabilization of 239.598 0
wastewater treatment sludge
2-139
-------
5705s
Table 2-62 Capacity Analysis for
F010 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soils
480
Slabi 1izat ion of
incinerator ash
475
Stabilization of scrubber
water treatment sludge
2-140
-------
5705s
Table 2-63 Capacity Analysis for
F011 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative 1988 non-deepwell volume 1988 deepwell volume
treatment/recovery requiring alternative capacity requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year) (gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination 3,788 0
Stabilization of 3,750 0
waslewater treatment sludge
2-141
-------
5705s
Table 2-64 Capacity Analysis for
K011 (Sot) and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwe11 volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soi Is
120
2-142
-------
5705s
Table 2-65 Capacity Analysis for
K013 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
t reatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soils
120
2-143
-------
5705s
Table 2-66 Capacity Analysis for
K113 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soils
240
2-144
-------
5705s
Table Z-67 Capacity Analysis for
POZ9 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gal Ions/year)
Alkaline chlorination
240
2-145
-------
5705s
Table 2-68 Capacity Analysis for
P030 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination
7,350
2-146
-------
5705s
Table 2-69 Capacity Analysis for
P044 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soils
1.680
2-147
-------
5705s
Table 2-70 Capacity Analysis for
P063 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(galions/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination
15.360
2-148
-------
5705s
Table 2-71 Capacity Analysis for
P071 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwel1 volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soils
46,980
2-149
-------
5705s
Table 2-72 Capacity Analysis for
P089 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
t reatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soiIs
720
2-150
-------
5705s
Table 2-73 Capacity Analysis for
P094 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soils
43,800
2-151
-------
5705s
Table 2-74 Capacity Analysis for
P106 (Sail and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Alkaline chlorination
480
2-152
-------
5705s
Table 2-75 Capacity Analysis for
UOZ8 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gal Ions/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soils
386,160
2-153
-------
5705s
Table 2-76 Capacity Analysis for
U069 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soiIs
1,440
2-154
-------
5705s
Table 2-77 Capacity Analysis for
U190 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soils
11.550
2-155
-------
5705s
Table 2-78 Capacity Analysis for
U221 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soiIs
97.200
2-156
-------
5705s
Table 2-79 Capacity Analysis for
U223 (Soil and Debris)
Type of alternative
treatment/recovery
1988 non-deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
1988 deepwell volume
requiring alternative capacity
(gallons/year)
Combustion of soiIs
6,000
2-157
-------
3. CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
This section of the background document presents a detailed
discussion of the methodology (approach) and rationale for the capacity
analyses to support this final rule.
Section 3.1 includes a brief discussion of the data sources and the
technical review and quality control procedures associated with the
creation of the waste volume data set used for capacity analysis.
Section 3.1 also presents a detailed discussion of the methodology used
for determination of required alternative capacity for land disposed
wastes (capacity demand). Section 3.2 provides a detailed discussion of
the determination of available alternative capacity (supply) and the
creation of the alternative capacity data sets used for the analysis.
Finally, Section 3.3 describes the methodology used to compare the waste
volumes and the associated required alternative capacity (demand) with
the supply of available capacity to determine whether adequate capacity
exists to support the land disposal restrictions.
3.1 Determination of Required Treatment Capacity
This section presents a detailed discussion of the analytical
methodology used to determine the demand for alternative treatment
capacity required by wastes affected by the Second Third final rule.
3.1.1 Waste Volumes Affected
As mentioned previously, this document presents an analysis of
required and available treatment capacity for Second Third promulgated
wastes, including contaminated soils. To assess the requirements for
3-1
-------
alternative treatment capacity that will result from the Second Third
final restrictions, it was necessary to identify waste volumes by land
disposal method, waste code, and physical/chemical form. With this
information, it is possible to identify which treatment technologies are
applicable to the waste volumes and to determine required alternative
treatment capacity.
(1) Data sources. The TSDR Survey data base described earlier was
the only source used to estimate surface disposed waste volumes and the
primary source used to estimate underground injected waste volumes. For
some wastes (specifically U190 and U223), the TSDR Survey did not contain
data on underground injected volumes. Consequently, the EPA Office of
Drinking Water's. Hazardous Waste Injection Well Data Base (HWIWDB) was
used to determine the underground injected volume for these two wastes
(Ref. 12).
(2) Identification of waste volumes. Second Third promulgated
wastes were identified on a waste code basis. For Second Third
promulgated wastes described by a single waste code, the volume was
allocated to the appropriate waste code.
For waste groups (mixed wastes and/or wastes described by more than
one RCRA waste code), the entire volume was included in the regulatory
group of the highest priority code in the group. For example, if a waste
group was described by both a solvent waste code (F001-F005) and a Second
Third promulgated code, the entire waste volume was assigned to solvents
because they were restricted prior to Second Third wastes.
3-2
-------
Consequently, to avoid double-counting, only waste volumes for waste
groups containing a Second Third promulgated code but no solvents,
potential California List halogenated organic compounds (HOCs), or First
Third wastes for which a treatment standard was promulgated on August 8,
1988 (i.e., non-soft hammer First Third wastes), have been included in
today's estimates of required capacity. Furthermore, if a waste group
contained more than one Second Third promulgated code but no previously
restricted codes, the volume was divided equally among the Second Third
promulgated codes.
(3) Determination of affected volumes. Land disposal is defined
under RCRA as any placement of hazardous waste into or on the land.
Therefore, storage and treatment of hazardous waste in or on the land is
also considered land disposal. Land disposal methods can be divided into
numerous categories. Five types of land disposal are addressed in detail
in this document: disposal in landfills; treatment and storage in waste
piles; disposal by land application; treatment, storage, and disposal in
surface impoundments; and underground injection. Utilization of salt
dome formations, salt bed formations, and underground mines and caves are
additional methods of land disposal that are affected by this rulemaking.
Currently, there is insufficient information to document the volumes of
Second Third promulgated wastes disposed of by these last three methods;
therefore, they are not addressed in the analysis of volumes and required
alternative treatment capacity.
3-3
-------
Estimates of the volumes of affected wastes that have been stored (but
not treated or disposed of) in surface impoundments or waste piles are
presented. Storage implies a temporary placement of wastes in the
surface impoundment or waste pile. EPA has assumed that all of the
affected wastes stored in surface impoundments are eventually treated or
recycled or that they are routed to permanent disposal in other existing
units. To avoid double-counting in this analysis (i.e., counting waste
volumes once when they are stored and again when they are finally
disposed of), the volumes of wastes reported as being stored in surface
impoundments or waste piles were not included in the estimates of volumes
requiring alternative treatment capacity. Nevertheless, these wastes
will be affected by the restrictions and will require alternative storage
capacity. However, if during the facility-level analysis of the responses
to the TSDR Survey it was determined that wastes were being stored
indefinitely in the impoundment or waste pile (i.e., long-term storage),
these volumes were included as requiring alternative treatment capacity
because they would not be counted elsewhere. If hazardous waste entered
a waste pile or surface impoundment for storage in 1986 but was not
reported as having been removed from the impoundment or waste pile for
treatment or disposal prior to or during 1986, the waste was considered
to have undergone long-term storage.
HSWA required that all surface impoundments be in compliance with
certain minimum design and operating criteria (minimum technology
requirements; see RCRA section 3005(j)) to continue receiving, treating,
or storing hazardous waste beyond November 8, 1988. Furthermore, the
3-4
-------
land disposal restrictions, upon promulgation, forbid placement of
restricted wastes in surface impoundments, except for treatment.
Consequently, most surface impoundments were replaced by tanks,
retrofitted to meet the minimum technical standards, or closed entirely
by November 1988. Because the baseline year for the TSDR Survey is 1986,
however, the 1986 land disposed volumes do not reflect these changes.
Therefore, a special analysis of the management of wastes in surface
impoundments was conducted. As described in Section 2.1.1, if it could be
determined from the survey responses or through facility follow-up that a
treatment surface impoundment was being closed without a replacement
(i.e., the surface impoundment is to be bypassed because it is not crucial
to effective operation of the treatment system), was being replaced by
tanks, or was being retrofitted, then the volume was dropped from further
analysis of waste requiring alternative treatment capacity.
