United States Solid Waste and EPA530-R-97-025a
Environmental Protection Emergency Response NTIS: PB97-176 887
Agency (5305W) February 1996
Background Document
for Capacity Analysis
for Land Disposal
Restrictions Phase III -
Decharacterized Waste-
waters, Carbamate
Wastes, and Spent
Potliners (Final Rule)
Volume 1:
Capacity Analysis
and Methodology
Printed on paper that contains at lest 20 percent postconsumer fiber
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1:
CHAPTER 1: Introduction , ' . \
1.1 Legal Background .,..:..... .....; . . 1-1
1.2 Capacity Analysis Methodology ...;..........; 1-5
1.2.1 Determination of Required Commercial Treatment Capacity .. 1-6
1.2.2 Deterrninnttrm r.f A,r*.'i«ui~/-" '--"" -
_________ -. . OT.UAIWUI. vajjauiy . . Jl-O
1.2.2 Determination of Available Commercial Treatment Capacity . .-• 1-8
1.3 Summary of Capacity Analysis for Today's Rule ..... -...::" ....... 1-8'
1.4 Organization of Background D
Analysis ...... .... .......
CHAPTER 2: Available Treatment Capacity
_~~~,-ii7 wi ^ayawy /-uimysis loi loaay's KuJe ........;:....... 1-8"
1.4 Organization of Background Document Supporting the Capacity l
Analysis ".!...-..;..., 1-11
2.1 Wastewater Treatment Systems Capacity Summary ............... 2-1
Commercial ^Combustion Cap
2.2.1 General Methodology ... .......... .... . . ---- . 2-5
2.2 Commercial ^Combustion Capacity Summary ..... ........ ..... ; . 2-5
. 2.2.1 General Methodology ... .......... .... . . ---- '. ..... ... 2-
2.2.2 Commercial Incineration Capacity ........... ....... ..... 2-
2.2.2,1 Indvd '
, *-8.
Individual Incineration Facility Capacity
.' . Analysis 2-8
2.2.2.2 Other Incinerators Not Included in the Capacity
Estimate /...;.. 2-21;,
2.2.2.3 Future Incineration Capacity .'.. 2-21,
2.2.3 Commercial BIF Hazardous Waste Capacity .............. 2-22
.. 2.2.3.1 ' Individual BIF Facility .Capacity Analysis 2-22
2.2.3.2 Commercial BIFs Not Included in the CKRC
Survey 2-33
2.2'.3.3 Commercial BIF Capacity for Soils 2-36
AwoJloKI^ f*i « -•' ^
2.2.4 . Available Combustion Capacity 2-36.
' • • i 2.3 Other Treatment System -Capacities • 2-39
2.3.1 Available Stabilization Capacity .....'._ v .'..., 2-39
2.3.2 Summary of Available K088 Treatment Capacity '. . 2-40
CHAPTER 3: Capacity Analysis for ICR and TC Wastes that are Managed in
CWA or CWA-Equivalent Systems - " ' " . :
3.1 Background'..•. . . •...' •. ....,..;.. 3-2
3.1.1 Integration of the Third Third Rule with CWA and SDWA ... 3-3
3.1.2 Third Third Rule Court Decision .....:. '3-4
3.1.3 EPA's Response to the Court Decision . .' 3-5,,
\ : 3.1.4 Today's Rule ... • .......; .3-6
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Pai
VOLUME 1: rContinued^l
3.4.11 Metal Products and Machinery Industry 3-57
3.4.12 Pesticides Industry ....._ 3-62
3.4.13 Petroleum Refining Industry '..!......:.. 3-66
3.4.14 Pharmaceutical Industry .;.... 3-71
3.4.15 Pulp and Paper Industry ,.. 3-74
' 3.4.16 Transportation Equipment Cleaning ......... 3-75
3.5 Newly Identified TC Pesticide Wastes that were not Previously • '
Hazardous by the Old Extraction Procedure ; 3-78
\ '
CHAPTER 4: Capacity Analysis for Newly Listed Wastes . '.
4.1 Data Sources and Methodology . 4-1
4.2 Capacity Analysis for .Carbamate Production Wastes .••••• 4-1
4.3 .Capacity Analysis for Spent Aluminum Potliners .....•.; 4-4
4.3.1 Background .;.... 4-4
: 4.3.2 Data Sources 4-5
4.3.3 Required Capacity ....;....... ...:...... 4-5
4.3.4 Available Capacity ; .. " 4-9 -
4.3.5 Capacity Variance Determination . ...... 4-10
CHAPTER 5: Capacity Analysis for Surface Disposed Mixed Radioactive Waste •
5.1 Background ........: ••••-. 5-1
5.2 Data Source^ .'...: , :.. . 5-2
5,2.1 Non-DOE Mixed Waste Data Sources .....5-2
5.2.2 DOE Mixed Waste Data Sources .. .; ........ .: 5-3
5.3 Results, 5^4
5.3.1 NonrDOE Generation and Storage of Mixed Low-level Waste ; .'5-4
5.3.2 DOE-Generated Mixed Waste .5-5
5.4 Available Capacity for Mixed Waste .....; 5-6
5.4.1 Existing and Planned Non-DOE Capacity ............:.... 5-6
. 5.4,2 Existing and Planned DOE Capacity . ... ......;' 5-8
5.5 National Capacity Variance for Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes ...5-10
CHAPTER 6: Capacity Analysis for Non-Sulfide and Non-Cyanide Reactive . •
. (D003) Wastes not Managed in CWA or CWA-Equivalent Systems
6.1 Background 6-1
, .- 6.2 Data Sources and Methodology ..... .I.........:.... 6-1
6.3 Required Capacity for D003 Wastes .....'.. ... 6-2
6.4 Variance Determination . . . .... 6-3
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
VOLUME 3: APPENDICES rContinuecn
CHAPTER 1.4: Required Treatment Capacity for the Petroleum Refining Industry
CHAPTER 15: Required Treatment Capacity for the Pharmaceutical Industry
.. ' . , .- • •
CHAPTER 16: Required Treatment Capacity for the Pulp and Paper Industry
CHAPTER 17: Required Treatment Capacity for the Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Industry . '
APPENDIX B: Summary of Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and 1991
' BRS Data on Wastewater Treatment
APPENDDC C: Telephone Logs for the Commercial Combustion Capacity
Analysis ...
. APPENDIX D: Additional Data Supporting the K088 Capacity Analysis '
APPENDIX E: Wastewater and Non-Wastewater Quantities of D003 Wastes
; (1993 BRS) '
APPENDIX F: Case Study Report'for Capacity Analysis of LDR Phase III;
Decharacterized Wastewater
-------
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This document presents the capacity analysis that EPA conducted to support the
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) — Phase III: Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Carbamate Wastes, and Spent Potliners. EPA conducts capacity analyses to evaluate the
need for national capacity variances from the land disposal prohibitions.1 The capacity
analysis provides estimates of the quantities of wastes that will require alternative
commercial treatment prior to land disposal as a result of the LDRs and estimates.
alternative commercial treatment.capacity available to manage wastes restricted from
land disposal. In -this rule, EPA is finalizing LDRs for certain wastes listed and identified
since November 1984 that were not covered in previous LDR rulemakings as well as
ignitable, corrosive, and organic wastes managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent treatment
systems. The wastes covered by this rule are summarized in Exhibit 1-1.
1.1 LEGAL BACKGROUND
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted on November 8, 1984, set basic new
priorities for hazardous waste-management. Land disposal, which had been the most
widely used method for managing hazardous waste, is now the least preferred option.
Under HSWA, EPA must promulgate regulations restricting the land disposal3 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. :
/
Under the LDR 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. Whenever possible, the Agency 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 and thus provide the regulated community with flexibility in
complying with the LDRs. EPA's standards are generally based on the performance of
1 The LDRs are effective when promulgated unless the Administrator grants a national capacity variance from the
otherwise applicable date and establishes a different date (not to exceed two years beyond the statutory deadline) based
• on:"... the earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity which protects human
health and the environment wil! be available" (RCRA section 3004(h)(2)).
2 This document only addresses surface disposed wastes. .Wastes managed in Safe E rinking Water Act (SWDA),
underground injection wells are addressed in a separate document.
3 RCRA defines land disposal "to include, but not be limited to, any placement of such hazardous waste in a landfill,
surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, or
underground mine or cave" (RCRA section 3004(k)). '
-------
1-2
EXHIBIT 1-1
R WHICH TREATMENT STANDARDS ARE BEING PROPOSED
IN THE PHASE III LDR RULE
O
ta
CO
.B
• CO
^^
^
•
Description
O>
•e
a
•M
'^
* *.
C3 "^tD
.
1
3
OGf " •>
g d
S o
(D002) and contain underlying hazardous constituents above UTS; (b) currently h
treatment standard of deactivation; and (c) are decharacterized and subsequently
managed in: (1) land-based disposal units regulated under CWA; (2) CWA-equiva
systems prior to ultimate land disposal; or (3) Class I underground injection wells
regulated under SDWA.
g
Q
s~
S
§
Wastes that: fa) at the ooint of generation exhibit the characteristic of reactivity f]
H
03
^t
^
•|
rt
a
co /
fr
and contain underlying hazardous constituents above UTS; (b) currently have a
treatment standard of deactivation; and (c) pose a risk of violent reaction when th
X— S
I
Q
\m*l>
diluted.
Wastes that (a) at the ooint of generation contain Endrin CD012V Lindane fDnn'
-------
1-3
ued
Con
Description
ts regu
posal;
me
(D
(D
haz
uni
dis
-3
-
1
m
di
es,
ts
x
a
•8-
-C
*U
02
a
_g
"S
at primary aluminum red
-S2
T3
O,
_o
">»
1
o '
0)
u •
1
"S '
§
.E
2
S •
u
_c
~
o
OH
•M
1
CO
2
_c
o
E
3
C
1
P
^
C 00
il
.- ^
fill
s^ -£
Sf +•* *•*
^olo
.5 D 2 wf
^_» ("j .j£ flj
li|<
a£gj
i|6|
|ls|
2 1^ s-
l-i^J
|l-s|
i|H
l§lfr
Ui
OJ
1
^
•I
o
03
.2
•o .
eS
Pi
*s
1
-------
1-4 '.
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 LDRs are effective immediately upon promulgation unless the Agency grants
a national capacity variance from the statutory date because of a lack of available
treatment capacity (see RCRA section 3004(h)(2). For every waste EPA considers, on a
national basis, both the capacity of commercially available treatment technologies and the
quantity of restricted wastes currently sent to land disposal for which on-site treatment
capacity is not available. If EPA determines that adequate alternative commercial
treatment capacity is available for a particular waste, 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 capacity will be available, or two-years,
whichever is less. Once the variance expires, the wastes must meet the LDR treatment
standards prior to being placed on the land/ :
RCRA also allows generators to apply for extensions to the LDRs on a case-by-
case basis for specific wastes generated at a specific facility (RCRA section 3004(h)(3)).
EPA may grant case-by-case extensions to applicants who can demonstrate that: (1) no
capacity currently exists anywhere in the U.S. to treat a specific waste, and (2) a binding
contractual commitment is in place to construct or otherwise provide alternative capacity,
but due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control, such alternative capacity cannot
reasonably be made available by the effective date (40 CFR 268.5).
HSWA's schedule divided hazardous wastes into three broad categories: solvent
and dioxin wastes; California list wastes;4 and "scheduled" wastes.. EPA restricted
surface disposed solvents and dioxins from land disposal on November 7, 1986 and deep
well injected solvents and dioxins from land disposal on July 26, 1998. The final rule for
California List wastes, which was issued on July 8, 1987, covers wastes originally listed by
the State of California and adopted intact within HSWA. The "scheduled" wastes consist
of all wastes that were identified or listed as hazardous prior to November. 8,- 1984 but
were not included in the first two categories listed above. HSWA's statutory timetable
required that EPA restrict one-third of these wastes by August 8, 1988, two-thirds by
June 8, 1989, and the remaining third by May 8, 1990. For hazardous wastes that are
newly identified or listed after November 8, 1984, EPA is required to promulgate land
disposal prohibitions within six months of the date of identification or listing (RCRA
section 3004(g)(4)). However, the.statute does not provide an automatic prohibition of
4 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
potychlorinated 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'.
-------
1-5
land disposal of such wastes if EPA fails to meet this deadline. Exhibit 1-2 summarizes
the previous LDR rulemakings and their respective promulgation dates.
EXHIBIT 1-2
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS RULEMAKINGS
- Rulemakjng
Solvents and Dioxins
(surface disposed)
Solvents and Dioxins
(deep well injected)
California List
(surface disposed) .
California List
(deep well injected)
First Third Rule
First Third Rule
(deep well injected)
Second Third Rule
Third Third Rule
Newly Listed and Identified
Wastes (Phase I)
Interim Final Rule for
Vacated Treatment Standards
Organic TC Wastes and
Newly Listed Wastes
(Phase II)
Federal Register Notice
51 FR 40572
53 FR 28188
52 FR 25760
53 FR 30908
53 FR 31138
54 FR 25416
54 FR 26594
55 FR 22520
57 FR 37194
5SFR 29860
59 FR 47982
\
',
Promulgation Date
November 7, 1986
July 26, 1988
July 8, 1987
' July 26^ 1988
August 8, 1988
June 7, 1989
June 8, 1989
May 8, 1990
June 30, 1992
May 24, 1993
September 19, 1994
1.2 CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
In evaluating the need for national capacity variances, EPA estimates the
quantities of waste requiring alternative commercial treatment as a'result of the land
disposal restrictions and the capacity available at commercial treatment facilities to
-------
1-6
manage the restricted wastes.5 By comparing the capacity demand with the available
commercial capacity, EPA can identify capacity shortfalls and make determinations
concerning national capacity variances. This section provides an overview of EPA's
methodology in estimating required commercial treatment capacity, briefly summarizes
the capacity analysis conducted for today's rule, and highlights the national capacity
variances that EPA is granting in today's rule.
1.2.1 Determination of Required Commercial Treatment Capacity
Required commercial treatment capacity represents the quantity of wastes
currently being land disposed that cannot be treated on site and, consequently, will need
commercial treatment to meet the LDR treatment standards. Required commercial
capacity also includes the residuals generated by treatment of these wastes (i.e., the
quantity of generated residuals that will need treatment prior to land disposal).
EPA identifies the waste streams potentially affected by the LDRs by types of
land disposal units, including surface impoundment, waste pile, land treatment unit,
landfill, and underground injection well. Salt dome formations, salt bed formations, and
underground mines and caves are additional methods of land disposal that are affected
by the LDRs. Since insufficient information is available to document the quantity of
wastes disposed of by these three methods, they are not addressed in the analysis of
required alternative capacity.
To determine the type of alternative capacity required to treat the affected wastes,
EPA'conducts a "treatability analysis" of each waste stream. Based on the waste's
physical and chemical form, and information on prior management practices, EPA assigns
the quantity of affected waste to the appropriate best demonstrated available technology
(BOAT). Mixtures of RCRA -wastes (i.e., waste streams described by more than one
waste code) present special treatability concerns because they often contain constituents
5 EPA also derived estimates of affected facilities and waste quantities for the regulatory impact analysis (R1A). Both
the RIA and the capacity analysis examined wastes in the industrial sectors likely to generate most of the Phase IV
wastes. However, the goals of a capacity analysis and an RIA are very different, which often results in some differences
in methodologies, data, and results. A first step to satisfying the goals of a capacity analysis'is to make a "threshold"
'determination concerning whether a national treatment capacity variance is needed for the two years following
promulgation of a waste's LDR treatment standards. Thus, EPA estimates the required and available commercial
treatment capacity for al! affected wastes and facilities, but often only to the extent needed to make this threshold
determination. For example, when upper-bound estimates of required capacity are well below lower-bound estimates of
available capacity, then generally a variance is not needed and the analysis can stop. Similarly, when lower-bound
estimates of required capacity far exceed the upper-bound estimates of available capacity, then often the two-year
maximum capacity variance is needed. Results that are between these two extremes generally require EPA to conduct
further analyses. In contrast to the capacity analysis' focus on required and available capacity during the next two years
and its initial focus on threshold determinations, the RIA concentrates on estimating specific potential long-term costs
and benefits of the LDR treatment standards. Typically, only the significant (or dominant) costs and benefits are
assessed during the RIA. In summary, therefore, differences between the goals of the capacity analysis and the RIA are
expected to result in reasonable differences in the methodologies, data, and results.
-------
1-7
(e.g., organics and metals) requiring different types of treatment. To treat these wastes,
EPA develops a treatment train that can treat all waste types in the group (e.g.,
incineration followed by stabilization of the incinerator ash). In these cases, the Agency
estimates the amount of residuals that would be generated by treatment of the original
quantity of waste and -includes these residuals in the quantities requiring alternative
treatment capacity.
EPA identifies the quantities of waste requiring alternative treatment on a facility
level basis; if the appropriate treatment technology is not available on site, or if adequate
available capacity is not present to manage the waste, then the appropriate quantity of
waste requiring alternative treatment is aggregated into a national demand for
commercial capacity. EPA excludes from the estimates of required commercial capacity
those wastes that are managed in on-site treatment systems. A more detailed discussion
of the methodology for determining the required commercial capacity for each group of
wastes covered in this rule is presented in Chapters 3 through 6.
EPA collected generation and management information concerning the wastes
covered in.today's rule (Phase III wastes) from a number of sources. For the analysis of
ICR and TC wastes managed, in CWA and CWA-equivalent systems, the major data
sources that EPA used include: the 1991 Biennial Reporting System (BRS); the 1992
Survey of Organic Toxicity Characteristic Wastes Managed in Land Disposal Units (TC
Survey); the Permit Compliance System (PCS); the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI);
Effluent Guidelines Background Documents; and comments to several Federal Register
notices dealing with TC and ICR wastes including a Notice of Data Availability (58 FR
4972), Interim Final Rule (58 FR 29860), and the Phase II LDRs Proposed Rule (58 FR
48092).
For the newly. listed wastes, EPA used a variety of sources including RCRA 1990-
1991 §3007 Surveys of the carbamate production industry and the organobromine
production industry, and a 1991 EPA study on spent aluminum potliners. Data on
RCRA wastes mixed with radioactive wastes was primarily obtained from DOE's
comment in response to the ANPRM and the Phase II proposed rule, from the National
1 Profile of Commercially Generated Low-Level Radioactive Mixed Wastes, and from the
Department of Energy's (DOE's) report on its mixed waste inventory. This capacity
analysis also incorporates data from the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (the TSDR Survey), the National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Generators (the Generator Survey), and voluntary capacity data from
several facilities in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
(56 FR 55160, October 24, 1991) and the Phase II proposed rule (58 FR 48092,
September 14, 1993).
-------
-' • 1-8 , .
1.2.2 Determination of Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
The analysis conducted to determine available commercial treatment capacity
focuses on treatment capacity projected to be available in 1996, starting from the
baseline capacity identified in the promulgated Phase II final LDR rule (59 FR 47892,
September 19, 1994).6 Capacity estimates obtained from the Phase I rule were
adjusted, using two different approaches, to account for new treatment facilities expected
to come on line. The first approach used an evaluation of planned capacity for facilities
in the advanced stages of the permitting process. The second approach used data
submitted by interested parties. These available capacity estimates then were adjusted to
reflect the utilization of treatment capacity by Phase II wastes. ' • •'
The determination of available capacity focuses on commercial facilities. Conse-
quently, all estimates of capacity presented in this document represent commercially
available (not private) capacity. In order to determine whether to grant a national
capacity variance for newly listed and identified wastes regulated in today's rule, EPA
analyzed available commercial capacity for alternative treatment technologies capable of
meeting the LDR treatment standards. This capacity analysis generally included
estimating the maximum or design capacity for appropriate waste management systems
and the amount of waste currently going to these systems (utilized capacity). Available
capacity was estimated as the difference between maximum and utilized capacity. For
today's rule, EPA analyzed commercial capacity for wastewater treatment systems,
hazardous waste combustion (including incineration and reuse as fuel), and stabilization.
13 SUMMARY OF CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR TODAY'S RULE
To estimate the need for national capacity variances, EPA estimated the quanti- -
ties of waste requiring alternative commercial treatment as a result of the land disposal
restrictions and the capacity available at commercial treatment facilities to manage the
restricted wastes. Exhibit 1-3 indicates the total quantities of surface disposed wastes
that will require alternative commercial treatment capacity as a result of the rule. The
quantities of deep well disposed wastes that will require alternative commercial treatment
capacity as a result of this rule are discussed in a separate document.
. * EPA, Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions — Phase II, Universal Treatment
Standards, and Treatment Standards for Organic Tenacity Characteristic Wastes and Other -Newly Listed Wastes (Final
Rule), August 1994.
7 Available treatment capacity can be categorized by facility status into four groups: (1) commercial capacity - capacity
at facilities that manage waste from any facility; (2) on-site fprivate capacity') - capacity at facilities that manage only
waste generated on-site; (3) captive capacity - capacity at facilities that manage only waste from other facilities under the
same ownership; and (4) limited commercial capacity - capacity at facilities that manage waste from a limited number of
facilities hot under the same ownership. For all capacity analyses, estimates on available capacity reflect available
commercial capacity.
-------
1-9
EXHIBIT 1-3
QUANTITIES REQUIRING COMMERCIAL TREATMENT
AS A RESULT OF THE LDRS
Waste Type
Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, and Newly Identified
TC Organic Wastes Managed in CWA or
CWA-Equivalent Systems
Reactive Wastes Not Managed in GWA or
CWA-Equivalent Systems'*
Newly Identified Pesticide Wastes
Carbamate Production Wastes
Spent Aluminum Potliners
Phase III Mixed Radioactive Wastes
Surface Disposed
Quantities Requiring
Alternative Capacity
(tons/year)
85,000,000 -
500,000,000a
<30,000
0
4,500 '
100,000 - 125,000
2,500C
Adequate Alternative
Capacity Available?
(Yes/No)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No .
a These quantities are aggregated "end of pipe" quantities and are not the quantities of wastes prior to decharacterization.
b Non-sulfide and non-cyanide reactive (D003) wastes only. ' .
c This estimate includes annual generation only and does not include any amount of currently stored wastes.
Exhibit 1-4 presents the quantities of required and available capacity, by treatment
technology. As shown, EPA estimates that there will not be adequate commercial
capacity for ignitable, corrosive, reactive, and newly identified TC organic wastes that will
require treatment as a result this rule. Also, EPA estimates that there will not be -
adequate commercial capacity for mixed radioactive wastes containing newly listed and
identified wastes that will require treatment as a result this rule. Any new commercial
capacity that becomes available will be needed for mixed wastes that were regulated in
previous LDR rulemakings, and whose variances have already expired.
Exhibit 1-5 summarizes the wastes for which EPA is granting a national capacity
variance. EPA is granting a two-year national capacity variance for ignitable, corrosive,
reactive, and newly identified TC organic wastes managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent
treatment systems. EPA is granting a nine-month national capacity variance for all forms
of K088 wastes. EPA is also granting a two-year national capacity variance for mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastewaters and nonwastewaters contaminated with newly listed and
-identified wastes whose standards are being finalized in this rule.
-------
1-10
EXHIBIT 1-4
QUANTITIES OF REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE TREATMENT CAPACITY,
BY TECHNOLOGY (TONS)
Treatment Technology
Wastewater Treatment
Liquid Combustion
Sludge/Solid Combustion
Stabilization
K088 Thermal Treatment
High-Level Waste Treatment
Mixed Transuranic Waste
Treatment
Low-Level Mixed Waste
Treatment
Mixed Radioactive Soil
Treatment
Mixed Radioactive Debris
Treatment
Required Capacity
85,000,000 - 500,000,000*
Ob
4,500
Oc
100,000 - 125,000
l,300d
10d
1 400d
10d
l,000d
Available Capacity
47,000,000
1,145,000
120,500
> 1,000,000
111,000
;oe
oe
oe
oe
.oe
' These quantities are aggregated "end of pipe" quantities and are not the quantities of wastes prior to
decharacterizatiori.
b EPA recognizes that some facilities could aggregate their wastewaters from the treatment train and send these
• wastes to liquid combustion, and therefore this quantity is known to be greater than zero.
c Stabilization may be required to treat underlying hazardous metal constituents in organic TC wastes, reactive wastes,
or some K161 wastes after combustion.
d This estimate includes annual generation only and does not include any amount of currently stored wastes.
0 Any capacity that is or will become available will be required for mixed wastes regulated in previous LDR
rulemakings.
-------
1-11
EXHIBIT 1-5
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCES
FOR PHASE IH WASTES
Waste
Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, Newly
Identified TC Organic Wastes Managed in
CWA or CWA-Equivalent Systems
Reactive Wastes not Managed in CWA or
CWA-Equivalent Systems3
Newly Identified Pesticide Waste
Carbamate Production Wastes
Spent Aluminum Potliners
Phase III Mixed Radioactive Wastes
Effective Date of Land Disposal Prohibition
Two Years from Promulgation of Final Rule
Three Months from Promulgation of Final
Rule
Three Months from Promulgation of Final
Rule •
Three Months from Promulgation of Final
Rule
Nine Months from Promulgation of Final
Rule
Two Years from Promulgation of Final Rule
The variance determinations listed here apply only to non-sulfide and non-cyanide reactive wastes (D003).
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENT SUPPORTING THE
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
EPA has prepared this background document to present the capacity analysis
conducted for the LDRs for newly listed and identified wastes, mixed radioactive wastes,
and contaminated soil and debris. This document is organized into six chapters and four
appendices, as described below: . : .
• Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides background, general methodology, and
a summary of the analysis. '
• Chapter 2: Available Treatment Capacity. Describes the methodology and
data used to determine available capacity for wastewater treatment,
combustion of liquids and solids, and stabilization.
• Chapter 3: Capacity Analysis for ICR Wastes and TC Organic Wastes that
are Managed in CWA or CWA-Equivalent Systems. Discusses the
methodology and data used to conduct the capacity analysis for ICR wastes
-------
1-12-
and TC organic wastes that are managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent
systems.
Chapter 4: Capacity Analysis for Other Newly Listed Wastes. Describes
the capacity analysis for carbamate production wastes (K156-161, P127-128,
P185, P188-192, P194, P196-199, P201-205, U271, U277-280, U364-367,
U372-373, U375-379,.U381-387, U389-396, U400-404, U407, U409-411),
organobromine production wastes (K140, U408), and spent aluminum.
potliners (K088).
Chapter 5: Capacity Analysis for Mixed Radioactive Wastes. Discusses the
methodology used for the capacity analysis of radioactive wastes mixed with
newly listed and identified wastes for which LDRs are being promulgated in
today's rule.
Chapter 6: Capacity Analysis for Non-Sulfide and Non-Cyanide Reactive
(D003) Wastes Not Managed in CWA or CWA-Equivalent Systems.
Discusses the methodology and data used to conduct the capacity analysis
for non-sulfide and non-cyanide reactive wastes not managed in CWA or
CWA-equivalent systems for which LDRs are -being promulgated in today's
rule.
Appendices: Appendix A presents the industry analyses conducted for the
capacity analysis for ICR wastes and TC organic waste that are managed in
CWA or CWA-equivalent systems. Appendix B presents a summary of the
Office of Water's Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and data from
the 1991 Biennial Reporting System on wastewater treatment capacity.
Appendix C presents the telephone logs for the commercial combustion
capacity analysis. Appendix D presents information on spent potliner
treatment capacity. Appendix E presents wastewater and nonwastewater
quantities of D003 wastes. Appendix F presents a report on case studies
performed by EPA to assess the overlap between NPDES permits and the
UTS for decharacterized ICRT wastewaters.
-------
CHAPTER 2
AVAILABLE TREATMENT CAPACITY
This chapter presents EPA's estimates of available commercial treatment capa'city
for newly listed and identified wastes. Section 2.1 summarizes the results of EPA's
analysis of the available wastewater treatment system capacity. Section 2.2 summarizes
the results of EPA's analysis of commercial combustion capacity at incinerators and
boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs). Section 2.3 summarizes the results of EPA's
analysis of the available commercial capacity for other treatment systems. ,
2.1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS CAPACITY SUMMARY
This section summarizes the results of EPA's analysis of wastewater treatment
systems for newly identified and newly listed wastewaters. This analysis used two data
sources. The primary source was an Office of Water questionnaire specifically targeted
to wastewater treatment systems. The second source, the 1991 Biennial Reporting
System, was used to confirm the estimate provided by the first source.
In 1991, EPA's Office of Water (OW) developed the Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire to collect information on centralized wastewater treatment capacity.
The information collected during this effort represents 1989 data and includes maximum
and available treatment capacity. Exhibit 2-1 presents the information provided by
individual facilities. All of the listed facilities have a final or interim RCRA permit. As
shown, approximately ;40 million tons (9.7 billion gallons) of wastewater. treatment
capacity are available each year at these facilities. In addition, there are 11 other
treatment facilities that were not included in this estimate because they did not supply
the requested capacity information. By assigning the average available capacity (630,000
tons per year) to each of the non-reporting facilities, EPA estimates a total available
wastewater treatment capacity of 47 million tons each year.
EPA used the 1991 Biennial Reporting System (BRS) to confirm available
wastewater treatment capacity. The BRS is a system by which RCRA-regulated
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) and large quantity generators provide
EPA with information on their hazardous waste activities. The BRS contains information
on the waste treatment systems, including both maximum and utilized capacity. EPA
determined the available wastewater treatment capacity9 reported in the BRS at
facilities representing approximately 90 percent of the total operational capacity reported
in the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. According to the BRS, in total these
facilities have 33 million tons of available capacity (7.9 billion gallons). (Appendix B"
presents the BRS data used to derive this estimate.)- If this estimate is adjusted to reflect
8 Memorandum from Debra DiCianna, Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Water, U.S. EPA to Bengie
Carroll, Capacity Programs Branch, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA, April 20, 1993. See Appendix B.
9 Specifically, the estimate includes all aqueous organic and/or inorganic treatment systems.
-------
.2-2
EXHIBIT 2-1
AVAILABLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY
Name
Sloss Industries Corporation
Crosby and Overton, Inc.
Oil Process,Co.
Southern California Chemical Co., Inc.
Romic Chem. Corp.
CP Chemicals
Chem-Tech Systems
H&H Ship Service,
Norris Industries, Inc.
Appropriate Technologies n, Inc.
Solvent Service Co., Lie.
American Chemical & Refining Co.
Envirite Corporation (CT)
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Group MD & CPD.
United Oil Recovery, Inc. ^
Cecos Treatment Corp.
Environmental Waste Resources, Inc.
Alternate Energy Resources, Inc.
Pearl Hbr. Navy Public Works Ctr.
Maytag Co.
John Deere-Component Works
Envirite Corp. (IL)
Peoria Disposal Co.-Pottstown
EPA ID Number
CADO5O806850
CAT080033681
'
CAD059494310
CTD001 184894
CTD000844399
,
CTD072138969
/
ILD000666206
Maximum
Capacity (gallons)
548,000,000
2,340,000
1,894,000
21,350,000
4,983,000
5,808,000
0
.. 0
477,79.1,000
8,943,000
0
2,375,000
53^00,000
1,760,669,000
, 13,140,000 ,
62^00,000
38,536,000
1,867,200,000
0
390,000,000
43,212,000
10,620,000
50,000,000
%Used
in 1989
33 '
100
81
60
59
74
0
0
45
18
0
79
30
2
50
6
78
20 ~
0
73
63
67 '
49
Available Capacity
(gallons)
367^160,000
0
363,000
8,589,000
2,043,000
1,510,000
0
0
262,355,000
7,333,000 .
0
499,000
-37,552,000
1^12,578,000
6,570,000
58,738,000
8,478,000
1,493,387,000
0
105,300,000
15,989,000
3,516,000
25,625,000
-------
2-3
EXHIBIT 2-1 (Continued)
AVAILABLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY
Name
Chem-Clear, Inc.
Beaver Oil Co., Inc.
Heritage Environmental Services, Inc.
Eli Lilly & Co. Tippecanoe Labs
Clean Harbors, Inc.
American Waste Oil Corp.
Environmental Waste Control, Inc
Cyanokem
Dynecol, Inc.
Edwards Oil Co.
Metro Recovery Systems
Heritage Environmental Services, Inc
Brunswick Corp. .
Dupont E I De Nemours, Chamber Works
CP Chemicals, Inc.
Remtech Environmental Group
Chemical Waste Management of New Jersey
Eticam
Chemical Waste Management of New York ,
Cecos International
Chemical Management, Inc:
Envirite Corp.
Clark Processing, Inc.
Research Op Co.
Brush Wetiman, Inc.
EPA ID Number
ILDOlj4418353
IND093219012
IND006050967
MDD980555189
•
MND981098478
NCD 121700777
NED043534635
NJD002385730
NJD002141950
NJD089216790
NVD980895338
NYD080336241
NYD000691949
OHD004178612
Maximum
Capacity (gallons)
36,000,000
14,000,000
299,290,000
0
44,100,000
6,240,000
60,000,000
30,865,000
36,320,000
21,600,000
15,130,000
7,500,000
244,000
14,600,000,000
54,000,000
0
52,560,000
750,000 ,
21,024,000
0
7,800,000 ,
63,963,000
6,500,000 .
86,300,000
0
%Used
in 1989
47
20
30
0
12
80
30
34
50
80
50
72
3
78
90
• 0
23
14
' 73
0
44
.- 44
86
49
.0
Available Capacity
(gallons)
. 19,080,000
11,200,000
209,443,000 -
0
38,808,000
' 1,248,000
42,000,000
20,371,000
18,291,000
4,320,000
7,565,000
2,100,000
237,000
3,212,000,000
5,400,000
0
40,471,000
647,000
5,676,000
0
4,368,000
35,909,000
910,000
44,013,000 ,
0
-------
2-4
EXHIBIT 2-1 (Continued)
AVAILABLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY
Name
Cecos International, Inc.
Clean Harbors
Conoco, Inc. Ponca City
US PoUution Control, Inc.
Tektronix, Lie.
Waste Conversion, Inc.
Envirite Corporation (PA)
Mill Service, Inc.
Mill Service, Inc. Yukon Pit.
Eticam
CP Chemicals, Inc.
Tricil Environmental Services, Inc.
TN Eastman Dft. Eastman Kodak
Osco Incorporated
Intercontinental Terminals Co.
Encycle/Texas, Inc. ;
Empac, Inc. Deer Park
Treatment One, Div. of Set Environmental,
Inc.
Belpar Environmental of Virginia, Inc.
Boeing Co.-Auburn
Crosby and Overton, Inc. Plant 2
Chemical Processors, Inc.
Chemical Processors, Inc.
Chemical Processors, Inc.
Petroleum Reclaiming Service, Inc.
EPA ID Number
OHD087433744
OHD000724153
OKD007233836
ORD009020231
PAD085690592
PAD010154045
PAD059087072
RID980906986
TND003376928
. -
•
WAD041337130
, Maximum
Capacity (gallons)
23,400,000 .
63,000,000
720,000,000
6,000,000
407,788,000 .
35,986,000
30,000,000
74,200,000'
164,000,000
6,000,000
45,602,000
89,712,000
8,710,000
0
100,000,000
120,500,000
316,411,000
2,000,000
390,000
371,935,000
20,752,000
13,142,000
0
17,001,000
15,750,000
%t>sed
in 1989
12
65
92
50 .
13
80
79
57
' 44
42
61
' 9
88
0
17
30
35'
2
70
42
'1
40
0
41
11
Available Capacity
(gallons)
20,592,000 .
22,050,000
57,600,000
3,000,000
353,675,000
7,197,000
6,300,000
32,129,000
91,840,000
3,480,000
17,785,000
81,638,000
1,045,000
0
83,000,000 .
84,892,000
205,636,000
1,960,000
. 117,000
214,123,000
20,646,000
7,830,000
0
10,102,000
14,018,000
-------
2-5
EXHIBIT 2-1 (Continued)
AVAILABLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY
Name
Northwest Enviroservice, Inc.
Union Carbide AGR. Prod. Co., Inc.
Inco Alloys .International, Inc.
Total
EPA ID Number
WVD004325353
WVD076826015
Maximum
Capacity (gallons)
35,640,000
2,102,000,000
0
25,616,967,000
% Used
in 1989
62
57
0
Available Capacity
(gallons)
13,458,000
903,860,000
0
9,«99,612,000
the fact that it only represents 90 percent of the total operational capacity, approximately
37 million tons (33 million tons divided by 0.9) of available wastewater treatment capacity
are available. This estimate is within 22 percent of the estimate obtained from the OW
Questionnaire.
2.2 COMMERCIAL COMBUSTION CAPACITY SUMMARY
Commercial capacity for combustion is available at both incinerators and boilers
and industrial furnaces (BIFs) (primarily cement kilns that are authorized to burn
hazardous wastes as fuel). This section summarizes the results of EPA's analysis .of
commercial combustion capacity at incinerators and BIFs. It includes an analysis of
incinerator and BIF combustion capacity information received from the Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council (HWTC) and the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) in 1993
and the Environmental Technologies Council (ETC) in 1994.10
f ' • ' • ~
2.2.1 General Methodology • ,
In 1993, the HWTC and CKRC surveyed their membership to obtain data on
combustion capacity, which was then submitted to EPA. Subsequent to the original
.HWTC survey, members also received a supplemental questionnaire regarding the
burning of soils. In 1994, ETC submitted updates to the HWTC Survey from its
members. Survey responses received from incinerators are classified as confidential
business information (CBI). Following the receipt of the original surveys, the Agency
reviewed the data submitted by each facility to evaluate the completeness, consistency,
and accuracy of the information. The Agency identified and reconciled data gaps and
anomalies by contacting the respective HWTC or CKRC coordinators and the individual
facilities in question. .
" • 10 In 1994, HWTC became the Environmental Technologies Council (ETC). ETC provided EPA with a 1994 update
to tbe commercial incinerator survey. '
-------
2-6
Concurrent with the receipt of surveys received from the member groups, the
Agency developed a data base to track and process major.data elements for the capacity
analysis. The data base contains facility information (e.g., location, EPA identification
number of burner, number of units currently on-line), unit specific information (e.g., type
of incinerator/kiln unit, operating hours per year, types of hazardous waste feed systems,
types of hazardous waste burned in 1992), and waste-type specific information (e.g., tons
of hazardous waste burned in 1992, average hazardous waste feed rate, maximum
. practical capacity, maximum permit capacity). Subsequent updates to the original survey
submissions have also been entered into this database.
,' ' * *
The information received from facilities participating in these surveys does not .
lend itself to simple summation and tabulation of results because facilities sometimes
differed in their approach to reporting quantities burned or burning capacity.