For surface impoundments used for treatment and long-term storage or
for treatment and disposal that were being replaced by tanks or
retrofitted, it was sometimes necessary to include the volume of treatment
residual generated in the impoundment in 1986 in the volume requiring
alternative treatment capacity. Because the impoundment was used for
long-term storage or disposal of the treatment residual, the volume was
not counted elsewhere as land disposal. Where it could be assumed that
the treatment residual would continue to be generated after retrofitting
or replacement, the volume of treatment residual generated on an annual
basis, not the entire volume entering the impoundment for treatment, was
included as requiring alternative treatment capacity. For example, if a
3-5
-------
facility reported that in 1986 it used a surface impoundment for
treatment (settling) and disposal of a Second Third promulgated hazardous
waste but that in 1988 it was replacing the impoundment with a settling
tank, the volume of waste entering the impoundment in 1986 would not
require alternative treatment capacity because it would no longer be land
disposed in 1988. However, the volume that was settling for disposal in
1986 would still be generated in the tank in 1988 and would require
alternative treatment capacity prior to disposal. The treatment residual
volume would therefore be included in the volume of wastes requiring
alternative treatment capacity. If, however, it was determined that the
impoundment was a flow-through impoundment and that only incidental
settling occurred (i.e., less than 1 percent of the volume entering was
settled), then it was assumed that there would be essentially no settling
when the impoundment was replaced by a tank.
3.1.2 Treatability Analysis
Those wastes that require alternative treatment/recovery because of
the land disposal restrictions, once identified, must be analyzed to
determine the types of alternative treatment required. This process is
referred to as treatability analysis. This section discusses the
methodology used to perform treatability analyses on the wastes
identified as requiring alternative treatment/recovery. The results of
the treatability analysis conducted on the waste streams used for this
rulemaking are contained in Appendix C.
3-6
-------
(1) Waste characterization. Respondents to the TSDR Survey were
asked to provide a limited waste characterization, including a waste code
(or codes) and a waste description code (A/B codes), for each waste
stream being land disposed. The A/B codes classify wastes, at a minimum,
by the following general physical/chemical categories: inorganic
liquids, sludges, solids, and gases and organic liquids, sludges, solids,
and gases. The waste description codes, in some cases, also provide
qualitative information on hazardous constituents or characteristics.
The waste code and A/B code combinations were the primary source of
characterization data used to assess treatability of the wastes.
A limited number of facilities, however, did not provide these
codes. If during technical review of the survey or facility follow-up,
the facility was either unwilling or unable to provide these codes,
engineering judgment was used to assign a waste description code. All
available information from the survey was used to assign the waste
description codes, including the survey responses and the facility
schematic. These sources could provide information on previous management
(e.g., whether the waste was a treatment residual), the origin of the
waste (e.g., mixture rule and derived from rule wastes), and how the waste
was being land disposed (e.g., no liquids in landfills).
In addition, for F and K coded wastes for which the facility did not
provide waste description codes, the waste description in 40 CFR Part 261,
as well as information contained in a report characterizing RCRA waste
streams (Ref. 17), was used to assign the waste to the most common
physical/chemical form. Occasionally, it was not feasible to assign the
3-7
-------
waste to the most common form. For example, if the available information
indicated that the waste was commonly a solid but the waste was being
underground injected, it was assumed to be a liquid rather than a solid.
P and U coded wastes for which the facility did not provide waste
description codes were generally assigned to either off-spec or discarded
products, contaminated soils, or aqueous cleanup residue, depending on
the volume, management, and assumed physical/chemical form of each
waste. Again, any assumptions regarding the physical form were based on
available information from the schematic or survey, including the methods
of management. For example, landfilled wastes were assumed to be either
sludges or solids, and underground injected wastes were assumed to be
liquids. If the volume of undescribed waste being land disposed was large
(i.e., greater than 50 tons for solids or 1,000 gallons for liquids), the
waste was assumed to be contaminated soil or aqueous waste derived from a
cleanup operation. This was based on the assumption that, for economic
reasons, only small volumes of off-spec products are likely to be
produced, and therefore only small volumes would be land disposed.
Characteristic hazardous wastes (i.e., D waste codes) for which the
facility did not provide waste description codes were generally assigned
a waste description based on the method of land disposal used, any
information from the schematic or other survey responses, and the
characteristic represented by the particular D code. For example,
pesticide wastes characteristically hazardous for their toxicity were
generally considered organic, while toxic metal wastes were considered
inorganic.
3-8
-------
For the purposes of the TSDR Survey, certain X-codes were created to
describe hazardous waste residuals that result from the onsite management
of many individual RCRA coded wastes that are no longer individually
identifiable. One such X-code was XLEA, which was used to describe
leachate from hazardous waste landfills. To ensure that the X-codes were
not being misused by respondents and that RCRA codes were being used when
it was reasonable to do so, an attempt was made to "un-X" X-coded wastes
that were reported as land disposed. In the case of XLEA, information
from the facility schematic and facility notes, as well as information on
the types of wastes entering the landfill, was used to assign RCRA codes
to these wastes. However, because by definition these wastes should no
longer be individually identifiable, very few X-coded wastes were assigned
RCRA codes.
(2) Treatability grouping/assigning alternative treatment. As
previously mentioned, EPA is required to establish treatment standards
for those wastes being restricted from land disposal. The Agency has the
option of either specifying the use of a particular technology or setting
a concentration standard based on the performance of the best demonstrated
available technology (BOAT). For the Second Third promulgated wastes,
the Agency is generally establishing concentration standards based on the
performance of BOAT; however, for some Second Third promulgated wastes,
EPA is requiring the use of the BOAT technology.
Through use of the characterization data provided by the survey,
i.e., the waste code and A/B code combinations, and consideration of the
BOAT technologies identified by EPA, wastes were assessed for
3-9
-------
treatability and assigned to treatability groups. These treatability
groups were then assigned to BOAT treatment or, in some cases, to
alternative treatment that the Agency believes is capable of meeting the
BOAT treatment standard. For example, if the BOAT technology was
identified as rotary kiln incineration, it was assumed that other types
of incineration with the appropriate feed system would be able to achieve
the BOAT standard. In addition, for this analysis, reuse as fuel was
also assumed to be equivalent to incineration (incineration and reuse as
fuel have been grouped under the general category of combustion).
Wastes with similar A/B codes that require the same BOAT were assigned
to the same treatability groups. Appendix G presents the alternative
treatment/recovery technologies associated with each treatability group,
and Appendix H contains a description of each alternative treatment/
recovery technology.
In limited cases, waste could not be assigned to the treatability
group representing the BOAT treatment because the physical/chemical form
of the waste was incompatible with the BOAT treatment. In these cases,
an engineering analysis of the waste stream was conducted to assign the
waste to an alternative technology believed capable of achieving the BOAT
treatment standard. The results of these analyses for each waste stream
are presented in the waste code-specific discussions in Subsection 2.2.6.
The TSDR Survey does not contain data on the performance of treatment
technologies; therefore, several alternative sources (Refs. 15, 16, 17,
18, and 19) and "best engineering judgment" were required to identify
potential alternatives to BOAT.
3-10
-------
A similar analysis was conducted for waste groups (i.e., mixed
wastes). Waste groups are hazardous wastes that are described by more
than one RCRA waste code, and they present special treatability problems
in that they are often contaminated with hazardous constituents that may
fall under more than one treatability group (e.g., organics and metals).
Such waste groups usually cannot be assigned to only the BOAT technology
for one specific waste type. Instead, a treatment train that is capable
of treating each waste type in the group sequentially must be developed.
Often these treatment trains can be developed by combining BOAT
treatments in sequence, or by adding pre- or post-treatment steps to the
BOAT technology. Treatment trains were developed using the references
mentioned above and engineering judgment.
(3) Treatment residuals. Treatment technologies generate residuals
that create capacity demand. For example, some wastes require
incineration followed by stabilization of the incinerator ash and
treatment of the scrubber water followed by stabilization of the resultant
wastewater treatment sludge. Based on the TSDR Survey responses, it was
determined that RCRA permitted incinerators have adequate air pollution
control devices (APCD) (including scrubber water treatment at those
facilities with wet scrubbers) and that the facilities considered the
capacity of their APCDs and wastewater treatment systems when determining
the capacity of their incinerators. Therefore, no attempt was made to
evaluate capacity for treatment of scrubber waters. Wastewater treatment
sludges and incinerator ash requiring stabilization, however, were
included in the estimates of treatment residuals requiring capacity.