Incineration systems can generally accept multiple waste forms (e.g., pumpable sludges
and aqueous liquids) and accepting larger amounts of one waste form may reduce the
capacities for others. In responding to the HWTC survey (and ETC updates), facilities
sometimes grouped waste types for their capacity-related responses. For example, if a
feed system can accommodate both liquids and pumpable sludges, a facility may report a
capacity for both forms grouped together. To address this interchangeability of waste
forms, the Agency's LDR capacity database accommodated the reported waste groupings
(e.g., one capacity estimate for liquids and pumpable sludges combined).
A second issue also relating to the interchangeability of waste forms required
more extensive consideration. In the HWTC survey (and ETC update), some facilities
reported the maximum combustion capacity for individual waste forms that together
exceed the reported overall capacity of the unit. As a result, summing these individual
capacities results in a total capacity that far exceeds what a facility may practically
accommodate. The Agency developed the following algorithm to address, this situation.
The waste apportionment algorithm focuses on three primary variables: the
quantity of waste burned during the year, the maximum practical capacity of the unit, and
the available capacity for burning hazardous waste. The available capacity for a waste
form (e.g., aqueous liquids, dry solids) is obtained by taking the difference between the
quantity of the form burned (hazardous and non-hazardous waste) and the maximum
capacity for the waste form. The Agency's approach assumes that a facility will not stop
burning non-hazardous waste if it is currently burning non-hazardous waste but all
unutilized capacity-will be used for hazardous waste. Difficulties arise, however, because
facilities report maximum capacities for each waste form without regard to capacity
accounted for by other waste forms. Consequently, the sum of maximum capacities for
all waste forms may exceed the total capacity.
In these cases, the Agency distributed the total maximum hazardous waste
•capacities reported by each facility to individual waste forms based on burning practices.
The utilization rate for each waste form was calculated by dividing the larger of the
-------
2-7
quantity of hazardous waste burned or total waste burned for that waste form by the sum
of the quantities burned for all waste forms. A new maximum hazardous waste capacity
for each waste form was then calculated by multiplying the utilization rate for that waste
form by the maximum practical capacity for the incineration unit as a whole.
If the calculated maximum capacity, for a waste form exceeded the reported value
for that form, EPA used the reported value. In this case, the difference between the
calculated and reported value was then redistributed to other waste forms using a
hierarchy based on the types of wastes in this rule for which capacity has historically been
most limited relative to demand. The Agency used the following order for redistributing
capacity: : '
* Soils; ' .
Bulk Solids; .
• Containerized Solids; . . .
. • Nonpumpable Sludges; •
• Pumpable Sludges;
• • Compressed Gases; .
• Non-aqueous liquids; and
• Aqueous Liquids. .
Cement kiln capacity for hazardous waste is limited by air emission limits (e.g.
boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) limits under 40 CFR 266 Siibpart H), feed system
limitations (e.g., particle size and viscosity limits), and product (i.e., cement clinker)
quality considerations. For instance, cement quality considerations may require that
wastes burned in cement kilns have a heating, value of at least 5,000 BTU/lb to ensure
adequate temperatures in the kiln. (Comments received by EPA, however, indicate that
.some kilns accept wastes below this heating value.) Incineration capacity is also limited
by air emission limits and other permit limits (such as heat release limits), and feed
system limits. EPA has taken these limitations into account in its estimates of available
commercial combustion capacity.
Once the baseline available combustion estimates were calculated using the above
methodology, EPA subtracted the required combustion capacity for any previously
regulated wastes that are not accounted for in the data received from the incinerators or
BIFS (e.g., Phase I wastes under variance and Phase II wastes) to derive the available
combustion capacity for Phase III wastes. The capacity required for Phase II wastes is
not reflected in the estimates of utilized capacity because the Phase" II rule, promulgated
on September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47982), was not in effect when the estimates were
submitted to EPA. In addition, some Phase I wastes (F037 and F038 in particular) were
under a variance for at least part of the period of time for which EPA received capacity
estimates. . ' .
-------
2-8
2.2.2 Commercial Incineration Capacity
This section focuses on the combustion capacity of the nation's commercial
hazardous waste incinerator facilities. Exhibit 2-2 summarizes the status of incineration
capacity at each the facilities included in the HWTC survey. To preserve the
confidentiality of this survey (and the ETC updates) confidential business information
(CBI) is not disclosed. Aggregated results for CBI data are provided at the end of
Exhibit 2-2. Section 2.*2.2.1 profiles each of the individual facilities summarized in Exhibit
2-2. Section 2.2.2.2 discusses several operating facilities that were not considered in the
capacity analysis. Section 2.2.2.3 discusses planned additions to incineration capacity.
/
, _ \
2.2.2.1 Individual Incineration Facility Capacity Analysis
Facility profiles are provided below for each of the-incinerators included in the
commercial combustion capacity estimate. These profiles are based on data provided in
the HWTC survey, the 1994 ETC survey update, and data received as a result of
telephone contacts. The telephone logs for these updates are included in Appendix C.
Aptus, Coffeyville, Kansas -
\
Aptus, a Westinghouse company, has both TSCA and RCRA Part B permits. The
incinerator unit is a slagging rotary kiln with a thermal input of 61.9 mmBtu/hour. This
facility can accept liquids, pumpable sludges, nonpumpable sludges, containerized solids,
bulk solids, and soils. Liquids are directly injected into the rotary kiln and containerized
solids are ram-fed. Recycle feed and drop feed systems are used to feed bulk solids into
the incinerator unit. Aptus is seeking permit modifications to expand the facility's
treatment and storage capacity.
Confidential capacity information provided by the facility included quantities of
waste burned in 1993 and maximum practical burning capacity. These estimates are
included in the aggregated estimate in Exhibit 2-2. This facility does accept K088 wastes.
V Aptus, Tooele, Utah
This facility has RCRA and TSCA permits and operates one slagging rotary kiln
incinerator unit. The facility accepts liquids, .pumpable sludges, containerized solids, bulk
solids, and soils. The incinerator system at this facility is a slagging rotary, kiln with an
afterburner. This system has a thermal input of 140 mmBtu/hour.
This facility is equipped with several mechanisms for feeding waste into the
slagging rotary kiln. Liquids are injected directly from a storage tank into the kiln and/or
afterburner chamber. Pumpable sludges, having a viscosity lower than 10,000 centipoise,
are fed via a cement pump. Bulk solids and nonpumpable sludges are placed into
holding tanks. From these tanks, the wastes are moved by a clamshell to an apron
-------
Exhibit 2-2
Summary of Commercial Incineration Capacity
Facility Name
Aptus, Inc.,
Salt Lake City, UT
UTD981552177
Aptus, Inc. - Environmental
Services,
Coffeyvilie, KS "
KSD981506025
CWM - Port Arthur,
Port Arthur, TX
TXD000838896
CWM Chemical Services,
Chicago, IL
ILD00067212I
ENSCO, Inc.,
El Dorado, AR
Unit
Type
IF
*****
RK
*****
RK
*****
RK*
*****
RK
Waste
Type
liq (aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
cont solids
bulk solids
soils
TOTAL
liq(aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
npump si
cont solids .
bulk solids
comp gases
soils
TOTAL
liq (aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
cont solids
bulk solids
TOTAL
liq(aq)
liq (naq)
cont solids
TOTAL
liq(aq)
liq (naq)
Utilized
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
*
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Reported
Maximum
Capacity.
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
X
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Adjusted
Maximum
' Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
l
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Adjusted
Estimated
Available
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
. ,
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
1)
2)
3)
CBI = CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
* = Planned or Not Operating
Unit Type abbreviations: FH = Fixed Hearth; LI = Liquid Injection; RK = Rotary Kiln; RR = Rotary
Reactor; IF = Industrial Furnace; UK = Unknown
-------
Exhibit 2-2(Continued)
Summary of Commercial Incineration Capacity
'
Facility Name
ARD069748192
'
••
,
.• '
LWD, Inc.,
Calvert City, KY
KYD088438817
Unit
Type
RK,
RK
,
•
*****
LI
RK
Waste
Type
pump si
npump si
cont solids
bulk solids
comp gases
soils
liq(aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
npump si
cont solids .
bulk solids •
comp gases
soils
liq (aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
npump si
cont solids
bulk solids
comp gases
soils
TOTAL
all liqs
pump si
cont solids
bulk solids
all liqs
-
Utilized
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
•*
. .
CBI
\
CBI
t
CBI
CBI
\
CBI
Reported-
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
i
.
CBI
-
CBI
CBI
CBI
,
Adjusted
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
t
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
-
Adjusted
Estimated
Available
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CP"
£|
^W
1
1
. CBI
CBI
• -
CBI
I)
2)
3)
CBI = CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
* = Planned or Not Operating
Unit Type abbreviations: FH = Fixed Hearth; U = Liquid Injection; RK = Rotary Kiln; RR = Rotary
Reactor; IF = Industrial Furnace; UK = Unknown
-------
Exhibit 2-2(Continued)
Summary of Commercial Incineration Capacity
Facility Name
'
Laidlaw Environmental
Services, Inc.,
Roebuck, SC
SCD981467616
- • •
Norlite Corporation,
Cofaoes, NY
NYD080469935
Rhone-Poulenc (RPBC),
Baton Rouge, LA
LAD008161234
s
Rhone-Poulenc Basic
Chemicals Co.,
Hammond, IN
Unit
Type
RK
*****
U
*****
RK
RK
*****
LI
U
*****
IF
Waste
Type
pump si
cont solids
bulk solids
all liqs
TOTAL .
liq (aq)
liq (naq)
TOTALi
liq (naq)
pump si
liq (naq)
pump si
TOTAL
liq(aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
liq (aq)
liq (naq)
pump s!
TOTAL
liq(aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
Utilized
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI,
Reported
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
i '
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Adjusted
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Adjusted
Estimated
Available
Capacity
. (Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
1)
2)
3)
CBI = CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
* = Planned or Not Operating
Unit Type abbreviations: FH = Fixed Hearth; LI = Liquid Injection; RK = Rotary Kiln; RR = Rotary
Reactor; IF = Industrial Furnace; UK = Unknown
-------
Exhibit 2-2(Contimied)
Summary of Commercial Incineration Capacity
Facility Name
IND001859032
Rbone-Poulenc Basic
Chemicals Co.,
'Houston, TX
TXD008099079
Rollins Environmental
Services (LA) Inc.,
Baton Rouge, LA
LAD010395127-P
Rollins Environmental
Services (NJ) Inc.,
Bridgeport, NJ
NJD053288299
t
Rollins Environmental
Services (TX) Inc.,
Deer Park, TX
TXD055 141378
Unit
Type
lit****
LI .
,
*****
RK .
*****
RK
*****
RK
•
RK
'
Waste
Type
•
TOTAL
liq (aq)
liq (naq)
pump si ,
-
TOTAL
Hq(aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
cont solids
soils
TOTAL
liq(aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
cont solids
comp gases
soils
TOTAL
liq(aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
cont solids
comp gases
soils
liq(aq)
Utilized
Capacity
. (Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
..
CBI
CBI
CBI
Reported
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Adjusted
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
-
CBI
CBI
CBI
„ CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Adjusted
Estimated
Available
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
"•
CBI I
•
j
CBI
CBI
CBI
1)
2)
3)
CBI = CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
* = Planned or Not Operating , .
Unit Type abbreviations: FH = Fixed Hearth; LI = Liquid Injection; RK = Rotary Kiln; RR = Rotary
Reactor; IF = Industrial Furnace; UK = Unknown
-------
Exhibit 2-2(Continued)
Summary of Commercial Incineration Capacity
Facility Name
-
• Ross Incineration Services,
Inc.,
Grafton, OH
OHD048415665
I.
ThennalKEM Inc., Rock Hill
Plant,
Rock Hill, SC
SCD044442333
x
•
Trade Waste Incineration, .
..;
Unit
Type
RR
*****
RK
*****
FH
*****
FH
Waste
Type
liq (naq)
pump si
cont solids
soils
liq (aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
bulk solids
soils
TOTAL
liq(aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
npump si
cont solids
bulk solids
comp gases
soils
TOTAL
liq (aq)
liq (naq)
pump si .
npump si
cont solids
bulk solids
comp gases
soils.
TOTAL
cont solids
Utilized
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
"
CBI
CBI .
CBI
CBI
Reported
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
/
CBI
CBI
-
CBI
CBI
•
CBI
CBI
Adjusted
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
-
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Adjusted
Estimated
Available
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
-
CBI
'
CBI
CBI
•
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBF
1)
2)
3)
CBI = CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION /
* = Planned or Not Operating
Unit Type abbreviations: FH = Fixed Hearth; LI = Liquid Injection; RK - Rotary Kiln; RR = Rotary
Reactor; IF = Industrial Furnace; UK = Unknown
-------
Exhibit 2-2(Continued)
Summary of Commercial Incineration Capacity
-
Facility Name
Sauget, IL
ILD098642424
'
USPCI, .
. Lakepoint, ,UT
UTD982595795
Aggregated Results
(Operating Units Only)
• .
Unit
Type
FH
RK
*****
RK
*****
Waste
Type
all liq/ps
cont solids
all liq/ps .
all liq/ps
all sol/ops
TOTAL
liq (aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
npump si
cont solids
bulk solids
soils
TOTAL
liq (aq)
liq (naq)
pump si
npump si
cont solids
bulk solids
dry solids
comp gases
Utilized
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
97,664
187,667
50,422
15,145
129,082
63,081
0
2,184
Reported
H£SIXIEHUIII
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
• -
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
290,569
„ 399,439
213,752
44,038
302,389
183,604
0
64,707
Adjusted
Maximum
Capacity
-------
Exhibit 2-2(Continued)
Summary of. Commercial Incineration Capacity
Facility Name
1
i
Unit
Type
Waste
Type
all liq/ps
all sol/ops
alt Eiqs
soils
Total (Operating Units Only)
Utilized
Capacity
(Tous/Yr)
12,064
14,217
25,616
12,348
609,490
Reported
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
31,906
52,500
82,080
346,269
2,011,253
Adjusted
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
31,906
52,500
82,080
169,324
1,389,617
Adjusted
Estimated
Available
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
19,842
38,283
56,464
156,976
780,127
1)
2)
3)
CBI = CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
* = Planned or Not Operating
Unit Type abbreviations: FH = Fixed Hearth; U = Liquid Injection; RK = Rotary Kiln; RR = Rotary
Reactor; IF — Industrial Furnace; UK = Unknown
-------
2-16
feeder where the waste is fed directly into the kiln feed chute. Containerized solids that
do not require shredding (e.g., lab packs) are fed directly into the kiln via ait elevator
feed system. Containerized solids and bulk solids that require shredding are processed
through a shredder prior to,being placed into storage tanks.
Confidential capacity information provided by the1 facility included waste quantities
burned in 1993 and maximum practical burning capacities. These estimates are included
in the aggregated CBI estimate in Exhibit 2-2. This facility does accept K088 wastes.
Trade Waste Incineration (Chemical Waste Management), Sauget, Illinois
This RCRA Part B permitted facility operates three dry scrubber incineration
units. Two are fixed hearths and one is a rotary kiln. Each fixed hearth unit has a
maximum permitted heat release of 16 mmBtu/hour. The rotary kiln has a maximum
permitted heat release of 50 mmBtu/hour.
This facility can accept most physical forms of wastes. Liquids are blended in
tanks and transferred to atomizers for direct injection into the incinerator unit(s)..
Pumpable sludges are injected into the incinerator unit(s) via a sludge lance.
Nonpumpable sludges and containerized solids are repackaged into burnable containers
and ram-fed into the incinerator units. Bulk solids are unloaded into pits and
transported via clamshell into the rotary kiln unit.
This facility submitted its survey independent of the set provided by HWTC. For
each unit and physical form of waste, this facility reported waste quantities burned during
1992 and maximum practical burning capacities. These estimates are included in the
aggregated CBI estimate in Exhibit 2-2. " .
CWM Chemical Services, Chicago, Illinois
This RCRA interim status facility is not currently operating and is awaiting EPA
authorization for TSCA and RCRA Part B permits. The incinerator unit at this facility is
a rotary kiln with a thermal input of 30 mmBtu/hour. This facility is not included in
EPA's commercial combustion capacity estimate.
The feed mechanism for the single unit at CWM consists of a drum conveyor and
ram-feed for containerized solids. In general, bulk solids and pumpable sludges -are not
accepted at this facility. Nonpumpable sludges are generally accepted only when
containerized.
This facility submitted its survey independent of the set provided by. HWTC The
facility reported confidential maximum current practical burning capacity for liquids and
containerized solids. Because this facility is not currently operating and CWM has
-------
.2-17 • ' '
announced its intention to not open this facility, EPA did not include it in the national
capacity estimates. '. "
CWM-Port Arthur, Port Arthur, Texas
This RCRA Part B permitted facility operates a rotary kiln system that has a
thermal input of 175 ramBtu/hour. The facility has applied for a TSCA permit to burn
, PCB-contaminated wastes. .
' / l
This facility accepts liquids, pumpable sludges, containerized solids, and bulk
solids. Several feed mechanisms exist for feeding waste into the rotary kiln. Positive
displacement pumps are used to feed pumpable. sludges. Containerized solids are fed •
into the unit via a ram-feed system. Bulk solids are shredded and charged to the kiln by
a chute. - ' .
The facility reported waste quantities burned in 1992 and maximum practical
burning capacities as CBI. These estimates are included in the aggregated CBI estimate
in Exhibit 2-2. CWM indicated this facility anticipated increasing operating hours by 50
percent in 1993-1994, and planned various process improvements for the third quarter of
1993 that would have improved on-line time and allow the facility to accept CERCLA
wastes. . >
ENSCO, El Dorado, Arkansas
ENSCO operates three rotary kiln incinerators at this RCRA Part B.permitted
facility. Each kiln can burn liquids, pumpable sludges, nonpumpable sludges,
containerized solids, bulk solids, compressed gases, and soils. Two of the kilns feed into
, one secondary chamber with a permitted combined feed rate of 29,718 pounds per hour.
The third kiln has a permitted feed rate of 12,912 pounds per hour.,
ENSCO submitted confidential business information on quantities burned in 1993
and maximum practical burning capacities.. These estimates are included in the
aggregated CBI estimate in Exhibit 2-2. ENSCO does accept K088 wastes.
L.W.D. Inc., Calvert City, Kentucky
This facility is currently operating under interim status. L.W.D. Inc. has three v
incinerators at this facility: one liquid injection unit and two rotary kilns. The liquid
injection incinerator only burns liquids. The rotary kilns burn liquids, bulk solids,
containerized solids, and pumpable sludges. The liquid injection unit has a thermal input
of 40 mmBtu/hoiir. The rotary kilns have thermal inputs of 50 mmBtu/hour and 100
mmBtu/hour: • . • . '.
-------
• •* .; 2-18
This facility submitted its survey independent of the set submitted by HWTC. The
facility provided information on quantities burned in 1992 and maximum practical
burning capacities. These estimates are included in the aggregated CBI estimate in
Exhibit 2-2. ,
Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., Roebuck, South Carolina
This facility is fully permitted by the EPA but is under interim status with the state
. regulatory agency. Laidlaw operates one hazardous waste liquid injection incinerator that
injects and burns pumpable liquids. The CBI provided included quantities of waste
burned in 1993 and maximum current practical burning capacity. These estimates are
included in the aggregated CBI estimate in Exhibit 2-2. .
Norlite Corporation, Cohoes, New York
This RCRA Part B permitted incineration facility operates two rotary aggregate
kilns that burn liquids and pumpable sludges. The kilns are RCRA-permitted as
incinerators. Liquids are injected and sludges are pumped into the kiln. Each kiln has a
thermal input of 62 mmBtu/hour. New York officials are considering a permit
modification' to increase Norlite's solid feed capacity.
Norlite submitted confidential information on quantities of waste burned in 1992
and maximum practical burning capacities. These estimates are included in the
aggregated CBI estimate in Exhibit 2-2. .
Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Company, Hammond, Indiana
This facility submitted confidential information on quantities burned in 1993 and
maximum .practical burning capacity. It is operating with an interim status BIF permit.
The industrial furnace at this facility burns liquid wastes only.
Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Company, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
This RCRA Part B permitted facility operates two liquid injection incinerators. ,
These incinerators have permitted thermal inputs of 170 mmBtu/hour and 234
mmBtu/hour. This facility can accept liquids and pumpable sludges. The pumpable
sludges must either be slurried or have a sufficiently low viscosity to be injected into the
furnace. . ' .
Rhone-Poulenc submitted confidential information on quantities burned in 1993
and maximum practical capacity. These estimates are included in the aggregated.CBI
estimates in Exhibit 2-2.
-------
2-19
Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Company, Houston, Texas
This RCRA Part B permitted facility burns liquids in one liquid injection
incinerator. The incinerator has a thermal input of 205 mmBtu/hour.
Rhone-Poulenc reported waste quantities burned in 1993 and maximum practical
. burning capacities as CBI. These estimates are included in the aggregated CBI estimate
in Exhibit 2-2.
Rollins Environmental Services, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
This RCRA Part B permitted facility consists of an ashing rotary kiln, liquid
burner, and an afterburner. The thermal input to the unit is rated at 95.6 mmBtu/hour.
Several mechanisms are used to feed waste into the incinerator system. .Liquids
are atomized under air pressure and injected into the liquid burner and afterburner
chamber. A positive displacement pump feeds pumpable sludges into the rotary kiln.
Containerized solids are fed into the unit via a conveyor system. There is also a free-
standing drum shredder used for repackaging solids.
Confidential capacity information provided by the facility included the waste
quantities burned during 1993 and the maximum practical burning capacity, These
estimates are included in the aggregated CBI estimate in Exhibit 2-2. This facility
indicated that it does accept K088 wastes. ,
Rollins plans to replace its rotary kiln with two new units by 1997. This
modification should increase the capacity of the facility by twenty percent.
Rollins Environmental Services, Bridgeport, New Jersey . ' '
This RCRA Part B permitted, facility operates one slagging rotary kiln with an
afterburner. The thermal input to the system is rated at 135 mmBtu/hour.
Several mechanisms are used to feed liquids, pumpable sludges, containerized .
solids, compressed gases, and soils into, the incinerator system. Liquids are atomized
under air pressure and injected into the Loddby liquid burner and afterburner chamber.
A positive displacement pump feeds pumpable sludges into the rotary kiln. This facility
generally does not accept bulk solids.
This facility reported quantities of waste burned in 1993 and maximum practical
burning capacities as CBI. These estimates are included in the aggregated CBI estimate
in Exhibit 2-2.
-------
2-20
Rollins Environmental Services, Deer Park, Texas
This RCRA Part B permitted facility has three incineration units-two rotary kilns
with afterburners, and one rotary reactor. Each rotary kiln system has a thermal input of
180 mmBtu/hour. The rotary reactor has a thermal input of 33.5 mmBtu/hour. Each
train has several feed mechanisms that utilize concrete pumps to feed pumpable sludges
and an elevator feed for containers. A clamshell/crane feeds bulk solids into the rotary
reactor.' ' . •
Rollins reported confidential information on quantities burned in 1993 and
maximum practical capacity. These estimates are included in the aggregated CBI
estimates in Exhibit 2-2. This facility does accept K088 wastes.
Ross Incineration Services, Grafton, Ohio
ii
. This incineration facility has a RCRA Part B permit. Ross's rotary kiln
incinerator burns liquids,, nonpumpable sludges, containerized solids, bulk solids,
compressed gases, and soils. Solids and containerized waste are fed to the kiln via four
feed mechanisms that feed into a gravity feed chute.
CBI provided in the survey included waste quantities burned during 1993 and
maximum practical burning capacities. These estimates are included in the aggregated
CBI estimate in Exhibit 2-2.
ThermalKEM, Rock Hill, South Carolina
This RCRA Part B permitted facility uses a fixed hearth incinerator with a
thermal input of 42 mmBtu/hour. This facility can accept liquids, pumpable.sludges,
nonpumpable sludges, containerized solids, bulk solids, compressed gases, and soils. .
Metered pumps feed liquid and sludge wastes and rams feed containerized solids.
Separate machinery feeds aerosol cans directly to the incinerator. x
.Confidential capacity data provided by the facility include waste quantities burned
during 1992 and maximum practical burning capacities. These estimates are included in
the aggregated CBI estimate in Exhibit 2-2.
i ,
In 1992, the facility indicated that it planned to increase sludge/solid capacity by
adding an additional unit, a waste-fired boiler, and additional storage areas. No such .
changes in capacity were reported in the 1993 survey.
USPCI, Clive, Utah
This new facility is RGRA and TSCA permitted. This facility is included in EPA's
commercial combustion capacity estimate. However, EPA will continue to monitor the
-------
2-21
\
facility's availability and will adjust its future capacity estimates accordingly. The unit has
a permitted thermal capacity of 200 mmBtu/hour. This facility will accept liquids,
pumpable sludges, containerized solids, bulk solids, and soils. ' . •
\
USPCI did not burn wastes in 1993. Factors assumed in estimating hazardous
waste burning capacity were provided as confidential business information, including
hourly average waste feed rate, and maximum practical burning capacities. These
estimates are included in the aggregated CBI estimate presented in Exhibit 2-2.
2.2.22 Other Incinerators Not Included in the Capacity Estimate
In addition to the facility discussed above that is not included in the national
capacity estimate (CWM-Chicago), three incinerators are not included in the analysis
because they burn a narrow range of waste types: Allied-Signal Tar (Fairfield, Alabama),
ICI Explosives (Joplin, Missouri), Laidlaw Environmental, Inc. (Clarence, New York),
and Waste Research and Reclamation Co. (Eau Claire, Wisconsin). The Allied-Signal
Tar Products incinerator is an pn-site incinerator that burns a limited amount of
hazardous waste on a commercial basis. The facility is only permitted to burn K001,
K035, K087, U165, and U051. The ICI Explosives incinerator is permitted to receive
explosive wastes and propellants, but has not yet commenced operations. The BDT
facility burns highly specialized, difficult-to-treat materials such as elemental lithium and
sodium; Finally, Waste Research and Reclamation Co. burns primarily still bottoms
resulting from the company's solvent recovery operations. .
2.2.23 Future Incineration Capacity
The incineration capacity update presented in the previous section focused on
commercial incinerators that are currently operating commercially. Some planned
commercial incinerators appear to be sufficiently advanced in the permitting process.
EPA .contacted state regulatory agencies for information regarding these facilities:
• Clean Harbors, Inc., Kimball, Nebraska, received a Part B Permit to begin
constructing a fluidized bed incineration facility. The estimated total
capacity for this facility is 45,000 tons per year, of which 5,000 tons are for
sludges and solids.
v
• Waste-Tech, East Liverpool, Ohio, has its RGRA Part B permit. Following
successful trial burns in March 1992, the facility began limited commercial
operation in 1993 with an annual capacity for sludges and solids of 52,000
tons. Total capacity is expected to be 88,000 tons per year. Due to
ongoing negotiations regarding permit restrictions, this facility has not yet
entered full-scale commercial operation.
-------
. 2-22
• Ogden has a RCRA permit to construct a facility in Texas with a thermal
input of 260 mmBtu/hoiir and a total capacity of 155,000 tons per year.
2.23 , Commercial BIT Hazardous Waste Capacity
This section focuses .on the combustion capacity of the nation's commercial BIFs.
Exhibit 2-3 summarizes the status of combustion capacity at each the facilities included in
the analysis. Section 2.2.3.1 discusses capacity at each of the individual facilities that
submitted CKRC surveys. Section 2.2:3.2 discusses facilities that are included in the
national capacity estimate but did not respond to the CKRC survey. .Section 2.2.3.3
discusses combustion capacity for soils.
2.23.1 Individual BIF Facility Capacity Analysis
Facility profiles are provided below for each of the BIFs included in the
commercial combustion capacity estimate. These profiles have been created based on
data provided in the CKRC survey. The estimates included in this section do not take
into account the capacity that is required for Phase I wastes for which the capacity
variance granted to routinely generated F037 and F038 expired in June 1993. Also,
please note that EPA's capacity analysis focussed primarily on sludges and solids, and
does not include all commercial BIFs that receive only liquids.
Ash Grove, Chanute, Kansas
f _ ' •
The Ash Grove Chanute facility currently operates two BIFs, both of which burn .
liquid and containerized solid hazardous wastes. The kilns operate 7,500 hours per year.
Based on reported maximum practical feed rates, and 1992 utilized capacity, EPA
estimates the facility's available liquid waste capacity to be 17,775 tons per year and its
available solids capacity to be 39,499 tons per year. All Ash Grove facilities report that
their liquids contain up to 20 percent entrained solids.
Ash Grove, Foreman, Arkansas
There are three wet process rotary BIFs currently burning hazardous waste at this
facility. They all inject liquid hazardous waste fuel into the hot end of the kiln, and
charge containerized solids to the calcining zone. The kilns operate for 7,800 hours per
year. EPA estimates that together the three kilns have 38,286 tons of liquid capacity
available per year and 46,737 tons of containerized solids capacity available. This
estimate is based on the reported maximum practical feed rates and' 1992 utilized
capacity estimates. All Ash Grove facilities report that as burned, their liquids contain
approximately 20 percent solids.
-------
< Exhibit 2-3
Summary of Commercial BIFs Burning Capacity
Facility Name
Ash Grove Chanute Cement
Plant,
Chanute, KS
KSD03 12033 18
.
.
Asb Grove Foreman Cement
Plant,
Foreman, AR
ARD981512270
•
'
Ash Grove Louisville Cement
Plant,
Louisville, NE
NED007260672
Carolina Solite,
Albemarle, NC
NCD000773655
Unit
Type
WR
WR
*****
WR
WR
WR
*****
AC*
PC
*****
CM
Waste
Type
cont solids
all liqs
cont solids
all liqs
TOTAL
cont solids
all liqs
cont solids
all liqs
cont solids
all liqs
TOTAL
cont solids
all liqs
cont solids
all liqs
TOTAL
all liqs
Utilized
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
5,560
19,674
4,861
18,711
48,806
s 8,225
10,766
7,250
17,306
5,756
15,602
64,905
1,337
1,181
2;945
31892
9,355
0
Reported
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
24,960
28,080
24,960
28,080
106,080
22,656
25,320
22,656
28,320
22,656
28,320
152,928
9,360
24,960
12,480
24,960
71,760
22,000
Adjusted
Maximum
Capacity '
(Tons/Yr)
. . 24,960
28,080
24,960
28,080
106,080
22,656
25,320
22,656
28,320
22,656
28,320
149,928
9,360
24,960
12,480
24,960
. 71,760
22,000
Adjusted
Estimated
Available
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
19,400
8,406
20,099
9,369
57,274
14,431
14,554
15,406
11.014
16,900
12,718
185,023
' 8,023
23,779
9,535
21,068
62,405
22,000
1)
2)
* = Planned or Not Operating, • •
Unit Type abbreviations: AC = Allis Chalmers - Preheater; WP = Wet Process; LD = Long Dry; LW =
Long Wet; CM = Cement; RT =» Rotary; PC = Precalciner; TR = Traylor; WR = Wet Process Rotary
-------
Exhibit 2-3(Continued)
Summary of Commercial BIFs Burning Capacity
Facility Name
Citadel Cement Co., _
Demopolis, AL
ALD067 119966
Continental Cement Co.,
Hannibal, MO
MODO54018288
Dixie Cement Company,
KnoxviHe, TN
TNDI06203375
ESSROC,
Logansport, IN
IND005081542
Florida Soiite,
Green Cove Springs, FL
FLD000737312
;
Giant Cement Co.,
Harleyvilie, SC
SCD003351699
Unit
Type
*****
AC
*****
LW
******
PC
i
*****
CM
*****
CM
*****
CM
*****
,
, Waste
Type
TOTAL
pump si
all liqs
.
TOTAL
bulk solids
dry solids
all liqs
TOTAL
unreported
TOTAL
all sol/nps
all liqs
TOTAL
all liqs
TOTAL
dry solids
all liqs
TOTAL
Utilized
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
0
3,250
33,743
36,993
7,636
2,603
63,089
73,328
0
20,000
50,000
70,000
0
• -
0
4,700
89,300
94,000
Reported
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
22,000
6,000
40,000
46,000
: 142,963
• 142,963
112,478
142,963
0
24,000
61,000
85,000
11,000
11,000
18,200
111,800
130,000
•
Adjusted
Maximum
Capacity
CTons/Yr)
22,000
6,000
40,000
46,000
25,410
5,075
1 12,478
142,963
0
24,000
61,000
85,000
11,000
11,000
18,200
111,800
130,000
Adjusted
, Estimated
Available
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
22,000
2,750
6,257
9,007
17,774
2,472
49,389
69,635
'
t
1
4,000 1
11,000
15.000
11,000
11,000
13,500
22,500
36,000
I)
2)
* = Planned or Not Operating
Unit Type abbreviations: AC = Allis Chalmers - Preheater; WP = Wet Process; LD = Long Dry; LW =
Long Wet; CM = Cement; RT = Rotary; PC = Precalciner; TR = Traylor, WR = Wet Process Rotary
-------
Exhibit 2-3(Continued)
r
Summary of Commercial BIFs Burning Capacity
Facility Name
Heartland Cement Co,,
Independence, KS
KSD980739999
....
Holnam, Inc.,
Artesia, MS
MSD077655876
Holnam, Inc.,
Holly Hill, SC
SCD003368891
Holnam/Safety Kleen Corp.,
Clarksville, MO
MOD029729688
Kentucky Solite,
Brooks, KY
.
Keystone Cement Company,
Bath, PA
PAD002389559
Unit
Type
CM
*****
WP
Hi****
TR
AC
*****
RT
)|cj|t9|ta)»|t
CM
*****
WR
WR
Waste
Type
dry solids
TOTAL
all liqs
TOTAL
all liqs
all liqs
TOTAL
all liq/ps
TOTAL
all sol/nps
TOTAL
'all liqs
all liqs
Utilized
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
1,550
1,550
0
0
30,000
49,000
79,000
102,878
102,878
4,000
4,000
5,760
29,805
Reported
Maximum
• Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
25,000
25,000
46,300
0
45,000
72,000
0
150,357
150,357
11,000
11,000
18,900
56,700
Adjusted
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
25,000
25,000
46,300
46,300
45,000
72,000
117,000
150,357
150,357
11,000
11,000
18,900
56,700
Adjusted
Estimated
Available
Capacity
{Tons/Yr)
23,450
23,450
46,300
46,300
15,000
23,000
38.000
,47,479
47,479
7,000
7,000
13,140
26,895
1)
* = Planned or Not Operating .
Unit Type abbreviations: AC = Allis Chalmers - Preheater; WP = Wet Process; LD = Long Dry; LW =
Long Wet; CM = Cement; RT = Rotary; PC = Precalciner; TR = Traylor; WR = Wet Process Rotary
-------
Exhibit 2-3(Continued)
Summary of Commercial BIFs Burning Capacity
Facility Name
Lafarge,
AJpena, MI
MID005379607
Lafarge Corp.,
Fredonia, KS
KSD007 148034
•
.
Lafarge Corporation,
Paulding, OH
OHD987048733
Lone Star Alternate Fuel Co.,
Cape Girardeau, MO
MO981 127319
Lone Star Industries, Inc.,
Greencastle, IN
IND006419212
Unit
Type
*****
LD
LD
*****
wp
WP
*****
CM
CM
*****
PC
*****
RT
••
Waste
Type
TOTAL
all liqs
'
all liqs
TOTAL
dry solids
all liq/ps
dry solids
all liq/ps
TOTAL
pump si
all liqs
pump si
all liqs
TOTAL
cont solids
all liqs
TOTAL
cont solids
all liqs
Utilized
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
35,565
48,000
48,000
96,000
788
36,503
. . 263
48,387
85,941
1,727
27,566
1,727
27,566
58,586
354
25,543
25,897
5,332
45,556
Reported
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
75,600
56,000
56,000
0
788
37,410
263
49,590
87,000
2,500
30,000
2,500
30,000
65,000
2,700
57,000
59,700
13,000
45,556
.
Adjusted
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
75,600
56,000
56,000
112,000
788
36,619
263
49,322
86,992
2,500
30,000
2,500
30,000
65,000
2,700
57,000
59,700
13,000
45,556
Adjusted
Estimated
Available
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
40.035
8.000
8,000
16,000
0
116
0
- 935
^
77?|
2,434
773
2,434
6,414
2,346
31,457
33,803
7.668
0
1)
2)
* = Planned or Not Operating
Unit Type abbreviations: AC = AlHs Chalmers - Preheater; WP = Wet Process; LD = Long Dry; LW =
Long Wet; CM = Cement; RT = Rotary; PC « Precalciner; TR = Traylor; WR = Wet Process Rotary
-------
Exhibit 2-3(Continued)
Summary of Commercial BIFs Burning Capacity
Facility Name
Medusa Cement Co. , -
Wampum, PA
PAD083965897
•• •
• National Cement Company
Lebec Plant,
Lebec, CA
CAD982444887
North Texas Cement,
Midlothian, TX
TXunknown
River Cement,
Festus, MO
MOD050232560
. '
Safety Kleen Envirosystems
Co.,
Dorado, PR
PRD0980526115
Solite Corp.,
Cascade, VA
VAD077942266 .
Unit
Type
*****
CM
*****
LD
*****
CM
j$]|M|t)|CJtl
CM
*****
LD
*****
CM
Waste
Type
TOTAL
pump si
npump si
allliqs
TOTAL
all liqs
TOTAL
all liqs
TOTAL
pump si
.npump si
all liqs
TOTAL
allliqs
TOTAL
all liqs
Utilized
Capacity
-------
Exhibit 2-3(Continued) ,
Summary of Commercial BIFs Burning Capacity
Facility Name
Solite Corp.,
Arvonia, VA
VAD098443443
Southwestern Portland
Cement Co.,
Fairborn, OH
OHD98 11 95779
Texas Industries, Inc.,
Midlothian, TX
TXD0007349327
Aggregated Results
(Operating Units Only)
Unit
Type
*****
CM
*****
CM
*****
RT-
RT
RT
RT
*****
Waste
Type
TOTAL
all iiqs
TOTAL
unreported
TOTAL
all Iiqs
all Iiqs
all Iiqs
all Iiqs
TOTAL
liq(aq)
liq (naq)
!
pump si
npump si
cont solids
Utilized
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
15,000
15,000
15,000
VJ
0
19,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
76,000
0
0
25,454
3,750
40,283
Reported
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
33,000
22,000
22,000
0
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
0
0
0
37,400
5,200
146,068
Adjusted
Maximum
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
33,000
22,000
22,000
«
0
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
240,000
0
o
37,400
5,200
146,068
Adjusted
Estimated
Available
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
18,000
7,000
7,000
0
41,000
41,000
41,000
164,000
0
0
11,946
1,450
105,785
1)
2)
* = Planned or Not Operating
, Unit Type abbreviations: AC = Allis Chalmers -
Long Wet; CM = Cement; RT = Rotary; PC
Preheater; WP = Wet Process; LD = Long Dry; LW =
= Precalciner; TR = Traylor; WR = Wet Process Rotary
-------
Exhibit 2-3(Continued)
Summary of Commercial BIFs Burning Capacity
Facility Name
/
Unit Waste
Type Type
bulk solids
dry solids
comp gases
• all liq/ps
all sol/nps
all liqs
soils •
Total (Operating Units Only)
Utilized •
Capacity
(Tons/Yr)
7,636
9,904
0
187,768
24,000
845,742
0
li 144,537
Reported
Maximum
Capacity
CTons/Yr)
142,963
187,214
0
237,357
35,000
1,547,824
0
2,339,026
Adjusted
• Maximum
Capacity
-------
. 2-30 '
Ash Grove, Louisville, Nebraska
The Ash Grove Louisville facility currently burns liquid and containerized solid
waste fuel in two rotary preheater BIFs. Liquid hazardous waste fuel is injected into the
hot end of the kiln, and containerized solids are charged to the calcining zone. Both
kilns operate 7,500 hours a year, slightly less than the "total operating time" of the kilns.