3-11
-------
Although the entire waste volume would require incineration, only a
portion of the original volume would require stabilization because the
amount of ash and wastewater treatment sludge generated would be less
than the original volume incinerated. To account for these changes in
the volume within a treatment train, volume adjustment factors were
developed. These factors were developed using engineering judgment and
are dependent on the type of treatment and the physical/chemical form of
the waste. The factors represent that percent of the original volume
exiting the technology of concern as a residual. For example, the volume
adjustment factor used to estimate the volume of ash generated from
incineration of an organic sludge is 0.1, or 10 percent of the original
volume, and the volume of scrubber water treatment sludge is estimated at
0.01 or 1 percent of the original volume. Therefore, if 100 gallons were
incinerated, the volume adjustment factor would estimate that 10 gallons
of ash and 1 gallon of wastewater (scrubber water) treatment sludge would
be produced as residuals.
(4) Previous management. Another important factor considered during
the treatability analysis of a waste was any previous management. Using
information contained in the TSDR Survey and the facility schematics, it
was possible to evaluate the previous management, if any, for wastes
being land disposed. Whenever possible, the previous management of land
disposed wastes was evaluated in an attempt to determine whether the
waste had already been treated by the BOAT technology or by a technology
believed capable of achieving the BOAT treatment standard. If it could
be determined that the waste had been previously treated by such a
3-12
-------
technology, the waste was assumed to meet the BOAT treatment standard.
Such wastes would therefore not be prohibited from land disposal and were
consequently not included in further analysis of the volume of wastes
requiring alternative treatment/recovery capacity.
(5) Wastes excluded from further analysis. Because of the unique
treatability issues associated with lab packs, these wastes were not
included in the volume of wastes requiring alternative treatment/recovery
capacity. Furthermore, these volumes represent less than 8,000 gallons, a
small portion of the volume of wastes affected by the Second Third final
rule.
3.2 Determination of Available Treatment Capacity
This section presents a detailed discussion of the analytical
methodology used to determine the estimates of alternative treatment and
recovery capacity available for wastes affected by the Second Third final
rule. These processes include "combustion" in incinerators or industrial
kilns, furnaces, and boilers, and "other treatment/recovery" processes
including solidification/stabilization, solvent and liquid organic
recovery for reuse, metals recovery, acid leaching of sludges,
neutralization, and wastewater treatment for cyanides, metals, and
organics. The discussion of combustion capacity is separate from the
discussion of other treatment and recovery capacity. Combustion is
predominantly a single unit process system; therefore, the combustion
system analysis does not require locating and quantifying a limiting unit
within a treatment train of unit processes as in the analysis of other
treatment or recovery systems.
3-13
-------
3.2.1 Determination of Combustion Capacity
(1) Introduction. The combustion data set was established to
determine the following information for incineration and reuse as fuel:
(1) the utilized capacity during the base or reference year of 1986;
(2) the maximum capacity during 1986 and any planned changes through
1992; (3) the unused or available capacity during the periods 1986, 1987,
1988, 1989-1990, and 1991-1992; and (4) the possible interchange of
capacity between the various hazardous waste forms (feed capabilities)
for these time periods should excess capacity exist for certain forms and
shortfalls exist for others. The data set was generated by technical
review and engineering evaluation of TSDR Survey responses and facility
schematics, followed by development of the data set and data
consolidation and aggregation to arrive at national totals.
For this rule, capacity data from only fully commercial incinerators
were used to determine available capacity. These data represent the most
readily available capacity, on a national level, to treat the waste that
is currently being considered under the land disposal restriction rules.
The incineration capacity compiled for this rule does not include
information on two other potential categories of waste treatment capacity,
limited commercial and captive facility capacity. "Limited commercial"
facilities are those that accept wastes from only a limited number of
facilities not under the same ownership in many cases, only from their
customers and/or clients. "Captive facilities" are those that manage
wastes from other facilities under the same ownership. Although capacity
3-14
-------
from these types of facilities has not been included in this analysis,
the Agency does not believe that available capacity from these sources
would have affected any of the variance decisions for this rule.
To determine reuse as fuel capacity, data from facilities with fully
and limited commercial industrial kilns, furnaces, or boilers were
included. During review of the TSDR Survey, it was discovered that most
facilities with reuse as fuel units described themselves as limited
commercial because they accept waste only from a limited number of
facilities not under the same ownership, primarily fuel blenders or waste
brokers. Because fuel blenders and waste brokers are typically fully
commercial, capacity at these limited commercial reuse-as-fuel units was
also considered fully commercial.
The capacity data set was compared to estimates of waste volumes
currently being land disposed that will require combustion capacity to
determine whether there is adequate incineration and reuse-as-fuel
capacity for all waste forms. Combustion technologies lend themselves
well to wastes that are difficult to treat by conventional treatment
technologies and are very versatile in that they can treat the various
waste forms (liquids, sludges, solids, and gases) with some
interchangeability.
(2) Approach and methodology. The data set was generated by review
and engineering evaluation of TSDR Survey responses, transfer of data
derived from the questionnaires to the computer data set, and final
consolidation of all facility capacities to arrive at national totals.
3-15
-------
The questionnaires pertaining to incineration and reuse as fuel in
the TSDR Survey were Questionnaire B, "Incineration," and Questionnaire C,
"Reuse as Fuel." A copy of the two questionnaires can be found in the
RCRA docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 7). The questionnaires were
designed not only to provide actual utilization and maximum capacity data
for each unit at the facility, but also to provide other design and
operational information to enable the reviewer to evaluate the accuracy
of the facility responses. These other data elements were the following:
Operating/downtime information;
Percent utilization;
Maximum practical thermal rating;
Average heating value of the hazardous and nonhazardous waste
being treated;
Maximum practical feed rate for each waste form;
Planned capacity increases/decreases by time period;
Type of solids that can be fed to the unit; and
Waste characteristics that exclude or limit acceptance for
treatment.
The above information was used by the reviewer, using mass/heat
balances and other methods, to evaluate the validity of the facility
responses to utilized and maximum capacity questions. If discrepancies
in responses were apparent, the reviewer would attempt to resolve the
discrepancies, would contact the facility by telephone to verify such
findings, and, if agreeable to the facility, would adjust the data.
In addition, technical review of reported capacity data included the
evaluation of incinerator or reuse-as-fuel support systems such as waste
3-16
-------
feed handling systems, air pollution control devices, scrubber water
treatment systems, and ash handling systems.
The types of incinerators considered in the TSDR Survey were as
follows:
Liquid injection
Rotary (or rocking) kiln
Rotary kiln with liquid injection
Two-stage
Fixed hearth
Multiple hearth
Fluidized bed
Infrared
Fume/vapor
Pyrolytic destructor
Other (specify).
The types of units that were considered in the Reuse as Fuel
questionnaire were as follows:
Cement kiln
Aggregate kiln
Asphalt kiln
Other kiln (specify)
Blast furnace
Sulfur recovery furnace
Smelting, melting, or refining furnace
Coke oven
Other furnace (specify)
Industrial boiler
Utility boiler
Process heater
Other reuse as fuel (specify).
The computer data set used to consolidate and analyze capacity data
from Questionnaires B and C included the following information (brief
explanation of each data element):
1. Facility ID - The USEPA identification number for the facility
2. Facility Name
3. Unit No. - data were gathered on a unit basis since some
facilities have more than one incinerator or kiln
3-17
-------
4. Commercial status - the two commercial categories are facilities
that (1) accept waste from the general public (full commercial)
and (2) accept waste from a limited number of facilities not
under the same ownership (limited commercial); the two
noncommercial categories are facilities that (3) accept waste
from facilities under the same ownership (captive) and (4) manage
wastes generated onsite (onsite)
5. Unit type - a code for the type of incinerator or reuse as fuel
unit (as described earlier)
6. Fixed or Mobile unit (F/M)
7. Exempt (Y/N) - RCRA permit status
8. Thermal Rating, MBtu/hr
9. Waste Feed Mix (Y/N)
A. liquids
B. sludges
C. solids
D. gases
10. Unique (Y/N): If yes, explain.
11. Capacity 1986
A. Hazardous Waste Quantity - this amount represents the
quantity of RCRA hazardous waste treated in the subject unit
during calendar year 1986. This quantity is also referred to
as utilized capacity.
B. Nonhazardous Waste Quantity - this is the quantity of
nonhazardous waste that was treated in the same unit, either
concurrently or separately, during 1986.
C. Hazardous Waste Maximum Quantity (Capacity) - the maximum
quantity of hazardous waste that the treatment unit could
have treated during 1986.
D. All Waste Maximum Quantity (Capacity) - the maximum quantity
of both hazardous and nonhazardous waste that could have been
treated in 1986.
12. Planned changes or new units, by time period, for 1987 through
1992.
3-18
-------
The above data were used to tabulate and develop the combustion
capacity data set, the results of which will be discussed in
Section 3.2.3, Development of the Treatment Capacity Data Set and Results,
The data were compiled in a computer data base for more convenient
data management. A copy of the data sheets, along with a description of
their use, can be found in Ref. 20.
To make the necessary comparisons for this analysis, the original
facility responses were converted to one standard unit, volume in
gallons. Data reported in short tons (2,000 Ib/ton) by facilities were
consistently converted to gallons by using a conversion factor of
240 gal/ton (based on the density of water) for all waste forms other
than gases. Gases are reported in standard cubic feet (SCF) in the
initial data and were converted to tons by assuming an average molecular
weight of 29. However, the analyses were done in the appropriate units
(e.g., tons for solids) and simply converted to gallons for consistent
presentation of units.
Data through 1992 are presented because the long-range plans of many
facilities extend to these years, and projections of future capacity may
be necessary for variance determinations. It is also assumed that the
units reported as operational in 1986 with no closure dates reported will
continue to operate through 1992.
3.2.2 Determination of Other Treatment System Capacities
The capacity data set also includes data on treatment systems other
than combustion that may be able to treat Second Third promulgated wastes
to their respective treatment standards. These technologies include
3-19
-------
solidification/stabilization and wastewater treatment processes. Because
the TSDR Survey data for these treatment processes are reported on a unit
process basis, a method was developed to derive a system capacity from
the unit process data. The results of this analysis were aggregated into
a hazardous waste treatment system capacity data set for comparison with
required capacity.
For this rule, capacity data from only fully commercial treatment
facilities were used to determine available capacity. These data
represent the most readily available capacity, on a national level, to
treat the waste that is currently being considered under the land disposal
restrictions rule. The capacity indicated by the commercial data set
does not include information on two other potential categories of waste
treatment capacity, limited commercial and captive facility capacity.
"Limited commercial" facilities are those that accept wastes from only a
limited number of facilities not under the same ownershipin many cases,
only from their customers and/or clients. "Captive facilities" are those
that manage wastes from other facilities under the same ownership. Data
are not yet available to include in this analysis. However, the Agency
does not believe that available capacity from these sources would have
affected any of the variance decisions for this rule.
(1) Unit process capacity. The TSDR Survey requested capacity data
on a process-specific basis. A process is defined in the TSDR Survey as
one or more units of equipment acting together to perform a single
operation on a waste stream. A system is defined in the TSDR Survey as
one or more processes that work together to treat a waste stream.
3-20
-------
Figure 3-1 presents the process codes provided for the TSDR Survey
respondent to report treatment process information.
During technical review, three different interpretations by
respondents of the process capacity questions were identified, which
determined the method of system capacity analysis to be used by the
reviewer.
Case I: Each unit process was reported separately. In such a case,
process units must be aggregated into treatment systems so
that the capacity of the systems can be calculated from the
reported maximum and utilized process capacities.
Case II: The capacity for each process type was combined and reported
as one process by the facility, including when the same
process was conducted in several different units (tanks or
surface impoundments) found in different systems. Responses
to the tank and/or surface impoundment questionnaires were
used to obtain the utilized capacity of each tank and/or
surface impoundment using the process of concern. The
maximum capacity of these tanks and/or surface impoundments
was obtained by facility contact. The unit process data
were then aggregated into treatment systems as in Case I.
Case III: The survey respondent reported the entire treatment system
as one process. The utilized and maximum capacities
reported for the process were used to represent the entire
system. If the individual unit processes that make up the
treatment system could not be identified by examining the
facility schematic and responses to other questions in the
survey, the facility was contacted to obtain that
information. The respondent's system data were then
inputted into the capacity data set.
Upon completion of technical review, the following information was
obtained and examined prior to use in the system capacity analysis:
All processes that compose the system and the units in which
they occur were identified, and a flow diagram was constructed.
The amount of hazardous and nonhazardous waste that enters and
leaves the system was quantified so that a mass balance around the
system could be conducted.
3-21
-------
Figure 3-1
PROCESS CODES
?se process coces were aevetcoec specifically (or tnis survey to descnoe the onsite hazardous waste managerr.er
rations a: a fac:nrv
TREATMENT AND RECYCLING
Incineration/thermal treatment
'.I Uouid injection
21 Rotary (or rocxing) kiln
31 Rotary kiln witn a liquid
injection unit
41 Two stage
51 Fixed nearm
61 Multiple nearm
~! Fiuidizsd oed
5! Infra-red
31 P-jme/vaoor
'Cl ayroiytic sestrucor
'". Other incineration/tnermal
treatment
Reuse as fuel
1R= Cement kiln
2" Aggregate kiln
2" Ascnalt kiln
i£- Ctner Kiln
5" Blast furnace
~-~ Sulfur recovery furnace
~" Smelting, melting, or refining
tumace
:-- Cc*e oven
~-- Ctner mcustnai furnace
Z~- mcustnai soiler
*-= utility Doiier
:2~- p'ocess neater
;== Ctner reuse as fuel unit
"uei Diending
'~~ -uei aiencmg
Solidification
'S Canenr or cemenusincate
srocesses
23 Pcrzoiamc orocesses
23 Assnaitic processes
^S Thermoplastic tecnmoues
53 Organic aoiymer tecnmques
£3 jacxettng imacro-
encacsuiationi
"3 Ctner solidification
Recovery of solvents and liquid
orcanics tor reuse
:SR Prawonaiion
2S.= Batcn still Distillation
2S^ Solvent extraction
43- Thin-lnm evaooration
£3- "itration
sesaration
2M?
:re' scivent recovery
nc:ucing sretreatmentj
of metais for reuse
Eiecrroivtic
ion excr.ange
Reverse osmosis
Solvent extraction
5MR Seconaary smelting
6MR Uming
TMfl Evaooration
8MR Filtration
9MR Sodium oorortydndt
10MR Otner metais recovery (including
prmreatment)
Wastewater tnitment
Equalization
1WT Eauaiizaiion
Cvamde oxidation
2WT Alkaline cnlonnation
3WT Ozone '
4WT cleorecnemicaJ
5WT Otner cyaniqe oxidation
General oxidation fmduding disinfection)
5WT CMonnation
7WT Ozonanon
8WT UV radiation
3WT Otner general oxidation
Cnemtcal oreooitation
1C3WT ume
11WT Sodium nyaroxioe
12WT Soda asn
13WT SuHide
KWT Otner cnemical preooitation
Chromium reduction
15WT Sodium Bisulfite
16WT Sulfur dioxide
17W7 Ferrous sultate
18VVT Otner cnromium reduction
Camsiexed metals treatment (otner wan
cnemtcal orecioitation ay DM adjustment)
13WT Completed metais treatment
Emulsion Dreaxmg
20WT Thermal
21WT Cnemical
2ZWT Otner emulsion oreamng
Adsorotion
23WT Caroon aosorotion
24WT ion exenange
25WT Resin aasorotion
25VVT Otner aasorotion
Slnoomg
27WT Air stnooing
2SWT Siaam stnoomg
29WT Otner stnpomg
Evaooration
3CWT Thermal
31WT Sotar
3rAT Vaoor recomoression
33V/T Otner evaooration
riltration
34WT Oiatomaceous eann
3SWT Sand
36WT Multimedia
37WT Otner filtration
Sludge dewatenng
38WT Gravity micxenmg
39WT Vacuum filtration
40WT Pressure filtration (Delt. siate anc
frame, or leaf)
41WT Centrrtuge
42WT Otner sludge dewatenng
Air flotation
43WT Dissolved air flotation
A4WT Parnal aeration
4SWT Air disoersion
46WT Otner air flotation
Oil Skimming
47VVT Graviry separation
48WT Coalescing piate seoaraticr
49WT Otner oil sximrmng
Otner liquid pnase separation
50WT Decanting
S1WT Otner Uouid pnase seoaratxr
Biological treatment.
S2WT Activated siuoge
53WT Rxed film
-------
The utilized and maximum capacities of each unit were determined.
If surface impoundments were used in the treatment system, it
was determined whether they met minimum technological
requirements. The effect of closing, retrofitting, or replacing
the surface impoundment with a tank or new minimum technological
surface impoundment on system capacity was determined.