Based on the reported maximum practical capacity and 1992 utilized capacity, EPA
estimates that the facility has 44,847 tons of liquid combustion capacity available per
year, and 17,558 tons of containerized solids capacity available per year. Ash Grove
reports that as burned, their liquids contain approximately 30 percent solids.
Citadel Cement Company, Demopolis, Alabama
This facility burns liquid and pumpable sludge hazardous waste fuels in one
preheater kiln. .Canisters are injected into the burning zone by compressed air cannons.
This kiln is operational for 1,784 hours a year. The facility reported that as burned, their
liquids contain an average of 25 percent solids. Based on reported maximum practical
burning capacity and 1992 capacity utilization estimates, EPA estimates that the facility
has 6,257 tons per year liquids capacity available, and 2,750 tons per year pumpable
sludge capacity available. •
Continental Cement Company, Hannibal, Missouri
Continental Cement currently operates one long wet BIFs, which burns liquid and
bulk solid, and dry solid hazardous wastes. The kiln operates 7,600 hours per year.
Based on reported maximum practical capacity, and 1992 utilized capacity, EPA
estimates the facility's, adjusted available liquid waste capacity to be 49,389 tons per year,
its available bulk solids capacity to be 17,774 tons per year, and its available dry solids
capacity to be 3,472 tons per year. The facility reports that their liquids, as burned,
contain an average of 25 percent entrained solids.
Dixie Cement Company, Knoxville, Tennessee
This facility burns liquid and containerized solid hazardous waste fuel in one four-
stage cement kiln with preheater and precalciner. The facility reported that as burned,
their liquids contain an average.of 30 to 40 percent solids. The kiln operates 7,850 hours
per year. Based on reported maximum practical feed rates and 1992 waste quantities,
EPA estimates that the facility has 18,219 tons per year solids capacity available, and
10,062 tons per year liquids capacity available. However, Dixie has stopped accepting
hazardous waste. EPA is not including its capacity in its estimate of available capacity.
-------
2-31
Holnam, Artesia, Mississippi
This Holnam facility is new, and was not operational in 1992. It bums liquid
hazardous wastes in one wet kiln, which is projected to operate 90 percent of the time,
beginning in August of 1993. The hazardous waste fuel is injected into the hot end of
the kiln. There was no hazardous waste utilization during 1992, but based on the
reported projected maximum practical capacity, EPA estimates that the facility has
46,300 tons per year available capacity.
Holnam, Holly Hill, South Carolina
s
The Holnam facility in Holly Hill burns liquid hazardous waste fuels in two long
wet kilns. Liquid hazardous waste fuel is injected into the hot end of the kiln. The
larger kiln operated 7,400 hours in 1992, however, operation of the smaller kiln was,
discontinued during 1992 due to difficulties in meeting the hydrocarbon/carbon monoxide
standard under the BIF rule. EPA estimates that the larger kiln has 23,000 tons per year
liquids capacity available. .
Holnam/Safety Kleen Corporation, Clarksville, Missouri
This facility burns liquid hazardous waste fuels in one long wet rotary kiln. Liquid
hazardous waste fuel is injected into .the hot end. of the kiln. The kiln operates 7,500
hours a year. The facility reported the average solid content of liquids as burned, is 20
percent. Based on reported maximum practical burning capacity and 1992 capacity
utilization estimates, EPA estimates that the facility has 47,479 tons per year liquids
capacity available.
Keystone Cement Company, Bath, Pennsylvania
Keystone Cement Company burns liquid hazardous waste in two wet process
rotary BIFs. These kilns operate 7,850 hours per year. The hazardous waste fuel is
injected into the hot end of the kiln. The. facility reported that as burned, their liquids
contain less than 15 percent solids. EPA estimates that the facility has 40,035 tons per
year available capacity.
Lafarge Corporation, Alpena, Michigan
This facility operates five rotary BIFs, but only two are currently burning
hazardous waste. These kilns burn liquids only, and each operates 7,500 hours per year.
The facility reported that as burned, their liquids have a 15 percent solid content. EPA
estimates that together the kilns have 8,000 tons of capacity available per year.. Lafarge
intends to bum hazardous waste in the three kilns that are not currently burning
hazardous waste, but must first satisfy, numerous construction and regulatory
-------
2-32 • .
requirements. The facility also plans to install a sludge handling system at some
unspecified point in the future.
Lafarge Corporation, Fredonia, Kansas
This facility operates two rotary BIFs. Both burn liquid hazardous waste streams.
The facility reported that as burned, their liquids contain an average of 25 percent solids.
The smaller kfln operates about 7,800 hours per year, while the larger one averages 7,600
hours. EPA estimates this facility is utilizing all of its dry solids combustion capacity and
has about 1,000 tons of liquids capacity available. The facility is authorized to-burn K088
wastes. ' - . ,
Lafarge Corporation, Paulding, Ohio . .
This facility burns liquid and pumpable sludge hazardous waste fuel in two rotary
BIFs. Lafarge reports that this facility's liquids, as burned, contain approximately 10
percent solids. One of the kilns operates approximately 8,100 hours per year, the other
7,800 hours. EPA estimates this facility has 4,868 tons per year of available liquid,
capacity and 1,546 tons of available pumpable sludge capacity. Lafarge has indicated in
the past that dry solids capacity would be added. Although the 1993 survey did not
include mention of dry solids capacity, additional containers and bulk solids capacity were
indicated for the future.
Lone Star Alternate Fuel Company, Cape Girardeau, Missouri
This facility burns liquid hazardous waste fuels and containerized solids in one
precalciner kiln^ Pumpable liquids are injected at the hot end, arid containerized solids
are fed via air cannon.. The kiln is operational for 7,440 hours per year. Lone Star
reported that as burned, this facility's liquids contain an average of 25.percent solids.
EPA estimates that the facility has 31,457 tons per year liquids capacity, available and
2,346 tons per year containerized solids capacity available.
Lone Star Industries, Green Castle, Indiana
This facility burns liquid and containerized solid hazardous waste fuel in one long,
wet process rotary cement kiln. The facility reported that as burned, their liquids contain
an average of 20 percent solids. The liquid waste fuel is injected into the hot end of the
kiln, and solids are reground ,with bulk liquid and fed as pumpable liquid at hot end (one
gallon plastic jugs are injected at hot end). The kiln burns liquid waste fuel for 5,500
hours a year, and burns containerized solids for 2,350 hours a year. EPA estimates that
Lone Star has no liquid combustion capacity available, and 7,668 tons per year capacity
available for containerized solids.
-------
2-33
National Cement Company, Lebec, California
This facility burns liquid hazardous waste in one long, dry process cement kiln.
Waste fuel is injected into the hot end of the kiln. The'facility reported that as burned,
their liquids contain an average of 10 percent solids. National Cement operates an
average of 6,796 hours per year. EPA estimates that the facility has 7,700 tons of
capacity available per year.' . ,
Safety Kleen Envirosystems, Dorado, Puerto Rico
This facility burns liquid hazardous waste in one dry process kiln. Hazardous
waste feed is pumped into the hot end of the kiln. This kiln operates an average of
6,000 hours per year. The facility has two more kilns, but did not indicate if these other
kilns are expected to burn hazardous wastes. EPA estimates that the kiln has 44,547 tons
per year of available capacity. .
Texas Industries, Incorporated, Midlothian, Texas
This facility burns liquid hazardous waste fuels in four rotary kilns. Each of these
kilns operates 8,300 hours per year. The facility reported that as burned, their liquids
contain an average of 8 percent solids (maximum 30 percent suspended solids). EPA
estimates that the facility has 164,000 tons per year liquids capacity available.
\
. 2.23.2 Commercial BIFs Not Included in the CKRC Survey
* / - t
EPA is aware that additional BIFs are burning hazardous waste that did not
. submit 1993 CKRC surveys. These facilities include Carolina Solite (Albemarle, NC),
ESSROC (Logansport, IN), Florida Solite (Green Cove Springs, FL), Giant Cement
(Harleyyille, SC), Heartland Cement (Independence, KS), Kentucky Solite (Brooks,
KY), Medusa (Wampum, PA), North Texas Cement (Midlothian, TX), River Cement
(Festus, MO), Solite (Arvonia, VA), Solite (Cascade, VA), and Southdown (Fairborn,
OH).11 An additional facility, Holnam (Ada, Oklahoma), is not operating but it does
have interim status. It is currently negotiating with state officials for final approval. This
facility is not included in the capacity analysis. •
To present a complete picture of available commercial combustion capacity, the
Agency supplemented the analysis with information contained during a literature review.
Brief individual facility profiles are presented below based on information contained in
the 1992 CKRC Survey and this literature review. -
11 Marine Shale Processors {Amelia, LA) is not included in the analysis due to ongoing enforcement actions. In 1992,
the reported liquids capacity was 200,000 tons and 80,000 tons of waste were burned.
-------
1 . . • '•• 2-34 ' ' "
Carolina Solite, Albemarle, North Carolina
This lightweight aggregate facility has an interim status BIF permit. It Bums liquid
wastes in four kilns. The facility did not burn waste in 1992. EPA estimates their
current liquid waste burning capacity as 22,000 tons.
ESSROC, Logansport, Indiana
This facility burns liquid hazardous waste fuel in two wet process BIFs. The
Agency estimates that this facility has 11,000 tons per year of available capacity for
liquids and 4,000 tons per year available for containerized solids.
Florida Solite, Green Cove Springs, Florida
i .
This lightweight aggregate facility has an interim status BIF permit. Florida Solite
is currently operating one of its three kilns for burning liquid wastes. The facility did not
burn waste in 1992. EPA estimates their current available capacity at 11,000 tons of
liquid wastes. .
Giant Cement Company, Harleyville, South Carolina
This facility burns liquid and dry solid hazardous waste in four wet process BIFs.
Both types of wastes are fed into the hot end of the kiln. The facility reports that their
liquids, as burned, contain an average of 20 percent entrained solids. EPA estimates that
together the kilns have 22,500 tons per year liquid combustion capacity available, and
13,500 tons per year available capacity for dry solids.
Heartland Cement Company, Independence, Kansas
This .facility burns dry solids in four dry process BIFs. They each feed dry solid
hazardous waste into the hot end of the kiln. EPA estimates that together the four kilns
have 23,450 tons per year available capacity for dry solids. This facility is authorized to
burn K088 wastes.
* • • •
Kentucky Solite, Brooks, Kentucky
Kentucky Solite has an interim status BIF permit. This facility burns solid wastes
in three aggregate kilns. EPA estimates that the facility has 7,000 tons of available solid
waste burning capacity.
-------
2-35
Medusa Cement, Wampum, Pennsylvania
This facility burns liquid and sludge hazardous waste in three long dry process
BIFs. Solids are ground and mixed into the liquid stream, before being injected into the
kilns. The facility reported that as burned, their liquids contain an average of 25 percent
solids. EPA estimates that the facility has 25,400 tons per year liquid capacity available,
3,900 tons per year pumpable sludge capacity, and 700 tons per year nonpumpable
sludge capacity available. . '
North Texas'Cement, Midlothian, Texas
This facility burns liquid wastes. The facility has an interim status BIF permit, and
has not burned commercially since April 1991. EPA estimates that North Texas has
49,000 tons of available liquids burning capacity.
River Cement, Festus, Missouri
River Cement burns liquid and sludge hazardous waste fuel in two dry process
BIFs. The facility reports that their liquids, as burned, contain an average of 20 percent
entrained solids. The facility filters liquid hazardous waste and grinds sludges, before
blending the two and pumping the hazardous waste .fuel into the hot end of the kiln.
EPA estimates that the two kilns have 10,500 tons per year liquid hazardous waste
capacity available, 3,750 tons per year pumpable sludge capacity available, and 750 tons
per year nonpumpable sludge capacity available.
Solite-Arvonia, Arvonia, Virginia N
i
This Solite facility has an interim status BIF permit. It operates four kilns .that
burn liquid wastes. Solite-Arvonia's available liquids burning capacity is estimated by
EPA to be 7,000 tons.
Solite-Cascade, Cascade, Virginia
Solite-Cascade has an interim status BIF permit The facility burns liquid wastes
in four kilns. EPA estimates its available liquid burning capacity at 18,000 tons.
Southwest Portland Cement Co., Inc., Fairborn, Ohio
Southwest's Fairborn, Ohio facility burns liquid hazardous wastes in one dry
process cement kiln with preheated The facility reported in the 1991 CKRC survey that
their liquids, as burned, contain less than 5 percent entrained solids.. The waste fuel .is
injected into the hot end of the kiln. Based on reported maximum practical feed rates
and, 1991 waste quantities, EPA estimates that the facility has 19,370 tons per year of
-------
2-36 . :
liquid combustion capacity available. However, this facility has announced its intention to
stop receiving hazardous waste, so it is not included in the estimate of required capacity.
2.233 Commercial BIF Capacity for Soils
i
The CKRC survey did not specifically request capacity data for the combustion of
soils. However, facilities were asked if soils could be accepted for burning. Of the 18
facilities that responded to the CKRC survey, 16 explicitly indicated that they do not
accept hazardous soils. Two facilities, Continental Cement (Hannibal, MO) and
Southdown (Knoxville, TN), reported that they could accept hazardous soils, and that this
capacity can be considered part of their solids capacity. The Agency believes that,
because soil alone generally has a very low heating value, facilities are blending soils with
other hazardous wastes having high heating values, or are using contaminated soil as an
ingredient rather than for energy recovery. The Agency's evaluation of heating value
limits provided by Continental and Southdown supports the contention that BIFs
generally cannot accept soil as a large percentage of their feed (i.e., without extensive
blending). • .
2.2.4 Available Combustion Capacity
Exhibit 2-4 summarizes EPA's estimates of commercial hazardous waste capacity
by waste form for incinerators and BIFs. Combustion capacity for liquid hazardous
wastes has historically been more readily available than capacity for sludges and solids.
EPA estimates that the available commercial combustion capacity for liquids to be about
1,156,000 tons per year:. In the Phase II rule (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994), EPA
estimated that 11,000 tons of waste required liquid combustion capacity. Therefore, the
available liquid combustion capacity for Phase III wastes is 1,145,000 tons.
As shown in Exhibit 2-4, the available sludge/solid commercial combustion
capacity is 560,000 tons. In the,Phase I rule (57 FR 37195, August 18, 1992) EPA
promulgated treatment standards for F037.and F038 wastes and granted a one-year
capacity variance to these wastes. In its capacity analysis, EPA estimated that 69,000
tons of F037 and F038 would require commercial combustion capacity. Due to BTU
considerations, EPA estimated that 41,000 tons would be burned in cement kilns and
28,000 tons would be burned in incinerators. Because the capacity variance for these
wastes did not expire until July, 1993 and the capacity data for cement kilns are for 1992,
required capacity for F037/38 wastes is not reflected in the available capacity estimate for
cement kilns. The capacity data for incinerators includes both 1992 and 1993 data.
Since the variance expired in July, 1993, the 1993 utilized capacity data does reflect some
F037/38 wastes. To determine the quantity of F037/38 wastes accounted for in these
incinerator estimates, EPA assumed that 14,000 tons of F037/38 was incinerated in
-------
X
a
U
§.
C5
U
e -
I
u
i
•o
I
s
I
u
£~
• <* !5 S
•*c c>
'~
M
fe
S
tn
1
8'
1
•11
£ 2
S'S
^£ **
"« 0
^* 12^
|1
E **
II
C'
•g "O
2-Z
S ~*
'3 o
r>
v>
$
to
1 Liquids (non-aqueous)
Ov
P
V)
8
*"*
«
- •..
-
*
00
3-1
3 g
'1 ^ '
^ M
€ §
a «
„ §•
OS •*,
06
«>
£
*
vo
CS
00
s
to
•s
1 Reported as Liquids &
Pumpable Sludges Grouf
00
r-
00
c*
to
9
58-
2
^*
1 Pumpable Sludges
00
es
—
in
^
^
*•
-
rs
1 Nonpumpable Sludges
o\
ON
SO .
•
Z! •
CO
s
00
""
$ •
Reported as Solids &
Nonpumpable Sludges
Grouped
eo
00
O
CO
00
c3
.
5
®
CO
CO
^^'
en
"2
VI
«
O\ 1
1
1
R 1
1
1
1
8 1
1
j
j
1
Ov i
i
<
1
1
< 1
z
*~ I
1
• 1
1
< 1
z ,
1
I
1
1
< 1
z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1 1
o
3 > s < i o
"S
£ g
« **" e — s
£ 3^ 8 u. iS o
u « a -° -^ _r ai
lllF.5.i
.
• 3 _c
z F
£ S «> 5
« E s e
-E *> O *>
-P u w u
-------
o ^j
lit-'
^! 5jjJ,
-
£
eo
: S
2
1
"1
it
ii
"5 o
5 o
^ w«
a ^
i|
[I
' f.i
]=i
I -
II
£
'$
00
cs
oo
s
NO
<*
VO
in
2
5
Containerized Solids
«
• .
'z'
<
Z
z
-5
en,
Compressed gases
£>
~™
' •
Z
^
Z
z
r-
B
OJ
vO
'S
en
£
M
OO
-
•n
«o
r-
s
5
8.
p»
:
TOTAL LIQUIDS &
PUMPABLE SLUDGES
S
>n
.R
'£
S
oo
i
oo
VO
•8
TOTAL SOLIDS &
NON-PUMPABLE SLU
. 00
p-
Irt
oo
*.
3
r-
1
1 TOTAL
rf
- "
ll^ll
-------
2-39 . -
1993.12 Since EPA has .1993 data for facilities representing approximately two-thirds of
the total sludge/solid capacity, EPA assumed that the utilized capacity estimates reflect
approximately 9,500 tons of F037/38. Therefore, EPA estimates that 59,500 tons (69,000
- 9,500) of sludge/solid capacity will be required for F037/38 wastes. In the Phase II rule
(59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994), EPA estimated that 380,000 tons of waste required
sludge/solid combustion capacity. Therefore, the available sludge/solid combustion
capacity for Phase III. wastes is estimated to be 120,500 tons.
23 , OTHER TREATMENT SYSTEM CAPACITIES
This section discusses commercial treatment capacity other than those discussed
above. Specifically, it presents EPA's capacity analysis for stabilization. In addition, it
discusses the treatment capacity of Reynolds Aluminum's dedicated K088 thermal
treatment facility. .
Section 2.3.1 summarizes the available stabilization capacity, and Section 2.3.2
summarizes the available K088 thermal treatment capacity.
23.1 Available Stabilization Capacity -
Stabilization is the other primary conventional commercial treatment technology
for the newly identified and listed wastes besides combustion. EPA estimates that over 1
million tons of stabilization capacity are currently available. In analyzing alternative
treatment capacity for stabilization for wastes covered in this rule, the Agency built on
the capacity analysis conducted for the Third Third LDR rule. This analysis was based
on data contained .in the May 1990 TSDR Capacity Data Set.13 The TSDR Capacity
Data Set contains results from the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, Disposal and Recycling Survey (the TSDR Survey). The TSDR Survey was
administered in 1987 to 2,500 facilities and was designed to provide comprehensive
information on current and planned hazardous waste management, and practices at
RCRA-permitted and interim status treatment, storage, recycling, and disposal facilities.
The TSDR Survey collected projections of capacity changes from 1986 through 1992.
The TSDR Capacity Data Set includes the amount of hazardous and nonhazardous waste
entering each treatment system in 1986, the maximum hazardous waste capacity, and the
maximum total waste capacity.
For prior' LDR rulemakings, EPA updated the TSDR Capacity Data Set for
critical technologies based on confirmation of planned capacity changes, and other .
information received since the survey (e.g., comments on proposed rules). Updated
12 Given constant generation of F037/38 wastes; one-half of the total quantity requiring incineration (i.e. 28,000 x 0.5)
would be sent to incinerators during the period of July 1993 to December 1993.
13 U.S. EPA, Commercial TreatmentlRecovery Data Set, May 1990.
-------
2-40
information was obtained by contacting facilities and verifying critical projected capacities
reported in the TSDR Survey. Based on the information provided by facility contacts,
EPA determined whether planned facility capacity had come on line as projected. For a
more detailed explanation of the TSDR Survey and of the Third Third Rule refer to U.S.
EPA, Background Document for Third Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part 268 Land,
Disposal Restrictions, May 1990. .
23.2 Summary of Available K088 Treatment Capacity
Reynolds Metal Company operates a thermal treatment unit that is capable of
meeting the treatment standards for K088. According to Reynolds' description of this
process, K088 is blended with limestone and brown sand and then thermally treated in a
rotary kiln. Cyanides are destroyed by the oxidation at the elevated temperatures and
the soluble fluoride salts react with the limestone to form calcium fluoride. Since this
treatment unit is permitted to receive only K088 wastes, the facility is dedicated solely to
the treatment of K088. Reynolds received delisting for the residuals from treatment in
this unit on December 30, 1991 (56 ~FR 67197). The delisting for treatment residues from
this process effectively limits the K088 content of the treated waste. Therefore, although
the total operating throughput for this facility is 300,000 tons per year, Reynolds
estimates that it can accept approximately 121,500 tons of K088 per year/4
In a-comment submitted in response to the Phase III LDR proposal, Reynolds
stated that it would make decisions regarding whether to treat K088 wastes generated in
Canada at its Gum Springs facility based on the prevailing business climate and available
treatment capacity, and that jt was committed to providing and maintaining sufficient
capacity to meet the needs of its U.S. customers/5 In light of this comment, EPA
assumes that the Gum Springs facility will not treat K088 waste generated, by other
companies in Canada if there ar.e U.S. companies that require treatment capacity.
However, EPA believes that for economic reasons Reynolds will treat the K088
generated by its own> Canadian plant at the Gum Springs facility. Therefore, EPA
estimates that 10,500 tons of capacity will be required for Reynolds' Canadian-generated
K088 wastes, leaving 111,000 tons of available capacity for treatment of U.S.-generated
K088 wastes. ...
14 This information was provided by Reynolds in a comment to the Phase III proposed rule. The estimate accounts
for all limits imposed by Reynolds' delisting and operating permits and assumes 15% downtime.
15 Reynolds Metals Company comment dated July 12, 1995, number PH3P-L0015, page 2.
-------
CHAPTER 3
CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR ICR AND TC WASTES
THAT ARE MANAGED IN CWA OR CWA-EQUTVALENT SYSTEMS
This chapter discusses the treatment capacity analysis conducted for ignitable
(D001), corrosive (D002), and reactive (D003) wastes (ICR wastes); newly identified
toxicity characteristic (TC) pesticide wastes (D012-D017); and newly identified TC
organic wastes (D018-D043) that are managed in Clean Water Act (CWA) or CWA-
equivalent systems.16 Section 3.1 provides background information on the regulatory
history of these wastes, the treatment standards being considered for this rule, and an
overview of how EPA assessed the required treatment capacity for these wastes. Section
3.2 describes the data sources that were consulted and developed to collect the
information required for the capacity analysis. Section 3.3 explains the detailed method-
ology used for the analysis of required treatment capacity for D001-D003 and D018-D043
wastes and provides estimates of the quantities of these wastes requiring commercially
available treatment. Section 3.4 summarizes the results of the capacity analysis for D001-
D003 and D018-D043 wastes. Section 3:5 presents the results of the capacity analysis for
. D012-D017 wastes.
Today's rule establishes treatment standards for all ICR and TC organic wastes
that are managed in: (1) wastewater treatment.systems that include surface
impoundments and whose ultimate discharge is subject to'CWA; (2) "zero dischargers"
who, before land disposal of the wastewater, treat the wastewater in a CWA-equivalent
system; or (3) Class I non-hazardous underground injection wells subject to the Safe
Drinking Water Act.(SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. The ICR
wastes are being regulated today due to the D.G Circuit Court decision issued Septem-
ber 25, 1992 (Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2). This court decision ad-
dressed the regulation of characteristically hazardous ignitable, corrosive, and reactive
wastes under the Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) rule (55 FR 22520,
June 1, 1990). The court decision responded to several challenges to the Third Third
LDR Rule that were brought by various petitioners, including challenges to provisions
16 Wastes managed in Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) underground injection wells are addressed in a separate
document. ' '
17 This court decision consolidated 13 separate cases before the court. The court grouped the petitioners into several
groups. The "NRDC petitioners" were comprised of the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, The Environmental
Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The "Industry petitioners" were comprised
of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, The Fertilizer Institute, Chemical Waste Management, the American
Petroleum Institute, RSR Corporation, the American Mining Congress, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the Dow
Chemical Company, the American Paper Institute, the National Forest Products Association, the Specialty Steel industry
of the United States, and the Edison Electric Institute. Other petitioners included the Exide Corporation, Horsehead
Resource Development Company, Inc., the Zinc Corporation of America, the Aluminum Association, the Secondary
Lead Smelters, the Association of Battery Recyclers, the National Association of Metal Finishers, the Battery Council
International, the Lead Industries Association, Inc., the Cadmium Council, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Allied-
Signal Corporation, the Institute of Makers of Explosives, Thiakol Corporation, and Olin Corporation.
-------
3-2 , •
1&
allowing dilution as a treatment to remove some hazardous characteristics. -The
decision remanded the dilution provisions at 40 CFR 268.1 for wastes managed in Class I
- deep injection wells subject to the requirements of the SDWA, and at 40 CFR 268.3 for
wastes managed in centralized wastewater treatment systems subject to CWA.19
Consequently, TC wastewaters and other liquid wastes are also being addressed in this
rulemaking if the wastes are (1) managed in surface impoundments regulated under the
Clean Water Act, (2) managed in CWA-equivalent systems20 prior to ultimate land
1 disposal, or (3) disposed of in Class I underground injection wells regulated under the
SDWA.
3.1 BACKGROUND
On May 8, 1990, EPA promulgated regulations addressing the last of the five
congressionally-mandated prohibitions on land disposal for the "Third Third" wastes (see
55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990). In the Third Third Rule, the Agency promulgated treatment
standards and prohibitions for hazardous wastes that exhibited one or more of the
following characteristics at the point of waste generation: ignitability (D001), corrosivity
(D002), reactivity (D003), or Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity (D004-D017). The
Third Third Rule established treatment standards for the characteristic wastes in one of
four forms, depending on the waste: (1) a concentration level for hazardous constituents
equal to, or greater than, the characteristic level; (2) a concentration level for hazardous
constituents less than the characteristic level; .(3) a specified treatment technology (e.g.,
for ignitable wastes containing high levels of total organic carbon); and (4) a treatment
standard of "deactivation," which allowed the use of any technology, including dilution, to
remove the characteristic property. For ignitable, corrosive, or reactive wastes,
consideration was given to the hazardous constituents in the waste only when the Agency
had information that such constituents were present (e.g., reactive cyanide wastes);
18 In part, the NRDC petitioners asserted that the rule violated the intent of RCRA because (!) the rule's
deactivation standard allowed impermissible dilution in some cases, rather than treatment with specific technologies; and
(2) the rule allowed placement of untreated formerly characteristic wastes into surface impoundments regulated under
the Clean Water Act, or into Class I non-hazardous underground injection wells regulated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. . •
19 The court decision vacated some parts of the Third Third rule and remanded others. Vacated rule are no longer
in effect (once the court's mandate issues), whereas remanded rules remain in force until EPA acts to replace them.
This distinction has considerable significance with respect to LDR treatment standards. If a previously promulgated
treatment standard for a waste is vacated, that waste is how effectively prohibited from land disposal because any waste
that would be land disposed would be land disposed without having first been treated to the standard previously
established by EPA (assuming that the waste is not being land disposed in a land disposal unit with an approved no-
migration petition). A remanded treatment standard, on the other hand, remains in effect, and disposal of wastes treated
to the remanded treatment standard is legal until the standard is amended.
20 CWA-equivalent treatment includes biological treatment for organics, alkaline chlorination or ferrous sulfate
precipitation for cyanide, precipitation/sedimentation for metals, reduction.of hexavalent chromium, or other treatment
technology that can be demonstrated to perform equally or greater than these technologies (see 58 FR 29864, May. 24,
1993). ,,-•-,
-------
•3-3 • ' ' -
otherwise, only the characteristically hazardous property of the waste had to be
addressed. .
3.1.1 Integration of the Third Third Rule with CWA and SDWA
For characteristic wastes regulated under CWA and SDWA, the Agency also
evaluated the applicability of certain provisions of the LDRs' framework to ensure the
successful integration of all of these programs. Section 1006(b) of RCRA states that "the
Administrator shall integrate all provisions of [RCRA] for purposes of administration and
enforcement and shall avoid duplication, to the maximum-extent practicable, with the
appropriate provisions of the CWA... and SDWA..." Specifically, the Agency considered
the appropriateness of the dilution prohibition for each of the characteristic waste
streams, the applicability of treatment standards expressed as specified methods, and
whether the LDRs should attach to a waste at the point of waste generation.
There are generally no overlapping provisions between RCRA and CWA for the
treatment of listed wastewaters that are ultimately discharged to a surface water of the
United States or to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). The overlap occurs
when treating characteristically hazardous wastewaters. Some facilities generate wastes
that initially exhibit one or more hazardous characteristics. Yet, after mixing with other
waste streams, these characteristic wastes cease to exhibit some or all of their hazardous
characteristics prior to their placement in a RCRA Subtitle D surface impoundment, that
is part of the wastewater treatment train. This practice of mixing, or aggregation, could
potentially trigger the LDR dilution prohibition. Similarly, operators of Class I injection
wells often mix waste streams, and through this mixing, remove the characteristic(s) prior
to disposal.
In the Third Third rulemaking, the Agency generally found that mixing waste .-
streams to eliminate certain characteristics was appropriate and permissible for non-toxic
corrosive wastewaters and, in some cases, reactive or ignitable wastewaters. In particular,
the Agency stated that the treatment requirements and 'associated dilution rules under
the CWA are generally consistent with the dilution rules under RCRA, and therefore
decided, to regulate these wastes exclusively under the existing CWA provisions. .
However, the Agency did single out certain -particularly toxic wastewaters, and waste-
waters not amenable to centralized wastewater management, to which the dilution
prohibition still applies.
EPA stated that, in general, dilution is not a permissible form of treatment for
toxic constituents. However, EPA also stated that the dilution prohibition did not
normally apply to toxic characteristic wastewaters that are managed in CWA systems as
long as EPA had not promulgated a specific method of treatment or treatment
technology as the LDR treatment standard. If the treatment standard was concentration-
based, then wastes could be managed in these systems even though dilution was
occurring.
-------
, . 3-4
EPA further stated in the Third Third rulemaking that the dilution prohibition did
not normally apply to characteristically hazardous wastes that are decharacterized prior
to underground injection, regardless of whether a method.of treatment had been
promulgated as the LDR treatment standard. EPA determined that the regulatory
program for Class I wells under the SDWA adequately protects drinking water sources
because Class I deep wells inject below the lowermost geologic formation containing an
underground drinking water source and are subject to federal location, construction, and
operation requirements. The Agency stated that application of the dilution prohibition to
these wastes would not further minimize threats to human health and the enyironment,
and therefore, it was permissible to inject wastes that were decharacterized by
dilution into Class I wells.
The timing and degree of treatment were also relevant to the interaction between
the RCRA Subtitle C and CWA, SDWA, or RCRA Subtitle D rules. LDR standards
that required wastes to be treated to below characteristic levels would attach at the point
of waste generation, and would apply to wastes that were destined for RCRA Subtitle D
facilities. Many of these affected Subtitle D units were surface impoundments that
contained wastes that were managed in part under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES).and pretreatment programs of the CWA and the UIC
program of the SDWA. The NPDES program .already had a series of technology-based
requirements for the treatment of wastewater prior to discharge, and many of the LDR
standards were based on data used to set the CWA standards. EPA asserted that it had
the discretion to require treatment to at or below the characteristic level and to
determine whether treatment would occur at the point of waste generation or at the
point of waste disposal. Thus, based on 'available information, EPA found that the
difficulties of integrating the CWA and SDWA programs with RCRA outweighed the
limited benefit gained by additional LDR-required treatment. EPA chose not to apply
the strict point of generation principle to characteristic wastes in these instances in order
to harmonize RCRA with the CWA and SDWA.
3.1.2 Third Third Rule Court Decision
Several petitions for judicial review were brought to challenge the Third Third
Rule. Several environmental organizations, as well as the Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council (HWTC), raised numerous objections to the Third Third Rule. In part, they
asserted that:
• The rule's deactivation standard impermissibly allowed dilution in some
cases, rather than treatment with specific technologies; and
* The rule allowed placement of untreated formerly characteristic wastes into
surface impoundments regulated under CWA, or into Class I non-hazard-
ous underground injection wells regulated under SDWA, thereby violating
the intent of RCRA.
-------
•' 3-5 '
On September 25, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit delivered its decisions to these challenges in Chemical Waste
Management vs. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2. The court held that the widespread practice of
diluting wastes to remove their characteristics of ICR or EP toxicity, and then managing
these decharacterized wastes in surface impoundments regulated under CWA or in Class
I nonhazardous underground injection wells regulated" under SDWA, may be
impermissible. In these situations, the waste may have failed to undergo full scale RCRA
treatment before land disposal (i.e., treatment that satisfies RCRA section 3004(m)
criteria before placement of the decharacterized wastes in the impoundment or the
injection well). Such practices are permissible, the court held, only if treatment
equivalent to RCRA LDR standards is performed before discharge of the wastes into the
environment. The court also held that EPA can attach the LDRs at the point of waste
generation, but that EPA cannot apply this principle selectively.
Because RCRA section 3004(m) requires treatment to destroy or remove
hazardous constituents, the court held that dilution of characteristic wastes may .constitute
treatment only for those wastes that do not contain hazardous constituents in sufficient ,
concentrations to pose a threat to human health and the environment. For characteristic
wastes that do contain hazardous constituents in sufficient concentrations to pose a
threat, the court vacated the deactivation treatment standard. The court held that the
deactivation standard could be achieved by diluting these wastes to remove their
characteristic property; however, dilution does not destroy or remove the hazardous
constituents in the wastes, and therefore violates RCRA section 3004(m).
3.13 EPA's Response to the Court Decision
In response to the court .decision, EPA first published a .Notice of Data •
Availability (NODA) (58 FR 4972, January 19, 1993), which presented the information
. the Agency currently had on the wastes covered by the court decision, discussed possible
options for integrating RCRA and the CWA and SDWA, and requested comment.
f
On May 24, 1993, EPA issued an Interim Final Rule (58 FR 29,860) for wastes
whose treatment standards were expressly vacated by the Chemical Waste Management v.
EPA court decision. This rule created new treatability groups for ignitable and corrosive
(1C) wastes. These new treatability groups distinguish from all TC wastes those .1C .
wastes that are (1) managed in centralized wastewater treatment systems regulated under
CWA, (2) ultimately Mnd disposed in underground injection wells regulated under
SDWA, or (3) managed in wastewater treatment systems performing CWA-equivalent
treatment.21 Having defined these, new treatability groups, the Interim Final Rule
• 21 CWA-equivalent treatment means biological treatment for organics, alkaline chlorination or ferrous sulfate
precipitation for cyanide, precipitation/sedimentation for metals, reduction of hexavalent.chromium, or other treatment
technology that can be demonstrated to perform equally or greater than these technologies (see 58 FR 29864, May 24,
1993). ' -. • •
-------
3-6
promulgated revised treatment standards for decharacterized 1C wastes that are not
managed in CWA, SDWA, or CWA-equivalent systems. The revised standards retained
the requirement to remove the hazardous characteristic (i.e., deactivation remained
applicable), and added a requirement thatxthe waste be treated so that each underlying
hazardous constituent in the waste meets the same concentration-based treatment
standard promulgated for that constituent in the treatment standards for F039
wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
' '
EPA's reading of the court decision was that the treatment standards regarding
centralized wastewater management involving land disposal (40 CFR §§ 268.1(c)(3) and
268.3(b)) were remanded to EPA for further study rather than vacated (see 58 FR 29863,
May 24, 1993). Consequently, these remanded provisions of the Third Third LDR Rule
are still in effect until the Agency issues a new rule.
After the May 24, 1993 Interim Final Rule, EPA .promulgated the Phase II LDR
Rule on September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47982). This rule established constituent-specific
"universal treatment standards" (UTS) to replace waste code-specific treatment
standards that had been established by earlier LDR rules. EPA established these'
universal standards in an effort to simplify and streamline the LDR program, and to
establish a consistent set of concentration1 limits on a constituent-by-constituent basis.22
EPA established universal standards for metals and organic constituents-one set for
wastewaters and a different set for nonwastewaters-that replace most existing limits in
previously promulgated treatment standards for listed hazardous wastes., In the Phase II
rule, however, the universal standards applied only to wastes that are not managed in
CWA, SDWA, or CWA-equivalent systems.
3.1.4 Today's Rule
For the purposes of this capacity analysis, EPA has organized facilities into one or
more of the following three categories: :
' '• Direct discharger - a facility that discharges .wastewater into a navigable
water; ' - . -
• Indirect discharger — a facility that discharges wastewater to a POTW; and
• "Zero" discharger — a facility that uses methods .such as wastewater reuse,
evaporation ponds, incineration, contract hauling, land application, and off-
• site privately owned treatment works.
22 Facilities that treat hazardous waste typically must comply with the LDR treatment standards for many listed and
characteristic hazardous waste codes. Prior to the Phase II LDR rule, in some cases a constituent regulated for more
than one waste code had treatment standards set at different concentration levels, depending on the waste code.
-------
3-7 .
Thus, today's rule sets treatment standards for all ICR and TC organic wastes that
are managed in: (1) wastewater treatment systems that include surface impoundments
and whose ultimate discharge is subject to the CWA (includes both direct and indirect
dischargers); (2) zero dischargers who, before land disposal of the wastewater, treat the
wastewater in a CWA-equivalent system; or (3) Class I non-hazardous underground
injection wells subject to the SDWA's UIC program., Facilities with underground
injection wells are considered in a separate background document.
3.2 DATA SOURCES
EPA used many different data sources to determine the number of facilities and
quantity of wastewaters affected by today's rule. No single data source provided all the
information necessary to assess the potential impact of this rule; however.- The data
sources used for the analysis include:
• Effluent'Guidelines Documents;
• Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to POTWs;
• Toxic Release Inventory;
• Permit Compliance System;
• Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey;
• Industry Studies Database;
• TC Regulatory Impact Analysis;
• Biennial Reporting System;
• TC Survey; and - . " •
• Industrial Facilities Discharge Database.
Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.10 present a description of each of these data sources, the
overall use of the data in the capacity analysis, and the limitations of these data sources.
.Numerous other data sources were examined for this analysis, but were not used for
various reasons; these other data sources are briefly discussed in Section 3.2.11.
Additional capacity data obtained from the comments received by EPA on the,proposed
Phase III LDR rule are described in Section 3.2.12 of this document.
3.2.1 Effluent Guidelines Documents
EPA's Office of Water (OW) collected data, under Section 308 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), in support of the effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards
development process. These data are presented in the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards documents for each industry. These documents generally provided the most
comprehensive information on the wastewater generation and management practices of
each industry.
The core of the effluent guidelines development project is the data collection
effort. Data of increasing levels of detail are collected from individual facilities in the
-------
3-8 ; . .
industry sector being examined through the use of telephone surveys, industry screener
letters, and detailed questionnaires. The data collected focus on a number of elements
including the processes employed at the facility (including process flow diagrams),
quantity of wastewater generated, wastewater management practices (including treatment
flow diagrams), types of discharges, and the concentrations of the. constituents present in
the wastewaters. These data, primarily from the detailed questionnaire, are routinely
managed in database files to allow for manipulation of the data and study of the industry.
Most of the background information on the specific industries analyzed in this study were
obtained from these documents. The concentration data for different underlying
hazardous constituents, information on the number of direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers, and information on the technology standards were also' obtained from these
documents. :
One of the limitations of this data source is that the effluent limitations guidelines
were developed for some industries in the early 1970's. In the past 20 years, some
manufacturing processes and wastewater management practices have undergone
significant changes. These changes may not be reflected in the development documents.
Also, the presence of ICRT wastes was not explicitly identified in the development
documents and information on whether waste streams are managed in surface
impoundments was not clear. The constituent concentration data primarily focused on
constituents that are regulated by CWA and did not include concentration data for all
pollutants with UTS. Also, the concentration data were generally sampled at facilities
prior to the application of BAT standards. Although some of the industries had facility-
specific data, these data were classified as Confidential Business Information (OBI),
which precluded their use other than in an aggregated manner.
3.2.2 Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to POTWs
In 1986, EPA submitted a Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous
Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Work's (POTWs).23 The Report is also referred
to as the Domestic Sewage Study and responds to Section 3018(a) of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste amendments of 1984 (HSWA). This study evaluated ^7 industrial categories
and identified approximately 160,000 industrial facilities that discharge wastewaters
containing hazardous constituents to POTW's. This report provided information on the
sources, types, and quantities of 165 selected hazardous constituents discharged to sewers
including concentration data for some industries. This report also provided information
on the total number of facilities in several industrial sectors and the number of direct,
indirect,.and zero dischargers: .
One of the limitations of this document is that not all industries selected for the
Phase III analysis are included in the study. Also, the concentration data often could not
23 U.S. EPA, February 1986, Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
-------
3-9
be used to extrapolate to the entire industry because it is unclear how many facilities
were sampled for the given constituents. The report also does not include information
regarding the use of land-based units and the data provided was primarily for indirect
dischargers. .
3.23 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics collects toxic release data, under
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA) of
1986. Industries are required to report information on the releases of listed toxic
chemicals in their communities and to provide EPA with release information to assist the
Agency in determining the need for future regulations. Information received from all the
industries is compiled in a database. This database contains information on toxic
constituent releases to air, land, and water in terms of total mass per year. For the
present study, information on the mass loadings of constituents present in the
wastewaters discharged by the industries were obtained from the TRI database.
Discharge data from other sources were used to calculate constituent concentrations,
based on the mass loadings. This information was used tp estimate the number of
facilities that discharged wastewaters with hazardous waste constituent concentrations
, above UTS. .
One of the limitations of the TRI data is the lack of facility-specific flowrate data
to compare the mass loadings of constituents with UTS. EPA attempted to address this
data gap by using flowrate data from other sources; however, the actual flowrates may be
higher or lower than the flowrates used in the analysis. Also, the TRI does not provide
information regarding the use of land-based units or the generation of ICRT wastes. The
TRI only requires information from facilities that generate over 10,000 pounds annually
of specific constituents, and therefore not all facilities in a particular industry are
included in the database. ' . •
3.2.4 Permit Compliance System (PCS)
PCS is a computerized management information system that contains data on the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit-holding facilities. It
keeps records on more than 65,000 active water-discharge permits (i.e., facilities)
throughout the nation. PCS tracks POTWs and direct dischargers to surface water
bodies but not indirect dischargers (i.e., dischargers to POTWs). PCS contains data on
treatment trains used as part of CWA treatment systems. PCS also, contains mass
loadings of concentrations and flow data. Not all facilities reported treatment train
information, however, and concentration data were only available for certain facilities
(POTWs and other facilities deemed "major" according to CWA definitions).
EPA used the 1991 PCS data to determine the frequency with which facilities in
various industries that are discharging to surface waters have a treatment component that
-------
may involve land placement. Using this information, EPA was able to identify specific
industries that were likely to use land-based wastewater treatment systems as part of
their waste management operations.
There are some important limitations to the PCS data. Because some of the
treatment types can either involve land-based units or tank-based units, EPA attempted
to account for this uncertainty in the analysis. However, it is possible that more or fewer
of the facilities actually use land-based units for the above treatment types. Also, many
sites did not report their treatment type in the PCS and not all potentially affected
facilities are included. As stated above, the PCS data does not include whether the
treatment systems manage decharacterized ICRT wastes or the concentrations of
hazardous constituents in the wastewater potentially placed on the, land ^during or after
the treatment process. In order to better understand how facilities will be affected by the
Phase III LDR rule, EPA used the PCS data and ICRT waste characterization data in a
few case studies to assess the overlap between industrial NPDES permits and the UTS
(see Appendix F).
3.2.5 Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey .
The Subtitle D Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste Survey provided information
regarding whether wastes are managed on site in Subtitle D land-based units at industrial
facilities. This survey was conducted between November 1986 and April 1987 and
included 18,051 facilities in 17 industrial sectors. This survey provided information on the
quantities of total waste generated each year by industry sector and the distribution of
these wastes among surface impoundments, landfills, waste piles, and land application
units. The industry sectors are identified primarily by the two-digit SIC code.
One of the limitations of this database is that the industries and SIC codes
included in this database do not always match the industries selected for the Phase III
analysis. Also, these data are relatively old, and therefore, are likely not accurately
representative of current practices.
3.2.6 Industry Studies Database (ISDB)
The ISDB was developed primarily to support the listing of specific waste streams
under RCRA. ISDB provides data for 16 specific industries. The ISDB data include
information on waste generation, management, and constituent concentrations of ICR
wastes that are managed in CWA systems, CWA-equivalent systems, and SDWA systems.
The sources of information in the ISDB include RCRA 3007 questionnaires, plant visit
reports, sampling and analysis site visit reports, and engineering analysis reports. EPA
merged data for the 16 industries into 10 broader industrial categories in a separate
-------
- 3-11 '
report.24 The relevant data from this report are presented in each of the industry
profiles.
One of the limitations of the ISDB data is the age of the data. ISDB data have
been collected by EPA over the past 14 years with periodic updates. Given the age of
the data, it is important to note that many of the formerly ICR-only wastes in the ISDB
currently have treatment standards. Also, NESHAPs, and stricter effluent guidelines,
have generally moved facilities away from the use of surface impoundments for on-site
wastewater treatment processes. Furthermore, the data do not directly identify whether
wastes are characteristic, for toxic organics. Data for only selective subsectors within
industries are included in the ISDB and the concentration data are primarily from the
point of generation and not at end-of-pipe. - .
3.2.7 TC RIA Database
The TC RIA characterizes the universe affected by the TC Rule by identifying the
industries potentially affected, providing information on the wastes generated by these
industries, and identifying the current management practices for these wastes. The
primary data sources for this RIA were a series of industry studies. These industry
studies were in turn primarily, based on development documents used by the Effluent
Guidelines Program. • .
In general, the industry studies include an industry overview, industry
characterization, industry structure, process description, and descriptions of waste
generation and disposal. The descriptions of waste generation include information on
quantity, waste form, and constituent concentration. It is important to note that some of
the data compiled in these reports are very dated, since the sources used for the industry
studies go back to 1976. The RIA also used information from the Screening Survey of
Industrial Subtitle D Establishments and ISDB to characterize baseline management
practices for the wastes in the analysis.
s
The TC RIA data are limited because the waste stream data are aggregated by
industry and are not facility-specific. Also, the data do not include all UTS constituents.
3.2.8 Biennial Reporting System (BRS)
*^
. The 1991 BRS provides recent summaries available on waste management
practices at the individual waste stream and facility level. The BRS is a system by which
RCRA-regulated treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)' and large quantity
generators provide EPA with information on their hazardous waste activities." The BRS
contains information on the waste streams generated on site and received from off site,
24 U.S. EPA, November 30, 1994, Summary Data From Industry Studies Database For Use in Phase HI Capacity
Determinations (Draft), prepared by SAIC.
-------
3-12
waste physical form, waste codes, waste quantity, and the treatment systems used to treat
each hazardous waste stream.
While the information provided by the BRS was not sufficient to provide
comprehensive facility-specific estimates of affected wastes, it did provide useful
information on selected facilities that may be representative of industry sectors and that
was used to guide additional investigations. For example, of the more than 350 steam-
electric utilities contained hi the BRS database, 20 sites reported generating 29 ignitable
or corrosive (1C) waste streams. Most of these waste streams were corrosive wastes
produced during the regeneration of ion exchange resin beds. While this waste stream
was reported at only a small portion of the facilities, EPA believes that these wastes are
common to almost all steam-electric plants. However, most sites probably did not report
this waste because they believed decharacterized wastes to be non-hazardous. For
facilities that did report 1C wastes, the BRS contained data on quantities and
management and treatment practices, as well as a description of the waste streams. This
finding is consistent with several comments submitted to EPA by the regulated
community stating that these decharacterized wastes were generally not reported in the
BRS because the facilities did not consider them to be hazardous (e.g., see comment
TTCA-00021-in the comments to the Third Third remand notice of data availability).
As stated above, the BRS does not provide sufficient information regarding • .
decharacterized ICRT wastes.1 Also, even in cases where ICRT wastes are reported, the
BRS does not contain sufficient data to determine if the waste contains underlying
hazardous constituents, and if additional treatment of underlying constituents would be
necessary. Finally, the treatment systems identified in the BRS are generally used for
hazardous waste management and are thus subject to regulation under Subtitle C and not
'subject to today's rule. Therefore, any land-based units identified are likely,to be Subtitle
C or interim status units. ,'-.''
3.2.9 TC Survey
The TC Survey was conducted by EPA in 1992 to obtain estimates of the
quantities of newly identified organic TC wastes (D018-D043) that would be managed in
land disposal units (i.e., landfills, land treatment units, surface impoundments, waste piles,
and underground injection wells) from 1991 to 1995. Because of other related data
collected, the survey also can be used to provide estimates on waste quantities that are
not currently disposed, yet would require alternative treatment (e.g., tank cleanout
sludge).
Because the survey was specifically designed to collect data on land-disposed TC
organic wastes, it provides relatively comprehensive facility-specific1 data only on this
portion of the universe of TC organic wastes affected by the Phase III rule. However,
most potentially affected TC organic wastes (e.g., wastes that have been treated and
decharacterized prior to land placement) are not covered by the TC Survey.
-------
3-13
3.2.10 Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) Database
This database contains facility-speciJ5c information on indirect dischargers to
POTWs, including SIC code and total flow. The IFD was used to prioritize industries
that may potentially be affected because of discharges to POTWs. The data elements
that EPA used from this database (total flow and facility SIC codes) provide facility-
specific information on indirect dischargers to POTWs. However, no constituent or
waste, characteristic information is contained the IFD. Furthermore, the IFD database
does not contain sufficient information to determine the number of facilities that use
•land-based units., Also, the IFD data are limited to facilities that are indirect dischargers.
3.2.11 Other Data Sources
Numerous other data sources were also examined for this analysis, but were not
used in the final estimates. Some of these data sources include:
Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facility (TSDR) Survey;
Generator Survey;
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS);
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS); "
F037/F038 Capacity Database;
OPPE Analysis of Industrial Discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs) and Surface Waters Using the TRI;
Department of Energy (DOE) Mixed Waste Inventory;
California Hazardous Waste Database;
Corrective Action RIA Database;
Superfund Record of Decision (ROD) Database;
Chemical Waste Treaters Program Database;
Water and Hazardous Waste Treatability Database (WHWTD);
Wastewater Treatment and Information Exchange Bulletin Board System
(WTIEBBS);
40 CFR 403.12(p) POTW Notifications; . '
Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) Class I Injection Well Surveys;
and , • - • .
• Data and background documents used for the 1990 TC rule (55 FR 11798;
March 29, 1990), the technical correction (55 FR 26986; June 29,2990), and
the 1990 Third Third rule (55 FR 22520; June 1, 1990).
These" other data sources were not used because they either provided data that were
redundant with the primary data sources, these sources were older than the above data
sources, and/of the data were not sufficient for this analysis.
-------
3-14 ,
3.2.12 Capacity Data Obtained from the Comments on the Proposed Rule
>
In the capacity analysis background document to the Phase III proposed rule,
EPA presented estimates of the quantities of ICR wastes and TC organic wastes
managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent systems in 16 of the industries that would be
affected by the LDRs: EPA did not receive any comments on the Phase III proposed
rule that disputed EPA's estimates of the quantities of wastes in the selected industries.
However, some comments received by EPA provided new data on existing CWA or
CWA-equivalent systems at specific industrial facilities that may be affected by the LDRs.
EPA has used these new data, as appropriate, to revise its analysis of the required
capacity for alternative on-site treatment. '
EPA found that the new data obtained from the comments were useful in
verifying some of the key assumptions that had been made in EPA's capacity analysis to
support the Phase III LDR rule. Summaries of the data obtained from comments on the
proposed rule are provided in Appendix A as attachments to the chapters describing the
required capacity analyses for relevant industries. EPA's use of these data is also
described in the relevant chapters in Appendix A, as well as in this chapter. ;
33 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS ' . . '
This section provides an overall description of the methodology and assumptions
.used to conduct the required treatment capacity analysis. In general, EPA decided that
no one data source provided sufficient information to conduct the analysis,25 and that
therefore a "patchwork" approach utilizing several data sources would be needed. EPA
also realized that the data sources used would be very industry-specific. Therefore, to
structure the approach to the resources available for the analysis, EPA first prioritized
and selected the industries to be analyzed. EPA then developed industry-specific
estimates of required .treatment capacity for these selected industries. Section 3.3.1
discusses the methodology EPA used to select the industries for this analysis.. Section
3.3.2 discusses EPA's general methodology and assumptions for estimating required
treatment capacity. .
3 J.I Industry Selection • ,
•t t '
/ ' '
EPA used two basic criteria to determine which industries generate the majority of
the wastewaters that would be affected by today's rule: (1) the industries that are more
likely to use land-based units, and (2) the industries that are more likely to generate
25
For example, EPA discovered that most of the affected wastes are not reported in the Biennial Reporting System.
-------
. 3-15
ICRT wastes. EPA relied on several data sources to prioritize the industries based on
these criteria:
• Permit Compliance System; .
• 1991 Biennial Reporting System;
• Industrial Facilities Discharge Data Base;
• • Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey; and
• TC Regulatory Impact Analysis Database.
The PCS, BRS, IFDB, and Subtitle D Screening Survey data sources were used
primarily to determine those industries that generate the highest proportion of
wastewaters that are managed in land-based units. EPA analyzed the PCS data based on
the SIC codes to determine what industries used the highest proportion of land-based
units. The analysis conducted used a methodology similar to that described in Section .
3.3.2 for the individual industry profiles. Based on the PCS data, EPA estimated that the
following four industries represent a proportionally large number of all facilities
discharging directly to surface water that use land-based units: electric/combined utilities;
petroleum refining and products; chemical manufacturing; and food products.
EPA analyzed the BRS to develop a preliminary estimate of the industries that
reported using the highest percentage of treatment systems that are land-based. The
industries that represented a proportionally large number of facilities with land-based
units were estimated to be: petroleum refining and products; chemical manufacturing;
electrical equipment; fabricated metals; combined transportation; primary metals; and
electrical utilities. -
. EPA analyzed the IFDB to estimate the number of facilities in each two-digit SIC
industry category that discharge to a POTW. EPA then used information from the PCS
that indicated the percentage of facilities within each SIC that had land-based units.. This
step relied on the assumption that waste management practices tend to be similar within
the entire industry and that the ultimate decision to discharge to surface water or to a
POTW depends primarily on the geographical location of the facility (i.e., whether it is
near a surface water body). Based on this methodology, EPA determined the industries
that represent a, proportionally large number of facilities that discharge to POTWs and
use land-based units to be: fabricated metals; primary metals; chemical manufacturing;
food products; pulp and paper; electrical equipment; and leather treating.
EPA analyzed the Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey data, based on the
industrial SIC code, to determine the percentage of facilities that use surface
impoundments and the percentage of facilities that use land application units. Based on
these data, EPA was able to determine which industries are more likely to use land-based
units and confirmed the results of the above analyses. . '
-------
3-16
/ '
The TC RIA data source was used primarily to determine the industries that
generate the highest proportion of organic toxicity characteristic wastes. EPA used the
database to identify the industries that generate the highest quantity of TC waste that is
discharged to POTWs, discharged under NPDES, or discharged to an underground
injection well: textile mills; plastics materials and resins; synthetic rubber; cellulosic man-
made fiber; organic fibers, noncellulosic; petroleum refining; rubber and miscellaneous
plastic products; pipeline, except natural gas; and wholesale trade, petroleum and
petroleum products. Most of these industries are within either the chemical or
petroleum industry sectors, which were also identified by the above analyses.
Based on these data sources, EPA selected the following 16 industries for detailed
analyses:
1 • Chemicals, Inorganic;
• Chemicals, Organic;
• Electric Power Generation;
• Electrical and Electronic Components;
• Electroplating/Metal Finishing;
• Federal Facilities;
• Food; . . .'"*'•'
• . Industrial Laundries;
' • Iron and Steel;
* Leather Treating;
• Metal Products & Machinery;
• Pesticides;
• Petroleum Refining;
• Pharmaceutical;
• Pulp and Paper;2^ and •
• Transportation Equipment Cleaning.
/
EPA requests comments on other industries that may be affected by Phase III.
3.3.2 Determination of Required Treatment Capacity
Once the 16 major industries were identified, EPA conducted detailed capacity
analyses on them in order to estimate the number of facilities and quantities of wastes
that may be affected by today's rule. EPA developed the methodology and the
assumptions to use in the analysis based on the model of the universe of impacted wastes
shown in Exhibit 3-1. As this model shows,'a facility's waste must pass through several
"tests" before the waste is considered to require alternative treatment. These tests
address the following questions: *
' As described in Section 3.4.15, EPA is not applying today's rule to the pulp and paper industry at this time.
-------
3-17 .
EXHIBIT 3-1
UNIVERSE OF IMPACTED ICRT WASTES
Wastes From
Manufacturing Process
Yes
Decharacterization
Are
AnyfUHC] .
>UTS?
Are There
C Treated by
RCRA-equivalen
BDAT?
No
No
Impacted by Phase III
No
No
Yes
Not Impacted by Phase in
Non-Hazardous
Process Waste
Not Impacted by Phase III
Not Impacted by Phase in
Not Impacted by Phase III
ICRT = Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, and/or Toxicity (Organic) Characteristic
UHC = Underlying Hazardous Constituents
UTS = Universal Treatment Standards
BDAT = Best Demonstrated Available Technology
[ ] = Concentration
-------
• , . 3-18 •
• Is the waste ICRT?
• Does the decharacterized ICRT waste enter a land-based unit?
• Are the concentrations of the underlying hazardous constituents above
UTS? . . . .
. • Are the constituents regulated by a standard that is considered a RCRA
BDAT-equivalent standard?
The following sections (3.3.2.1 through 3.3.2.4) address these questions, including the data
sources and the methodologies used to answer each of these questions. A simplified
hypothetical industry example (Industry X) is provided throughout to help clarify the
analysis. . " ' •' , '
Several general (i.e., non-industry-specific) caveats exist concerning these analyses
that may have resulted in an underestimate of affected facilities and quantities of waste:
• The Agency recognizes that the impact of today's rule will not be confined
only to these 16 industries, and thus the quantities of affected wastes may
be larger. ' .
• Concrete-lined sumps and lagoons were not included as land-based units in
. the analysis. However, EPA believes that many such units exist.that do not
satisfy the definition of tank. .
• POTWs with land-based units were not included in this analysis. Some of
these facilities, however, may be impacted by the Phase III LDRs.
• De minimis losses, where the release may contact the land, have not been
included in this analysis. Some losses, however, may result in the facility
being impacted by the Phase III LDRs.
*"•'•'
Two key general caveats contribute an overall uncertainty to the analysis:
• , Due to the large number of facilities and quantities of wastewaters
generated within these industries, the capacity estimates do not include
large amounts of site-specific data.
* There is no single comprehensive data source on industrial waste
generation, waste management practices, and waste characteristics.
-------
3-19
Therefore, EPA relied on several data sources—some of which are
somewhat dated-and used many assumptions to analyze the available data.
Specific assumptions described in Sections 3.3.2.1 through 3.3.2.4 include the
following: . . .
* All industries generate at least small quantities of ICRT wastes;
• If the wastewater is also a RCRA-listed waste, then it is managed
appropriately consistent with existing LDR standards and will not be
affected by the this rule;
, * '^
• All facilities decharacterize their ICRT wastes (e.g., by aggregating them
with non-hazardous process wastewaters) prior to discharging them via
CWA or CWA-equivalent systems;
• Any facility that manages its wastes in a land-based unit is affected by this
rule, if the remaining criteria are met;
* Pollutants specified in the effluent guidelines limitations and standards
development document for that industry are regulated by a RCRA BDAT-
equivalent standard and, therefore, wastewaters containing only these
pollutants above UTS are not affected; and
• Existing permits do not have adequate treatment standards, to address
.underlying hazardous constituents that are not among the pollutants
addressed by the industry-specific CWA regulations.
Given the various uncertainties, the Agency developed ranges of affected facilities
and waste quantities within which the actual numbers likely reside.
33.2.1
Is the Waste ICRT?
The manufacturing processes of each industry were analyzed to determine the .
processes that are likely to generate affected wastewaters. Based on the BRS data,'
development document information, and comments to the NODA, unless otherwise
mentioned in the industry profiles, all facilities are assumed to generate at least small
quantities of ICRT wastewaters and to decharacterize these wastes prior to discharge via
CWA or CWA-equivalent systems. However, if the wastewater is a RCRA-listed waste,
EPA assumed that the 'wastewaters are managed appropriately under existing LDRs and
will not be affected by today's rule.
-------
3-20.
The development
documents also provided
information regarding
the types of wastes
generated in each
industry and were used
to" confirm the presence
of ICRT wastes. The
industry comments to the
NODA also confirmed
the generation of
decharacterized ICRT
wastes by industry.
Hypothetical Industry X:
Is the Waste ICRT?
According to the Effluent Guidelines Development Document
and several industry contacts, the 1,000 facilities in Industry X are
believed to routinely use a highly caustic solution to clean
equipment The wash and rinse wastewaters (D002) then generally
enter tanks, where the waste is neutralized. This wastewater then
is ultimately discharged either to surface waters, POTWs,
underground injection wells, etc. Total end-of-pipe quantities are
estimated at 100 million tons per year.
33.2.2
Does the Decharacterized ICRT Waste Enter a Land-based Unit?
Hypothetical Industry X:
Are Wastes Discharged to Land-based Units?
According to the Subtitle D Screening Survey, approximately
25 percent of Industry X - or 0.25 x 1,000 = 250 facilities - uses.
Subtitle D surface impoundments and land application units. The
PCS, however, indicates that only 10 percent — or 0.1 x 1,000 =
100 facilities — uses these land-based units. Thus, between 100 to
250 facilities in Industry X use land-based units.
The use of land-
base'd units in each
industry was determined
from a variety of data
sources, as indicated in
the industry profiles.
EPA assumed that any
facility that manages its
wastes in a land-based
unit may potentially be
affected by this rule, if ~'
the remaining criteria are met. EPA primarily used the PCS and Industrial Subtitle D
Survey to determine the number of facilities that use land-based units. For example,
EPA analyzed the Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey data, based on the industrial
SIC code, to determine the percentage of facilities that use surface impoundments and
the percentage of facilities that use land application units.'
33.23 Are the Concentrations of the Underlying Hazardous Constituents
Above UTS?
In order to determine the presence of underlying hazardous constituents, EPA
relied on many different data sources. The primary data sources used to answer this
question include the development documents, Report to Congress, ISDB report, and
TRI. When these data sources only included constituent concentration data at a few
facilities, EPA extrapolated the results to the entire industry.
. The development documents for some industries included data regarding the
concentration of constituents at facilities that were sampled. The Report to Congress *
-------
3-21
Hypothetical Industry X:
Are UHC Concentrations > UTS?
According to recent Effluent Guidelines Development
Document data, approximately 50 percent of Industry X facilities -
. or 0.5 x 1,000 = 500 facilities - generate end-of-pipe wastewaters
with at least one UHC concentration greater than the UHC's
corresponding UTS.
included data regarding
the concentration of
constituents at a few
facilities that discharge -
toPOTWs. ThelSDB
report contained data
regarding the
concentration of
constituents for several
industries. EPA
compared the concentrations of these underlying hazardous constituents with the
universal treatment standards.
33.2.4 Are the Constituents Regulated by a Standard That is Considered a
RCRA BDAT-equivalent Standard?
EPA developed a model to identify those pollutants that are likely-to be regulated
by a RCRA BDAT-equivalent standard and therefore would hot be affected by this rale
(shown in Exhibit 3-2). This model is based on how pollutants in wastewaters generally
are categorized, as described below, and how facilities are categorized (i.e., direct
discharger, indirect discharger, or zero discharger), as described in Section 3.1.
EPA promulgates industry-specific standards based on the information described
in the development document for each industry. There are three categories of pollutants
that are regulated by CWA:
• Priority pollutants - These are the 126 pollutants, including 65 pollutants
identified as toxic, that are listed in 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. This
category is also referred to as the priority toxic pollutants and are .
considered for regulation in the effluent limitations guidelines and
'standards developed for each industry.
'
• ' Conventional pollutants - These are tfie pollutants of wastewater as defined.
by Section 304(a)(4) of the Clean Water Act, including, but not limited to,
the biological oxygen demand, suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal
conform, and pH. These pollutants are also considered for regulation in
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards developed for each
industry.
j
"• » Non-conventional pollutants - These are pollutants that have not been
previously designated as either conventional pollutants or priority
pollutants. A limited number of these pollutants are considered for
-------
j-z
,
•
*
M
Q
« '• .
• S • '
2 . i
£
GA
6 " ' ' •' •
3
1 •
• si •
O* .2
r? u i= «; . • c
fT) » « " '3
§ 1 - i 1 ll
S 3 - i «> "cu"
H 1 1 ' 1 I 11
fli 52 • cs s
> J CB
H
•s '•
• g
-J
1 •' - . .
s
• • " . '
•
./.
«
'f?
WJ^3
o5
11
'£
1
•S
.2
1
cS
"5
Direct Dii
-
gj ^g
CM) f5
s 1
2
1
s p
s
•3
es'
ll
^2
1 g
I1
1
oo ^
H S
•3
c
CA
11
£2
•Jon-targeted
Pollutants
1
S> «
fl
'S
c
a
tA
1 I
£1
•g
I
i
O
O
vA
O
a.
<
a
-------
3-23 .
regulation in the effluent limitations guidelines and standards developed for
each industry. (In this background document, these pollutants are referred
to as non-priority pollutants.)
Those pollutants that are regulated by EPA are listed in the development
document for that industry and are referred to as "targeted pollutants" in the model in .
Exhibit 3-2. When a standard is applied for targeted pollutants, standards for other
pollutants may also be met. These pollutants are referred to as "indirectly targeted.",
The standards developed by EPA include:
• Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) - BCT is
established for discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial
point sources. -
• Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) - BAT is
established as the principal national means of controlling the direct
discharge of priority pollutants and nonconventional pollutants to navigable
waters. BAT effluent limitations' represent the best existing economically
achievable performance of plants in the industrial subcategory or category.
• Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) - BPT •
effluent limitations guidelines are generally based on the average of the
best existing performance by plants of various sizes, ages, and unit
processes within the category or subcategory for control of pollutants.
Total cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits is also considered in setting the, BPT standard.
. • Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) - PSES are designed
to prevent the. discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or
are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly owned treatment
works. Pretreatment Standards are technology-based and analogous to the
BAT standards.
Pretreatmerit Standards for New Sources (PSNS) - Like PSES, PSNS are
designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS
are issued at the same time as NSPS.
1 • New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) - NSPS are based on the best
available demonstrated treatment technology. NSPS represents the most
stringent numerical values attainable through the application of the best
available control technology for conventional, nonconventional, and priority
pollutants. . . '
-------
3-24
Hypothetical Industry X: Is Treatment Considered RCRA-equivalent?
According to the Effluent Guidelines Development Document, many of the UHC that are
above UTS are addressed by RCRA-equivalent standards. When these UHC are removed from the
analysis, only about 40 percent (analysis not shown) of the facilities identified by the previous step
do not have RCRA-equivalent treatment Thus, approximately 0.4 x 0.5 = 0.2 (or 20 percent) of
the original 1,000 facilities, or 0.2 x 1,000 - 200 facilities, do riot have RCRA-equivalent treatment.
When all of the percentages from the previous steps are applied to Industry X's 1,000 facilities,
the affected facilities are estimated as follows: (1) lower bound = 1,000 x 0.1 (for land-based units)
x 0.2 (for facilities w/o,RCRA treatment) = 20; and (2) upper bound = 1,000 x 0.25 (for land-based
units) x 0.2 (for facilities w/o RCRA treatment) = 50. Affected waste quantities are estimated by
calculating a per facility quantity for the entire industry - 100 million tons/yr / 1,000 facilities =
100,000 tons/yr/facility.— and then multiplying the per facility quantity by the number of facilities
affected, as follows: (1) lower bound = 20 facilities x 100,000 tons/yr/facility = 2 million tons/yr;
and (2) upper bound = 50 facilities x 100,000 tonstyr/facility = 5 million tons/yr. Thus, the "bottom
line" of the summary table for this industry would be as follows:
Number of
Fadlities
1,000
Total
Wastewaters
Mixed With
ICRT Wastes
(million tons/yr)
100
Facilities ,
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment
200
Facilities
With Land-
based Units
.100-250
Affected
Facilities
20-50
Affected
Wastewater
(million .
tons/yr)
2-5
EPA assumes .that the above standards are all RCRA BDAT-equivalent standards
and, thus, wastewaters generated by direct, indirect, and zero dischargers with only these
constituents above UTS are not affected by today's rule. EPA also assumes that state
and local permit standards are not RCRA BDAT-equivalent standards. A review of
NPDES permit monitoring data performed by EPA (see Appendix F) showed that a
significant portion of contaminants with UTS as designated under the Phase III LDR rule
are already controlled under CWA. Furthermore, an application of ICRT waste
characterization knowledge by the facility would reduce the number of newly controlled
pollutants with UTS to a very few per facility. This point is illustrated in several case
studies.
3.4 RESULTS OF CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR ICR WASTES AND TC ORGANIC
WASTES THAT ARE MANAGED IN CWA OR CWA-EQUIVALENT SYSTEMS
This section presents the results of the capacity analysis for ICR and TC organic
wastes that are managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent systems. Based on the
-------
3-25
methodology and assumptions described above, EPA estimated the number of affected
facilities and the quantity of impacted wastewater for each of the 16 industries. The
results of this analysis are summarized in Exhibit 3-3. The results of the individual
analyses for each industry are also presented in Sections 3.4.1 to 3.4.16. As shown in
Exhibit 3-3, from 329 to 1,041 facilities and from 84.7 million to 519.5 million tons of
decharacterized wastes would require alternative treatment.
The quantities of wastes shown in Exhibit 3-3 are the aggregated quantities of the
affected ICRT wastes and not the individual quantities of ignitable, corrosive, reactive,
and organic toxicity characteristic wastes that are affected. Therefore, EPA developed
rough estimates for each type of waste. To do this, EPA first reviewed several data
sources to estimate the proportion of the generation of each of these wastes. According
to TSDR data and TC RIA data, the sum of the ICRT wastes generated (prior to
aggregation) is approximately 1.23 billion tons of wastes. TSDR data provide an estimate
of 435 million tons of ICR wastewaters and nonwastewaters generated per year (35
percent of all ICRT wastes) and TC RIA data provide an estimate of 803 million tons of
TC organic wastewaters and nonwastewaters generated per year (65 percent of all ICRT
wastes). To further estimate the proportion of ICR wastes, EPA reviewed the generation
of these wastes as reported in the BRS. The BRS indicated that approximately 1.8
percent of ICR wastes are ignitable, 89.1 percent are corrosive, and 9.1 percent are
reactive wastes. Based on these data, approximately 0.6 percent of ICRT wastes are
ignitable wastes, 31.2 percent are corrosive, 3.2 percent are reactive, and 65 percent are
TC organic. However, EPA did not use these proportions to estimate the quantities of
the individual ICRT wastes that are affected. EPA estimated the quantities of affected
wastes only on an aggregated^basis, and these aggregated wastes.may include one or all
of the types of ICRT wastes.
' As listed below, there are several alternatives available for facilities to comply with
the Phase III LDR rule:
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
Alternative 5:
Alternative 6:
Reduce the generation of ICRT wastewaters prior to
mixing and aggregation with other wastewaters;
Segregation of ICRT wastewaters from other
wastewaters;
Replacement of surface impoundments and other
land-based units with tank systems-
Improvements in the existing wastewater treatment
'systems to achieve UTS for all UHCs;
Permit review and possible modifications for CWA or
CWA-equivalent systems; and
Case-by-case variances from specific Phase III LDRs.
The cost of the above compliance alternatives, as well as the time required for
implementing them, will vary with the type and size of the industrial facility affected by
-------
3-26
EXHIBIT 3-3
REQUIRED CAPACITY FOR ICR AND TC ORGANIC WASTES
MANAGED IN CWA OR CWA-EQUTVALENT SYSTEMS3
Industry
Chemicals, Inorganic
Chemicals, Organic
Electric Power Generation
Electrical and Electronic
Components
Electroplating and Metal Finishing
Federal Facilitiesb
Food and Kindred Products
\
Industrial Laundries
Iron and Steel
Leather Treating
Metal Products and Machinery
Pesticides
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceuticals
Pulp and Paperd
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Total
Estimated
Number of
Facilities
1393
. 1,512
842
.' 373
228
. NA
11,353 -
1,000
1,020
160
30,600
43C
187
560
565
707
49,978
Estimated Number
of Facilities Affected
by Phase in
16-19
43-105
24-55
, 33 - 122
V
0-2
NA
195 - 390
25 - 121 .
' 3-7
3-25
0-32
2-6
10-85
0-17
0
76-213
329 - 1,041
Estimated Quantity
of Waste Affected
(million tons/year)
4-5
20.2 - 84.0
4.8 -.11
.4-16
0-0.9
NA
0.2-0.6
1.9 - 9.3
26-60
0.8 - 7.5
0-16
0.2 - 0.6
22 - 290
'0-17
0
0.6 - 1.6
84.7 - 519.5
a These quantities are aggregated quantities and do not represent the quantities of wastes prior to decharacterization.
b These facilities and quantities are assumed to be included is the estimates for the other industries.
c There are a total of 75 facilities in this industry; however, EPA assumes that the 32 facilities that, co-treat organic chemical
wastewaters with pesticide manufacturing wastewaters and are accounted for in the organic chemicals industry.
d As described in Section 3.4.15, EPA' is not applying today's rule to the pulp and paper industry at this time.
-------
3-27 ' .
•*
today's rule. For example, some commenters to the proposed Phase III LDR rule
reported that it may take two to four years to replace their existing surface
impoundments with tank systems or improve the existing wastewater treatment systems.
EPA has estimated that it will take approximately one to two years for most of the
facilities to seek reviews and obtain modifications of existing permits for CWA or CWA-
equivalent systems (see Appendix F). It will take a similar period of time for
implementing any of the other alternatives. EPA also notes that industrial facilities
discharging large quantities of wastewater (e.g., 250,000 gallons per day or more) may
take the longest time to evaluate their alternatives and change their operations to comply
with today's rule. These facilities will probably belong to one of the following industries:
• Chemicals, Organic;
• Electroplating and Metal Finishing;
* Metal Products and Machinery;
•. Petroleum Refining; and
• Pharmaceuticals. .
EPA notes other industries that will have large numbers of facilities (e.gi, more than 10
percent of the facilities within the industry) potentially affected by today's rule. These
industries could include: ,
• - Electrical and Electronic Components;
• Industrial Launders;
• Leather Treating; and
• Transportation Equipment Cleaning.
,."•'.'
Given all of these factors, the Agency believes that the Phase III decharacterized,
wastewaters require a two-year national capacity variance. .:
The remainder of this section presents the results of the individual analyses for
each of the 16 industries examined in the capacity analysis.
3.4.1 Inorganic Chemicals Industry
The inorganic chemicals industry (SIC 2812-2819) is composed of four subsectors:
alkalies and chlorine; industrial gases; inorganic pigments; and industrial inorganic
chemicals, not elsewhere classified. There are approximately 1,393 inorganic chemicals
facilities. EPA has categorized the industry into 184 subcategories based primarily on
the dominant product manufactured. Exhibit 3-4 summarizes the major findings of this
analysis. ' •
27
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987, Census of Manufacturers.
-------
3-28 •
EXHIBIT 3-4
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE INORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
.