Also noted were any other planned changes to the system and how
they might affect the maximum capacity of the unit and/or system.
(2) Hazardous waste treatment/recovery system identification. Using
the facility schematics, with revisions made as a result of technical
review, hazardous waste treatment/recovery systems and their respective
unit processes were identified. For purposes of the capacity analysis, a
hazardous waste treatment/recovery system was identified by each hazardous
waste entry point into a unit process or sequence of unit processes. The
system begins at the process unit where the hazardous waste stream(s)
first enters and consists of all other treatment or recovery process
units downstream from the point of entry.
The following examples demonstrate system identification. Figure 3-2
shows a simple hazardous wastewater treatment system. Hazardous waste
can enter the three-unit processes for treatment at only one point, the
chemical precipitation process. Therefore, there is only one hazardous
waste treatment system. The system consists of chemical precipitation,
clarification/settling, and sludge dewatering (filter press) processes.
Note that by this method, recycle streams and nonhazardous waste streams
do not affect system identification.
Figure 3-3 depicts three hazardous waste treatment systems. Three
hazardous waste entry points exist at three different units, which
perform three different processes. The chromium waste treatment system
3-23
-------
UJ
X 01
< e
c
UJ
Q
Z t-
u -
UJ Ik
co a
14. »- .J
tu
IU
«g
«£
Q Z
en
3
O
gf
< 5
tu
Z en
il
u. >-
e en
tu n
>- tu
d c
u. a.
tu
_]
u
>
u
UJ
C
tu
^
<
e
tu
H-
cn
>
e/3
(U
-j
c.
u.
O
C
O
O
ii
U IU
e
O -
O
e iu
II
CM
I
3-2C
-------
e
Ul
a
Z M
= 2
u, C
az
ui
x at
8S-
U -
B uj u.
iu » a
2o
a
o
e CD
Ul CB t_
^ Ul Ul
ds '
u. a.
j -JI-J
O 010 .
e aio
in
^
u
>
u
Ul
s
II
^2
= u
U U4
o a
S3
03
Uj
O
en
en
u;
u
o
c
a.
o ao
e ela
a aio
m
UJ
CO
UJ
e
?
u.
O
2
c
o
§2
50
o =
Ea
o ata
e oio
a aio
si
II-
°s
o oto
o olo
o 010
X -1
< ^
2=)
3
O>
<
O
O
o
-------
consists of chromium reduction, chemical precipitation of chromium,
settling, and sludge dewatering processes. The cyanide waste treatment
system consists of a cyanide oxidation process followed by chemical
precipitation of metals, and settling and dewatering of the resultant
treatment sludge. The third is a treatment system for a general metal-
containing waste consisting of chemical precipitation of metals, settling,
and sludge dewatering. Note that the three systems share some of the
same unit processes. These three systems may be linked together by
competing for the capacity of the shared units. If the system capacity
determination reveals that at least one of the shared units limits the
capacity of at least one of the treatment systems, then the three systems
are considered linked systems.
At first glance, Figure 3-4 appears to show two systems because there
are two hazardous waste entry points. Upon closer examination, it can be
seen that the two waste streams feed into two different tanks that conduct
the same process in parallel. For purposes of capacity analysis, these
two units are considered one process, with the utilized and maximum
capacities of the "aggregated unit" equal to the sum of the utilized and
maximum capacities of each of the individual units. Therefore, Figure 3-4
depicts only one hazardous waste treatment system.
(3) Determination of system capacity. To determine the capacity of
a treatment system, the utilized and maximum capacity of each unit process
must be examined. Where several systems share unit processes, such as in
Figure 3-3, all the unit processes that make up each of the potentially
linked systems must be considered together for this portion of the
analysis.
3-26
-------
O)
UJ
u a
^ 2»
ii
a a
i
^
PERMI
i
Z
si
2rf
5«
u
i
»
z
II
U UJ
c
a.
C3 u.
Q = Q
= 02
J UJ <
(0 CO .J
en
2
2
0
e
u
z
o
u
Q
UJ
e
2
2
O
e
0
z
o
u
Q
01
C
$ cn
* cn
S w
£ o
£o
cn e
> &
cn
2
i
u. O
O)
i.
3
O1
-------
The capacity determination takes a "snapshot" approach, treating
batch and continuous processes similarly by conducting a mass balance
based on the amount of waste that was treated and could be treated during
the entire year. Survey respondents reported unit capacities as the
amount of hazardous waste entering the unit in 1986, the amount of
nonhazardous waste entering the unit in 1986, the hazardous waste maximum
capacity, and all waste maximum capacity. Volumes from internal recycle
streams are considered in the volumes respondents reported for utilized
and maximum unit capacities; therefore, recycle streams are not considered
separately when conducting systems analysis.
The available capacity for each unit was calculated by subtracting the
utilized capacity from the maximum capacity. The available capacities of
upstream units were compared with each unit in the process string to
locate the limiting unit(s) in the system(s). The overall system capacity
was based on the restrictions imposed by the limiting unit.
The above methodology assumes a 1986 baseline for hazardous and
nonhazardous wastes already being treated in the system and uses only that
portion of the system's remaining capacity that the respondent claims may
be used for hazardous waste treatment. It was assumed that when a survey
respondent reported hazardous waste maximum capacity to be less than all
waste maximum capacity, the respondent had already considered how much
nonhazardous waste would be treated using the system when reporting the
hazardous waste maximum capacity for the unit.
3-28
-------
The available capacity of a simple system is the available capacity
of the limiting unit. In Figure 3-5, B is the limiting unit because it
has the smallest available capacity. If one were to try to treat
50 gallons of additional hazardous waste using this system, there would
be a bottleneck at unit process B because it has room for only 25
additional gallons of waste. Therefore, the system has only 25 gallons
of available hazardous waste treatment capacity. The maximum hazardous
waste treatment system capacity would be 75 gallons--50 gallons of
hazardous waste capacity already utilized plus the additional 25 gallons
of available capacity based on limiting unit B.
When more complicated systems are analyzed, care must be taken that
the total available capacities affecting a downstream unit are considered.
Referring to the unit capacities provided in Figure 3-3, if the amount of
waste being treated in units A and B were increased by 300 gallons in
each unit (i.e., if they were run at their maximum capacities), unit C
would become a bottleneck because it has only 100 gallons of available
capacity. In other words, when units directly upstream of the unit of
concern are in parallel, one must add the available capacities of the
upstream units before comparing them with the available capacity of the
unit of concern to determine whether that unit limits (imposes a
restriction on) the maximum capacity of the upstream units
(Example: AA ., + Bn .. = 600 gal and 600 gal > C ..).
Avail Avail * Avail'
3-29
-------
o «
« f-
x -J
ooio
us
10
UJ
H
O
<
CL
<
o
2
z
a
o in
a r»
a n
x -J
< £
33;
am,
in
e
a
o
a o
x -J
t~>
>
«<
<
3-30
-------
The effective available capacity of an upstream unit must be
calculated for comparison with the downstream unit's available capacity
in cas-es where only a portion of the waste treated in the upstream unit
is treated in the downstream unit of concern. If one refers to
Figure 3-3, one must consider the effluent stream from the clarifier
being discharged under an NPDES permit when determining the effect of
using the available capacity of the clarifier on the available capacity
of the filter press. That fraction of waste being treated in the upstream
unit that continues to the downstream unit is calculated. Under the
assumption that as the utilized capacities of these units are increased,
the percent of waste that is treated in both upstream and downstream
units remains constant, the calculated percent is applied to the reported
available capacity of the upstream unit before that capacity is compared
with the available capacity of the downstream unit.
In Figure 3-3, the fraction of waste (D ) going from the clarifier
P
to the filter press (unit E) is calculated by:
Eutil 60
Dp - = = 0.2.
°util 300
Twenty percent of the waste treated by unit D is treated by unit E. Now
the available capacity of the clarifier affecting the filter press
(D -) is calculated:
eal
Deal = (°p) (Davail) = <°-2) (10°) = 20 gallons.
If the amount of waste being treated in the clarifier is increased to its
maximum capacity, then 20 more gallons of waste will flow to the filter
press. A comparison of the effective available capacities, however,
3-31
-------
indicates that the filter press limits the maximum capacity reported for
the clarifier:
Eavail < Deal or 15 gallons < 20 gallons.
Considering the fact that the filter press limits the maximum
capacity of the clarifier, the "new" available capacity of the clarifier
must be compared to the capacity of the upstream unit, the chemical
precipitation unit. The limiting effect of the filter press on the
available capacity of the clarifier (D ) is quantified as follows:
nac
Eavail 15 ,c in
Dnar = = = 75 gallons.