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
1,062
224
107
1,393
Total Wastewaters
Mixed with ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)a
276
58
28
362
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment8
51
11
5
67
. ,
Facilities
with Land-
Based Units3
255 - 297
54-63
25-30
334-390
Affected
Facilities8
12-14
3 ,
1-2
16-19
i
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)a
' 3-4
0.7
0.3 - 0.5
4-5
The numbers or quantities in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode.
Key Data!Sources
Ofi
Effluent Guidelines Development Document. The development document
contains data regarding the constituents that are regulated by the Clean Water Act and
concentration data. All of the constituents found above UTS are regulated,by CWA.
According to this document, the average flow of this industry is estimated to be 260,000
tons per year.
Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to POTWs.29 The
1986 Report to Congress data regarding several constituents shows that chromium,
cyanide, lead, silver,- and zinc are present in concentrations above UTS levels. Except for
silver, these constituents are regulated by CWA. According to the Report, about 76
percent of the facilities are direct dischargers, about 16 percent are indirect dischargers
and 7.7 percent are zero dischargers.
Biennial Reporting System (BRS). EPA extracted data from the 1991 BRS to
determine what types of affected wastes are generated by the inorganic chemicals
industry. The BRS indicates that this industry does generate ICRT wastes.
28 The data presented in this section is based primarily on U.S. EPA, 1982 (June) and 1984 (August, Phase II),
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
Point Source Category (Development Document), Office of Water, Effluent Guidelines Division.
29 U.S. EPA, February 1986, Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
-------
3-29
Toxic Release Inventory. TRI data included information on the loadings of
contaminants at 685 facilities for this industry (SIC 28 Ix). EPA compared the
concentrations of non-priority pollutants using a high flowrate scenario,of 1,000,000
gallons per day and a low flowrate scenario of 50,000 gallons per day. At the high
flowrate scenario, 19 facilities were found to have concentrations above UTS. At the low
flowrate scenario, 33 facilities were found to have concentrations above UTS. ..
Permit Compliance System (PCS). The Permit Compliance System (PCS)
provides data to determine the number of land-based units in this industry (indicated by
SIC codes 2812-2819). The number of inorganic chemicals facilities that are included in
the PCS is 488. Of'these 488 facilities, 89-facilities reported the type of treatment
systems used at these facilities. About 22 facilities- (24 percent) reported using treatment
systems that are most likely land-based units.
Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey. The Industrial Subtitle D Screening
Survey also provides data regarding the management of wastes at industrial facilities.
These data estimate that there are 1,305 inorganic chemical facilities. Of these facilities,
345 facilities have surface impoundments and 16 facilities have land application units
(approximately 28 percent of all inorganic facilities).
Census of Manufactures.30 The 1987 census estimates that there are 1,393
facilities in this industry.
Comments on the Proposed Phase HI Rule. According to comments received on
the Phase III LDR proposed rule, the chemical manufacturing industry does appear to be
using land-based units and has concentrations of UHCs above UTS in decharacterized
ICRT wastewaters at some facilities. These cominenters also believe that if .a "battery
limits" approach was implemented to define the point of generation for these waste
streams, it would simplify the procedure for sampling and analyzing wastewaters and
minimize the economic burdens of modifying the land-based units that are being used for
treatment of the decharacterized wastewaters; however, EPA is not addressing, this issue
in this rulemaking.
Key Assumptions ,
There are significant data limitations in assessing the extent of the impact of this
rule due to a high variability in the waste generation and management practices within an
industry and across all industrial sectors. To bridge these data gaps, EPA had to make
some assumptions based on the industry knowledge and professional judgment. The key
assumptions specific to the inorganic chemicals industry are stated below:
30
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987, op. cit.
-------
3-30
• , • All 1,393 inorganic chemical manufacturing facilities generate ICRT wastes
that are aggregated and dechaf acterized prior to any treatment.
• About 334 to 390 facilities use land-based units as part of their wastewater
treatment system. This estimate is based on the PCS and Subtitle D data.
i •
* About 67 facilities generate wastewaters with underlying hazardous
constituents above UTS that are not regulated by CWA. This estimate is
based on the extrapolation of TRI data to the entire industry.
* The average flowrate is 260,000 tons per year, based on the development
document data.
3.4.2 Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Industry
The OCPSF industry is large and diverse, with approximately 1,512 facilities. Of
these, 75 percent are considered primary producers and 25 percent are secondary
producers of OCPSF products. Secondary OCPSF plants may be part of the other
chemical producing industries, such as the petroleum refining, inorganic chemicals,
Pharmaceuticals, and pesticides industries as well as the chemical formulation industries.
The OCPSF industry SIC includes: 2821-2824, 2865, and 2869. Although, over 25,000
different organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers are manufactured, less than half
of these products are produced in excess of 1,000 pounds per year. Exhibit 3-5
summarizes the major findings of this analysis.
EXHIBIT 3-5
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE OCPSF INDUSTRY
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
499
635
378
1,512
Total Wastewaters
Mixed with ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)a
735
179 •
102
Ij016
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment3
10-64
106 - 178
,64-106
180-348
Facilities
with Land-
Based Units9
359
89
121
569
Affected
Facilities3
7-46
15-25
21 -34
43 - 105
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)a
10-68
4-7
6-9
20-84
* The numbers or quantities in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode.
-------
,3-31
Key Data Sources
Effluent Guidelines Development Document In 1983, EPA obtained detailed
information regarding individual plant characteristics, and wastewater treatment efficiency
through a comprehensive Clean Water Act - Section 308 Questionnaire.31 Of the 940
facilities surveyed, 33 percent were direct dischargers, 42 percent were indirect
dischargers, and 25 percent were zero dischargers. Of the 25 percent zero dischargers,
73 facilities (32 percent) reported discharging through land application, evaporation,
and/or surface impoundments. The average process wastewater flow rate is 1.31 MGD
for direct dischargers, 0.25 MGD for indirect.dischargers, and 0.24 MGD for zero
dischargers. On average 1,473,750 tons per year of wastewater is discharged from each
facility through direct discharge, and 281,250 tons per year through indirect discharge. A
wide variety of pollutants including conventional, non-conventional, and toxic priority
pollutants are present in the wastewaters discharged by this industry. The following is a
summary of the wastewater treatment/discharge practices in this industry:
Direct dischargers:
• .9 percent provide either no treatment or no treatment beyond equalization
and/or neutralization; . '
• 19 percent provide only physical/chemical treatment; and -
* 72 percent utilize biological treatment.
Indirect dischargers:
* 39 percent provide either no treatment or no treatment beyond
equalization and/or neutralization;
* 47 percent provide some physical/chemical treatment; and
• 14 percent utilize biological treatment.
Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to POTWs.. The 1986
Report to Congress32 indicated that there are 537 facilities in the OCPSF industry. Of
these 32 percent are direct dischargers, 42 percent are indirect dischargers, and 26
31 U.S. EPA, 1987, Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category, Volume I, Industrial Technology Division, EPA-440/1-
87/009; , . -.
32 U.S. EPA, February 1986, Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
-------
• . . - - .3-32
percent are zero dischargers. These data also indicated the presence of priority and non-
conventional pollutants in the wastewaters discharged by the OCPSF industry. Many
priority pollutants and one non-conventional pollutant (acetone) were present in
concentrations above the UTS levels.
Biennial Reporting System. EPA extracted data from the 1991 .BRS to determine
what types of affected wastes are generated by the OCPSF industry. EPA obtained data
for the top 25 waste generators who treat their wastes on site. Few facilities were ' ,
selected for follow-up on their BRS data submissions and telephone interviews were
conducted to collect more information on the waste generation and management '
practices followed by these facilities. The information .obtained is summarized in the
telephone logs included in the industry profiles in Chapter 3 of Appendix A.
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI data provides mass loading information
that is used to calculate the concentration of constituents. The mass loadings of non-
conventional pollutants obtained from this database was used to calculate the
concentration of pollutants discharged at two different flow rates for the direct and
indirect dischargers. These values were then compared with the UTS values to
determine if the pollutant concentration in the wastewaters discharged exceeded the UTS
levels. This analysis was conducted for 48 non-conventional pollutants and the results
indicate that:
• At high flow rates, 10 direct dischargers and 106 indirect dischargers could
have exceedences for at least one UTS constituent;
• At low flow rates, 64 direct dischargers and 178 indirect dischargers could
have exceedences for at least one UTS constituent; and
Constituent concentrations were not available for zero dischargers. Therefore,
EPA estimated the number of facilities that-have constituents exceeding the UTS levels
by applying the ratio of indirect discharging facilities that had exceedences for UTS
constituents. By this method, approximately 64 to 106 zero discharging facilities were
found to have exceedences for at least one UTS constituent. . .
Permit Compliance System. According to the PCS data there are 653 facilities in
the OCPSF industry. Of these, 189 facilities (29 facilities) use land-based units as part of
the wastewater treatment system.
Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey. According to this data source there are
2,994 facilities in the OCPSF industry. Of these 221 facilities have surface
impoundments, and 54 facilities have land application units. Total waste quantity
managed in land based units (includes surface impoundments and land application units)
at large facilities (generators of 100 kg or more of waste) is approximately 275 million
tons per year. The Subtitle D Screening Survey included facilities from SIC 2851 and
-------
3-33
2891 categories, which are not included in the present study, which explains the high
number of facilities compared to the 940 facilities reported in the effluent guidelines
document. / ..
Industrial Studies Database (ISDB). Analysis of the ISDB33 provides ranges of
constituent concentrations in the ICR wastes managed 'in CWA, SDWA, or CWA-
equivalent systems. ISDB addresses the OCPSF industry under six industry groups:
brominated organics; chlorinated chemicals; dyes and pigments; organometallics;
industrial organics; and plastics. Approximately 50 percent of the facilities are included
in this database. These data indicate that the concentrations of many underlying
constituents exceed the UTS levels. Many of these constituents are nonpriority
pollutants. . ' ' i
Industry Contacts. In order to better understand the generation and management
of wastewaters in the OCPSF industry, EPA contacted staff from different facilities.
These facilities were selected for follow-up on their BRS data submissions and telephone
interviews were conducted to collect more information on the waste generation and
management practices followed by these facilities. This follow-up information indicate
that majority of the facilities are direct dischargers. All the facilities contacted reported
generating ICRT wastes. Of these, three facilities reported using land-based units and
two of these three facilities reported presence of underlying hazardous constituents above
UTS levels in the wastewaters discharged from their facilities. Detailed information .
obtained from the facilities is summarized in the telephone logs in the industry profiles in
Chapter 3 of Appendix A. .
Comments 6n the Proposed Phase III Rule. According to comments received on
the Phase III LDR proposed rule, the chemical manufacturing industry does appear to be
using land-based units and has concentrations of UHCs above UTS in decharacterized
ICRT wastewaters at some facilities. These commenters also believe that if a "battery
limits" approach was implemented to define the point of generation for these waste
streams, it would simplify the procedure for sampling and analyzing wastewaters and
minimize the economic burdens of modifying the land-based units that are being used for
treatment of the decharacterized wastewaters; however, EPA is not addressing this issue
in this rulemaking.
Key Assumptions .
1 • • /
There are significant data limitations in assessing the extent of the impact of the
Phase III rule due to a high variability in the waste generation and management practices
in the OCPSF industry. The PCS data were not used in this analysis because the PCS
included fewer than 50 percent of the total facilities in the OCPSF industry. The Subtitle
33
U.S. EPA, November 30, 1994, op.cit.
-------
•-.:'•" ' 3"34
D survey data were not used in this analysis because the survey included facilities from
other subcategories that are not considered in the present analysis. Of all the data
sources, the effluent guidelines document provided the most comprehensive data.
Therefore, EPA extrapolated data from the 940 facilities surveyed in the Section 308
Questionnaire to the 1,512 facilities, reported by the 1987 Census of Manufacturers, in
the OCPSF industry. The land-based units were estimated based on the number of
facilities using biological treatment in this industry. (The numbers of facilities using land-
based units, as estimated from PCS and Subtitle D survey data, were similar.) The
affected facilities were estimated by calculating the probability of the number of facilities
with constituents above UTS that also have land-based units. To bridge other data gaps,
EPA made assumptions based on industry knowledge and professional judgment. These
key assumptions specific to the OCPSF industry are listed below: ' ' /
• Based on the data reviewed arid process knowledge, EPA assumes that all
1,512 OCPSF facilities are likely to generate some amount of ICR and TC
organic wastes that are aggregated and decharacterized prior to any
treatment.
• Based on industry knowledge and information obtained from several data
sources, EPA assumed that all biological treatments are likely to be
conducted in land-based units. ' - • . . .
• EPA estimated the number of facilities with constituents above UTS based
on the mass loadings provided in the TRI data and the wastewater flow
rate provided in the effluent guidelines document.
f
3.43 Electric Generation Industry
The electrical services industry (SIC codes 4911 and 4931) consists of companies
engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electrical energy for sale.
Steam-electric power plants, estimated to number 842 facilities, compose one section of
the electrical services industry affected by this rule. Exhibit 3-6 summarizes the major
findings of this analysis.
t ' ' - .
Key Data Sources
Effluent Guidelines Development Document34 This document presents
information regarding the 842 active facilities that were operating at the time of the
compilation of the document. This document also presents data regarding the
34 U.S. EPA, November, 1982, Development Document for .Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source
Performance Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Category, Office of Water,
Effluent Guidelines Division, EPA-440/1 -82/029.
-------
3-35 ; •
EXHIBIT 3-d
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE ELECTRIC GENERATION INDUSTRY
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
.472
253-
117
842
Total Wastewaters
Mixed with ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)a
94
51
. 23,
168 .
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment*
82
44
21
147
,
Faculties
with Land*
Based Units8
76 - 175 J
41 - 94
19-44
135 - 312
Affected
Facilities2
14-30 ,
7- 17
3- 8
24-55
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)a
2.8 - 6.0
1.4 - 3.4
0.6 - 1.6
4.8 - 11.0
* The numbers or quantities in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and ?ero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode.
7
concentration of constituents that were used in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Toxiciry Characteristic Rule (TC RIA). ' .
Biennial Reporting System (BRS). EPA analyzed BRS data and found that only
33 out of the 350 electric generating facilities registered in the system reported - •
generating and managing ICRT waste streams on site. However, the BRS data may have
been incomplete, for reasons discussed previously and as evidenced by the fact that only
350 out of 842 facilities were registered. Furthermore, the 33 facilities reporting
generation and management of ICRT waste streams were from only 12 states. These
facilities reported the generation and management of 734,000 tons.of ICRT wastes
(averaging 22,242 tons per facility per year). Most of the waste streams generated at
these facilities were corrosive wastewaters (87 percent by volume) produced by the .
regeneration of ion-exchange resin beds. The BRS data also indicated that 56 percent
(by volume) of the treated wastes is discharged under NPDES, 30 percent is discharged
to POTWs, and 14 percent is managed at zero discharge facilities. .
Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to POTWs;35 The
1986 Report to Congress (RTC) data identified only three priority pollutants (lead,
nickel, and zinc) to be present in wastewaters discharged to POTWs by two facilities in
the electric power generating industry. The maximum concentrations of these pollutants
were found to be below UTS. The average flowrate was estimated to be 82,100 gallons
per day (125,000 tons per year, assuming 365 operating day and 240 gallons per ton).
35 U.S. EPA, February 1986, Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of-Water Regulations and Standards. . '
-------
3-36
Permit Compliance System (PCS). EPA found that 1,450 utilities (with SIC codes
4911 and 4931) were in the PCS database. Of the 344 facilities that reported treatment
trains, approximately 56 (16 percent) use treatment systems that are likely to be land-
based units. .
Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey. According to the survey, there were 1,338
generators covered under SIC code 4911. About 27 percent of these1 facilities are
estimated to use land-based units. .
Toxicity Characteristic Regulatory Impact Analysis (TC RIA).36 A report
prepared for the RIA of the Toxicity Characteristic Final Rule (55 FR 11798; March 29,
1990) provided data on several waste streams, the concentrations of organic UHCs, and
"the use of land-based units by the electric generating industry. First, it seems likely that
if the cooling water is non-hazardous and mixed with other ICRT wastewaters generated
at an electric generating facility, the total effluent will probably have UHCs below UTS
even without any treatment of the aggregated wastewaters. Of three plants sampled, the .
concentration of at least one UHC in the samples of ion exchange demineralizer and
boiler blowdown taken at one plant was found to be above UTS. Although the once-
through cooling water and recycling cooling water were also found to have the
concentrations of some UHCs above UTS, these wastewater streams and pollutants are
currently regulated by CWA The TC RIA also indicated that approximately 70 percent
of the wastes managed at steam-electric utilities are managed on site. At 580 facilities
with pn-site management, the TC RIA indicated that 303 facilities use un-lined surface
impoundments (assumed to be non-hazardous). Based on these data, EPA estimates that
up to 37 percent of the facilities use land-based units.
Industry Contacts. EPA contacted the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) regarding
the generation and management of wastewaters at steam-electric utilities. EEI confirmed
the generation and management of. ICRT wastewaters on site and the use of land-based
units at some facilities in the industry. EEI also indicated that UHCs may be present in
the wastewaters in concentrations ranging from non-detectable to above UTS. These
wastewaters included: boiler chemical cleaning wastes (90 million gallons per year);
deionized regenerant (6 to 20 billion gallons per year); boiler blowdown (16.5 billion
gallons per year); cooling water (2.6 trillion gallons per year); and wastewaters such as
coal pile runoff (with generation volumes that are very site-specific). EEI also noted that
large volume wastes from coal-fired electric facilities were determined by EPA to be low
risk wastes and are exempt from being managed as hazardous waste under RCRA
Subtitle C. Other wastes generated at coal-fired electric facilities are also exempted from
today's rule. However, the electric generating industry is moving away from co-
management of ICR wastewaters with other large volume wastes. EPA also contacted
some of the facilities the submitted BRS data in 199i. All the facilities confirmed the
34 U.S. EPA, Estimates of Waste Generation by the Electrical Services Industry, Final Draft Report, prepared by
Midwest Research Institute, November 17, 1987., ' *
-------
3-37
generation and management of ICRT wastes on site. The facilities also confirmed that
some mixing of the ICRT wastewaters with other wastewaters takes place prior to
treatment. However, the facilities did not confirm the use of land-based units, or the
presence of UHCs above the UTS in their effluents.
Comments on the proposed Phase III Rule. In comments received on the Phase
III LDR proposed rule, 13 utility companies addressed the generation and management
of ICRT wastewaters at their facilities. These commenters indicated that at least two
corrosive wastes (boiler chemical cleaning wastes and ion exchange regeneration wastes)
are being generated as individual batches or rinses, but then decharacterized when the
entire process of waste generation is completed at the facility.
Key Assumptions
There are-significant data limitations in assessing the extent of the impact of the
Phase III rule due to a high variability in the waste generation and management practices
within an industry and across all industrial sectors. To bridge these data gaps, EPA had
to make some assumptions based on the industry knowledge and professional judgment.
The key assumptions specific to the electric power generation industry are stated below:
• Most (90 percent) of 842 steam-electric facilities generate ICRT wastes that
are aggregated with other wastewaters. However, only one-third of these
mixed wastewaters will probably have UHCs exceeding UTS prior to
discharge of effluent. EPA based this assumption on data from the
development documents, BRS, RTC, TC RIA, and industry contacts.
X,
• None of the 352 !coal-fired power plants are assumed to be affected by this
rule. These facilities are likely to aggregate their ICRT wastes with wastes
that are exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulation due to the Bevill
Amendment. Thus, out of the remaining 490 non coal-fired facilities, 147
facilities (one-third of 490 multiplied by 0.90) are assumed to generate
wastewaters with UHCs above UTS that are not regulated by CWA. This
assumption is based on applying the observations made in BRS data and
the TC RIA data.
. • About 135 to 312 facilities (16. to 37 percent of 842) use land-based units as
part of their wastewater treatment system, based on the range indicated by
the PCS, Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey, and TC RIA data. -
• The maximum quantity of wastewater affected at a facility due to the
aggregation and decharacterization of ICRT wastes, assuming UHCs do not
fall below UTS, is estimated to be 200,000 tons per year. This estimate is
based on an assumption that the two main ICRT waste streams of concern
,' - boiler cleaning wastewater and ion-exchange regenerant - may be .mixed
-------
3-38 • ,
and decharacterized, at their maximum flow rates of 20.09 billion gallons
per year, with equal amounts of other'wastewaters prior to discharge. Any
additional mixing and decharacterization of ICRT waste generated in the
steam electric generation industry will probably result in the effluent
meeting with UTS and not being affected by today's rule.
3.4.4 Electrical and Electronics Components Industry
The electrical and electronic components industry is primarily composed of
manufacturers of luminescent materials, cathode ray tubes, semiconductors, and
electronic crystals. The electrical and electronic components industry consists of facilities
within SIC 3571-3579 and 3612-3699. Exhibit 3-7 summarizes the major findings of this
analysis.
EXHIBIT 3-7
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS INDUSTRY
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
90
280
3 '
373
Total Wastewaters
Mixed with ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)a
11.7
36.4
0.4
48.5
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment8
47
146
1
194
Facilities
with Land-
Based Units9
15-57
47 - 176
1-2
63 - 235
Affected
Facilities8
8-29
25-92
0- 1
33 - 122
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)a
1-3.9
3- 12
0.03 - 0.13
4-16
The data presented in this column were obtained on an aggregated basis. Thus, the data are proportioned among the direct,
indirect, and zero discharge facilities based on their percentages of the total number of facilities.
Key Data Sources .
*n
Effluent Guidelines Development Document. This document presents
information on the 373 active facilities in this industry that were.operating at the time of
the compilation of the document. There are estimated to be 90 direct dischargers, 280
37 U.S. EPA, Development. Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standard for the Electrical and
Electronic Components Point Source Categories, U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, July 1982 and
February 1983.
-------
. • 3-39
!
indirect dischargers, and 3 zero dischargers. The average discharge rates for each
industry category were given in the development document for a total of 48,483,000 tons
of wastewater generated per year (about 130,000 tons per facility per year). Data
regarding the use of'land-based units is available for two of the subcategories..
Approximately 33 percent (2 of 5 facilities) of the luminescent materials category use
land-based units and approximately 67 percent (15 of 22 facilities) of the cathode ray
tubes category use land-based units. Based on these data, the development document
data indicate that approximately 63 percent use land-based units. Concentration data
indicate that up to one-half of the facilities have constituents above UTS that are not
regulated by CWA;
Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to POTWs.38 The
1986 Report to Congress (RTC) indicated that there are 379 electrical and electronic
components facilities. The RTC also included constituent concentration information for
priority pollutants in wastes discharged to POTWs. Cyanide and nickel were the
constituents above UTS that are not regulated by CWA.
t
Biennial Reporting System (BRS). EPA extracted data from the 1991 BRS to
determine what types of affected wastes are generated by the electrical and electronic
components industry. EPA obtained data on wastes managed on site at electrical and
electronic components facilities. The data indicate that the electrical and electronic
components industry does generate" and manage ICRT wastes, including ignitable wastes
from maintenance parts cleaning.
•> • -
Toxic Release Inventory. -EPA compared the concentrations reported in the TRI
of non-priority pollutants to UTS. using a high flow rate scenario of 1 million gallons per
day and a low flow rate scenario of 100,000 gallons per day (these flow rates are based
on data provided in the development document). In the high flow rate scenario, one
facility exceeded UTS and in the low flow rate scenario, 12 facilities (about three
percent) exceeded UTS with constituents that are not regulated by CWA.
Permit Compliance System (PCS). The Permit Compliance System.(PCS)
includes 502 facilities with SIC codes of 3571-3579 and 3612-3699. Of these facilities, 29
reported what treatment systems are at their facilities. About 5 of them reported using
treatment systems that are likely to be land-based (approximately. 17 percent). .
Key Assumptions
There are significant data limitations in assessing the 'extent of the impact of the
Phase III rule due to a high variability in the waste generation and management practices
within an industry and. across all industrial sectors. To bridge these data gaps, EPA had
38 U.S. EPA, February 1986, Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
-------
3-40 ' •
i
to make some assumptions based on the industry knowledge and professional judgment.
The key assumptions specific to the electrical and electronic components industry are N
stated below: -
• All 373 electrical and electronic components manufacturing facilities
generate ICRT wastes that are aggregated and decharacterized prior to any
treatment.
/
• About 33 to 122 facilities use land^based units as part of their wastewater
treatment system. These numbers are based on the percentages given by
the data in the PCS and the development document.
• About 194 facilities generate wastewaters with underlying hazardous
constituents above UTS that are not regulated by CWA, based on the
development document data and the TRI data.
• An average of 130,000 tons of wastewater are generated per year, based on
.the development document data.
3.4.5 Electroplating/Metal Finishing Industry
The electroplating/metal finishing industry includes all facilities that conduct any
one of the .following six types of unit operations: electroplating, electroless plating,
anodizing, conversion coating, chemical etching, or printed circuit board manufacturing.
Facilities that conduct one of the six types of core unit operations and are in the seven
industries covered by the metal products and machinery (MP&M) Effluent Guidelines
Phase I group are covered under the MP&M category. Facilities that conduct one of the
six unit operations and are in the eight industries covered by the MP&M Effluent
Guidelines Phase II group are covered under the E/MF category until the MP&M •
Effluent Guidelines Phase II rulemaking is promulgated. All other facilities performing
these six types of core unit operations are covered under the E/MF category.
Using the data and assumptions mentioned below, EPA found that (1) only 228
facilities of the approximately 13,500 facilities conducting metal plating operations are
exclusively E/MF facilities (the other facilities being covered by the MP&M category) and
(2) several facilities have priority pollutants at concentrations higher than the UTS levels
set by the Phase II LDRs. None of the facilities appear to have any non-priority
pollutants with end-of-pipe concentrations being above the UTS levels set by the Phase II
LDR rule. , .
The estimates provided in the POTW Report to Congress on the number of
direct, indirect, and zero dischargers'were proportionately scaled down to obtain a total
of 228 facilities that are covered in the E/MF category for the Phase III LDR analysis.
Similarly, the estimate for the total wastewater flow at indirect dischargers was scaled
-------
3-41 .
down, to obtain a total of 14.7 millions tons per year. All other estimates .were obtained
from the analysis done for the MP&M industry.
Exhibit 3-8 summarizes the major findings of this analysis. However, if the
'existing rule on effluent limitations guidelines adequately addresses the priority pollutants.
that were found to exceed their UTS levels, this category may not be affected by the.
Phase III LDR rule. ,
EXHIBIT 3-8
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE ELECTROPIATING/METAL
FINISHING INDUSTRY
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
50
•178 ;
0
228
Total Wastewaters
Mixed With ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)*
39
14.7
0
40.4
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment*
2
8
0
10
Facilities
with Land-
Based Units8
8
2
0 .
10
Affected
Facilities8
0- 1
0-1
0
0-2
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)a
' 0.78
0 - 0.08
0
0 - 0.86
* The numbers or quantities in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode.
Key Data Sources . ;
The key data sources used for the capacity analysis for this industry are the
MP&M data (see Section 3.4.11) and the POTW Report to Congress.39
Key Assumptions/Methodology
Since the operations conducted by the MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase I
facilities and E/MF facilities are similar, EPA assumed that the E/MF facility wastewaters
affected by the Phase III rule are similar in type (i.e., similar constituents and
concentrations) and quantity to those generated by. MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase I
39 U.S. EPA, 1986 (February), Report to Confess on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of Water. '
-------
. 3-42 • -
facilities. Hence, the results of the MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase I facility data
review were extrapolated to the E/MF facilities. Section 3.4.11 on the MP&M industry
provides details on the data sources used and the procedures and assumptions used'in
the analysis for the MP&M category.
The queries and assumptions used to estimate the number of affected facilities
and wastewater volumes in the E/MF industry are described below:
• Exclude from the scope of the E/MF analysis all MP&M Effluent
Guidelines Phase I facilities that conduct one of the six types of core E/MF
unit operations. Query the MP&M database to determine the number of
facilities that reported at least one of the six types of core E/MF-unit
operations.
• Exclude from the scope of the E/MF analysis all MP&M Effluent •
Guidelines Phase II facilities that conduct one of the six types of core
E/MF unit operations. Assumption: Because Effluent Guidelines Phase I
and Phase II of MP&M are expected at this time to be very similar, this
analysis assumes, that the same percentage of facilities removed from E/MF
due to MP&M.Effluent Guidelines Phase I will be removed as a result of
MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase II.
• Estimate the number of facilities with land disposal units and the number
. of facilities that have constituents with end-of-pipe concentrations above
the UTS levels. Assumption: The wastewaters generated by the MP&M
,. and E/MF industries are very similar in type (i.e., constituents and
concentrations above UTS) and quantity, as illustrated by the significant
overlap in operations covered by each category. Consequently, EPA
applied the same percentage of facilities in MP&M Effluent Guidelines
Phase I group that are affected by the Phase III LDR rule to the facilities
in the E/MF category. Refer to Section 3.4.12 for details on the
procedures and assumptions used in the analysis for the MP&M category.
3.4.6 Federal Facilities
Federal facilities include all operations and facilities owned or managed by. the
U.S. federal government. These facilities cover a wide range of services and processes,
including electric power generation, electrical and electronics components, electroplating
and metal finishing, industrial laundries, metal products and machinery, and
transportation equipment cleaning. Within the SIC code system, federal facilities are
classified according to the operation of the facility and thus do not have a separate code
designating them as federal facilities. For example, a steam-electric plant that is
operated by the federal government is classified under SIC 4911, the same SIC code as a
-------
3-43 . ' - ' .
privately-owned facility. See Sections 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.4.8; 3.4.11, and 3.4.16 for
additional background on the industrial processes used at federal facilities.
Because federal facilities report wastes according to the industrial processes used,
federal facilities are already included within the analyses of the other industries.
Therefore, the estimates presented below have not been added to the total number of
facilities and quantity of waste requiring alternative treatment that are presented at the
beginning of Section 3.4. . ,
Key Data Sources .
This analysis of federal facilities is based on the 1992 Inventory of Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Activities40 (also called the Federal Facility Inventory). The Federal
Facility Inventory is a requirement of RCRA section 3016. EPA compiles the Inventory
every two years based on information submitted from each federal agency on its
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
The 1992 Federal Facility Inventory contains information on three types of land-
based units that could be used in managing ICRT wastewaters: •
• Surface impoundments (Sis);
• Land treatment units1 (LTUs); and ' ^
• Underground injection weDs (UIWs).
For each federal site, the 1992 Inventory identifies the number of Sis, LTUs and UIWs
that have been classified as (1) hazardous waste management units (HWMUs); and/or
(2) solid waste management units (SWMUs).
Because the focus of the Inventory is to track federal facilities, very limited
capacity-specific data are included. Nevertheless, EPA analyzed the 1992 Federal Facility
Inventory in. detail in order to obtain an estimate on the extent to which nonhazardous
land-based units, such as Subtitle D surface impoundments, are being used at federal
sites. •
.
Key Assumptions/Methodology .
Because federal facilities are already included within the analyses of the other
industries, EPA has developed only rough estimates of the number of affected federal
facilities and the quantity of affected wastes. The key assumptions and methodological
steps used by EPA are as. follows:
U.S. EPA, 1993, Inventory of Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Activities: 1992 Report, Office of Solid Waste.
-------
3-44 - -
EPA subtracted the number of HWMUs from SWMUs at each facility for
each unit type (i.e., Sis, LTUs, and UIWs). This resulted in the number of
nonhazardous waste management units at the facility that could potentially
be managing affected characteristic wastewaters.
In response to the question on SWMUs, several facilities appear to have
provided information only on nonhazardous waste units rather than on both
hazardous waste and nonhazardous waste units. Some of these facilities
were identified by the larger number of HWMUs reported compared to
SWMUs. (The number of HWMUs should always be less than or equal to
the number of SWMUs.) For these facilities, EPA assumed that the
number of nonhazardous waste units at the facility was equal to the
number of SWMUs reported.
For facilities that reported the same number of SWMUs as HWMUs, EPA
could not determine whether the facility considered SWMUs synonymous
with nonhazardous waste management units (rather than as both hazardous
waste and nonhazardous waste management units). EPA assumed that
these facilities correctly reported their HWMUs and SWMUs, and thus no
nonhazardous waste units were assumed to be present at these sites. (Only
two facilities were found in this'category.)
/
Because the Inventory does riot focus on waste generators, EPA believes
that the actual number of federal facilities managing decharacterized ICRT
wastewaters in land-based units may be higher than the number of federal
facilities in the Inventory that reported land-based units. Nevertheless,
because only a portion of these facilities are believed to generate wastes
that actually are subject to today's rule (i.e., after accounting for whether
the end-of-pipe concentrations of underlying constituents are above UTS,
and the constituents are adequately addressed by RCRA-equivalent
standards), this estimate obtained from the Inventory is believed to be the
maximum number of federal facilities requiring alternative treatment
because of this rule. .
The percentage of federal facilities generating wastes with underlying
hazardous constituents above the UTS, and for which RCRA-equivalent
treatment is not conducted, could be as low as the lowest percentage
among the related industries. The industry with the lowest such percentage
is the metal products and machinery industry, with only about 650 of its
30,600 facilities (2 percent) appearing to generate inadequately (i.e., non-
RCRA-equivalent) treated ICRT wastes with end-of-pipe constituent
concentrations above the UTS,(see. Section 3.4.11).
-------
3-45 • . •
• EPA estimated waste quantities that could be affected by today's rule by
assuming that each potentially affected federal facility generates
approximately the same quantity of wastewater as the affected facilities
from the industries to which federal facilities are most closely associated.
That is, EPA first summed the estimates,of affected waste for the relevant
industries, and then divided this by the sum of the estimates of affected
facilities for these industries. This resulted in a per-facility average for
federal facilities of approximately 72,000 to 88,000 tons per year.
Major Findings
According to the 1992 Federal Facility Inventory, approximately 94i federal
facilities manage or have managed hazardous waste. From 2 to 69 of these facilities,
generating from 144,000 to 6.1 million tons per year of waste, may require alternative
treatment due to today's rule. Note, however, that because federal facilities report
wastes according to the industrial processes used, these facilities are already included
within the analyses of the other industries. Therefore, these estimates have not been
added to the total number of facilities and quantity of waste requiring alternative
treatment that are presented at the beginning of Section 3.4.
\
3.4.7 Food and Kindred Products Industry •
The food and kindred products industry includes six subsectors: dairy products;
fruits and vegetables; grain inill products; meat products; sugar processing; and seafood .
processing. Facilities from the following SIC codes were included in this study: 2011,
2013, 2015, 2021-2024, 2026, 2032-2035, 2037, 2038, 2041, 2043-2048, 2061, 2062, 2063,
2077, 2091, and 2092. There are approximately 11,353 facilities in this industry. Exhibit
3-9 summarizes the major findings of this analysis.'
Key Data Sources ,
Effluent Guidelines Development Documents. Data from the following
development documents were examined for the six subsectors in the food and kindred
products industry:
• U.S. EPA, May 1974, Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards'for the Dairy Product
Processing Point Source Category, Office of Water and Waste Management,
PB-238 835.
• U.S. EPA, October 1975, Development Document for Interm Final and
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Fruits, Vegetables and Specialties Segment of the Canned
-------
• . . 3-46
EXHIBIT 3-9
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero.
Total
•
Number of
Facilities
l',135 ,;
6,811
3,406
11,353
Total Wastewaters
Mixed with ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)a
3
17
9
29
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment*
23-45
136 - 272
68- 136
227 - 453
Facilities
with Land-
based Units3
182-341
1,090 - 2,043
3,406
4,678-5,790
Affected
Facilities8
4- 14
22 - 82
68 - 136
94 - 232
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)*
.01 - .04
.06 - .2
.2 -.3
.2 -.6
1 The numbers or quantities in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode.
and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Point Source Category, Office of Water
and Waste Management, EPA 440/1-75/046.
U.S. EPA, December 1974, Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Animal Feed,
Breakfast Cereal, and Wheat Starch Segments of the Grain Mitts Point Source
Category, Office of Water and Waste Management, PB-240 861.
U.S. EPA, February 1974, Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Red Meat
Processing Segments of the Meat Products and Rendering Processing Point
Source Category, Office of Water and Waste Management, PB-238 836.
U.S. EPA, February 1975, Development Document for Interim Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards for
the Raw Cane Sugar Processing Segment of the Sugar Processing Point Source
Category, Office of Water, EPA 440/1-75-044.
i
U.S. EPA, September 1975, Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Fish Meal,
Salmon, Bottom Fish, Clam, Oyster, Sardine, Scallop, Herring, and abalone
segment of the Canned and Preserved Fish and Seafood Processing Industry
Point Source Category, Office of Water, EPA-440/l-75/041a.
-------
• 3-47 .
These data indicate that large amounts of wastewater are being treated in surface
impoundments and other land-based units. Land treatment/application is a preferred
method of wastewater treatment in this industry. The mode of wastewater discharge
differs significantly among the subsectors in this industry. EPA averaged the direct,
indirect, and zero dischargers across all the six subsectors. According to this estimate,
approximately 60 percent of the facilities discharge their wastewaters to POTWs, and 30
percent of the facilities discharge the wastewaters through land application, and the
remaining 10 percent pf the facilities discharge directly to surface waters. xData from the
development documents indicate little ICR or TC organic wastes generated by this
industry. Corrosive wastes, which are generated in some food processing stages, appears
to be the largest quantities of these wastes. However, most of the facilities neutralize
these wastewaters by aggregating them with other process wastewaters.
Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to POTWs.41 The ,
1986 Report to Congress indicated that there are 22,130 facilities in the food and kindred
products industry. These data include all the industries in the two digit SIC code 20xx,
however, and not the more limited list of industries that are the focus of the Phase III
LDR rule. These data also indicate the presence of priority, toxic, and non-conventional
pollutants in the wastewaters discharged by the food processing facilities. Many
underlying hazardous constituents are present in concentrations above the UTS levels.
Biennial Reporting System (BRS). EPA extracted data from the 1991 BRS to
determine what types of affected wastes are generated by the food processing facilities.
BRS data indicated that none of these treat hazardous wastes on site. However, BRS
data identified one facility that treats hazardous waste off site.
Permit Compliance System (PCS). The PCS data identified 1,783 direct
discharging facilities in the food processing sector. Of these, 16 percent (279 facilities)
appear to treat their wastes on site in land-based units.
Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey. The Industrial Subtitle D Screening
Survey indicated that there are 14,277 facilities. These data include all the industries in
the two digit SIC code 20xx, however, and not the more limited list of industries that are
the focus of the Phase III LDR rule. These data indicate that 22 percent of the facilities
manage approximately 328 million tons of wastewater in surface impoundments or land
application units. . . . • ,
Industry Contacts. In order to better understand the generation and management
of wastewaters in the food processing sector, EPA contacted staff from six different
facilities. EPA selected these six facilities at random from the Million Dollar Industrial
Directory, and contacted them to get information on general industrial practices for
41 U.S. EPA, February 1986, Report to Cong-ess on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
-------
3-48
wastewater management. This information indicated that some facilities generate ICRT
wastes and aggregate them with other wastewaters. Many facilities reported using land-
based units. Detailed information obtained from these facilities is summarized in the
telephone logs included in the industry profiles in Chapter 8 of Appendix A.