Dp 0.2
Based on the comparison of the "new" available capacity of the clarifier
with the upstream chemical precipitation unit and the earlier comparison
made between the chemical precipitation unit and the parallel upstream
units, the filter press limits the capacities of all the other units in
the process string.
At this point, the capacity analysis switches from a unit-by-unit
analysis to a systems analysis. The effect of the limiting unit on the
system's available and maximum capacity is determined. As previously
discussed, Figure 3-3 shows three hazardous waste treatment systems. The
utilized capacity of each of these systems is the amount of waste that
enters each system for treatment. The utilized capacities for the
chromium waste treatment, cyanide waste treatment, and metals waste
treatment are 100 gallons each. The available capacity of each system,
as determined by the effect of the limiting unit, is 75 gallons. This
quantity, which was derived above, reflects the effluent stream that
3-32
-------
exits the systems upstream from the limiting filter press. The maximum
capacity of each system equals the utilized capacity of the system plus
the available capacity of the system. The maximum capacities of the
chromium waste, cyanide waste, and metals waste treatment systems equal
175 gallons each.
When waste treatment systems share a limiting unit, as exemplified by
the three systems shown in Figure 3-3, they compete for the available
capacity of that limiting unit. Because of this competition for limited
capacity, these linked systems cannot all operate at their maximum
capacities as calculated above. A linked system can operate at its
maximum capacity only if all the other systems to which it is linked
continue to operate at the utilized capacities reported for 1986. The
maximum capacities of each of the linked systems serve as end points when
sufficient capacity for waste volumes requiring treatment is sought.
Using the example shown in Figure 3-3 to illustrate, if additional
chromium waste is sent to the chromium treatment system, then there is
that much less additional capacity for cyanide waste and metals waste
treatment. If the chromium waste treatment system operates at maximum
capacity, then no additional waste may be sent to the cyanide waste
treatment system or the metals waste treatment system.
To avoid overestimating available treatment capacity, a proportioned
system capacity is calculated for linked systems. The proportioned
system capacity is based on how much of the limiting unit's capacity was
devoted to each linked system during the TSDR Survey base year of 1986.
3-33
-------
First, the fractional flow of hazardous waste contributed by each linked
system to the limiting process is determined. Using the systems shown in
Figure 3-3:
Fractional flow of chrome treatment system = CRp
Fractional flow of cyanide treatment system = CNp
Fractional flow of metals treatment system = Mp
CRutii 100 100
CRD = _ = _ = _ = 0.333
H CRutil + CNutil + Mutil 100 + 100 + 100 300
CNp = 0.333; Mp = 0.333.
Note that M is the utilized capacity of the metals treatment system,
not the utilized capacity of the chemical precipitation unit. The
utilized capacity of the chemical precipitation unit is the sum total of
the utilized capacities of all three systems.
The effect of the limiting unit on each available system capacity is
proportioned to each system based on the fractional flow determination.
Continuing the calculation to determine the proportioned available
capacity (CR ) using the above example:
pac
5 (Dnac) = (-333) (?5) = 25 gallons
CNpac = (CNp) (Dnac) = 25 gallons
Mpac =
-------
accounts for the effluent stream that exits the system before reaching the
limiting unit.
When a linked system has an unshared limiting unit upstream from the
mutually shared limiting unit of the other linked system(s), the system's
calculated proportioned available system capacity must be compared with
the available capacity of its limiting unit. If the limiting unit's
available capacity is less than the calculated proportioned available
system capacity, the final proportioned available system capacity equals
the available capacity of the unshared limiting unit. The remainder of
the calculated proportioned available system capacity is redistributed to
the remaining linked systems based on how extensively the mutually shared
limiting unit is devoted to the remaining linked systems. In the example
shown in Figure 3-3, the limiting unit for all three systems is the
shared filter press; therefore, no comparisons are necessary.
The proportioned maximum system capacity equals the utilized system
capacity plus the proportioned available system capacity. The
proportioned maximum system capacities (PMC) for the systems displayed in
Figure 3-3 are:
CRPMC = CRuti] + CRpac = 100 + 25 = 125 gallons
CNPMC = 125 gallons
= 125 gallons.
(4) Projections of available capacity. The TSDR Survey requested
capacity data for the baseline year 1986 and for changes or new operations
planned through 1992. Projections of capacity beyond 1986 were obtained
3-35
-------
from the TSDR Survey by engineering analysis of information regarding new
treatment/recovery systems being installed and equipment changes being
made to the systems operating in 1986 that result in changes in system
capacity.
For new systems, capacity analysis was conducted as described above
and the results were input into the treatment system data set for the
appropriate years. Reported equipment changes to treatment systems
operating in 1986 were examined to determine their effect on the system
capacity. If the change involved the system's limiting unit or
influenced the effect of a limiting unit on the system, then capacity
analysis was performed again, incorporating the capacity changes for that
year.
3.2.3 Development of the Treatment Capacity Data Set and Results
The treatment/recovery capacity data set consists of an incineration/
reuse as fuel data set and other treatment systems data set. System
capacity data derived from data reported in the TSDR Survey, as described
above, were entered onto data entry sheets. The purpose of these forms
was to standardize information required for assessing available treatment
capacity that was to be obtained from the TSDR Survey and entered into a
computer data set. The data set is described in a report that can be
found in the docket for this final rule (Ref. 6). A detailed discussion
of the data entry sheets can also be found in the RCRA docket for this
final rule (Ref. 20).
The following discussion presents the results of the incineration/
reuse-as-fuel data set.
3-36
-------
(1) Incineration/reuse-as-fuel data set results. Table 3-1
summarizes the commercial capacity for hazardous waste incineration.
This table presents the utilized, maximum, and available capacity for
incineration of liquids, sludges, solids, and gases in 1986, and maximum
and available capacity for 1987, 1988, 1989-1990, and 1990-1992. The
analysis assumes that hazardous waste capacity not utilized in 1986, as
well as all new hazardous waste capacity from 1987 and beyond, will be
available for incineration of hazardous wastes, and does not consider the
impact of previous land disposal restrictions on available capacity.
Table 3-2 summarizes the commercial capacity for reusing hazardous
wastes as fuel. The table presents the utilized, maximum, and available
capacity for combustion of liquids, sludges, and solids as fuel in 1986,
and maximum and available capacity for 1987, 1988, 1989-1990, and
1991-1992. Again, the analysis assumes that hazardous waste capacity not
utilized in 1986, and all new hazardous waste capacity from 1987 and
beyond, will be available for combustion of hazardous wastes, and does
not consider the impact of previous land disposal restrictions on
available capacity.
(2) Development of the data set for other treatment systems. Data
entry sheets were filled out for other treatment systems, and the data
were entered into a computer data set. The data set contains data entry
fields as well as calculated fields used to perform the capacity analysis.
A more detailed explanation of the data fields contained in the data set
can be found in a report in the RCRA docket for this rule (Ref. 20).
3-37
-------
t-
1O
4-1
V)
IO
3
3
S
'D
N
-
u
QJ
g
ro
.Q
M
cr>
en
en
o
§
en
_0) 10
J3 4?
fO
o
10 ex
> ro
< U
E 4-1
£ u
x |
X O
oj 10
J3 4-1
(0
' |
5 S
g >>
1 "
x o.
X U
oo
CO
en
U 10
^ 4?
' O
< u
g 4->
B o
X |
CO
en
gj fl
3 4?
.0
10 Q.
> 10
«c o
>
§
§ u
10
X CL
fl 10
x u
to
oo
I 2
fl
^- u
« 8.
> 10
< u
>
3 '**
S u
x a.
I u
^3 ^
- o
- a.
*J («
3 U
I
o
«- 01
4-1
in
. ^
CM -H -^ m
to en ^ « <
CNJ o cn fo
en - m cn to
-*
<\i ^r o co GO
fO ^* 1/1 O
e\j
Sui O (\j in
« in
_ eo oo t\i en
o evj cn
CO urt O - LTl
. m
co co en
CO CM <
S m 2 ° S
V) VI
3 -a a <
O" 3 " V) >
05 o
j vl cn ta h-
r-
10
u o
c Q.
»
i T3
D C
C ^fl
tpl Q»
C J3
^ u
S *-
- ^
4J IO
- J!
i >
4? S
4-1
U 10
a. 4-1
0 13
4-1 V)
| | 4?
« 1 S
t- Q.
| | 3
yi ^~ cj
O 01 -O
O C 10
in u
i >
h- t/t 10
a
4-1 C
in o
§ S in
cn c
wo
t. O +J
o *o o
10 U
>> N 4J
4J ra (fl
J: ai
Q. O "-
o c in
2 2.
N 10
1- "O
U
c -a
4J C
3 O IO
in
3 W
C 1. 3
0 O
e «-
^ QJ U
(0 »~ i-
4-1 O
CO 5 > 4J
cn 4J 10 o
u n a.
0 J S
u
Q. >i U
* .-';5
O 10 i-
Q. "U 3J
w i in
5 i -2 §
3 - -o
W X C 4-1
0) a 10 o
I- E C
>* C CO w
4) o cn a)
> -o - -§
3 (US
U1 w S -
10 1- V)
§-O 14- C
o
V U >, 4J
4-P 4-1 U
u
U U t-
01 ^ nj 4-1
o o a. in
U I- (0 0>
3 Q. U U
1/1 to
3-38
-------
L.
TJ
0)
W
§
TJ
C
o
x
0)
-M
i
VI
1
u
N
Z
0
01
3
u.
£
V
M
3
OJ
cc
I.
o
1
u
s.
fl
CJ
fl
u
u
1
u
CM
A
_CJ
.0
fl
CM
en
en
en
en
CU fl
It)
o
a a.
> fl
< u
g 4->
E o
- fl
X Q.
. fl 10
x u
o
en
en
S
en
£ IT)
5 4J
n
o
"~ S.
> fl
< u
i u
x a.
i u
i
en
u
- 2
fl u.
< U
§ -
- °
X O.
x u
00
en
_eu n)
fl -t-
o
s s.
> ID
< U
3 «
S u
«
x a.
x 3
to
CO
en
cu
-O 4J
.- fl
fl &
< U
i '-
fl
x a.
« fl
x u
-a x
CU 4->
M
O
- a.
w fl
=> a
E
o
u_ cu
' tO
u »
tO 14-
>< O
-c
0-
O) 00 CM O)
U1 U1
tO 00 CM tO
gfO ^
to
§00 « en
m *r
u^ ^n
to oo c\j co
o m »
to 10
i CM -" ^
CM CM
r^ CM CM -*
ro m
-^ -^ -H m
en en
CM CM
§ -^ o
en
S^-i tn
v to
CM CVJ
^^ - CM
CO V tO
PO fO
r^ «-* i^* r*«
en v v tn
to to
"O 4J to
- 5l T3 _J
3 "O - «t
cr 3 i
0 O
_j t/J t-n h
CU
i >>
_fl _
*- r cu
fl fl 4J
> U
nj T3 CU
C 14-
0) fl !*-
A a
to
Q oo cu
|~ en ^
i "" **
> ""
4-> T3 -M
S fl
U N -C
a ^ « .
n) - TJ ><
U 4-J CU 4-t
3 M
> O CJ
S 4-1 Q. ITJ
c o « a.
C fl
4." "DO
fl X
J: 4-. -a a)
4-1 C
u ^ -0
3j ^
4^ fl CB
fl U C IT)
o >
*j eu fl
o s -2
c -de
4-1 tO O
cu
to to 4-1 to
CU U V) C
s -s s s
,- 4J
to to u
C 3
U O O t-
fl U TJ 4J
(* U tO
in fl cu
i N U
fl £ 2 -
14- tO
TJ O O
J3 to a.
fl CU TJ
cu u i*. -o
1. 0 C
0) 14- in fl
X " *"
10 4-1 CU tO
4J W 3
U 3 O
i a s >
fl ^^ g;
5U 1-
01 a
C T) C
5 14.
t- N C O
O u
1 3 *-i
10 -Q O
4-1 4^ fl
C = fe I"
3 tf) i*-
g1 I « J
S J3 «
^^ fl
I/I t. i U
« fl 4)
X CU fl T3
Q *-» C
cn 4^ fl cu o
oo J± 2S u
en -a 4-1 ^
"5 t- " o
TJ CJ O c
fl 4-1 14-J
u to in
a. to fl x cj
X B 4J c E
eu c 08
> tO CJ U fl
L_ CJ (J TJ 14- tO
3 tO 1- CJ *-~ O
t/1 fl CJ to O.
u Q. fl X to
Q" JD 4-1
S u 0 - TJ
a. c 4-1
o o
t/l Z fl
3-39
-------
The data set has four major treatment system categories, each of
which is divided into subcategories. A more detailed discussion of how
and why the categories were developed is given below. The categories and
subcategories, along with the codes used to represent them within the
data set, are listed as follows:
I. Wastewater Treatment
Process Code
- Cyanide Oxidation WW, CO
- Chrome Reduction WW, CR
- Organics/Metals Treatment WW, OMT
- Organics/Metals Biological Treatment WW, OMB
- Sulfide Precipitation WW, SP
- General Chemical Precipitation WW, GCP
- Steam Stripping WW, SS
- Air Stripping WW, AS
- Biological Treatment WW, BT
- Carbon Adsorption WW, CA
- General Oxidation WW, GO
- Wet Air Oxidation WW, WAO
- Neutralization WW, N
II. Solvent Recovery
Process Code
- Thin Film Evaporation SR, TF
- Fractionation/Distillation SR, FD
- Solvent Extraction SR, SE
- Other Solvent Recovery SR, 0
III. Metals Recovery
Process Code
- High Temperature Metals Recovery MR, HT
- Retorting . MR, R
- Secondary Smelting MR, SS
- Other Metals Recovery MR, OMR
3-40
-------
IV. Solidification
Process Code
- Solidification SL, S
The maximum, utilized, and available capacities were totaled for all
systems in the data base that fell under each category. Each category is
mutually exclusive so that the capacity of a treatment system is not
double-counted. The treatment systems were categorized by using the
computer to search each record for key unit types (process codes) that
would identify the appropriate category under which the system should be
placed. For example, records indicating systems with unit types
identified by process codes 2WT, 3WT, 4WT, or 5WT, and 10WT through 15WT
were categorized under cyanide oxidation. These categories are used
because the BOAT program has identified them as treatment methods that
may be effective in attaining the treatment standards established under
the solvents and dioxins, California List, and First Third final
rulemakings, and the Second Third proposed rule.
(3) Treatment capacity data set results. Only a subset of the
treatment systems that compose the treatment capacity data set was
required by the Second Third promulgated wastes. These treatment
categories have been identified under the BOAT program as being effective
in attaining the applicable treatment standards. Under each category,
only commercial treatment systems were aggregated to establish a national
supply of available treatment capacity that can be used to meet the
demand created by the Land Disposal Restriction Rules.
3-41
-------
Table 3-3 presents the maximum, utilized, and available capacities of
commercial treatment systems (other than combustion) of concern for the
baseline year 1986 and capacity projections through 1992. When making
these projections, the 1986 utilized capacities of these treatment systems
were assumed to remain constant for the subsequent years. Where a linked
system exists, the proportioned system capacity for the linked system is
used to avoid overestimating available capacity. For commercial treatment
systems that closed between 1986 and 1988 or will close in 1989 or 1990,
the utilized capacity of that system remained in the analysis under the
assumption that the waste volumes the system was treating will require
commercial capacity elsewhere. Keeping the utilized capacity of the
closed system in the analysis results in reducing the available
commercial capacity for that category. The data in this table were
summarized from a report on commercial treatment capacity (Ref. 6).
3.3 Capacity Analysis (Comparison of Required and Available
Treatment Capacity)
As previously described, the Agency is responsible for determining
whether sufficient capacity exists to meet the requirements of the land
disposal restrictions. This involves the comparison of required and
available capacity. Available treatment capacity can be categorized by
facility status as follows:
3-42
-------
*0
u
QJ
co
c
o
£
c
o
r~"
rz
X
*^
V?
CU
T^
~
CJ
13
Q.
*o
g
X
l/>
*^
i
*o
At
o
u
m
cu
^T
10
CM
en
i
en
en
0
en
01
en
CO
en
00
00
en
p*.
00
en
10
en
.a
IO
IO
>
<
i
X
IO
cu.
.Q
10
>
<
g
3
.^
X
£
a* .
<
£
x
r£
P
«
>
<
g
X
x
o
c
-C
o
cu
h
a
x
4-1
u
IO
a.
10
u
X
4-1
1
IO
o
a
x
4-1
1
O
4-1
O
a.