Key Assumptions
There are significant data limitations in assessing the extent of the impact of the
Phase III rule in this industry due to fairly old data and due to high variability in the
waste generation and management practices. The wastewater flow data reported in the
effluent development documents were almost 20 years old, and therefore EPA relied on
recently published data to. estimate an average wastewater use of 2,562 tons per year per
facility in the industry.42 Based on this flow rate and the TRI loadings, EPA calculated
,the concentrations of underlying hazardous constituents, and found that the wastewaters
discharged by at least a few facilities may have concentrations exceeding the UTS for
xylenes, acetone, barium, and ethylene oxide. The number of affected facilities were
estimated by calculating the probability of the number of facilities with constituents above
UTS that also have land-based units. To bridge other data gaps,' EPA made few
assumptions based oh industry knowledge and professional judgment. The key
assumptions specific to the food and kindred products industry are listed below:
* The end-of-pipe pH concentrations of the wastewaters average between 4
and 12. This indicates that there could be significant quantities of corrosive
wastes generated.. Therefore, EPA believes that all food processing
: facilities are likely to generate ICRT wastes that are aggregated and
decharacterized prior to treatment or discharge.
• Data on the percentage of facilities using land-based units varied among
different data sources. The effluent guidelines document indicated 30
percent of the facilities use land application and are thus considered to be
zero dischargers. Of the direct and indirect dischargers, EPA assumes that
at most 30 percent use land-based units. The PCS data indicated 16
percent, and the Subtitle D survey indicated 22 percent. Therefore, EPA
used these data to set the upper bound at 30 percent and lower bound at
16 percent to estimate the number of facilities with land-based units.
• Based on professional judgment and limited available data on the
. constituent concentrations in the' wastewaters, EPA believes that
approximately 2 to 4 percent of the food processing facilities may have
constituent concentrations that .exceed the UTS levels.
42 The Water Encyclopedia, Table 5-39 (Water Use in Food Industry), p.346.
-------
3-49
3.4.8 Industrial Laundries
The industrial laundries industry is a subcategory of the auto and other laundries
point source category. Industrial laundry facilities (SIC 7218) are primarily engaged in
supplying laundered or, to a limited extent, dry-cleaned work uniforms, wiping towels,
safety equipment (e.g., gloves, flame-resistant clothing), dust covers and cloths, and
similar items to industrial or commercial users. These items may belong to the industrial
laundry and supplied to users on a rental basis, or they may be the customer's own
goods. Exhibit 3-10 summarizes the major findings of this analysis.
EXHIBIT 3-10
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES INDUSTRY
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
1
999
0
1,000
Total Wastewaters
Mixed with ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)a
.08
76
0
76
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment8
1
800 - 999
0
801 - 1000
Facilities
with Land-
Based Units"
.1
30- 120
0
31 - 121
Affected
Facilities9
1
24 - 120
0
25 - 121
.
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)a
.08
1.8 - 9.2
0
1.9 - 9.3
The numbers or quantities in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode.
Key Data Sources.
Effluent Guidelines Development Document In 1980, there were approximately
1,000. industrial laundries operating in the United States.43 Most of these facilities
operated their own laundry facilities. The rest of the facilities are mostly sales
establishments, administrative centers, of distribution centers. The average wastewater
flow was approximately 68,000 GPD per facility. Since the laundry facilities are almost
exclusively confined to urban and suburban areas where their customers are located,
almost all the facilities discharge their wastewaters to POTWs. Only one facility was
found to be a direct discharger. EPA studies indicate that very few facilities pretreat the
wastewaters before discharging to the POTWs. However, in cases where treatment
43 U.S. EPA, October 1980, Development Document for Effluent-Limitations Guidelir^es and Standards for the Auto
and Other Laundries Point Source Category, Office of Water and Waste Management.
-------
. . 3-50
systems have been installed, dissolved air flotation has been selected as providing the best
treatment.
In 1994, in preparation for new effluent guidelines, EPA conducted a survey of
1,751 facilities in the industrial laundries category (including some facilities from other
subcategories). This new study confirmed that most industrial laundries do not conduct.
on-site treatment of wastewaters prior to discharging to a POTW. However, the study
also shows that treatment methods including lint screens, oil skimmers, and heat
reclaimers are used by few facilities in this industry. Sampling and analysis of discharges
from this industry showed underlying hazardous constituents in the wastewaters
discharged. .
Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to POTWs. The 1986
Report to Congress indicated that there are 68,535 facilities in the industrial and
commercial laundries industry.44 The focus of the present study is only on the
industrial laundries, however,'and so these data are not very applicable since it includes
facilities from all other sectors not included in this capacity analysis. Nevertheless, these
data also indicate the presence of priority, toxic, and non-conventional pollutants in the
wastewaters discharged by the industrial laundries. Many priority pollutants and one
non-conventional pollutant (acetone) were present in concentrations above the UTS
levels.
Biennial Reporting System. Data from the 1991 BRS was extracted to determine
what types of affected wastes are generated by the industrial laundries sector. BRS data
indicated no industrial laundries to treat their hazardous waste on site. However, eight
facilities reported sending their wastes to off-site treatment facilities. These facilities
were contacted for follow-up on their BRS data submissions and telephone interviews
were conducted to collect more information on the waste generation and management
practices followed by these facilities. The information obtained is summarized in the
telephone logs included in the industry profiles' in Chapter 9 of Appendix A.
Permit Compliance System (PCS). The PCS data showed only seven direct
discharge laundry facilities that indicated the type of treatment or treatment unit used.
However, none of these facilities reported using any potential land-based treatment units
for treating the wastewaters. ; .
Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey. The Industrial Subtitle D Screening
Survey did not include the1 industrial laundry facilities. Therefore, EPA used data from
this survey to calculate the average percentage of land-based units used across all the
industries for which data were available. Based on these data, EPA estimates that
approximately 12 percent of the facilities in all industrial sectors use land-based units as
** U.S. EPA, February 1986, Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
-------
3-51
part of the wastewater treatment system. EPA applied this value in calculating the
number of facilities with; land-based units in the. industrial laundries category, which
resulted in 120 facilities.
« t -
Industry Contacts. In order to better understand the generation and management ,
of wastewaters in the industrial laundries sector, EPA contacted staff from different
facilities. These facilities were selected for follow-up on their BRS data submissions and
telephone interviews were conducted to collect more information on the waste generation
and management practices followed by these facilities. This follow-up information
indicate that most of the facilities discharge their wastewater indirectly .to POTWs under
a local city or county agreement. This information also indicates that some organic
pollutants present in the wastewaters are not addressed by the POTW agreement.
Detailed information obtained from the facilities is summarized in the telephone logs in
the industry profiles in Chapter 9 .of Appendix A.
Key Assumptions - •
There are significant data limitations in assessing the extent of the impact of the
Phase III LDR rule due to high .variability in the waste generation and management
practices in this industry. For the purpose of this rule, EPA extrapolated the data from
the Effluent Guidelines Document to estimate the total ICRT wastewaters mixed with
other wastewaters, based on the average flow rate. The land-based units were estimated
based on the Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey data. To bridge other data gaps,
EPA made assumptions based on industry knowledge and professional judgment. The
key assumptions specific to the industrial laundries sector are provided below:
• Based on industry knowledge, EPA believes that all industrial laundries are
likely to generate at least some ICRT wastes that are aggregated with other
wastes and decharacterized prior to further treatment or discharge.
• Given that most industrial laundries are in urban and suburban areas, EPA
believes that the estimate of facilities with land-based units (12 percent
from the PCS data) may be somewhat high. Therefore, EPA chose 3
percent (one forth of 12 percent) as a lower bound estimate and 12 percent
as an upper bound estimate.
j -
• Based on process knowledge and information obtained from several data
sources discussed above, EPA believes that several underlying hazardous
constituents are likely to be present in wastewaters discharged by more
than 80 percent of the indirect dischargers at a level greater than the UTS.
Therefore, EPA chose 80 percent as a lower bound and 100 percent as an
upper bound estimate of facilities with constituents above UTS.
-------
3-52
3.4.9 Iron and Steel Industry
The iron and steel manufacturing industry (SIC 3312-3325) is composed of twelve
subsectors based on the different manufacturing processes. EPA estimates that there are
approximately 1,020 iron and steel manufacturing facilities with 73 percent direct
dischargers, 16 percent indirect dischargers, and 11 percent zero dischargers. Exhibit 3-
11 summarizes the major findings of this analysis. .
EXHIBIT 3-11
MAJOR JPTNDINGS FOR THE IRON AND
INDUSTRY
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect .
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
741
162
117
1,020
Total Wastewaters
Mixed with ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)a
6,300
1,400
,-i;ooo • .
8,700
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment8
23
5
3
31
Facilities
with Land-
Based Units"
81- 164
18-36
13-24
112 - 224
Affected
Facilities3
2-5
1
1
3-7
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/jr)a
17 - 43
8.5
8.5
26-60
The numbers or quantities in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode. • .
Key Data Sources
.45"
Effluent Guidelines Development Document The development document
presents information regarding the 1,020 active plants that were operating at the time of
the compilation of the document. This document presents data regarding the use of
land-based units in the treatment system (lagoons and ponds were assumed to be surface
impoundments), and the concentration of constituents. Approximately 122 of 704 (17
percent) are estimated to use land-based units. Approximately three percent of the
facilities are estimated to have constituents above UTS.
45 The primary'source of information for Sections 10.3 and 10.4 is the U.S. EPA, Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standard for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category (Development
Document), Office of Water Regulations and Standards, 1982.
-------
3-53 .
Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to POTWs.46 The
1986 Report to Congress (RTC), indicated that there are 1,020 iron and steel facilities
with 733 direct dischargers, 162 indirect dischargers, and 125 zero dischargers. The RTC
also indicated constituents in wastes discharged to POTWs above UTS, however, they
are all regulated by CWA. /
Biennial Reporting System (BRS). EPA extracted data from the 1991 BRS to
determine what types of affected wastes are generated by the iron and steel industry.
EPA obtained data regarding wastes managed on site at iron and steel facilities for the
facilities that generated the highest quantities of potentially affected wastes. These data
confirmed that the industry generates ICRT wastes.
Permit Compliance System (PCS). In the PCS, 460.facilities were reported with
SIC codes 3312-3325. Of these facilities, 106 reported their treatment systems and only
approximately 23 (22 percent) of these facilities reported using land-based units.
Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey. The Industrial Subtitle D Screening
Survey indicated that 11 percent of the facilities use land-based units.
Industry Studies Database (ISDB). The ISDB only contains reliable facility
information for coke facilities. The data includes the total wastewater volume generated
by this sector of the industry (33 million tons per year) and the number of land-based
units (9 of 44 facilities). Constituents were found above UTS, however, they are all
regulated by CWA. . • .
Key Assumptions
There are significant data limitations in assessing the extent of the impact of the
Phase III rule due to a high variability in the waste generation and management practices
within an industry and across all industrial sectors. To bridge these data gaps, EPA had
to make some assumptions based on the industry knowledge and professional judgment.
The key assumptions specific to the iron and steel industry are stated below:
• All 1,020 iron and steel facilities generate ICRT wastes that are aggregated
and decharacterized. - .
•.. About 112 to 224 facilities use land-based units as part of their wastewater
treatment system. This estimate is based on PCS, development document,
and Industrial Subtitle D Survey data. .
46 U.S. EPA, February 1986, Report.to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
-------
3-54
• About 31 facilities generate wastewaters with underlying hazardous
constituents above UTS-that' are not regulated by CWA. This estimate is
based on development document, ISDB, and TRI data.
' \ ' '
• The average facility discharge rate is 8.5 million tons per year. This
number is based on the development ^document and ISDB data.
3.4.10 Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry
The leather tanning and finishing industry is primarily engaged in tanning,
currying, and finishing raw or cured hides and skins into leather. In addition, the industry
includes converters .and dealers that buy hides and skins or leather and contract with
tanners or finishers to process these products. Most tanneries operate on a small-scale
basis, are located in urban areas, and use tanks for wastewater treatment. The vast
majority of the tanning facilities are family-owned and closely-held corporations, with a
few> facilities that are divisions of large conglomerates. Approximately 30 percent of
these facilities have less than 50 employees and generate less than 100,000 gallons of
wastewater per day. Most of-the facilities are housed in buildings that are more than 50
years old. Only a few of these facilities, typically the larger facilities, use modern
processing methods and equipment. Exhibit 3-12 summarizes the major findings on this
analysis. Most of the available data is several years old with some of the data being
more than 20 years old. The Phase III LDRs may, in reality, have a very low impact on
the leather tanning and finishing industry. Several practices may have changed in light of
the RCRA program. For example, facilities may be segregating their wastewaters and
treating them separately in tanks.. .
EXHIBIT 3-12
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING INDUSTRY
Discharge
.Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
17
141
:2
160
Total Wastewaters
Mixed With ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)a
< 4.9
'46.5
0.6
52
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment8
17
141
2
160
Facilities
with Land-
Based Units8
17
6
2
25
Affected
Facilities*
3- 17
0-6
0-2
3-25
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)a
0.8 - 4.9
0-2.0
0 -.0.6
0.8 - 7.5
The numbers or quantities in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode.
-------
3-55
Kev Data Sources
Effluent Guidelines Development Document47 The development document for
the leather industry covered the 158 tanneries that were operating at the time of the
compilation of the document. This document characterized the wastewaters primarily for
the.pollutants regulated by the CWA. The document, however, also presented waste
characterization data on other toxic pollutants that were measured in the wastewaters.
With only a few exceptions, the raw wastewaters are treated prior io discharge. Less
than 7 percent of the facilities send their wastewaters directly to POTWs without any
treatment. These processes are generally conducted in tanks and hence may not trigger
the LDRs. The data indicate that there are 17 direct dischargers and 141 indirect
dischargers and that the industry generates 325,000 tons of wastewater per year.
Most tanneries only conduct preliminary treatment of their wastewaters and then
discharge their wastes to POTWs. Some of the preliminary treatment may be conducted
in land-based units. In general, the end-of-pipe treatment, involving primary and
biological treatment processes, is conducted in land-based units. All of the 17 direct
dischargers (under NPDES) perform end-of-pipe treatment in land-based units. The
development document also indicated that up to 25 facilities use land-based units to
handle or treat wastewaters;
POTW Report to Congress.48 The report indicated that there were a total of
160 facilities, of which V17 facilities were direct dischargers, 141 facilities were indirect
dischargers, arid 2 facilities were zero dischargers., The number of direct and indirect
dischargers match those indicated by the development document.49 The POTW report
also indicated that spent solvents accounted for 90 percent of the hazardous wastes
generated by small quantity generators.
Subtitle D Screening Survey.50 In April 1989, EPA analyzed the data in the
Subtitle D Industrial Non-hazardous Waste Screening Survey and other data to further
characterize the industrial Subtitle D universe. The EPA analysis indicated that of
the 1,586 facilities in the leather industry (SIC code 31) there are 27 facilities
47 U.S. EPA, 1982 (November), Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Leather Tanning and Finishing, Point Source Category, Office of Water, Document No. 440/1-82/016.
48 U.S. EPA, 1986 (February), Report to Confess on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of Water, Regulations and Standards.
' 49
U.S. EPA, 1982, op. cit.
50ICF Inc., 1989 (April 3), Characterization of the Industrial Subtitle D Universe, Results of First Task, memorandum
to EPA.. •
51 ICF Inc., 1989 (April 3), Characterization of the Industrial Subtitle D Universe, Results of First Task, memorandum
to EPA. .
-------
3-56
(approximately 2 percent) that use land-based units to treat approximately 168 million
tons of wastewater. SIC code 31 encompasses more than just the leather tanning and
finishing industry. However, EPA believes that most or all of these facilities that use
land-based units are likely to be leather tanning and finishing facilities since the other
industries in the leather sector manufacture specific leather goods and generally do not
generate significant quantities of wastewaters to require the use of land-based units.
Hence, considering the data provided in the development document52 and the Subtitle
D Screening Survey, EPA estimates that there are a total of 25 leather tanning facilities
that use land-based units. • . • •
Key Assumptions/Methodology
V. ' "
The exact number of facilities in this industry is unclear. According to the effluent
limitations guidelines development document53 and the POTW Report to Congress,54
as of November 1982, there were approximately 160 facilities in the leather tanning and
finishing industry. According to another data source, in 1987, there * were 311 facilities in
the leather tanning and finishing industry. However, according to an industry expert,
the number of leather tanning and finishing establishments is now estimated to be less
than 100.56 In this analysis, EPA used the effluent guidelines development document
and POTW report estimates of 160 facilities. .
EPA used the following assumptions to estimate the number of facilities and
wastewater volumes that may be affected by the Ph'ase III LDRs:
• EPA assumed that most facilities aggregate their characteristic wastewaters
with other non-hazardous wastewaters prior to treatment.
• The characterization data presented in the development document57 and
the P.OTW Report to Congress58 indicated that all wastewaters generated
by this industry contain pollutants above UTS and that most of these
'pollutants are not addressed by technology-based standards. :
52.U.S. EPA,.1982, op. cit
53 U.S. EPA, 1982, op. cit.
54 U.S. EPA, 1986, op. cit.
55 U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990 (January), 1987 Census of Manufacturers, Industry Series, MC87-1-31A.
56 Personal communication with Frank Rutland, Director of the Leather Association, University of Cincinnati,
September 20, 1994. .
57 U.S. EPA, 1982, op. cit. .
58 U.S. EPA, 1986, op. cit. •
-------
3-57
• The POTW report59 indicated that spent solvents accounted for 90
percent of the hazardous wastes generated by small quantity generators.
Since the manufacturing processes used by all the-leather tanning facilities
are similar, EPA extrapolates and assumes that 90 percent of all raw
wastewaters generated by the leather tanning and finishing industry would
contain spent solvents and cany the listed F001 through F005 codes for the
solvents. Qualitatively, this is highly likely since most tanning facilities use
solvents in their operations. Also, this assumption is supported by the data
presented in the 1991 BRS.60
; " s
• The Phase III rule may not impact all the wastewaters at these facilities.
EPA believes that the large volumes of wastewaters that carry the RCRA
listed codes are segregated from other characteristic wastes and are treated
appropriately under the existing RCRA regulations for listed wastes. The
remaining raw wastewaters (10 percent of the total generation) that are
managed in land-based units may be affected by the Phase III rule.
• All wastewater volumes were estimated using average wastewater flows
given in the development document61 with the assumption that the
tanneries operate at their 100 percent daily capacity for 250 days a year.
3.4.11 Metal Products and Machinery Industry
The metal products and machinery (MP&M) industry (formerly the-Machinery
Manufacturing and Rebuilding Industry) is engaged in the manufacturing of a variety of
products that are constructed primarily by using metals. The MP&M facilities
manufacture, rebuild, or maintain machinery, including transportation, office machines,
electronic and electrical equipment and machinery, laboratory and medical instruments,
household appliances, and industrial tools and equipment. The MP&M industry includes
the'following SIC codes: SIC Code 34: Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery
and Transportation Equipment; SIC Code 35: Industrial and Commercial Machinery and
Computer Equipment; SIC Code 36: Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment and
Components, Except "Computer Equipment; and SIC Code 37: Transportation
Equipment.
The MP&M industry includes 15 industrial groups. Due to the size of this
category and based on differences/similarities between the groups within this category,
59 U.S. EPA, 1986, op. tit. ' ... .
60 U.S. EPA, 1991 (August), 1991 Hazardous Waste Report: Instructions and Forms, OMB # 2050-0024, EPA Form
8700-13 A/B (5-80).
61 U.S. EPA, 1982, op. cit •
-------
.3-58
the facilities in the category have been divided into two groups for the purposes of the
effluent guidelines program: MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase I and Phase II. The
MP&M Phase I group includes seven industrial categories: aircraft, aerospace vehicles,
hardware, ordnance, ;stationery industrial equipment, mobile industrial equipment, and
electronic equipment: The MP&M, Phase II group includes eight industrial categories:
motor vehicles, bus and truck, railroad, ships and boats, office machines, household
equipment, instruments, and precious and nonprecious metals.
Using the data and assumptions mentioned below, EPA found that several
facilities have pollutants at concentrations higher than the UTS levels set by the Phase II
LDRs. All of these pollutants were found to be priority pollutants. However, EPA is
currently developing revised effluent limitations guidelines for the MP&M Effluent
Guidelines Phase.I facilities and expects to finalize the rule in 1996. EPA expects to
finalize the rule for MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase II facilities in 1997. If the
upcoming rule on revised effluent limitations guidelines addresses all pollutants that
exceed their UTS, then this category may not be affected by the Phase III LDR rule.
Exhibit 3-13 summarizes the major, findings of this analysis.
EXHIBIT 3-13
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE METAL PRODUCTS AND MACHINERY INDUSTRY
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
.-
Number of
Facilities
3,060
21,420
6,120
30,600
i
Total Wastewaters
Mixed With ICRT
Wastes
(million toris/yr)a
2,380
170
50
2,600
Facilities
v Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment8
130
940
270
1,340
Facilities
with Land-
Based Units3
460
210
60
730
Affected
Facilities9
0-20
0-9
0-3
0-32
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)a
0-15.6
, 0-0.1 '
0 - 0.02
0 - 15.7
The numbers or quantities in. this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode.
*2 Note that, for the Phase III LDR capacity analysis, the facilities manufacturing electrical and electronic equipment
(SIC Codes 3571-3579 and 3612-3699) are covered separately under "Electrical and Electronic Components."
-------
3-59
Key Data Sources
Dun & Bradstreet. To determine the universe of facilities included in the MP&M
category for the effluent guidelines program, EPA began with Dun & Bradstreet (D&B)
information. Based on SIC codes, EPA estimated that there were 970,000 facilities in the
MP&M category. Through further analysis, it was determined that 270,000 facilities were
in the MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase I group and 700,000 facilities were,in the '.
MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase II group.
Preliminary Data Summary for the Machinery Manufacturing and Rebuilding
Industry.63 The preliminary data summary for the Machinery Manufacturing and
Rebuilding Industry was developed by EPA for deciding whether to develop national
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these facilities. The report covered the
970,000 MP&M facilities that were operating at the time of the compilation of the
information. The report estimated that 10 percent of the MP&M facilities are direct
dischargers, 70 percent are indirect dischargers, and 20 percent are,zero dischargers.
The total reported wastewater flow for the MP&M industry was 630 billion gallons per
year (2,620 million tons per year). The report also indicated that the average facility
wastewater discharge in the MP&M industry varies widely from 150 tons per year to 350 .
million tons per year. -
Facility Questionnaires. For the effluent guidelines development process, two-
page facility "screener" questionnaire was sent to 8,000 statistically-selected facilities,
including all facilities identified in MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase I and manufacturing
facilities iri MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase II. The overlap of. phases during the
screener mailing is because MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase I and Phase II were still
being defined at that time. The focus of the screener questionnaire was to identify the
industrial group of the facility, the unit operations at the facility, and the processes that
involve1 or use water. Over 47 different unit operation types that potentially include
water rinses were identified by EPA based on the screener responses. It was also
determined from screener responses that the number of facilities in MP&M Effluent
Guidelines' Phase I was significantly smaller than that estimated by D&B. Screener
responses indicated that less than half of the original 270,000 facilities performed the
identified, operations on .metals (i.e., many were wood, warehouse, or non-manufacturing
operations) and that less than half of the remaining operations used water. As a result,
the estimate of the number of facilities, in MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase I was
reduced from 270,000 to 10,600 facilities. Assuming that the wastewaters generated by
the MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase II facilities are similar to those generated by the
MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase I facilities, EPA,adjusted the number of facilities in •
the MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase II group from 700,000 to 20,000.
63 U.S. EPA, 1989 (October), 'Preliminary Data Summary for the Machinery Manufacturing and Rebuilding Industry,
Office of Water, Document No. 440/1-89/106.
-------
3-60
A detailed questionnaire was then sent to 1,000 statistically identified MP&M
Effluent Guidelines Phase I facilities that responded to the screener questionnaire. The
65-page detailed questionnaire was sent in January 1991 for the calendar year 1989
information. The purpose of the questionnaire was to gather specific data and
information on the unit operations and treatment trains, .wastewater generation and flow
rates, and contaminants in the waste streams. The data collected from the 800 facilities
responding to the detailed questionnaire are maintained in the Data Collection Portfolio
(DCP) Database on the EPA mainframe.
Sampling Data. A .sampling program was implemented during 1986-1993, with
most data collected between 1991 and 1993, at 27 selected facilities. The facilities were
selected to fill data holes or gaps in industry sector or unit operations data received on
the detailed questionnaires mentioned above. As a result, the emphasis of the sampling
program addressed the major unit operations and wastewater treatment operations at
these facilities. . •
EPA's Metal Products and Machinery Database. Originally, the focus of the
MP&M effluent guideline effort and the associated data collection (the questionnaires
and sampling data mentioned above) was to develop facility-specific information.
However, due to the size of the industry, statistically representative facilities were
identified and used for all regulatory efforts. A total of 446 facilities were selected to
undergo a modelling process and become representative of the entire MP&M Effluent
Guidelines Phase I group. The modelling process included use of actual questionnaire
responses as the basis for the model facility and use of the sampling arid analysis data
and site-visit information to fill in missing information. As a result, each of the 446
facilities represents a portion of the industry. Scale-up factors for each facility were then
developed to allow the 446 facilities to be expanded to the 10,600 facilities identified in
the MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase I group. Of the 446 facilities, 50 have a scale-up
factor of zero. These 446 model facilities are considered representative of the MP&M
Effluent Guidelines Phase I group and were -utilized in this capacity analysis.
Permit Compliance System. The Permit Compliance System (PCS) indicated that
approximately 50 of the 328 MP&M direct dischargers providing information on their
treatment types used one of the treatment types that indicated the potential use of a
land-based unit. Extrapolating the information provided in the PCS, EPA estimates that
approximately 400 facilities (or 15 percent) of the MP&M direct dischargers use land-
based units. More than 67 percent of the MP&M facilities are small (i.e., they have less
than 10 employees64). Most of these facilities are small job shops located in urban
areas that either discharge their wastewaters to POTWs or are zero dischargers.
Considering that these facilities typically do not use land-based units, EPA estimates that
64 U.S. EPA, 1989, op. tit.
-------
• . 3-61
i
up to 210 and:60 facilities (or 1 percent each) of the MP&M facilities indirect and zero
dischargers, respectively, use land-based units to manage or treat wastewaters.
Key Assumptions/Methodology
f
The average facility wastewater discharge in the MP&M industry varies widely
from .150 tons per year to 350 million tons per year.65 EPA used the following
assumptions to estimate the wastewater flows of direct, indirect, and zero discharges:
• Considering that ,67 percent of the MP&M facilities have less than 10
employees and that most of these facilities are indirect dischargers, EPA
estimates that the average wastewater flow for indirect dischargers is 100
times lower than that for direct dischargers, which typically are facilities
with large wastewater flows. . • .
• . Furthermore, EPA assumes that the MP&M zero dischargers .typically have
low wastewater flows, and estimates that the average wastewater flow for
zero dischargers is similar to that for indirect dischargers.
.The primary sources of data used in the analysis for estimating facilities and
wastewaters affected by the Phase III LDRs are the DCP and EPA's MP&M databases.
The approach for identifying facilities in the MP&M category that would likely be
affected by the Phase III LDR rule was developed based on numerous discussions with
the effluent guidelines development project teams regarding the data that were collected
and how they are currently managed in the numerous files of the MP&M database. The
discussions resulted in an approach consisting of a series of queries and assumptions
based on industry knowledge designed to define the affected universe. The queries and
assumptions utilized are described below: .
• Query the database to identify facilities generating wastewaters that are
corrosive or contain a TC organic constituent. Assumptions: Ignitable,
reactive, or TC pesticide wastewaters are not generated to a large extent by
the MP&M industry. All wastewaters that contain one of the TC organic
constituents at the point of generation are considered TC organic
wastewaters,
• For aU facilities, compare all end-of-pipe constituents and their
concentrations to the UTS list.
• Identify all facilities that use land-based units and have end-of-pipe
concentrations above the UTS levels. 'Assumptions: All facilities with
U.S. EPA, 1989, op. tit.
-------
3-62
v, "
wastewater flows greater than 100,000 gallons per day use land-based units.
EPA used this conservative assumption to capture the upper bound for
affected facilities and wastewater volumes. The detailed questionnaire
asked for information regarding the treatment performed but not for the
unit in which the treatment is performed. For facilities with wastewater
flows lower than 100,000 gallons per day, the list of treatment codes in the
DCP Dictionary was reviewed to identify the treatments that would likely
occur in a land-based unit.
, • Apply the industry scale-up factors for MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase I
arid Phase II groups. Assumption: The MP&M Effluent Guidelines Phase-I
and Phase II groups generate similar wastewaters from similar processes,
• The above analysis indicated that up to 32 MP&M facilities may be
affected by the Phase III LDRs. EPA lacks the data to differentiate which
of the estimated 32 upper bound affected MP&M facilities are direct,
indirect, or zero dischargers. The distribution of the total number of
MP&M facilities between direct, indirect,' and zero dischargers (i.e., 10, 70,
and 20 percent, respectively) cannot be used to differentiate the 32 affected
facilities, since direct dischargers typically generate larger volumes of
wastewater and; consequently, have more land-based units and will be more
affected by the Phase III LDRs. Considering that the type of operations
and characteristics of generated wastewaters at all MP&M facilities are
similar, EPA assumes, as in the other industries, that the distribution
between the direct, indirect, and zero dischargers for facilities affected by
the Phase III LDRs is the same as that for facilities with land-based units.
3.4.12 Pesticides Industry
The pesticides industry includes both pesticide manufacturers and formulators/
packagers. Pesticide manufacturing facilities produce pesticide active ingredients (PAIs),
while formulators/packagers process active ingredients with other ingredients into
pesticide formulations and then package them for sale. Facilities manufacturing PAIs
may be included in one or more of the following SIC groups: 2831, 2833, 2834, 2842,.
2843, 2861, 2865, 2869, 2879, and 2899. There are approximately 75 facilities in this
industry; however, 32 facilities co-treat OCPSF wastewaters with pesticide manufacturing
wastewaters. Over half of the pesticide manufacturing facilities also conduct pesticide
formulating and/or packaging activities. In addition, more than half of the pesticide
manufacturing facilities generate wastewater discharges that are currently regulated under
the OCPSF point source category. Exhibit 3-14 summarizes the major findings of this
analysis. '
-------
3-63
EXHIBIT 3-14
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE PESTICIDES INDUSTRY
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
12
12
20
43b
--
Total Wastewaters
Mixed with ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)a
2.2
.17
.64
3.0
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment8
12
12
20
43
Facilities
with Land-
Based Units9
' 1-3
1-3
0
2-6
Affected
Facilities8
1 -3
1-3
0
2-6
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)a
.18 - .55
.01 - .04
0
.20 - .59
* The numbers or quantities in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode.
b One facility discharges both directly and indirectly. Therefore, summing the direct, indirect, and zero dischargers will result in 44-
facilities. ' '
Key Data Sources - .
Effluent Guidelines Development Document The effluent guidelines development
document66 provided the most recent data on the pesticide manufacturing facilities.
. According to this data source, there are 75 pesticide manufacturing facilities in the
United States. These 75 facilities generate approximately 6.14 million tons of wastewater
per year, and discharge approximately 5.1 million tons per year directly, and 0.4 million
tons per year indirectly to surface waters. Of these 75 facilities, 32 facilities co-treat
OCPSF wastewater with pesticide manufacturing wastewatefs. Of the 75 facilities, 28 are
direct dischargers, and 28 are indirect dischargers. Of these, one.facility discharges both
directly and indirectly. Of the remaining 20 facilities, seven facilities do not generate any
ICRT wastewater, 3 facilities practice incineration, arid 10 facilities discharge through
deep well injection. Some type of treatment is provided to over 99 percent of the
wastewaters discharged directly and to approximately 92 percent of the wastewaters that
are discharged indirectly. , .
66 U.S. EPA, 1993, Development Document for Effluent Guidelines, Presentment Standards for the Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category, Office of Water, Effluent Guidelines Division, EPA-821-R-93-016, September,
1993. '
-------
• . 3-64
Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to POTWs. The 1986
Report to Congress6'indicated that there were 119 facilities in the pesticide industry
with 45 direct dischargers, 38 indirect dischargers, and 25 zero dischargers. The
discharging status of the remaining facilities was unknown. This report also provided
concentrations of underlying constituents present in the wastewaters discharged from
pesticide manufacturing facilities. According to these data, many constituents are present
in concentrations several magnitudes higher than the' UTS levels.
Biennial Reporting System (BRS). Data from the 1991 BRS was extracted to
determine what types of affected wastes are generated by the pesticide manufacturing
industry. EPA obtained data for the top 25 waste generators who treated their wastes on
site. Five facilities .were selected for follow-up on their BRS data submissions and
telephone interviews were conducted to collect more information on the waste generation
and management practices followed by these facilities. The information obtained is
summarized in the telephone logs included in the industry profiles in Chapter 13 of
Appendix A.
Permit Compliance System (PCS). According to the PCS data, 255 direct
discharging facilities are in the pesticides category, and 56 (22 percent) of these facilities
appear to use land-based units as part of the wastewater treatment system. (The PCS
data include many organic chemical manufacturing facilities, which explains the high
number of facilities compared to the 75 reported in the effluent guidelines development
document). ••••.'
Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey. The Industrial Subtitle D Screening
Survey, did not include the pesticide manufacturing industry. Therefore, EPA used data
from this survey to calculate the average percentage of land-based units used across all
the industries for which data were available. EPA found that approximately 12 percent
of the facilities in all industrial sectors use land-based units as part of the wastewater
treatment system. - • • '
Industry Studies Database (ISDB). An analysis of the ISDB68 provides ranges
of constituent concentrations in the ICR wastes managed in CWA, SDWA, or CWA-
equivalent systems. According to this data, there are 96 facilities in the pesticides
industry, and 52 'facilities (54 percent) were reported to generate ICR wastes. These.
data also indicate that the concentrations of many underlying constituents exceed the
UTS levels. Many of these constituents are nonpriority pollutants. The ISDB also
<7- U.S. EPA, February 1986, Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
68 U.S. EPA, November 30, 1994, Summary Data from Industry Studies Database for Use in Phase HI Capacity
Determinations, Draft, Submitted by Science Applications International Corporation.
-------
3-65
indicates that eight facilities (approximately 8 percent) in the pesticides industry manage
their ICR wastes in surface impoundments.
Industry Contacts. In order to better understand the generation and management
of wastewaters in the pesticide manufacturing industry, EPA contacted staff from five
different facilities. These five facilities were selected for follow-up on their BRS data
submissions and telephone interviews were conducted to collect more information on the
waste generation and management practices followed by these facilities. None of the
facilities contacted reported manufacturing pesticides. One facility reported
manufacturing pesticides, but this facility also manufactures organic and inorganic
chemicals. This facility reported generating ICRT wastes that are aggregated with other
wastes prior to treatment. Detailed information' obtained is summarized in the telephone
logs in the industry profiles in Chapter 13 of Appendix A.
/ v •
Key Assumptions .
There are significant data limitations in assessing the extent of the impact of the
Phase III rule due to high variability in the waste generation and management practices
in this industry. For this analysis, EPA excluded the 32 facilities that co-treat OCPSF
wastewaters with pesticide manufacturing wastewater, assuming that these facilities will
be covered under the OCPSF industry. Of the remaining 43 facilities,' 20 facilities are
zero dischargers. EPA estimated the number of direct and indirect dischargers, by
applying the ratio reported for all 75 facilities. Thus, EPA estimates that there are 12
direct dischargers and 12 indirect dischargers. One facility which discharges both directly
and indirectly is accounted as two facilities. The average wastewater flow rate obtained
from the effluent guidelines document was used to estimate the quantity of wastewaters
for these 43 facilities. To, bridge other data gaps, EPA made assumptions based on
industry knowledge and professional judgment. These key assumptions specific to the
pesticide industry are listed below:
• Based on the pesticide manufacturing process knowledge, EPA believes '
that .all 43 pesticide manufacturing facilities could generate ICRT wastes "
that are aggregated and decharacterized prior to any treatment. The ISDB
data indicated that 55 percent of the facilities reported generating ICR
wastes. Therefore, EPA chose an average of these values and estimates
that approximately 80 percent of the facilities are likely to generate at least
some ICR and TC organic wastes that are mixed with other wastewaters.
• Data on the number of facilities using land-based units varies among
different sources. For example, the PCS data indicated 22 percent, and the
Subtitle D survey indicated 12 percent, and the ISDB data indicated 8
percent. Therefore, EPA used these data to set the upper bound at 22
, percent and the lower bound at 8 percent to estimate the number of
facilities with land-based units.
-------
3-66
*
. • Of the 20 zero dischargers, 7 facilities do not generate ICRT wastewaters,
and 3 facilities treat their wastewaters through incineration. These facilities
are excluded from this analysis. The remaining 10 facilities use deep well
injection and are not included in estimating the affected facilities.
• The ISDB data indicate that several underlying hazardous constituents are
present at higher than UTS levels. Based on this data and process
knowledge, EPA believes that several underlying hazardous constituent are
likely to be present at a level greater than the UTS in all the wastewaters
discharged by this industry. .
3.4.13 Petroleum Refining Industry
The petroleum refining industry includes establishments that are primarily engaged
in.producing gasoline, kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, and other
products from crude petroleum and its' fractionation products, through straight distillation
of crude oil, redistillation of unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other
processes. ' ' •
Petroleum refining involves several manufacturing operations and processes
including crude desalting, atmospheric and vacuum distillation, hydrotreating, catalytic
cracking, thermal processing and residual upgrading, light hydrocarbon processing,
hydrocracking, catalytic reforming, extraction, isomerization, lube processing, sulfur
removal and recovery, and product blending and inventory. EPA has identified over 150
distinct processes that are conducted in the petroleum refineries. The primary raw
material of this industry is crude oil.
This industry generates large volumes of wastewaters and'uses land-based units
extensively. The available characterization data69'70'71'72 appear to indicate that
most, and possibly all, wastewaters generated by this industry contain pollutants above
UTS levels and that most of these pollutants are not addressed adequately by technology-
based standards (e.g., NPDES permits). In the recent past, however, rules such as the
primary sludges (F037, etc.), TC, and benzene NESHAP have resulted in several changes
in the wastewater handling and treatment practices of the petroleum refining industry.
w U.S. EPA, 1986 (February), Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Office of Water. '
70 UJS. EPA, 1994 (November 30), Summary Data from Industry Studies Database for Use in Phase III Capacity
Determinations, Draft, submitted by Science Applications International Corporation.
71 U.S. EPA, 1982 (October), Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines New Source Performance
Standards and Pretreatment Standards for Petroleum Refining, Point Source Category, Office of Water.
72 U.S. EPA, 1994 (June), op. cit. '
-------
3-67
Thus, it is difficult, to ascertain the facilities and wastewaters that are affected by the
Phase HI rule.
Using the data and assumptions outlined below, EPA estimated the number of
petroleum refining facilities and wastewater volumes that may be affected by the Phase
III LDR rule. Exhibit 3-15 summarizes the major findings of this analysis.
EXHIBIT 3-15
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
127
21
39
187
Total Wastewaters
Mixed With ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)*
440
' ' 70
135
645
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment"
127
21
39
187
Facilities
with Land-
Based Units*
86
14
• 27
127
Affected
Facilities9
6-58
4-10
0-17
10-85
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)a
19 , 200
3-32
0-58
22 - 290
* The numbers or quantities in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode.
Key Data Sources
*71
U.S. Industrial Outlook 1994. '* The number of petroleum refineries have been
steadily decreasing in recent times. In 1981, there were 324 operable petroleum
refineries, while in 1993, the number of operable petroleum refineries decreased to 187.
Of these operable facilities, only 175 petroleum refineries were actually operating in
1993.
, TC RIA.74 A TG RIA report presented estimates of waste generation by the
petroleum refining industry. This document is part of a series of background documents
for the rule on'toxicity characteristic wastes. This report characterized the 220 refineries
73 •
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994 (January), U.S. Industrial Outlook 1994, Forecasts for Selected Manufacturing
and Service Industries, International Trade Administration.
14 U.S. EPA, 1987 (November 13), Estimates of Wastes Generation by the Petroleum Refining Industry, Final Draft
Report, Office of Solid Waste.
-------
. 3-68 " . . •'
that were operating at the time of the compilation of the report. The report estimated
that the petroleum refining industry generates approximately 760 million tons of
wastewater per year. Scaling this estimate to the current number of facilities in the
industry, EPA estimates that currently the petroleum refining industry generates
approximately 645 million tons of wastewater per year.
Effluent Limitations Special Study Review of the Petroleum Refining
Industry.75 The effluent limitations special study review provided information for
determining whether the current effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
petroleum industry should.be revised or updated. As of 1990, only 22 of the 192 existing
facilities were indirect dischargers. The data also indicated that in 1992, approximately
137 of the 202 petroleum refineries were direct dischargers. Scaling these numbers to
the current number of facilities in the industry, EPA estimates that currently there are
127 direct dischargers, 21 indirect dischargers, and 39 zero dischargers in the petroleum
industry. •
TRI and ISDB -Data. EPA used data in the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data
base and the Industry Studies Database (ISDB) to conduct a preliminary analysis of the
impact of the Phase III rule on the petroleum refining industry. This analysis, however,
focused only on non-priority pollutants, based on the assumption that all priority
pollutants are addressed by technology-based standards. The analysis indicated that 137
of the 202 petroleum refineries (or 68 percent) use land-based units for treating
wastewaters. Using the same percentage on the moire recent number of facilities (187)
discussed previously, EPA estimates that currently there are 127 petroleum refineries that
use land-based units. Furthermore, according to the ISDB data, flow rates among
facilities range from 12,000 gallons per day to 24 million gallons per day. From these
data EPA estimated low, average, and,high flow rates of wastewaters for direct and
indirect dischargers: .
• For direct dischargers, a low flow rate of 250,000 gallons per day, an
average flow rate of 3.22 million gallons per day, and a high flow rate of 10
million gallons per day.
• For indirect dischargers, a low flow rate of 200,000 gallons per day, an
average of 720,000 gallons per day, and a high flow rate of 1.77 million.
gallons per day.
The high and low flow rates represent the 95th percentile and 5th percentile values for
the facilities listed under each category of effluent dischargers. .
75 U.S. EPA, 1994 (June), Summary Report of Results of Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards Special Study
Review of the Petroleum Refining Industry, Office of Water.
-------
3-69 ,
Comments to the Proposed Phase HI Rule. In comments received on the Phase
III LDR proposed rule, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and seven companies
operating large petroleum refineries confirmed the presence of oil and hydrocarbons in
high concentrations (up to 10,000 ppm of oil) in the wastewaters originally generated and
discharged to process sewers at their facilities. These commenters also confirmed the use
of non-hazardous waste surface impoundments and the presence of UHCs at levels :
above their corresponding UTS. All refineries, however, make an attempt to recover and
reuse these pollutants before the wastewaters are treated and finally discharged. At the
same time, API commented that many facilities have started segregating highly
concentrated wastewaters even before discharging them to process sewers due to the
recent.promulgation of the Benzene Waste NESHAP (BWN). .
Because of these waste management practices, the petroleum refining industry
believes that LDRs on decharacterized wastewaters should be applied at the last point of
aggregation of wastewaters at each refinery. Furthermore, API and some of these -
companies have provided data to confirm the effectiveness of Aggressive Biological
Treatment (ABT) systems installed at their facilities. Some companies also confirmed
the generation and discharge of large quantities of stormwater (with low risk) through
"wet-weather" surface impoundments at their facilities.
Key Assumptions/Methodology
Using the estimated waste generation rates and TRI data, EPA calculated the
constituent concentrations in the effluent from direct^and indirect dischargers. EPA
found that: - ,
• Four indirect dischargers could have UTS level exceedences for xylenes,
methyl ethyl ketone, and cresols; and , • .
* Six direct dischargers could have UTS. level exceedences for xylenes, methyl
ethyl ketone, cresols, and methanol.
EPA multiplied the number of affected direct and indirect dischargers affected by the
average daily discharge for both types of facilities and estimated that at least 22 million
tons of waste could be affected each year.
The primary limitations of the analysis conducted using the TRI and ISDB data
bases for the purposes of the Phase III LDR analysis are: (1) the analysis did not attempt
to identify wastes that are characteristic for toxic organics (e.g., benzene); and (2)
wastewaters such as desalter brine, process sour waters, ballast water, pump gland water,
tank farm waters, boiler water blowdown, sanitary wastes, storm water, cooling tower
blowdown, and oils sent to slop oil system were not addressed. Also, the ISDB report
used in the analysis mentioned the following factors that affect the current applicability of
the data set: '
-------
. 3-70 .
• The industry has restructured significantly over the past 10 years. The
number, of small less-efficient refineries have reduced significantly.
Consequently, the number of facilities using improper or out-dated
management practices may .have reduced.
• Several rules such as the TC rule, benzene NESHAP, sludge listings, and
EPA fuel standards have changed or been promulgated in the last 10 years.
These rules have caused the petroleum refineries to change or reduce
practices such as land disposal.
Some of these unknowns have been addressed in the comments received by EPA
on the Phase III LDR proposed rule. In response to these comments, EPA has clarified
that stormwater surface impoundments will not be affected by today's rule.
, (Nevertheless, these impoundments were not included in the proposed rule capacity
analysis, and therefore no reduction in the estimates of affected facilities in this final rule
analysis is warranted.) EPA is also promulgating in this rule a reduction in the frequency
of monitoring requirements for the facilities operating ABT systems. However, EPA is
not specifying ABT as a new technology-specific standard for decharacterized .
wastewaters in petroleum refineries. EPA is also retaining the standard definition of
•point of generation for applying LDRs promulgated in today's rule. For the purpose of
the capacity analysis to support this rule, EPA has also decided 4o use the TRI and ISDB
data, as well as the assumptions based on these data, only to estimate the minimum
number of facilities and wastewater volumes that may be affected by today's rule. EPA
has used the following assumptions to estimate the maximum number of facilities and
wastewater volumes that may be affected by the Phase III LDRs:
• EPA conservatively estimates that up to two-thirds of the petroleum
refining facilities have priority or non-priority constituents above UTS levels
and thus may be affected by the Phase III rule. EPA lacks the data to
develop more accurate estimates.
• EPA lacks the data to differentiate which of the estimated 127 petroleum
refining facilities with land-based units are direct, .indirect, or zero
dischargers. Considering that (i) the type of operations and characteristics
of generated wastewaters and (ii) the average wastewater generation at all
petroleum refining facilities are similar, EPA assumes that the distribution
between the direct, indirect, and zero dischargers for facilities with land-
based units is the same as the overall distribution of petroleum refining
facilities between direct, indirect, and zero dischargers (i.e., 68, 11, and 21
percent, respectively). EPA used this same distribution to differentiate
between the estimated 85 upper bound affected petroleum refining
facilities.
-------
3-71 •
EPA multiplied the number of direct, indirect, and .zero dischargers affected by the
wastewater flow rates, obtained from TC RIA and POTW Report to Congress and
estimated that up to 290 million tons of waste per year could be affected by today's rule.
3.4.14 Pharmaceutical Industry
' The pharmaceutical industry includes facilities that are primarily engaged in
manufacturing, fabricating, or processing medicinal chemicals and pharmaceutical
products. This industry also includes facilities that are primarily engaged in the grading,.
grinding, and milling of botanicals or the preparation of cosmetics that function as skin
treatment. This industry does not include facilities that are only engaged in '
pharmaceutical research. • '
EPA expects to propose a new. rule on revised effluent limitations guidelines for
the pharmaceutical manufacturing industries. Assuming that, at a minimum, all priority
pollutants will be addressed by this revised rule on effluent guidelines limitations, EPA.
assessed the maximum impact of the Phase III LDR rule by estimating the number of
facilities with land-based units that may process non-priority pollutants with end-of-pipe
concentrations above UTS levels. . , ' •
A recent public meeting on the pharmaceutical industry76 indicated that, in
addition to the priority pollutants, several non-priority pollutants that may. be found in
the effluents will also be addressed by the upcoming rule on revised, effluent limitations
guidelines. Hence, if the revised effluent limitations guidelines also address all the non-.
priority pollutants that exceed their UTS levels, then the pharmaceutical industry may not
be affected by the Phase III LDR rule. Exhibit 3-16 summarizes the major findings of
this analysis.
Key Data Sources
Public Meeting on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards.77 Effluent
guidelines summary statistics for the pharmaceutical industry were developed for a
pharmaceutical manufacturing industry public meeting. There are approximately 560
facilities in the pharmaceutical industry. Approximately 60 percent of the pharmaceutical
facilities are indirect dischargers. Only 6 percent of the pharmaceutical facilities are
direct dischargers and the remaining facilities (34 percent) are zero dischargers. The
public meeting also indicated that, in addition to the priority pollutants, several non-
priority pollutants that may be found in the effluents will also be addressed by the
upcoming rule on revised effluent limitations guidelines. ~
7* U.S. EPA, 1994, op. c/t
/
77 U.S. EPA, 1994 (June 15), "Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards," handout distributed for public meeting on May 23, 1994.
-------
.". ' " " 3-72
EXHIBIT 3-16
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
34
336
190
560
, - , •
Total Wastewaters
Mixed With ICRT
Wastes
(million tons/yr)a
42
88
80
220
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
, equivalent
Treatment8
4
44
,25
73
Facilities
with Land-
Based Units9
,. 24 •
47
61
132
Affected
Facilities"
0-3
0-6
0-8
0-17
Affected
Wastewater
(million tons/yr)a
0 - 12.0
.0-1.6
0-3.4
0-17
' Hie numbers or quantities in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and apportioned to the direct, indirect, and zero
dischargers based on the percentage of each discharge mode. .. '
Effluent Guidelines Development Document.78 The development document for
the effluent limitations guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry covered the 466
pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities that were operating at the time of the
compilation of that document. Of these facilities, 55 were direct dischargers, 277 were
.indirect dischargers, and 134 were zero dischargers. The total direct and indirect
discharge flows indicated by the development document were 68 million and 72 million
tons per year, respectively. EPA modified these using data developed for a public
meeting (see above) to estimate that the current direct and indirect discharge flows are
42 million and 87 million tons per year, respectively. EPA then estimated the total zero
discharge flow to be 80 million tons per year based on average direct and indirect
discharge flows. , • . < .
1989 Pharmaceutical Screener Questionnaire, 1991 Detailed Questionnaire, and
Sampling Data. EPA had conducted a limited analysis of the impact of the Phase III .
LDR rule using questionnaires and sampling data (13 facilities were sampled between
1986 and 1991). These data were obtained as part of a data collection effort for the
effluent limitations guidelines program. The approach for, identifying facilities in the
pharmaceutical category that would likely be affected by the Phase III LDR rule was
developed as a result of numerous discussions with the effluent guidelines development
project teams regarding the data that were collected and how they are currently managed
in the CBI and non-CBI versions of the pharmaceutical database. Due to the type of
data collected/available, point-of-generation information on the constituents present and
78 U.S. EPA, 1983 (September), Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, Point Source Category, Office of Water, Document No. 440/1-83/084. :
-------
3-73
the physical parameters of the wastewaters were not available. This analysis was mainly
used for estimating the percentage of facilities with land-based units that have
wastewaters with underlying hazardous constituents at concentrations above the UTS
levels.
The discussions with the effluent guidelines development project teams resulted in
a series of queries and assumptions being applied to the data based on industry
knowledge designed to estimate the number of facilities in the affected universe. The
queries and assumptions used are described below:
• Identify the treatment steps that could occur in a land-based unit and query
the database for those facilities that use those treatment steps. Assumption:
Aerated stabilization basins and wastewater stabilization ponds are the
treatment steps likely to occur in a land-based unit.
• Query end-of-pipe data to identify the constituents present that are not
• priority pollutants, but are. a UTS constituent For each pollutant
identified, calculate the end-of-pipe concentration (mg/1) and end-of-pipe
flow rate. Assumption: All priority pollutants will be addressed in the
upcoming rule on revised effluent guidelines limitations.
• Gompare end-of-pipe concentration to UTS levels.
Using the data and assumptions mentioned above, EPA found that several
facilities have non-priority pollutants at concentrations higher than the UTS levels. This
analysis indicated that there are approximately 15 pharmaceutical facilities that use
treatment types indicating the presence of land-based units. Of these, two
pharmaceutical facilities (or approximately 13 percent of the facilities with land-based
units) with a total wastewater volume of 10.8 million tons per year may be affected by
the Phase III LDR rule.
Comments on the Proposed Phase in Rule. According to comments received on
the Phase III proposed LDR rule, the pharmaceutical industry generates wastewaters
with similar UHCs (e.g., organic solvents) from different manufacturing processes at the ^
same facility., The industry believes that it is more appropriate to be able to aggregate
these wastes streams and evaluate them for hazard characteristics and the applicability of
LDRs at the point that the aggregated stream leaves the manufacturing process.
Nevertheless, EPA has not addressed this issue in this rule.
Key Assumptions/Methodology
EPA believes that the analysis conducted using the questionnaire and sampling '
data may underestimate the actual number of pharmaceutical facilities that use land-
based units. This is because one of the assumptions used in this analysis that aerated
-------
3-74
stabilization basins and wastewater stabilization ponds are the only treatment systems
likely to occur in a land-based unit — to identify facilities that use land-based units, would
exclude facilities (e.g., zero dischargers) that may use land-based units for purposes other
than treatment (e.g., evaporation).
EPA used the following assumptions and steps to estimate the number of facilities
and wastewater volumes that may be affected by the Phase III LDRs:
' ,• f
• To estimate the number of facilities that may use land-based units, EPA
assumes that the general type of units used in the pharmaceutical industry
are similar to those in the organic chemicals manufacturing facilities (see
, Section 3.4.3). Using this assumption, EPA estimates that approximately 24
direct dischargers, 47 indirect dischargers, and 61 zero dischargers use land-
based units.
• As indicated by the analysis .conducted using the questionnaire and
sampling data, 13 percent of the facilities with land-based units may be
affected by the Phase HI LDRs. Accordingly, EPA estimates that up to 17
facilities (or 13 percent of the 132 facilities using land-based units) will be
affected by the Phase III LDR rule. EPA used the same percentage to
estimate the direct, indirect, and zero dischargers that may be affected by
the Phase III LDRs.
• Considering that the wastewaters generated at facilities without land-based
units are similar to those generated at facilities with land-based units, EPA
assumes that 13 percent of .the pharmaceutical facilities have constituents
above UTS levels. . - .
• The limited analysis conducted on the questionnaire and sampling data
indicated that up to two facilities with 10.8 million tons of wastewater may
be affected by the Phase III LDRs. Considering the volume of wastewaters
generated, EPA assumes that both these facilities are direct dischargers.
While estimating the total volume of wastewaters at direct dischargers
affected by the Phase III LDRs, EPA used this volume estimate for two
facilities; and for the rest of the facilities, EPA used average wastewater
flows to estimate the affected volumes of wastewater.
3.4.15 Pulp and Paper Industry
EPA agrees with commenters that regulation of the Phase III wastes generated by
the pulp and paper industry should be deferred to the Pulp and Paper Cluster Rule that
has been developed over the past five years. Therefore, EPA is not applying today's rule
to the pulp and paper industry at this time.
-------
. . 3-75
3.4.16 Transportation Equipment Cleaning .
The transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) industry is primarily a service
industry consisting of companies that clean the interiors of material transport vehicles
(i.e., tank trucks, rail tanks, and barges) for the transportation industry. The category.
also includes some aircraft industry operations, such as aircraft exterior washing, deicing
and anti-icing, and pavement deicing and anti-icing (see the appendices to the capacity
analyses for the electroplating/metal finishing and metal products/machinery industries for
other aircraft-related pfocesses that generate decharacterized ICRT wastes).
The facilities that conduct TEC operations do not necessarily share a single SIC
code. This is primarily because many TEC operations use the SIC code of the primary
industry they support. .TEC facilities that clean truck, rail, and barge tanks may identify
themselves"in the.SIC categories of:
• Transportation Equipment (3731, 3732, 3743, 3795, 3799);
• , Railroad Transportation (SIC codes 4011 and 4013);.
• Trucking and Warehousing (SIC codes 4212-4215, 4221, 4222, 4225, 4226,
and 4231); or . , .
Water Transportation (SIC codes 4412, 4424, 4432^ 4449, 4481, 4482, 4489,
4492,. 4493,'and 4499). ...
Exhibit 3-17 summarizes the major findings of this analysis.
Key Data Sources
Preliminary Data Summary for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry
(PDS).79 The PDS provided .the most detailed information on individual sites. EPA's
Office of Water developed the PDS to obtain a-basic level of familiarity with the
practices of the TEC industry and to obtain an estimate of the pollutant loadings from
those operations. The PDS effort was part of the effluent limitations development
process. According to the PDS, there are 89 rail car cleaning facilities, 200 tank barge
cleaning facilities, and at least 400 truck tank cleaning facilities. The PDS study
identified 111 organic pollutants (including pesticides and herbicides) in wastewaters at
TEC facilities. Of these, 50 are on EPA's Priority Pollutant List, 52 are RCRA
hazardous constituents, 72 are CERCLA hazardous substances, and five are known or
suspected human carcinogens. All 13 priority pollutant metals were found. The PDS
reports that wastewaters from the TEC industry are a complex mixture of many
79 U.S EPA, 1989, Preliminary Data Summary for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, EPA-440/1-89-104.
-------
3-76
EXHIBIT 347
MAJOR FINDINGS FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CLEANING INDUSTRY
.
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Number of
Facilities
722 '
105
/ 74
707b
Total Wastewaters
Mixed with ICRT
Wastes .
(million tons/yr)*
, 5.5
0.8
0.6
6.9
Facilities
Without
RCRA-
equivalent
Treatment'
566
85
56
707
,
Facilities
with Land--
based Units9
61 - 170
9-26
6 --17
76-213
Affected
Facilities*
61 - 170
9-26
6-17
76-213
Affected
Wastewater
(Million tons/yr)a
0.48 - 1.3
0.07 - 0.2
0.05 - 0.1
0.6 - 1.6
* The data in this column were determined on an aggregated basis and are apportioned to each type of discharge mode according to
their proportions. ' ' ' - .
b Some facilities have more than one typ_e of cleaning operation and/or discharge mode and therefore this total is less than the sum
of the above numbers.
pollutants due to the high variability of the heels contained in the tanks. Eight facilities
with TEC operations were sampled for the PDS. Many constituents were found to be
above UTS. The PDS also estimates pollutant loadings in the wastewater from facilities
in the tank truck, rail tank, tank barge, and aircraft exterior subsectors of the TEC
industry. In these estimates, the quantities of wastewater discharged by different types of
TEC facilities were assumed to vary from 5,000 to 18,000 gallons per day. It was also
assumed that TEC facilities work typically for six days a week or 312 days per year.
Permit Compliance System. The Agency investigated the frequency of
transportation facilities (by SIC code), that might be using land-based units. The SIC
codes used for this category were : 37, 40, 42, 44, and 45. EPA estimated the number of
facilities managing wastes in land-based units by examining the treatment train field
within PCS. The PCS data indicates that 11 percent of the TEC facilities use land-based
units. .
U.S. EPA Tank and Container Interior Cleaning Screening Survey. This survey
was completed in 1994. Data from this survey was used to refine the profiles of TEC
industry as identified in the PDS. Screening survey data revealed that there are 707 TEC
facilities, out of which EPA assumes 507 are rail car and tank car cleaning facilities. The :
screening survey indicates that 76 to 213 facilities use land-based units. The survey also
indicated that 707 TEC facilities could be discharging up to 10.8 billion tons of
wastewater per year (about 15 million tons per facility). This estimate of wastewater
-------
3-77 •
quantities appears to be inconsistent with the estimates using the annual number of
cleanings (1.6 million) performed on different types of units reported in the same survey
and data on quantities per cleaning obtained from industrial contacts (see below). The
screening survey also is inconsistent with estimates obtained from the PDS.
Industrial Subtitle D Screening Survey. The analysis of these data revealed that
there were approximately 8,085 generators of which 121 (1.5%) operate surface
impoundments. Less than one percent (0.1%) of the transportation equipment facilities
have land application units. EPA did not use these data, however, because the definition
of TEC used in this survey was much broader than the definition used in the other data
sources in this capacity analysis.
Industry Contacts. EPA contacted several facilities regarding the generation of -
ICRT wastes and the use of land-based units. The contacts indicated that wastewaters
are usually discharged to POTWs after some amount of treatment on site. Untreated
wastewater or treatment residuals are often shipped off site to commercial waste
management facilities. The data provided by a facility that cleans tanks that contained
propane gas and food grade products showed that slightly above 600 gallons of
wastewater was generated from cleaning each tank car. Even after assuming that each
tank uses 1,000 gallons of water, the annual generation of wastewater for cleaning 1.6
million units every year (707 facilities) is estimated to be 6.9 million tons per year (less
than 10,000 tons per facility). The average consumption of water at TEC facilities is then
estimated to be approximately 7,500 gallons per day (which falls within the range of
wastewater quantities considered in PDS).
Key Assumptions
There are a variety of processes and sectors within the TEC industry. The high
variability in these waste generation and management practices prevents the collection of
comparable data. This limits EPA's ability to accurately and thoroughly assess the
impact of this rule. Therefore, EPA has made assumptions in order to more accurately
assess the impact of today's rule on this industry:
• Data sources did. riot indicate that air transportation cleaners generate
. ICRT wastes. Therefore, based on discussions with industry contacts; EPA
, has assumed that the air transportation cleaning sector of this industry does
not generate ICRT wastes.
• The barge-cleaning facilities do not use land-based units in their treatment
system. EPA has based this assumption on information gathered from
industry contacts.
-------
3.5
V 3-78 - -
• Based on data obtained from the PDS, all tank truck cleaners are assumed
to generate ICRT wastewaters. Industry contacts confirmed this
assumption. . . .
• Based on data obtained from the TEC screening survey, EPA estimated
that 76 to 213 tank and rail car cleaners use land-based units.
* The average discharge of wastewater per facility is estimated to be 7,500
gallons per day based on PDS, TEC screening survey, and industry
contacts. The annual quantity of wastewater generated by each facility is
assumed to be 9,750 tons based on 312 days of operations per year.
• All facilities generate wastewaters with constituents above UTS, based on
the PDS data. Also, no constituents are assumed to be regulated by CWA
because the effluent guidelines have not yet been completed for this
industry. .
NEWLY IDENTIFIED TC PESTICIDE WASTES THAT WERE NOT
PREVIOUSLY HAZARDOUS BY THE OLD EXTRACTION PROCEDURE
In response to the October 24, 1991 ANPRM and the Phase III proposed rule,
EPA did not receive any estimates for additional D012-D017 waste quantities or newly
identified D012-D017 wastes due to the use of TCLP rather than the EP, Because of the
lack of comments to this issue, EPA continues to believe that the quantities of the newly-
identified D012-D017 pesticide wastes due to the use of the TCLP rather than the EP
are small, if any, and expects little or no additional demand for commercial treatment
capacity as a result of the LDRs. • •
-------
CHAPTER 4
CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR NEWLY LISTED WASTES
. This chapter presents EPA's analysis of required alternative commercial treatment
capacity for several newly listed wastes that are currently being land disposed. This
chapter specifically addresses carbamate production wastes (K156-161, P127-128,'P185,
P188492, P194, P196-199, P201-205, U271, U277-280, U364-367, U372-373, U375-379,
U381-387, U389-396, U400-404, U407, U409-411) and spent aluminum potliners (K088).
The purpose of the capacity analysis is to estimate the quantity of these wastes requiring
alternative commercial treatment capacity as a result of the LDRs. and to determine
whether adequate capacity exists to treat these wastes.
4.1 DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY
EPA used several data sources to conduct the analysis of required capacity for
these newly listed wastes including RCRA § 3007 Surveys of the carbamate production
industry, a 1991 EPA study on spent aluminum potliners, the 1993 Biennial Report
Survey, and comments received in response to the proposed Phase III LDR rulemaking.
The data sources are described in more detail in the sections below.
EPA's assessment of required alternative-commercial capacity was based on an
analysis of the most current generation and management data,for these wastes. To
determine how each waste will be affected by the final rule, EPA first considered
whether the waste is currently land-disposed. If a waste is not currently land-disposed, is'
land-disposed in a unit that has received a no-migration petition, or is managed in a
RCRA-exempt unit, it is not subject to the LDRs. For the analysis of required capacity,
EPA focused on the amount of waste that is currently managed in land-based units that
will require alternative treatment as a results of the LDRs.
These land-disposed waste quantities were assigned to a treatment technology
based on EPA's assessment of BOAT and the final LDR treatment standards set for
these wastes. EPA compared the required capacity for a particular treatment process to
the available commercial capacity to determine whether a capacity variance would be
warranted. .
>
4.2 CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR CARBAMATE PRODUCTION WASTES
On February 9, 1995 (60 FR 7824), EPA listed as hazardous six wastes (K156-
K161) generated during the production of carbamates and added 58 U and P wastes
(K156-161, P127-128, P185, P188-192, P194, P196-199, P201-205, U271; U277-280, U364-
367, U372-373, U375-379, U381-387, U389-396, U400-404, U407, U409-411) to the list of
commercial chemical products which are hazardous when discarded. For the listing rule, .
EPA conducted a RCRA §3007 survey in 1990 to collect data on waste generation and
waste management practices for this group of wastes. This survey indicated that a total
-------
' - • 4-2 ',' - '
of 440,000 tons of K156-K161 wastes are generated each year by 24 facilities.80 In the
final listing rule, EPA provided two exemptions from the definition of hazardous waste
for carbamate production wastes: (1) a concentration-based exemption for K156 and
K157 wastewaters, and (2) an exemption for biological treatment sludges generated from
the treatment of K156 or K157, provided that they are not characteristically hazardous.
The capacity analysis assumes that no wastes are exempt from the .definition of
hazardous waste. Therefore, the 440,000 tons is an upper bound estimate of waste
generation.
EPA used information on waste generation and estimates of the percentage of
each waste code that would be exhibit a characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
or organic toxicity (i.e., would also carry at least one of the characteristic waste codes
D001-D003 or D018-D043) to calculate that 230,000 tons of carbamate Wastes generated
annually are characteristically hazardous. Because the treatment standards for carbamate
wastes are concentrations based on the UTS, any carbamate wastes that meet the
treatment standards.for these characteristic wastes (which include treatment for
underlying hazardous constituents) also meet the treatment standards for carbamate
wastes and do not require additional treatment. Because the LDRs for characteristic
wastes that are not managed in CWA units are already in effect (59 FR 47892) and any
carbamate wastes mixed with characteristic wastes that are managed in CWA units are
included in the capacity analysis in Chapter 3, EPA has determined that these
characteristically hazardous carbamate wastes will not require additional treatment.
Of the remaining 210,000 tons of carbamate wastes generated annually that are
not characteristically hazardous, some are currently managed as hazardous wastes and
will not require additional treatment because they already meet the treatment standards
established in today's rule. However, some of the carbamate wastes currently managed
as hazardous waste will still require alternative treatment. For example, wastes disposed
in Subtitle C landfills will need to undergo treatment prior to land disposal. Of the
quantity of waste that will require alternative treatment either because the wastes
currently are being managed as nonhazardous, or because they are managed as
hazardous wastes but do not meet the treatment standards, some can be treated in
existing on-site hazardous waste treatment systems that have excess capacity. In addition,
approximately 1,800 tons per year of waste are currently recycled or recovered, and
therefore not subject to the LDRs. Therefore, only 4,500 tons per year of carbamate
wastes will require alternative,off-site treatment capacity.81 Exhibit 4-1 presents the
quantity of carbamate wastes requiring alternative treatment capacity, by waste code.
80 Most of the data for individual facilities are confidential business information (CBI). A summary of these data can
be found in the Engineering Analysis of the Production of Carbamates, December 1993, prepared by SAIC in the docket
for the final carbamate listing. t ' ' . '
>•
.81 EPA presented these estimates in the proposed Phase III rule and did not receive any comments that they were
incorrect. . '
-------
4-3
EXHIBIT 4-1
CARBAMATE WASTES REQUIRING ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT CAPACITY
Waste Code
K156 . *
K157
K158 '
K159
K160
K161
Total
Quantity Requiring Alternative
Treatment Capacity (tons/year)
0
0
10
0
740
3,700 .
4,500
The treatment standards for K156-K161 wastes are concentrations and EPA
believes that incineration and thermal destruction technologies can meet these standards.
Therefore, 4,500 tons per year of carbamate wastes will require incineration or thermal
destruction capacity. In addition, since K161 wastes may contain metal constituents, EPA.
has determined that stabilization may be required for some of these wastes. Therefore,
EPA estimates that as much as 3,700 tons per year of K161 may require stabilization. As
discussed in Chapter 2, EPA has determined that there are over 100,000 tons per year of
available commercial incineration capacity and over one million tons per year of available
stabilization capacity to meet these requirements.
As discussed above, in the listing rule EPA is adding 58 U and P wastes to the list
of commercial chemical products which are hazardous when discarded., In general EPA
believes that, due to their economic value, these chemicals are rarely discarded unless the
products are significantly off-spec or contaminated. Thus, these wastes should not be
generated on a continuous basis or in significant quantities. According to the RCRA
§3007 Survey, there are approximately 13 tons of carbamate P wastes and 28 tons of
carbamate U wastes generated annually. Although the survey was limited to carbamate
manufacturers, and many potential generators of P and U wastes such as formulators and
distributors of carbamate products were not included in the estimate the affected
quantity, EPA did not receive any comments in response to the proposed rule indicating
that this estimate was inaccurate.
-------
., . • ' '-4-4
The treatment standards for the U and P wastes are concentrations based on a
variety of technologies. For nonwastewaters the standards are based on incineration,
stabilization, and high temperature metals recovery. For wastewaters, the standards are
based on biological treatment, carbon adsorption, and chemical precipitation. EPA
believes that there is sufficient commercial treatment capacity to meet the requirements
for any U and P carbamate wastes that require alternative treatment.
Because EPA estimates that there is adequate commercial treatment capacity to
meet the treatment requirements for carbamate wastes, EPA has decided not to grant a
national capacity variance for these wastes.
43 CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR SPENT ALUMINUM POTLINERS
This section describes the capacity analysis for spent potliners (K088) generated
from the primary reduction of aluminum as well as other forms of K088 wastes (e.g.,
remediation-derived wastes). This analysis estimates the quantity of K088 requiring
alternative treatment'and the available capacity of the related alternative treatment
technologies. , ' ..
43.1 Background -
K088 was originally listed as a hazardous waste on July 16, 1980 (45 FR 47832),
along with seven other waste, streams generated from primary metal smelters. EPA
suspended this listing on January 16, 1981, because the waste appeared to be within the
scope of the Bevill exclusion. During 1984, several environmental organizations
challenged EPA's failure to complete/the required studies under Sections 8002(f) and (p)
by the statutory deadline [Concerned Citizens of Adamstown v. EPA, Civ. No. 84-3041
(D.D.C.)]. As a result, the District Court ordered EPA to complete the studies and to
take action on a planned proposed rulemaking reinterpreting the scope of the mining
waste exclusion. Under court order, EPA proposed to narrow the scope of the exclusion
by relisting five of seven metal smelting wastes, among other things (50 FR 40292).
On October 9, 1986, the Agency announced that it was withdrawing its proposed
reinterpretation due to definitional problems EPA faced in determining,how to group
and classify the wastes (51 FR 36233). This withdrawal of the proposed reinterpretation
continued the suspension of K088. However, through a second court action, the
suspension of the K088 listing was removed (Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, No.
88-1584 (D.C. Cir., July, 1988)). The final rule reflecting this court decision re-enacted
the original listing and thus required the development of treatment standards for K088
(53 FR 35412, September 13, 1988).
-------
', ' . 4-5
43.2 Data Sources
EPA used many sources of information for the capacity analysis of K088 wastes to
estimate the, quantity of K088 requiring treatment, applicable treatment technologies, and
their available capacities. These sources include comments received in response to the
October 24, 1991 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for Newly
Identified and Listed Wastes (53 FR 55160), a 1991 SAIC study of K088 generation by
three aluminum producers, the Draft 1988 Report to Congress on Solid Waste from
Selected Metallic Processing Operations, the 1993 Biennial Report Survey (BRS), and
comments received in response to the proposed Phase III LDR rule:
433 Required Capacity •
EPA defines spent potliners as the carbon portion of the materials contained
inside the electrolytic reduction cell not including other material contained in the pot
such as the collector bars, steel shell, or thermal insulation composed of insulating brick
or alumina. EPA listed K088 because of its high concentrations of iron cyanide
complexes and free cyanides, which are extremely toxic to both humans and aquatic life.
Waste characterization and generation data were collected for the 1991 SAIC
study on spent potliner. The data in this report were provided by facility operators in
response to a request for data on potliner generation. Data were collected for most, but
not all 23 operating facilities. For facilities not included in the study, EPA contacted the
facilities to obtain the information. The estimate of annual K088 generation that-was
presented in the proposed Phase III rale (approximately 118,000 tons) was based on the
1991 study updated with more recent estimates for riine facilities that provided
information to EPA (Alcoa, Alumax'-Mt. Holly, Reynolds and Northwest facilities).
i
However, several commenters to the proposed rule noted that the estimate
presented in the proposed rule did not include a generation estimate for one facility,
Alumax-Intalco82 and did not include the Reynolds' facility in Troutdale, Oregon. EPA.
has updated its estimate to include these two facilities. Exhibit 4-2 summarizes the
corrected K088 generation estimates. As shown, using these data the estimated quantity
of routinely-generated K088 is approximately 125,500 tons per year, compared to
approximately 118,000 tons estimated in the proposed rule.'
One commenter to the proposed rule, Reynolds, noted that these generation
estimates are based on the assumption that the facility is operating at maximum capacity
and that actual K088 generation is lower than these estimates. Therefore, EPA extracted
data from the BRS to .estimate the actual quantity of K088 waste generated in 1993 (the
most recent year for which EPA has national data on waste generation). As shown in
82 The table presented in the proposed rule stated that the generation was ">0" but did not provide a specific
generation estimate.'
-------
4-6
EXHIBIT 4-2
ESTIMATED ANNUAL GENERATION OF SPENT POTLINERS (K088)
BASED ON DATA PROVIDED BY ALUMINUM SMELTERS
Facility Owner
Alcoa
Alcoa
Alcoa
Alcoa
Alcoa
Alcoa
Alumax
Alumax (Eastalco)
Alumax (Intalco)
Alcan
Columbia Falls
Columbia Aluminum
Kaiser ,
Kaiser
NSA
Noranda
Northwest
ORMET
Ravenswood
Reynolds
Reynolds
Reynolds
Vanalco
Location
Alcoa, TN
Badin, NC
Massena, NY
Rockdale, TX
. Wenatchee, WA
Warrick, IN
Mt. Holly, SC
Frederick, MD
Ferndale, WA
Henderson, KY
Columbia Falls, MT
Goldendale, WA
Mead, WA
Tacoma, WA
Hawesville/KY
New Madrid, MO
Dalles, OR
Hannibal, OH
Ravenswood, WV
Longview, WA
Massena, NY
Troutdale, OR
Vancouver, WA ^
Total
'Generation (tons/year)
33,000 (aggregate)
«
2,000
4,400
4,300
4,000 .
7,200
11,000
3,200
5,000
3,300 ,
8,400
8,000
8,000
4,200
8,200
4,500 -
3,500
3,525
125,500
-------
4-7
Exhibit 4-3, 1993 generation of K088 was approximately 101,000 tons.83 Of the waste
reported in the 1993 BRS, approximately 5,200 tons are assumed to be wastewaters84,
and the remaining 95,800 tons are assumed to be nonwastewaters.
Since annual K088 generation fluctuates from year to year based on market
conditions, EPA estimates that annual generation of K088 wastes could be between
100,000 and 125,000 tons.
Several commenters to the proposed rule stated that Canadian generation of K088
should be included in the capacity analysis. Because the LDRs do not apply to waste
generated outside the United States, EPA has not included Canadian generation in the
estimate of the quantity of waste requiring alternative treatment capacity as a result of
the LDRs. However, as discussed in Section 4.3.4 below, EPA has adjusted the quantity
of available treatment capacity to reflect Canadian waste that it assumes will be treated
in the US. . •
Although some K088 may be stockpiled-on site, EPA does not believe that it will
require additional treatment capacity. The Phase I LDR rule included a provision
allowing for the storage of wa_stes in containment buildings meeting certain criteria', which
EPA anticipated would be used by some aluminum producers to temporarily store spent
potliners. Nonetheless, EPA believes that facilities storing K088 wastes will dispose
of them prior to the effective date of the LDRs for these wastes for economic reasons.
Because wastes disposed prior to the .effective date of the rule are not subject to the
LDRs, these stockpiles are not likely to add to the demand for future treatment capacity. '
Facilities also may generate K088 wastes as the result of remedial actions. In the
• proposed Phase III rule, EPA stated that it did not have data indicating that K088-
contaminated soil and debris were being generated in significant quantities. EPA did
not receive any data contradicting these assumptions. However, one commenter to the
proposed Phase III rule (Southwire) did state that it is currently implementing a >
groundwater remediation project at one of their facilities and is generating both K088-
co'ntaminated groundwater and sludge from the treatment of this groundwater. However,
the commenter did not provide estimates of the quantities being generated or whether
this action will be completed prior to the effective date of this rule.
. ** The data presented include all primary K088 wastes, i.e., wastes that are generated from a manufacturing or clean-
up process, but does not include K088 wastes derived from treatment of a hazardous waste. See Appendix D for a more
detailed discussion of the data extracted from the 1993 Biennial Report Survey.
\
84 The BRS does not indicate whether a waste is a wastewater or nonwastewater. Therefore, EPA is assuming that
any wastes with the form "organic liquids" or "inorganic liquids" are wastewaters.
*? As outlined in 40 CFR 264.100 and 265.100, containment buildings are not subject to the RCRA 3004(k)
definition of land disposal if they meet certain requirements.
-------
4-8
EXHIBIT 4-3
1993 GENERATION OF SPENT POTLINERS (K088)
BASED ON DATA FROM THE BIENNIAL REPORT
Facility Owner
Alcoa
Alcoa ' • '
Alcoa
Alcoa
Alcoa
Alcoa
Alumax • . .
Alumax (Eastalco)
Alumax (Intalco)
Alcan .
Columbia Falls
Columbia Aluminum
Kaiser
Kaiser
NSA • . - '
Noranda
Northwest - <
ORMET
Ravenswood
Reynolds
Reynolds
Vanalco
Location
Alcoa, TN
Badin, NC
Massena, NY
Rockdale, TX
Wenatchee, WA
Warrick, IN
Mt Holly, SC
Frederick, MD
Feradale, WA
Henderson, KY
Columbia Falls, MT
Goldendale, WA
Mead,WA
Tacoma, WA
Hawesville, KY
New Nladrid, MO
Dalles, OR
Hannibal, OH
Ravenswood, WV
Longview, WA
Massena, NY
Vancouver, WA
Other Facilities . '
Total*
Generation (tons/year)
3,700
3,200
• 4,200
11,300
4,400
5,300
1,400
3,600
800
3,100
2,800
7,700
3,400
3,900
3,200
6,800
5,800
6,100
4,600
7,800
4,600
3,000
500
101,000
Total may not sum due to rounding.
-------
4-9
43.4 Available Capacity
Nonwastewaters are assumed to require thermal treatment to meet the LDRs.
Reynolds Metal Company operates a thermal treatment unit that is capable of meeting
the treatment standards for K088. According to Reynolds' description of this process,
K088 is blended with limestone and brown sand and then thermally treated in a,rotary
kiln. Cyanides are destroyed by the oxidation at the elevated temperatures and the
soluble fluoride salts react with the limestone to form calcium fluoride. Since this
treatment unit is permitted to receive only K088 wastes, the facility is dedicated solely to
the treatment of K088. Reynolds received delisting for the residuals from treatment in
this unit on December 30, 1991 (56 FR 67197). The delisting for treatment residues from
this process effectively limits the K088 content of the treated waste. Therefore, although
the total operating throughput for this facility is 300,000 tons per year, Reynolds
estimates that it can accept approximately 121,500 tons of K088 per year.
In a comment submitted in response to the Phase III LDR proposal, Reynolds
stated that it would make decisions regarding whether to treat K088 wastes generated in
Canada at its Gum Springs, facility based on the prevailing business climate and available
treatment capacity, and that it was committed to providing and maintaining sufficient
capacity to meet the needs of its U.S. customers. In light of this comment, EPA
assumes that the Gum Springs facility will not treat K088 waste generated by other
companies in Canada if there are U.S. companies that require treatment capacity.
However, EPA believes that for economic reasons Reynolds will treat the K088
generated by its own.Canadian plant at the Gum Springs facility. .Therefore, EPA
expects that. 10,500 tons of capacity, will be required for Reynolds' Canadian-generated
K088 wastes, leaving 111,000 tons of available capacity for treatment of U.S.-generated
K088 wastes. s
EPA also believes that combustion will meet'the treatment standards for K088.
Data supplied to EPA by incinerators indicates that several incinerators currently will
accept K088 wastes. EPA estimates that there is approximately 20,000 tons per year of
excess bulk solids capacity at these incineration facilities. However, incinerators may be
unable to accept large volumes of K088 at one time or accept the waste without
significant pre-processing.88 . .
86 This information was provided by Reynolds in a comment to the Phase III proposed rule. The estimate accounts
for all limits imposed by Reynolds''delisting and operating permits and assumes 15% downtime.
87 Reynolds Metals Company comment dated July 12, 1995, number PH3P-L0015, page 2.
88 Phone logs presented in Appendix D provide information on the ability of incinerators to accept K088 wastes. All
incinerators and cement kilns that indicated that they were permitted to accept K088 wastes and had available
combustion capacity were contacted by the Agency.
-------
4-10
4.3.5 Capacity Variance Determination
K088 wastewaters are assumed to require a combination of alkaline chlorihation,
chemical precipitation, and biological treatment. Using data from the 1993 BRS, EPA
estimates that approximately 5,200 tons of K088 wastewaters requiring alternative
treatment capacity will be generated routinely per year. EPA has determined that there
is sufficient available capacity for all of these technologies to treat the quantity pf
routinely-generated wastewaters reported in the 1993 BRS.89
EPA believes that K088-contaminated media can be treated using thermal
destruction and that adequate capacity exists to treat routinely-generated K088-
contaminated media. However, if a significant quantity of K088-contaminated media
and/or treatment residuals are generated during a RCRA or CERCLA cleanup that is
subject to the LDRs90, there may not be adequate treatment capacity for such waste
and the site generating the1 waste may need to apply for a site-specific capacity
variance. :
According to EPA's analysis, 95,900 to 125,500 tons per year pf K088
nonwastewaters may require alternative treatment capacity under today's final rule. EPA
has determined that approximately 111,000 per.year tons of capacity is available at
Reynolds' treatment facility. In addition, EPA estimates that there may be some
available capacity at combustion facilities for these wastes.
Given the estimated range for K088 nonwastewater generation, the difference
between available and required capacity for K088 nonwastewaters may be very small.
Since K088 wastes are generated sporadically, if a large quantity of waste is generated
over a short period of time, facilities may not be able to find sufficient available capacity.
In addition, EPA believes that facilities may need time to identify and secure adequate
treatment capacity for their wastes. In particular, facilities may have to undergo some
preverification arrangements and a qualification procedure, prior to sending their wastes
to treatment facilities, which might take several months. Other logistical delays that
facilities could encounter include setting up appropriate infrastructure to store wastes
w EPA did receive one comment from National Southwire Aluminum indicating that there could be a capacity
shortage for wastewaters. However, the commenter was not referring to capacity for routinely generated wastewaters,
but rather capacity for the large volume of contaminated groundwater (and the resulting wastewater treatment sludge) it
expects to generate as a result of remediation efforts.
90 The LDRs do not apply to remediation wastes if they are treated in situ or within a corrective action management
unit(CAMU). ' . •
" If a waste stream cannot be treated to meet the promulgated standards, the facility may apply for a treatability
variance.
-------
: 4-11 ,
prior to shipment92, negotiating contracts for both shipment and treatment of wastes,
and adjusting treatment and pre-treatment processes to new waste matrices. For these
reasons, EPA has decided to grant a nine-month variance ,to K088 wastes.
In the proposed Phase III LDR rule, EPA proposed a three-month variance for
all wastes including K088 wastes. However, given the potential logistical problems that
may be encountered, EPA believes that a three-month variance will not be sufficient for
these wastes. EPA believes that nine months will allow facilities adequate time to qualify
for the Reynolds treatment process and resolve any logistical problems.
Another reason EPA is choosing a nine-month rather than a three-month (or even
a six-month) variance is based on past experience when there appeared to be just enough
treatment capacity available. In 1988, when EPA promulgated treatment standards for
K061 wastes, the Agency faced a potentially similar situation where there was just enough
treatment capacity (on paper) to cover the volume of waste generated. The Agency
promulgated an immediately effective prohibition, based in part on assurances from'the
waste treatment industry that adequate capacity was immediately available. However, in
practice it took nearly nine months for the situation to sort itself out completely ~ for .
generators to be able to contact treatment facilities and have their wastes treated. It
turned out that treatment processes treating unfamiliar matrices, combined with the
logistics of dealing with a new set of generators for the first time, meant that seemingly
available capacity was practically unavailable in the months following issuance of the rule.
After this experience, the Agency is .cautious in assessing the claims of immediately
available treatment'capacity for a large volume of wastes that do not have a long-
standing history of waste treatment. In addition, given the limited number of treatment
facilities for K088 wastes, any facility shut-downs or delays can significantly affect the
available treatment capacity nation-wide. Therefore, EPA believes that it is prudent to
allocate a few additional months to ensure that treatment capacity is in fact available.
92 Due to the imposition of LDRs for these wastes, facilities that currently store K088 in waste piles (which are
considered land disposal units) may have to convert these piles'into containment buildings (which are not considered land
disposal units, if properly constructed and maintained). Such a conversion could .require a Class 2 permit modification
and take several months to complete. .
-------
-------
CHAPTERS
CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR SURFACE DISPOSED MIXED RADIOACTIVE WASTE
This chapter presents EPA's estimates of the quantities of mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes (mixed wastes) contaminated with newly listed and identified wastes
that will require alternative commercial treatment as a result of the Phase III LDRs.
The chapter also discusses the available alternative treatment capacity for mixed wastes.
The chapter is organized into five sections: Section 5.1 provides background on EPA's
findings for previous analyses of required capacity for mixed wastes; Section 5.2 examines
the data sources used to conduct the analysis of required capacity for Phase III mixed
wastes; Section 5.3 presents the results of EPA's review of the available data sources on
DOE and non-DOE mixed waste generation; Section 5.4 discusses the alternative
treatment capacity that will be available to treat mixed wastes; and Section 5.5 discusses
the national, capacity variance for mixed wastes.
5.1 BACKGROUND
EPA has defined a mixed waste as any matrix containing a RCRA hazardous
waste and a radioactive waste subject to the Atomic Energy Act (53 FR 37045, 37046,.
September 23, 1988). Regardless of the type of radioactive constituents that mixed
wastes contain or the radiological classification of the wastes (i.e., high-level, low-level, or
transuranic), these wastes are currently subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulations. In
general, the treatment standards for mixed waste are the same treatment standards in
effect for non-radioactive RCRA hazardous waste.
Mixed wastes that contain spent solvents, dioxins, or California list wastes, First
Third, Second Third, or Third Third scheduled wastes, Phase I, or Phase II scheduled
wastes, are subject to the land disposal restrictions already, promulgated for those
-hazardous wastes. In the Third Third rulemaking, EPA< granted a two-year national
capacity variance for mixed waste contaminated with First Third, Second Third, and
Third Third waste because of a lack of available alternative treatment capacity.. This
variance expired on May 8, 1992. In addition, EPA granted a generic, one-year extension
of the LDR effective date applicable to all facilities managing hazardous debris (with
several exceptions), including mixed waste classified as debris. This extension was
renewed for one additional year and expired on May 8, 1994.
In the Phase I rulemaking (57FR 37194, August 18, 1992), EPA granted a two-
year national capacity variance for mixed waste contaminated with Phase I waste because
of insufficient alternative treatment capacity. The wastes regulated under the Phase I
LDRs include F037, F038, K107-K112, K117, K118, K123-K126, K131, K132, K136,
U328, U353, and U359. This variance expired on June 30, 1994. In the Phase II
rulemaking (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994), EPA'granted a two-year national
capacity variance for mixed waste contaminated with Phase II waste'because of
insufficient alternative treatment capacity. The wastes regulated under the Phase II
LDRs include D018-D043, D012-D017, K141-K145, and K147-K151.
-------
5-2 . •
The Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a case-by-case (CBC) extension
application for certain Third Third mixed waste generated and stored at 31 of its sites.
DOE requested a one-year extension of the Third Third capacity variance for the mixed
waste addressed in the application. EPA reviewed DOE's application and issued a
proposed finding that DOE had made all but one of the demonstrations required by 40
CFR 268.5 for a case-by-case extension (57 FR 22024, May 6, 1992). The remaining
demonstration would have required DOE to enter into a binding contractual commitment
to construct or otherwise provide alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal- capacity for
the wastes included in the application. As a result of the passage of the Federal
Facilities Compliance Act and the belief expressed by Congress that DOE no longer
needs a CBC extension, EPA suspended further processing,of the CBC.
.The Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA) was enacted into law (Public Law
102-386) on October 6, 1992. FFCA amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act (1965) which
was itself previously amended by the .Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA,
1976) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA, 1984). Section 102 of
the FFCA waives sovereign immunity for executive branch departments and agencies,
and allows states to impose fines and penalties against federal facilities for violations of
RCRA. However, the FFCA.delays the effective date of the waiver for mixed waste
storage violations for three years to allow DOE .time to prepare plans for the develop-
ment of treatment capacities and technologies for facilities at which DOE generates or
stores mixed waste. Consequently, the FFCA delayed the effective date of the LDRs .
until October, 1995 for surface disposed mixed waste.
5.2 DATA SOURCES
Section 5.2.1 discusses the non-DOE mixed waste data sources and Section 5.2.2
discusses the data sources for DOE mixed wastes. ,
5.2.1 Non-DOE Mixed Waste Data Sources
For previous LDR rulemakings, EPA has received comments and data concerning
the generation and treatment of mixed waste. Based on these comments, EPA believes
that DOE facilities generate the vast majority of mixed waste. According to the
Background Document for the Third Third LDRs, non-DOE mixed waste is believed to
account for less than one percent of all mixed waste generated nationwide.93
• In the process of conducting the analysis of required capacity that appears in
Section 5.3, EPA evaluated available data oh the generation and treatment of non-DOE
mixed waste contaminated with Phase III wastes. The amount of comprehensive
93 EPA, Backg-ound Document for Third Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions, Final
Rule, Third Third Waste Volumes, Characteristics, and Required and Available Treatment Capacity, Volume III, Appendix
B, May 1990.
-------
'5-3
information available to EPA on these wastes is limited. EPA and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), however, published the results of a survey designed to
"collect information to develop a national profile on the volumes, characteristics, and
treatability of commercially generated mixed waste." The published results of the survey
are known as the "National Profile on Commercially Generated Low-Level Radioactive
Mixed Waste" (National Profile). The National Profile contains information on low-level
mixed waste generated by commercial (rion-DOE) facilities in 1990 and in storage at
these facilities at the end of 1990. Data from the National Profile are discussed further
in Section 5.3.
5.2.2 DOE Mixed Waste Data Sources
In response to the ANPRM, DOE submitted comments that contained
information on mixed waste streams that would be affected by the rule. In developing its
comments, DOE focused largely on collecting data on the characterization, treatment,
and inventories of previously or newly regulated TC organics. DOE submitted
information on TC organic waste streams in a series of tables that summarized the results
of a "data call" issued by DOE to its Field Organizations in September 1991. As part of
the data call, all DOE Field Organizations were sent copies of their current mixed waste
profile reports contained in the DOE Waste Management Information System (WMIS).
DOE sites were asked to update their waste profile reports to identify those mixed
wastes that were also TC organics and to prepare new waste profile reports for newly
regulated TC organic waste streams,94
DOE indicated in its comments on the ANPRM that none of the nine high-level
waste streams included in the CBC contain TC organic wastes. DOE also indicated that
the low-level TC organic waste streams that were listed and identified in its ANPRM
comments, but were not identified in the CBC, were omitted from the CBC because they
were identified after the internal deadline for submitting data for the CBC had
passed.95
DOE requested information from 37 of its Field Organizations as part of its data
call and received responses from 20 sites by the deadline for submitting data. Therefore,
the information gathered from the data call is incomplete. In addition, DOE indicated
that most of the field sites that responded to the data call did not provide information on
their TC organic transuranic waste streams (TRU), and that TRU TC organic waste
. stream data were often omitted because many field sites did not consider TRU waste
streams relevant to the data call. ,
94 DOE, Enclosure 2, Tables Describing TC Organic Waste Streams at DOE Field Sites, December 9, 1991.
"Ibid. - '
-------
5-4 •
• t
Section 105 (a) of FFCA required DOE to prepare a mixed waste inventory
report within 180 days of the enactment of FFCA (i.e., by April, 1993). This Interim
Mixed Waste Inventory Report was prepared on time, and included a national inventory
of all mixed wastes that are currently stored or will be generated over the next five years,
and a national inventory of mixed waste treatment capacities and technologies. A final
report has not been issued; however, the Final Mixed Waste Inventory Report (MWIR)
Data Base was made public in May, 1994. This data base provides waste-stream specific
information for each DOE site. Because the data in the MWIR Data Base are more
recent and more comprehensive than those provided in DOE's comment to the ANPRM
and the CBC, EPA has relied on these data in conducting the capacity analysis for mixed
wastes, as discussed below.
53 RESULTS
This section presents the results of EPA's review of available data on DOE and
non-DOE mixed waste streams contaminated with newly identified hazardous wastes
being restricted in today's rulemaking. Section 5.3.1 discusses non-DOE generation and
storage of mixed low-level waste and Section 5.3.2 addresses the quantity of DOE mixed
waste generated annually arid_in storage. .
53.1 Non-DOE Generation and Storage of Mixed Low-level Waste
Information collected on individual hazardous constituents present in the mixed
waste streams identified in the National Profile was generally incomplete. As a result,
estimating the quantities of non-DOE low-level mixed waste that contain Phase III wastes
is not possible and is not specifically addressed in this subsection. However, the results
from the National Profile do provide the most recent overall picture of non-DOE low-
level mixed waste generation.
Results from .the National Profile presented in Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 include
estimates .of the types and quantities of non-DOE low-level mixed wastes that were
generated in 1990, as well as the total quantities of non-DOE low-level mixed wastes in
storage at the end of 1990. The National Profile identifies five non-DOE sectors that are
sources,of mixed waste: academic, government, industrial, medical, and nuclear power
plants. The quantities of mixed waste generated by each of these sectors in 1990 and the
quantities of mixed waste stored by each of these sectors at the end of 1990 are listed
and identified below in Exhibit 5-1. The National Profile's estimate of annual non-DOE
low-level mixed waste generation is greater than the estimate developed in the Third
Third capacity analysis. EPA believes, however, that the newer data are more complete
and therefore more reliable.
Based on the results from the National Profile, the types of low-level mixed wastes
that are .generated by non-DOE facilities are presented in Exhibit 5-2. This exhibit lists
the estimated quantities of each of these waste categories that were generated by non-
-------
.5-5
EXHIBIT 5-1
SOURCES OF NON-DOE MIXED WASTE
GENERATED OR IN STORAGE IN 1990
Sector
. Academic
Government
Industrial
Medical
Nuclear Power Plants
Total
1990 Generation
(nrV)
820
750
1,400
560
390
3,900
Amount Stored as of
12/31/90 (m3)
150 :
80
1,200
60
620
2,100
Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, National Profile on Commercially Generated Low-Level Radioactive Mixed
Waste, NUREG/CR-5938, ORNL-6731, December 1992,
DOE facilities in 1990 and that were in storage at non-DOE facilities at the end of 1990.
The totals given in Exhibit 5-2 account for all non-DOE generated low-level mixed waste,
including those for which land disposal restrictions are already in place. The asterisks in
Exhibit 5-2 identify non-DOE mixed waste streams that may contain Phase III wastes.
EPA, however, expects that only a small fraction of non-DOE mixed waste will become
subject to the LDRs being promulgated under the Phase III. rule.
53.2 DOE-Generated Mixed Waste
This section summarizes and evaluates DOE data on the quantities of newly
identified TC organic DOE mixed waste generated annually and in storage. As shown in
Exhibit 5-3, EPA estimates that "820 tons of high-level waste and 360 tons of mixed low-
level waste that will be generated annually by DOE may be affected by this rule. In
addition, there are currently 7,000 tons of high-level waste, 10 tons of mixed transuranic
waste, and 2,700 tons of mixed low-level waste in storage that may be affected by this
rule. • •• . ' v '.-''••
-------
5-6
EXHIBIT 5-2
TYPES OF NON-DOE MIXED WASTE
GENERATED OR IN STORAGE IN 1990
Waste Type - ' '
1990 Generation
(m3)
Amount Stored as of
12/31/90 (m3)
Organics
Liquid Scintillation Huids (LSFs)*
Waste Oil*
Chlorinated Organics*
Fluorinated Organics
Chlorinated Fluorocarbons (CFCs)
Other Organics
Corrosive Liquids
Lead Wastes
Mercury Wastes
Chromium Wastes
Cadmium Wastes
Other Hazardous Materials
Total
2,800
150
70
0 .
110
280
80
80
10
30
<1 v
300 :
3,900
360
180
30
4
' 260
120 .
10
140
80
50
750
140
2,100
Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, National Profile on Commercially Generated Low-Level Radioactive Mixed
Waste, NUREG/CR-5938, ORNL-6731, December 1992.
May contain newly identified TC organic waste. .
5.4 AVAILABLE CAPACITY FOR MIXED WASTE
5.4.1 Existing and Planned Non-DOE Capacity -
Currently, only five commercial facilities nationwide hold or are in the process of .
obtaining RCRA permits to treat mixed RCRA/radioactive waste, including waste
scintillation fluids. Two facilities, one each in Florida and Texas, currently hold RCRA
Part B Permits for the storage and processing of mixed waste. A third facility, located in
Tennessee, holds a Part B Permit for the storage of mixed waste and is operating a waste
fuel boiler under ^RCRA interim status. A fourth facility, located in Colorado, stores and
-------
5-7 ' •
EXHIBIT 5-3
TYPES OF DOE TC ORGANIC MIXED RADIOACTIVE WASTE
x GENERATED OR IN STORAGE
Waste Type
Aqueous Liquids/Slurries
Organic Liquids
Solid Process Residues
Soils
Debris
Lab Packs
Compressed Gases
Other
Total*
Current Inventory (m3)
HLW
7,000
0
3,700
0
0
0
0
0
10,700
MTRU
0
2
4,500
0
18,000
0
0
.200
23,000
MLLW
200
1,300
1,600
. 20
14,000
80
-2
240
17,000
Annual Generation Rate
(m3/yr)
HLW
. 820
0
470
0
0
0
0
0
1,300
MTRU
0
0
0
0
380
1
0
0
380
MLLW
170
130
80
10
650
20
0
8
1,100
Source: Final Mixed Waste Inventory Report Data Base, May 1994.
Total may not sum due to rounding.
processes mixed wastes under interim status, and has submitted an application for a Part
B Permit. A second facility in Tennessee currently treats low-level radioactive waste and
has submitted an application for a Part B Permit in order to process mixed RCRA/radio-
active waste. Only one facility, located in Utah, is permitted to land dispose mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastes. The types of waste disposed at this facility are constrained'by
the facility's RCRA permit' and NRC license. Other than these facilities, EPA is aware
of no other non-DOE facilities that are permitted to treat, store, or dispose of mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastes.
According to the National Profile, a total of 41,000 m3/yr of capacity is available
for treatment of commercially-generated low-level mixed wastes at the four facilities
currently accepting these wastes. This treatment capacity is spread over various technol-
ogies, including bulking/vial shredding followed by storage (for liquid scintillation fluids,
LSFs); incineration; stabilization; chemical oxidation and reduction; neutralization;
cleaning, decontamination, and macroencapsulation (for lead materials); and solidifica-
tion. Approximately 33,000 m3/yr. of this treatment capacity is available for the bulking
and storage of liquid mixed wastes, mainly LSFs, for radioactive decay prior to incinera-
-------
- - 5-8
tion. However, EPA does not consider storage for radioactive decay in determining
available treatment capacity, and therefore these facilities do not provide any treatment
capacity for incinerable mixed wastes. The remaining 8,000 m3/yr of capacity appears
sufficient to manage the more than 6,000 m3 of non-DOE mixed waste that required
treatment in 1990 (the annual generation + amount in storage), but no capacity currently
exists for 300 m3 of the total amount.96
5.4.2 Existing and Planned DOE Capacity.
•\
As part of its CBC extension application, DOE performed a comprehensive search
for commercial facilities capable of treating mixed RCRA/radioactive waste. DOE
concluded that only very limited commercial treatment capacity exists nationwide to treat
its mixed RCRA/radioactive waste. The existing capacity that was identified was limited
to the treatment of liquid scintillation fluids.
As part of its comments on the ANPRM, DOE submitted a series of appendices
from its CBC application that provide information on 45 mixed RCRA/radioactive waste
treatment facilities at 13 DOE sites. Subsequently, DOE modified its CBC application by
withdrawing certain treatment facilities and adding another, reducing the total number of
mixed waste treatment facilities to 36 (57 PR 22024, May 26, 1992). EPA evaluated this
information in order to determine the amount of available mixed waste treatment
capacity at DOE facilities. , . •
In addition, as part of the data call described earlier, DOE requested its field sites
to indicate whether their treatment units were capable of accepting mixed RCRA/radio-
active wastes contaminated with newly identified TC organic wastes. Not all of the DOE
field sites responded by the internal deadline; DOE received responses concerning only
-15 of the 45 existing or planned mixed RCRA/radioactive waste treatment units originally
included in the CBC. All 15 of these units, however, were unable to accept mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastes contaminated with newly identified TC organic wastes. The
units are either not technically capable of .accepting TC organics, or are not allowed, to
do so by their permit or permit application. Some units face both of these difficulties'.
EPA's review of the IMWIR indicates that 4,000 m3 of treatment capacity are
available annually for HLW at three DOE treatment systems. The available capacity
appears sufficient to treat the estimated average annual generation. However, the
IMWIR indicates that the current national inventory of HLW is greater than 280,000 m3.
This quantity dwarfs DOE's annual available treatment capacity for HLW. Consequently,
DOE faces a treatment capacity shortfall for high-level.mixed radioactive wastes.
96 This 300 tons includes CFCs and lead shielding for which there is not adequate treatment capacity.
-------
5-9
DOE is developing the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico as a
permanent repository for DOE TRU wastes, including MTRU wastes. However, EPA
has not yet authorized DOE to begin the placement of TRU wastes in the WIPP. In
addition, wastes received at the WIPP must meet DOE's WIPP Waste Acceptance
Criteria (WIPP-WAC). DOE is still in the planning stages for facilities designed to
prepare MTRU wastes for shipment to the WIPP. As a result, DOE faces a capacity
shortfall for treatment of MTRU wastes.
EPA's review of the IMWIR indicates that 300 m3/yr of currently available
capacity exists at four DOE treatment systems for the treatment of alpha MLLW.
(MLLW may be categorized as either alpha or non-alpha depending on the transuranic
alpha content). However, the available capacity is greatly exceeded by the estimated
quantity of alpha MLLW requiring treatment annually over the next five years, 3,700 m3.
Consequently, DOE faces a treatment capacity shortfall for non-soil, non-debris alpha
MLLW. .
According to IMWIR, 1,000,000 m3/yr of treatment capacity among 26 systems are
currently available to treat non-alpha "(i.e., less than 10 nCi/g transuranic alpha content)
MLLW. However, IMWIR states that most of DOE's currently available treatment
capacity for MLLW is represented by facilities limited to the treatment of wastewaters
(defined by DOE as less than 1 percent total suspended solids (TSS)). While these '
treatment facilities provide excess capacity for MLLW wastewaters, they cannot process
wastes with high TSS and are not readily adaptable for other waste forms. Thus,
although the quantity of MLLW treatment capacity is greater than the total quantity of
mixed wastes, DOE faces a treatment capacity shortfall for nonwastewater MLLW, and -
thus non-alpha MLLW. . ,
The IMWIR indicates that no available treatment capacity exists at DOE facilities
for mixed radioactive soils. In addition, EPA's review of IMWIR data indicates that 16
m3/yr of currently available capacity exists at one DOE facility for the treatment of high-
level mixed radioactive debris, an amount that exceeds the estimated annual generation.
As noted above, EPA has not authorized DOE to begin placement of MTRU wastes into
the WIPP. As a result, DOE faces a treatment capacity shortfall for mixed transuranic
debris. Finally, review of IMWIR reveals that less than 2 m3/yr of treatment capacity is
available that can accept mixed low-level debris. Thus, DOE faces a treatment capacity
shortfall for both alpha and non-alpha mixed low-level debris.
While DOE has provided its best available data on mixed waste generation,
uncertainty remains about mixed waste generation at DOE (and non-DOE) facilities.
For example, as discussed above, the MWIR data generally did not include DOE
environmental restoration wastes which, when generated, will increase the quantity of
newly identified mixed wastes that require treatment. The IMWIR estimates that DOE
will generate 600,000 m3 of mixed environmental restoration wastes (primarily MLLW)
over the period from .1993 to 1997. Although the IMWIR notes that, the estimates of •
-------
• - 5-10
DOE environmental restoration wastes are preliminary, any quantity of this magnitude
will place additional strains on DOE's limited available mixed waste treatment capacity.
In addition, although uncertainty exists as the total quantities of TC organic mixed wastes
generated at DOE and non-DOE facilities that are affected by today's rule, EPA believes
that insufficient treatment capacity exists for these wastes at both DOE and commercial
sites. .
5.5 NATIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCE FOR MIXED RCRA/RADIOAdTVE
WASTES • ' - .
Based on the analysis presented above, EPA believes that DOE generates a large
majority of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes affected by this rulemaking and previous
LDR rulemaldngs, and that major treatment capacity shortfalls currently exist for
previously regulated mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes generated at both DOE and non-
DOE facilities. As a result, EPA has determined that there is currently no BDAT or
equivalent available treatment capacity for any newly listed mixed RCRA/radioactive
wastes at DOE or non-DOE facilities. Because a treatment capacity shortfall was -
identified for" every mixed RCRA/radioactive waste treatability group, EPA is today
granting a two-year national capacity variance for all mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes
contaminated with newly listed and identified wastes for .which treatment standards are
included in this rulemaking, including mixed radioactive soil and debris. , - •
-------
CHAPTER 6
CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR NON-SULFIDE AND NON-CYANIDE REACTIVE (D003)
WASTES NOT MANAGED IN CWA OR CWA-EQUIVALENT SYSTEMS
This chapter discusses the capacity analysis conducted for nbn-sulfide and non-
cyanide reactive (D003) wastes that are not managed in Clean Water Act (CWA) or
\ CWA-equivalent (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)) systems. (D003 wastes that
are managed in CWA and equivalent systems are addressed in Chapter 3.) Section 6.1
provides background information on the regulatory history of these wastes. Section 6.2
describes both the data sources and the methodology used in the capacity analysis.
Section 6.3 presents the results of the capacity analysis for D003 wastes and Section .6.4
addresses the variance determination for D003 wastes.
6.1 BACKGROUND
i
In the Third Third rule (55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990), EPA set treatment standards
for wastes exhibiting the characteristic of ignitability (D001), corrosivity (D002), reactivity
(D003), and metal and pesticide toxicity (D004-11 wastes exhibit the toxicity characteristic
for metals and D012-17 exhibit the toxicity characteristic for pesticides). .In the Interim
Final Land Disposal Restrictions Rule for Ignitable and Corrosive Characteristic Wastes
Whose Treatment Standards Were Vacated (58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993), or the
"Emergency" rule, EPA set new treatment standards for those igmtable wastes in the low-'
TOC ignitable liquids category and those corrosive wastes that are not managed in CWA
.or equivalent systems.
EPA is now amending the treatment standards for reactive (D003) wastes other
than reactive sulfide and cyanide wastes to address both the property of reactivity and
the universal treatment standards (UTS) (and thus the threat posed by disposal of
underlying hazardous constituents (UHCs) in these wastes). The Agency is taking this
action even though the CWM vs. EPA court decision did not find that reactive wastes
contained sufficient concentrations of hazardous.constituents to require any treatment
beyond that which removed the characteristic of reactivity.97 The Agency believes that
reactive wastes are as likely to contain UHCs at levels that may pose a threat as are
ignitable and corrosive wastes, and consequently, is regulating these reactive wastes (i.e.,
non-sulfide and non-cyanide) in the final Phase III LDR rule.
6.2 DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY
EPA's assessment of required alternative commercial capacity was based on an
analysis of the most current generation and management of these wastes. To determine
how each individual waste stream will be affected by 'this rule, EPA considered 1
determining whether a waste stream is currently land-disposed. If a waste is not
97 As discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, the standards established in the Third Third rule were vacated by the
1992 CWM vs. EPA court decision (also known as the Third Third Court Decision). - .
-------
6-2 . ;
currently land-disposed or is land-disposed in a unit that has received a no-migration
petition, or is managed in a RCRA-exempt unit, it would not be subject to the LDRs.
For this capacity analysis, however, EPA assumed that all nonwastewaters are land
disposed and that all land-disposed wastes will require commercial alternative treatment.
These assumptions are expected to overestimate the required treatment capacity.
> relied primarily on the 1993 Biennial Reporting System (BRS) to assess the
quantity of D003 wastes not managed in CWA or equivalent systems that could be
affected by today's rule., The. BRS contains data on hazardous waste activities at RCRA-
regulated treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) and large quantity
generators. The BRS includes information on the waste streams generated on site and
received from off site, waste physical form, waste codes, waste quantity, and the
treatment systems used to treat each hazardous waste stream.
/
EPA only extracted information from the BRS on wastes that carried the D003
code only and that are not managed in CWA or equivalent systems. D003 wastes that
are mixed with other characteristic wastes (e.g., D001, D002, TC organic wastes) have
already been addressed in various LDR rules including the Emergency rule and the
Phase II Land Disposal Restrictions Rule (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994).
Furthermore, D003 waste managed in CWA or. equivalent systems are addressed in ,
Chapter 3 and will likely undergo different types of treatment to satisfy the UTS for any
UHCs (e.g., via applicable CWA permits).
63 REQUIRED CAPACITY FOR D003 WASTES
Exhibit 6-1 presents the. wastewater and nonwastewater quantities of D003 wastes
reported in the 1993 BRS (see Appendix E for a more detailed breakdown of these
.quantities).98 As shown, the largest quantity of D003 wastes (approximately 2.2 million
tons) is wastewater that is currently deepwell injected and is not within the scope of this
chapter .(because deepwell injection is a SDWA-regulated activity and thus considered
CWA-equivalent). The majority of the approximately 730,000 tons of D003 wastewater
that is not deepwell injected or discharged to a POTW will meet the UTS as a result of
CWA discharge permits. The D003 wastes that have the greatest potential to require
alternative treatment to meet LDRs are the approximately 30,000 tons of D003
nonwastewaters. Thus, D003 nonwastewaters represent a small percentage of the total
quantity of D003 wastes currently generated. In addition, because the BRS does not
distinguish between reactive cyanides, reactive sulfides, and other reactive wastes, this
quantity is likely to be an overestimate of the' non-sulfide and non-cyanide D003 wastes
98 EPA estimated D003 waste quantities in the document entitled "Supplemental Information Concerning The
Environmental Protection Agency's Potential Responses To The Court Decision On The Land Disposal Restrictions
Third Third Final Rule" (58 FR 4972, January 19, 1993) using the 1989 BRS. The total quantity generated was
estimated to be 10 million tons. The 1993 BRS shows a considerable decrease in the amount of D003 wastes generated
compared to the 1989 BRS. This reduction is probably best attributed to generator's efforts to minimize waste at the
source, and differences between data reduction/compilation methods in the 1989 and 1993 BRS data sets.
-------
.6-3
EXHIBIT 6-1
QUANTITY OF D003 WASTES GENERATED IN 1993
t
Treatment System
Deepwell Injected or
Discharge to POTW
Other Treatment
Total
Wastewater
Generated (Tons)
2,220,000
730,000
2,950,000
• Nonwastewater
Generated (Tons)
-
30,000
30,000
Total Waste
(Tons)
2,220,000
760,000
2,980,000
requiring alternative treatment" Furthermore, the BRS does not provide any
information on UHCs in these wastes. Nevertheless, given the widespread presence of
UHCs in characteristic wastes, EPA assumes that the entire quantity of D003
nonwastewater not mixed with other wastes would require alternative treatment.
Some D003 wastes that may be affected.by the Third Third Court Decision may
not be reported in the BRS because these wastes may not have been considered
hazardous by the generator once they had been decharacterized. However,.the Agency
does not believe that the D003 wastes that are the subject of this chapter could be
significantly underreported in the BRS because these wastes are not routinely
decharacterized.
1 \
\
6.4 VARIANCE DETERMINATION
EPA's analysis indicates that the quantities of D003 wastes potentially affected by
today's rule are relatively small, especially compared to the available capacity of the
relevant treatment technologies (e.g., stabilization) .described in Chapter 2. Less than
30,000 tons per year of the total of almost 3 million tons per year of D003 wastes are
expected to require alternative treatment. -The actual required capacity is expected to be
much less than this for several reasons. First, reactive cyanides — which do not require
alternative treatment — account for the majority of the quantity of the D003 wastes
generated. Second, EPA assumed that all of the nonwastewaters estimated from the
BRS are land disposed and that all land-disposed wastes will require alternative
treatment capacity. Consequently, the Agency does not believe that generators who
manage. D003 waste in non-CWA or equivalent systems will experience significant
disruptions in operations as a result of this rule.
99 In fact, as was shown in the Third Third rule, reactive cyanides account for the majority of the quantity of D003
wastes generated.
-------
6-4 •
i ,
Nevertheless, the Agency recognizes that capacity to provide alternative treatment
for these wastes may, not be immediately available. EPA has determined that logistical
constraints may make it difficult for generators of wastes affected by this rule to comply
immediately with the new treatment standards.100 Therefore, in order to allow all
generators and off-site treatment facilities the time necessary to install the additional
treatment equipment that may be needed and to conduct the necessary testing to
determine whether their wastes are'affected by this rule, the Agency is granting a 90-day
national capacity variance from the effective date of this rule to D003 (reactive) wastes,
other than-reactive sulfide and cyanide wastes, that are managed in non-CWA or
equivalent systems. . ,
" 10° EPA has relied on such logistical factors in prior rulemakings to determine when capacity is realistically available.
For example waste streams may have to be segregated prior to treatment, involving the reconfiguration of existing
treatment systems (e.g., repiping). In addition, generators may have to locate and arrange for off-site treatment of
certain waste streams that are currently managed on site and develop transportation networks. Generators may also have
to perform testing to identify the UHCs in their wastes. ,
------- |