10
o
o
o
(O
Q.
10
u
x
o
10
a.
u
a
x
4-1
O
IO
a.
CO CM
O 1-1
CM
CM Ps. ID
CT) tD Ul
CM
OO V CD
CTJ CO CM
i-H
CTJ f- to
rO tO tJ")
CD «
in £5 £
f*M. »"M
CM PS. ^>
S *° Z
CM V >
fO ^» O
CM CO CD
*
r*« ro co
in f*» o
CO 1C
-H ^ O
""
, .
U
c
o
O u
N V 1-
N > 10
8. ° -
eu E
o u. D
10 en o
4J (8 TD
C 4-1 C
cy cy 10
o v o
[_ - C
O (0 "O 4«i
- I- "- 10
4-1 CU X 4-1
rO g- O
' 4J "O O
.- 0
.a .c c u
flj O) fQ Q.
*-»->,
00 X CJ
* CM
O CO
CM
O CM
OO 1^1
a? en
r^ CM
P;
cn ^N
^-i
CO
CM in
CM ^H
o
co in
ro
CM
U~) CO
0
ro in
ro
en o
r~ CM
e
o
1 4J
o 9 4J ro
1 o -S" i
0 -C 8 -C
0 U. U
"c T5 -D
10 C r- C
IO 10 IO
c o
o c - c
ago
4-, C S
Cg ro O C O
i. *J en o en
D - TT
§Q. 10 4-1 IO
- o
- U C 3 C
E CU O ^ O
i- a. i- u. i-
-C 10 IO
u u o
ro
CM
LO
o
m
^
~
S
CM
CO
*
CM
CO
^
en
c
O
+J
fO
4^
a
a.
O CSJ ~* CM
tomcMCMCDLDcocotno^
O CM -H i CO i
cncM!nCNJSSi25S'::Do
O CM «-« CM »
_
cocncMCMO'ji^JcoaOtoocr)
O CM -H ^H fO «-i
CO'
m co m co oo to
O CM CM
CO
tocM cMf-^comiocnoco
CM CM LO m oo to o
o co ^^ co
"
ocMrvcMCMen--*cM^Hcncn
in v CM oo m
O CM CM
co"
to CM co CM r^ in ^H 10 o CM
CMCM*? CMvr^tO O
o co < * n
to*
o«tr^CMeMcn-Jcoiocj)0
^H ^ ^^ --H v ao m
O CM CM
CO
CM ^ CM m r*1* ^H en
O CO -H CO
10
toom iniocoenu")- co
rs,CM o voovv
o
CO
1
C IO
0 C r C
O 4-1 I O
rg 4-i CJ cn 4-1 e 4-i
4-irg cEcctnoio
.1-4-1 o 4-1 O "~ "" t~
Q. - O1 - IO '-' 4J "O 4J O
i_eu4-ia.o in 4-icu
a. i_ ro tn x 4-ix
4-1 10 O I-C
10 _cu tn t. 10 o 4J
CJ ^ 15 c O! ^ T3 "" C l^
"- U.EOOiOC4-icu
J'4-4-lio^' OO>C
inziocjcoali/iitn^
cu
13
-o
c
10
oo
cn
.=
-Q
tu
.JJ
r
4-1
4-1
g
+J
s.
10
o
4^
I
3 -^
T) (J
u re
i! S-
o
4-1 3
O E
10 -
X X
tu
(^
U
(-
4->
(_
o
w-
OJ
!5
fO
.^
^
IQ
J!
^1
*
1
o
X
cu
_a
c
00
I*
X
4-1
O
s.
10
o
X
4-1
u
s.
IO
o
^
10
.^.
ro
>
IO
o
tn
c
o
o
tn
tu
,_
10
1
.^
o
c
10
en
o
tu
L.
Q.
O
4-1
O
!
QJ
4->
t-
*
C
0
4-«
O
c
w
1
o
4-1
o
u
4-1
V)
cu
3-43
-------
Qnsite (private capacity) - facilities that manage only waste
generated onsite.
Captive capacity - facilities that manage only waste from other
facilities under the same ownership.
Limited commercial capacity - facilities that manage waste from
a limited number of facilities not under the same ownership.
Commercial capacity - facilities that manage waste from any
facility.
Information on captive capacity was not available in time to be
incorporated into the analysis for this final rule. The Agency does not
believe, however, that this capacity would have affected the variance
decisions. The data set does contain information on commercial capacity
from baseline year 1986 and information on planned changes to 1986
management methods and new processes to be installed from 1987 through
1992. The methodology for determining the amount of available treatment
capacity was described in Section 3.2.
Required capacity consists of wastes previously land disposed that
will require treatment to meet a treatment standard prior to being land
disposed. These volumes of waste were identified and underwent
treatability analysis as was described in Section 3.1. The result of the
treatability analysis was the assignment of waste volumes to treatability
subgroups.
The comparison of required and available capacity was performed on a
facility-by-facility basis. This was done to match treatability subgroups
with available capacity of applicable treatment/recovery systems.
Available onsite treatment capacity was matched only to volumes that were
previously land disposed onsite and were determined to require alternative
3-44
-------
treatment. If the appropriate treatment/recovery technology was not
available onsite, or if adequate available capacity was not present to
manage the waste, then the remaining volume of waste requiring alternative
treatment was aggregated into a national demand for commercial capacity.
The final aggregate of national demand was then compared with the final
estimates of national commercial capacity to match treatability subgroups
with appropriate treatment technologies. This methodology was used by
the Agency to make final determinations concerning variances.
3-45
-------
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. USEPA. 1984. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National
survey of hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities regulated under RCRA in 1981. EPA/530-SW-005,
GPO Pub. #5/N055-000-00239-8.
2. USEPA. 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Background document for solvents to support 40 CFR Part 268,
land disposal restrictions. Final rule. EPA Contract No.
68-01-7053. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
3. USEPA. 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Background document for California List wastes to support 40
CFR Part 268 land disposal restrictions. Final rule. EPA Contract
No. 68-01-7053. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
4. USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Background document for First Third wastes to support 40 CFR
Part 268 land disposal restrictions. Final rule. EPA Contract No.
68-01-7053. Washington, O.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
5. USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Background document for Second Third wastes to support 40
CFR Part 268 land disposal restrictions. Proposed rule. EPA
Contract No. 68-01-7053. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
6. Versar. 1989. The commercial treatment/recovery TSDR Survey data
set. Prepared for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
7. USEPA. 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. National survey of hazardous waste treatment, storage,
disposal, and recycling facilities. OMB No. 2050-0070.
8. Versar. 1988. Technical review procedures for the TSDR Survey.
Prepared for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
9. Versar. 1988. Quality assurance plan for the TSDR Survey.
Prepared for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
10. Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. 1987. Findings on Class I hazardous
wells affected by the land ban rules. Memorandum report to John
Atcheson, Dave Morganvalp, and Mario Salazar, USEPA, from TBS,
December 15, 1987.
4-1
-------
11. USEPA. 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Response to capacity-related comments submitted on the
Second Third proposed land disposal restrictions rule. Volume II.
Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
12. Versar. .1989. Analysis of incineration capacity requirements for
contaminated soils from CERCLA remedial action sites. Prepred for
the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
13. Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. 1988. Waste volume remediation analysis
summary tables. Memorandum to USEPA, Hazardous Site Control
Division, from Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. July 4, 1988.
14. Environ. 1985. Characterization of waste streams listed in 40 CFR
Section 261: Waste profiles. Volumes I and II. Prepared for Waste
Identification Branch of Characterization and Assessment Division,
Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
15. USEPA. 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Physical-chemical properties and categorization of RCRA wastes
according to volatility. EPA-450/3-85-007. Research Triangle
Park, N.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
16. IT Enviroscience, Inc. 1983. Survey of industrial applications of
aqueous-phase activated-carbon adsorption for control of pollutant
compounds from manufacture of organic compounds. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory.
17. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1985. Technologies applicable to hazardous
waste. Briefing presented for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
18. Versar. 1985. Assessment of treatment technologies for hazardous
waste and their restrictive waste characteristics. Draft Final
Report. Prepared for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
19. USEPA. 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Best demonstrated available technology (BOAT) background
document for FOQ1-F005 spent solvents. Vols. 1-3.
EPA/530-SW-86-056. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
20. Versar. 1988. Procedures for completing PC data sheets for
priority TSDR facilities. Prepared for the Office of Solid Waste.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
4-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |