EPA/530-SW-88-031C
FINAL
BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (BOAT)
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR
K048, K049, K050, K051, K052
James R. Berlow, Chief
Treatment Technology Section
Jerry Vorbach
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
August 1988
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Legal Background 1-1
1.1.1 Requirements Under HSWA 1-1
1.1.2 Schedule for Developing Restrictions 1-4
.1.2 Summary of Promulgated BOAT Methodology 1-6
1.2.1 Waste Treatability Groups 1-7
1.2.2 Demonstrated and Available Treatment
Technologies 1-8
1.2.3 Collection of Performance Data 1-12
1.2.4 Hazardous Constituents Considered and
Selected for Regulation 1-18
1.2.5 Compliance with Performance Standards 1-31
1.2.6 .Identification of BOAT .. 1-33
1.2.7 BOAT Treatment Standards for "Derived From"
and "Mixed" Wastes 1-37
1.2.8 Transfer of Treatment Standards 1-41
1.3 Variance from the BOAT Treatment Standard 1-42
2.0 INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 2-1
2.1 Industry Affected and Process Description 2-2
2.2 Waste Characterization 2-13
2.3 Determination of Waste Treatability Group 2-14
3.0 APPLICABLE/DEMONSTRATED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 3-1
3.1 Applicable Treatment Technologies 3-1
3.2 Demonstrated Treatment Technologies 3-3
3.3 Available Treatment Technologies 3-7
3.4 Detailed Description of Treatment Technologies 3-8
3.4.1 Incineration 3-9
3.4.2 Solvent Extraction 3-35
3.4.3 Sludge Filtration 3-45
3.4.4 Stabilization of Metals 3-51
3.4.5 Hexavalent Chromium Reduction 3-60
3.4.6 Chemical Precipitation 3-67
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
4.0 PERFORMANCE DATA BASE 4-1
4.1 Incineration Performance Data Base 4-1
4.2 Solvent Extraction Performance Data Base 4-2
4.3 Pressure Filtration Performance Data Base 4-3
4.4 Thermal Drying Performance Data Base 4-3
4.5 Stabilization Performance Data Base 4-3
4.6 Chromium Reduction Followed by Lime and Sulfide
Precipitation and Vacuum Filtration Data Base 4-4
5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF BOAT 5-1
5.1 Preliminary Data Review 5-2
5.2 Accuracy Correction of Performance Data 5-2
5.2.1 Nonwastewaters 5-3
5.2.2 Wastewaters 5-10
5.3 Identification of BOAT for Organics in Nonwastewaters 5-12
5.4 Identification of BOAT for Cyanide in Nonwastewaters. 5-16
5.5 Identification of BOAT for Metals in Nonwastewaters . 5-17
5.6 Identification of BOAT for Organics in Wastewaters .. 5-18
5.7 Identification of BOAT for Metals and Inorganics
in Wastewaters 5-19
6.0 SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS 6-1
6.1 Constituents Detected in Untreated Waste But Not
Considered for Regulation 6-3
6.2 Constituents Selected for Regulation 6-5
6.2.1 Selection of Regulated Constituents in
Nonwastewater 6-6
6.2.2 Selection of Regulated Constituents in
Wastewater 6-6
7.0 CALCULATION OF TREATMENT STANDARDS 7-1
7.1 Calculation of Treatment Standards for Nonwastewater
Forms of K048-K052 7-2
7.2 Calculation of Treatment Standards for Wastewater
Forms of K048-K052 7-6
8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8-1
9.0 REFERENCES 9-1
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
APPENDICES
A. 1 F VALUE DETERMINATION FOR ANOVA TEST A-1
A.2 VARIABILITY FACTOR A-11
B MAJOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS FOR K048-K052 B-1
C SUMMARY OF PETROLEUM REFINERY PLANT CODES C-1
D ANALYTICAL QA/QC D-1
E STRIP CHARTS FOR THE SAMPLING EPISODE AT PLANT A, PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIALS AND INCINERATION TEMPERATURES E-1
F OTHER TREATMENT DATA F-1
G ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS G-1
H DETECTION LIMITS FOR UNTREATED WASTES H-1
I WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE 1-1
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 BOAT CONSTITUENT LIST 1-19
2-1 FACILITIES PRODUCING K048-K052 WASTES BY STATE 2-3
2-2 FACILITIES PRODUCING K048-K052 WASTES BY EPA REGION 2-4
2-3 GENERATION OF WASTEWATERS IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING
INDUSTRY 2-9
2-4 AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K048 2-17
2-5 AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K049 2-19
2-6 AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K050 2-21
2-7 AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K051 2-23
2-8 AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K052 2-27
2-9 AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K048-K052 WASTE
MIXTURES 2-29
4-1 PERFORMANCE DATA BASE SUMMARY 4-5
4-2 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET 11... 4-7
4-3 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET #2... 4-10
4-4 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET #3... 4-13
4-5 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET #4... 4-16
4-6 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET #5... 4-19
4-7 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION SAMPLE SET'16... 4-22
4-8 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048,
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER SAMPLE
SET #1 4-25
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
4-9 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048,
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER SAMPLE
SET #2 4-27
4-10 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048,
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER SAMPLE
SET #3 4-29
4-11 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048,
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER SAMPLE
SET #4 4-31
4-12 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048,
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER SAMPLE
SET #5 4-33
4-13 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048,
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER SAMPLE
SET #6 4-35
4-14 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY (SPECIFIC
WASTE CODES NOT REPORTED), PLANT C-PRESSURE FILTRATION
(BELT FILTER PRESS) 4-37
4-15 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048,
K049, AND K051, PLANT D-PRESSURE FILTRATION (PLATE FILTER
PRESS) 4-39
4-16 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-
K052 MIXTURE, PLANT G - SOLVENT EXTRACTION 4-41
4-17 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND
K051, PLANT I - STABILIZATION OF INCINERATOR ASH 4-48
4-18 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-
K052 MIXTURE, PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (THREE CYCLE
PROCESS) 4-50
4-19 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-
K052 MIXTURE, PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (SINGLE CYCLE
PROCESS) 4-59
4-20 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K062,
PLANT P - CHROMIUM REDUCTION FOLLOWED BY LIME AND SULFIDE
PRECIPITATION AND VACUUM FILTRATION 4-67
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
5-1 TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY: PLANT A , 5-22
5-2 TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR TCLP EXTRACTS OF STABILIZED
INCINERATOR ASH CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY: PLANT I 5-25
5-3 TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR SCRUBBER WATER CORRECTED FOR
ACCURACY: PLANT A 5-26
5-4 TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR BOAT LIST METAL CONSTITUENTS
CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY (K062 AND METAL-BEARING CHARCTER-
ISTIC WASTES) 5-27
5-5 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST COMPARING FLUID-
IZED BED INCINERATION AND FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
FOLLOWED BY ASH STABILIZATION 5-28.
6-1. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST
CONSTITUENTS PRESENCE IN UNTREATED K048-K052 6-8
6-2 BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION 6-19
6-3 BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION 6-22
7-1 CORRECTED TOTAL CONCENTRATION DATA FOR CYANIDE AND
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE IN FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH 7-11
7-2 CORRECTED TCLP DATA FOR REGULATED METALS IN STABILIZED
(LIME AND FLY ASH) INCINERATOR ASH 7-12
7-3 CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN K048 7-13
7-4 CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR CYANIDE,
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE, AND METAL CONSTITUENTS IN K048 7-14
7-5 CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN K049 , 7-15
7-6 CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
CYANIDE AND METAL CONSTITUENTS IN K049 7-16
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN K050
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
CYANIDE AND METAL CONSTITUENTS IN K050
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN K05 1
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
Page
7-17
7-18
7-19
CYANIDE, DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE, AND METAL CONSTITUENTS IN
7-11
7-12
7-13
7-14
7-15
7-16
7-17
K051
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN K052
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
CYANIDE AND METAL CONSTITUENTS IN K052
CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048 . . .
CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K049 . . .
CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K050 . . .
CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K051 ...
CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K052 . . .
7-20
7-21
7-22
7-23
7-24
7-25
7-26
7-27
Vll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 FACILITIES PRODUCING K048-K052 WASTES BY STATE AND EPA
REGION 2-5
2-2 GENERATION OF K049, K049, K050, K051, AND K052 2-8
3-1 LIQUID INJECTION INCINERATOR 3-13
3-2 ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR 3-14
3-3 FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR 3-16
3-4 FIXED HEARTH INCINERATOR 3-18
3-5 TWO-STAGE MIXER-SETTLER EXTRACTION SYSTEM 3-39
3-6 EXTRACTION COLUMNS WITH NONMECHANICAL AGITATION 3-40
3-7 CONTINUOUS HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REDUCTION SYSTEM 3-62
3-8 CONTINUOUS CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION 3-70
3-9 CIRCULAR CLARIFIERS 3-73
3-10 INCLINED PLANE SETTLER 3-74
Vlll
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BOAT Treatment Standards for
KOU8, K049, K050, K051, and K052
In accordance with the amendments to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) enacted in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
of November 8, 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is establishing
best demonstrated available technology (BOAT) treatment standards for the
listed wastes identified in MO CFR 261.32 as K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052.
Compliance with these BOAT treatment standards is a prerequisite for placement
of these wastes in units designated as land disposal units according to 40 CFR
Part 268. The BOAT treatment standards will be effective as of August 8,
1990. The Agency is granting a two-year nationwide variance to the original
effective date because of the lack of nationwide incineration or solvent
extraction capacity.
This background document provides the Agency's rationale and techni-
cal support for selecting the constituents to be regulated in KOU8, K049,
K050, K051, and K052 wastes and for developing treatment standards for those
regulated constituents. The document also provides waste characterization
information that serves as a basis for determining whether variances may be
warranted for a particular waste having the same waste code as one of the five
wastes above but with characteristics such that the particular waste is more
IX
-------
difficult to treat than the waste for which the treatment standards have been
established.
The introductory section, (Section 1.0) summarizes the Agency's
legal authority and promulgated methodology for establishing treatment stan-
dards and discusses the petition process necessary for requesting a variance
from the treatment standards. The remainder of the document presents
waste-specific information: the number and locations of facilities affected
by the land disposal restrictions for K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052; the
processes generating the wastes; characterization data; the technologies used
to treat the wastes (or similar wastes); and available performance data,
including data on which the treatment standards are based. The document also
explains EPA's determination of BOAT, selection of constituents to be regu-
lated, and calculation of treatment standards.
According to 40 CFR 261.32, waste codes K048, K049, K050, K051, and
K052, which are generated by the petroleum refining industry, are listed as
follows:
K048: Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the petroleum
refining industry;
K049: Slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining
industry;
K050: Heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum
refining industry;
K051: API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry;
and
K052: Tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining
industry.
-------
The four digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code most often
reported for the industry generating these wastes is 2911. The Agency esti-
mates that there are approximately 193 facilities that may generate wastes
identified as K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052.
The Agency is regulating a total of twenty (20) organic constitu-
ents, five (5) metal constituents and one inorganic constituent in K048, K049,
K050, K051, and K052 nonwastewaters and wastewaters. (For the purpose of the
land disposal restrictions rule, wastewaters are defined as wastes containing
*
less than 1 percent (weight basis) total suspended solids and less than 1
percent (weight basis) total organic carbon (TOC). Wastes not meeting this
definition are classified as nonwastewaters.) Note that not all constituents
are being regulated in all five waste codes. The BOAT treatment standards for
the organic constituents in nonwastewater forms of K048-K052 are based on
performance data from solvent extraction and incineration. The BOAT treatment
standard for the one inorganic constituent in nonwastewater forms of K048-K052
is based on performance data from incineration. The BDAT treatment standards
for metal constituents in K048-K052 nonwastewaters are based on performance
data from a stabilization process. Standards for Naphthalene and Xylene in
nonwastewaters are being reserved. EPA intends to gather additional data on
The term "total suspended solids" (TSS) clarifies EPA's previously
used terminology of "total solids" and "filterable solids". Specifically,
total suspended solids is measured by method 209C (Total suspended solids
dried at 103-105°C) in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation, Sixteenth Edition.
XI
-------
the treatment of these constituents. For K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052
wastewaters, the BDAT treatment standards for the organic constituents are
based on performance data for the scrubber water residual from the fluidized
bed incineration of K048-K052. Standards for metal constituents in K048-K052
wastewaters are based on a transfer of data from treatment of K062 and
metal-bearing characteristic wastes by chromium reduction, followed by lime
and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration. Treatment performance data
were transferred on a constituent basis from the same constituent.
The following table lists the specific BDAT treatment standards for
each of the five wastes. The treatment standards reflect the total concentra-
tion of the regulated organic constituents and one regulated inorganic con-
stituent in K048-K052 nonwastewaters and the total concentration of all
constituents in K048-K052 wastewaters. The treatment standards for metal
constituents in nonwastewaters are based on analysis of leachate obtained by
use of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) found in Appendix
I of 40 CFR Part 268. The units for total constituent concentration are in
mg/kg (parts per million on a weight-by-weight basis) for nonwastewater and in
mg/1 (parts per million on a weight-by-volume basis) for wastewater. The
units for leachate analysis are in mg/1 (parts per million on a weight-by-
volume basis). If the concentrations of the regulated constituents in these
wastes, as generated, are lower than or equal to the treatment standards,
treatment is not required prior to land disposal.
Testing procedures for all sample analyses are specifically identi-
fied in Appendix D of this background document.
xii
-------
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048, K049, K050, K051, AND K052
NONWASTEWATERS
Maximum for any single grab sample
Total Concentration (mg/kg)
Regulated Organic Constituents
Anthracene
Benz ( a ) anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis( 2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Chrysene
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Regulated Metal Constituents
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Selenium
K048
NA
NA
9.5
0.84
37
2.2
NA
NA
4.2
67
Reserved
7.7
2.7
2.0
9.5
Reserved
TCLP
K048
0.004
1.7
0.048
0.025
K049
6.2
NA
9.5
0.84
37
2.2
NA
NA
NA
67
Reserved
7.7
2.7
2.0
9.5
Reserved
Leachate
K049
0.004
1.7
0.048
0.025
K050
NA
NA
NA
0.84
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.7
NA
NA
NA
K051 K052
6.2 NA
1.4 NA
9.5 9.5
0.84 0.84
37 NA
2.2 NA
NA 2.2
NA 0.90
4.2 NA
67 67
Reserved Reserved
7.7 7.7
2.7 2.7
2.0 NA
9.5 9.5
Reserved Reserved
Concentration (mg/1)
K050
0.004
1.7
0.048
0.025
K051 K052
0.004 0.004
1.7 1.7
0.048 0.048
0.025 0.025
Total Concentration (mg/kg)
Regulated Inorganic Constituents
Cyanide
K048
1.8
K049
1.8
K050
1.8
K051 K052
1.8 1.8
NA - Not Applicable.
xiii
-------
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048, K049, K050, K051, AND K052
WASTEWATERS
Maximum for any single grab sample
Total Concentration (mg/1)
Regulated Organic Constituents
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz ( a ) anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbon disulfide
Chrysene
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene (Total)
Regulated Metal Constituents
Chromium (total)
Lead
K048
NA
NA
NA
0.011
0.047
0.043
NA
0.043
NA
NA
NA
0.060
0.011
0.050
0.033
0.039
0.047
0.045
0.011
0.011
0.20
0.037
K049
NA
0.039
NA
0.011
0.047
0.043
0.011
0.043
NA
NA
0.033
NA
0.011
NA
0.033
0.039
0.047
0.045
0.011
0.011
0.20
0.037
K050
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.047
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.047
NA
NA
NA
0.20
0.037
K051
0.050
0.039
0.043
0.011
0.047
0.043
NA
0.043
NA
NA
NA
0.060
0.011
0.050
0.033
0.039
0.047
0.045
0.011
0.011
0.20
0.037
K052
NA
NA
NA
0.011
0.047
NA
NA
NA
0.011
0.011
0.033
NA
0.011
NA
0.033
0.039
0.047
NA
0.011
0.011
0.20
0.037
NA - Not Applicable.
xiv
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This section of the background document presents a summary of the
legal authority pursuant to which the BOAT treatment standards were developed,
a summary of EPA's promulgated methodology for developing BOAT, and finally a
discussion of the petition process that should be followed to request a
variance from the BOAT treatment standards.
1.1 Legal Background
1.1.1 Requirements Under HSWA
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), which wete
enacted on November 8, 1984, and which amended the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), impose substantial new responsibilities on those
who handle hazardous waste. In particular, the amendments require the Agency
to promulgate regulations that restrict the land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes. In its enactment of HSWA, Congress stated explicitly that
"reliance on land disposal should be minimized or eliminated, and land
disposal, particularly landfill and surface impoundment, should be the least
favored method for managing hazardous wastes" (RCRA section 1002(b)(7), 42
U.S.C. 6901(b)(7)).
One part of the amendments specifies dates on which particular
groups of untreated hazardous wastes will be prohibited from land disposal
1-1
-------
unless "it has been demonstrated to the Administrator, to a reasonable degree
of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from
the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the wastes remain hazard-
ous" (RCRA section 3004(d)(1), (e)(1), (g)(5), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (d)(1), (e)(D,
For the purpose of the restrictions, HSWA defines land disposal "to
include, but not be limited to, any placement of ... hazardous waste in a
landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, or underground mine or
cave" (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C. 6924(tc)). Although HSWA defines land
disposal to include injection wells, such disposal of solvents, dioxins, and
certain other wastes, known as the California List wastes, is covered on a
separate schedule (RCRA section 3004(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (f)(2)). This
schedule requires that EPA develop land disposal restrictions for deep well
injection by August 8, 1988.
The amendments also require the Agency to set "levels or methods of
treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and
the environment are minimized" (RCRA section 3004(m)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6924
(m)(1)). Wastes that meet treatment standards established by EPA are not
prohibited and may be land disposed. In setting treatment standards for
listed or characteristic wastes, EPA may establish different standards for
1-2
-------
particular wastes within a single waste code with differing treatability
characteristics. One such characteristic is the physical form of the waste.
This frequently leads to different standards for wastewaters and nonwaste-
waters.
s
Alternatively, EPA can establish a treatment standard that is
applicable to more than one waste code when, in EPA's judgment, all the waste
can be treated to the same concentration. In those instances where a genera-
tor can demonstrate that the standard promulgated for the generator's waste
cannot be achieved, the Agency also can grant a variance from a treatment
standard by revising the treatment standard for that particular waste through
rulemaking procedures. (A further discussion of treatment variances is
provided in Section 1.3.)
The land disposal restrictions are effective when promulgated unless
the Administrator grants a national variance and establishes a different date
(not to exceed 2 years beyond the statutory deadline) based on "the earliest
date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity
which protects human health and the environment will be available" (RCRA
.section 3004(h)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (h)(2)).
If EPA fails to set a treatment standard by the statutory deadline
for any hazardous waste in the First Third or Second Third of the schedule
(see Section 1.1.2), the waste may not be disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment unless the facility is in compliance with the minimum
1-3
-------
technological requirements specified in section 3004(o) of RCRA. In addition,
prior to disposal, the generator must certify to the Administrator that the
availability of treatment capacity has been investigated, and it has been
determined that disposal in a landfill or surface impoundment is the only
practical alternative to treatment currently available to the generator. This
restriction on the use of landfills and surface impoundments applies until EPA
sets a treatment standard for the waste or until May 8, 1990, whichever is
sooner. If the Agency fails to set a treatment standard for any ranked
hazardous waste by May 8, 1990, the waste is automatically prohibited from
land disposal unless the waste is placed in a land disposal unit that is the
subject of a successful "no migration" demonstration (RCRA section 3004(g), 42
U.S.C. 6924(g)). "No migration" demonstrations are based on case-specific
petitions that show there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from
the unit for as long as the waste remains hazardous.
1.1.2 Schedule for Developing Restrictions
Under section 3004(g) of RCRA, EPA was required to establish a
schedule for developing treatment standards for all wastes that the Agency had
listed as hazardous by November 8, 1984. Section 3004(g) required that this
schedule consider the intrinsic hazards and volumes associated with each of
these wastes. The statute required EPA to set treatment standards according
to the following schedule:
1. Solvents and dioxins standards must be promulgated by November
8, 1986;
1-4
-------
2. The "California List" must be promulgated by July 8, 1987;
3. At least one-third of all listed hazardous wastes must be
promulgated by August 8, 1988 (First Third);
U. At least two-thirds of all listed hazardous wastes must be
promulgated by June 8, 1989 (Second Third); and
5. All remaining listed hazardous wastes and all hazardous wastes
identified as of November 8, 1984, by one or more of the
characteristics defined in 40 CFR Part 261 must be promulgated
by May 8, 1990 (Third Third).
The statute specifically identified the solvent wastes as those
covered under waste codes F001, F002, F003, F004, and F005; it identified the
dioxin-containing hazardous wastes as those covered under waste codes F020,
F021, F022, and F023.
Wastes collectively known as the California List wastes, defined
under section 3004(d) of H5WA, are liquid hazardous wastes containing metals,
free cyanides, PCBs, corrosives (i.e., a pH less than or equal to 2.0), and
any liquid or nonliquid hazardous waste containing halogenated organic com-
pounds (HOCs) above 0.1 percent by weight. Rules for the California List were
proposed on December 11, 1986, and final rules for PCBs, corrosives, and
HOC-containing wastes were established August 12, 1987. In that rule, EPA
elected not to establish standards for metals. Therefore, the statutory
limits became effective.
On May 28, 1986, EPA published a final rule (51 FR 19300) that
delineated the specific waste codes that would be addressed by the First
1-5
-------
Third, Second Third, and Third Third. This schedule is incorporated into
UO CFR 268.10, 268.11, and 268.12.
1.2 Summary of Promulgated BOAT Methodology
In a November 7, 1986 rulemaking, EPA promulgated a technology-based
approach to establishing treatment standards under section 3004(m). Section
3004(m) also specifies that treatment standards must "minimize" long- and
short-term threats to human health and the environment arising from land
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Congress indicated in the legislative history accompanying the HSWA
that (t)he requisite levels of (sic) methods of treatment established by the
Agency should be the best that has been demonstrated to be achievable," noting
that the intent is "to require utilization of available technology" and not a
"process which contemplates technology-forcing standards" (Vol. 130 Cong.
Rec. S9178 (daily ed., July 25, 198U)). EPA has interpreted this legislative
history as suggesting that Congress considered the requirement under section
3004(m) to be met by application of the best demonstrated and achievable
(i.e., available) technology prior to land disposal of wastes or treatment
residuals. Accordingly, EPA's treatment standards are generally based on the
performance of the best demonstrated available technology (BOAT) identified
for treatment of the hazardous constituents. This approach involves the
identification of potential treatment systems, the determination of whether
they are demonstrated and available, and the collection of treatment data from
well-designed and well-operated systems.
1-6
-------
The treatment standards, according to the statute, can represent
levels or methods of treatment, if any, that substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents. Wherever possible, the Agency prefers to establish
BOAT treatment standards as "levels" of treatment (i.e., performance stan-
dards), rather than adopting an approach that would require the use of spe-
cific treatment "methods." EPA believes that concentration-based treatment
levels offer the regulated community greater flexibility to develop and
implement compliance strategies, as well as an incentive to develop innovative
technologies.
1.2.1 Waste Treatability Group
In developing the treatment standards, EPA first characterizes the
waste(s). As necessary, EPA may establish treatability groups for wastes
having similar physical and chemical properties. That is, if EPA believes
that wastes represented by different waste codes could be treated to similar
concentrations using identical technologies, the Agency combines the codes
into one treatability group. EPA generally considers wastes to be similar
when they are both generated from the same industry and from similar process-
ing stages. In addition, EPA may combine two or more separate wastes into the
same treatability group when data are available showing that the waste charac-
teristics affecting performance are similar or that one waste would be
expected to be less difficult to treat.
1-7
-------
Once the treatability groups have been established, EPA collects and
analyzes data on identified technologies used to treat the wastes in each
treatability group. The technologies evaluated muse be demonstrated on the
waste or a similar waste and must be available for use.
1.2.2 Demonstrated and Available Treatment Technologies
Consistent with legislative history, EPA considers demonstrated
technologies to be those that are used to treat the waste of interest or a
similar waste with regard to parameters that affect treatment selection (see
November 7, 1986, 51 FR U0588). EPA also will consider as treatment those
technologies used to separate or otherwise process chemicals and other materi-
als. Some of these technologies clearly are applicable to waste treatment,
since the wastes are similar to raw materials processed in industrial applica-
tions.
For most of the waste treatability groups for which EPA will promul-
gate treatment standards, EPA will identify demonstrated technologies either
through review of literature related to current waste treatment practices or
on the basis of information provided by specific facilities currently treating
the waste or similar wastes.
In cases where the Agency does not identify any facilities treating
wastes represented by a particular waste treatability group, EPA may transfer
a finding of demonstrated treatment. To do this, EPA will compare the
1-8
-------
parameters affecting treatment selection for the waste treatability group of
interest to other wastes for which demonstrated technologies already have been
determined. The parameters affecting treatment selection and their use for
this waste are described in Section 3.2 of this document. If the parameters
affecting treatment selection are similar, then the Agency will consider the
treatment technology also to be demonstrated for the waste of interest. For
example, EPA considers rotary kiln incineration to be a demonstrated tech-
nology for many waste codes containing hazardous organic constituents, high
total organic content, and high filterable solids content, regardless of
whether any facility is currently treating these wastes. The basis for this
determination is data found in literature and data generated by EPA confirming
the use of rotary kiln incineration on wastes having the above characteris-
tics.
If no commercial treatment or recovery operations are identified for
a waste or wastes with similar physical or chemical characteristics that
affect treatment selection, the Agency will be unable to identify any demon-
strated treatment technologies for the waste, and, accordingly, the waste will
be prohibited from land disposal (unless handled in accordance with the
exemption and variance provisions of the rule). The Agency is, however,
committed to establishing treatment standards as soon as new or improved
treatment processes are demonstrated (and available).
Operations only available at research facilities, pilot- and bench-
scale operations, will not be considered in identifying demonstrated treatment
1-9
-------
technologies for a waste because these technologies would not necessarily be
"demonstrated." Nevertheless, EPA may use data generated at research facili-
ties in assessing the performance of demonstrated technologies.
As discussed earlier, Congress intended that technologies used to
establish treatment standards under section 3004(m) be not only "demon-
strated," but also available. To decide whether demonstrated technologies may
be considered "available," the Agency determines whether they (1) are commer-
cially available and (2) substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste.
EPA will only set treatment standards jased on a technology/that
meets the above criteria. Thus, the decision to classify a technology as
"unavailable" will have a direct impact on the treatment standard. If the
best technology is unavailable, the treatment standard will be based on the
next best treatment technology determined to be available. To the extent that
the resulting treatment standards are less stringent, greater concentrations
of hazardous constituents in the treatment residuals could be placed in land
disposal units.
There also may be circumstances in which EPA concludes that for a
given waste none of the demonstrated treatment technologies are "available"
for purposes of establishing the 3004(m) treatment performance standards.
Subsequently, these wastes will be prohibited from continued placement in or
1-10
-------
on the land unless managed in accordance with applicable exemptions and
variance provisions. The Agency is, however, committed to establishing new
treatment standards as soon as new or improved treatment processes become
"available."
(1) Proprietary or Patented Processes. If the demonstrated treat-
ment technology is a proprietary or patented process that is not generally
available, EPA will not consider the technology in its determination of the
treatment standards. EPA will consider proprietary or patented processes
available if it determines that the treatment method can be purchased or
licensed from the proprietor or is a commercially available treatment. The
services of the commercial facility offering this technology often can be
purchased even if the technology itself cannot be purchased.
(2) Substantial Treatment. To be considered "available," a demon-
strated treatment technology must "substantially diminish the toxicity" of the
waste or "substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents" from the waste in accordance with section 3004(m). By requiring
that substantial treatment be achieved in order to set a treatment standard,
the statute ensures that all wastes are adequately treated before being placed
in or on the land and ensures that the Agency does not require a treatment
method that provides little or no environmental benefit. Treatment will
always be deemed substantial if it results in nondetectable levels of the
hazardous constituents of concern. If nondetectable levels are not achieved,
then a determination of substantial treatment will be made on a case-by-case
1-11
-------
basis. This approach is necessary because of the difficulty of establishing a
meaningful guideline that can be applied broadly to the many wastes and tech-
nologies to be considered. EPA will consider the following factors in an
effort to evaluate whether a technology provides substantial treatment on a
case-by-case basis:
(a) Number and types of constituents treated;
(b) Performance (concentration of the constituents in the
treatment residuals); and
(c) Percent of constituents removed.
If none of the demonstrated treatment technologies achieve substan-
tial treatment of a waste, the Agency cannot establish treatment standards for
the constituents of concern in that waste.
1.2.3 Collection of Performance Data
Performance data on the demonstrated available technologies are
evaluated by the Agency to determine whether the data are representative of
well-designed and well-operated treatment systems. Only data from well-
designed and well-operated systems are included in determining BOAT. The data
evaluation includes data already collected directly by EPA and/or data pro-
vided by industry. In those instances where additional data are needed to
supplement existing information, EPA collects additional data through a
sampling and analysis program. The principal elements of this data collection
program are:
1-12
-------
(1) Identification of facilities for site visits,
(2) Engineering site visit,
(3) Sampling and Analysis Plan,
(U) Sampling visit, and
(5) Onsite Engineering Report.
(1) Identification of Facilities for Site Visits. To identify
facilities that generate and/or treat the waste of concern, EPA uses a number
of information sources. These include Stanford Research Institute's Directory
of Chemical Producers; EPA's Hazardous Waste Data Management System (HWDMS);
the 1986 Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facility (TSDF) National Screening
Survey; and EPA's Industry Studies Data Base. In addition, EPA contacts trade
associations to inform them that the Agency is considering visits to facili-
ties in their industry and to solicit their assistance in identifying facili-
ties for EPA to consider in its treatment sampling program.
After identifying facilities that treat the waste, EPA uses this
hierarchy to select sites for engineering visits:
(1) generators treating single wastes on site;
(2) generators treating multiple wastes together on site;
(3) commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs);
and
(U) EPA in-house treatment.
This hierarchy is based on two concepts:
(1) to the extent possible, EPA should develop treatment standards
from data produced by treatment facilities handling only a
single waste, and
(2) facilities that routinely treat a specific waste have had the
best opportunity to optimize design parameters. Although
excellent treatment can occur at many facilities that are not
high in this hierarchy, EPA has adopted this approach to avoid,
1-13
-------
when possible, ambiguities related to the mixing of wastes
before and during treatment.
When possible, the Agency will evaluate treatment technologies using
commercially operated systems. If performance data from properly designed and
operated commercial treatment methods for a particular waste or a waste judged
to be similar are not available, EPA may use data from research facilities
operations. Whenever research facility data are used, EPA will explain in the
preamble and background document why such data were used and will request
comments on the use of such data.
Although EPA1s data bases provide information on treatment for
individual wastes, the data bases rarely provide data that support the selec-
tion of one facility for sampling over another. In cases where several
treatment sites appear to fall into the same level of the hierarchy, EPA
selects sites for visits strictly on the basis of which facility could most
expeditiously be visited and later sampled if justified by the engineering
visit.
(2) Engineering Site Visit. Once a treatment facility has been
selected, an engineering site visit is made to confirm that a candidate for
sampling meets EPA's criteria for a well-designed facility and to ensure that
the necessary sampling points can be accessed to determine operating parame-
ters and treatment effectiveness. During the visit, EPA also confirms that
the facility appears to be well operated, although the actual operation of the
treatment system during sampling is the basis for EPA's decisions regarding
1-14
-------
proper operation of the treatment unit. In general, the Agency considers a
well-designed facility to be one that contains the unit operations necessary
to treat the various hazardous constituents of the waste, as well as to
control other nonhazardous materials in the waste that may affect treatment
performance.
In addition to ensuring that a system is reasonably well designed,
the engineering visit examines whether the facility has a way to measure the
operating parameters that affect performance of the treatment system during
the waste treatment period. For example, EPA may choose not to sample a
treatment system that operates in a continuous mode, for which an important
operating parameter cannot be continuously recorded. In such systems, instru-
mentation is important in determining whether the treatment system is operat-
ing at design values during the waste treatment period.
(3) Sampling and Analysis Plan. If after the engineering site
visit the Agency decides to sample a particular plant, the Agency will then
develop a site-specific Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) according to the
Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Land Disposal Restriction
Program ("BOAT"), EPA/530-SW-87-011. In brief, the SAP discusses where the
Agency plans to sample, how the samples will be taken, the frequency of
sampling, the constituents to be analyzed and the method of analysis, opera-
tional parameters to be obtained, and specific laboratory quality control
checks on the analytical results.
1-15
-------
The Agency will generally produce a draft of the site-specific
Sampling and Analysis Plan within 2 to 3 weeks of the engineering visit. The
draft of the SAP is then sent to the plant for review and comment. With few
exceptions, the draft SAP should be a confirmation of data collection activi-
ties discussed with the plant personnel during the engineering site visit.
EPA encourages plant personnel to recommend any modifications to the SAP that
they believe will improve the quality of the data.
It is important to note that sampling of a plant by EPA does not
mean that the data will be used in the development of treatment standards for
BOAT. EPA1s final decision on whether to use data from a sampled plant
depends on the actual analysis of the waste being treated and on the operating
conditions at the time of sampling. Although EPA would not plan to sample a
facility that was not ostensibly well designed and well operated, there is no
way to ensure that at the time of the sampling the facility will not experi-
ence operating problems. Additionally, EPA statistically compares its test
data to suitable industry-provided data, where available, in its determination
of what data to use in developing treatment standards. The methodology for
comparing data is presented later in this section.
(Note: Facilities wishing to submit data for consideration in the
development of BOAT standards should, to the extent possible, provide sampling
information similar to that acquired by EPA. Such facilities should review
the Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Land Disposal Restriction
Program ("BOAT"), which delineates all of the quality control and quality
1-16
-------
assurance measures associated with sampling and analysis. (Quality assurance
and quality control procedures are summarized in Section 1.2.6 of this
document.)
(U) Sampling Visit. The purpose of the sampling visit is to
collect samples that characterize the performance of the treatment system and
to document the operating conditions that existed during the waste treatment
period. At a minimum, the Agency attempts to collect sufficient samples of
the untreated waste and solid and liquid treatment residuals so that variabil-
ity in the treatment process can be accounted for in the development of the
treatment standards. To the extent practicable, and within safety con-
straints, EPA or its contractors collect all samples and ensure that chain-
of-custody procedures are conducted so that the integrity of the data is
maintained.
In general, the samples collected during the sampling visit will
have already been specified in the SAP. In some instances, however, EPA will
not be able to collect all planned samples because of changes in the facility
operation or plant upsets; EPA will explain any such deviations from the SAP
in its follow-up Onsite Engineering Report.
(5) Onsite Engineering Report. EPA summarizes all its data collec-
tion activities and associated analytical results for testing at a facility in
a report referred to as the Onsite Engineering Report (OER). This report
characterizes the waste(s) treated, the treated residual concentrations, the
1-17
-------
design and operating data, and all analytical results including methods used
and accuracy results. This report also describes any deviations from EPA's
suggested analytical methods for hazardous wastes (see Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-8U6, Third Edition, November 1986).
X
After the Onsite Engineering Report is completed, the report is
submitted to the plant for review. This review provides the plant with a
final opportunity to claim any information contained in the report as confi-
dential. Following the review and incorporation of comments, as appropriate,
the report is made available to the public with the exception of any material
claimed as confidential by the plant.
1.2.4 hazardous Constituents Considered and Selected for Regulation
(1) Development of BOAT List. The list of hazardous constituents
within the waste codes that are targeted for treatment is referred to by the
Agency as the BOAT constituent list. This list, provided as Table 1-1, is
derived from the constituents presented in UO CFR Part 261, Appendices VII and
VIII, as well as several ignitable constituents used as the basis of listing
wastes as F003 and F005. These sources provide a comprehensive list of
hazardous constituents specifically regulated under RCRA. The BOAT list
consists of those constituents that can be analyzed using methods published in
SW-846, Third Edition.
1-18
-------
Table l-l BOAT Constituent List •
BOAT
rtftrtnci
"0.
222.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
223.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
9t
(7 .
28.
29.
224.
223.
226.
30.
227.
31.
214.
32.
Parameter
Volatile*
Acetone
Acetonttrile
Ac role in
Acrylonitri le
Benzene
Bromodtchlorametnana
BromoMthane
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon tetrachlono*
Carbon diiulfic*
Ch lorooenzene
2 -Ch loro- I . 3 -butad ) ene
Ch lorod i broBomhane
Ch loroethane
2-Chloroethyt vinyl ether
Chtorofone
ChloroMthaiw
3-Ch loroprapen*
1.2-Oibrojeo-3-chloropropane
1.2-Oibromethane
OibraMMthane
Tran«-l.4-Oich1oro-2-buHM
Oichlorodif luoroaetnane
I. 1-0 ten loroethane
1. 2-0 ich loroethane
t.l-Olchloroethylene
Irani- 1 . 2-0 tch loroethene
1.2-Olehloropropaiw
i rane* i , j-u icn toroprooene
e is- 1 . 3-0 ich loroprooww
1.4-Oiouiw
2-£tho»yethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanic*
Ethyl ether
Ethyl wtheerylate
Ethylem one*
lodoeatnane
Cas no.
67-64-1
75-05-8
107-02-B
107-13-1
71-43-2
75-27-4
74-83-9
71-36-3
56-23-5
75-15-0
108-90-7
126-99-8
124-48-1
75-00-3
110-75-8
67-66-3
74-67-3
107-05-1
96-12-8
106-93-4
74-95-3
110-57-6
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-60-5
78-67-5
tAAeXI .A9.at
lUUOI* 02*0
10061-01-5
123-91-1
60-29-7
141-78-6
100-41-4
107-12-0
60-29-7
97-63-2
75-21-t
74-88-4
1-19
-------
Table l-l (continued)
BOAT
reference
no.
33.
228.
34.
229.
35.
37.
38.
230.
39.
40.
41.
42
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
231.
50.
215.
216.
217.
51.
52.
S3.
54.
SS.
S6.
57.
58.
59.
218.
60.
61.
62.
Parameter
Volat i lea (continued)
Isobutyl alcohol
Metnanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl mettucrylate
Methecrylonttnle
Methylene chloride
2-Nitroproptne
Pyndine
1 . 1 . 1 . 2-Tetrach loroethene
1 . t ,2.2-Tttrachloroethane
T«trachloroethene
Toluene
TribroraMttune
l.l.l-Tnchloroetlune
1.1,2-TriehTorocthane
Tnchloroethene
Tr ichloroeonof luoromthane
1.2.3-T •ichlorogropene
l.l,2-Trich1oro-1.2.2-trifluoro-
eth«ne
Vinyl chloride
1.2-Xylene
1.3-Xylen«
l.4-Xylene
Se*ivo1ati lea
Acenepnthalene
Acen«phthefle
Aeetooftenore
2-Aeety lenmof luorene
4-A(iinobipr«nyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Araeiue
8enx( a (anthracene
Senzal chloride)
8enzen«thiol
Deleted
Ben
-------
Tab It 1-1 (continued)
BOAT
reference
no.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
232.
83.
84.
as.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
96.
99.
100.
101.
Parameter
Samvolati lea (continued)
8enzo(b)f luoranthene
8enzo(ghi)parylene
BenzoUlf luoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
8 i s ( 2 -en loroetnoxy )methane
8is(2-chloroetnyl)ether
8 1 s ( 2 -ch loro i sopropy 1 ) airier
8ls(2-ethylhexyl)pnthalata
4-Bronophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-8uty1-4.6-dinitrophenol
p-Chloroeniline
Chlorooenzilata
p-Chloro-«-cre«o)
2 -Ch loronapntha lane
2-Chloropnenol
3-Chloropropionitri le
Chrysene
ortho-Cretol
para-Crtsol
P 1 tea*
uyc i OfUXeinonB
0 1 benz ( a . h ) anthracene
Oibenzo(a.a)pyrene
Oibenzo(a.l)pyrene
»-0 i ch lorobenzene
o-Oich lorobenzene
p-Otchlorooenzeoe
3.3'-Oich1oroftenzidine
2.4-Otchloropnenol
2.6-0*chloropheno1
01 ethyl phthalata
3 . 3 ' -0 twethoxybenz 1 d \ ne
p-0 tnethy lea i noazobenzene
3.3'-01«ethylbenzidine
2.4-Oie*thylpnenol
Olwthyl phthalate
Ol-n-butyl phthalate
1,4-Olnitrooeiuene
4.6-0(nltro-o-cresol
2.4-Otnitrophenol
CAS no.
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
106-51-4
111-91-1
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
101-55-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
106-47-8
510-15-6
59-50-7
91-58-7
95-57-6
542-76-7
218-01-9
95-48-7
106-44-5
108-94-1
53-70-3
192-65-4
189-55-9
541-73-1
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
120-83-2
87-65-0
84-66-2
119-90-4
60-U-7
119-93-7
105-67-9
131-U-3
84-74-2
100-25-4
534-52-1
51-28-5
1-21
-------
Tat)It l-l (continued)
BOAT
no.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
219.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
US.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
36.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
138.
137.
138.
Paramtttr
Semivolati IBS (contmutd)
2.4-Oinitroto1u«n«
2.6-Oinitroto1u«n«
Oi-n-octyl pntfttUtt
Oi-n-propylnitrosMint
Otphtnylwiin*
0 iphtny In i trasaminc
1 . 2-Oiph«ny Ihydraz in«
F1uor«nthtn«
Fluortn*
H«xuh1orob«fizin«
H«aeh lorobutaditnc
H*MChlorocyc1op*ntaditn«
HnuchlorMthan*
Hutch loropfwn*
Htuchtoroproptnt
Ind»no( 1 . 2. 3-cd)pyran«
Isoufrolt
NattupyriltfM
3-McthylchoUnthrtnt
4.4'-Mithyl«n«bi*
(2-cnloroini1in«)
Ntthyl ntthancsulfonata
Naphthalww
1.4-N4phthoquinoM
l-MpAthylMliW
2-IUpltthy1«Hrw
p-NitratniliM
NitrabOTztM
4-NUraplMnol
N-N1tra«odl-n-outylMln«
N-NttroMdlcthylMMiw
IHIUroMdiwthy laain*
N-NttroMMthy Itthy l«in«
M-NUroMMrptiolin*
N-H UroMQ i per id In*
n-N(troaopyrrel idin*
S-NUro-o-teluidln*
P«iucti1oraft*nz«n*
P«nt«chlora*than*
Pcntach loron i trobcnztn*
CAS no.
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
621-64-7
122-39-4
86-30-6
122-66-7
206-44-0
86-73-7
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47-4
67-72-1
70-30-4
1888-71-7
193-39-5
120-58-1
91-80-5
56-49-5
101-14-4
66-27-3
91-20-3
130-15-4
134-32-7
91-59-6
100-01-6
98-95-3
100-02-7
924-16-3
55-18-5
62-75-9
10S9S-9S-6
59-89-2
100-75-4
930-55-2
99-65-8
608-93-5
76-01-7
82-6B-4
1-22
-------
TaOla l-l (continued)
BOAT
rafaranca
no.
139.
140.
141.
142.
220.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
ISO.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
189.
168.
117.
168.
169.
170.
171.
Parameter
Swiivolati l«i (continued)
Pantach lorophano )
Phenacetin
Pnenanthrena
Phanol
Phthalic anhydride
2-Picoline
Pronwide
Pyrane
Rasoreinol
Safrola
1.2.4. S-Tatrach lorobenzene
2.3,4.6-Tetrachlorophenol
1.2.4-Trichlorooeiuene
2.4.5-Trlenloropnenel
2. 4. 6-Trich lorophano 1
Tris(2.3-d1broworopyl)
phosphate
Metal i
Antimony
Arsentc
Sariua
Beryl lit*
CadMtua
Chroiiiai (total)
Chroaiui (hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Mareury
Nickel
Selaniuei
Stiver
Thalltu*
Vanadtua
Zinc
^£OT^^^£^
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
CAS no.
87-86-5
62-44-2
85-01-8
108-95-2
85-44-9
109-06-8
23950-58-5
129-00-0
108-46-3
94-59-7
95-94-3
58-90-2
120-82-1
95-95-4
88-06-2
126-72-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
-
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-68-6
57-12-5
16984-48-6
8498-25-6
1-23
-------
1-1 (continued)
BOAT
rtftrtnc*
no.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
ias.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
1M.
197.
196.
199.
200.
201.
202.
Paramttr
Oraanochlonn* oesticidts
Aldrin
aloru-BHC
b«t«-8MC
dtlta-BHC
9MM-8MC
Chlordtn*
000
OOE
DOT
Oitldrin
Endosulfan I
Endoaulfwi II
Endrin
Endrin «ldrty<*
Htptachlor
Mtpt«chlor tpoxidt
Isodrin
Moon*
Mtthoxyclor
Tox«plww
PhMMxvacit ic ic id htrbicidM
2.4-01chloroph»no»y«c«tic Kid
Si1«n
2.4. 5-T
01 *ulfotan
Faaphur
Nitltyl p«r«th1on
P«r«thion
Pfterat*
PCBt
Ansclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroelor 1232
CAS no.
309-00-2
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
S8-89-9
57-74-9
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
60-57-1
939-98-8
33213-6-5
72-20-8
7421-93-4
76-44-8
1024-57-3
46S-73-6
143-50-0
72-43-5
8001-35-2
94-75-7
93-72-1
93-76-5
298-04-4
52-85-7
298-00-0
56-38-2
298-02-2
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
1-24
-------
Tablt l-l (continued)
BOAT
rtftrenci Paramttir CAS no.
no.
PCBa (continued!
203. Aroclor 1242 53469-21-9
204. Aroclor 1248 12672-29-6
205. Aroclor 1254 11097-69-1
206. Aroclor 1260 11096-62-5
and furana .
207. Htxachlorodibfflzo-p-dioxin*
208. Hcx«cnlorodib«fizofur«ni
209. P«nuchtorodibtnzo-p-dioxins
210. Ptntachlorad^btnzofurani
211. T«rachlorodib«fuo-p-dioxini
212. TttrKhlorodibwuofurani
213. 2.3.7.8-Tttrachlorodibtnzo-p-dioxin 1746-01-6
1-25
-------
The initial BOAT constituent list was published in EPA's Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan, March 1987 (EPA/530-SW-87-011). Additional
constituents will be added to the BOAT constituent list as more key constitu-
ents are identified for specific waste codes or as new analytical methods are
developed for hazardous constituents. For example, since the list was pub-
lished in March 1987, 18 additional constituents (hexavalent chromium, xylenes
(all three isomers), benzal chloride, phthalic anhydride, ethylene oxide,
acetone, n-butyl alcohol, 2-ethoxyethanol, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl
ether, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, 2-nitropropane, 1,1,2-trichloro-
1,2,2- trifluoroethane, and cyclohexanone) have been added to the list.
Chemicals are listed in Appendix VIII if they are shown in scien-
tific studies to have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects
on humans or other life-forms, and they include such substances as those
identified by the Agency's Carcinogen Assessment Group as being carcinogenic.
Including a constituent in Appendix VIII means that the constituent can be
cited as a basis for listing toxic wastes.
Although Appendix VII, Appendix VIII, and the F003 and F005 igni-
tables provide a comprehensive list of RCRA-regulated hazardous constituents,
not all of the constituents can be analyzed in a complex waste matrix.
Therefore, constituents that could not be readily analyzed in an unknown waste
matrix were not included on the initial BOAT list. As mentioned above,
however, the BOAT constituent list is a continuously growing list that does
1-26
-------
not preclude the addition of new constituents when analytical methods are
developed.
There are five major reasons that constituents were not included on
the BOAT constituent list:
1. Constituents are unstable. Based on their chemical structure,
some constituents will either decompose in water or will
ionize. For example, maleic anhydride will form maleic acid
when it comes in contact with water and copper cyanide will
ionize to form copper and cyanide ions. However, EPA may
choose to regulate the decomposition or ionization products.
2. EPA-approved or verified analytical methods are not available.
Many constituents, such as 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene, are not
measured adequately or even detected using any of EPA's analyt-
ical methods published in SW-846 Third Edition.
3. The constituent is a member of a chemical group designated in
Appendix VIII as not otherwise specified (N.O.S.). Constitu-
ents listed as N.O.S., such as chlorinated phenols, are a
generic group of some types of chemicals for which a single
analytical procedure is not available. The individual members
of each such group need to be listed to determine whether the
constituents can be analyzed. For each N.O.S. group, all those
constituents that can be readily analyzed are included in the
BOAT constituent list.
U. Available analytical procedures are not appropriate for a
complex waste matrix. Some compounds, such as auramine, can be
analyzed as a pure constituent. However, in the presence of
other constituents, the recommended analytical method does not
positively identify the constituent. The use of high pressure
liquid chromatography (HPLC) presupposes a high expectation of
finding the specific constituents of interest. In using this
procedure to screen samples, protocols would have to be devel-
oped on a case-specific basis to verify the identity of con-
stituents present in the samples. Therefore, HPLC is not an
appropriate analytical procedure for complex samples containing
unknown constituents.
5. Standards for analytical instrument calibration are not commer-
cially available. For several constituents, such as
benz(c)acridine, commercially available standards of a "reason-
ably" pure grade are not available. The unavailability of a
1-27
-------
standard was determined by a review of catalogs from specialty
chemical manufacturers.
Two constituents (fluoride and sulfide) are not specifically included in
Appendices VII and VIII; however, these compounds are included on the BOAT
list as indicator constituents for compounds from Appendices VII and VIII such
as hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen sulfide, which ionize in water.
The BOAT constituent list presented in Table 1-1 is divided into the
following nine groups:
o Volatile organics;
o Semivolatile organics;
o Metals;
o Other inorganics;
o Organochlorine pesticides;
o Phenoxyacetic acid herbicides;
o Organophosphorous insecticides;
o PCBs; and
o Oioxins and furans.
The constituents were placed in these categories based on their chemical
properties. The constituents in each group are expected to behave similarly
during treatment and are also analyzed, with the exception of the metals and
inorganics, by using the same analytical methods.
(2) Constituent Selection Analysis. The constituents that the
Agency selects for regulation in each treatability group are, in general,
those found in the untreated wastes at treatable concentrations. For certain
waste codes, the target list for the untreated waste may have been shortened
1-28
-------
(relative to analyses performed to test treatment technologies) because of the
extreme unlikelihood that the constituent will be present.
In selecting constituents for regulation, the first step is to
summarize all the constituents that were found in the untreated waste at
treatable concentrations. This process involves the use of the statistical
analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, described in Section 1.2.6, to determine if
constituent reductions were significant. The Agency interprets a significant
reduction in concentration as evidence that the technology actually "treats"
the waste.
There are some instances where EPA may regulate constituents that
are not found in the untreated waste but are detected in the treated residual.
This is generally the case where presence of the constituents in the untreated
waste interferes with the quantification of the constituent of concern. In
such instances, the detection levels of the constituent are relatively high,
resulting in a finding of "not detected" when, in fact, the constituent is
present in the waste.
After determining which of the constituents in the untreated waste
are present at treatable concentrations, EPA develops a list of potential
constituents for regulation. The Agency then reviews this list to determine
if any of these constituents can be excluded from regulation because they
would be controlled by regulation of other constituents in the list.
1-29
-------
EPA performs this indicator analysis for two reasons: (1) it reduces
the analytical cost burdens on the treater and (2) it facilitates implementa-
tion of the compliance and enforcement program. EPA's rationale for selection
of regulated constituents for this waste code is presented in Section 6.0 of
this background document.
(3) Calculation of Standards. The final step in the calculation of
the BOAT treatment standard is the multiplication of the average treatment
value by a factor referred to by the Agency as the variability factor. This
calculation takes into account that even well-designed and well-operated
treatment systems will experience some fluctuations in performance. EPA
expects that fluctuations will result from inherent mechanical limitations in
treatment control systems, collection of treated samples, and analysis of
these samples. All of the above fluctuations can be expected to occur at
well-designed and well-operated treatment facilities. Therefore, setting
treatment standards utilizing a variability factor should be viewed not as a
relaxing of section 3004(m) requirements, but rather as a function of the
normal variability of the treatment processes. A treatment facility will have
to be designed to meet the mean achievable treatment performance level to
ensure that the performance levels remain within the limits of the treatment
standard.
The Agency calculates a variability factor for each constituent of
concern within a waste treatability group using the statistical calculation
presented in Appendix A. The equation for calculating the variability factor
1-30
-------
is the same as that used by EPA for the development of numerous regulations in
the Effluent Guidelines Program under the Clean Water Act. The variability
factor establishes the instantaneous maximum based on the 99th percentile
value.
There is an additional step in the calculation of the treatment
standards in those instances where the ANOVA analysis shows that more than one
technology achieves a level of performance that represents BOAT. In such
instances, the BOAT treatment standard is calculated by first averaging the
mean performance value for each technology for each constituent of concern and
then multiplying that value by the highest variability factor among the
technologies considered. This procedure ensures that all the BOAT technolo-
gies used as the basis for the standards will achieve full compliance.
1.2.5 Compliance with Performance Standards
All the treatment standards reflect performance achieved by the best
demonstrated available technology (BOAT). As such, compliance with these
standards requires only that the treatment level be achieved prior to land
disposal. It does not require the use of any particular treatment technology.
While dilution of the waste as a means to comply with the standard is prohib-
ited, wastes that are generated in such a way as to naturally meet the stan-
dard can be land disposed without treatment. With the exception of treatment
standards that prohibit land disposal, all treatment standards proposed are
expressed as a concentration level.
1-31
-------
EPA has used both total constituent concentration and TCLP analyses
of the treated waste as a measure of technology performance. EPA's rationale
for when each of these analytical tests is used is explained in the following
discussion.
For all organic constituents, EPA is basing the treatment standards
on the total constituent concentration found in the treated waste. EPA based
its decision on the fact that technologies exist to destroy the various
organics compounds. Accordingly, the best measure of performance would be the
extent to which the various organic compounds have been destroyed or the total
amount of constituent remaining after treatment. (NOTE: EPA's land disposal
restrictions for solvent waste codes F001-F005 (51 FR 40572) use the TCLP
value as a measure of performance. At the time that EPA promulgated the
treatment standards for F001-F005, useful data were not available on total
constituent concentrations in treated residuals and, as a result, the TCLP
data were considered to be the best measure of performance.)
For all metal constituents, EPA is using both total constituent
concentration and/or the TCLP as the basis for treatment standards. The total
constituent concentration is being used when the technology basis includes a
metal recovery operation. The underlying principle of metal recovery is the
reduction of the amount of metal in a waste by separating the metal for
recovery; therefore, total constituent concentration in the treated residual
is an important measure of performance for this technology. Additionally, EPA
also believes that it is important that any remaining metal in a treated
1-32
-------
residual waste not be in a state that is easily leachable; accordingly, EPA is
also using the TCLP as a measure of performance. It is important to note that
for wastes for which treatment standards are based on a metal recovery pro-
cess, the facility has to comply with both the total constituent concentration
and the TCLP prior to land disposal.
In cases where treatment standards for metals are not based on
recovery techniques but rather on stabilization, EPA is using only the TCLP as
a measure of performance. The Agency's rationale is that stabilization is not
meant to reduce the concentration of metal in a waste but only to chemically
minimize the ability of the metal to leach.
1.2.6 Identification of BOAT
(1) Screening of Treatment Data. This section explains how the
Agency determines which of the treatment technologies represent treatment by
BOAT. The first activity is to screen the treatment performance data from
each of the demonstrated and available technologies according to the following
criteria:
1. Design and operating data associated with the treatment data
must reflect a well-designed, well-operated system for each
treatment data point. (The specific design and operating
parameters for each demonstrated technology for this waste code
are discussed in Section 3.2 of this document.)
2. Sufficient QA/QC data must be available to determine the true
values of the data from the treated waste. This screening
criterion involves adjustment of treated data to take into
account that the type value may be different from the measured
value. This discrepancy generally is caused by other
1-33
-------
.
constituents in the waste that can mask results or otherwise
interfere with the analysis of the constituent of concern.
3. The measure of performance must be consistent with EPA's
approach to evaluating treatment by type of constituents (e.g.,
total concentration data for organics, and total concentration
and TCLP for metals in the leachate from the residual).
In the absence of data needed to perform the screening analysis, EPA
will make decisions on a case-by-case basis as to whether to include the data.
The factors included in this case-by-case analysis will be the actual treat-
ment levels achieved, the availability of the treatment data and their com-
pleteness (with respect to the above criteria), and EPA's assessment of
whether the untreated waste represents the waste code of concern. EPA's
application of these screening criteria for this waste code is provided in
Section 5.0 of this background document.
(2) Comparison of Treatment Data. In cases in which EPA has
treatment data from more than one technology following the screening activity,
EPA uses the statistical method known as analysis of variance (ANOVA) to
determine if one technology performs significantly better than the others.
This statistical method (summarized in Appendix A) provides a measure of the
differences between two data sets. If EPA finds that one technology performs
significantly better (i.e., the data sets are not homogeneous), BOAT treatment
standards are the level of performance achieved by the best technology multi-
plied by the corresponding variability factor for each regulated constituent.
If the differences in the data sets are not statistically signifi-
cant, the data sets are said to be homogeneous. Specifically, EPA uses the
-------
analysis of variance to determine whether BOAT represents a level of perfor-
mance achieved by only one technology or represents a level of performance
achieved by more than one (or all) of the technologies. If the Agency finds
that the levels of performance for one or more technologies are not statisti-
cally different, EPA averages the performance values achieved by each technol-
ogy and then multiplies this value by the largest variability factor associ-
ated with any of the acceptable technologies. A detailed discussion of the
treatment selection method and an example of how EPA chooses BOAT from multi-
ple treatment systems is provided in Section A-1.
(3) Quality assurance/quality control. This section presents the
principal quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures employed in
screening and adjusting the data to be used in the calculation of treatment
standards. Additional QA/QC procedures used in collecting and screening data
for the BOAT program are presented in EPA's Generic Quality Assurance Project
Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program ("BOAT") (EPA/530-SW-87-011, March
1987).
To calculate the treatment standards for the Land Disposal Restric-
tion Rules, it is first necessary to determine the recovery value for each
constituent (the amount of constituent recovered after spiking, which is the
addition of a known amount of the constituent, minus the initial concentration
in the samples divided by the amount added) for a spike of the treated resi-
dual. Once the recovery value is determined, the following procedures are
1-35
-------
used to select the appropriate percent recovery value to adjust the analytical
data:
1. If duplicate spike recovery values are available for the
constituent of interest, the data are adjusted by the lowest
available percent recovery value (i.e., the value that will
yield the most conservative estimate of treatment achieved).
However, if a spike recovery value of less than 20 percent is
reported for a specific constituent, the data are not used to
set treatment standards because the Agency does not have
sufficient confidence in the reported value to set a national
standard.
2. If data are not available for a specific constituent but are
available for an isomer, then the spike recovery data are
transferred from the isomer and the data are adjusted using the
percent recovery selected according to the procedure described
in (1) above.
3. If data are not available for a specific constituent but are
available for a similar class of constituents (e.g., volatile
organics, acid-extractable semivolatiles), then spike recovery
data available for this class of constituents are transferred.
All spike recovery values greater than or equal to 20 percent
for a spiked sample are averaged and the constituent concentra-
tion is adjusted by the average recovery value. If spiked
recovery data are available for more than one sample, the
average is calculated for each sample and the data are adjusted
by the lowest average value.
U. If matrix spike recovery data are not available for a set of
data to be used to calculate treatment standards, then matrix
spike recovery data are transferred from a waste that the
Agency believes is a similar matrix (e.g., if the data are for
an ash from incineration, then data from other incinerator
ashes could be vised). While EPA recognizes that transfer of
matrix spike recovery data from a similar waste is not an exact
analysis, this is considered the best approach for adjusting
the data to account for the fact that most analyses do not
result in extraction of 100 percent of the constituent. In
assessing the recovery data to be transferred, the procedures
outlined in (1), (2), and (3) above are followed.
The analytical procedures employed to generate the data used to
calculate the treatment standards are listed in Appendix B of this document.
1-36
-------
In cases where alternatives or equivalent procedures and/or equipment are
allowed in EPA's SW-846, Third Edition (November 1986) methods, the specific
procedures and equipment used are also documented in this Appendix, In
addition, any deviations from the SW-846, Third Edition, methods used to
analyze the specific waste matrices are documented. It is important to note
that the Agency will use the methods and procedures delineated in Appendix B
to enforce the treatment standards presented in Section 7.0 of this document.
Accordingly, facilities should use these procedures in assessing the perfor-
mance of their treatment systems.
1.2.7 BOAT Treatment Standards for "Derived-From" and "Mixed" Wastes
(1) Wastes from Treatment Trains Generating Multiple Residues. In
a number of instances, the proposed BOAT consists of a series of operations,
each of which generates a waste residue. For example, the proposed BOAT for a
certain waste code is based on solvent extraction, steam stripping, and
activated carbon adsorption. Each of these treatment steps generates a waste
requiring treatment—a solvent-containing stream from solvent extraction, a
stripper overhead, and spent activated carbon. Treatment of these wastes may
generate further residues; for instance, spent activated carbon (if not
regenerated) could be incinerated, generating an ash and possibly a scrubber
water waste. Ultimately, additional wastes are generated that may require
land disposal. With respect to these wastes, the Agency wishes to emphasize
the following points:
1-37
-------
1. All of the residues from treating the original listed wastes
are likewise considered to be the listed waste by virtue of the
derived-from rule contained in 40 CFR Part 26l.3(c)(2). (This
point is discussed more fully in (2) below.) Consequently, all
of the wastes generated in the course of treatment would be
prohibited from land disposal unless they satisfy the treatment
standard or meet one of the exceptions to the prohibition.
2. The Agency's proposed treatment standards generally contain a
concentration level for wastewaters and a concentration level
for nonwastewaters. The treatment standards apply to all of
the wastes generated in treating the original prohibited waste.
Thus, all solids generated from treating these wastes would
have to meet the treatment standard for nonwastewaters. All
derived-from wastes meeting the Agency definition of wastewater
(less than 1 percent TOG and less than 1 percent total filter-
able solids) would have to meet the treatment standard for
wastewaters. EPA wishes to make clear that this approach is
not meant to allow partial treatment in order to comply with
the applicable standard.
3. The Agency has not performed tests, in all cases, on every
waste that can result from every part of the treatment train.
However, the Agency's treatment standards are based on treat-
ment of the most concentrated form of the waste. Consequently,
the Agency believes that the less concentrated wastes generated
in the course of treatment will also be able to be treated to
meet this value.
(2) Mixtures and Other Derived-From Residues. There is a further
question as to the applicability of the BOAT treatment standards to residues
generated not from treating the waste (as discussed above), but from other
types of management. Examples are contaminated soil or leachate that is
derived from managing the waste. In these cases, the mixture is still deemed
to be the listed waste, either because of the derived-from rule (10 CFR Part
26l.3(e)(2)(i)) or the mixture rule (40 CFR Part 26l.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)) or
because the listed waste is contained in the matrix (see, for example, 40 CFR
Part 26l.33(d)). The prohibition for the particular listed waste consequently
applies to this type of waste.
1-38
-------
The Agency believes that the majority of these types of residues can
meet the treatment standards for the underlying listed wastes (with the
possible exception of contaminated soil and debris for which the Agency is
currently investigating whether it is appropriate to establish a separate
treatability subcategorization). For the most part, these residues will be
less concentrated than the original listed waste. The Agency's treatment
standards also make a generous allowance for process variability by assuming
that all treatability values used to establish the standard are lognormally
distributed. The waste also might be amenable to a relatively nonvariable
form of treatment technology such as incineration. Finally, and perhaps most
important, the rules contain a treatability variance that allows a petitioner
to demonstrate that its waste cannot be treated to the level specified in the
rule (UO CFR Part 268.U4(a)). This provision provides a safety valve that
allows persons with unusual waste matrices to demonstrate the appropriateness
of a different standard. The Agency, to date, has not received any petitions
under this provision (for example, for residues contaminated with a prohibited
solvent waste), indicating, in the Agency's view, that the existing standards
are generally achievable.
(3) Residues from Managing Listed Wastes or that Contain Listed
Wastes. The Agency has been asked if and when residues from managing hazard-
ous wastes, such as leachate and contaminated ground water, become subject to
the land disposal prohibitions. Although the Agency believes this question to
be settled by existing rules and interpretative statements, to avoid any
possible confusion the Agency will address the question again.
1-39
-------
Residues from managing First Third wastes, listed California List
wastes, and spent solvent and dioxin wastes are all considered to be subject
to the prohibitions for the underlying hazardous waste. Residues from manag-
ing California List wastes likewise are subject to the California List prohi-
bitions when the residues themselves exhibit a characteristic of hazardous
waste. This determination stems directly from the derived-from rule in UO CFR
Part 26l.3(c)(2) or, in some cases, from the fact that the waste is mixed with
or otherwise contains the listed waste. The underlying principle stated in
all of these provisions is that listed wastes remain listed until delisted.
The Agency's historic practice in processing delisting petitions
that address mixing residuals has been to consider them to be the listed waste
and to require that delisting petitioners address all constituents for which
the derived-from waste (or other mixed waste) was listed. The language in 40
CFR Part 260.22(b) states that mixtures or derived-from residues can be
delisted provided a delisting petitioner makes a demonstration identical to
that which a delisting petitioner would make for the underlying waste.
Consequently, these residues are treated as the underlying listed waste for
delisting purposes. The statute likewise takes this position, indicating that
soil and debris that are contaminated with listed spent solvents or dioxin
wastes are subject to the prohibition for these wastes even though these
wastes are not the originally generated waste, but rather are a residual from
management (RCRA section 3004(e)(3)). It is EPA's view that all such residues
are covered by the existing prohibitions and treatment standards for the
-------
listed hazardous waste that these residues contain and from which they are
derived.
1.2.8 Transfer of Treatment Standards
EPA is proposing some treatment standards that are not based on
testing of the treatment technology of the specific waste subject to the
treatment standard. Instead, the Agency has determined that the constituents
present in the subject waste can be treated to the sane performance levels as
those observed in other wastes for which EPA has previously developed treat-
ment data. EPA believes that transferring treatment performance for use in
establishing treatment standards for untested wastes is technically valid in
cas.'s where the untested wastes are generated from similar industries, have
similar processing steps, or have similar waste characteristics affecting
performance and treatment selection. Transfer of treatment standards to
similar wastes or wastes from similar processing steps requires little formal
analysis. However, in a case where only the industry is similar, EPA more
closely examines the waste characteristics prior to deciding whether the
untested waste constituents can be treated to levels associated with tested
wastes.
EPA undertakes a two-step analysis when determining whether wastes
generated by different processes within a single industry can be treated to
the same level of performance. First, EPA reviews the available waste charac-
teristic data to identify those parameters that are expected to affect
1-41
-------
treatment selection. EPA has identified some of the most important
constituents and other parameters ne°ded to select the treatment technology
appropriate for a given waste. A detailed discussion of each analysis,
including how each parameter was selected for each waste, can be found in
Section 5 of this document.
Second, when an individual analysis suggests that an untested waste
can be treated with the same technology as a waste for which treatment perfor-
mance data are already available, EPA analyzes a more detailed list of con-
stituents that represent some of the most important waste characteristics that
the Agency believes will affect the performance of the technology. By examin-
ing and comparing these characteristics, the Agency determines whether the
untested wastes will achieve the same level of treatment as the tested waste.
Where the Agency determines that the untested waste is easier to treat than
the tested waste, the treatment standards can be transferred. A detailed
discussion of this transfer process for each waste can be found in later
sections of this document.
1.3 Variance from the BOAT Treatment Standard
The Agency recognizes that there may exist unique wastes that cannot
be treated to the level specified as the treatment standard. In such a case,
a generator or owner/operator may submit a petition to the Administrator
requesting a variance from the treatment standard. A particular waste may be
significantly different from the wastes considered in establishing
1-42
-------
treatability groups because the waste contains a more complex matrix that
makes it more difficult to treat. For example, complex mixtures may be formed
when a restricted waste is mixed with other waste streams by spills or other
forms of inadvertent mixing. As a result, the treatability of the restricted
waste may be altered such that it cannot meet the applicable treatment
standard.
Variance petitions must demonstrate that the treatment standard
established for a given waste cannot be met. This demonstration can be made
by showing that attempts to treat the waste by available technologies were not
successful or by performing appropriate analyses of the waste, including waste
characteristics affecting performance, which demonstrate that the waste cannot
be treated to the specified levels. Variances will not be granted based
solely on a showing that adequate BOAT treatment capacity is unavailable.
(Such demonstrations can be made according to the provisions in Part 268.5 of
RCRA for case-by-case extensions of the effective date.) The Agency will
consider granting generic petitions provided that representative data are
submitted to support a variance for each facility covered by the petition.
Petitioners should submit at least one copy to:
The Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
An additional copy marked "Treatability Variance" should be submit-
ted to:
1-43
-------
Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Petitions containing confidential information should be sent with
only the inner envelope marked "Treatability Variance" and "Confidential
Business Information" and with the contents marked in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 2 (41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976, amended by 43
FR 4000).
The petition should contain the following information:
1. The petitioner's name and address.
2. A statement of the petitioner's interest in the proposed
action.
3. The name, address, and EPA identification number of the facil-
ity generating the waste, and the name and telephone number of
the plant contact.
4. The process(es) and feed materials generating the waste and an
assessment of whether such process(es) or feed materials may
produce a waste that is not covered by the demonstration.
5. A description of the waste sufficient for comparison with the
waste considered by the Agency in developing BDAT, and an
estimate of the average and maximum monthly and annual quanti-
ties of waste covered by the demonstration. (Note: The peti-
tioner should consult the appropriate BDAT background document
for determining the characteristics of the wastes considered in
developing treatment standards.)
6. If the waste has been treated, a description of the system used
for treating the waste, including the process design and
operating conditions. The petition should include the reasons
the treatment standards are not achievable and/or why the
petitioner believes the standards are based on inappropriate
technology for treating the waste. (Note: The petitioner
should refer to the BDAT background document as guidance for
1-44
-------
determining the design and operating parameters that the Agency
used in developing treatment standards.)
7. A description of the alternative treatment systems examined by
the petitioner (if any); a description of the treatment system
deemed appropriate by the petitioner for the waste in question;
and, as appropriate, the concentrations in the treatment
residual or extract of the treatment residual (i.e., using the
TCLP, where appropriate, for stabilized metals) that can be
achieved by applying such treatment to the waste.
8. A description of those parameters affecting treatment selection
and waste characteristics that affect performance, including
results of all analyses. (See Section 3.0 for a discussion of
waste characteristics affecting performance that the Agency has
identified for the technology representing BOAT.)
9. The dates of the sampling and testing.
10. A description of the methodologies and equipment used to obtain
representative samples.
11. A description of the sample handling and preparation tech-
niques, including technique? used for extraction, containeriza-
tion, and preservation of the samples.
12. A description of analytical procedures used, including QA/QC
methods.
After receiving a petition for a variance, the Administrator may
request any additional information or waste samples that may be required to
evaluate and process the petition. Additionally, all petitioners must certify
that the information provided to the Agency is accurate under UO CFR Part
268.U(b).
In determining whether a variance will be granted, the Agency will
first look at the design and operation of the treatment system being used. If
EPA determines that the technology and operation are consistent with BOAT, the
Agency will evaluate the waste to determine if the waste matrix and/or
1-45
-------
physical parameters are such that the BOAT treatment standards reflect
treatment of this waste. Essentially, this latter analysis will concern the
parameters affecting treatment selection and waste characteristics affecting
performance parameters.
In cases where BOAT is based on more than one technology, the
petitioner will need to demonstrate that the treatment standard cannot be met
using any of the technologies, or that none of the technologies are appropri-
ate for treatment of the waste.
1-46
-------
2.0 INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
As described in Section 1.0, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend-
ments (HSWA) specify dates when particular groups of hazardous wastes are
prohibited from land disposal. The amendments also require the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish treatment standards for each waste that, when
met, allow that waste to be land disposed. Wastes generated by the refining
industry are part of the first third of listed wastes to be evaluated by the
Agency. The purpose of this section is to describe the industry affected by
the land disposal restrictions for petroleum refining wastes and to present
available characterization data for these wastes.
Under 40 CFR 261.32 (hazardous wastes from specific .sources), wastes
identified as KOA8, K049, K050, K051, and K052 are specifically generated by
the petroleum refining industry and are listed as follows:
K048: Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the petroleum
refining industry;
K049: Slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining
industry;
K050: Heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum
refining industry;
K051: API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry;
and
K052: Tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining
industry.
The Agency has determined that these wastes (K048-K052) represent a
separate waste treatability group based on their similar physical and chemical
2-1
-------
characteristics. Additionally, the Agency expects that these wastes will
typically be mixed prior to treatment. As a result, EPA examined the specific
similarities in waste composition, applicable and demonstrated treatment
technologies, and attainable treatment performance in order to support a
single regulatory approach for all five petroleum refinery wastes.
2.1 Industry Affected and Process Description
Under 40 CFR 261.32 (hazardous wastes from specific sources), wastes
identified as K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 are specifically generated by
the petroleum refining industry. The four digit Standard Industrial Classifi-
cation (SIC) code most often reported for the petroleum refining industry is
2911. The Agency estimates that there are approximately 193 facilities that
may produce the listed wastes K048, K049, K050, K051 and K052. Information
from trade associations provides a geographic distribution of the number of
petroleum refineries across the United States. Table 2-1 lists the number of
facilities by state. Table 2-2 summarizes the number of facilities for each
EPA region. Figure 2-1 illustrates the geographic distribution of petroluem
refineries on a map of the United States.
The petroleum refining industry consists of individual facilities
that convert crude oil into numerous products including gasoline, kerosene,
fuel oils, lubricating oils, petrochemical feedstocks, and miscellaneous
byproducts. Petroleum refineries range in complexity and size from small
plants with tens of employees to some of the largest industrial complexes in
2-2
-------
Table 2-1
FACILITIES PRODUCING KOU8-K052 WASTES BY STATE
State
(EPA Region)
Alabama (IV)
Alaska (X)
Arizona (IX)
Arkansas (VI)
California (IX)
Colorado (VIII)
Connecticut (I)
Delaware (III)
Washington, DC (III)
Florida (IV)
Georgia (IV)
Hawaii (IX)
Idaho (X)
Illinois (V)
Indiana (V)
Iowa (VII)
Kansas (VII)
Kentucky (IV)
Louisiana (VI)
Maine (I)
Maryland (III)
Massachusetts (I)
Michigan (V)
Minnesota (V)
Mississippi (IV)
Missouri (VII)
Number of
Facilities
2
6
1
U
29
2
0
1
0
1
2
2
0
7
a
0
7
2
18
0
0
0
4
2
5
0
State
(EPA Region)
Montana (VIII)
Nebraska (VII)
Nevada (IX)
New Hampshire (I)
New Jersey (II)
New Mexico (VI)
New York (II)
North Carolina (IV)
North Dakota (VIII)
Ohio (V)
Oklahoma (VI)
Oregon (X)
Pennsylvania (III)
Puerto Rico (II)
Rhode Island (I)
South Carolina (IV)
South Dakota (VIII)
Tennessee (IV)
Texas (VI)
Utah (VIII)
Vermont (I)
Virginia (III)
Virgin Islands (II)
Washington (X)
West Virginia (III)
Wisconsin (V)
Wyoming (VIII)
Number of
Facilities
5
0
1
0
6
3
0
0
2
5
6
1
8
1
0
0
0
1
31
6
0
1
1
7
2
1
6
Reference: Cantrell, Ailleen. "Annual Refining Survey." Oil and Gas Journal.
Vol. 83, Mo. 13. March 30, 1987.
2-3
-------
Table 2-2
FACILITIES PRODUCING K048-K052 WASTES BY EPA REGION
Totals by Region
EPA Number of
Region Facilities
I 0
II 8
III 12
IV 13
V 23
VI 62
VII 7
VIII 21
IX 33
X V±
TOTAL 193
Reference: Cantrell, Ailleen. "Annual Refining Survey." Oil and Gas Journal.
Vol. 83, No. 13. March 30, 1987.
2-4
-------
N>
I
Figure 2-1
FACILITIES PRODUCING K048-K052 WASTES BY STATE AND EPA REGION
-------
the United States. A number of unit operations are used in the refining of
crude oil. The unit operations employed at an individual refinery depend upon
the type of crude oil processed; the size, location, and age of the facility;
and the market for the petroleum products.
The initial processing unit operation at a refinery and the only
unit operation that is used at every refinery is distillation of the crude
oil. Distillation separates the raw material (crude oil) into several streams
with different boiling point ranges, including light gaseous streams, gaso-
line, diesel oil, furnace oil, and heavy ends. Generally, the different
streams are further processed to produce finished petroleum products.
The light gaseous streams are usually burned in process heaters or
boilers to provide heat or steam for the refinery. The heavier gaseous
products, propane and butane, are liquefied and sold as products. The gaso-
line stream is further treated at the refinery to improve its octane rating to
allow it to be burned in modern automobile engines. Downstream unit opera-
tions such as isomerization or catalytic reforming are used to increase the
octane rating to the desired specifications. The diesel and furnace oil
streams are processed to remove undesirable sulfur compounds. The heavier or
higher boiling streams can either be processed into lighter products or made
into lubricating or specialty oils. Fluid catalytic cracking units, hydrogen
cracking units, and coking units can be used to convert the heavier distilla-
tion products into gases, gasolines, fuel oils, and petroleum coke. For
production of lubricating oils., the heavy distillation products are dewaxed,
2-6
-------
solvent-refined, or hydrogen-treated. It is possible to make a wide range of
miscellaneous products at a petroleum refinery, including aromatic organic
compounds (benzene, toluene, and xylene), greases, waxes, and asphalt. Many
additional unit operations (separation steps) are required to manufacture this
wide variety of products.
Wastes are generated by the various operations conducted by the
refining industry. The generation of K048-K052 is depicted in Figure 2-2.
Wastewaters are generated throughout the refining process and are
commonly treated at wastewater treatment facilities within the refineries.
The listed wastes KOU8, K049, and K051 are generated as residuals from waste-
water treatment operations. A list of unit operations typically found in the
petroleum refining industry and the types of wastewater generated by these
operations is presented in Table 2-3. In distillation operations, steam is
sometimes injected into the columns to facilitate the separation. The con-
densed steam forms a wastewater stream containing oil. Steam is also used to
produce the vacuum conditions under which some unit operations are conducted.
Again, the steam condenses to form a wastewater in which oil is a contaminant.
Another source of wastewater is the water that is present in the crude oil
when it arrives at the refinery. These sources of wastewater, along with any
cooling water that contains oil, make up most of the flow to a refinery's
wastewater treatment plant.
2-7
-------
Isl
OB
i—
Cfud0 Q|| I
If
en*.
r
KOSO
Storm
KOS2
lank
Oil
t
^ Slapal ,
UMtlMfll
*oJ
AH ^ fM
Mporotttf ^ MP«
•(Stay
Chwnlcoi
1
* * ^
Fmi^Mi *inlbte\
KOtAYOAF fktot)
t
Air
flotation ^ "^
1 r— I
1 SonMary
AuClMl iMlllMIC*
MMtlnJ
1
^^ I
V
1
Ualaaical R«li
tTMtJIMnl ^ P°«
Uiuliu lr«
1 1 1
•ntlon 1 -^ 1 _„ . 1
i I k 1
u
nlntAnl •
K05l(M>t S^arator Sludg.)
Figure 2-2
Generation of K048. K049. KOSO. K051 and K052
-------
Table 2-3
GENERATION OF WASTEWATERS IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Unit ooeration
Desalting
Fractionation:
vacuum, atmospheric
flash, distillation
Cracking: catalytic,
visbreaking, thermal,
hydrocracking
Reforming
Alkylation
Hydrotreating
Polymerization
Isomerization
Function
Reduce inorganic salts and
and suspended solids in
crude to prevent fouling of
equipment; remove inorganic
impurities that poison
catalysts
Separate constituents of
crude oil
Convert heavy oil fractions
into lighter oil fractions
Convert naphthas to finished
high-octane gasoline
Convert gaseous hydrocarbons
to high-octane fuel
Saturate olefins and remove
contaminants such as sulfur,
nitrogen and oxygen compounds
Convert olefins to high-octane
gasoline
Convert light gasoline
materials into high-octane
isomers for fuel
Waste generated
Desalting sludge;
desalter brine
Wastewater from over-
head accumulators;
discharge from oil
sampling lines; oil
emulsions from con-
densers; barometric
condenser water
Wastewater from over-
head accumulators and
steam strippers
Wastewater from over-
head accumulators on
stripping towers.
Wastewater from over-
head accumulators in
fractionation section;
alkylation reactor;
caustic wash
Wastewater from over-
head accumulators on
fractionators and steam
strippers; sour water
stripper bottoms
Wastewater from caustic
scrubbers and pretreat-
ment washwater towers
Wastewater from leaks
and spills
2-9
-------
Table 2-3 (continued)
GENERATION OF WASTEWATERS IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Unit operation
Solvent refining
and extraction of
oil stocks
Dewaxing
Coking
Aromatic
extraction
Deasphalting
Drying and
sweetening
Grease
manufacture
Lubricating
oil finishing
Hydrogen
manufacture
Function
Obtain lube oil fractions and
aromatics from feedstocks
containing hydrocarbons and
undesirable materials
Remove wax from lube oil
stocks to produce products
with low pour points and to
recover wax for further pro-
cessing
Convert heavy oil fractions
into lighter oil fractions
and into solid petroleum coke
Recovery of benzene, toluene,
and xylene from gasoline
stocks
Separate asphalts or resins
from vacuum distillation
residuals; recover paraffinic
catalytic cracking stock from
distillation residuals
Remove sulfur compounds; im-
prove color, odor; oxidation
stability; inhibitor response;
remove water, carbon dioxide,
and other impurities
Produce wide range of lubri-
cating greases
Produce motor oils and lubri-
cating greases
Produce hydrogen needed for
refining processes
Waste generated
Wastewater from bottom
of fractionation towers
Wastewater from leaks
and spills
Cutting water blowdown;
fractionation section
overhead accumulator
waters
Wastewater from over-
head accumulator on
stripping towers and
condensers
Sour water from over-
head condensers on
steam strippers; spills
Spent caustic; waste-
water from water wash-
ing of treated product;
regeneration of treat-
ing solution
Wastewater from leaks
and washing of batch
process units
Wastewater from rinses
and clay treatment;
sludge from sampling;
leaks
Wastewater from desul-
furization unit
2-10
-------
Table 2-3 (continued)
GENERATION OF WASTEWATERS IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Unit operation
Storage tanks
Sulfur recovery
Blending and
packaging
Cooling water
system
Surface and
storm water
collection
Utilities
Marine terminals
General
wastewaters
Function
Storage of crude oil, inter-
mediates, and final products
Removal of sulfur compounds
from hydrocarbon streams and
recovery of sulfur product
Produce and package final
products
Heat exchanger operation
Treatment of storm and
surface drainage
Steam and electricity
generation
Load and unload marine vessels
with crude oil and refined
products
Maintenance
Waste generated
Settled water and
sludge from tank
bottoms and cleaning
Spent caustics; spent
amine solution; spent
stretford solution
Wastewater from tank
wash; vessel cleaning
water
Slowdown from cooling
tower systems; once-
through cooling water
Wastewater from storm
and surface drainage
Boiler blowdown
Ballast water
Wash water; pump gland
water; leaks and spills
on every operation
Sources:
Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Management, 1967
(Reference 3).
Jones, H.R. Pollution Control (Reference 11)
Gloyna and Ford, Characteristics and Pollutional Problems (Reference 12).
2-11
-------
Some wastewater treatment operations are common to most wastewater
treatment facilities within petroleum refineries. Oil and solids are
separated from the wastewater in gravity separators. Operations such as air
flotation can be used to further enhance oil removal from wastewater.
Aeration and biological activity are then used to reduce the organic content
of the waste, and filtration can be used to remove any suspended solids.
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is used by petroleum refineries for
separating suspended and colloidal materials from process wastewater. The DAF
unit separates oily wastes and suspended solids from water by introducing tiny
air bubbles into the water. The bubbles become attached to the oil droplets
and suspended solids that are dispersed through the wastewater. The resultant
oil/air bubbles rise through the wastewater and collect on the water's sur-
face, where they are removed by surface-skimming devices. Ine material
skimmed from the surface, referred to as "DAF float", is the listed waste
K048. Some settling of solids in the DAF unit may occur, resulting in the
generation of a solids residual during unit cleanout.
Process wastewater from refining operations is, in many cases,
treated in an oil/water/solids separator where the waste separates by gravity
into a multiphase mixture. The skimmings from the primary separator generally
consist of a three-phase mixture of water, oil, and an emulsified (insepara-
ble) layer. These skimmings are collected in a "slop oil system" where the
three phases are separated. The emulsified layer is the listed waste K049.
Heat exchangers are utilized throughout petroleum refining pro-
cesses. Bundles (groupings of tubes) from these heat exchangers are periodi-
2-12
-------
cally cleaned to remove deposits of scale and sludge. -Depending upon the
characteristics of the deposits, the outsides of the tube bundles may be
washed, brushed, or sandblasted, while the tube insides can be wiped, brushed,
or rodded out. The solids or sludge resulting from this cleaning operation
form the listed waste K050.
API separators are used in petroleum refining operations to remove
floating oil and suspended solids from the wastewater. In an API separator,
oily wastewater enters one end of a rectangular channel, flows through the
length of the channel, and discharges at the other end. A sufficient resi-
dence time is provided to allow oil droplets to float and coalesce at the
surface of the wastewater. An oil skimmer is provided near the end of the
separator to collect floating oil. Solids that have settled out of the water
are scraped along the channel bottom to a sludge collecting hopper. The API
separator sludge is the listed waste K051.
Leaded petroleum products are stored in tanks after being separated
in distillation columns. As cooling occurs, water separates from the hydro-
carbon phase and is drained into the refinery wastewater system. Solids form
as corrosion products in the storage tank. These solids are periodically
removed during tank cleaning, generating the listed waste K052.
2.2 Waste Characterization
The approximate concentrations of major constituents comprising
K048-K052 are included in the following table. The percent concentrations
2-13
-------
tions in the wastes were estimated using available chemical analyses. Calcu-
lations supporting these estimates are presented in Appendix B.
Concentration
Constituent K048 K049 K050 K051 K052
Water 81 50 44 70 18
Oil and grease 12 39 8 13 13
Dirt, sand, and other solids 6 10 47 16 68
BOAT List constituents 11 11 11 11 11
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
BOAT List constituents (organics and inorganics) cumulatively comprise less
than one percent of each waste stream. Tables 2-4 through 2-8 present, by
waste code, the ranges of BOAT List constituents (volatiles, semivolatiles,
metals, and other inorganics) and other parameters identified as present in
individual K048-K052 wastes. Presented in Table 2-9 are characterization data
for various mixtures of K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 wastes and
unspecified refinery wastes. The data presented in these tables were obtained
from a variety of sources including literature, and sampling and analysis
episodes. Each waste contains mono- and polynuclear aromatic compounds such
as toluene, xylene, phenol, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene. The wastes
also contain metals including arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium,
vanadium, and zinc. Additionally, the wastes are characterized by high
concentrations of filterable solids.
2.3 Determination of Waste Treatability Group
Fundamental to waste treatment is the concept that the type of
treatment technology used and the level of treatment achieved depend on the
physical and chemical characteristics of the waste. In cases where EPA
2-14
-------
believes that constituents present in wastes represented by different codes
can be treated to similar concentrations by using the same technologies, the
Agency combines the codes into one treatability group.
The five listed wastes from the petroleum refining industry
(K048-K052) are generated by the treatment of refinery process wastewaters,
from heat exchanger cleaning, and from product storage operations.
Specifically, K049 (slop oil emulsion solids) is generated by the treatment of
refinery process wastewaters, as are K048 (DAF float) and K051 (API separator
sludge). K050 (heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge) is generated within a
refinery by the cleaning of heat exchangers. Heat exchangers are used
throughout the refining process to provide the heat exchange between refinery
process streams. K052 (leaded tank bottoms) is generated within a refinery by
the storage of leaded petroleum products.
These refinery process wastes contain the same types of
constituents, as shown on Tables 2-4 through 2-9, and are expected to be
treatable to similar levels using the same technology. The wastes in this
treatability group are comprised of water, oil and grease, dirt, sand and
other solids, and organic and metal BOAT List constituents. Typically,
organic constituents present in these wastes are mono- and polynuclear
aromatic compounds such as toluene, xylene, phenol, naphthalene, phenanthrene,
and pyrene. Metal constituents present in these wastes include arsenic,
chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc. Although the
concentrations of specific constituents will vary from facility to facility,
all of the wastes contain similar levels of BOAT List organics and metals and
2-15
-------
have high filterable solids content. Additionally, the' Agency expects that
these wastes will typically be mixed and treated together in the same
treatment system.
Based on a careful review of the generation of these wastes and all
available data characterizing these wastes, the Agency has determined that
these wastes (K048-K052) represent a separate waste treatability group, due to
the fact that all of these wastes are generated by the refining process, and
the belief that constituents present in these wastes can be treated to similar
concentrations using the same technologies. As a result, EPA has developed a
single regulatory approach for these five refinery wastes.
2-16
-------
Table 2-1
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR KO'lS
N>
I
Source of Data:
BOAT LIST ORGANICS
VolatIles
4. Benzene
21. Otchlorodl-
fIuoromathane
Ethyl benzene
Toluane
226.
43.
215-
217.
Xylena (total)
Semi vo lat t las
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. Bts(2-ethy lha.y I )
phthalate
80 . • Chrysene
98. Di-n-buty Iphthalate
109. Fluorene
121. Naphtha lane
141. Phenathrena
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
BOAT I 1ST METALS
154 . Ant tmony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157 . Bery I I turn
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
<14-310
<14-120
22-120
concentration, (ppm)
(f)
0.004-1 .75
3.0-210
0.05-10.5 <3.0
172-349
0.0012-0.25
<0.25
28-260 1.057-3.435
0.05-21.3
2.3-1.250 1.6-450
270-560
4.9-33
0.04-0. I I
0.05-13.8
2.5-10.94
6.5-73
0.07-0.89
1-2
(a) U.S. EPA, Amoco Onstte Engineering Report. February 29. 1988 (Reference 6).
(b) Jacobs Engineering Company. Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices. 1976 (Reference 3).
(c) Dellsting petition *3B6 (Reference 17).
(a) Delisting petition »469 (Reference 20).
(e) OeMsting petition «42I (Reference 19).
(f) Delisting petition *396 (Reference 18).
(9) U.S. EPA, Amoco Onsite Engineering Report
July 15. 1988 (Reference 8).
13- 16
42-46
130 ISO
150- 170
4.45.0
2.9-3.9
43.O-47.U
0.79-0.04
180.0-19O.O
27 .0-30.0
I 70 180
^0.05-0.2b
ftaixje
< 14- Ib
< I 4 - 3 I O
-------
Table 2-4 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR ((048
KJ
I
Source of Data:
BOAT LIST METALS (Cont.)
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
BOAT LIST INORGANICS
169. Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
<0.I-I.O
130-2800
TET
1FT
0.01-1 . 1
Untreated yaste concentration.
(d)(a)(f)
13-16
7.6-11
<0.9
370-460
380-450
0.025-15
0.1-4.2
0.0013-2.8
0.05-0. 15
10-1825
4-6
<0.3
4-6
<0.3
e.9-11.0
5.2-5.7
220.0-230.0
260.0-2BO.O
<0.6-7.9
5.3-22.0
700-1200
Range
0.025-16
0.1-11
0.0013-6
0.05-460
10-1.825
0.01-7.9
5.3-22 .O
130-2.800
OTHER PARAMETERS
Fl Iterable sol Ids («)
01 1 and grease content (%)
Water content (*)
12
81r
0.2-24
9.4-12.0
67.67-72.67
(a) U.S. EPA. Amoco Onslte Engineering Report. February 29. 1988 (Reference 6).
(h) Jacob* Engineering Company. Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices. 1976 (Reference 3),
(c) Delisttna petition 0386 (Reference 17).
(a) DeMstlng petition »469 (Reference 20).
(e) Delistlng petition *421 (Reference 19).
(f) Delistlng petition 0396 (Reference 18).
Ig) U.S. EPA. Amoco Onsite Engineering Report. July 15, 1988 (Reference 8).
(h) Calculations in Appendix B.
Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
Table 2-5
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K049
Source of Data:
BOAT LIST ORCANICS
Volatiles
4. Benzene
8. Carbon disulfide
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles
57.
62.
70.
80.
96.
121.
141.
142.
145.
BOAT
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis( 2-ethy Ihexyl )phthalate
Chrysene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
LIST METALS
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
0.002-0.18
5.7-127
159. Chromium (total)
Untreated waste concentration. (ppm)
(b)
95
BDL
120
210
150
<3.2
(c)
BDL-1600
0.15-0.96
240-18,000
<40
<40
<40
40
<40
<40
87
<40
<40
BDL-58
___
BDL-29
BDL-44
BDL-3.3
160-680
BDL-390
BDL-8.9
33-110
BDL-19
7.4
-
0.0025
0.19
525
3.9
115
<0.1
<0.4
134
3-30
87-370
BDL-0.29
0.7-4.4
150-1400
(d)
(e)
476
<2.2-9.6
28-54.2
0.35
28.8
28.9-512.5
Range
BDL-1,600
BDL-0.96
120
210-18,000
150
BDL-58
0.002-<40
BDL-29
BDL-44
BDL-3.3
<40-680
BDL-390
BDL-127
33-110
BDL-19
<2.2-30
28-370
BDL-0.35'
0.19-28.8
28.9-1,400
(a) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(b) U.S. EPA, Conoco Characterization Report, February 22, 1988 (Reference 13).
(c) Delisting petition 1503 (Reference 14).
(d) API, Refinery Solid Waste Survey, 1983 (Reference 2).
(e) Delisting petitions 1481,1386,1530,1261*,1126, and 1469 (References 21, 17, 23, 24, 25, and 20).
BDL=The compound was not detected above the detection limit; the detection limit was not reported.
— Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
Table 2-5 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K019
I
Is)
O
Source of Data:
BOAT LIST METALS (Continued)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
161. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
BOAT LIST INORGANICS
169Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
OTHER PARAMETERS
BTU content (Btu/lb)
Filterable solids (%)
Oil and grease content (%)
Water content (%)
pH (standard units)
TOX (1)
1501
10*
398
508f
7.1f ,
Negligible1
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
(a)
18
28.1
0.59
50
1.0
0.1
25
250
0.000012-52.5
-
_0>L
<0.05
65.3
31.9
0.6
9.2
<5.0
<0.6
2.5
112
<0.5
1.31
31.1
(0
—
28-3900
BDL-32
20-86
BDL-1.6
13-60
---
...
— _
—
(d) (e)
0.02-<1.9
79.8
302 21.95-2116
0.15
50.62
<0.11-1.8
— <0.38-<1.0
5.56
72.8
...
— —
— —
Range
0.02-O.9
18-79.8
21.95-3,900
BDL-32
9.2-86
BDL-5.0
<0. 38-0.1
2.5-60
72.8-250
0.000012-52.5
1.31
31.1
(a) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(b) U.S. EPA, Conoco Characterization Report, February 22, 1988 (Reference 13).
(c) Delisting petition 1503 (Reference 11).
(d) API, Refinery Solid Waste Survey, 1983 (Reference 2).
(e) Delisting petitions 1181,1386,1530,1261,1126, and 1169 (References 21, 17, 23, 21, 25, and 20)
(f) Environ Corporation, Characterization of Listed Waste Streams (Reference 15).
(g) Calculations in Appendix B.
BDL=The compound was not detected above the detection limit; the detection limit was not reported.
— Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
Table 2-6
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR KObO
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
Source of Data: (a) (b) (c) (d) Range
BOAT LIST ORGANICS
Semivolatiles
62.Benzo(a)pyrene — 0.7-3.6 — — 0.7-3.6
112. Phenol — 8-18.5 — —- 8-18.5
BOAT LIST METALS
155. Arsenic ™ 10.2-11 — — 10.2-11
157. Beryllium — 0.05-0.34 — — 0.05-0.31
158. Cadmium — 1-1.5 — — 1.0-1.5
159. Chromium (total) 11-1,600 310-311 206-192 12-226 11-1,600
221. Chromium (hexavalent) — — 0.01-0.016 <1.0 0.01-<1.0
160. Copper — 67-75 — — 67-75
161. Lead 25-1,100 0.5-155 13.7-166 — 0.5-1,100
162. Mercury — 0.11-3.6 — — 0.11-3.6
163. Nickel — 61-170 — — 61-170
161. Selenium — 2.1-52 — — 2.1-52
165. Silver — 0.0007-0.01 — —- 0.0007-0.01
167. Vanadium — 0.7-50 — — 0.7-50
168. Zinc — 91-297 — — 91-297
BOAT LIST INORGANICS
169. Cyanide — 0.0001-3.3 — — 0.0001-3.3
(a) API, Refinery Solid Waste Survey, 1983 (Reference 2).
(b) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Wastes Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(c) Delistlng petition 1181 (Reference 21).
(d) Delisting petition 1386 (Reference 17).
— Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
I
to
Table 2-6 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K050
OTHER PARAMETERS
BTU content (Btu/lb) 1,500a
Filterable solids (%) I7b
Oil and grease content (%) 8b
Water content (%) 4
-------
Table 2-7
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K051
Untreated xa»te concentration, (ppm)
Source of Datai
BOAT LIST ORGANICS
VolatI las
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluana
215-
217. Xylene (total)
Semivolat ilas
52. Acanaphthana
57. Anthracene
59. Banz(a)anthracene
62. Benzo(a)pyrana
70. Bts(2-ethyIhanyI)phthalata
80. Chrysana
98. Dl-n-butyIphthalate
109. Fluorena
121. Naphtha I ana
141. Phenanthrana
142. Phanol
145. Pyrana
BOAT LIST METALS
154. Antimony
155. Araanlc
156. Barium
157. Baryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (he»avalent)
160. Coppar
161. Laad
162. Uarcury
J-L
_L£l.
-ILL
46-52
33-71
71-83
33
22-29
26-30
45-51
43-230
33-37
150-170
110-120
<20
62-74
9-18
5.4-9.7
72-120
<0. I
1.3-1.7
730-1100
22*
130-170
640-940
0.07-0.31
0.002-4.5
3.8-156.7
0.1-32
0.0012-0.24
0.024-3.0
0.1-6790
2.5-550
0.25-1290
0.04-6.2
800-3220
<1 .0
2120-2480
150-875
0.010-0.036
9.5-23.3
<3.0
188-412
<0.25
535-3679
53-173
3.0
160-740
7.7-440
(a) U.S. EPA. Amoco Onslte Engineering Report. February 29. 1988 (Reference 6).
(t>).Jacobs Engineering Company. Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices. 1976 (Reference 3).
(c) Deltstlng petition «48I (Reference 21).
(d) Oallstlng petition #386 (Reference 17).
(a) Dellsting petition «20S (Reference 16).
(f) Oellstlng petition «469 (Reference 20).
Data are not available for this constituent.
» Co I ortrnetrtc interference may have occurred in analysis of this sample.
-------
Table 2-7 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K051
Source of Data:
BOAT LIST ORGANICS
Volatllas
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
Semivolat1les
52. Acenaphthene
57. Anthracene
59. Benz(a)anthracene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. B1s(2-ethy1hexy1)phthalate
80. Chrysene
98. D1-n-butylphthalate
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
'141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
BOAT LIST METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
Untreated masta concentration, (ppm)
(a) ~(h) Range
56
170
390
14
1 1
97
70
24
74
120
450
720
13
13
7
23
200
110
<2
27
5.6
68
<0.5
80
64
4.4
74
46-120
33-450
71-720
<10-33
13
<10-29
0.002-<10
<10-30
14-51
<10-230
1 1-37
97-200
70-120
<2-156.7
24-74
9-18
0.1-32
68-412
0.0012-0.24
0.024-3.0
0.1-6.790
0.01-22
2.5-550
0.25-2,480
0.04-6.2
(g) CF Systems Corporation, Company Literature, March 30, 1987 (Reference 30).
(h) The American Petroleum Institute, comments on land disposal restrictions. 1988 (Reference 26)
Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
Table 2-7 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K051
I
1-0
Ol
Source of Data:
BOAT LIST METALS (Cont.)
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
BOAT LIST INORGANICS
169. Cyanide
171. Sulftda
OTHER PARAMETERS
Fl I tarable sol Ids (»)
Oil and grease content (%)
Water content (*)
TIT
30-37
0.5-1.6
1.4
260-350
570-820
2.900-4.800
16
13
701
TFT
0.25-150.4
0.005-7.6
0.05-3
1-48.5
25-6596
0.00006-51.4
Untreated xaste concentration, (ppm)
(c) (d)
TTT
TfT
2-12
<0.3
(a) U.S. EPA. Amoco Onstta Engineering Report. February 29. 1988 (Reference 6).
(b) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices.
(c) OaMsttng petition 0481 (Reference 21).
(d) Dallsttng petition 0386 (Reference 17).
(e) Deltstlng petition 0205 (Reference 16).
(f) Dellstlng petition J>469 (Reference 20).
(I) Calculations In AppendIn B.
Data are not available for this constituent.
1976 (Reference 3) .
-------
Table 2-7 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K051
ro
I
to
Source of Datai
Untreated naste concentration, (ppm)
(g) ~(h) Range
BOAT LIST METALS (Cont.)
163.
164.
165.
167.
166.
Nickel
Selenium
St(war
Vanadium
Zinc
BOAT LIST INORGANICS
169. Cyanide
171. Sulfide
OTHER PARAMETERS
F\Iterable sol id* (»)
Oil and grease content (*)
Mater content (%)
<0.2
I .6
<0.3
-------
NJ
I
K)
Source of Data:
BDAT LIST ORGANICS
Volatiles
1. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
13. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
Semlvolatiles
62. Benz(o)pyrene
81. ortho-Cresol
82. para-Cresol
96. 2,1-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
111. Phenanthrene
112. Phenol
BDAT LIST METALS
151. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
161. Lead
Table 2-8
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K052
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
650
2,300
6,100
3,500
13
13
1.2
13
1.1
111
212
8
<0.1
0.82
18.8
116
99.1
(c)
1.0-501
11.0-5,800
(d)
0.02-0.1
2.1-250
63-525
0.0025
1.5-8.1
9.0-13.7
110-172
158-1,121
12-2,060
(a) U.S. EPA, Conoco Characterization Report, February 22, 1988 (Reference 13).
(b) API, Refinery Solid Waste Survey, 1983 (Reference 2).
(c) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(d) Delisting petition 1386 (Reference 17).
— Data are not available for this constituent.
Range
650
2,300
6,100
3,500
0.02-O.8
13
13
1.2
13
1.1
<1.8-250
111
63-525
8
0.0025-<0.
0.82-8.1
1.0-501
110-172
11-5,800
-------
Table 2-8 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K052
I
NJ
OO
Source of Data:
BOAT LIST METALS (Cont.)
162.
163.
164.
165.
167.
168.
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
BOAT LIST INORGANICS
169. Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
OTHER PARAMETERS
Filterable solids (%)
Oil and grease content (%)
Water content (%)
(a)
2.11
97.2
<100
<6.0
<6.0
17.1
1.89
955
111
68e
13e
!8e
(b)
Untreated waste concentration, (ppm)
(c)
0.19-0.91
235-392
3.1-10.8
0.05-1.7
1.0-9.8
1,183-17,OdO
(d)
Range
0.19-2.H
97.2-392
3.1-<100
0.05-<6.0
1.0-9.8
17.1-17,000
1.89
955
111
(a) U.S. EPA, Conoco Characterization Report, February 22, 1988 (Reference 13).
(b) API, Refinery Solid Waste Survey, 1983 (Reference 2).
(c) Jacobs Engineering Company, Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices, 1976 (Reference 3).
(d) Delisting petition 1386 (Reference 17).
(e) Calculations in Appendix B.
— Data are not available for this constituent.
-------
Table 2-9
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA. FOR KOH8-K052 WASTE MIXTURES
Untreated Waste Concentration (ppm)
Source of Data:
t-0
I
VO
BOAT LIST ORGANICS
Volat1les
4. Benzene
226. Ethylbenzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Semivolat1les
57. Anthracene
59. Benz(a)anthracene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
63. Benzo.(b)f luoranthene
70. B1s(2-ethylhexyl)phthatate
80. Chrysene
81. o-Cresol
82. p-Cresol
83. D1benz(a.h)anthracene
87. 1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
96. 2,4-DimethyI phenol
108. Fluoranthene
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
86-190
76-120
230-470
420-570
<20-21
(d)
<20-33
56-140
64-140
<20-36
<3-49
4.7-<7
<3-3.3
<3-<7
<3-3.7
3.4-<7
22-30
13-17
<3-<7
<3-3.6
2. 100
1 .300
6.300
5.900
22
17
9.4
6.3
4.2
19
<2
<2
3.9
9.2
180
240
<2
59
1
1
4
530
. 100
.500
.000
29
18
1 1
a
<2
30
<2
<2
<2
<2
10
490
210
<2
95
9.8
17
68
106
0.069
0. 14
0.071
0.041
<0.009
0.24
0.33
0.42
<0.009
<0.009
0.055
v '-I
0.53
1 .7
0.25
600
6.600
8.880
<46
<19
560
740
<1 .900
BO
86
340
430
13.3
3.4
1 .8
1 .2
1 . 1
9.4
0.4
0.7
< J
82
109
0.9
26
60
1 10
360
690
9.4
20
9.9
6.2
<1
26
5.9
90
47
-------
Table 2-9 (Continued)
AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR K048-K052 WASTE MIXTURES
NJ
I
Source of Data:
BOAT LIST ORGAN1CS
PCBs
203.
206.
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1260
BOAT LIST METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
GENERAL CONSTITUENTS
01 I
Watar
Sol Ida
I. 1-37.7
54.5-90.5
1.1-8.4
Untreated Waste Concentration (ppm)
1.3-8.7
0.55-3.5
0.13-0.62
0.07-0.09
4.2-5. 1
-------
3.0 APPLICABLE/DEMONSTRATED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
In the previous section of this document, petroleum refining wastes
(KOU8-K052) were characterized and a separate waste treatability group was
established for these wastes. In this section, treatment technologies appli-
cable for treatment of wastes in this waste group are identified. Detailed
descriptions of the technologies that are demonstrated on these wastes or on
wastes judged to be similar are also presented in this section.
3.1 Applicable Treatment Technologies
The Agency has identified the following treatment technologies as
being applicable for nonwastewater forms of K048-K052 and nonwastewater
residuals generated from treatment of K048-K052: incineration (fluidized bed
and rotary kiln), solvent extraction, pressure filtration, thermal drying, and
stabilization. Incineration is a treatment process in which organic consti-
tuents in the waste are volatilized and combusted. These constituents then
react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water vapor. Solvent extraction
is a separation technique whereby the waste la mixed with an immiscible
solvent in which the waste constituents of concern are preferentially soluble.
Another separation technique, pressure filtration, mechanically separates the
liquid and solid phases of the waste. Thermal drying removes water and
volatile organics from a waste by heating the mixture and causing
volatilization. These applicable technologies destroy or reduce the total
amount of various organic compounds in the waste. Since K048-K052 wastes also
3-1
-------
contain inorganic hazardous constituents, stabilization is also considered as
an applicable technology. Stabilization reduces the leachability of BOAT List
metals in the waste by chemically and/or physically binding the metals in a
solid matrix.
The Agency has identified the following treatment technologies as
being applicable for wastewater forms of K048-K052 and wastewater generated
from the treatment of K048-K052: biological treatment, carbon adsorption, and
chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation and sedimentation or
filtration. Biological treatment involves the use of microorganisms to
biologically degrade organic contaminants in wastewater to methane, carbon
dioxide, and cell protein. In carbon adsorption treatment processes, hazard-
ous constituents are selectively adsorbed to the surface and within the
internal pores of the carbon granules. These applicable technologies destroy
or reduce the total amount of various organic compounds in the wastewater.
Since these wastewaters may also contain inorganic hazardous constituents,
chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation and sedimentation or
filtration is also considered an applicable technology for reducing the
concentration of BOAT List metals in the wastewater. Chromium reduction
reduces the concentration of hexavalent chromium in wastewaters by converting
the chromium (VI) to the trivalent state (chromium (III)). Chemical precipi-
tation is used to convert the dissolved metal into a less soluble metal
precipitate that settles out of solution. This step is followed by sedimenta-
tion or filtration to separate the precipitate from the wastewater.
3-2
-------
The selection of treatment technologies applicable for treating BOAT
List constituents is based on current literature sources, field testing, and
data submitted by equipment manufacturers and industrial concerns.
3.2 Demonstrated Treatment Technologies
As discussed in Section 1.0, a "demonstrated" treatment technology
is one for which a full-scale treatment operation is known to exist and is
used to treat the waste of interest or a waste with similar treatability
characteristics. Treatment technologies that are only available at pilot- and
bench- scale operations will not be considered in identifying demonstrated
treatment technologies for a waste. Data from such operations may, however,
be used by the Agency in evaluating the performance of demonstrated full-scale
treatment operations provided the Agency does not have full-scale data which
can be used to evaluate performance.
The demonstrated technologies that the Agency has identified for
treatment of organics and inorganics in nonwastewater forms of K048-K052 are
incineration (fluidized bed and rotary kiln), solvent extraction, and pressure
filtration. Since the Agency is not aware of any full-scale thermal drying
operations for KOH8-K052, this technology has not been identified as demon-
strated. The Agency has identified stabilization as a demonstrated technology
for the immobilization of metals in nonwastewater residuals generated from
treatment of K048-K052.
3-3
-------
The demonstrated technologies that the Agency had identified for
treatment of organics and inorganics in wastewater forms of KOU8-K052 are
biological treatment, carbon adsorption, solvent extraction, incineration, and
chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation followed by
vacuum filtration. The Agency's data characterizing K048-K052 wastewater is
based on scrubber water generated from the incineration of KOU8-K052
nonwastewaters. Since none of the BOAT List organic constituents were
detected in the scrubber water, the Agency believes that incineration of
untreated K048-K052 results in a wastewater residual which requires no further
treatment for organics (i.e., no additional wastewater treatment is expected
to improve upon the non-detect values observed in the wastewater residual).
The Agency recognizes that wastewater forms of K048-K052 that contain BOAT
List organic constituents may be generated from the treatment of K048-K052
nonwastewaters using technologies other than incineration. The Agency has no
data to characterize these waste streams; however, biological treatment and
carbon adsorption are demonstrated for the treatment of organics bearing
wastewaters at refineries. For metals in wastewater residuals, EPA has
identified the following demonstrated treatment train: chromium reduction
followed by lime and sulfide precipitation, followed by vacuum filtration.
This treatment train is commonly used for metal containing wastewaters.
A discussion of the Agency's treatment performance data base for
each of these demonstrated treatment technologies is included in the following
subsections. Detailed technical descriptions of the technologies are included
in Section 3.H, and treatment performance data for the technologies are
3-4
-------
included in Section 4.0 or Appendix F as referenced in the text. A key
summarizing the plant codes is included in Appendix C.
Incineration. Incineration provides for destruction of the organics
in the waste. This technology generally results in the formation of two
treatment residuals: ash and scrubber water. The Agency is aware of at least
three full-scale facilities that treat refinery wastes from the K048-K052
treatability group by incineration. The Agency tested a full-scale fluidized
bed incineration process at plant A for treatment of K048 and K051; these
results are presented in Tables 4-2 through 4-13 of Section 4.0. Addition-
ally, treatment data for a pilot-scale pyrolysis process identified as plant N
were submitted by industry. These data are presented in Section F.8 of
Appendix F.
Solvent Extraction. Solvent extraction provides for the separation
of organics from the waste. This technology results in the formation of two
treatment residuals: the treated waste residual and the extract. The Agency
is aware of three full-scale facilities that treat K048-K052 by solvent
extraction. The Agency is also aware of pilot-scale solvent extraction
studies on K048-K052 at two facilities. Full-scale treatment performance data
from three facilities were submitted by industry to support solvent extraction
as a demonstrated technology for treatment of refinery wastes. These data are
identified as plant G treatment performance tests; plant L treatment
performance tests, and two processes (single-cycle and 3-cycle) followed by
stabilization as plant M treatment performance tests. Data for plant G and
RBD-1 3-5
1231-01.mel.5
-------
plant M are presented in Tables 4-16, 4-18, and 4-19 of Section 4.0. Data for
plant L are presented in Section F.7 of Appendix F. Pilot-scale treatment
performance data from two facilities were submitted by industry for use in
evaluating solvent extraction as a demonstrated technology for treatment of
refinery wastes. These data are identified as plant F and plant K and are
presented in Sections F.3 and F.6 of Appendix F.
Pressure Filtration. Pressure filtration provides for the separa-
tion of liquid and solid phases of a waste. This technology results in the
formation of two treatment residuals: the filter cake and the filtrate. The
Agency is aware of one full-scale facility that treats K048-K052 by pressure
filtration. Full-scale treatment performance data were submitted by this
facility to support pressure filtration as a demonstrated technology for
treatment of refinery wastes. These data are identified as plant B, plant C,
plant D, and plant E treatment performance tests and are presented in Tables
4-14 and 4-15 of Section 4.0 and Sections F.1 and F.2 of Appendix F.
Stabilization. Stabilization reduces the leachability of metals in
the waste. This technology results in the formation of a single chemically or
physically stabilized treatment residual. The Agency tested incinerator ash
from treatment of K048 and K051 at plant A using a pilot-scale stabilization
process identified as plant I. In addition, treatment performance data from
three pilot-scale stabilization processes identified as plant J were submitted
by industry for use in evaluating stabilization as a demonstrated technology
RBD-1 3-6
1231-01.mel.6
-------
for treatment of K048-K052. These results are presented in Table 4-17 of
Section 4.0 and Section F.5 of Appendix F.
Chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and
vacuum filtration. Chromium reduction reduces the concentration of hexavalent
chromium in the wastes by converting hexavalent chromium to the trivalent
state. Lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration remove dissolved
metals from the wastewater by forming an insoluble metal precipitate sludge.
Vacuum filtration separates the precipitated sludge from the wastewater. The
Agency does not have data on the treatment of hexavalent chromium or other
metals in K048-K052 wastewaters. However, the Agency determined that
full-scale treatment performance data for chromium reduction followed by lime
and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration presented in the Envirite
Onsite Engineering Report (Reference 27) for treatment of K062 and metal
bearing characteristic wastes represent treatment of hexavalent chromium and
other BOAT List metals in wastewaters Judged to be similar to wastewater forms
of K048-K052.
3.3 Available Treatment Technologies
Aa defined in Section 1.0, an available treatment technology is one
that (1) is not a proprietary or patented process that cannot be purchased or
licensed from the proprietor (in other words, is commercially available), and
(2) substantially diminishes the toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduces the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste.
3-7
-------
The demonstrated technologies for treatment of nonwastewater forms of KOU8-
K052, incineration technologies including fluidized bed and rotary kiln,
solvent extraction, pressure filtration, and stabilization, are considered to
be commercially available technologies. The demonstrated technologies for
treatment of wastewater forms of K048-K052, biological treatment, carbon
adsorption, incineration, and chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide
precipitation and vacuum filtration, are also considered to be commercially
available. The Agency has determined that the technologies used in evaluating
BOAT show substantial treatment and are therefore considered to be "available"
treatment technologies.
3.4 Detailed Description of Treatment Technologies
The demonstrated treatment technologies discussed in Section 3.2 are
described in more detail in Sections 3.4.1-3.4.6, as shown below.
Technology Description Subsection
Incineration 3.4.1
Solvent Extraction 3.4.2
Sludge Filtration 3.4.3
Stabilization 3.4.4
Chromium Reduction 3.4.5
Chemical Precipitation 3.4.6
3-8
-------
3.U.1 Incineration
This section addresses the commonly used incineration technologies:
Liquid injection, rotary kiln, fluidized bed incineration, and fixed hearth.
A discussion is provided regarding the applicability of these technologies,
the underlying principles of operation, a technology description, waste
characteristics that affect performance, and finally important design and
operating parameters. As appropriate, the subsections are divided by type of
incineration unit.
Applicability and Use of Incineration
Liquid Injection
Liquid injection is applicable to wastes that have viscosity values
sufficiently low so that the waste can be atomized and injected into the
combustion chamber. Viscosity values for wastes amenable to liquid injection
incineration range from 100 SSU to 10,000 SSU as reported in the literature.
It is important to note that viscosity is temperature dependent so that while
liquid injection may not be applicable to a waste at ambient conditions, it
may be applicable when the waste is heated. Other factors that affect the use
of liquid injection are particle size and the presence of suspended solids.
Both of these waste parameters can cause plugging of the atomizing nozzle.
3-9
-------
Rotary Kiln/Fluidized Bed/Fixed Hearth
These incineration technologies are applicable to a wide range of
hazardous wastes. They can be used on wastes that contain high or low total
organic content, high or low filterable solids, various viscosity ranges, and
a range of other waste parameters. EPA has not found these technologies to be
applicable for wastes containing high metal concentrations with low organic
concentrations. In addition, the Agency expects that air emissions resulting
from incineration of wastes containing high metal concentrations may not
comply with existing and future air emission limits.
Underlying Principles of Operation
Liquid Injection
The basic operating principle of this incineration technology is
that incoming liquid wastes are volatilized and then additional heat is
supplied to the waste to destabilize the chemical bonds. Once the chemical
bonds are destabilized, these constituents react with oxygen to form carbon
dioxide and water vapor. The energy needed to destabilize the bonds is
referred to as the energy of activation.
3-10
-------
Rotary Kiln and Fixed Hearth
There are two distinct principles of operation for these incinera-
tion technologies, one for each of the chambers involved. In the primary
chamber, energy, in the form of heat, is transferred to "the waste to achieve
volatilization of the various organic waste constituents. During this vola-
tilization process some of the organic constituents may oxidize to CC>2 and
water vapor. In the secondary chamber, additional heat is supplied to over-
come the energy requirements needed to destabilize the chemical bonds and
allow the constituents to react with excess oxygen to form carbon dioxide and
water vapor. The principle of operation for the secondary chamber is similar
to liquid injection.
Fluidized Bed
The principle of operation for this incineration technology is
somewhat different than for rotary kiln and fixed hearth incineration, in that
there is only one treatment chamber. The chamber contains the fluidized bed
(typically sand) and a freeboard section above the sand. The purpose of the
fluidized bed is to both volatilize.the waste and combust the waste. Destruc-
tion of the waste organics can be accomplished to a better degree in this
chamber than in the primary chamber of the rotary kiln and fixed hearth
because of 1) improved heat transfer due to fluidization of the waste using
forced air and 2) the fact that the fluidization process provides improved
-------
turbulence (i.e., mixing) between the waste and oxygen to convert the organics
to carbon dioxide and water vapor. Although the fluidized bed incinerator
generally does not have an afterburner, the freeboard section provides addi-
tional residence time for conversion of the organic constituents to carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and hydrochloric acid if chlorine is present in the
waste.
Description of Incineration Process
Liquid Injection
The liquid injection system is capable of incinerating a wide range
of gases and liquids. The combustion system has a simple design with virtu-
ally no moving parts. A burner or nozzle atomizes the liquid waste and
injects it into the combustion chamber where it burns in the presence of air
or oxygen. A forced draft system supplies the combustion chamber with air to
provide oxygen for combustion and turbulence for mixing. The combustion
chamber is usually a cylinder lined with refractory (i.e., heat resistant)
brick and can be fired horizontally, vertically upward, or vertically down-
ward. Figure 3-1 illustrates a liquid injection incineration system.
Rotary Kiln
A rotary kiln is a slowly rotating, refractory-lined cylinder that
is mounted at a slight incline from the horizontal (see Figure 3-2). Solid
wastes enter at the high end of the kiln, and liquid or gaseous wastes enter
3-12
-------
AUXILIARY FUEL
-MOURNER
AIR-
LIQUID OR GASEOUS.
WASTE INJECTION
HBURNER
PRIMARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
AFTERBURNER
(SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER)
ASH
WATER
SPRAY
CHAMBER
J
WATER
GAS TO AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
HORIZONTALLY FIRED
LIQUID INJECTION
INCINERATOR
FIGURE 3-1
LJQUD NJECTON NONERATOR
-------
GAS TO
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
AUXILIARY
FUEL
AFTERBURNER
SOLID
WASTE
INFLUENT
FEED
MECHANISM
COMBUSTION
GASES
LIQUID OR
GASEOUS
WASTE
INJECTION
ASH
ROTARY KLNNCiOATOR
3-14
-------
through atomizing nozzles in the kiln or afterburner section. Rotation of the
kiln exposes the solids to the heat for vaporization and allows them to
combust by mixing with air. The rotation also causes the ash to move to the
lower end of the kiln where it can be removed. Rotary kiln systems usually
have a secondary combustion chamber or afterburner following the kiln for
further combustion of the volatilized components of solid wastes.
Fluidized Bed
A fluidized bed incinerator consists of a column containing inert
particles such as sand which is referred to as the bed. Air, driven by a
blower, enters the bottom of the bed to fluidize the sand. The waste material
is usually injected directly into the fluidized bed. Air passage through the
bed promotes rapid and uniform mixing of the injected waste material within
the fluidized bed. The fluidized bed has an extremely high heat capacity
(approximately three times that of flue gas at the same temperature), thereby
providing a large heat reservoir. The injected waste reaches ignition temper-
ature quickly and transfers the heat of combustion back to the bed. Continued
bed agitation by the fluidizing air allows larger particles to remain sus-
pended in the combustion zone. (See Figure 3-3)
3-15
-------
WASTE
INJECTION
FREEBOARD
<•*£,* -^.
Xf- «^ ss ' -•
-v.' '% \"^^«
SAND BED :- ^>^;
GAS TO
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
MAKE-UP
SAND
ASH
FLUDCED BED NCfCRATOR
AIR
3-16
-------
Fixed Hearth Incineration
Fixed hearth incinerators, also called controlled air or starved air
incinerators, are another major technology used for hazardous waste incinera-
tion. Fixed hearth incineration is a two-stage combustion process (see Figure
3-4). Waste is ram-fed into the first stage, or primary chamber, and burned
at less than stoichiometric conditions. The resultant smoke and pyrolysis
products, consisting primarily of volatile hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide,
along with the normal products of combustion, pass to the secondary chamber.
Here, additional air is injected to complete the combustion. This two-stage
process generally yields low stack particulate and carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions. The primary chamber combustion reactions and combustion gas are
maintained at low levels by the starved air conditions so that particulate
entrainment and carryover are minimized.
Air Pollution Controls
Following incineration of hazardous wastes, combustion gases are
generally further treated in an air pollution control system. The presence of
chlorine or other halogens in the waste requires a scrubbing or absorption
step to remove HC1 and other halo-acids from the combustion gases. Ash in the
waste is not destroyed in the combustion process. Ash will either exit as
bottom ash, at the discharge end of a kiln or hearth for example, or as
particulate matter (fly ash) suspended in the combustion gas stream.
3-17
-------
AIR
WASTE
INJECTION
*lBURNER
AIR
GAS TO AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
PRIMARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
GRATE
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
AUXILIARY
FUEL
2-STAGE FIXED HEARTH
INCINERATOR
ASH
FIGURE 3-4
FIXED HEARTH NONERATOR
-------
Participate emissions from most hazardous waste combustion systems generally
have particle diameters less than one micron and require high efficiency
collection devices to minimize air emissions. In addition, scrubber systems
provide an additional buffer against accidental releases of incompletely
destroyed waste products due to poor combustion efficiency or combustion
upsets, such as flame outs.
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
Liquid Injection
In determining whether liquid injection is likely to achieve the
sane level of performance on an untested waste as a previously tested waste,
the Agency will compare bond dissociation energies of the constituents in the
untested and tested waste. This parameter is being used as a surrogate
indicator of activation energy which, as discussed previously, is the amount
of energy required to destabilize molecular bonds. Other energy effects
(e.g., vibrational energy, the formation of intermediates, and interactions
between different molecular bonds) may have a significant influence on activa-
tion energy.
Because of the shortcomings of bond energies in estimating activa-
tion energy, EPA analyzed other waste characteristic parameters to determine
if these parameters would provide a better basis for transferring treatment
3-19
-------
standards from a tested waste to an untested waste. These parameters include
heat of combustion, heat of formation, use of available kinetic data to
predict activation energies, and general structural class. All of these were
rejected for reasons provided below.
The heat of combustion only measures the difference in energy of the
products and reactants; it does not provide information on the activation
energy (i.e., the energy input needed to transform the reactants to the
transition state to initiate the reaction). Heat of formation is used as a
predictive tool for whether reactions are likely to proceed; however, there
are a significant number of hazardous constituents for which these data are
not available. Use of kinetic data was rejected because these data are
limited and could not be used to calculate activation energy values for the
wide range of hazardous constituents to be addressed by this rule. Finally,
EPA decided not to use structural classes because the Agency believes that
evaluation of bond dissociation energies allows for a more direct determina-
tion of whether a constituent will be destabilized.
Rotary Kiln/Fluidized Bed/Fixed Hearth
In determining whether these technologies are likely to achieve the
same level of performance on an untested waste as a previously tested waste,
EPA would need to examine the waste characteristics that affect volatilization
of organics from the waste, as well as destruction of the organics, once
volatilized based on the underlying principles of operation. Relative to
3-20
-------
volatilization, EPA will examine thermal conductivity of the entire waste and
boiling point of the various constituents. Relative to destruction of organ-
ics, as with liquid injection, EPA will examine bond energies. Below is a
discussion of how EPA arrived at thermal conductivity and boiling point as the
best method to assess volatilization of organics from the waste; the discus-
sion relative to bond energies is the same for these technologies as for
liquid injection and will not be repeated here.
(1) Thermal Conductivity. Consistent with the underlying princi-
ples of incineration, a major factor with regard to whether a particular
constituent will volatilize is the transfer of heat through the waste. In the
case of rotary kiln, fluidized bed, and fixed hearth incineration, heat is
transferred through the waste by three mechanisms: radiation, convection, and
conduction. For a given incinerator, heat transferred through various wastes
by radiation is more a function of the design and type of incinerator than of
the waste being treated. Accordingly, the type of waste treated will have a
minimal impact on the amount of heat transferred by radiation. With regard to
convection, EPA also believes that this type of heat transfer will generally
be more a function of the type and design of incinerator than of the waste
itself. However, EPA is.examining particle size as a waste characteristic
that may significantly impact the amount of heat transferred to a waste by
convection and thus impact volatilization of the various organic compounds.
The final type of heat transfer, conduction, is the one that EPA believes is
most dependent upon the specific waste treated. To measure this characteris-
tic, EPA will use thermal conductivity; an explanation of this parameter, as
3-21
-------
well as how it can be measured is provided below. Heat flow by conduction is
proportional to the temperature gradient across the material. The proportion-
ality constant is a property of the material and is referred to as the thermal
conductivity. (Note: The analytical method that EPA has identified for
measurement of thermal conductivity is named "Guarded, Comparative, Longitudi-
nal Heat Flow Technique"; it is described in an Appendix to this technology
section.) In theory, thermal conductivity would always provide a good indica-
tion of whether a constituent in an untested waste would be treated to the
same extent in the primary incinerator chamber as the same constituent in a
previously tested waste.
In practice, there are some limitations in assessing the transfer-
ability of treatment standards using thermal conductivity. However, EPA has
not identified a parameter that can provide a better indication of heat
transfer characteristics of a waste. Below is a discussion of both the
.limitations associated with thermal conductivity, as well as other parameters
considered.
Thermal conductivity measurements are most meaningful when applied
to wastes that are homogeneous (i.e., major constituents are essentially the
same). As wastes exhibit greater degrees of non-homogeneity (e.g., signifi-
cant concentration of metals in soil), thermal conductivity becomes less
accurate in predicting treatability because the measurement essentially
reflects heat flow through regions having the greatest conductivity (i.e., the
path of least resistance) and not heat flow through all parts of the waste.
3-22
-------
Btu value, specific heat, and ash content were also considered for
predicting heat transfer characteristics. These parameters can no better
account for non-homogeneity than thermal conductivity; additionally, they are
not directly related to heat transfer characteristics. Therefore, these
parameters do not provide a better indication of heat transfer that will occur
in any specific waste.
(2) Boiling Point. Once heat is transferred to a constituent
within a waste, the removal of this constituent from the waste will depend on
its volatility. As a surrogate of volatility, EPA is using boiling point of
the constituent. Compounds with lower boiling points have higher vapor
pressures and, therefore, would be more likely to vaporize. The Agency
recognizes that this parameter does not take into consideration the impact of
other compounds in the waste on the boiling point of a constituent in a
mixture; however, the Agency is not aware of a better measure of volatility
that can easily be determined.
Incineration Design and Operating Parameters
Liquid Injection
For a liquid injection unit, EPA's analysis of whether the unit is
well designed will focus on (1) the likelihood that sufficient energy is
provided to the waste to overcome the activation level for destabilizing
3-23
-------
molecular bonds and (2) whether sufficient oxygen is present to convert the
waste constituents to carbon dioxide and water vapor. The specific design
parameters that the Agency will evaluate to assess whether these conditions
are met are: temperature, excess oxygen, and residence time. Below is a
discussion of why EPA believes these parameters to be important, as well as a
discussion of how these parameters will be monitored during operation.
It is important to point out that, relative to the development of
land disposal restriction standards, EPA is only concerned with these design
parameters when a quench water or scrubber water residual is generated from
treatment of a particular waste. If treatment of a particular waste in a
liquid injection unit would not generate a wastewater stream, then the Agency,
for purposes of land disposal treatment standards, would only be concerned
with the waste characteristics that affect selection of the unit, not the
above-mentioned design parameters.
(1) Temperature. Temperature is important in that it provides an
indirect measure of the energy available (i.e., Btu/hr) to overcome the
activation energy of waste constituents. As the design temperature increases,
the more likely it is that the molecular bonds will be destabilized and the
reaction completed.
The temperature is normally controlled automatically through the use
of instrumentation which senses the temperature and automatically adjusts the
amount of fuel and/or waste being fed. The temperature signal transmitted to
3-2U
-------
the controller can be simultaneously transmitted to a recording device,
referred to as a strip chart, and thereby continuously recorded. It is
important to know the exact location in the incinerator that the temperature
is being monitored.
(2) Excess Oxygen. It is important that the incinerator contain
oxygen in excess of the stoichiometric amount necessary to convert the organic
compounds to carbon dioxide and water vapor. If insufficient oxygen is
present, then destabilized waste constituents could react to form products of
incomplete combustion including BOAT list organic compounds and potentially
cause the scrubber water to contain higher concentrations of BOAT List con-
stituents than would be the case for a well operated unit.
In practice, the amount of oxygen fed to the incinerator is con-
trolled by continuous sampling and analysis of the stack gas. If the amount
of oxygen drops below the design value, then the analyzer transmits a signal
to the forced draft fan controlling the air supply and thereby increases the
flow of oxygen to the afterburner. The analyzer simultaneously transmits a
signal to a recording device so that the amount of excess oxygen can be
continuously recorded. Again, as with temperature, it is important to know
the location from which the combustion gas is being sampled and the location
that the design concentration is based.
(3) Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide is an important operating
parameter because it provides an indication of the extent to which the waste
3-25
-------
organic constituents are being converted to C02 and water vapor. As the
carbon monoxide level increases, it indicates that greater amounts of organic
waste constituents are unreacted or partially reacted. Increased carbon
monoxide levels can result from insufficient excess oxygen, insufficient
turbulence in the combustion zone, or insufficient residence time.
(4) Waste Feed Rate. The waste feed rate is important to monitor
because it is related to the residence time. The residence time required is
associated with a specific Btu energy value of the feed and a specific volume
of combustion gas generated. Prior to incineration, the Btu value of the
waste is determined through the use of a laboratory device known as a bomb
colorimeter. The volume of combustion gas generated from the waste to be
incinerated is determined from an analysis referred to as an ultimate analy-
sis. This analysis determines the amount of elemental constituents present,
which include carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen, nitrogen, and halogens. Using
this analysis plus the total amount of air added, the volume of combustion gas
can be calculated. Having determined both the Btu content and the expected
combustion gas volume, the feed rate can be fixed at the desired residence
time. Continuous monitoring of the feed rate will determine whether the unit
was operated at a rate corresponding to the designed residence time.
Rotary Kiln
For this incineration technology, EPA will examine both the primary
and secondary chamber in evaluating the design of a particular incinerator.
3-26
-------
Relative to the primary chamber, EPA's assessment of design will focus on
whether it is likely that sufficient energy will be provided to the waste in
order to volatilize the waste constituents. For the secondary chamber,
analogous to the liquid injection incineration chamber, EPA will examine the
same parameters discussed previously under "Liquid Injection." These para-
meters will not be discussed again here.
The particular design parameters to be evaluated for the primary
chamber are: kiln temperature, residence time, and revolutions per minute.
Below is a discussion of why EPA believes these parameters to be important, as
well as a discussion of how these parameters will be monitored during opera-
tion.
(1) Temperature. The primary chamber temperature is important in
that it provides an indirect measure of the energy input: (i.e., Btu/hr) that
is available for heating the waste. The higher the temperature is designed to
be in a given kiln, the more likely it is that the constituents will volatil-
ize. As discussed earlier under "Liquid Injection", temperature should be
continuously monitored and recorded. Additionally, it is important to know
the location of the temperature sensing device in the kiln.
(2) Residence Time. This parameter is important in that it affects
whether sufficient heat is transferred to a particular constituent in order
for volatilization to occur. As the time that the waste is in the kiln is
increased, a greater quantity of heat is transferred to the hazardous waste
3-27
-------
constituents. The residence time of solids and gases in the kiln is a func-
tion of the specific configuration of the rotary kiln including the length and
diameter of the kiln, the waste feed rate, and the rate of rotation.
(3) Revolutions Per Minute (RPM). This parameter provides an
indication of the turbulence that occurs in the primary chamber of a rotary
kiln. As the turbulence increases, the quantity of heat transferred to the
waste would also be expected to increase. However, as the RPM value
increases, the residence time of solids in the kiln decreases, resulting in a
reduction of the quantity of heat transferred to the waste.
Fluidized Bed
As discussed previously, in the section on "Underlying Principles of
Operation", the primary chamber accounts for almost all of the conversion of
organic wastes to carbon dioxide, water vapor, and acid gas if halogens are
present. The freeboard section will generally provide additional residence
time for thermal oxidation of the waste constituents. Relative to the primary
chamber, the parameters that the Agency will examine in assessing the effec-
tiveness of the design are temperature, residence time, and bed pressure
differential. The first two were discussed under rotary kiln and will not be
discussed here. The latter, bed pressure differential, is important in that
it provides an indication of the amount of turbulence and, therefore, indi-
rectly provides the amount of heat supplied to the waste. In general, as the
pressure drop increases, both the turbulence and heat supplied increase. The
3-28
-------
pressure drop through the bed should be continuously monitored and recorded to
ensure that the design value is achieved.
Fixed Hearth
The design considerations for this incineration unit are similar to
a rotary kiln with the exception that rate of rotation (i.e., RPM) is not an
applicable design parameter. For the primary chamber of this unit, the
parameters that the Agency will examine in assessing how well the unit is
designed are the same as discussed under rotary kiln. For the secondary
chamber (i.e., afterburner), the design and operating parameters of concern
are the same as previously discussed under "Liquid Injection."
3-29
-------
Incineration References
Ackerman DG, McGaughey JF, Wagoner, DE, "At Sea Incineration of
PCB-Containing Wastes on Board the M/T Vulcanus," USEPA, 600/7-83-024,
April 1983.
Bonner TA, et al., Engineering Handbook for Hazardous Waste Incineration.
SW-889 Prepared by Monsanto Research Corporation for U.S. EPA, NTIS PB
81-248163. June 1981.
Holler JJ, Christiansen OB, "Dry Scrubbing of Hazardous Waste Incinerator Flue
Gas by Spray Dryer Absorption," in Proceedings of the 77th Annual APCA
Meeting, 1984.
Novak RG, Troxler WL, Dehnke TH, "Recovering Energy from Hazardous Waste
Incineration," Chemical Engineer Progress 91:146 (1984).
Oppelt ET, "Incineration of Hazardous Waste"; JAPCA; Volume 37, No. 5;
May, 1987.
Santoleri JJ, "Energy Recovery-A By-Product of Hazardous Waste Incineration
Systems," in Proceedings of the 15th Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste
Conference on Toxic and Hazardous Waste, 1983.
U.S. EPA, "Engineering Handbook on Hazardous Waste Incineration." SW-889,
NTIS PB 81-248163, September 1981.
U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT) Background Document
for F001-F005 Spent Solvents," Volume 1, EPA/530-SW-86-056, November 1986.
Vogel G, et al., "Composition of Hazardous Waste Streams Currently
Incinerated," Mitre Corp, U.S. EPA. April 1983.
Vogel G, et al., "Incineration and Cement Kiln Capacity for Hazardous Waste
Treatment," in Proceedings of the 12th Annual Research Symposium.
Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. Cincinnati, Ohio.
April 1986.
3-30
-------
GUARD
GRADIENT
STACK
GRADIENT
THERMOCOUPLE
CLAMP
UPPER STACK
HEATER
1
TOP REFERENCE
SAMPLE
1
• ^
' )~-+
TESTAMPLE
BOTTOM
REFERENCE
SAMPLE
1
LOWER STACK
HEATER
1
LIQUID 'COOLED
HEAT SINK
1
7
UPPER
GUARD
HEATER
•f-
HEAT FLOW
DIRECTION
x
LOWER
GUARD
HEATER
Figur« 1.
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE COMPARATIVE METHOD
3-32
January 1988
-------
The stack is clamped with a reproducible load to insure intimate contact
between the components. In order to produce a linear flow of heat down the
stack and reduce the amount of heat that flows radially, a guard tube is
placed around the stack and the intervening space is filled with insulating
grains or powder. The temperature gradient in the guard is matched to that in
the stack to further reduce radial heat flow.
The comparative method is a steady state method measuring thermal
conductivity. When equilibrium is reached, the heat flux (analogous to
current flow) down the stack can be determined from the references. The heat
into the sample is given by
Qin =Xtop
-------
and top refers to the upper reference while bottom refers to the lower refer-
ence. If the heat was confined to flow just down the stack, then Qin and Qout
would be equal. If Q^n and Qout are in reasonable agreement, the average heat
flow is calculated from
Q = (Qin * Qout)/2
The sample thermal conductivity is then found from
X sample = Q/<«/<»*> Maple
3-34
-------
3.4.2 Solvent Extraction
Solvent extraction is a treatment technology used to remove a
constituent from a waste by mixing the waste with a solvent that is immiscible
with the waste and in which the waste constituent of concern is preferentially
soluble. Solvent extraction is commonly called liquid extraction or liquid-
liquid extraction. EPA also uses this term to refer to extraction of BOAT
List organics from a solid waste. When BOAT List metals are extracted using
acids, EPA uses the term acid leaching.
Applicability and Use of Solvent Extraction
Theoretically, solvent extraction has broad applicability in that it
can be used for wastes that have high or low concentrations of a range of
waste characteristics including total organic carbon, filterable solids,
viscosity, and BOAT List metals content. The key to its use is whether the
BOAT List constituents can be extracted from the waste matrix containing the
constituents of concern. For a waste matrix with high filterable solids this
would mean that the solids could be land disposed following solvent extrac-
tion. For a predominantly liquid waste matrix with low filterable solids, the
extracted liquid (referred to as the raffinate) could be reused. Solvent
extraction can seldom be used without additional treatment (e.g., incinera-
tion) of the extract; however, some industries may be able to recycle the
solvent stream contaminated with the BDAT List constituents back to the
process.
3-35
-------
Underlying Principles of Operation
For solvent extraction to occur, the BOAT List constituents of
concern in the waste stream must be preferentially soluble in the solvent and
the solvent must be essentially immiscible with the waste stream. In theory,
the degree of separation that can be achieved is provided by the selectivity
value; this value is the ratio of the equilibrium concentration of the con-
stituent in the solvent to the equilibrium concentration of the constituent in
the waste.
The solvent and waste stream are mixed to allow mass transfer of the
constituent(s) from the waste stream to the solvent. The solvent and waste
stream ate then allowed to separate under quiescent conditions.
The solvent solution containing the extracted contaminant is called
the extract. The extracted waste stream with the contaminants removed is
called the raffinate. The simplest extraction system comprises three compo-
nents: (1) the solute, or the contaminant to be extracted; (2) the solvent;
and (3) the nonsolute portion of the waste stream. For simple extractions,
solute passes from the waste stream to the solvent phase. A density differ-
ence exists between the solvent and waste stream phases. The extract can be
either the heavy phase or the light phase.
3-36
-------
Description of Solvent Extraction Process
The simplest method of extraction is a single stage system. The
solvent and waste stream are brought together; clean effluent and solvent are
recovered without further extraction. The clean effluent is referred to as
the raffinate, and the solvent containing the constituents that were removed
from the waste stream is known as the extract. The amount of solute extracted
is fixed by equilibrium relations and the quantity of solvent used. Single
stage extraction is the least effective extraction system.
Another method of extraction is simple multistage contact extrac-
tion. In this system, the total quantity of solvent to be used is divided
into several portions. The waste stream is contacted with each of these
portions of fresh solvent in a series of successive steps or stages. Raffi-
nate from the first extraction stage is contacted with fresh solvent in a
second stage, and so on.
In countercurrent, multistage contact, fresh solvent and the waste
stream enter at opposite ends of a series of extraction stages. Extract and
raffinate layers pass continuously and countercurrently from stage to stage
through the system.
In order to achieve a reasonable approximation of phase equilibrium,
solvent extraction requires the intimate contacting of the phases. Several
types of extraction systems are used for contact and separation; two of these,
mixer-settler systems and column contactors, are discussed below.
3-37
-------
(1) Mixer-Settler Systems. Mixer-settler systems are comprised of
a mixing chamber for phase dispersion, followed by a settling chamber for
phase separation. The vessels may be either vertical or horizontal. Disper-
sion in the mixing chamber occurs by pump circulation, nonmechanical in-line
mixing, air agitation, or mechanical stirring. In a two-stage mixer-settler
system the dispersed phase separates in a horizontal settler. The extract
from the second settler is recycled to the first settler (see Figure 3-5).
Extract properties such as density or specific constituent concentration may
be monitored to determine when the extract must be sent to solvent recovery
and fresh or regenerated solvent added to the system. Mixer-settler systems
can handle solids or highly viscous liquids. Design scaleup is reliable, and
mixer-settlers can handle difficult dispersion systems. Intense agitation to
provide high rates of mass transfer can produce solvent-feed dispersions that
are difficult to separate into distinct phases.
(2) Column Contactors. Packed and sieve-tray are two different
types of column contactors that do not require mechanical agitation. Figure
3-6 presents schematics of the two types of extraction columns.
A packed extractor contains packing materials, such as saddles,
rings, or structured packings of gauze or mesh. Mass transfer of the solute
3-38
-------
Recycled Solvent from Recovery
OJ
I
OJ
Freah Solvent Makeup
Waste
i
vy
/\
Mixer
I
•"••w
t
i
Raffinate
— ~—
Solvent
[
^
i
****
Mixer
i
'
1
if
«
F
c
Rafflnate
-^
Solvent
L Solvent |
Extract
Extract to
!
Recovery
Water to '
Reuse or
Disposal
t
Water
Solids
iolids to
teuse/Recovery
r Disposal
Solvent
Recovery """
1
Extracted
Organics to
Reuse/Recovery
or Disposal
Figure 3—5. Two—Stage Mixer—Settler Extraction System
-------
*~
O
SOLVENT
LIQUID'
INTERFACE
SOLVENT-
WASTE »
RAFFINATE
rrn
t t t t
SOLVENT
PACKING
SUPPORT
RCOISTRIBUTOR
k^ PACKING
SUfORT
-*• RAFFINATE
(EXTRACT
A. PACKED EXTRACTOR
SOLVENT
LIQUID
INTERFACE
DOWNCOUER
WASTE
EXTRACT
•. SIEVE TRAV EXTRACTOR
FIGURE 3-6
EXTRACTION COLUMNS WITH NONMECHANCAL AGITATION
-------
to the extract is promoted because of breakup and distortion of the dispersed
phase as it contacts the packing.
The sieve-tray extractor is similar to a sieve-tray column used in
distillation. Tray perforations result in the formation of liquid droplets to
aid the mass transfer process. The improved transfer is accomplished by the
fact that the droplets allow for more intimate contact between extract and
raffinate.
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
In determining whether solvent extraction is likely to achieve the
same level of performance on an untested waste as a previously tested waste,
the Agency will focus on the waste characteristics that provide an estimate of
the selectivity value previously described. EPA believes that the selectivity
value can best be estimated by analytically measuring the partitioning coeffi-
cients of the waste constituents of concern and the solubility of the waste
matrix in the extraction solvent.
Accordingly, EPA will use partitioning coefficients and solubility
of the waste matrix as surrogates for the selectivity value in making deci-
sions regarding transfer of treatment standards.
3-41
-------
Design and Operating Parameters
EPA's analysis of whether a solvent extraction system is well
designed will focus on whether the BOAT List constituents are likely to be
effectively separated from the waste. The particular design and operating
parameters to be evaluated are: (1) the selection of a solvent, (2) equilib-
rium data, (3) temperature and pH, (4) mixing, and (5) settling time.
(1) The Selection of a Solvent. In assessing the design of a
solvent extraction system, the most important aspect to evaluate is the
solvent used and the basis on which the particular solvent was selected.
Solvent selection is important because, as indicated previously, different
waste constituents of concern will have different solubilities in various
solvents, and it is the extent to which the waste constituents are preferen-
tially soluble in the selected solvent that determines the effectiveness of
this technology. In addition to this information, EPA would also want to
review any empirical extraction data used to design the system.
(2) Equilibrium Data. For solvent extraction systems that are
operated in a continuous mode, the extraction process will generally be
conducted using a series of equilibrium stages as discussed previously. The
number of equilibrium stages and the associated flow rates of the waste and
solvent will be based on empirical equilibrium data. EPA will evaluate these
data as part of assessing the design of the system. EPA would thus want to
3-42
-------
know the type of mixers used and the basis for determining that this system
would provide sufficient mixing.
(3) Temperature and pH. Temperature and pH changes can affect
equilibrium conditions and, consequently, the performance of the extraction
system. Thus, EPA would attempt to monitor and record these values on a
continuous basis.
(4) Mixing. For mixer-settler type extraction processes, mixing
determines the amount of contact between the two immiscible phases and,
accordingly, the degree of mass transfer of the constituents to be extracted.
(5) Settling Time. For batch systems, adequate settling time must
be allowed to ensure that separation of the phases has been completed.
Accordingly, in assessing the design of a system, EPA would want to know
settling time allowed and the basis for selection.
3-43
-------
Solvent Extraction References
Hanson, C. August 26, 1968. Solvent extraction theory, equipment,
commercial operations, and economics. Chem. Eng. p. 81.
De Renzo, D.J. (editor). 1978. Unit operations for treatment of
hazardous industrial wastes. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Data Corporation.
Gallacher, Lawrence V. February 1981. Liquid ion exchange in metal
recovery and recycling. 3rd Conference on Advanced Pollution Control for
the Metal Finishing Industry. U.S. EPA 600/2-81-028. pp. 39-41.
Hackznan, E. 1978. Toxic organic chemicals, destruction and waste
treatment. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Data Corporation, pp. 109-111.
Humphrey, J.L., J.A. Rocha, and J.R. Fair. September 17, 1984. The
essentials of extraction. Chemical Engineering, pp. 76-95.
Lo, Teh C., M.H.I. Baird, and C. Manson (editors). 1983. Handbook of
solvent extraction. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 53-89.
Perry, R.H. and C.H. Chilton. 1973. Chemical engineer's handbook, 5th
edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp. 15-1 to 15-24.
3-44
-------
3.^.3 Sludge Filtration
Applicability and Use of Sludge Filtration
Sludge filtration, also known as sludge dewatering or cake-formation
filtration, is a technology used on wastes that contain high concentrations of
suspended solids, generally higher than one percent. The remainder of the
waste is essentially water. Sludge filtration is applied to sludges, typi-
cally those that have settled to the bottom of clarifiers, for dewatering.
After filtration, these sludges can be dewatered to 20 to 50 percent solids.
Underlying Principle of Operation
The basic principle of filtration is the separation of particles
from a mixture of fluids and particles by a medium that permits, the flow of
the fluid but retains the particles. As would be expected, larger particles
are easier to separate from the fluid than smaller particles. Extremely small
particles, in the colloidal range, may not be filtered effectively and may
appear in the treated waste. To mitigate this problem, the wastewater should
be treated prior to filtration to modify the particle size distribution in
favor of the larger particles, by the use of appropriate precipitants, coagu-
lants, flocculants, and filter aids. The selection of the appropriate precip-
itant or coagulant is important because it affects the particles formed. For
example, lime neutralization usually produces larger, less gelatinous parti-
cles than does caustic soda precipitation. For larger particles that become
3-45
-------
too small to filter effectively because of poor resistance to shearing, shear
resistance can be improved by the use of coagulants and flocculants. Also, if
pumps are used to feed the filter, shear can be minimized by designing for a
lower pump speed, or by use of a low shear type of pump.
Description of Sludge Filtration Process
For sludge filtration, settled sludge is either pumped through a
cloth-type filter media (such as in a plate and frame filter that allows solid
"cake" to build up on the media) or the sludge is drawn by vacuum through the
cloth media (such as on a drum or vacuum filter, which also allows the solids
to build). In both cases the solids themselves act as a filter for subsequent
solids removal. For a plate and frame type filter, removal of the solids is
accomplished by talcing the unit off line, opening the filter and scraping the
solids off. For the vacuum type filter, cake is removed continuously. For a
specific sludge, the plate and frame type filter will usually produce a drier
cake than a vacuum filter. Other types of sludge filters, such as belt
filters, are also used for effective sludge dewatering.
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
The following characteristics of the waste will affect performance
of a sludge filtration unit:
o size of particles, and
o type of particles.
3-46
-------
(1) Size of particles. The smaller the particle size, the more the
particles tend to go through the filter media. This is especially true for a
vacuum filter. For a pressure filter (like a plate and frame), smaller
particles may require higher pressures for equivalent throughput, since the
smaller pore spaces between particles create resistance to flow.
(2) Type of particles. Some solids formed during metal precipita-
tion are gelatinous in nature and cannot be dewatered well by cake-formation
filtration. In fact, for vacuum filtration a cake may not form at all. In
most cases solids can be made less gelatinous by use of the appropriate
coagulants and coagulant dosage prior to clarification, or after clarification
but prior to filtration. In addition, the use of lime instead of caustic soda
in metal precipitation will reduce the formation of gelatinous solids. Also
the addition of filter aids to a gelatinous sludge, such as lime or diatoma-
ceous earth, will help significantly. Finally, precoating the filter with
diatomaceous earth prior to sludge filtration will assist in dewatering
gelatinous sludges.
Design and Operating Parameters
For sludge filtration, the following design and operating variables
affect performance:
o type of filter selected,
o size of filter selected,
o feed pressure, and
o use of coagulants or filter aids.
3-47
-------
(1) Type of filter. Typically, pressure type filters (such as a
plate and frame) will yield a drier cake than a vacuum type filter and will
also be more tolerant of variations in influent sludge characteristics.
Pressure type filters, however, are batch operations, so that when cake is
built up to the maximum depth physically possible (constrained by filter
geometry), or to the maximum design pressure, the filter is turned off while
the cake is removed. A vacuum filter is a continuous device (i.e., cake
discharges continuously), but will usually be much larger than a pressure
filter with the same capacity. A hybrid device is a belt filter, which
mechanically squeezes sludge between two continuous fabric belts.
(2) Size of filter. As with in-depth filters, the larger the
filter, the greater its hydraulic capacity and the longer the filter runs
between cake discharge.
(3) Feed pressure. This parameter impacts both the design pore
size of the filter and the design flow rate. It is important that in treating
waste that the design feed pressure not be exceeded, otherwise particles may
be forced through the filter medium resulting in ineffective treatment.
(U) Use of coagulants. Coagulants and filter aids may be mixed
with filter feed prior to filtration. Their effect ia particularly signifi-
cant for vacuum filtration in that it may make the difference in a vacuum
filter between no cake and a relatively dry cake. In a pressure filter,
coagulants and filter aids will also significantly improve hydraulic capacity
3-48
-------
and cake dryness. Filter aids, such as diatomaceous earth, can be precoated
on filters (vacuum or pressure) for particularly difficult to filter sludges.
The precoat layer acts somewhat like an in-depth filter in that sludge solids
are trapped in the precoat pore spaces. Use of precoats and most coagulants
or filter aids significantly increases the amount of sludge solids to be
disposed of. However, polyelectrolyte coagulant usage usually does not
increase sludge volume significantly because the dosage is low.
-------
Sludge Filtration References
Eckenfelder, W.W. 1985. Wastewater Treatment, Chemical Engineering. 85:72.
Grain, Richard W. Solids 1981. Removal and Concentration. In Third Confer-
ence on Advanced Pollution Control for the Metal Finishing Industry. Cincin-
nati, Ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 56-62.
Kirk-Othmer. 1980. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed., New York.
John Wiley and Sons, Vol. 10.
Perry, Robert H. and Cecil H. Chilton. 1973. Chemical Engineers' Handbook.
Fifth Edition. New York. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Section 19.
3-50
-------
3.U.U Stabilization of Metals
Stabilization refers to a broad class of trea _,„ cnat
chemically or physically reduce the mobility of hazardous constituents in a
waste. Solidification and fixation are other terms that are sometimes used
synonymously for stabilization or to describe specific variations within the
broader class of stabilization. Related technologies are encapsulation and
thermoplastic binding; however, EPA considers these technologies to be
distinct from stabilization in that the operational principles are
significantly different.
Applicability and Use of Stabilization
Stabilization is used when a waste contains metals that will leach
from the waste when it is contacted by water. In general, this technology is
applicable to wastes containing BOAT List metals, having a high filterable
solids content, low TOG content, and low oil and grease content. This tech-
nology is commonly used to treat residuals generated from treatment of elec-
troplating wastewaters. For some wastes, an alternative to stabilization is
metal recovery.
Underlying Principles of Operation
The basic principle underlying this technology is that stabilizing
agents and other chemicals are added to a waste in order to minimize the
3-51
-------
amount of metal that leaches. The reduced leachability is accomplished by the
formation of a lattice structure and/or chemical bonds that bind the metals to
the solid matrix and, thereby, limit the amount of metal constituents that can
be leached when water or a mild acid solution comes into contact with the
waste material.
There are two principal stabilization processes used; these are
cement-based and lime/pozzolan-based. A brief discussion of each is provided
below. In both cement-based or lime/pozzolan-based techniques, the stabiliz-
ing process can be modified through the use of additives, such as silicates,
that control curing rates or enhance the properties of the solid material.
Portland Cement-Based Process
Portland cement is a mixture of powdered oxides of calcium, silica,
aluminum, and iron, produced by kiln burning of materials rich in calcium and
silica at high temperatures (i.e., 1UOO°C to 1500°C). When the anhydrous
cement powder is mixed with water, hydration occurs and the cement begins to
set. The chemistry involved is complex because many different reactions occur
depending on the composition of the cement mixture.
As the cement begins to set, a colloidal gel of indefinite composi-
tion and structure is formed. Over a period of time, the gel swells and forms
a matrix composed of interlacing, thin, densely-packed silicate fibrils.
Constituents present in the waste slurry (e.g., hydroxides and carbonates of
3-52
-------
various heavy metals), are incorporated into the interstices of the cement
matrix. The high pH of the cement mixture tends to keep metals in the form of
insoluble hydroxide and carbonate salts. It has been hypothesized that metal
ions may also be incorporated into the crystal structure of the cement matrix,
but this hypothesis has not been verified.
Lime/Pozzolan-Based Process
Pozzolan, which contains finely divided, noncrystalline silica
(e.g., fly ash or components of cement kiln dust), is a material that is not
cementitious in itself, but becomes so upon the addition of lime. Metals in
the waste are converted to silicates or hydroxides which inhibit leaching.
Additives, again, can be used to reduce permeability and thereby further
decrease leaching potential.
Description of Stabilization Processes
In most stabilization processes, the waste, stabilizing agent, and
other additives, if used, are mixed and then pumped to a curing vessel or area
and allowed to cure. The actual operation (equipment requirements and process
sequencing) will depend on several factors such as the nature of the waste,
the quantity of the waste, the location of the waste in relation to the
disposal site, the particular stabilization formulation to be used, and the
curing rate. After curing, the solid formed is recovered from the processing
equipment and shipped for final disposal.
3-53
-------
In instances where waste contained in a lagoon is to be treated, the
material should be first transferred to mixing vessels where stabilizing
agents are added. The mixed material is then fed to a curing pad or vessel.
After curing, the solid formed is removed for disposal. Equipment commonly
used also includes facilities to store waste and chemical additives. Pumps
can be used to transfer liquid or light sludge wastes to the mixing pits and
pumpable uncured wastes to the curing site. Stabilized wastes are then
removed to a final disposal site.
Commercial concrete mixing and handling equipment generally can be
used with wastes. Weighing conveyors, metering cement hoppers, and mixers
similar to concrete batching plants have been adapted in some operations.
Where extremely dangerous materials are being treated, remote-control and
in-drum mixing equipment, such as that used with nuclear waste, can be
employed.
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
In determining whether stabilization is likely to achieve the same
level of performance on an untested waste as .on a previously tested waste, the
Agency will focus on the characteristics that inhibit the formation of either
the chemical bonds or the lattice structure. The four characteristics EPA has
identified as affecting treatment performance are the presence of (1) fine
particulates, (2) oil and grease, (3) organic compounds, and (U) certain
inorganic compounds.
3-54
-------
(1) Fine Particulates. For both cement-based and lime/pozzolan-
based processes, the literature states that very fine solid materials (i.e.,
those that pass through a No. 200 mesh sieve, 7U urn particle size) can weaken
the bonding between waste particles and cement by coating the particles. This
coating can inhibit chemical bond formation and decreases the resistance of
the material to leaching.
(2) Oil and Grease. The presence of oil and grease in both cement-
based and lime/pozzolan-based systems results in the coating of waste parti-
cles and the weakening of the bonding between the particle and the stabilizing
agent. This coating can inhibit chemical bond formation and thereby, decrease
the resistance of the material to leaching.
(3) Organic Compounds. The presence of organic compounds in the
waste interferes with the chemical reactions and bond formation which inhibit
curing of the stabilized material. This results in a stabilized waste having
decreased resistance to leaching.
(4) Sulfate and Chlorides. The presence of certain inorganic
compounds will interfere with the chemical reactions, weakening bond strength
and prolonging setting and curing time. Sulfate and chloride compounds may
reduce the dimensional stability of the cured matrix, thereby increasing
leachability potential.
3-55
-------
. Accordingly, EPA will examine these constituents when making deci-
sions regarding transfer of treatment standards based on stabilization.
Design and Operating Parameters
In designing a stabilization system, the principal parameters that
are important to optimize so that the amount of leachable metal constituents
is minimized are (1) selection of stabilizing agents and other additives, (2)
ratio of waste to stabilizing agents and other additives, (3) degree of
mixing, and (4) curing conditions.
(1) Selection of stabilizing agents and other additives. The
stabilizing agent and additives used will determine the chemistry and struc-
ture of the stabilized material and, therefore, will affect the leachability
of the solid material. Stabilizing agents and additives must be carefully
selected based on the chemical and physical characteristics of the waste to be
stabilized. For example, the amount of sulfates in a waste must be considered
when a choice is being made between a lime/pozzolan and a Portland cement-
based system.
In order to select the type of stabilizing agents and additives, the
waste should be tested in the laboratory with a variety of materials to
determine the best combination.
3-56
-------
(2) Amount of stabilizing agents and additives. The amount of
stabilizing agents and additives is a critical parameter in that sufficient
stabilizing materials are necessary.in the mixture to bind the waste constitu-
ents of concern properly, thereby making them less susceptible to leaching.
The appropriate weight ratios of waste to stabilizing agent and other addi-
tives are established empirically by setting up a series of laboratory tests
that allow separate leachate testing of different mix ratios. The ratio of
water to stabilizing agent (including water in the waste) will also impact the
strength and leaching characteristics of the stabilized material. Too much
water will cause low strength; too little will make mixing difficult and, more
importantly, may not allow the chemical reactions that bind the hazardous
constituents to be fully completed.
(3) Mixing. The conditions of mixing include the type and duration
of mixing. Mixing is necessary to ensure homogeneous distribution of the
waste and the stabilizing agents. Both undermixing and overmixing are unde-
sirable. The first condition results in a nonhomogeneous mixture; therefore,
areas will exist within the waste where waste particles are neither chemically
bonded to the stabilizing agent nor physically held within the lattice struc-
ture. Overmixing, on the other hand, may inhibit gel formation and ion
adsorption in some stabilization systems. As with the relative amounts of
waste, stabilizing agent, and additives within the system, optimal mixing
conditions generally are determined through laboratory tests. During treat-
ment it is important to monitor the degree (i.e., type and duration) of mixing
to ensure that it reflects design conditions.
3-57
-------
(4) Curing conditions. The curing conditions include the duration
of curing and the curing conditions (temperature and humidity). The duration
of curing is a critical parameter to ensure that the waste particles have had
sufficient time in which to form stable chemical bonds and/or lattice
structures. The time necessary for complete stabilization depends upon the
waste type and the stabilization used. The performance of the stabilized
waste (i.e., the levels of constituents in the leachate) will be highly
dependent upon whether complete stabilization has occurred. Higher tempera-
tures and lower humidity increase the rate of curing by increasing the rate of
evaporation of water from the solidification mixtures. However, if tempera-
tures are too high, the evaporation rate can be excessive and result in too
little water being available for completion of the stabilization reaction.
The duration of the curing process should also be determined during the design
stage and typically will be between 7 and 28 days.
3-58
-------
Stabilization References
AJax Floor Products Corp. n.d. Product literature: technical data sheets,
Hazardous Waste Disposal System. P.O. Box 161, Great Meadows, N.J. 07838.
Austin, G.T. 1984. Shreve's chemical process industries, 5th ed., New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Bishop, P.L., Ransom, S.B., and Grass, D.L. 1983. Fixation Mechanismsin
Solidification/Stabilization of Inorganic Hazardous Wastes. In Proceedings
of the 38th Industrial Waste Conference, 10-12 May 1983, at Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Conner, J.R. 1986. Fixation and Solidification of Wastes. Chemical
Engineering. Nov. 10, 1986.
Cullinane, M.J., Jr., Jones, L.W., and Malone, P.G. 1986. Handbook for
stabilization/solidification of hazardous waste. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. EPA report No. 540/2-86/001. Cincinnati,
Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Electric Power Research Institute. 1980. FGD sludge disposal manual, 2nd ed.
Prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. EPRI CS-1515 Project 1685-1, Palo Alto,
California: Electric Power Research Institute.
Malone, P.G., L.W., and Burkes, J.P. Application of
solidification/stabilization technology to electroplating wastes. Office
of Water and Waste Management. SU-872. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Pretection Agency.
Mishuck, E. Taylor, D.R., Telles, R. and Lubowitz, H. 1984. Encapsulation/
Fixation (E/F) mechanisms. Report No. DRXTH-TE-CR-84298.
Prepared by S-Cubed under Contract No. DAAK11-81-C-0164.
Pojasek RB. 1979. "Solid-Waste Disposal: Solidification" Chemical
Engineering 86(17): 141-145.
USEPA. 1980. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Guide to the disposal of chemically
stabilized and solidified waste. Prepared for MERL/ORD under Interagency
Agreement No. EPA-IAG-D4-0569. PB81-181505, Cincinnati, Ohio.
3-59
-------
3.4.5 Hexavalent Chromium Reduction"
Applicability and Use of Hexavalent Chromium Reduction
The process of hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) reduction involves conver-
sion from the hexavalent form to the trivalent form of chromium. This tech-
nology has wide application to hexavalent chromium wastes including plating
solutions, stainless steel acid baths and rinses, "chrome conversion" coating
process rinses, and chromium pigment manufacturing wastes. Because this
technology requires the pH to be in the acidic range, it would not be applica-
ble to a waste that contains significant amounts of cyanide or sulfide. In
such cases, lowering of the pH can generate toxic gases such as hydrogen
cyanide or hydrogen sulfide. It is important to note that additional treat-
ment is required to remove trivalent chromium from solution.
Underlying Principles of Operation
The basic principle of treatment is to reduce the valence of chro-
mium in solution (in the form of chromate or dichromate ions) from the valence
state of six (+6) to the trivalent (+3) state. "Reducing agents" used to
effect the reduction include sodium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, sulfur
dioxide, sodium hydrosulfide, or the ferrous form of iron.
A typical reduction equation, using sodium sulfite as the reducing
agent, is:
3-60
-------
3Na2SC>3 > (804)3 —
The reaction is usually accomplished at pH values in the range of 2 to 3.
At the completion of the chromium reduction step, the trivalent
chromium compounds are precipitated from solution by raising the pH to a value
exceeding about 8. The less soluble trivalent chromium (in the form of
chromium hydroxide) is then allowed to settle from solution. The precipita-
tion reaction is as follows:
Cr2(SOu)3 «• 3Ca(OH)2 — > 2Cr(OH)3
Description of Chromium Reduction Process
The chromium reduction treatment process can be operated in a batch
or continuous mode. A batch system will consist of a reaction tank, a mixer
to homogenize the contents of the tank, a supply of reducing agent, and a
source of acid and base for pH control.
A continuous chromium reduction treatment system, as shown in Figure
3-7, will usually include a holding tank upstream of the reaction tank for
flow and concentration equalization. It will also include instrumentation to
automatically control the amount of reducing agent added and the pH of the
reaction tank. The amount of reducing agent ia controlled by the use of a
sensor called an oxidation reduction potential (ORP) cell. The ORP sensor
3-61
-------
REDUCING
AGENT
FEED
SYSTEM
ACID
FEED
SYSTEM
HEXAVALENT-
CHROMIUM
CONTAINING
WASTEWATER
U)
G)
ALKALI
FEED
SYSTEM
r
bo
ORP pH
SENSORS
TO SETTLING
REDUCTION
PRECIPITATION
ELECTRICAL CONTROLS
MIXER
FIGURE 3-7
CONTNJOUS HEXAVALEKT
CHROMUM REDUCTION SYSTEM
-------
electronically measures, in millivolts, the level to which the redox reaction
has proceeded at any given time. It must be noted though, that the ORP
reading is very pH dependent. Consequently, if the pH is not maintained at a
steady value, the ORP will vary somewhat, regardless of the level of chromate
reduction.
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
In determining whether chromium reduction can treat an untested
waste to the sane level of performance as a previously tested waste, EPA will
examine waste characteristics that affect the reaction involved with either
lowering the pH or reducing the hexavalent chromium. EPA believes that such
characteristics include the oil and grease content of the waste, total dis-
solved solids, and the presence of other compounds that would undergo reduc-
tion reaction.
(1) Oil and Grease. EPA believes that these compounds could
potentially interfere the oxidation-reduction reactions, as well as cause
monitoring problems by fouling the instrumentation (e.g., electrodes). Oil
and grease concentrations can be measured by EPA Methods 9070 and 9071.
(2) Total Dissolved Solids. These compounds can interfere with the
addition of treatment chemicals into solution and possibly cause monitoring
problems.
3-63
-------
(3) Other Reducible Compounds. These compounds would generally
consist of other metals in the waste. Accordingly EPA will evaluate the type
and concentration of other metals in the waste in evaluating transfer of
treatment performances.
Design and Operating Parameters
The parameters that EPA will examine in assessing the design and
operation of a chromium reduction treatment system are discussed below.
(1) Treated and Untreated Design Concentration. EPA will need to
know the level of performance that the facility is designed to achieve in
order to ensure that the design is consistent with best demonstrated prac-
tices. This parameter is important in that a system will not usually perform
better than design. As well as knowing the treated design concentration, it
is also important to know the characteristics of the untreated waste that the
system is designed to handle. Accordingly, EPA will obtain data on the
untreated wastes to ensure that waste characteristics fall within design
specifications.
(2) Reducing Agent. The choice of a reducing agent establishes the
chemical reaction upon which the chromium reduction system is based. The
amount of reducing agent needs to be monitored and controlled in both batch
and continuous systems. In batch systems, reducing agent is usually con-
trolled by analysis of the hexavalent chromium remaining in solution. For
3-64
-------
continuous systems, the ORP reading is used to monitor and control the addi-
tion of reducing agent.
ORP will slowly change until the correct amount of reducing agent
has been added, at which point ORP will change rapidly, indicating reaction
completion. The set point for the ORP monitor is approximately the reading
Just after the rapid change has begun. The reduction system must then be
monitored periodically to determine whether the selected setpoint needs
further adjustment.
(3) £H. For batch and continuous systems, pH is an important
parameter because of its effect on the reduction reaction. For a batch
system, it can be monitored intermittently during treatment. For continuous
systems, the pH should be continuously monitored because of its affect on ORP.
In evaluating the design and operation of a continuous chromium reduction
system, it is important to know the pH on which the design ORP value is based,
as well as the designed ORP value.
(4) Retention Time. Retention time should be adequate to ensure
that the hexavalent chromium reduction reaction goes to completion. In the
case of the batch reactor, the retention time is varied by adjusting treatment
time in the reaction tank. If the process is continuous, it is important to
monitor the feed rate to ensure that the designed residence time is achieved.
3-65
-------
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction References
Aldrich, James R. 1985. "Effects of pH and proportioning of ferrous and
sulfide reduction chemicals on electroplating waste treatment sludge
production." In Proceeding of the 39th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference,
May 8, 9, 10, 1984. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth Publishers.
Cherry, Kenneth F. 1982. Plating Waste Treatment. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc., Michigan.
Lanouette, Kenneth H. 1977. "Heavy metals removal." Chemical Engineering,
October 17, 1977, pp. 73-80.
Patterson, James W. 1985. Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology, 2nd
Ed. Butterworth Publishers; Stoneham, MA.
Rudolfs, William. 1953. Industrial Wastes. Their Disposal and Treatment.
L.E.C. Publishers Inc., Valley Stream, NY. p. 294
3-66
-------
3.U.6 Chemical Precipitation
Applicability and Use of Chemical Precipitation
Chemical precipitation is used when dissolved metals are to be
removed from solution. This technology can be applied to a wide range of
wastewaters containing dissolved BOAT list metals and other metals as well.
This treatment process has been practiced widely by industrial facilities
since the 1940s.
Underlying Principles of Operation
The underlying principle of chemical precipitation is that metals in
wastewater are removed by the addition of a treatment chemical that converts
the dissolved metal to a metal precipitate. This precipitate is less soluble
than the original metal compound, and therefore settles out of solution,
leaving a lower concentration of the metal present in the solution. The
principal chemicals used to convert soluble metal compounds to the less
soluble forma include: lime (Ca(OH>2), caustic (NaOH), sodium sulfide (Na2S),
and, to a leaser extent, soda ash (^2003), phosphate, and ferrous sulfide
(FeS).
The solubility of a particular compound will depend on the extent to
which the electrostatic forces holding the ions of the compound together can
be overcome. The solubility will change significantly with temperature; most
3-67
-------
metal compounds are more soluble as the temperature increases. Additionally,
the solubility will be affected by the other constituents present in a waste.
As a general rule, nitrates, chlorides, and sulfates are more soluble than
hydroxides, sulfides, carbonates, and phosphates.
An important concept related to treatment of the soluble metal
compounds is pH. This term provides a measure of the extent to which a
solution contains either an excess of hydrogen or hydroxide ions. The pH
scale ranges from 0 to 14; with 0 being the most acidic, 14 representing the
highest alkalinity or hydroxide ion (OH") content, and 7.0 being neutral.
When hydroxide is used, as is often the case, to precipitate the
soluble metal compounds, the pH is frequently monitored to ensure that suffi-
cient treatment chemicals are added. It is important to point out that pH is
not a good measure of treatment chemical addition for compounds other than
hydroxides; when sulfide is used, for example, facilities might use an oxida-
tion-reduction potential meter (ORP) correlation to ensure that sufficient
treatment chemical is used.
Following conversion of the relatively soluble metal compounds to
metal precipitates, the effectiveness of chemical precipitation is a function
of the physical removal, which usually relies on a settling process. A
particle of a specific size, shape, and composition will settle at a specific
velocity, as described by Stokes' Law. For a batch system, Stokes* Law is a
good predictor of settling time because the pertinent particle parameters
3-68
-------
remain essentially constant. Nevertheless, in practice, settling time for a
batch system is normally determined by empirical testing. For a continuous
system, the theory of settling is complicated by factors such as turbulence,
short-circuiting, and velocity gradients, increasing the importance of the
empirical tests.
Description of Chemical Precipitation Process
The equipment and instrumentation required for chemical precipita-
tion varies depending on whether the system is batch or continuous. Both
operations are discussed below; a schematic of the continuous system is shown
in Figure 3-8.
For a batch system, chemical precipitation requires only a feed
system for the treatment chemicals and a second tank where the waste can .be
treated and allowed to settle. When lime is used, it is usually added to the
reaction tank in a slurry form. In a batch system, the supernate is usually
analyzed before discharge, thus minimizing the need for instrumentation.
In a continuous system, additional tanks are necessary, as well as
instrumentation to ensure that the system is operating properly. In this
system, the first tank that the wastewater enters is referred to as an equal-
ization tank. This is where the waste can be mixed in order to provide more
uniformity, minimizing wide swings in the type and concentration of constitu-
ents being sent to the reaction tank. It is important to reduce the
3-69
-------
rtta
fOUAlUAIIOM
1*M«
I
-«J
o
•LtCTMCAL COMTMOt*
7*""
"" 1
x
y
A^.
X
9
i
F
^>
TNEATMCNT
CHCMICAL
Fif»
•VSICM
-^1 ^
ll H
COAOtHAMf Oil
FIOCCULANT ffCO SVSIfM
D
MOIHTOII
TO
MSGH/kHGE OH
•UBtCOUfNT
THtAlMCMI
•LUOOE TO
OiWATfHINQ
COKTttJOUS CHEMCAL PREOPITATION
-------
variability of the waste sent to the reaction tank because control systems
inherently are limited with regard to the maximum fluctuations that can be
managed.
Following equalization, the waste is pumped to a reaction tank where
treatment chemicals are added; this is done automatically by using instrumen-
tation that senses the pH of the system and then pneumatically adjusts the
position of the treatment chemical feed valve such that the design pH value is
achieved. Both the complexity and the effectiveness of the automatic control
system will vary depending on the variation in the waste and the pH range that
is needed to properly treat the waste.
An important aspect of the reaction tank design is that it be
well-mixed so that the waste and the treatment chemicals are both dispersed
throughout the tank, in order to ensure comingling of the reactant and the
treatment chemicals. In addition, effective dispersion of the treatment
chemicals throughout the tank is necessary to properly monitor and, thereby,
control the amount of treatment chemicals added.
After the waste is reacted with the treatment chemical, it flows to
a quiescent tank where the precipitate is allowed to settle and subsequently
be removed. Settling can be chemically assisted through the use of flocculat-
ing compounds. Flocculants increase the particle size and density of the
precipitated solids, both of which increase the rate of settling. The partic-
ular flocculating agent that will best improve settling characteristics will
vary depending on the particular waste; selection of .the flocculating
3-71
-------
agent is generally accomplished by performing laboratory bench tests. Set-
tling can be conducted in a large tank by relying solely on gravity or be
mechanically assisted through the use of a circular clarifier or an inclined
separator. Schematics of the latter two separators are shown in Figures 3-9
and 3-10.
Filtration can be used for further removal of precipitated residuals
both in cases where the settling system is underdesigned and in cases where
the particles are difficult to settle. Polishing filtration is discussed in a
separate technology section.
Waste Characteristics Affecting Performance
In determining whether chemical precipitation is likely to achieve
the same level of performance on an untested waste as a previously tested
waste, we will examine the following waste characteristics: (1) the concen-
tration and type of the metal(s) in the waste, (2) the concentration of
suspended solids (TSS), (3) the concentration of dissolved solids (TDS), (4)
whether the metal exists in the wastewater as a complex, and (5) the oil and
grease content. These parameters either affect the chemical reaction of the
metal compound, the solubility of the metal precipitate, or the ability of the
precipitated compound to settle.
(1) Concentration and Type of Metals. For most metals, there is a
specific pH at which the metal hydroxide is least soluble. As a result, when
3-72
-------
SLUOOI
INPLUINT
CENTER FCBO CUAfllFIIR WITH SCMAPCM SLUOOt REMOVAL 3USTEM
INPLUIMT
IPPLUINT
SLUOOI
HIM ntO - CtMTlft TAKIOPF CUkWFUR WITH
HYO-IAUUC SUCTION SLUOOI NtMOVAL SYSTIM
INPLUINT
IMLUINT
•moat
mi PUD • MM
3-73
-------
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
FIGURE 3-10
MCLfCD PLAfC SETTLER
3-74
-------
a waste contains a mixture of many metals, it is not possible to operate a
treatment system at a single pH which is optimal for the removal of all
metals. The extent to which this affects treatment depends on the particular
metals to be removed, and their concentrations. An alternative can be to
operate multiple precipitations, with intermediate settling, when the optimum
pH occurs at markedly different levels for the metals present. The individual
metals and their concentrations can be measured using EPA Method 6010.
(2) Concentration and type of total suspended solids (TSS).
Certain suspended solid compounds are difficult to settle because of either
their particle size or shape. Accordingly, EPA will evaluate this character-
istic in assessing transfer of treatment performance. Total suspended solids
can be measured by EPA Wastewater Test Method 160.2.
(3) Concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS). Available
information shows that total dissolved solids can inhibit settling. The
literature states that poor flocculation is a consequence of high TDS and
shows that higher concentrations of total suspended solids are found in
treated residuals. Poor flocculation can adversely affect the degree to which
precipitated particles are removed. Total dissolved solids can be measured by
EPA Wastewater Test Method 160.1.
(U) Complexed metals. Metal complexes consist of a metal ion
surrounded by a group of other inorganic or organic ions or molecules (often
3-75
-------
called ligands). In the complexed form, the metals have a greater solubility
and, therefore, may not be as effectively removed from solution by chemical
precipitation. EPA does not have an analytical method to determine the amount
of complexed metals in the waste. The Agency believes that the best measure
of complexed metals is to analyze for some common complexing compounds (or
complexing agents) generally found in wastewater for which analytical methods
are available. These complexing agents include ammonia, cyanide, and EOTA.
The analytical method for cyanide is EPA Method 9010. The method for EDTA is
ASTM Method D3113. Ammonia can be analyzed using EPA Wastewater Test Method
350.
(5) Oil and grease content. The oil and grease content of a
particular waste directly inhibits the settling of the precipitate. Suspended
oil droplets float in water and tend to suspend particles such as chemical
precipitates that would otherwise settle out of the solution. Even with the
use of coagulants or flocculants, the separation of the precipitate is less
effective. Oil and grease content can be measured by EPA Method 9071.
Design and Operating Parameters
The parameters that EPA will evaluate when determining whether a
chemical precipitation system is well designed are: (1) design value for
treated metal concentrations, as well as other characteristics of the waste
used for design purposes (e.g., total suspended solids), (2) pH, (3) residence
time, (U) choice of treatment chemical, and (5) choice of
3-76
-------
coagulant/flocculant. Below is an explanation of why EPA believes these
parameters are important to a design analysis; in addition, EPA explains why
other design criteria are not included in EPA's analysis.
(1) Treated and untreated design concentrations. EPA pays close
attention to the treated concentration the system is designed to achieve when
determining whether to sample a particular facility. Since the system will
seldom outperform its design, EPA must evaluate whether the design is consis-
tent with best demonstrated practice.
The untreated concentrations that the system is designed to treat
are important in evaluating any treatment system. Operation of a chemical
precipitation treatment system with untreated waste concentrations in excess
of design values can easily result in poor performance.
(2) p_H. The pH is important, because it can indicate that suffi-
cient treatment chemical (e.g., lime) is added to convert the metal constitu-
ents in the untreated waste to forms that will precipitate. The pH also
affects the solubility of metal hydroxides and sulfides, and therefore
directly impacts the effectiveness of removal. In practice, the design pH is
determined by empirical bench testing, often referred to as "Jar" testing.
The temperature at which the "Jar" testing is conducted is important in that
it also affects the solubility of the metal precipitates. Operation of a
treatment system at temperatures above the design temperature can result in
poor performance. In assessing the operation of a chemical precipitation
3-77
-------
system, EPA prefers continuous data on the pH and periodic temperature condi-
tions throughout the treatment period.
(3) Residence time. The residence time is important because it
impacts the completeness of the chemical reaction to form the metal precipi-
tate and, to a greater extent, amount of precipitate that settles out of
solution. In practice, it is determined by "Jar" testing. For continuous
systems, EPA will monitor the feed rate to ensure that the system is operated
at design conditions. For batch systems, EPA will want information on the
design parameter used to determine sufficient settling time (e.g., total
suspended solids).
(U) Choice of treatment chemical. A choice must be made as to what
type of precipitating agent (i.e., treatment chemical) will be used. The
factor that most affects this choice is the type of metal constituents to be
treated. Other design parameters, such as pH, residence time, and choice of
coagulant/flocculant agents, are based on the selection of the treatment
chemical.
(5) Choice of coagulant/flocculant. This is important because
these compounds improve the settling rate of the precipitated metals and
allow for smaller systems (i.e., lower retention time) to achieve the same
degree of settling as a much larger system. In practice, the choice of the
best agent and the amount required is determined by "Jar" testing.
3-78
-------
(6) Mixing. The degree of mixing is a complex assessment which
includes, among other things, the energy supplied, the time the material is
mixed, and the related turbulence effects of the specific size and shape of
the tank. EPA will, however, consider whether mixing is provided and whether
the type of mixing device is one that could be expected to achieve uniform
mixing. For example, EPA may not use data from a chemical precipitation
treatment system where an air hose was placed in a large tank to achieve
mixing.
3-79
-------
Chemical Precipitation References
Cherry, Kenneth F. 1982. Plating Waste Treatment. Ann Arbor, MI; Ann «.-bor
Science, Inc. pp 45-67.
Cushnie, George C., Jr. 1985. Electroplating Wastewater Pollution Control
Technology. Park Ridge, NJ; Noyes Publications, pp 48-62, 84-90.
Cushnie, George C., Jr. 1984. Removal of Metals from Wastewater:
Neutralization and Precipitation. Park Ridge, NJ; Noyes Publications, pp
55-97.
U.S. EPA, "Treatability Manual," Volume III, Technology for Control/Removal
of Pollutnats, EPA-6000/2-82-001C, January 1983. pp 111.3.1.3-2.
Ghassemi, M., K. Yu, and S. Quinlivan. 1981. Feasibility of Commercialized
Water Treatment Techniques for Concentrated Waste Spills. Prepared for USEPA,
Municipal Research Laboratory; Cincinnati, OH.
Gurnham, C.F. 1955. Principles of Industrial Waste Treatment. New York; John
Wiley and Sons, pp 224-234.
Kirk-Othmer. 1980. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd ed.,
"Flocculation", Vol. 10. New York; John Wiley and Sons, pp 489-516.
3-80
-------
U.O PERFORMANCE DATA BASE
This section presents the data available to the Agency on the
treatment of refinery wastes K048-K052. Data are available for the following
technologies: incineration, solvent extraction, pressure filtration, thermal
drying, stabilization, and chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide
precipitation and vacuum filtration. Table 4-1 summarizes the performance
data base available to the Agency. EPA'3 use of these data to develop treat-
ment standards is discussed in Section 5.0 (Identification of BOAT) and
Section 7.0 (Calculation of Treatment Standards).
4.1 Incineration Performance Data Base
The Agency tested a fluidized bed incineration process at plant A
for treatment of K048 and K051. Prior to incineration at plant A, DAF float
(K048) was mixed with waste biological sludge, and the mixture was dewatered
using two belt filter presses. The dewatered DAF float mixture and API
separator sludge (K05D were separately injected into the fluidized bed for
combustion. Combustion gases with elutriated fly ash entered a cyclone for
particulate removal and were then treated in a scrubber system prior to
discharge to the atmosphere. Fluidized bed incinerator ash was collected from
the ash conveyer from the cyclone.
Tables 1-2 through U-7 at the end of this section present, by sample
set, the BOAT List constituents detected in the untreated (dewatered DAF float
4-1
-------
mixture and API separator sludge) and treated (fluidized bed incinerator ash)
wastes and the operating data from the fluidized bed incinerator treatment
system.
The Agency also collected treatment performance data for K048-K052
wastewaters (scrubber water) from the fluidized bed incineration of K048 at
plant A. Untreated K048 and scrubber water data are presented in Tables U-3
through 4-13 at the end of this section. (At proposal, these scrubber water
data were not available to EPA and scrubber water data were transferred from
incineration of K019.)
Pilot-scale treatment performance data submitted from plant N for
pyrolysis treatment of K048, K049, and K051 included total waste concentration
data for the untreated waste and treated waste and TCLP data for the treated
waste. The submitted data from plant N are presented in Section F.8 of
Appendix F.
4.2 Solvent Extraction Performance Data Base
The Agency's performance data base for solvent extraction includes
total concentration data sets and TCLP extract concentration data from
treatment of K048-K052 nonwastewaters. As discussed in Section 1.0, the
Agency is developing treatment standards for organic constituents based on the
total concentration of those constituents in the waste. The total waste
concentration data that were used in the development of BOAT treatment
U-2
-------
standards are presented at the end of this section in Tables 4-16, 4-18, and
4-19. Other data submitted to the Agency are presented in Appendix F. The
Agency's procedures for evaluation of treatment data are discussed in Section
5.0.
s
4.3 Pressure Filtration Performance Data Base
Treatment performance data for pressure filtration submitted from
plants B, C, D, and E included total waste concentration data for the
untreated wastes and the treated residuals. The total waste concentration
data that were compared with data from other technologies are presented at the
end of this section in Tables U-1U and U-15. Other data submitted to the
Agency are presented in Appendix F.
4.4 Thermal Drying Performance Data Base
Pilot-scale treatment performance data submitted from plant H for
the thermal drying technology included total waste concentration data for the
filter cakes and for the treated residuals. The submitted data from plant H
can be found In Section F.4 of Appendix F.
4.5 Stabilization Performance Data Base
The Agency tested incinerator ash from treatment of K048 and K051
wastes at plant A using a stabilization process at plant I. The stabilization
4-3
-------
process involves the addition of water and binder material to the incinerator
ash followed by mixing and a cure period. The process was run three times
using three different binders for a total of nine tests. The three types of
binder materials used were: Portland cement, kiln dust, and a lime and fly
ash mixture. At the end of the 28-day cure period for each test, TCLP was
performed on stabilized ash samples. Table U-17 presents the analytical
results for BOAT List metals detected in the TCLP extracts of untreated
(incinerator ash) and treated (stabilized ash) wastes and the design and
operating data from the ash stabilization treatment system that were used in
the development of BOAT standards. Other data submitted to the Agency include
pilot-scale treatment performance data from three stabilization processes at
plant J. These data are presented in Appendix F.
4.6 Chromium Reduction Followed by Lime and Sulfide Precipitation and
Vacuum Filtration Performance Data Base
No data on the treatment of hexavalent chromium or other metals in
K048-K052 wastewaters are available to the Agency. The Agency determined that
treatment performance data for chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide
precipitation and vacuum.filtration presented in the Envirite Onsite Engineer-
ing Report (Reference 27) from treatment of K062 and metal-bearing
characteristic wastes represent treatment of hexavalent chromium and metals in
wastewaters judged to be similar to wastewater forms of K048-K052.
4-4
-------
Table 4-1
PERFORMANCE DATA BASE SUMMARY
TECHNOLOGY
Fluidized Bed
Incineration
Fluidized Bed
Incineration
Scrubber Water
Pressure Filtration
(Belt)
Pressure Filtration
(Belt)
Pressure Filtration
(Plate and Frame)
Pressure Filtration
(Plate and Frame)
Solvent Extraction
Solvent Extraction
Thermal Drying
Thermal Drying
PLANT
CODE
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
H
WASTE
CODES
TREATED
K048, K051
K048
K051
Unspecified
mixture of
refinery
wastes
K048, K049,
K051
K051, K052
K049-K051
K048-K052
Mixture
K048-K052
K051, K052
PILOT- OR
FULL-SCALE
Full-Scale
Full-Scale
Full-Scale
Full-Scale
Full-Scale
Full-Scale
Pilot-Scale
Full-Scale
Pilot-Scale
Pilot-Scale
LOCATION OF
DATA IN
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Section 4.0
Tables 4-2 to 4-7
Section 4.0
Tables 4-8 to 4-1
Appendix F
Section F.1
Section 4.0
Table 4-14
Section 4.0
Table 4-15
Appendix F
Section F.2
Appendix F
Section F.3
Section 4.0
Table 4-16
Appendix F
Section F.4
Appendix F
Section F.4
4-5
-------
Table 4-1 (Continued)
PERFORMANCE DATA BASE SUMMARY
TECHNOLOGY**
Stabilization
Stabilization
Solvent Extraction
Solvent Extraction
Solvent Extraction
3-Cycle
Solvent Extraction
Single-Cycle
Pyrolysis
•Solvent Extraction
PLANT
CODE
I
J
K
L
M
M
N
0
WASTE
CODES
TREATED
K048,K051
Unspecified
Mixture
K048-K052
Mixture
K051
K048-K052
Mixture
K048-K052
Mixture
K048, K049
K051
PILOT- OR
FULL-SCALE
Pilot-Scale
Pilot-Scale
Pilot-Scale
Full-Scale
Full-Scale
Full-Scale
Pilot-Scale
DATA
LOCATION IN
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Section 4.0
Table 4-17
Appendix F
Section F.5
Appendix F
Section F.6
Appendix F
Section F.7
Section 4.0
Table 4-18
Section 4.0
Table 4-19
Appendix F
Section F.8
Appendix F
Section F.9
*The solvent extraction treatment performance information from plant 0 was
received too late for evaluation as part of the First Thirds Rule. EPA is
continuing to evaluate these data and could revise treatment standards if
warranted.
**The chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum
filtration data are presented in the Envirite Onsite Engineering Report
(References 27).
RBD-4
0719-01.nrj.6
4-6
-------
Table 4-2
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #1
Untreated Waste
K048»
Concentration
Detected BDAT List mg/kg
Organic Constituents (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene <14
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane 310
226. Ethyl benzene 46
38. Methylene chloride <70
43. Toluene 120
47. Trichloroethene <14
215-217. Xylene (total) 120
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <20
80. Chrysene 22
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 67
109. Fluorene 31
121. Naphthalene 100
141. Phenanthrene 85
145. Pyrene 35
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
48
<70
50
<14
80
33
29
28
46
150
33
160
120
66
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
10
3
<2
<2
<0.2
<0.2
<1.0
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of OAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-7
-------
Table 4-2 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 11 (Continued)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
K048* K051 Incinerator Ash
Concentration Concentration Concentration TCLP
Detected BDAT List Metal mg/kg rag/kg mg/kg mg/L
and Inorganic Constituents (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
154. Antimony <6 9 16 0.06
155. Arsenic 6.1 8.2 14 0.016
156. Barium 63 120 130 0.18
157. Beryllium <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.001
158. Cadmium 0.6 1.6 2.4 <0.003
221. Chromium (hexavalent) <0.05 226 21 NA
159. Chromium (total) 890 730 1400 2.2
160. Copper 52 150 190 0.02
161. Lead 400 940 940 <0.05
162. Mercury <0.02 0.19 <0.02 0.0003
163. Nickel 13 36 60 <0.02
164. Selenium 10 1.6 <0.3 0.033
165. Silver <0.9 <0.9 <4 <0.009
167. Vanadium 430 260 690 2.8
168. Zinc 420 820 1000 0.079
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide 0.7 0.8 <0.1
171. Sulfide 130 2900 <50
NA = Not Analyzed
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
iColorimetric interference may have occurred in analysis of this sample.
4-8
-------
Table U-2 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 11 (Continued)
Nominal
Operating Range
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
(Jndewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
t-Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA=Not applicable
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1213-1240
1240-1253
22.3
43
10.7-18.7
90.4-102.4
8.2-16.2
50-135
2.2-9.0
4-9
-------
Table 4-3
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #2
Untreated Waste
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents
K048» K051
Concentration Concentration
mg/kg mg/kg
(ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene <14
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane 260
226. Ethyl benzene 120
38. Methylene chloride <70
43. Toluene 22
47. Trichloroethene <14
215-217. Xylene (total) 110
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20
.59. Benz(a)anthracene <20
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <20
80. Chrysene <20
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 74
109. Fluorene 31
121. Naphthalene 110
141. Phenanthrene 79
145. Pyrene 31
46
<70
44
<14
71
<20
25
<20
47
73
37
160
120
67
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
•K048 La a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-10
-------
Table 4-3 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 92 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
16U. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide
171. Sulfide
K048»
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
7
5.4
67
<0.1
0.7
<0.05
940
55
390
0.11
14
9.9
<0.9
450
450
200
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<6
6.7
73
<0.1
1.3
<0.05
860
150
670
0.23
30
1.1
<0.9
290
580
0.5
3600
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration TCLP
mg/kg mg/L
(ppm) (ppm)
13
19
160
<0.1
3
24
1500
240
1100
<0.02
74
<0.3
<4.0
730
1100
0.4
<50
0.
0.
0.
.06
.008
.24
<0.001
<0.003
NA
2.6
0.02
<0.05
<0.0002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.009
2.5
0.086
NA = Not analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-11
-------
Table 4-3 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 12 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F) +
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In.
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1227-1323
1253-1293
22.3
53
8.7-18.0
91.2-104.0
9.2-16.0
80-355
2.3-8.1
•»• Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA=Not applicable
4-12
-------
Table 4-4
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set *3
Untreated Waste
K048»
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene <14
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane <14
226. Ethyl benzene 33
38. Methylene chloride <70
43. Toluene 59
47. Trichloroethene <14
215-217. Xylene (total) 100
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate <20
80. Chrysene 21
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 160
109. Fluorene 32
121. Naphthalene 110
141. Phenanthrene 84
145. Pyrene 33
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
52
<70
42
<14
73
<20
22
30
45
200
35
150
110
62
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
1.2
1.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-13
-------
Table 4-4 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #3 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Detected BDAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide
171. Sulfide
K048*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<6
5.7
68
<0.1
0.4
<0.05
960
56
410
0.12
16
7.5
<0.9
460
450
2300
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
18
9.7
100
<0.1
1.5
<0.05
900
160
790
0.28
35
1.2
<0.9
300
670
3200
Treated Haste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration TCLP
mg/kg rag/L
(ppm) (ppm)
13
13
140
0.5
2
23
1300
200
1100
<0.02
51
<0.3
<4
690
1000
<50
0.09
0.022
0.17
<0.001
<0.003
NA
2.1
0.02
<0.05
<0.0002
<0.02
0.085
<0.009
3.1
0.087
NA = Not Analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-14
-------
Table 4-4 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #3 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1227-1287
1253-1287
22.3-22.4
50
9.3-18.7
91.2-104.0
9.5-16.8
45-140
2.2-8.6
t-Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA=Not analyzed
4-15
-------
Table 4-5
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #4
Untreated Waste
K048»
Concentration
Detected BDAT List rag/kg
Organic Constituents (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene <14
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane <14
226. Ethyl benzene <14
38. Methylene chloride <70
43. Toluene 28
47. Trichloroethene <14
215-217. Xylene (total) 79
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 59
80. Chrysene <20
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 190
109. Fluorene 31
121. Naphthalene 93
141. Phenanthrene 77
145. Pyrene 31
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
50
<70
33
<14
72
<20
23
26
48
170
35
150
120
74
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<10
<2
<2
5.8
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0
<0
<0
.2
.2
.2
<0.2
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-16
-------
Table 4-5 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 04 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Detected BDAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide
171. Sulfide
K048»
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<6
4.9
61
<0.1
<0.3
<0.05
840
49
340
0.13
14
8.7
<0.9
390
400
1
2500
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
15
7.5
92
<0.1
1.4
<0.05
960
140
690
0.07
37
0.9
<0.9
320
650
1.4
4800
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration TCLP
mg/kg mg/L
(ppm) (ppm)
17
14
180
0.7
2
24
1600
240
1200
<0.02
80
<0.3
<4
790
1100
0.5
<50
0.06
0.015
0.25
<0.001
<0.003
NA
2.3
0.02
<0.05
0.0003
<0.02
0.11
<0.009
2.7
0.086
NA = Not Analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-17
-------
Table 4-5 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 14 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1200-1260
1253-1273
22.3-22.4
61
8.7-18.3
91.2-105.6
10.5-17.0
40-340
2.8-7.9
•••Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA=Not applicable
4-18
-------
Table 4-6
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 15
Untreated Waste
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane
226. Ethyl benzene
38. Methylene chlorine
43. Toluene
U7. Trichloroethene
215-217. Xylene (total)
K048»
Concentration
tng/kg
(ppm)
41
<70
41
110
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 21
80. Chrysene 22
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 74
109. Fluorene 32
121. Naphthalene 94
141. Phenanthrene 83
145. Pyrene 34
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
49
<70
34
<14
71
<20
24
28
47
230
37
160
120
74
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-19
-------
Table 4-6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #5 (Continued)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
K048» K051 Incinerator Ash
Concentration Concentration Concentration TCLP
Detected BDAT List Metal rag/kg mg/kg mg/kg tng/L
and Inorganic Constituents (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
METALS
154. Antimony . <6 9 16 0.06
155. Arsenic 5.5 8.3 13 0.022
156. Barium 59 100 180 0.20
157. Beryllium <0.1 <0.1 0.6 <0.001
158. Cadmium <0.3 1.7 2 <0.003
221. Chromium (hexavalent) <0.05 <0.05 40 NA
159. Chromium (total) 810 1100 1600 2.4
160. Copper 47 170 240 0.02
161. Lead 330 700 1300 <0.05
162. Mercury 0.16 0.31 <0.02 0.0003
163. Nickel 14 37 70 <0.02
164. Selenium 11 0.5 <0.3 0.12
165. Silver <0.9 1.4 <4 <0.009
167. Vanadium 370 350 830 2.9
168. Zinc 380 680 1100 0.079
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
171. Sulfide 2800 4000 <50
NA = Not Analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-20
-------
Table 4-6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #5 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)f
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
02 (} Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1220-1253
1253-1267
22.3
53
8.7-18.7
92.8-105.6
10.8-17.3
30-910
2.8-7.5
•••Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA=Not applicable
4-21
-------
Table 4-7
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #6
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane
226. Ethyl benzene
38. Methylene chloride
43. Toluene
4?. Trichloroethene
215-217. Xylene (total)
K048«
Concentration
mg/kg
(PPm)
49
<70
34
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <20
80. Chrysene <20
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 130
109. Fluorene 31
121. Naphthalene 98
141. Phenanthrene 86
145. Pyrene 31
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
52
<70
71
<14
83
<20
25
<20
51
43
36
170
120
67
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-22
-------
Table 4-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #6 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
K048»
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
Detected BDAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154. Antimony <6
155. Arsenic 5.4
156. Barium 61
157. Beryllium <0.1
158. Cadmium 0.4
221. Chromium (hexavalent) <0.05
159. Chromium (total) 830
160. Copper U8
161. Lead 350
162. Mercury 0.14
163. Nickel 13
164. Selenium 11
165. Silver <0.9
167. Vanadium 380
168. Zinc 390
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide 0.9
171. Sulfide 360
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<6
5.4
72
<0.1
1.2
<0.05
840
130
640
0.11
26
0.9
<0.9
280
570
0.6
3400
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration TCLP
mg/kg mg/L
(ppm) (ppm)
15
16
180
<0.1
3.1
30
1700
250
1100
<0.02
73
<0.3
<4
910
1200
0.5
<50
0.07
0.025
0.21
<0.001
<0.003
NA
2.1
0.02
<0.05
<0.0002
0.03
0.12
<0.009
3.6
0.11
NA = Not Analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-23
-------
Table 4-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 06 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In.
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppra-Volume)
C02 (J Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1220-1240
1253-1267
22.3
61
10.0-18.0
92.8-105.6
10.8-16.0
50-770
5.7-7.7
t-Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA=Not applicable
4-24
-------
Table 4-8
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set #1
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethylbenzene
43. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
80. Chrysene
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
145. Pyrene
Detected BOAT List
Metal Constituents
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Untreated
K048»
Concentration
ing/kg
(ppm)
14
46
130
170
46
<0.66
321
166
79
5.0
3.9
47.0
0.84
<0.4
190.0
30.0
180
<0.05
11.0
5.5
230.0
280.0
Scrubber
Water
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.0041
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.034
0.32
1.6
0.004
0.009
5.9
1.3
1.3
9.4
0.0034
0.29
0.9
7.7
9.0
—Hexavalent chromium could not be analyzed due to colorimetric
interferences.
»K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-25
-------
Table 4-8 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set #1
Detected BDAT List
Inorganic Constituents
169. Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
Physical Parameters
Total Solids
Untreated
K048»
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<0.6
5.3
880
120,000
Scrubber
Water
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
0.32
2.0
7,700
—Data were not available for this constituent.
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-26
-------
Table 4-9
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR KOU8
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set #2
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethylbenzene
43. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
80. Chrysene
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
145. Pyrene
Detected BOAT List
Metal Constituents
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
153. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Untreated
K048»
Concentration
mg /kg
(ppm)
14
43
140
150
42
<0.66
300
160
70
4.7
2.9
45.0
0.81
<0.4
190.0
28.0
180
0.1
9.7
5.2
230.0
270.0
Scrubber -
Water
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.0041
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.094
0.39
4.7
0.015
0.039
24.0
1.6
4.3
10.0
0.0032
1.2
0.6
29.0
33.0
—Hexavalent chromium could not be analyzed due to colorimetric
interferences.
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge,
4-27
-------
Table 4-9 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set *2
Untreated Scrubber
K048» Water
Concentration Concentration
Detected BDAT List mg/kg mg/L
Inorganic Constituents (ppm) (ppm)
169. Cyanide 7.9 —
170. Fluoride 8.9 0.28
171. Sulfide 830 2.0
Physical Parameters
Total Solids 280,000 5,400
—Data were not available for this constituent.
*K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-28
-------
Table 4-10
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set #3
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethylbenzene
43. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
80. Chrysene
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
145. Pyrene
Detected BDAT List
Metal Constituents
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Untreated
K048*
Concentration
mg/kg
(PPm)
16
45
150
160
59
49
290
170
91
4.4
3.5
43.0
0.79
<0.4
180.0
<0.4
27.0
180
0.1
9.5
5.7
220.0
260.0
Scrubber
Water
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.0041
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
NS
0.22
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.2
NS
9.0
<0.002
NS
0.19
NS
NS
NS = Sample aliquot was not sufficient for analysis.
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
RBD-4
0720-01.nrj.5
4-29
-------
Table 4-10 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set #3
Untreated Scrubber
K048» Water
Concentration Concentration
Detected BDAT List mg/kg mg/L
Inorganic Constituents (ppm) (ppm)
169. Cyanide 2.6
170. Fluoride 5.5 0.28
171. Sulfide 700 2.0
Physical Parameters
Total Solids 180,000 5,200
—Data were not available for this constituent.
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-30
-------
Table 4-11
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048.
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set //4
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethylbenzene
U3. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
80. Chrysene
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
145. Pyrene
Detected BDAT List
Metal Constituents
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
153. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Untreated
K048»
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
14
46
140
170
55
52
310
186
4.4
3.1
44.0
0.82
<0.4
180.0
27.0
170
0.18
9.7
5.3
230.0
260.0
Scrubber
Water
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.0041
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.085
0.23
2.6
0.008
0.017
8.5
1.2
1.9
7.4
<0.002
0.44
0.52
13.0
14.0
—Hexavalent chromium could not be analyzed due to colorimetric
interferences.
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-31
-------
Table 4-11 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set 14
Untreated Scrubber
K048» Water
Concentration Concentration
Detected BDAT List mg/kg mg/L
Inorganic Constituents (ppm) (ppm)
169. Cyanide 1.1
170. Fluoride 10.0 0.23
171. Sulfide 760 3.0
Physical Parameters
Total Solids 2,000 5,400
—Data were not available for this constituent.
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-32
-------
Table 4-12
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR KOU8
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set #5
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethylbenzene
43. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
80. Chrysene
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
145. Pyrene
Detected BOAT List
Metal Constituents
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. .Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Untreated
K048»
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
15
42
150
150
<0.66
58
350
190
93
4.7
3.6
45.0
0.84
<0.4
180.0
27.0
170
0.26
8.9
5.4
230.0
270.0
Scrubber
Water
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.0041
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.085
0.22
2.2
0.006
0.015
7.3
1.1
1.7
8.4
<0.002
0.39
0.44
11.0
12.0
—Hexavalent chromium could not be analyzed due to colorimetric
interferences.
*K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-33
-------
Table 4-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set #5
Untreated Scrubber
K048» Water
Concentration Concentration
Detected BDAT List mg/tcg mg/L
Inorganic Constituents (ppm) (ppm)
169. Cyanide <0.6
170. Fluoride 16.0 0.24
171. Sulfide 1,200 2.0
Physical Parameters
Total Solids 170,000 5,300
—Data were not available for this constituent.
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-34
-------
Table 4-13
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR KOU8
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set #6
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethylbenzene
43. Toluene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
80. Chrysene
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
145. Pyrene
Detected BDAT List
Metal Constituents
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Untreated
K048*
Concentration
mg/kg .
(ppm)
13
45
140
170
49
52
310
190
82
4.6
3.6
45.0
0.83
<0.4
180.0
28.0
180
0.18
9.4
5.6
230.0
260.0
Scrubber
Water
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.0041
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.16
0.31
2.06
0.039
<0.004
6.7
1.1
1.9
12
<0.002
0.38
0.64
16.0
10.0
—Hexavalent chromium could not be analyzed due to colorimetric
interferences.
»K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-35
-------
Table 4-13 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WATER
Sample Set #6
Untreated Scrubber
KOU8» Water
Concentration Concentration
Detected BDAT List mg/kg mg/L
Inorganic Constituents (ppm) (ppm)
169. Cyanide 4.5
170. Fluoride 22.0 0.25
171. Sulfide 330 <1.0
Physical Parameters
Total Solids 240,000 8,600
—Data were not available for this constituent.
•K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-36
-------
Table 4-14
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
(SPECIFIC WASTE CODES NOT REPORTED)
PLANT C - PRESSURE FILTRATION (BELT FILTER PRESS)
Detected BOAT List Constituents*
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
34. Methyl ethyl ketone
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene
59. Benz(a)anthracene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
63. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
80. Chrysene
81. o-Cresol
82. p-Cresol
83. Dlbenz(a,h)anthracene
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
108. Fluoranthene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenan threne
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
Untreated Waste*
mg/kg
(ppm)
2,100
1,300
<390
6,300
5,900
22
17
9.4
6.3
4.2
19
<2
<2
3.9
<10
9.2
180
240
<2
59
mg/kg
<0.2
120
<0.5
150
30
0.09
7
<0.4
Treated Waste
Filter Cake
mg/kg
(ppm)
41
33
<12
190
219
18
<8
<8
<8
<8
10
<0.04
1.30
<8
0.70
<8
94
120
0.90
30
TCLP mg/L
<0.1
1.0
<0.02
<0.025
<0.1
NA
6
<0.3
<0.02
•The untreated waste consists of petroleum refinery wastes.
— Data were not available for this constituent.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BDAT List organic and metal constituents.
BDL = Below detection limit.
NA = Not analyzed.
4-37
-------
Table 4-14 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
(SPECIFIC WASTE CODES NOT REPORTED)
PLANT C - PRESSURE FILTRATION (BELT FILTER PRESS)
Design and Operating Parameters Operating Range*
Sludge feed rate (gpm) 61-75
Washwater feed rate (gpm) 100
Washwater pressure (psig) 96
Feed temperature (°F) 85
Polymer solution concentration (wt» 1.5
Polymer solution feed rate (gph) 225-230
Belt tension
Top Belt (psig) 11
Bottom Belt (psig) 12
•Design values were not presented in the API report.
U-38
-------
Table 4-15
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
FOR K048, K049, AND K051
PLANT D - PRESSURE FILTRATION (PLATE FILTER PRESS)
Untreated Waste* Treated Waste
Filter Cake
mg/kg mg/kg
Detected BOAT List Constituents* (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene 530 89
226. Ethyl benzene 1,100 340
34. Methyl ethyl ketone <1,500 <850
43. Toluene 1,500 370
215-217. Xylene (total) 4,000 1,120
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene 29 9.4
59. Benz(a)anthracene 18 7.7
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 11 3.8
63. Benzo(b)fluoranthene . 8 2.6
70. Bi3(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <2 <1
80. Chrysene 30 12
81. o-Cresol <2 <1
82. p-Cresol <2 <1
83. Dibenz(a,h)anthracene <2 1.2
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol <2 <1
108. Fluoranthene 10 <1
121. Naphthalene 490 160
141. Phenanthrene 210 51
142. Phenol <2 <1
145. Pyrene 95 27
METALS mg/kg TCLP mg/L
155. Arsenic 1.2 0.008
156. Bari.ua 21 . 0.82
158. Cadmium <0.5 <0.02
159. Chromium (total) 150 <0.025
161. Lead 8.2 <0.1
162. Mercury <0.05 <0.001
164. Selenium <1 <0.004
165. Silver — <0.01
•The untreated waste is a mixture of K048, K049, K051, and miscellaneous oily
materials.
—- Data were not available for this constituent.
^Analyses were not performed for all BDAT List organic and metal constituents.
4-39
-------
Table 4-15 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY
FOR K048, K049, AND K051
PLANT D - PRESSURE FILTRATION (PLATE FILTER PRESS)
Design and Operating Parameters Operating Range*
Fill time** (rain) 12
Filtration time (min 225
Cake release time (min) 20
Plate Filter Press temperature (°F) 145
Final Feed Pressure (psig) 210
Lime Dosage (% of total sludge feed) 2.5
Type of filter cloth satin weave nylon
•Design values were not presented in the API report.
**At sludge feed rate of 565 gpm.
4-40
-------
Table 4-16
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT G - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
222. Acetone
4. Benzene
226. Ethylbenzene
U3. Toluene
47. Tr ichloroethene
215- Xylene (total)
217.
SEMIVOLATILES
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate
80. Chrysene
Untreated Waste
K048-K052*
Concentration
(ppm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Treated Waste
<3
49
<4
<7
4.7
4.5
5.6
<7
Solids Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
2.5
3.8
0.28
0.49
5.0
6.4
9.0
9.2
0.32
<2.4
35
35
6.6
5.2
5.5
TCLP
mg/L (ppm)
<20
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
NA = Not analyzed.
4-41
-------
Table 4-16 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT G - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES (Cont.)
87. o-Dichlorobenzene
108. Fluoranthene
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
Untreated Waste
K048-K052*
Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
3.3
<3
<3
<3
3.7
<3
<3
<3
4.2
<4
<7
22
28
30
22
13
13
16
17
4.5
<3
<4
<7
Treated Waste
Solids Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
TCL?
mg/L (ppm)
<20
<20
20
2.3
<20
2.5
2.1
2.3
<20
^Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
NA = Not analyzed.
4-42
-------
Table 4-16 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT G - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
K048-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCLP
Organic Constituents me/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/L (ppm)
VOLATILES (Cont.)
145. Pyrene <3 <19
<3 <17
3.6 <20
<3
Detected BDAT List
Metal Constituents
156. Barium 210 554 <0.03
190 585 <0.03
250 516 <0.05
260 549 <0.05
320 105 <0.05
160 140 <0.05
270 321 <0.05
370 190 <0.05
310 578 <0.05
220 416
360 583
200
180
200
160
230
180
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
NA = Not analyzed.
4-43
-------
Table 4-16 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT G - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BOAT List
Metal Constituents (Cont.)
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
Untreated Waste
K048-K052»
Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
0.7
<0.5
6.2
5
6
6
7
5
7
7
7
5
7
7
6
7
6
6
5
23
23
24
24
24
21
25
30
27
21
27
29
26
24
24
23
24
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
NA = Not analyzed.
4-44
Treated Waste
160. Copper
Solids Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
NA
19
19
19
18
20
18
21
22
23
24
26
103
101
112
105
115
100
134
114
112
136
37
TCLP
mg/L (ppm)
NA
<0.05
<0.05
<0.03
<0.03
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
-------
Table U-16 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT G - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BOAT List
Metal Constituents (Cont.)
161. Lead
162. Mercury
164. Selenium
Untreated Waste
K048-K052*
Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
2,700
2,700
4,000
3,100
3,600
2,200
3,400
4,300
3,700
2,800
4,100
3,300
3,200
2,900
2,700
2,900
3,200
<0.05
<4
Treated Waste
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
NA = Not analyzed.
Solids Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
18,800
18,800
21,300
20,000
24,700
21,300
15,100
23,200
31,100
27,300
29,300
TCLP
mg/L (ppm)
5.9
5.2
11.0
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.9
12.0
<0.001
<0.004
<8
0.007
0.002
<0.001
0.008
0.020
<0.04
<0.008
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.08
4-45
-------
Table 4-16 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT G - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
KOU8-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCLP
Metal Constituents (Cont.) mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/L (ppm)
167. Vanadium 2 NA NA
<1
168. Zinc 310 990 22
280 862 21
300 902 22
300 839 22
320 1,030 25
270 930 25
310 1,210 26
330 972 30
310 1,040 33
280 1,240
350 1,260
330
320
310
300
280
300
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
NA = Not analyzed.
4-46
-------
Table 4-16 (Continued)
•
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT G - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BDAT
List Constituents (Cont.)
PCBs
203. Aroclor 1242
Untreated Waste
K048-K052*
Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
5.1
2.7
4.8
2.1
4.1
3.9
1.8
3.2
3.7
.1.3
4.6
4.9
3.8
3.4
3.4
8.7
8.4
3.5
1.9
2.9
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.8
0.55
2.3
2.3
2.0
1.4
2.2
2.6
3.0
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
206. Aroclor 1260
Treated Waste
Solids Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
0.37
<0.00086
<0.00083
TCLP
mg/L (ppm)
<0.04
<0.005
<0.0017
4-47
-------
Table 1-17
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K018 AND K051
PLANT I - STABILIZATION OF INCINERATOR ASH
*-
00
Treated Waste
Untreated Waste
Detected TCLP Extracts
BDAT
List
of K018 and
Metal K051 Inciner-
Constituents
151.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
221.
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
(total)
Chromium
a tor Ash
0.06-0.09
0.008-0.025
0.17-0.25
0.001
<0.003
2.1-2.6
(hexavalent) NA
160.
161.
162.
163.
161.
165.
166.
167.
168.
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.02
<0.05
0.0002-0.0003
0.02-0.03
0.033-0.12
<0.009
NA
2.5-3.6
0.055-0.11
TCLP Extracts of Stabilized Fluidized Bed Incinerator Ash
Cement Binder
Run 1
mg/L
(Ppm)
<0.163
<0.001
0.277
<0.001
<0.003
2.11
0.115
<0.003
<0.006
NA
<0.018
0.025
< 0.006
<0.001
1.1
0.058
Run 2
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
<0.001
0.28
<0.001
<0.003
2.12
0.326
<0.003
< 0.006
NA
<0.018
0.022
<0.006
0.009
1.21
0.017
Run j
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
<0.00l
0.278
<0.001
<0.003
2.16
2.17
0.015
0.011
NA
<0.018
0.021
<0.006
<0.001
1.29
0.086
Kiln
Run 1
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
0.005
0.203
<0.001
<0.003
1.78
0.38
<0.003
0.02
NA
<0.018
0.011
<0.006
<0.001
1.53
0.018
Dust Binder
Run 2
mg/L
(ppm)
0.178
0.005
0.2
<0.001
<0.003
1.92
0.395
<0.003
0.009
NA
<0.018
0.013
< 0.006
<0.001
1.61
0.012
Run 3
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
0.005
0.201
<0.001
<0.003
1.87
2.13
<0.003
<0.006
NA
<0.018
0.01
<0.006
<0.001
1.56
0.031
Lime and Fly Ash
Run 1
mg/L
(PPm)
<0.163
<0.001
0.558
<0.001
<0.003
1.13
0.331
<0.003
<0.006
NA
<0.018
0.013
<0.006
<0.001
0.118
0.02
Run 2
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
<0.001
0.521
<0.001
<0.003
1.21
0.259
<0.003
<0.006
NA
<0.018
0.016
<0.006
<0.001
0. 149
0.022
Binder
Run 3
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.163
0.006
0.599
<0.001
<0.003
. 1.08
0.071
0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.018
0.017
<0.006
<0.001
0.156
0.052
NA = Not analyzed.
-------
*>
I
vO
Table 4-17 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K018 AND K051
PLANT I - STABILIZATION OF INCINERATOR ASH
Stabilization
Design and
Operating Parameters
Binder to Ash Ratio
Lime to Ash Ratio
Fly Ash to Ash Ratio
Water to Ash Ratio
Ambient Temperature (°C)
Mixture pH
Cure Time (Days)
Unconfined Compress! ve Strength
Run 1
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
23
11.6
28
943.5
Cement
Run 2
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
23
11.5
28
921.6
Process
Kiln Dust
Run 3
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
23
11.5
28
1270
Run 1
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
19
12.1
28
222.8
Run 2
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
19.5
12.1
28
267.7
Run 3
0.2
NP
NP
0.5
20
12.1
28
241.0
Lime
Run 1
NP
0.2
0.2
0.5
19
12.0
28
565.8
and Fly
Run 2
NP
0.2
0.2
0.5
19
12.1
28
512.6
Ash
Run 3
NP
0.2
0.2
0.5
19
12.1
28
578.8
NP = Not applicable.
-------
Table 4-18
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Three-Cycle Process)
Untreated Waste _.. Treated Waste
K048-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCLP
Organic Constituents mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/L (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene 130 <2
120 <2
86 <2
150 <5
190 <2
180 <6
226. Ethylbenzene 100 <10
97 6.2
76 <5.0
100 <25
120 <5.0
110 <30
43. Toluene 310 <2
280 <2
230 <2
360 <5
470 <2
400 <6
215- Xylene (total) 500 246
217. 490 223
420 237
540 30
570 118.8
550 607
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
4-50
-------
Table 4-18 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR' K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Three-Cycle Process)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
K048-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCLP
Organic Constituents mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/L (pom)
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene <21 <2.0
<20 <2.0
<20 <5.0
<20 <2.0
<19 <2.0
<20 <2.0
<2.0
<2.0
59. Benz(a)anthracene <21 1.20
<20 0.700
<20 0.71
<20 <0.70
21 <0.70
<20 1.1
0.92
0.89
62. Benzo(a)pyrene <21 0.750
<20 <0.60
<20 <0.60
<20 <0.60
<19 <0.60
<20 0.75
0.66
0.71
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
4-51
-------
Table 4-18 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Three-Cycle Process)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
K043-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCLP
Organic Constituents mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/L (ppm)
SEMIVOLATILES (Cont.)
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- <21 <0.80
phthalate <20 4.90
<20 <0.8
<20 <0.8
<19 <0.8
<20 <0.8
<0.8
30
80. Chrysene 23 1.70 .
24 1.00
21 1.1
<20 0.9
33 <0.8
<20 1.5
1.3
1.4
83. Dibenz(a,h)anthracene <21 <0.60
<20 <0.60
<20 <0.60
<20 <0.60
<19 <0.60
<20 <0.60
0.75
0.65
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
U-52
-------
Table 4-18 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Three-Cycle Process)
Untreated Waste Treated Haste
K048-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCLP
Organic Constituents mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) ag/L (pom)
SEMIVOLATILES (Cont.)
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate <21 <0.80
<20 <0.80
<20 <0.8
<20 <0.8
<19 <0.8
<20 <0.8
<0.8
<0.8
121. Naphthalene 120 280.0
110 18.0
98 200
56 60
140 110
57 200
100
280
141. Phenanthrene 140 4.70
140 3.10
120 2.6
64 1.3
140 1.4
64 3.0
3.4
3.7
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
4-53
-------
Table 4-18 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Three-Cycle Process)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
K048-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCL?
Organic Constituents nig/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/L (com)
SEMIVOLATILES (Cont.)
145. Pyrene . 34 1.50
28 0.90
33 0.9
<20 <0.8
36 0.8
<20 1.3
1.5
0.9
81. o-Cresol <10 <0.80
<10 <0.80
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<0.8
<0.8
82. p-Cresol <10 <0.80
<10 <0.80
<10 <0.8
<10 0.9
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<0.8
<0.8
142. Phenol <10 <2.0
<10 <2.0
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<0.8
<0.8
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
4-54
-------
Table 4-18 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Three-Cycle Process)
Detected BOAT List
Metals Constituents
154. Antimony
Untreated Waste
K048-K052*
Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
Treated Waste
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
,2
.2
,2
.2
,2
<0.2
1.7
2.3
1.9
2.3
2.a
2.3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.J02
Solids Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
10
12
6
5
8
4.1
13
12
10
12
11
710
790
730
720
760
800
TCLP
mg/L (ppm)
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.005
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
0.012
0.010
0.005
<0.003
0.3
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
—Data were not available for this constituent.
4-55
-------
Table 4-18 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Three-Cycle Process)
Detected BOAT List
Metals Constituents (Cont.)
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
161. Lead
162. Mercury
Untreated Waste
K048-K052*
Concentration
nig/kg (ppm)
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
«3.001
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
Treated Waste
Solids Concentration
mg/ksj (ppm)
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1
1.1
370
450
480
510
570
540
16
37
32
35
40
36
0.92
0.86
0.93
1.10
860
1.10
TCLP
ms/L (ppm)
<0.05
<0.05
0.14
0.33
0.76
0.59
<0.05
<0.1
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.5
« H
"Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
—Data were not available for this constituent.
4-56
-------
Table 4-18 (Continued)
REATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Three-Cycle Process)
Detected BOAT List
Mecals Constituents (Cont.)
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Untreated Waste
K048-K052*
Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
0.9
0.9
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
<0.04
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
Treated Waste
"Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
—Data were not available for this constituent.
Solids Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
39
43
37
34
33
37
<0.4
3
3
2
2
<2
22
25
23
22
22
22
...
TCLP
mg/L (oom)
0.4
<0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
<0.2
<0.4
<0.02
<0.02
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
15
0.39
11
10
9.4
8.6
1.2
2.1
4-57
-------
Table 4-18 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Three-Cycle Process)
Detected BOAT List
Inorganic Constituents
169. Cyanide
Untreated Waste
K048-K052*
Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
Treated Waste
Solids Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
30
44
32
28
28
22
TCL?
mg/L (ppm)
"Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
—Data were not available for this constituent.
4-58
-------
Table 4-19
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Single-Cycle Process)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
K048-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCL?
Organic Constituents mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/L (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene 130 <2.0
120 <2.0
86 <2.0
150 <2.0
190 <2.0
180 <2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
226. Ethylbenzene 100 6.9
97 8.2
76 <2.0
100 8.5
120 4.7
110 1.0
2.2
<2.0
<2.0
43. Toluene 310 <2.0
280 2.3
230 <2.0
360 2.4
470 7.4
400 <2.0
3.1
<2.0
<2.0
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
4-59
-------
Table 4-19 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Single-Cycle Process)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
K048-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCLP
Organic Constituents mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/L (ppm)
VOLATILES (Cont.)
215- Xylene (total) 500 94
217. 490 107
420 14.9
540 112
570 53
550 10.4
28
9.0
18.1
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene <21 0.74
<20 <5.0
<20 <4.0
<20 <5.0
<19 <4.0
<20 <5.0
<5.0
<5.0
59. Benz(a)anthracene <21 1.1
<20 3.6
<20 <0.8
<20 <0.8
21 <0.8 .
<20 2.5
1.7
1.6
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
4-60
-------
Table 4-19 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR KOU8-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Single-Cycle Process)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
KOU8-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCL?
Organic Constituents rag/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/L (ppm)
SEMIVOLATILES (Cont.)
63. Benzo(b)fluoranthene <21 1.1
<20 2.2
<20 <0.8
<20 1.7
<19 1.6
<20 1.9
<0.8
1.3
62. Benzo(a)pyrene <21 1.3
<20 2.9
<20 8.5
<2Q 5.3
<19 U.8
<20 2.5
U.9
U.8
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- <21 <0.8
phthalate <20 <0.8
<20 <0.8
<20 <0.8
<19 <0.8
<20 13
<0.8
<0.8
"Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
U-61
-------
Table 4-19 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Single-Cycle Process)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
K048-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCLP
Organic Constituents mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/L '.'ppm)
SEMIVOLATILES (Cont.)
80. Chrysene 23 2.3
2U 6.8
21 5.8
<20 4.8
33 4.4
<20 5.0
3.3
3.5
83. Dibenz(a,h)anthracene <21 <0.70
<20 <5.0
<20 <4.0
<20 <5.0
<19 <4.0
<20 1.4
<5.0
<5.0
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate <21 <0.8
<20 <0.8
<20 <4.0
<20 <0.8
<19 <4.0
<20 <0.8
<5.0
<5.0
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
4-62
-------
Table 4-19 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED 3Y INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Single-Cycle Process)
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
SEMIVOLATILES (Cont.)
121. Naphthalene
1U1. Phenanthrene
145. Pyrene
Untreated Waste
K048-K052*
Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
120
110
98
56
140
57
mo
140
120
64
140
64
34
28
33
<20
36
<20
Treated Waste
Solids Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
5.6
8.5
32
14
6.9
17
6.6
7.8
4.6
11
11
14
8.5
12
4.8
6.4
1.8
5.9
5.0
4.7
3.8
4.3
2.1
2.4
TCLP
mg/'L fppm)
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
4-63
-------
Table U-19 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR KOU8-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Single-Cycle Process)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
KOU3-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCLP
Organic Constituents mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (pom) mg/L (ppm)
SEMIVOLATILES (Cont.)
81. o-Cresol <10 <0.80
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<5.0
<0.8
82. p-Cresol OO <0.80
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <5.0
<0.8
142. Phenol. <10 <0.80
<10 <0.80
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<10 <0.8
<0.8
<0.8
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
U-64
-------
Table 4-19 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Single-Cycle Process)
Detected BOAT List
Metal Constituents
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
159. Chromium (total)
Untreated Waste
K048-K052*
Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
1.7
2.3
1-9
2.3
2.4
2.3
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
Treated Waste
Solids Concentration
mg/kg (opm)
TCL?
mg/L (
< 0.006
0.027
0.022
0.016
0.018
<0.006
0.016
<0.006
0.72
0.25
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
1.4
<0.05
163. Nickel
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
—Data were not available for this constituent.
<0.2
<0.2
<0.08
<0.
<0.
,2
.2
0.25
<0.2
<0.4
4-65
-------
Table U-19 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT M - SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Single-Cycle Process)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
K048-K052*
Detected BOAT List Concentration Solids Concentration TCLP
Metal Constituents (Cont.) mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/L (ppm)
164. Selenium <0.04 — <0.02
<0.02 0.02
<0.02 <0.02
<0.02 <0.02
<0.02 <0.02
<0.02 <0.02
<0.02
0.004
168. Zinc — — <0.14
<0.14
<0.14
<0.14
<0.14
13
<0.14
<0.19
•Unspecified mixture of refinery wastes.
—Data were not available for this constituent.
4-66
-------
Table 1-20
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K062,
PLANT P - CHROMIUM REDUCTION FOLLOWED BY LIME AND SULFIDE PRECIPITATION AND VACUUM FILTRATION
Samp Ia Sat »\
Sample Sat «2
Detected BOAT
List Metal
Const Ituents
Untreated K062*
ConcentratIon
(ppa)
Ant tmony
Arsenic
Barium
BaryI I I urn
Cadmium
Chromium
Cnromlum
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
SiIver
Thai I turn
Zinc
(hexavalant)
(total)
<2
13
893
2.581
138
64
471
<2
116
Treated K062
WasteMater
Concentrat ton
(ppm)
<0.2
-------
Table 1-20 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K062,
PLANT P - CHROMIUM REDUCTION FOLLOWED BY LIME AND SULFIDE PRECIPITATION AND VACUUM FILTRATION
Sample Sat J>4
Sample Set
Detected BOAT
List Metal
Const Ituents
Untreated K062*
Concentration
(PP»)
00
AntImony
Arsenic
BarIum
BeryI Iium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
SI Iver
Thai IIum
Zinc
(heiavalent)
(total)
<2
-------
Table 4-20 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K062,
PLANT P - CHROMIUM REDUCTION FOLLOWED BY LIME AND SULFIDE PRECIPITATION AND VACUUM FILTRATION
Sample Sat »7
Sample Set »B
I
cr>
vo
Detected BOAT
List Natal
Const Ituents
Untreated K062*
Concent rat 1on
(PP»)
Ant tmony
Arsenic
Barium
BeryI Iium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SeI enIum
SI Iver
Thai IIum
Zinc
(hexavalant)
(total)
<2
10
769
2.314
72
108
426
00
<2
171
Treated K062
Wastewater
ConcentratIon
(ppm)
<0. 1
<0.2
<0.5
0. 12
0. 12
0. 16
<0.01
0.40
<0.2
0. IIS
Untreated K062*
ConcentratIon
(ppm)
<2
<5
0. 13
831
217
212
669
<2
151
Treated K062
wastexater
ConcentratIon
(ppm)
<0. 1
<0.2
<0.5
-------
Table 1-20 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K062,
PLANT P - CHROMIUM REDUCTION FOLLOWED BY LIME AND SULFIDE PRECIPITATION AND VACUUM FILTRATION
Sample Set »\Q
Sample Set l\\
~4
o
Detected BOAT
List Metal
Const\tuenta
Untreated K062
Concentration
(pp»)
Ant tmony
Arsenic
Barium
BeryI I1um
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SeI enturn
SIIwer
Thai Ilum
Zinc
(hexavalent)
(total)
<2
<5
O.OB
395
191
712
<2
10
5
Treated K062
Waatawatar
Concentration
(ppm)
<0.2
<0.5
0. 106
0.12
0.14
<0.01
0.33
<0.2
0.070
Untreated K062
Concantrat Ion
(ppm)
-------
5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED AND AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
In this section, EPA explains its determination of which technology
represents BOAT for nonwastewater and wastewater forms of refinery wastes
K048-K052. As discussed in detail in Section 1.0, this determination essen-
tially involves determining which of the "demonstrated" technologies will
provide the "best" treatment and, at the same time, be determined to be
"available" (i.e., the technology is commercially available and provides
substantial treatment).
Where EPA has performance data from more than one technology, EPA
uses the statistical method known as analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine
which technology provides the best level of treatment. Prior to making this
determination, EPA examines the data to determine if any data should be
deleted based on poor design or operation of the treatment system and to
determine whether sufficient quality assurance/quality control measures were
employed to ensure the accuracy of the data.
Presented In this section are summaries of the steps taken by EPA in
evaluation of the available treatment performance data, including the prelimi-
nary data review and adjustment of data to account for analytical accuracy;
the results of the statistical comparisons of the data sets; and the identifi-
cation of the technologies determined to be BOAT for K048-K052 wastes.
5-1
-------
that was detected in either the untreated or treated waste were corrected by
multiplying the reported concentration of the constituent by the corresponding
accuracy correction factor. Note that constituent concentrations were not
adjusted to values below the detection limit for each constituent. If accu-
racy correction as described above resulted in a value less than the detection
limit, the accuracy-corrected concentration was set equal to the detection
limit.
Matrix spike recoveries are developed by analyzing a sample of a
treated waste for a constituent and then reanalyzing the sample after the
addition of a known amount of the same constituent (i.e., spike) to the
sample. The matrix spike recovery represents the total amount of constituent
recovered after spiking minus the initial concentration of the constituent in
the sample, and the result divided by the known amount of constituent added.
Matrix spike recovery data were not submitted or were not available
for some data sets that were submitted by industry. In these cases the Agency
did not adjust the data.
5.2.1 Accuracy Correction of Treatment Performance Data for Nonwastewaters
Presented below are descriptions of how treatment performance data
for treatment of nonwastewaters were adjusted for each BOAT List constituent
that was detected in either the untreated or treated waste.
5-3
-------
Fluidized Bed Incineration
Treated waste (ash) concentrations from fluidized bed incineration
of KOU8 and K051 and plant A were corrected for accuracy using data from
matrix spike recoveries performed during analysis of the ash samples. Table
D-5 (presented in Appendix D of this background document) presents matrix
spike recoveries for BOAT List organic, metal, and inorganic constituents.
The constituents included in Table D-5 were found in either the untreated
waste or the fluidized bed incinerator ash, or both.
For most volatiles and inorganic constituents, the matrix spike
recovery shown on Table D-5 was determined from the result of one matrix spike
performed for each constituent. For constituents for which no matrix spike
was performed, the matrix spike recovery shown in Table D-5 was derived from
the average matrix spike recovery of the appropriate group of constituents
(volatile or inorganic constituents) for which recovery data were available.
For example, no matrix spike was performed for dichlorodifluoromethane; the
matrix spike recovery used for this constituent was the result obtained by
averaging the matrix spike recoveries for all volatile constituents for which
recovery data were available.
Duplicate matrix spikes were performed for some BDAT List semivola-
tile constituents. Where duplicate matrix spikes were performed for a
semivolatile constituent, the matrix spike recovery used for that constituent
was the lower of the two values from the first matrix spike and the duplicate
spike, as shown in Table D-5. Where a matrix spike was not performed for a
RBD-1 5-4
1230-01.mel.U
-------
semivolatile constituent, a matrix spike recovery for that constituent was
based on semivolatile constituents for which there were recovery data from the
two matrix spikes. In these cases, an average matrix spike recovery was
calculated for all semivolatiles for the first matrix spike and an average was
calculated for the duplicate matrix spike recoveries.. The lower of the two
average matrix spike recoveries of semivolatile constituents was used for any
semivolatile constituent for which no matrix spike was performed. For
example, no matrix spike was performed for di-n-butyl phthalate, a base/
neutral fraction semivolatile, in fluidized bed incinerator ash; however, the
treatment performance data for this constituent were adjusted for accuracy
using a matrix spike recovery of 67%. This recovery was selected after
averaging the matrix spike recoveries calculated for all base/neutral fraction
semivolatiles in the first matrix spike (69f) and in the duplicate spike
(67%). The lower average matrix spike recovery of 67% was selected to subse-
quently calculate the accuracy correction factor for di-n-butyl phthalate.
Where a matrix spike was not performed for a BOAT List metal in the
TCLP extract of incinerator ash and matrix spike data were available for the
extract of that BOAT List metal from a similar matrix (i.e., TCLP extract from
stabilized incinerator ash), the analytical data were adjusted using the
average matrix spike recovery for the metal in the TCLP extracts of stabilized
incinerator ash.
The accuracy correction factors for fluidized bed incinerator ash
data are summarized in Appendix D, Table D-9. The corrected treatment concen-
5-5
-------
trations for BOAT List constituents that were detected in the untreated waste
are presented in Table 5-1. These performance data for fluidized bed
incineration were used in the determination of BOAT for treatment of organics
and cyanide in nonwastewaters, as discussed in Sections 5.3 and 5.4.
5-6
-------
Solvent Extraction
The quality assurance/quality control information required to adjust
the data values for accuracy was not provided for plant G. Therefore, the
solvent extraction treatment performance data for plant G have not been
adjusted. However, the Agency has no reason to believe that sufficient QA/QC
control measures were not followed in development of these performance data.
Detailed QA/QC information was submitted by plant L and plant M;
however, information needed to adjust the performance data for analytical
accuracy was not provided. The QA/QC reports submitted by plant L and plant M
included matrix spike recovery data; however, the spikes were conducted on a
standard soil sample rather than on a treated waste sample. The recovery
data, therefore, do not provide an indication of analytical interferences
caused by the waste matrix and were not used to adjust the treatment
performance data.
The concentrations of BOAT List constituents in the treated waste
from solvent extraction treatment at plant G are presented in Table 4-16 in
Section 4.0. The concentrations in the treated waste from solvent extraction
treatment at plant L are presented in Section F.7 of Appendix F. The treated
waste concentrations from single cycle and three cycle solvent extraction
treatment at plant M are presented in Tables 4-18 and 4-19, respectively, in
Section 4.0. The solvent extraction performance data from plants G, L, and M
were used in the determination of BOAT for treatment of organics in
nonwastewaters, as discussed in Section 5.3.
RBD-1 5-7
1230-01.mel.7
-------
Stabilization
(a) Plant I. Table D-6 (Appendix D) presents the matrix spike
recoveries determined for TCLP extracts of stabilized incinerator ash for BOAT
s
List metals that were detected in either the untreated or treated waste at
plant I. In the case of the kiln dust binder, two matrix spike analyses were
performed. The lowest percent recovery value from the two matrix spike
analyses for a constituent was used as the recovery factor for that constitu-
ent in the extract from the kiln dust stabilized ash. In cases where a matrix
spike was not performed for a BOAT List metal in the stabilized ash and matrix
spike data were available for the extract of that BOAT List metal from a
similar matrix (i.e., ash stabilized using other binders), the analytical data
were adjusted using the average matrix spike recovery for the metal in the
waste stabilized with other binders. For example, a matrix spike was not
performed for antimony in cement stabilized ash; therefore, the analytical
data were adjusted using 74%, which was the average percent recovery for
antimony in kiln dust (66% and 81.5%) and lime and fly ash (75.1%) stabilized
ashes.
The accuracy correction factors for the stabilization data are
summarized in Appendix D, Table D-10. The corrected treatment concentrations
for stabilized incinerator ash are presented in Table 5-2. These performance
data were used in the determination of BOAT for treatment of metals in
nonwastewaters, as discussed in Section 5.5.
5-8
-------
(b) Plant J. The quality assurance/quality control information
required to adjust the data values for accuracy was not provided for plant J.
Therefore, the stabilization data have not been adjusted and are the same as
the treated waste values presented in Section F.5 in Appendix F. The Agency
has no reason to believe that sufficient QA/QC control measures were not
followed in development of these performance data. A review of the data for
untreated and treated wastes for the stabilization tests conducted at plant J
indicated that in most cases the TCLP leachates from the treated waste were
not lower than those from the untreated waste. Therefore, these data do not
demonstrate treatment and the data were not used to determine BOAT.
(c) Plant M. Insufficient data was available on stabilization at
plant M to be able to determine that treatment (reduction in leachability) of
the metals occurred. Specifically, TCLP data were not available for the
solids (effluent from the solvent extraction process) prior to stabilization.
Therefore, these data were not used to determine BOAT.
Pressure Filtration
The quality assurance/quality control information required to adjust
the data values for accuracy was not provided for plants B, C, D, and E.
Therefore, the pressure filtration data have not been adjusted. The Agency
has no reason to believe that sufficient QA/QC control measures were not
followed in development of these performance data. Data for plants C and D
are presented in Tables 4-14 and 4-15 of Section 4.0. Data from plants C and
5-9
-------
D were used in the determination of BOAT for treatment of organics in
nonwastewaters, as discussed in Section 5.3. Data for plants B and E are
presented in Sections F.I and F.2 of Appendix F. Data from plants B and E
were not used in the determination of BOAT because for most constituents, the
treated waste concentrations exceeded the untreated waste concentrations, and
therefore, effective treatment of BOAT List constituents is not shown.
5.2.2 Accuracy Correction of Treatment Performance Data for Wastewaters
Presented below are descriptions of how treatment performance data
and transferred treatment performance data for wastewaters were adjusted for
each BOAT List constituent detected in the untreated or treated waste.
Organics Data from KOU8 Scrubber Water
Table D-7 (presented in Appendix 0 of this background document)
presents matrix spike recoveries for BOAT List organic constituents that were
detected in either the untreated waste or in the scrubber water from fluidized
bed incineration. Aa shown in the table, duplicate matrix spikes were per-
formed for BOAT List volatile and semivolatile constituents. The matrix spike
recovery used for each constituent was the lower of the two values from the
first matrix spike and the duplicate spike.
5-10
-------
The accuracy correction factors for the scrubber water data are
summarized in Appendix D, Table D-11. The corrected treatment concentrations
for BOAT List constituents that were detected in the untreated waste are
presented in Table 5-3. These data were used in the determination of BOAT for
treatment of organics in wastewaters, as discussed in Section 5.6.
Metals Data From K062 and Metal-Bearing Characteristic Wastes
The quality assurance/quality control information required to adjust
the data values for accuracy was not available for performance data from
treatment of K062 and metal-bearing characteristic wastes (Reference 27).
Therefore, matrix spike recoveries for BOAT List metal constituents were
transferred from matrix spikes performed on the TCLP extracts of residual slag
as reported in the Onsite Engineering Report for Horsehead (Reference 28).
Appendix D, Table D-8, presents the matrix spike recoveries for BOAT List
metal constituents that were regulated in K048-K052 wastewater. The matrix
spike recovery used for each constituent was the lower of the two values from
the first matrix spike and the duplicate spike.
The accuracy correction factors for BOAT List metal constituents
that were regulated in K048-K052 wastewater are summarized in Appendix D,
Table 0-11. The corrected treatment concentrations for BOAT List metal
constituents that were regulated in K048-K052 wastewater are presented in
Table 5-4. These data were used in the determination of BOAT for treatment of
metals and inorganics in wastewaters, as discussed in Section 5.7.
5-11
-------
5.3 Identification of BOAT for Organics' In Nonwastewaters
The Agency identified the following four demonstrated treatment
technologies to be considered for BOAT for organics in nonwastewater forms of
KOU8-K052: solvent extraction, incineration including fluidized bed and
rotary kiln incineration, and pressure filtration. The treatment performance
data for these technologies were compared using the statistical method known
as the analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether one technology
performs significantly better than the others for treatment of BOAT List
organics in nonwastewaters. The following comparisons were performed using
ANOVA:
o Three-cycle solvent extraction at plant M versus single-cycle
solvent extraction at plant M and solvent extraction at plant
G;
o Pressure filtration at plants C and D versus three-cycle
solvent extraction at plant M and;
o Fluidized bed incineration at plant A versus three-cycle
solvent extraction at plant M.
The results of the statistical comparisons are presented in Appendix G and are
summarized below.
Comparison of Solvent Extraction Data
The Agency performed an ANOVA comparison of treatment performance
for three-cycle solvent extraction at plant M with single-cycle solvent
extraction at plant M and solvent extraction at plant G. The results of the
5-12
-------
ANOVA tests are presented in Appendix G. The results show that the
three-cycle solvent extraction system at plant M provided the best treatment
for most volatile and semivolatile organic constituents.
The Agency was not able to perform ANOVA comparisons of treatment
performance for solvent extraction at plant L and plants G and M because only
one data value was available for each constituent in the data from plant L.
However, a qualitative comparison of treatment performance for plant L and
plants G and M showed that the three-cycle solvent extraction system at plant
M provided the best treatment for most volatile and semivolatile organic
constituents.
Comparison of Pressure Filtration and Solvent Extraction
The Agency compared the performance of treatment by pressure filtra-
tion technologies from plants C and D with treatment by three-cycle solvent
extraction at plant M. The results of these comparisons are presented in
Appendix G. The results show that three-cycle solvent extraction provides
better treatment than pressure filtration for most organic constituents.
Comparison of Fluidized Bed Incineration and Solvent Extraction
The Agency performed an ANOVA comparison of treatment by fluidized
bed incineration at plant A with three-cycle solvent extraction treatment at
plant M. The test was performed for 12 volatile and semivolatile organic
5-13
-------
constituents. The results of the ANOVA comparisons are presented in Appendix
G. The ANOVA results show that there was no significant difference in perfor-
mance achieved by the two technologies for three constituents. There was a
statistically significant difference in treatment for nine constituents.
Average treated waste concentrations achieved by fluidized bed incineration
were lower than those achieved by three-cycle solvent extraction for these
constituents. For most constituents, the differences in average treated waste
concentrations were small. For naphthalene and xylenes the average treated
waste concentrations were approximately two orders of magnitude greater for
solvent extraction than for fluidized bed incineration. Data submitted
shortly before promulgation of the final rule suggest, however, that certain
solvent extraction is capable of better treatment of xylene and naphthalene
than the data from plant M. EPA is continuing to evaluate these new data.
Because of the questions raised as to the level of treatment achievable by
solvent extraction for xylene and naphthalene, however, EPA is deferring
regulation of these constitutents in the final rule.
The data comparisons also showed that treatment by both technologies
resulted in non-detect values for all other organic constituents that were
present in the untreated wastes.
BOAT for Organics in Nonwastewaters
In the determination of the "best" technologies for organics in
nonwastewaters, EPA considered the results of the ANOVA comparisons presented
5-14
-------
above and the benefits of petroleum resource recovery achieved by solvent
extraction.
The Agency has determined that the performance achieved by three-
cycle solvent extraction and fluidized bed incineration represent the "best"
treatment of BOAT List organic constituents in nonwastewater forms of refinery
wastes K048-K052. Both solvent extraction and fluidized bed incineration are
"available" technologies, i.e., they are commercially available technologies
and provide substantial treatment of the hazardous organic constituents in
nonwastewater forms of KOU8-K052 wastes. Therefore EPA has determined that
solvent extraction and fluidized bed incineration are BOAT for these wastes.
The BOAT treatment standards for most regulated organics in
nonwastewaters are based on the performance levels achieved by solvent extrac-
tion treatment. For di-n-butyl phthalate, however, the BOAT treatment stan-
dard is based on fluidized bed incineration treatment, as proposed. Although
both solvent extraction and fluidized bed incineration achieve levels of
non-detect for di-n-butyl phthalate in the treated waste, the treatment
standard for di-n-butyl phthalate calculated based on the performance of
fluidized bed incineration treatment is slightly higher than that based on
solvent extraction treatment. The difference is due to differences in detec-
tion limits and accuracy correction factors for the two technologies. The
Agency is promulgating the treatment standard for di-n-butyl phthalate based
on fluidized bed incineration, as proposed, to ensure that the standard can be
5-15
-------
achieved through incineration of these wastes, as well as solvent extraction,
based on EPA's Judgement that both of these technologies are BOAT.
5.4 Identification of BOAT for Cyanide in Nonwastewaters
The Agency has identified one demonstrated technology for treatment
of cyanide in nonwastewater forms of KOU8-K052: incineration, including
fluidized bed and rotary kiln incineration. The Agency has treatment perfor-
mance data for cyanide for fluidized bed incineration of K048 and K051 at
plant A. The Agency also has data on cyanide concentrations in the treated
waste from three-cycle solvent extraction at plant M. However, data on
cyanide concentrations in the untreated waste were not provided and therefore
the effectiveness of solvent extraction treatment could not be evaluated.
The Agency has determined that, based on the available data, the
performance achieved by fluidized bed incineration represents the "best"
treatment for cyanide in K048 and K051 nonwastewaters. Fluidized bed inciner-
ation is also an "available" technology since it is commercially available and
provides substantial treatment. Therefore, BOAT for cyanide in K048 and K051
nonwastewaters is fluidized bed incineration.
As discussed in Section 2.0, the Agency has determined that refinery
wastes K048-K052 represent a waste treatability group. Since fluidized bed
incineration is BOAT for cyanide in nonwastewater forms of K048 and K051, this
5-16
-------
technology is also BDAT for cyanide in nonwastewater forms of K049, K050, and
K052.
5.5 Identification of BDAT for Metals in Nonwastewaters
The Agency identified one demonstrated technology for treatment of
BDAT List metals in nonwastewater forms of K048-K052: stabilization. The
Agency used the ANOVA test to compare the performance of the stabilization
treatments using three different binders and to determine which binder system
provided the best treatment for metals in K048-K052 nonwastewater.
Three binder stabilization systems (cement, kiln dust, and lime and
fly ash) were compared using corrected TCLP extract concentrations for the -
unstabilized and stabilized ash from fluidized bed incineration of KOU8 and
K051. The ANOVA test was not performed on beryllium, cadmium, lead, and
silver because these metals were not detected in the TCLP extract of the
unstabilized incinerator ash. The test was also not performed for hexavalent
chromium and thallium because these metals were not analyzed in the TCLP
extract of the unstabilized ash since they were not on the BDAT List at the
time of analysis. The results of the ANOVA test are presented in Table 5-5.
The results indicate that, overall, fluidized bed incineration followed by
lime and fly ash stabilization provides significantly better or equivalent
treatment for most metal constituents (except for antimony and barium) than
fluidized bed incineration alone or fluidized bed incineration followed by
cement or kiln dust stabilization of the incinerator ash. EPA also expects
5-17
-------
that stabilization of solvent extraction residuals (solids) would achieve
similar levels of leachability.
Based on these results, EPA has determined that stabilization using
a lime and fly ash binder is the "best" technology for treatment of metals in
nonwastewater forms of K048 and K051. Stabilization is also an "available"
technology since it is commercially available and provides substantial treat-
ment. Therefore, BOAT for metals in nonwastewater forms of K048 and K051 is
lime and fly ash stabilization.
As discussed in Section 2.0, EPA has determined that refinery wastes
K048-K052 represent a waste treatability group; therefore, since lime and fly
ash stabilization has been determined to be BOAT for metals in nonwastewater
forms of K048 and K051 wastes, this technology is also BOAT for metals in
nonwastewater forms of K049, K050, and K052.
0
5.6 Identification of BOAT for Organics in Wastewaters
Wastewaters are generated as residuals from treatment of
nonwastewater forms of K048-K052. For example, incineration of K048-K052
results in a scrubber water residual. The Agency has treatment performance
data for organics in the scrubber water residual from fluidized bed incinera-
tion treatment of K048. The Agency has no other data on treatment of organics
in K048-K052 wastewaters. Although EPA believes that biological treatment,
solvent extraction, and carbon adsorption are also demonstrated technologies
5-18
-------
for treatment of organics in similar wastewaters, the Agency does not expect
that any of these technologies would improve upon the performance levels
achieved by fluidized bed incineration. Therefore, EPA has determined that
fluidized bed incineration provides the "best" treatment for organics in K048
wastewaters. This technology is also "available" since it is commercially
available and it provides substantial treatment of the hazardous organic
constituents in wastewaters. The BOAT treatment standards for organics in
K048 wastewaters are therefore based on the performance levels achieved in the
scrubber water from fluidized bed incineration.
As discussed in Section 2.0, EPA has determined that refinery wastes
K048-K052 represent a waste treatability group; therefore, since fluidized bed
incineration is the technology basis for BOAT treatment standards for organics
in wastewater forms of K048 wastes, these technologies also provide the
technology basis for BOAT treatment standards for organics in wastewater forms
of K049, K050, K051, and K052.
5.7 Identification of BOAT for Metals and Inorganics in Wastewaters
As described in Section 5.6, wastewaters are generated as residuals
from treatment of nonwastewater forms of K048-K052. These wastewaters may
contain BOAT List metal and inorganic constituents. The Agency has identified
the following demonstrated technologies for treatment of metals and inorganics
in K048-K052 wastewaters: chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide
precipitation and vacuum filtration.
5-19
-------
The Agency does not have data on treatment of metals and inorganics
in KOH8-K052 wastewaters. However, the Agency does have treatment performance
data for BOAT List metals and inorganics in wastes that are sufficiently
similar to K048-K052 wastewater residuals such that the performance data can
s
be transferred. The data were collected by EPA from one facility treating
K062 and metal-bearing characteristic wastes using chromium reduction followed
by lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration. Operating data
collected during this treatment performance test indicate that the technology
was properly operated; accordingly, all of the data were transferred to
K048-K052 to be considered for BOAT.
The Agency believes that wastewaters generated from treatment of
K048-K052 are similar to the untreated K062 and metal-bearing characteristic
wastes in terms of the types and concentrations of metals and inorganics
present in the wastes and the treatment performance that can be achieved by
chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum
filtration.
The Agency has determined that the treatment performance achieved by
these technologies represents the "best" treatment for metals and inorganics
in KOM8-K052 wastewaters. The technologies are also "available" since they
are commercially available and provide substantial treatment of the hazardous
metal and inorganic constituents in these wastes. Therefore, the Agency has
determined that BOAT for metals and inorganics in K048-K052 wastewaters is
chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum
5-20
-------
filtration. The BOAT treatment standards are based on a transfer of perfor-
mance data from treatment of K062 and metal-bearing characteristic wastes.
5-21
-------
Table 5-1
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATOR ASH CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY:
PLANT A
Sample Set
BOAT List Constituent
VOLATILES
21. Dichlorodifluoro-
methane
(Concentration)
43. Toluene
(Concentration)
215-217. Xylene
(Concentration)
SEMI VOLATILES
59 . Benz(a)anthracene
(Concentration)
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
(Concentration)
80. Chrysene
(Concentration)
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
(Concentration)
109. Fluor ene
(Concentration)
121. Naphthalene
(Concentration)
141. Phenanthrene
(Concentration)
145. Pyrene
1
(ppm)
2.60
3.75
2.60
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.38
2
(ppm)
2.60
2.50
2.60
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
Q.30
0.30
0.30
0.38
3
(ppm)
2.60
2.50
2.60
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.38
4
(ppm)
2.60
2.50
7.53
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.38
5
(ppm)
2.60
2.50
2.60
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.38
0
(ppm)
2.60
2.50
2.60
0.30
1.49
0.30
1.49
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.38
(Concentration)
5-22
-------
Table 5-1 (Continued)
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATOR ASH CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY:
PLANT A
Samole Set
BOAT List Constituent
METALS
154. Antimony
(TCLP)
155. Arsenic
(TCLP)
156. Barium
(TCLP)
157. Beryllium
(TCLP)
158. Cadmium
(TCLP)
159. Chromium (total)
(TCLP)
160. Copper
(TCLP)
161. Lead
(TCLP)
162. Mercury
(TCLP)
163. Nickel
(TCLP)
164. Selenium
(TCLP)
165. Silver
(TCLP)
167. Vanadium
(TCLP)
168. Zinc
(TCLP)
123456
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
0.08 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.09
0.01 0.006 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02
0.19 0.26 0.18 0.27 0.22 0.23
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
2.76 3.26 2.63 2.89 3.01 2.63
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04
0.04 0.02 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.15
0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012
3.63 3.24 4.02 3.50 3.76 4.67
0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.15
5-23
-------
Table 5-1 (Continued)
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATOR ASH CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY:
PLANT A
Sample Set
123456
BOAT List Constituent (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (pptn) (ppm) (ppm)
INORGANICS
169. . Total Cyanide 0.1 0.38 0.1 O.U8 0.1 0.48
(Concentration)
171. Sulfide 61 61 61 61 61 61
(Concentration)
5-24
-------
Table 5-2
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR TCLP EXTRACTS OF
STABILIZED INCINERATOR ASH CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY: PLANT I
Cement Binder
Kiln Dust Binder
Lime and Fly Ash Binder
BOAT List
CONSTITUENT
151.
155.
156.
157.
158.
u. 159.
N>
Ol
221.
160.
161.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
(total)
Chromium
(hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Run 1
(ppn)
0.22
0.001
0.29
0.001
0.001
2.65
0.66
0.003
0.006
0.025
0.03
0.008
0.002
1.02
0.078
Run 2
(ppm)
0.22
0.001
0.30
0.001
0.001
2.66
0.52
0.003
0.006
0.025
0.026
0.008
0.015
1.57
0.063
Run 3
(ppm)
0.22
0.001
0.30
0.001
0.001
2.71
3.91
0.017
0.011
0.025
0.029
0.008
0.002
1.67
0.12
Run 1
(ppm)
0.25
0.001
0.22
0.001
0.001
2.37
0.37
0.001
0.026
0.027
0.059
0.008
0.002
3.19
0.068
Run 2
(PPm)
0.27
0.001
0.22
0.001
0.001
2.55
0.39
0.001
0.012
0.027
0.057
0.008
0.002
1.20
0.059
Run 3
(ppm)
0.25
0.001
0.23
0.001
0.001
2.19
2.09
0.001
0.008
0.027
0.053
0.008
0.002
3.56
0.011
Run 1
(ppm)
0.22
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.001
.58
.001
.001
.17
.13
.001
.008
.026
.015
.008
.002
.16
.029
Run 2
(ppm)
0.22
0.001
0.51
0.001
0.001
1.58
1.12
0.001
0.008
0.026
0.019
0.008
0.002
0.16
0.032
Run 3
(ppm)
0.22
0.001
0.62
0.001
0.001
1.11
0.71
0.008
0.008
0.026
0.020
0.008
0.002
0.17
0.076
-------
Table 5-3
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR SCRUBBER WATER
CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY: PLANT A
Sample Set
1 2 3 4 5 6
BOAT List Constituent (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
U. Benzene 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
226. Ethylbenzene 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
43. Toluene 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
215-
217. Xylene 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
phthalate
80. Chryaene 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
98. Dl-n-butyl 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021
phthalate
109. Fluorene 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018
121. Naphthalene 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012
141. Phenanthrene 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014
142. Phenol 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
145. Pyrene 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016
5-26
-------
Table 5-4
TREATMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR BOAT LIST METAL CONSTITUENTS CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY
(K062 AND METAL-BEARING CHARACTERISTIC WASTES)
Corrected Treatment Concentration (ppm)
Sample Set 1 2 3 t 5 6 7 8 9 11 12
BOAT List Constituent
159. Chromium (total) 0.18 0.18 0.29 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.15 0.18 0.23
162. Lead 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
I
N)
-------
Table 5-5
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
AND FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION FOLLOWED BY ASH STABILIZATION
Fluidized Bed Incineration Followed by Ash
Stabilization Using the Following Binders*
BOAT List Metal
Constituents
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
159. Chromium (total)
160. Copper
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
* The numbers in the table indicate the results of the statistical comparison
(ANOVA) of treatments. A ranking of 1 to 4 is shown for each constituent
and treatment test where a "1" indicates the best performance and a "4"
indicates the worst performance. Two treatments with the sane number for a
constituent indicates that there was no significant difference between the
treatment effectiveness.
Fluidized Bed
Incineration
1
4
1
.) 4
4
1
4
4
4
Cement
2
1
2
4
1
1
2
2
1
Kiln Dust
4
1
1
2
1
1
3
4
1
Lime and
Fly Ash
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
5-28
-------
6.0 SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
This section presents the methodology and rationale for selection of
the regulated constituents in wastewater and nonwastewater forms of K048-K052
wastes.
The Agency initially considered for regulation all constituents on
the BOAT List (see Table 1-1, Section 1.0). Summarized in Table 6-1 are
available waste characterization data for each wastecode for the BOAT List
constituents. For constituents known to be present in the wastes, the range
of detected concentrations is shown in the table. Those constituents that
were analyzed but were not detected in the wastes are identified by "ND."
Constituents for which the Agency does not have analytical characterization
data are identified by "NA" (not analyzed).
As explained in Section 1.0, the Agency is not regulating all of the
constituents considered for regulation to reduce the analytical cost burdens
on the treater and to facilitate implementation of the compliance and enforce-
ment program. As discussed further below, a BOAT List constituent was not
considered for regulation if: (1) the constituent was not detected in the
untreated waste; (2) the constituent was not analyzed in the untreated waste;
or (3) detection limits or analytical results were not obtained for the
constituent due to analytical or accuracy problems. Some additional constitu-
ents were deleted from consideration for regulation, as discussed in Section
6.1.
6-1
-------
Constituents That Were Not Detected In the Untreated Waste. Con-
stituents that were not detected in the untreated waste (labeled ND in Table
6-1) were not considered for regulation. Analytical detection limits were, in
most cases, practical quantification limits. Since detection limits vary
depending upon the nature of the waste matrix being analyzed, the detection
limits determined in the characterization of these wastes are included in
Appendix H.
Constituents That Were Not Analyzed. Some constituents on the BOAT
List were not considered for regulation because they were not analyzed in the
untreated wastes (labeled MA in Table 6-1). Some constituents were not
analyzed in the untreated wastes based on the judgment that it is extremely
unlikely that the constituent would be present in the wastes. Other constitu-
ents were not analyzed in the untreated waste because they were not on the
BOAT List of constituents at the time of analysis. In cases where data were
submitted to the Agency by outside sources, it may not be known if and/or why
constituents were not analyzed.
Constituents For Which Analytical Results Were Not Obtained Due to
Analytical or Accuracy Problems. Some constituents on the BOAT List were not
considered for regulation because detection limits or analytical results were
not obtained due to analytical or accuracy problems (labeled A in Table 6-1).
The analytical and accuracy problems included: (1) laboratory QA/QC analyses
indicated inadequate recoveries and, therefore, the accuracy of the analysis
for the constituent could not be ensured; (2) a standard was not available for
6-2
-------
the constituent and, therefore, system calibration could not be performed for
the constituent; and (3) colorimetric interferences occurred during analysis
for the constituenc and, therefore, accurate analyses could not be performed.
6.1 Constituents Detected in Untreated Waste But Not Considered for
Regulation
Some BOAT List constituents that were detected in the untreated
K048-K052 wastes were not considered for regulation. Constituents were not
considered for regulation if: (1) available treatment performance data for
the constituent did not show effective treatment by BOAT; or (2) treatment
performance data were not available for the constituent; or (3) other reasons,
as described below. BDAT List constituents that were further considered for
regulation following the deletions described in this section are listed on
Table 6-2.
Constituents for Which Available Treatment Performance Data Did Not
Show Effective Treatment by BDAT. BDAT List constituents that were present in
an untreated K048-K052 waste but were not effectively treated by the tech-
nology basis for BDAT treatment standards were deleted from consideration for
regulation for the K048-K052 waste treatability group. Accordingly, sulfide
was not considered for regulation in wastewater and nonwastewater because the
BDAT technologies for KOU8-K052 do not provide effective treatment for this
constituent. Moreover, the Agency is unaware of any demonstrated technology
for treatment of sulfide in K048-K052.
6-3
-------
Similarly, antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, lead, mercury, and
silver were not considered for regulation in nonwastewater because the
Agency's data on stabilization of nonwastewater (fluidized bed incinerator
ash) did not show effective treatment for these constituents.
s
In addition, barium was deleted from further consideration for
regulation in wastewaters because it is not effectively treated by chromium
reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration.
Constituents for Which Treatment Performance Data Were Not
Available. Hexavalent chromium and fluoride were not considered for regu-
lation in nonwastewater because they were not analyzed in the unstabilized
incinerator ash since they were not on the BOAT List at the time of analysis.
Therefore, the effectiveness of treatment could not be evaluated for these
constituents.
Fluorene, carbon disulfide, 2,4-dimethylphenol, and acenaphthene
were not considered for regulation in K048-K052 nonwastewaters because the
Agency does not have BOAT treatment performance data for these constituents.
Cyanide was not considered for regulation in K048-K052 wastewaters
because BOAT treatment performance data collected by EPA were not available
soon enough to allow the Agency to fully evaluate the data. The Agency is
continuing to evaluate these data and will consider regulating cyanide in
K048-K052 wastewaters based on this evaluation.
6-4
-------
Constituents Not Considered for Regulation For Other Reasons.
Copper, vanadium, and zinc were considered for regulation in K048-K052 waste-
waters and nonwastewaters but were not selected as regulated constituents.
Although copper cyanide, vanadium pentoxide, and zinc cyanide are listed on
Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261, the metals are not listed individually.
In this First Thirds rulemaking, the Agency is only regulating copper,
vanadium, and/or zinc when they are indicators of performance of treatment for
Appendix VIII constituents. For K048-K052, these metals (copper, vanadium,
aid zinc) are not used as indicators of performance of treatment for other
Appendix VIII constituents and are therefore not regulated.
One organic constituent, dichlorodifluoromethane, was deleted from
consideration for regulation in nonuastewater and wastewater.
Dichlorodifluoromethane was detected in two of six samples of untreated K048
collected by EPA from Plant A; however, the constituent was also detected at a
higher concentration in another waste (biosludge) that was mixed with K048
prior to the collection of the K048 sample and it is believed that this
accounted for its presence in the K048 samples. Additionally,
dichlorodifluoromethane was not reported as present in K048 in other data
sources, as shown in Table 2-4. Therefore, dichlorodifluoromethane was not
considered for regulation in K048.
6.2 Constituents Selected for Regulation
BOAT List constituents selected for regulation in K048-K052 are
presented in Table 6-3. Included in Table 6-3 are the constituents selected
6-5
-------
for regulation after consideration of: (1) constituent concentration levels
in the untreated waste; (2) whether the constituents are adequately controlled
by the regulation of another constituent; and-(3) the relative difficulty
associated with achieving effective treatment of the constituent by BOAT.
The selection of regulated constituents for nonwastewater is discussed in
Section 6.2.1 and for wastewater in Section 6.2.2.
6.2.1 Selection of Regulated Constituents in Nonwastewater
All of the organic, inorganic, and metal constituents that were
further considered for regulation were selected for regulation for K048-K052
nonwastewater.
6.2.2 Selection of Regulated Constituents in Wastewater
All of the organic constituents that were further considered for
regulation were selected for regulation for K048-K052 wastewaters. Treatment
performance data for organics in K048-K052 wastewater are from samples of
scrubber water residual collected by EPA from incineration of K048 at plant A.
Where performance data for a specific regulated constituent were not
available, data were transferred from another constituent chat was detected in
the untreated waste. As shown in Section 7.0, the transfers were based on the
calculated bond dissociation energies (BDE) for the constituents.
Treatment performance data for metals in K048-K052 wastewater were
transferred from treatment of K062 and metal-bearing characteristic wastes.
6-6
-------
The BOAT technology is chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precip-
itation and vacuum filtration.
Only two metals, total chromium and lead, were selected for regu-
lation in K048-K052 wastewaters. No inorganic constituents were selected for
regulation in K048-K052 wastewaters. All metal and inorganic constituents
considered for regulation, with the exception of total chromium and lead, were
not selected because these constituents were found at lower concentrations in
the untreated waste than other constituents and they are believed to be
adequately controlled by standards established for total chromium and lead.
Control is provided by the use of chromium reduction followed by lime and
sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration treatment. By removing the metals
present at the highest concentrations in the untreated waste, adequate treat-
ment will be provided for other metals present at lower treatable concentra-
tions.
6-7
-------
Table 6-1
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
FOR UNTREATED KOU8-K052
K048
i
o>
Volatiles
222. Acetone
1. Acetonltrile
2. Acroleln
3. Acrylonltrlle
H. Benzene
5. Bromodichloromethane
6. Broroomethane
223. n-Butyl alcohol
7. Carbon tetrachloride
8. Carbon disulfide
9. Chlorobenzene
10. 2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene
11. Chlorodibromoraethane
12. Chloroethane
13. 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
14. Chloroform
15. Chloromethane
16. 3-Chloropropene
17. 1,2-Dibroroo-3-chloropropane
18. 1,2-Dibromoethane
19. Dibromomethane
20. trans-1,1-Dlchloro-2-butene
21. Dlchlorodifluororaethane
22. 1,1-Dichloroethane
23. 1,2-Dichloroethane
Detection
Status
(ing/kg)
NA
ND
ND
ND
13-16
ND
ND
NA
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND-310
ND
ND
KOH9
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND-1,600
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND-0.96
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K050
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K051
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
ND
ND
ND
71
ND
ND
NA
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K052
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
ND
ND
ND
650
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A = Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was not obtained due to
analytical problems.
NA = Not analyzed.
ND = Not detected.
-------
Table 6-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
FOR UNTREATED K018-K052
K018
(T-
Volatiles (Cont.)
21. 1,1-Dichloroethylene
25. trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
26. 1,2-Dichloropropane
27. trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
28. cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
29. 1,1-Dioxane
22>4. 2-Ethoxyethanol
225. Ethyl acetate
226. Ethyl benzene
30. Ethyl cyanide
227. Ethyl ether
31. Ethyl methacrylate
211. Ethylene oxide
32. lodomethane
33. Isobutyl alcohol
228. Methanol
31. Methyl ethyl ketone
229. Methyl isobutyl ketone
35. Methyl methacrylate
37. Methacrylonitrile
38. Methylene chloride
230. 2-Nitropropane
39. Pyridine
10. 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Detection
Status
(ing/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
NA
NA
ND-120
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
KOI 9
Detection
Status
(aig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
120
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
K050
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
K051
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
NA
NA
46-120
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
K052
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
2,300
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA >
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
A = Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was not obtained due to
analytical problems.
NA = Not analyzed.
ND = Not detected.
-------
Table 6-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
FOR UNTREATED K018-K052
K018
KOI 9
K050
K051
K052
I
»-•
o
Volatiles (Cont.)
11. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
12. Tetrachloroethene
13. Toluene
11. Tribroraomethane
15. 1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
16. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
17. Trichloroethene
18. Trichloromonofluoromethane
19. 1,2,3-Tpichloropropane
231. 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-tri-
fluoroethane
50. Vinyl chloride
215.-
217. Xylene
Semivolatiles
51.
52.
53.
51.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
A =
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminofluorene
1-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
Benz(a)anthracene
Detection
Status
(mg/kgl
Detection
Status
(nig/ kg)
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
22-150
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND-170
ND
HD
210-18,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
150
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND-58
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
33-150
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
71-720
ND
ND-33
ND
A
ND
ND
13
A
ND-29
ND
ND
6,100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
3,500
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
NA
ND
Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was not obtained due to
analytical problems.
Not analyzed.
Not detected.
-------
Table 6-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OP AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
FOR UNTREATED K048-K052
K048
KOI 9
K050
K051
K052
Semivolatiles (Cont.)
Detection
Status
(ing /kg)
NA
A
0.004-1.75
A
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND-59
ND
ND
A
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
ND-59
ND
ND
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
A
0.002-<40
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND-29
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
ND-44
ND
ND
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
ND
0.7-3.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
A
0.002-45
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND-30
ND
ND
A
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
11-51
ND
ND
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
A
0.02-<1.8
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND •
A
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
13
13
218. Benzal chloride
60. Benzenethiol
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
63. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
61. Benzo(ghi)perylene
65. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
66. p-Benzoquinone
67. Bis(2-chloroethoxy)ethane
68. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
69. Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
71. 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
72. Butyl benzyl phthalate
73. 2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitro-
phenol
74. p-Chloroaniline
75. Chlorobenzilate
76. p-Chloro-m-cresol
77. 2-Chloronaphthalene
78. 2-Chlorophenol
79. 3-Chloropropionitrile
80. Chrysene
81. ortho-Cresol
82. para-Cresol
A = Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was not obtained due to
analytical problems.
NA = Not analyzed.
ND - Not detected.
-------
Table 6-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
FOR UNTREATED K048-K052
K048
er
»-•
N>
Semivolatiles (Cont.)
232. Cyclohexanone
83. Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
84. Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene
85. Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene
86. m-Dichlorobenzene
8?. o-Dlchlorobenzene
88. p-Dlchlorobenzene
89. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidlne
90. 2,4-Dichlorophenol
91. 2,6-Dichlorophenol
92. Diethyl phthaiate
93. 3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
94. p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
95. 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
97. Dimethyl phthalate
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
99. 1,4-Dinitrobenzene
100. 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
101. 2,4-Dinitrophenol
102. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
103. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
104. Di-n-octyl phthalate
105. Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
K049
Detection
Status
(rag/kg)
K050
NA
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
67-190
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
ND-3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K051
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND-230
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K052
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
4.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A = Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was not obtained due to
analytical problems.
NA - Not analyzed.
ND = Not detected.
-------
Table 6-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
FOR UNTREATED K048-K052
K018
Semivolatiles (Cont.)
i
h-1
U>
106.
219.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
111.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
36.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
A =
NA =
ND =
Diphenylamine
Diphenylnltrosanine
1,2-Dlphenylhydrazlne
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutad iene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
laosafrole
Methapyrilene
3-Methylcholanthrene
I.V-Methylenebis
(2-chloroaniline)
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamlne
p-Nitroanillne
Nitrobenzene
Detection
Status
(me/kg)
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND-58
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
A
A
A
A
ND
93-350
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
KOM9
Detection
Status
(ing/kg)
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
A
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
A
<10-680
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
K050
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K051
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
NA
ND
ND
11-37
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
A
A
A
A
ND
97-200
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K052
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
A
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
A
13
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was not obtained due to
analytical problems.
Not analyzed.
Not detected.
-------
Table 6-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
FOR UNTREATED K048-K052
K048
K049
K050
K051
K052
I
M
*-
Semivolatilea (Cont.)
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
77-190
3.0-210
NA
ND
ND
31-93
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
ND-390
ND-127
NA
ND
A
33-110
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8-18.5
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
70-120
ND-156.7
NA
ND
ND
24-74
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
Detection
Status
(nig/kg)
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
A
ND
ND
ND
1.1
< 1.8-250
NA
ND
A
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
127. 4-Nitrophenol
128. N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamlne
129. N-Nitrosodlethylamlne
130. N-Nitrosodlmethylamlne
131. N-Nltrosomethylethylamlne
132. N-Nitrosoraorpholine
133. N-Nltrosoplperldlne
134. N-Nitrosopyrrolidlne
135. 5-Nitro-o-toluidine
136. Pentachlorobenzene
137. Pentachloroethane
138. Pentachloronitrobenzene
139. Pentachlorophenol
140. Phenacetin
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
220. Phthallc anhydride
143. 2-Picoline
144. Pronamide
145. Pyrene
146. Resorclnol
147. Safrole
148. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
149. 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
150. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
A = Constituent was analyzed but a detection limit or analytical result was not obtained due to
analytical problems.
NA = Not analyzed.
ND = Not detected.
-------
Table 6-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OP AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
FOR UNTREATED K018-K052
KOI 8
Semivolatiles (Cont.)
151. 2,1,5-Trichlorophenol
152. 2,1,6-Trlchlorophenol
153. Trls(2,3-dibromopropyl)
phosphate
Metals
151.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
162.
163.
161.
165.
166.
167.
168.
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Detection
Status
(me/kg)
ND
ND
ND
KOI 9
Detection
Status
(rag/kg)
ND
ND
ND
K050
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
K051
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
K052
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
1.1-7
0.05-10.5
13.0-59
0.0012-0.81
ND-0.7
0.01-3,135
ND
0.05-56
0.05-1,250
ND-0.89
0.025-16
0.1-11
0.0013-6
ND
0.05-160
10-1,825
ND-19
<2.2-30
28-370
ND-0.35
0.19-28.8
28.9-1,100
0.02-O.9
18-79.8
21.95-3,900
ND-32
9.2-86
ND-5.0
<0. 38-0.1
ND
2.5-60
72.8-250
ND
10.2-11
ND
0.05-0.31
1.0-1.5
11-1,600
0.01-<1.0
67-75
0.5-1,100
0.11-3.6
61-170
2.1-52
0.0007-0.01
ND
0.7-50
91-297
9-18
0.1-32
68-112
0.0012-0.21
0.021-3.0
0.1-6,790
0.01-22
2.5-550
0.25-2,180
0.01-6.2
0.25-150.1
0.005-12
0.05-3
ND
1-350
25-6,596
111
63-525
8
0.0025-<0.1
0.82-8.1
1.0-501
NA
110-172
11-5,800
0.19-2.1
97.2-392
3.1-000
0.05-<6.0
ND
1.0-9.8
17.1-17,000
NA = Not analyzed.
ND = Not detected.
-------
Table 6-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
FOR UNTREATED K048-K052
K048
K049
K050
K051
K052
Inorganics
169. Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
Organochlorine Pesticides
172. Aldrin
173. alpha-BHC
171. beta-BHC
175. delta-BHC
176. ganma-BHC
177. Chlordane
178. DDD
179. DDE
180. DDT
181. Dieldrin
182. Endosulfan I
183. Endosulfan II
184. Endrln
185. Endrin aldehyde
186. Heptachlor
187. Heptachlor epoxide
188. Isodrin
NA = Not analyzed.
ND = Not detected.
Detection
Status
(nig /kg)
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
0.01-7.9
5.3-22.0
130-2,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.000012-52.5
1.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0001-3.3
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00006-51.4
ND
120-4,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.89
955
111
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 6-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
FOR UNTREATED K018-K052
K018
KOI 9
I
t->
•^J
Detection
Status
Organochlorine Pesticides (Cont.) (mg/kg)
189. Kepone NA
190. Methoxychlor NA
191• Toxaphene NA
Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides
192. 2,1-Dichlorophenoxyacetic NA
acid
193. Silvex NA
191. 2,1,5-T NA
Organophosphorus Insecticides
Detection
Status
(ing/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K050
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K051
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K052
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
PCBs
200.
201.
202.
203.
Disulfoton
Famphur
Methyl para th ion
Parathion
Phorate
A roc lor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1212
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not analyzed.
-------
Table 6-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
FOR UNTREATED K018-K052
K018
I
M
(X)
PCBa (Cont.)
204. Aroclor 1218
205. Aroclor 1251
206. Aroclor 1260
Dioxins and Furans
207. Hexachlorodlbenzo-p-dloxins
208. Hexachlorodibenzofuran
209. Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
210. Pentachlorodibenzofuran
211. Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxlns
212. Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
213. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dloxin
Detection
Status
(ing/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K019
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K050
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K051
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K052
Detection
Status
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not analyzed.
-------
Table 6-2
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION*
I
M
VO
K018
K019
NONUASTEUATER
K050
K051
K052
II.
226.
13.
•»
62.
70.
80.
98.
121.
111.
112.
115.
155.
159.
163.
161.
169.
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyDphthal-
ate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl
phthalate
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Arsenic
Chromlum( total)
Nickel
Selenium
Cyanide
1.
226.
13.
«•
57.
62.
70.
80.
121.
111.
112.
115.
155.
159.
163.
161.
169.
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bls(2-ethyl-
hexyDphthal-
ate
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Arsenic
Chromium( total)
Nickel
Selenium
Cyanide
62.
112.
155.
159.
163.
161.
169.
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenol
Arsenic
Chromiura( total)
Nickel
Selenium
Cyanide
1.
226.
13.
«•
57.
59.
62.
70.
80.
98.
121.
111.
112.
115.
155.
159.
163.
161.
169.
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthra-
cene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl) phthal-
ate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl
phthalate
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Arsenic
Chromium( total )
Nickel
Selenium
Cyanide
1.
226.
13.
Kll
62.
81.
82.
121.
111.
112.
155.
159.
163.
161.
169.
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Arsenic
Chromium( total )
Nickel
Selenium
Cyanide
«
*A11 constituents on this list were detected in the untreated K018-K052 wastes and were either selected
for regulation (as shown in Table 6-3) or are believed to be controlled by regulation of another
constituent.
""Includes BDAT List constituents 1,2-xylene (1215), 1,3-xylene (1216), and 1,1-xylene (1217).
-------
Table 6-2 (Continued)
BDAT LIST CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION*
WASTEWATER
K018
K019
K050
K051
K052
I
to
o
1.
226.
«•
13.
62.
70.
80.
98.
109.
121.
111.
112.
115.
151.
155.
157.
158.
159.
161.
162.
163.
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Toluene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyOphthal-
ate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl
phthalate
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium( total)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
1.
8.
226.
13.
••
57.
62.
70.
80.
96.
121.
111.
112.
115.
151.
155.
157.
158.
159.
221.
Benzene
Carbon disul-
fide
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)-
phthalate
Chrysene
2, U- Dime thy 1-
phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Ch r oral urn ( total)
Chromium(hexa-
valent)
62.
112.
155.
157.
158.
159.
221.
161.
162.
163.
161.
165.
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenol
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium( total )
Chromium
(hexavalant)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
1.
226.
13.
•• •
52.
57.
59.
62.
70.
80.
98.
109.
121.
111.
112.
115.
151.
157.
158.
159.
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthra-
cene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)-
phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl
phthalate
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium( total )
1.
226.
13.
«•
62.
81.
82.
96.
121.
111.
112.
151.
155.
157.
158.
159.
161.
162.
163.
161.
155.
165.
170.
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
2,1-Dimethyl-
phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Arsenic
Silver
Fluoride
»A11 constituents on this list were detected in the untreated K018-K052 wastes and were either selected
for regulation (as shown in Table 6-3) or are believed to be controlled by regulation of another
constituent.
"Includes BDAT List constituents 1,2-xylene (1215), 1,3-xylene (1216), and 1,1-xylene (1217).
-------
Table 6-2 (Continued)
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION*
WASTEWATER (Continued)
K048 K0^9 K050 K051 K052
161. Selenium 161. Lead 221. Chromium
165. Silver 162. Mercury (hexavalent)
170. Fluoride 163. Nickel 161. Lead
161. Selenium 162. Mercury
165. Silver 163. Nickel
170. Fluoride 164. Selenium
165. Silver
N)
"All constituents on this list were detected in the untreated K048-K052 wastes and were either selected
for regulation (as shown in Table 6-3) or are believed to be controlled by regulation of another
constituent.
-------
Table 6-3
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION
K048
I
N)
N>
K049
NONUASTEWATER
K050
K051
4. Benzene 1.
226. Ethylbenzene 226.
43. Toluene 13.
• Xylene •
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 57.
70. Bis(2-ethyl- 62.
hexyDphthal- 70.
ate
80. Chrysene
98. Dl-n-butyl 80.
phthalate 121.
121. Naphthalene 111.
141. Phenanthrene 112.
142. Phenol 145.
145. Pyrene 155.
155. Arsenic 159.
159. Chromium(total) 163.
163. Nickel 164.
164. Selenium 169.
169. Cyanide
K052
Benzene 62.
Ethylbenzene 142.
Toluene 155.
Xylene 159.
Anthracene 163.
Benzo(a)pyrene 164.
Bls(2-ethyl- 169.
hexyl)-
phthalate
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Arsenic
Chromlum(total)
Nickel
Selenium
Cyanide
Benzo(a)pyrene 4.
Phenol 226.
Arsenic 43.
Chromium(total) *
Nickel 57.
Selenium 59.
Cyanide
62.
70.
80.
98.
121.
141.
142.
145.
155.
159.
163.
164.
169.
Benzene 4.
Ethylbenzene 226.
Toluene 43.
Xylene •
Anthracene 62.
Benz(a)anthra- 81.
cene 82.
Benzo(a)pyrene 121.
Bis(2-ethyl- 141.
hexyl)- 142.
phthalate 155.
Chrysene 159.
Di-n-butyl 163.
phthalate 164.
Naphthalene 169.
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Arsenic
Chromium(total)
Nickel
Selenium
Cyanide
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Arsenic
Chromium(total)
Nickel
Selenium
Cyanide
"Includes BOAT List constituents 1,2-xylene (1215), 1,3-xylene (1216), and 1,4-xylene (1217).
-------
Table 6-3 (Continued)
BOAT LIST CONSTITUENTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION
4.
226.
43.
•
62.
70.
80.
98.
109.
121.
141.
142.
145.
159.
161.
K048
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)-
phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl
phthalate
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Chromium( total)
Lead
4.
8.
226.
43.
•
57.
62.
70.
80.
96.
121.
14 1.
142.
145.
159.
161.
K049
Benzene 62.
Carbon dlsul- 142.
fide 159.
Ethylbenzene 16 1.
Toluene
Xylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)-
phthalate
Chrysene
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Chromium( total)
Lead
UASTEUATER
K050
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenol
Chromium( total )
Lead
4.
226.
43.
*
52.
57.
59.
62.
70.
80.
98.
109.
121.
141.
142.
145.
159.
161.
K051
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthra-
cene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)-
ph thai ate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl
phthalate
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Chromium( total)
Lead
4.
226.
43.
*
62.
81.
82.
96.
121.
141.
142.
159.
161.
K052
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Chromium( total )
Lead
•Includes BOAT List constituents 1,2-xylene (1215), 1,3-xylene (1216), and 1,4-xylene (1217).
-------
7.0 CALCULATION OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
In Section 5.0 of this document, the best demonstrated and available
technologies for treatment of the petroleum refinery waste treatability group
(K048-K052) were chosen based on available performance data. In Section 6.0,
the regulated constituents were selected to ensure effective treatment of the
wastes. The purpose of Section 7.0 is to calculate treatment standards for
the regulated constituents using the available treatment data from the BDAT
treatment technologies. Included in this section is a step-by-step discussion
of the calculation of treatment standards for the nonwastewater and wastewater
forms of K048-K052 wastes.
BDAT treatment standards for K048-K052 nonwastewaters and waste-
waters are based on the demonstrated technologies of solvent extraction,
fluidized bed incineration, stabilization, and chromium reduction followed by
lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration. Several BDAT List
organics, inorganics (cyanide), and metals are regulated in nonwastewater and
several BDAT List organics and metals are regulated in wastewater forms of
K048-K052.
The treatment standards were calculated using the following three
steps: (1) The arithmetic average of the corrected treatment values for each
regulated constituent was calculated. (2) Using the same corrected treatment
values, a variability factor was calculated that represents the variability
inherent in performance of treatment systems, collection of treated samples,
7-1
-------
and analysis of samples. Where concentrations in the treated waste were
reported as less than or equal to the detection limit for all the data points
in the data set. variability is still expected since the actual concentration
could range from zero to the detection limit. In these cases, the Agency
assum 1 a lognormal distribution of data points between the detection limit
and a value 1/10 of the detection limit and calculated a variability factor jf
2.8. (3) The treatment standard for each regulated constituent was calculated
by multiplying the arithmetic average of the corrected treatment values for
the constituent by the variability factor.
7.1 Calculation of Treatment Standards for Nonwastewater Forms of
K048-K052
BOAT List OrganJos
BOAT treatment standards for KOU8-K052 nonwastewater organic con-
stituents are based on performance data from three-cycle solvent extraction at
plant M with the exception of the treatment standard for di-n-butyl phthalate,
which is based on performance data from fluidized bed incineration at plant A.
As discussed in Section 5.0, di-n-butyl phthalate is being regulated based on
fluidized bed incineration, as proposed, to ensure that the standard can be
achieved through incineration of these wastes, as well as solvent extraction.
Testing for three-cycle solvent extraction was performed on representative
samples of a nonwastewater K048-K052 mixture. Testing for fluidized bed
incineration was performed on K048 and K051.
7-2
-------
Solvent extraction results in the generation of a treated waste
residual. As generated, the residual is usually a nonwastewater form of
K048-K052 according to the BOAT definition for nonwastewaters. However, the
residual may be separated by filtration into a wastewater and a nonwastewater
form of K048-K052. Incineration generally results in the generation of ash (a
nonwastewater form of K048-K052) and combustion gas scrubber water (a waste-
water form of K048-K052). The best measure of performance for waste reduction
or destruction technologies, such as solvent extraction and incineration, is
the total amount of constituent remaining after treatment. Therefore, BOAT
treatment standards for nonwastewater organic constituents were calculated
based on total constituent concentration data.
Six sets of untreated waste data and eight sets of treated waste
data for three-cycle solvent extraction at plant M were used to calculate the
nonwastewater organic constituent treatment standards (except di-n-butyl
phthalate) for K048-K052. The treatment standard was then transferred to
K049, K050, and K052. Table 4-18 of Section 4.0 presents the total concentra-
tion values for organic constituents in the treated and untreated wastes for
three-cycle solvent extraction. Values are presented for all regulated
organic constituents in K048-K052 for which performance data are available.
For di-n-butyl phthalate, the K048-K052 nonwastewater treatment standard was
calculated from 6 sets of data from incineration of K048 and K051 at plant A.
Tables 4-2 through 4-7 of Section 4.0 present the total concentration values
for di-n-butyl phthalate in the untreated and treated wastes for fluidized bed
incineration. Tables 7-1, 7-3 through 7-5, 7-7, and 7-9 through 7-11 at the
end of this section present the data used for calculation of organic treatment
7-3
-------
standards In K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 nonwastewaters, respectively.
These tables include calculated treatment standards for naphthalene and
xylene which were selected for regulation in Section 6.2. However, the Agency
is not promulgating these standards for naphthalene and xylene but rather is
reserving these standards. EPA intends to gather additional data on the
treatment of these constituents after promulgation.
Four organic constituents that were selected for regulation in the
K048-K052 nonwastewaters were found at nondetectable levels in both the
untreated and treated wastes tested at plant M. These constituents, anthra-
cene, ortho-cresol, para-cresol, and phenol, were detected in other K048-K052
wastes, as shown in Tables 2-4 through 2-8. The Agency believes that these
constituents may also have been present in the waste tested at plant M but at
a level below detection. The treatment standards for these constituents were
calculated based on the detection limits for these constituents in the treated
waste.
BOAT List Metals and Inorganics
BOAT treatment standards for K048-K052 nonwastewater inorganics
(cyanide) are based on performance data from fluidized bed incineration of
K048 and K051. The cyanide treatment standard was then transferred to K049,
K050, and K052. Additionally, BOAT treatment standards for K048-K052 non-
wastewater metals are based on performance data from stabilization of inciner-
ator ash. The incinerator ash is from the incineration of K048 and K051. The
metals treatment standards were then transferred to K049, K050, and K052.
7-4
-------
Incineration generally results in the generation of two treatment
residuals: ash (a nonwastewater form of K048-K052) and combustion gas
scrubber water (a wastewater form of K048-K052). The best measure of perfor-
mance for a destruction technology, such as incineration, is the total amount
of constituent remaining after treatment. Therefore, BOAT treatment standards
for nonwastewater inorganic constituents (cyanide) were calculated based on
total constituent concentration data. Stabilization reduces the leachability
of metals in the waste. The best measure of performance for stabilization
technologies is the analysis of the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) extract. Therefore, proposed BOAT treatment standards for metals in
nonwastewater forms of K048-K052 were calculated based on TCLP data.
Six data sets for fluidized bed incineration and three data sets for
lime and fly ash stabilization were used to calculate the nonwastewater
(inorganic and metal) treatment standards for K048 and K051. Table 7-1
presents the six values of total concentration data (inorganics) for fluidized
bed incineration ash and Table 7-2 presents the three values of TCLP treated
waste data (metals) for lime and fly ash stabilized ash. Values are presented
for all regulated constituents in K048-K052 that are based on treatment data
from the incineration of K048 and K051 at plant A and from the stabilization
treatment teat at plant I. The concentration data presented in Tables 7-1 and
7-2 have been corrected to account for analytical recovery as described in
Section 5.0. Tables 7-4 and 7-12 at the end of this section present the
adjusted data used for calculation of the treatment standards for inorganics
and metals in K048 and K051.
7-5
-------
Treatment performance daca are not available for fluidized bed
incineration and lime and fly ash stabilization of K049, K050, and K052
wastes. Therefore, the Agency is transferring data from treatment of K048 and
K051 at plant A and plant I to K049, K050, and K052 for the inorganic and
metal constituents. The calculation of treatment standards for K049, K050,
and K052 are presented in Tables 7-6, 7-8, and 7-10, respectively. The
transfer of such treatment data is supported by the determination that
K048-K052 represents a single waste treatability group as discussed in Section
2.0. The determination of the waste treatability group is based on the
similarity of the composition of the untreated wastes and the fact that all of
these wastes are generated by petroleum refineries. Available treatment data
from K048 and K051 were transferred to the same constituent in K049, K050, and
K052 to calculate the treatment standards for each of these waste codes.
Treatment performance data were transferred in this way for all regulated
inorganic and metal constituents in KOU9, K050, and K052 wastes.
7.2 Calculation of Treatment Standards for Wastewater Forms of KOU8-K052
BOAT List Organics
BOAT treatment standards for organic constituents in K048-K052
wastewater are based on performance data from fluidized bed incineration. Six
sets of characterization and performance data for organics in KOU8 wastewater
(scrubber water) were collected by the Agency from the fluidized bed incinera-
7-6
-------
tion process at plant A. Performance data from this testing were then trans-
ferred to K049, K050, K051, and K052 for development of treatment standards.
Treatment standards for constituents that were selected for regulation in
KOU9-K052 but that were not present in the tested K048 wast-2 were based on
performance data from another constituent that was present in the tested
waste. Data were transferred based on the characteristics of the waste that
affect the performance of treatment by incineration relative to the scrubber
water residual, specifically the estimated bond dissociation energies of the
constituents. In general, the Agency believes that a constituent having a
higher bond dissociation energy (BDE) is more difficult to treat than another
constituent with a lower BDE. (The waste characteristics affecting the
performance of incineration are discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.)
Data were transferred from a constituent that had an equal or higher bond
dissociation energy.
Cases where such a transfer of data occurred are summarized below
and are noted on Tables 7-13 through 7-17 at the end of this section. Tables
7-13 through 7-17 also show the calculations of the treatment standards for
each waste. The bond dissociation energies are presented for each constituent
in Appendix I.
57. Anthracene (K049. K05D. The treatment standard for anthracene
(BDE 2900 kcal/mole) for K049 and K051 is based on data transferred from
treatment of phenanthrene (BDE 2900 kcal/mole). Based on the discussion of
waste characteristics affecting treatment performance of fluidized bed
7-7
-------
incineration in Section 3.4, the Agency expects that anthracene can be treated
to concentration levels as low or lower than phenanthrene.
8. Carbon disulfide (KQU9). The treatment standard for carbon
disulfide (BDE 270 kcal/mole) for K049 is based on data transferred from
treatment of benzene (BDE 1340 kcal/mole). Based on the discussion of waste
characteristics affecting treatment performance of fluidized incineration in
Section 3.4, the Agency expects that carbon disulfide can be treated to
concentration levels as low or lower than benzene.
96. 2.4-Dimethvlphenol (K049. K052). The treatment standard for
2,4-dimethylphenol (BOE 2005 kcal/mole) for K049 and K052 is based on data
transferred from treatment of naphthalene (BDE 2120 kcal/mole). Based on the
discussion of waste characteristics affecting treatment performance of fluid-
ized bed incineration in Section 3.4, the Agency expects that 2,4-dimethyl-
phenol can be treated to concentration levels as low or lower than
naphthalene.
52. Acenaphtnene (K051). The treatment standard for acenaphthene
(BDE 2570 kcal/mole) for K051 is based on data transferred from treatment of
fluorene (BOE 2740 kcal/mole). Based on the discussion of waste characteris-
tics affecting performance of fluidized bed incineration in Section 3.4, the
Agency expects that acenaphthene can be treated to concentration levels as low
or lower than fluorene.
7-8
-------
59. Benz(a)anthracene (K05D. The treatment "standard .for benz(a)-
anthracene (BDE 3680 kcal/mole) for K051 is based on data transferred from
treatment of chrysene (BDE 3690 kcal/mole). Based on the discussion of waste charactj
in Section 3.4, the Agency expects that benz(a)anthracene can be treated to
concentration levels as low or lower than chrysene.
81. ortho-Cresol (K052). The treatment standard for ortho-cresol
(BOE 1720 kcal/mole) for K052 is based on data transferred from treatment of
ethylbenzene (BOE 1830 kcal/mole). Based on the discussion of waste charac-
teristics affecting treatment performance of fluidized bed incineration in
Section 3.**, the Agency expects that ortho-cresol can be treated to concentra-
tion levels as low or lower than ethylbenzene.
82. para-Cresol (K052). The treatment standard for para-cresol
(BOE 1720 kcal/mole) for K052 is based on data transferred from treatment of
ethylbenzene (BDE 1830 kcal/mole). Based on the discussion of waste charac-
teristics affecting treatment performance of fluidized bed incineration in
Section 3.4, the Agency expects that para-cresol can be treated to concentra-
tion levels as low or lower than ethylbenzene.
BOAT List Metals
The Agency does not have performance data for treatment of metals in
K048-K052 wastewaters. However, the Agency has treatment performance data
from treatment of K062 and metal-bearing characteristic wastes using chromium
7-9
-------
reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and vacuum filtration.
The Agency believes that K062 and metal-bearing characteristic wastes are
sufficiently similar to K048-K052 wastewaters since both contain similar types
of metals. Therefore, treatment performance data for K062 and metal-bearing
characteristic wastes were transferred to each metal regulated in K048-K052
wastewaters.
Chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation and
vacuum filtration is a removal technology for metals in the wastewater resid-
ual. The best measure of performance for a removal technology is the total
amount of constituent remaining after treatment. Therefore, BOAT treatment
standards for metals in wastewater forms of K048-K052 were calculated based on
total constituent concentration data. The calculations of treatment standards
for metals in K048-K052 wastewaters are presented in Table 7-13 through 7-17.
7-10
-------
Table 7-1
CORRECTED TOTAL CONCENTRATION DATA FOR CYANIDE AND
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE IN FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
Corrected Concentrations
in the Treated Waste, ppm
Data Set: 1 2 3 4 5 6_
Constituent
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49
169. Cyanide 0.1 0.38 0.1 0.48 0.1 0.48
7-11
-------
Table 7-2
CORRECTED TCLP DATA FOR REGULATED METALS IN
STABILIZED (LIME AND FLY ASH) INCINERATOR ASH
Corrected TCLP Extracts
in the Treated Waste, ppm
Data Set 1 2 3
Constituent
Metals
155. Arsenic 0.004 0.004 0.004
159. Chromium (total) 1.47 1.58 1.41
163. Nickel 0.026 0.026 0.026
164. Selenium 0.015 0.019 0.020
7-12
-------
Table 7-3
CALCULATION OF NONUASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN K048
LJ
Regulated Constituent
Organtcs
(Total Composition)
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Chrysene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Untreated K048-K052
at Plant H (pom)
86-190
< 20-33
76-120
56-140
61-140
<20-36
230-470
420-570
Arithmetic
Average of
Treatment
Values (ppm)
3.17
0.66
4.96
1.21
13.53
156.00
2,
1.
1.
3.
90
10
08
17
Variability
Factor (VF)
2,
1
7
1
4,
6
2,
2
1,
2,
99
26
36
79
93
62
67
46
82
99
Treatment*
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
243.63
7.48
9.5
0.84
37
2.2
67
1,000»
7.7
2.7
2.0
9.5
1,800«
*The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
•The table shows the calculated treatment standards for naphthalene and xylenes; however, the Agency is
not promulgating standards at these levels and is instead reserving standards for these constituents.
-------
Table 7-4
CALCULATION OF NONUASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR CYANIDE, DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE, AND METAL CONSTITUENTS IN K048
Regulated Constituent
Metals
Unstabilized
Incinerator Ash*
from Plant A (ppm)
Arithmetic
Average of
Corrected Treatment
Values (ppm)
Variability
Factor (VF)
Treatment*
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Selenium
Total Composition
Cyanide
Di-n-butyl phthalate
0.006-0.018
2.61-3.26
0.027-0. Oil
0.025-0.15
67-190
0.004
1.48
0.026
0.018
0.27
1.19
1.10
1.14
1.79
1.38
6.37
2.80
0.0040
1.7
0.048
0.025
1.8
4.2
"•"The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
*Range in untreated K048 from Plant A.
•TCLP extract concentrations for the unstabilized ash have been corrected for recovery.
-------
Table 7-5
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN K049
Regulated Constituent
Organlea
(Total Composition)
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Untreated K048-K052
at Plant M (ppm)
86-190
< 20-33
76-120
56-140
64-140
<10
< 20-36
230-470
420-570
Arithmetic
Average of
Treatment
Values (ppm)'
2.38
3.17
0.66
4.96
1.21
13.53
156.00
2.90
1.10
1.08
3.17
243.63
Variability
Factor (VF)
2
2
01
99
1.27
.36
.79
.93
6.62
.67
.46
1.82
2.99
7.48
Treatment
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
6.2
9.5
0.84
37
2.2
67
1,000*
7.7
2.7
2.0
9.5
1,800»
*The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
"The table shows the calculated treatment standards for naphthalene and xylenes; however, the Agency is
not promulgating standards at these levels and is instead reserving standards for these constituents.
-------
Table 7-6
CALCULATION OF NONUASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR CYANIDE AND METAL CONSTITUENTS IN K019
Regulated Constituent
Metals
(TCLP)
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Selenium
Inorganics
(Total Composition)
Cyanide
Constituent
From Which
Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Selenium
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)"
0.006-0.018
2.61-3.26
6.027-0.041
0.025-0.15
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.004
1.18
0.026
0.018
Variability
Factor (VF)
Treatment*
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
Cyanide
0.274
1.10
1.11
1.79
1.38
6.37
0.0010
1.7
0.018
0.025
1.8
"Data were transferred from K018 and K051.
••This is the untreated concentration in K018 and K051 of each constituent from which treatment data
were transferred.
*The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
-------
Table 7-7
CALCULATION OF NONUASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN K050
Regulated Constituent
Organlea
(Total Composition)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenol
Untreated
K048-K052
at Plant M (ppm)
Arithmetic
Average of
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.66
1.10
Variability
Factor (VF)
1.27
2.46
Treatment*
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
0.84
2.7
+The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
-------
Table 7-8
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR CYANIDE
AND METAL CONSTITUENTS IN K050
I
00
Regulated Constituent
Metals
TCLP
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Selenium
Inorganics
(Total Composition)
Cyanide
Constituent
from which
Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Selenium
Cyanide
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)»*
0.006-0.018
2.61-3.26
0.027-0.011
0.025-0.15
<0.1-1.1
Arithmetic
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.001
1.48
0.026
0.018
Variability
Factor (VF)
Treatment*
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
0.27
1.10
1.11
1.79
1.38
6.37
0.0010
1.7
0.018
0.025
1.8
•Data were transferred from K018 and K051.
••This is the untreated concentration in K018 and K051 of each constituent
from which treatment data were transferred.
'''The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to
show significant figures only.
-------
Table 7-9
CALCULATION OF NONWASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN K051
I
f-'
vO
Regulated Constituent
Organlea
Total Composition
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethyihexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Untreated
K018-K052
at Plant H
(ppm)
< 20-21
86-190
<20-33
76-120
56-110
64-110
<10
<20-36
230-170
120-570
Arithmetic
Average of
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.87
3.17
0.66
1.96
1.21
13.53
156.00
2.90
1.10
1.08
3.17
213.63
Variability
Factor (VF)
.63
.99
1.27
.36
.79
.93
6.62
.67
.16
1.82
2.99
7.18
Treatment'*'
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
1.1
9.5
0.81
37
2.2
67
1,000»
7.7
2.7
2.0
9.5
1,800*
*The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
oolv •
•The table shows the calculated treatment standards for naphthalene and xylenes; however, the Agency is
not promulgating standards at these levels and is instead reserving standards for these constituents.
-------
Table 7-10
CALCULATION OF NONUASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR CYANIDE, DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE, AND METAL CONSTITUENTS IN K051
Unstabilized
Incinerator Ash*
Arithmetic
Average of
Treatment*
Standard
•»J
1
ro
O
Regulated Constituent
Metals
TCLP
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Selenium
Total Composition
Cyanide
Di-n-butyl phthalate
from Plant A
(ppro)
0.006-0.018
2.64-3.26
0.027-0.041
0.025-0.15
0.05-1. if
113-230*
Corrected Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.001
1.48
0.026
0.018
0.027
1.49
Variability
Factor (VF)
1.10
1.14
1.79
1.38
6.37
2.80
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
0.0040
1.7
0.048
0.025
1.8
4.2
*The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
*Range in untreated K051 from Plant A.
•TCLP extract concentrations for the unstabilized ash have been corrected for recovery.
-------
Table 7-11
CALCULATION OF NONUASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN K052
N>
Regulated Constituent
Organics
(Total Composition)
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Untreated
K048-K052
at Plant
M (ppm)
86-190
76-120
56-140
64-140
<10
230-470
420-570
Arithmetic
Average of
Treatment
Values (ppm)
3.17
0.66
0.80
0.81
13.53
156.00
.90
10
2.
1.
3.
17
Variability
Factor (VF)
2
1
2
1
1,
99
27
80
10
93
6.62
243.63
2.67
2.46
2.99
7.48
Treatment*
Standard
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
9.5
0.84
2.2
0.90
67
1,000*
7.7
2.7
9.5
1,800»
+The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
"The table shows the calculated treatment standards for naphthalene and xylenes; however, the Agency is
not promulgating standards at these levels and is instead reserving standards for these constituents.
-------
Table 7-12
CALCULATION OF NONUASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR CYANIDE
AND METAL CONSTITUENTS IN K052
i
ho
K>
Regulated Constituent
Metals
TCLP
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Selenium
Inorganics
(Total Composition)
Cyanide
Constituent
from which
Treatment
Data Were
Transferred*
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Selenium
Cyanide
Untreated
Concentration
(ppm)"
0.006-0.018
2.61-3.26
0.027-0.011
0.025-0.15
0.5-1.1
Arithmetic
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.001
1.18
0.026
0.018
Treatment*
Standard
Variability (Average x VF)
Factor (VF) (ppm)
0.27
1.10
1.11
1.79
1.38
6.37
0.0010
1.7
0.018
0.025
1.8
•Data were transferred from K018 and K051.
••This is the untreated concentration in K018 and K051 of each constituent
from which treatment data were transferred.
+The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to
show significant figures only.
-------
I
ho
U)
Table 7-13
CALCULATION OF UASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048
Regulated Constituent
Organlea
(Total Composition)
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Constituent
from which
Treatment
Data were
Transferred*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Metals
(Total Composition)
Chromium (total)
Lead
Chromium (total)
Lead
Untreated K048
at Plant A (ppm)
13-16
0.001-1.75IHI
<20-59
<0.66-59
67-190
< 14-120
<0.66-58
93-350
77-190
3.0-210
31-93
22-150
<14-170
393-2,581•
0.02-210*
Arithmetic
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.001
0.017
0.015
0.015
0.021
0.004
0.018
0.012
0.0111
0.017
0.016
0.004
0.004
0.19
0.013
Variability
Factor (VF)
Treatment
Standard**
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
2.80
0.011
0.047
0.043
0.043
0.060
0.011
0.050
0.033
0.039
0.047
0.045
0.011
0.011
1.09
2.8
0.20
0.037
"This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in the waste from which treatment data were
transferred.
*Metals were transferred from the Envirite Report (Reference 27).
**The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
""Untreated concentration in K048 as reported in Jacobs Engineering Company Report (Reference 3).
NA - Not applicable.
-------
I
to
Table 7-11
CALCULATION OF UASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K019
Regulated Constituent
Organics
(Total Composition)
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbon disulfide
Chryaene
2,1-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Metals
(Total Composition)
Chromium (total)
Lead
Constituent from
which Treatment
Data were Transferred*
Arithmetic
Untreated Average of
Concen- Corrected
tration* Treatment Variability
(ppm) Values (ppm) Factor (VF)
Treatment
Standard**
( Average
x VF)(ppm)
Phenanthrene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzene
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Tolune
Xylene (total)
Chromium (total)
Lead
77-190
13-16
0.001-1.75
<20-59
13-16
<0. 66-59
93-350
< 11-120
93-350
77-190
3.0-210
31-93
22-150
0.011
0.001
0.017
0.015
0.001
0.015
0.012
0.001
0.012
0.011
0.017
0.016
0.001
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
0.001
2.80
393-2,581
0.02-210
0.19
0.013
1.09
2.8
0.039
0.011
0.017
0.013
0.011
0.013
0.033
0.011
0.033
0.039
0.017
0.015
0.011
0.011
0.20
0.037
•This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in the waste from which treatment data were
transferred.
*Metals were transferred from the Envirite Report (Reference 27).
**The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
NA - Not applicable.
-------
Table 7-15
CALCULATION OP UASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K050
i
N>
Ln
Regulated Constituent
OrganIcs
(Total Composition)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenol
Metals
(Total Composition)
Chromium (total)
Lead
Constituent
from which
Treatment
Data were
Transferred*
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenol
Untreated
Concentration*
(ppm)
0.001-1.75
3.0-210
Chromium (total)
Lead
393-2,581
0.02-210
Arithmetic
Average of
Corrected
Treatment
Values (ppm)
0.017
0.017
0.19
0.013
Variability
Factor (VF)
2.80
2.80
1.09
2.8
Treatment
Standard**
(Average x VF)
(ppm)
0.017
0.047
0.20
0.037
•This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in the waste from which treatment data were
transferred.
*Metals were transferred from the Envirite Report (Reference 27).
**The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
-------
-»l
N>
Table 7-16
CALCULATION OF UASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K051
Regulated Constituent
Organics
(Total Composition)
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Dl-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Metals
(Total Composition)
Chromium (total)
Lead
Constituent from
which Treatment
Data were Transferred*
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Chrysene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Chromium (total)
Lead
Arithmetic
Untreated Average of
Concen- Corrected
tration* Treatment Variability
(ppm) Values (ppm) Factor (VF)
Treatment
Standard**
( Average
x VF)(ppm)
<0. 66-58
77-190
<0. 66-59
13-16
0.001-1.75
<20-59
<0. 66-59
67-190
< 11-120
<0. 66-58
93-350
77-190
3.0-210
31-93
22-150
<14-170
0.018
0.014
0.015
0.004
0.017
0.015
0.015
0.021
0.004
0.018
0.012
0.011
0.017
0.016
0.004
0.004
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
393-2,581
0.02-210
0.19
0.013
1.09
2.8
0.050
0.039
0.043
0.011
0.047
0.043
0.043
0.060
0.011
0.050
0.033
0.039
0.047
0.045
0.011
0.011
0.20
0.037
"This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in the waste from which treatment data were
transferred.
*Metals were transferred from the Envirite Report (Reference 27).
**The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
-------
«.J
•-J
Regulated Constituent
Organics
(Total Composition)
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
2,1-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Metals
(Total Composition)
Chromium (total)
Lead
Table 7-17
CALCULATION OF UASTEUATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K052
Constituent from
which Treatment
Data were Transferred*
Arithmetic
Untreated Average of
Concen- Corrected
tration* Treatment Variability
(ppm) Values (ppm) Factor (VF)
Treatment
Standard**
(Average
x VF)(ppm)
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Chromium (total)
Lead
13-16
0.001-1.75
<1 11-20
< 11-20
93-350
< 11-120
93-350
77-190
3.0-210
22-150
< 11-170
0.001
0.017
0.001
0.001
0.012
0.001
0.012
0.011
0.017
0.001
0.001
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
393-2,581
0.02-210
0.19
0.013
1.09
2.8
0.011
0.017
0.011
011
033
Oil
033
039
017
011
0.011
0.20
0.037
•This is the untreated concentration of each constituent in the waste from which treatment data were
transferred.
*Metals were transferred from the Envirite Report (Reference 27).
**The values shown on this table for treatment standards have been rounded to show significant figures
only.
-------
8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste, by Versar Inc. and by Radian Corporation who
provided technical assistance under subcontract to Versar Inc. (Contract No.
68-01-7053). Mr. James Berlow, Chief, Waste Treatment Branch, served as the
EPA Program Manager during the development of treatment standards for the
K048-K052 wastes and the preparation of this document. The EPA technical
project officer for the wastes was Mr. Jerry Vorbach. Mr. Steven Silverman
served as EPA legal advisor. Mr. Jerome Strauss, Versar, served as Program
Manager, and Mr. David Pepson, Versar, Senior Technical Reviewer.
The KOU8-K052 treatment tests were performed at Amoco Oil Company,
Whiting, Indiana. Additional characterization sampling was performed at
Conoco, Inc., Ponca City, Oklahoma. Field sampling for the tests was
conducted by Radian Corporation.
We greatly appreciated the cooperation of the American Petroleum
Institute (API) and the individual companies whose plants were sampled and who
submitted detailed information to the U.S. EPA on these waste codes.
8-1
-------
9.0 REFERENCES
1. Jacobs Engineering Company. Alternatives for Hazardous Waste Management
in the Petroleum Refining Industry. 1979.
2. American Petroleum Institute. 1983. 1982 Refinery Solid Waste Survey.
Prepared by Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
3. Rosenberg, D.G. Assessment of Ha2ardous Waste Practices in the Petroleum
Refining Industry. Jacobs Engineering Company, Pasadena, CA. June 1976.
U. Cantrell, Ailleen. "Annual Refining Survey." Oil and Gas Journal. Vol.
85, No. 13. March 30, 1987.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Under RCRA, Subtitle C, Section 3001. Background Docu-
ment. May 1981.
6. U.S. EPA. Onsite Engineering Report of Treatment Technology Performance
and Operation for Amoco Oil Company. Whiting, Indiana. February 29,
T98BT
7. U.S. EPA. Onsite Engineering Report of Stabilization of Fluidized Bed
Incineration Ash at Waterways Experiment Station. Vickaburg. Mississippi.
February 19, 1988.
8. U.S. EPA. Onsite Engineering Report of Treatment Technology Performance
and Operation for Amoco Oil Company. Whiting. Indiana. July 15, 1988.
9. Sohio Oil Co. 1987. Demonstration of a Solvent Extraction Process for
Treating Listed Petroleum Refinery Wastes. Submitted to U.S. EPA on June
12, 1987.
10. Resources Conservation Co. 1987. B.E.S.T. Clean Up. BOAT Performance
Test Results. May 19, 1987 Report Submitted to EPA.
11. Jones, H.R. Pollution Control in the Petroleum Industry. Noyes Data
Corp., Park Ridge, NJ. 1973.
12. Gloyna, E., and D. Ford. The Characteristics and Pollutional Problems
Associated with Petrochemical Wastes. Engineering Science Inc., Austin,
TX. 1970.
13. USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Characteriza-
tion Report of Waste Characterization for Conoco. Inc.. Ponca City.
Oklahoma. February 22, 1988.
1U. Delisting Petition 1503.
9-1
-------
9.0 REFERENCES K048 - K052 (Continued)
15. Environ Corporation. Characterization of Waste Streams Listed in :he ^9
CFR Section 261 Waste Profiles. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Solid
Waste, Waste Identification Branch, Characterization and Assessment
Division.
16. Delisting Petition #205.
17. Delisting Petition #386.
18. Delisting Petition #396.
19. Delisting Petition #421.
20. Delisting Petition #469.
21. Delisting Petition #481.
22. Askew, M.W., et al. "Meet Environmental Needs for Refinery Expansions."
Hydrocarbon Processing. October 1983. pp 65-70.
23. Delisting Petition #530.
24. Delisting Petition #264.
25. Delisting Petition #426.
26. American Petroleum Institute, 1988. API Comments on EPA's proposed rule,
"Land Disposal Restriction for First Third of Scheduled Wastes." Submit-
ted to EPA RCRA Docket F-88-LDR7-FFFFF. Comment No. L0008A. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Onaite Engineering Report
of Treatment Technology Performance and Operation for Envirite Corpora-
tion. Prepared by Versar for Office of Solid Waste, USEPA, under Con-
tract No. 68-01-7053. December 1986.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Onsite Engineering Report for
Horsehead Resource Development Company for K061.Draft Report.March
1988.
29. BP Oil Company. 1987. BP Oil Company - Alliance Refinery Petition for
the Exclusion from Hazardous Waste Regulation of a Solid Waste Residue
from the Solvent Extraction Treatment of Petroleum Refining Wastes.
Submitted to U.S. EPA on October 28, 1987. P.O. Box 395, Bell Chase,
Louisiana 70037.
9-2
-------
9.0 REFERENCES K048 - K052 (Continued)
30. C.F. Systems Corporation. 1987. Company Literature: C.F. Systems Units
to Render Refinery Wastes Non-Hazardous. March 30, 1987.
31. Windholz, Martha, editor. 1983. The Merck Index. 10th edition.
Rathway, NJ: Merck & Company.
32. Verchueren Karel. 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic
Chemicals. 2nd edition, pp 575-576. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, Inc.
33. Weast, R.C., editor. 1980. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 61st
edition, p. C-134. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.
34. Dean, J.A., editor. 1979- Lange's Handbook of Chemistry. 12th edition.
pp 10-118-9. NY: McGraw-Hill.
35. Sanderson, R.T. 1971. Chemical Bonds and Bond Energy. Volume 21 in
Physical Chemistry. NY: Academic Press.
36. BP America, 1988. BPA Comments on EPA's proposed rule, "Land Disposal
Restriction for First Third of Scheduled Wastes." Submitted to EPA RCRA
Docket F-88-LDR7-FFFFF. Comment No. L08800176. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
37. Resources Conservation Company, 1988. RCC Comments on EPA's proposed
rule, "Land Disposal Restriction for First Third of Scheduled Wastes."
Submitted to EPA RCRA Docket F-88-LDR7-FFFFF. Comment No. LDR700025.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
38. C.F. Systems Corporation, 1988. C.F Systems Comments on EPA's proposed
rule, "Land Disposal Restriction for First Third of Scheduled Wastes."
Submitted to EPA July 15, 1988. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
39. U.S. EPA. 1988. Binder Characterization for the USEPA's Evaluation of
Solidification/Stabilization as a BOAT. Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.
9-3
-------
APPENDIX A
A.I F Value Determination for ANOVA Test
As noted earlier in Section 1.0, EPA is using the statistical method
known as analysis of variance in the determination of the level of
performance that represents "best" treatment where more than one
technology is demonstrated. This method provides a measure of the
differences between data sets. If the differences are not statistically
significant, the data sets are said to be homogeneous.
If the Agency found that the levels of performance for one or more
technologies are not statistically different (i.e., the data sets are
homogeneous), EPA would average the long term performance values achieved
by each technology and then multiply this value by the largest
variability factor associated with any of the acceptable technologies.
If EPA found that one technology performs significantly better (i.e., the
data sets are not homogeneous), BOAT would be the level of performance
achieved by the best technology multiplied by its variability factor.
To determine whether any or all of the treatment performance data
sets are homogeneous using the analysis of variance method, it is
necessary to compare a calculated "F value" to what is known as a
"critical value." (See Table A-l.) These critical values are available
in most statistics texts (see, for example, Statistical Concepts and
Methods by Bhattacharyya and Johnson, 1977, John Wiley Publications, New
York).
Where the F value is less than the critical value, all treatment data
sets are homogeneous. If the F value exceeds the critical value, it is
A-l
-------
necessary to perform a "pair wise F" test to determine if any of the sets
are homogeneous. The "pair wise F" test must be done for all of the
various combinations of data sets using the same method and equation as
the general F test.
The F value is calculated as follows:
(i) All data are natural logtransformed.
(ii) The sum of the data points for each data set is computed (T.).
(iii) The statistical parameter known as the sum of the squares
between data sets (SSB) is computed:
SSB
k
I
i-1
•I,*'
ni
-
' k
&T'
N
i -
where:
k » number of treatment technologies
n, • number of data points for technology i
N - number of data points for all technologies
TJ - sum of natural logtransformed data points for each technology.
(iv) The sum of the squares within data sets (SSU) is computed:
k n< _
SSU
where:
k f T-2
-X —
i-1 I n1
Xjj • the natural logtransformed observations (j) for treatment
technology (i).
(v) The degrees of freedom corresponding to SSB and SSU are
calculated. For SSB, the degree of freedom is given by k-1. For SSW,
the degree of freedom is given by N-k.
A-2
-------
(vi) Using the above parameters, the F value is calculated as
follows:
MS|
F - MSW
where:
MSB - SS8/(k-l) and
MSW - SSW/(N-k).
A computational table summarizing the above parameters is shown below.
Computational Table for the F Value
Source
Between
Within
Degrees of
freedom
K-l
N-k
Sum of
squares
SSB
SSW
Mean square
MSB • SSB/k-1
MSW . SSW/N-k
F
MSB/MSW
Below are three examples of the ANOVA calculation. The first two
represent treatment by different technologies that achieve statistically
similar treatment; the last example represents a case where one
technology achieves significantly better treatment than the other
technology.
A-3
-------
Table A-l
F Distribution at the 95 Percent Confidence Level
Otflommtio*
frtMom
Numerator Mqrm ol ifMdom
456
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
29
27
.a
29
30
40
60
120
00
161 4
1851
1013
771
6.61
599
599
932
9.12
498
484
475
467
460
454
449
445
441
438
435
432
430
428
428
424
423
421
420
418
417
408
400
392
184
1995
1900
955
694
5.79
5.14
4 74
446
426
410
398
189
181
374
368
363
359
355
3.52
349
347
144
142
3.40
139
137
135
134
133
3.32
123
119
3.07
100
2197
1916
928
699
9.41
4 78
435
407
386
3.71
399
3.49
341
334
329
324
120
316
113
310
307
309
303
301
2.99
298
298
195
193
292
184
2.76
168
180
2246
19.25
912
639
5.19
453
412
3.84
363
3.48
3.36
129
118
3.11
308
301
298
2.93
290
2.87
284
282
180
178
2.79
2.74
2.73
2.71
170
269
2.61
2.53
145
137
2302
19.30
901
626
905
439
3.97
3.69
148
3.33
120
111
3.03
2.98
2.90
189
181
2.77
2.74
2.71
2.68
168
164
2.62
290
259
197
296
2.99
2.93
149
137
129
121
2340
19.33
8.94
6.16
495
428
3.87
198
3.37
3.22
3.09
3.00
192
185
179
174
170
168
163
160
157
155
153
2.51
249
2.47
2.48
2.49
143
142
134
129
117
110
236.8
19.39
889
609
488
421
179
3.90
129
3.14
3.01
191
183
176
2.71
168
161
198
154
151
149
148
2.44
142
140
139
137
136
139
133
129
117
109
101
2389
1937
885
6.04
482
415
3.73
344
3.23
107
195
185
2.77
170
164
159
2.55
2.51
148
145
142
2.40
137
136
134
132
231
129
128
127
118
110
102
1 94
2405
1938
. 881
6.00
4 77
410
368
339
118
3.02
2.90
2.80
2.71
2.65
299
294
249
146
2.42
239
2.37
234
132
130
2.28
127
2.25
124
122
2.21
2.12
2.04
1 96
188
A-4
-------
Example 1
Methylene Chloride
Steam stripping Biological treatment
Influent Effluent In(effluent) [ln(eff luent)]2 Influent Effluent In(effluent) [ln(eff ?uent}]2
(MO,/!) Ug/'l
1550.00 10.00
1290.00 10.00
1640.00 10.00
5100.00 . 12.00
1450.00 10.00
4600.00 10.00
1760.00 10.00
2400.00 10.00
4800.00 10.00
12100.00 10.00
Sum:
-
Sample Size:
10 10
Mean:
3669 10.2
Standard Deviation:
3328.67 .63
Variability Factor:
1.15
ANOVA Calculations:
r -l
k f TiZ \
SS8 • X, J. «
'•1 "i
I J .
SSW • .t .£' «2i.j
(MS/D (MO./D
2.30 S.29 1960.00 10.00 2.30 5.29
2.30 5.29 2568.00 10.00 2.30 5.29
2.30 5.29 1817.00 10.00 2.30 S.29
2.48 6.15 1640.00 26.00 3.26 10.53
2.30 5.29 3907.00 10.00 2.30 5.29
2.30 5.29
2.30 5.29
2.30 5.29
2.30 5.29
2.30 5.29
23.18 53.76 - - 12.46 31.79
10 5 5 5
2.32 • 2378 13.2 2.49
.06 - 923.04 7.15 .43
2.48
r r k 12
. >-i '
i
P l J
MSB • SS8/(k-l)
MSU • SSW(N-k)
A-5
-------
Example I (continued)
f • HSB/HSU
where:
k > number of treatment technologies
n « number of data points for technology i
N • number of natural log transformed data points for all technologies
T • sum of log transformed data points for each technology
X >the nat. log transformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
n • 10. n • 5. N • 15. k • 2. T • 23.18. T • 12.46. T • 35.64, T - 1270.21
T2 • 537.31 T2 . 155.25
,,- - 537.31 155.2, . ... . . .„
SSB - * - « 0.10
10 5
SSW • (53.76 « 31.79) - [Jf^
I 10
MSB • 0.10/1 • 0.10
NSW • 0.77/13 • 0.06
31 155.251 . „
_.__] .,,,
. 1.67
0.06
AHOVA Table
Degrees of
Source freedom SS NS
Bet«Mn(8)
WUhin(U)
1
13
0.10
0.77
0.10
0.06
1.67
The critical value of the F test at the O.OS significance level is 4.67. Since
the f value is less than the critical value, the means are not significantly
different (i.e.. they are homogeneous).
Note: All calculations were rounded to two decimal places. Results may differ
depending upon the number of decimal place* used in each step of the calculations.
A-6
-------
Example 2
Tncfiloroethylene
Steam stripping
Influent Effluent
(i«/i) Ug/D
1650.00 10.00
5200.00 10.00
5000.00 10.00
1720.00 10.00
1560.00 10.00
10300.00 10.00
210.00 10.00
1600.00 27.00
204.00 85.00
160.00 10.00
Su«:
-
Sample Size:
10 10
Mean:
2760 19.2
Standard Deviation:
3209.6 23.7
Variability Factor:
3.70
ANOVA Calculations:
SS8 • JC [ li. j -
ssw-[,5i £*2l->]-,
Biological treatment
In(effluent) [ln(eff luent)]2 Influent Effluent In(effluent) [ln(eff luent)]
(n9/ 1 ) (<*9/ 1 )
2.30 5.29 200.00 10.00 2.30 5.29
2.30 5.29 224.00 10.00 2.30 5.29
2.30 5.29 134.00 10.00 2.30 5 29
2.30 5.29 150.00 10.00 2.30 5.29
2.30 5.29 484.00 16.25 2.79 7.73
2.30 5.29 163.00 10.00 2.30 S.29
2.30 5.29 182.00 10.00 2.30 5.29
3.30 10.89
4.44 19.71
2.30 5.29
26.14 72.92 - - 16.59 39.52
10 - 7.7 7
2.61 - 220 10.89 2.37
.71 • 120.5 2.36 .19
1.53
ill T']2 |
U-l
•1 I n, J
MSB • SSB/(k-l)
HSU • SSV/IIMO
A-7
-------
Example 2 (continued)
F • MSB/HSU
•here:
k • number of treatment technologies
n < number of data points for technology i
i
N • number of data points for all technologies
T « sum of natural log transformed data points for each technology
X. • the natural log transformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
N • 10. N • 7. N . 17. k • 2. T • 26.14. T • 16.59. T • 42.73. T2- 1825.85. T2 - 683.30.
T2 - 275.23
• /CQl in 9TC 91 \ 1B9K B*
- 0.25
683.30 275.23 1825.85
SSM - (72.92 • 39.52) - ' » ' - 4.79
MSB • 0.25/1 • 0.25
NSW • 4.79/15 - 0.32
F-lfL-0.7.
0.32
ANOVA Table
Source
Betveen(B)
Withtn(W)
Degrees of
freedom
1
IS
SS
0.25
4.79
MS F
0.2S 0.78
0.32
The critical value of the f test at the O.OS significance level is 4.54. Since
the F value is lev* than the critical value, the «eens are not significantly
different (i.e.. they are homogeneous).
Note: All calculations «ere rounded to two decimal places. Results may differ
depending upon the number of decimal places used in each step of the calculations.
A-8
-------
Example 3
Chlorobenzene
Activated s'udoe followed by carbon adsorption Bioloqical treatment
Influent Effluent
7200.00 80.00
6500.00 70.00
6075.00 35.00
3040.00 10.00
Sum:
Sample Size:
4 4
Mean:
5703 49
In(effluent) [1n(eff luent)]2 Influent
Ug/1)
4.38 19.18 9206.00
4.25 18.06 16646.00
3.56 12.67 49775.00
2.30 5.29 14731.00
3159.00
6756.00
3040.00
14.49 55.20
4 - 7
3.62 - 14759
Effluent
Ug/1)
1083.00
709.50
460.00
142.00
603.00
153.00
17.00
.
7
452.5
In(effluent) ln[(eff luent!]*
6.99 48.36
6.56 43.03
6.13 37.58
4.96 24 50
6.40 40.36
5.03 25.30
2.33 3.::
38.90 228.34
7
5.56
Standard Deviation:
1835.4 32.24
.95
16311.86
379.04
1.42
Variability Factor:
7.00
15.79
ANOVA Calculations:
SSB •
ssy •
, •> . 1 f
k f Ti2 1
2, — -
'•1 "i
1 I J J I
MSB • SSB/(k-l)
MSW - SSU/(N-k)
f • MS8/MSW
k T ]2 \
i»l ' 1
I
1 J J
A-9
-------
ExampI* 3 (continued)
•here.
k • nunber of treatment technologies
n. * nunber of data points for technology i
N • nunber of data points for all technologies
T • sun of natural log transformed data points for each technology
X • the natural log transformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
N . 4. N • 7. N « 11. k • 2. T « 14.49. T - 38.90. T • 53.39. T2« 2850.49. T2 • 209.96
T2 - 1513.21
SS8 .I"'"" * I - 2850'49 - 9.52
SSW - (55.20 . 228.34, - .1* -14.88
MSB • 9.52/1 • 9.52
MSW - 14.88/9 • 1.65
F • 9.52/1.65 • 5.77
ANOVA Table
Degrees of
Source freedo* SS MS
BetMeen(B)
Withm(W)
1
9
9.53
14.89
9.53
1.65
5.77
The critical value of the F test at the 0.05 significance level is 5.12. Since
the f value is larger than the critical value, the «eans are significantly
different (i.e.. they are heterogeneous).
Note: All calculations ««re rounded to t«o decimal place*. Results nay differ depending
upon the nuaber of decimal places used in each step of the calculations.
A-10
-------
A.2. Variability Factor
-£99-
VF » Mean
where:
VF » estimate of daily maximum variability factor determined from
a sample population of daily data.
Cgg » Estimate of performance values for which 99 percent of the
daily observations will be below. 099 is calculated using
the following equation: Cgg - Exp(y + 2.33 Sy) where y and
Sy are the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of the
logtransformed data.
Mean * average of the individual performance values.
EPA is establishing this figure as an instantaneous maximum because
the Agency believes that on a day-to-day basis the waste should meet the
applicable treatment standards. In addition, establishing this
requirement makes it easier to check compliance on a single day. The
99th percentile is appropriate because it accounts for almost all process
variability.
In several cases, all the results from analysis of the residuals from
BOAT treatment are found at concentrations less than the detection
limit. In such cases, all the actual concentration values are considered
unknown and hence, cannot be used to estimate the variability factor of
the analytical results. Below is a description of EPA's approach for
calculating the variability factor for such cases with all concentrations
below the detection limit.
It has been postulated as a general rule that a lognormal
distribution adequately describes the variation among concentrations.
A-ll
-------
Agency data shows that the treatment residual concentrations are
distributed approximately lognormally. Therefore, the lognormal model
has been used routinely in the EPA development of numerous regulations in
the Effluent Guidelines program and is being used in the BOAT program.
The variability factor (VF) was defined as the ratio of the 99th
percentile (C ) of the lognormal distribution to its arithmetic mean
(Mean).
VF-
Mean
The relationship between the parameters of the lognormal distribution
and the parameters of the normal distribution created by taking the
natural logarithms of the lognormal ly-distributed concentrations can be
found in most mathematical statistics texts (see for example:
Distribution in Statistics-Volume 1 by Johnson and Kotz, 1970). The mean
of the lognormal distribution can be expressed in terms of the
mean (M) and standard deviation (a) of the normal distribution as
follows:
Cg9 - Exp (M + 2.33a) (2)
Mean - Exp (M + .5a2) (3)
Substituting (2) and (3) in (1) the variability factor can then be
expressed in terms of a as follows:
VF - Exp (2.33 a - .So2) (4)
For residuals with concentrations that are not all below the
detection limit, the 99 percentile and the mean can be estimated from
the actual analytical data and accordingly, the variability factor (VF)
A-12
-------
can be estimated using equation (1). For residuals with concentrations
that are below the detection limit, the above equations can be used in
conjunction with the assumptions below to develop a variability factor.
Step 1: The actual concentrations follow a lognormal distribution. The
upper limit (UL) is equal to the detection limit. The lower limit (LL)
is assumed to be equal to one tenth of the detection limit. This
assumption is based on the fact that data from well-designed and
well-operated treatment systems generally falls within one order of
magnitude.
Step 2: The natural logarithms of the concentrations have a normal
distribution with an upper limit equal to In (UL) and a lower limit equal
to In (LL).
Step 3: The standard deviation (a) of the normal distribution is
approximated by
o - [(In (UL) - In (LL)] / [(2)(2.33)] - [ln(UL/LL)] / 4.66
when LL • (0.1)(UL) then a • (InlO) / 4.66 - 0.494
Step 4: Substitution of the value from Step 3 in equation (4) yields the
variability factor, VF.
VF - 2.8
A-13
-------
Appendix B
MAJOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS FOR K048-K052
K048
Amoco OER* (Reference 6)
API, 1983 (Reference 2)
Jacobs, 1976 (Reference 3)
Petition #264 (Reference 24)
BP Report •• (Reference 29)
Average:
Adjusted Average:
Water
t SolIda
% Oil and Grease
14
8.7
12.5
12
15
IT
12
K049
Conoco OER (Reference 13)
API, 1983 (Reference 2)
Jacobs, 1976 (Reference 3)
Petition 1481 (Reference 21)
Petition 0421 (Reference 19)
BP Report (Reference 29)
Average:
Adjusted Average:
% Solids
% Oil and Grease
•These data represent dewatered OAF float and were not used in these
calculations.
••Includes DAF bottoms.
B-l
-------
Appendix B (Continued)
MAJOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS FOR K048-K052
Solids
% Oil and Grease
Petition 1481 (Reference 21)
Jacobs, 1976 (Reference 3)
API, 1983 (Reference 2)
Average:
Adjusted Average:
K051
Petition #426 (Reference 25)
Amoco OER (Reference 6)
API, 1983 (Reference 2)
Jacobs, 1976 (Reference 3)
Petition 1481 (Reference 21)
BP Report (Reference 29)
Average:
Adjusted Average:
API, 1983 (Reference 2)
Jacobs, 1976 (Reference 3)
Conoco OER (Reference 13)
Average:
Adjusted Average:
37.8
53
42.8
44.5
44
* Water
81
30
67.4
53
51.6
76
59.8
60
% Water
37.9
0.3
18
"TO"
18
52.5
36
55.4
4fl
48
t Solids
7
54
21.1
24.4
22.3
5
22.3
22
% Solids
59
79.7
70
69.6
69
7.7
11
4.8
~TB~
7
% Oil and Grease
10
15
12.6
22.6
22.4
19
16". 9
17
% Oil and Grease
8.5
20
10
1575"
12
B-2
-------
Plant Code
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Appendix C
SUMMARY OF PETROLEUM REFINERY PLANT CODES
Plant Name '
Amoco Oil Company, Whiting, Indiana
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
General Refining Superfund Site,
Garden City, Georgia
Unknown
Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Unknown
SOHIO Oil Alliance Refining, (Pilot plant
results), Louisiana
Unknown
Data Source
EPA Testing
(References
6 and 8)
API Report
(Reference 26)
API Report
(Reference 26)
API Report
(Reference 26)
API Report
(Reference 26)
API Report
(Reference 26)
Resources
Conservation
Company
(Reference 37)
API Report
(Reference 26)
EPA Testing
(Reference 7)
API Report
(Reference 26)
BP America
(Reference 29)
CF Systems
(Reference 30)
C-l
-------
Appendix C (Continued)
SUMMARY OF PETROLEUM REFINERY PLANT CODES
Plant Code
N
Plant Name
SOHIO Oil Alliance Refinery (full-scale
results), Louisiana
Unknown
Unknown
Envirite Corporation, Pennsylvania
Data Source
BP America
(Reference 36)
API Report
(Reference 26)
CF Systems
(Reference 38)
K062 Background
Document
(Reference 27)
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
ANALYTICAL QA/QC
The analytical methods used for analysis of the regulated constitu-
ents identified in Section 6.0 are presented in this Appendix. Table D-1
presents the methods used for analysis of organics, inorganics, and metals in
nonwastewaters. Analyses presented for organics were performed on the solvent
extraction residue. Analyses presented for cyanide and dl-n-butyl phthalate
were performed on the fluidized bed incinerator ash, while analyses presented
for metals were per- formed on the stabilized fluidized bed incinerator ash.
Table D-2 presents the methods used for analysis of organics in the fluidized
bed incinerator wastewater. The methods used for analysis of metals in this
wastewater are presented in Reference 27 (Envirite).
SW-846 methods (EPA's Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste;
Physical/Chemical Methods. SW-846) are used in most cases for determining
total constituent concentration. Leachate concentrations were determined
using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), published in 51
FR 40643, November 7, 1986.
In some instances it was necessary to deviate from the SW-846
methods. Deviations from SW-846 methods required to analyze the fluidized bed
incinerator ash are listed in Table D-3. EPA is not aware of any deviations
from SW-846 methods required to analyze to solvent extraction residue. SW-846
allows for the use of alternative or equivalent procedures or equipment; these
D-1
-------
are noted in Table D-4 for the fluidized bed incinerator ash and the stabil-
ized ash. These alternatives or equivalents included the use of different
sample preparation methods and/or different extraction techniques to reduce
matrix interferences.
The accuracy determination for a constituent is based on the matrix
spike recovery values. Tables D-5 and D-6 present the matrix spike recovery
data for volatile, semivolatile, inorganic, and metal constituents in
nonwastewater residuals from fluidized bed incineration and fluidized bed
incineration followed by ash stabilization. Table D-7 presents matrix spike
recoveries for organics in wastewater residuals. Table D-8 presents matrix
spike data for metal constituents in wastewater residuals.
Duplicate matrix spikes were performed for some volatile, semi-
volatile, and metal constituents in the residuals from fluidized bed inciner-
ation and fluidized bed incineration followed by stabilization. If duplicate
matrix spikes were performed for an organic constituent, the matrix spike
recovery used for that constituent was the lower of the two values from the
first matrix spike and the duplicate spike.
Where a matrix spike was not performed for an organic constituent, a
matrix spike recovery for that constituent was derived from the average matrix
spike recoveries of the appropriate constituent group (volatile or semi-
volatile) for which recovery data were available. In these cases, the matrix
spike recoveries for volatiles and semivolatiles from the first matrix spikes
D-2
-------
were averaged. Similarly, average matrix spike recoveries were calculated for
the duplicate matrix spike recoveries. The lower of the two average matrix
spike recoveries of the volatile or semivolatile was used for any volatile or
semivolatile constituent for which no matrix spike was performed.
Where a matrix spike was not performed for a metal constituent in a
TCLP extract, a matrix spike recovery for that constituent was derived from
the average matrix spike recoveries for that metal constituent in other TCLP
extracts. For example, no matrix spike was performed for antimony in the
cement sample from the stabilized fluidized bed incinerator ash. The percent
recovery for this constituent was 7U%, which is the average of the percent
recoveries from the kiln dust sample and the fly ash sample for antimony.
Quality assurance/quality control information was available for the
solvent extraction data; however, the information could not be used to adjust
the treated waste data for inaccuracies due to matrix interferences. The
Agency corrects treated waste data based on matrix spike results obtained by
spiking a sample of the waste with selected analytes. This method gives an
indication of the effect the waste matrix has on the analysis of specific
constituents. The matrix spikes for the solvent extraction data were
conducted on a standard soil sample; therefore, the results do not provide an
indication of analytical interferences that may have been caused by the waste
matrix, and the data cannot be corrected for analytical interferences.
D-3
-------
The accuracy correction factors for volatile, semivolatile and metai
constituents detected in the kiln ash and scrubber water residuals are summa-
rized in Tables D-9 through D-11. Table D-9 presents :he accuracy correction
factors for constituents in the fluidized bed incinerator ash. Table D-10
presents accuracy correction factors for metals in the stabilized fluidized
bed incinerator ash. Table D-11 presents accuracy correction factors for
organics in wastewaters from fluidized bed incineration and metals in
wastewaters from chromium reduction followed by lime and sulfide precipitation
and vacuum filtration. The accuracy correction factors were determined for
each constituent by dividing 100 by the matrix spike recovery for that
constituent.
D-4
-------
tjl
Table D-1
ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR REGULATED CONSTITUENTS IN KOH8-K052 NONUASTEWATER
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Regulated Constituent
Volatiles
226.
215-217.
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene (total
Semi volati lea
57.
59.
62.
70.
80.
81.
82 .
98.
121.
mi.
142.
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Di-n-butylphthalate
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Inorganics
169. Cyanide
Total Composition
Preparation Method Analytical Method
Reference
Purge and Trap
(Method 5030)
Gas Chromatography/
Mass Spectrometry for
Volatile Organics
(Method 8240)
Sonication Extraction
(Method 3550),
followed by
Acid-Base Partition
Cleanup (Method 3650)
and Alumina Column
Cleanup and Separation
of Petroleum Wastes
(Method 3611)
Gas Chromatography/
Mass Spectrometry for
Semivolatile Organics:
Capillary Column
Technique (Method 8270)
Colorimetric, Manual
(Method 9010)
-------
Table D-1 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR REGULATED CONSTITUENTS IN K048-K052 NONUASTEUATER
Regulated Constituent
Metals
155. Araenic
159. Chromium (total)
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
STABILIZATION
TCLP Extract
Preparation Method
51 Federal Register
406
-------
Table D-2
ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR REGULATED ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN K048-K052 UASTEUATER
FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Total Composition
Preparation Method Analytical Method
Purge and Trap
(Method 5030)
Regulated Constituent Preparation Method Analytical Method Reference
Volattlea
4. Benzene
8. Carbon diaulfide
226. Ethylbenzene
13. Toulene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Semivolatiles
52. Acenaphthene
57. Anthracene
59. Benz(a)anthracene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. Bla(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
80. Chrysene
81. o-Creaol
82. p-Creaol
96. 2,1-Dirnethy1phenol
98. Dl-n-butylphthalate
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
111. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
115. Pyrene
Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. Test Methods Tor Evaluating Solid Waste, Third Edition, U.S. EPA,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, November, 1986.
Continuous Liquid-
Liquid Extraction
(Method 3520) and
Soxhlet Extraction
(Method 3540)
Gas Chromatography/
Mass Spectromethy for
Volatile Organics
(Method 8240)
Gas Chromatography/
Mass Spectrometry for
Sealvolatile Organics:
Capillary Column
Technique (Method 8270)
-------
Table D-3
Deviations from SU-846
Analysis
Method
SW-846 Specification
Deviation from SW-B46
Method
Fluldiied Bad Incineration
Semtvolatlle Organic
Const Ituents
(Total Composition)
3540 Add 1.0 ml of solution
containing 100 ug/ml of
the acid surrogates and
200 ug/ml of the base/
neutral surrogates.
Additional amounts of the
surrogates are added If
high concentration
samples are expected.
O.I ml of solution contain-
ing 1.000 ug/ml of the
acid surrogates and 2,000
ug/ml of the base/neutral
surrogates Mere added to
the samples. The final
concentration of the
surrogates in the
extracts Is the same as
specified in SW-846.
V
oo
8270 The internal standards
recommended are
I.4-dtchlorobenzene-d4.
napthalene-df),
acenaphthene-d|Q.
phenanthrene-d|Q,
chrysane-d|2. •"<*
perylene-d|2- Other
compounds may be used as
internal standards as
long as the requirements
given in Paragraph 7.3.2
of the method are met.
Each compound Is
dissolved with a small
volume of carbon
dlsulflda and diluted
to volume Mlth methy lane
chloride so that the
final solvent is approxi-
mately 20* carbon
dlsulflde. Most of the
compounds are also
soluble In small volumes
of methanol, acetone, or
toluene, except for
peryIene-d)2• The result-
ing solution Hill contain
each standard at a concen-
tration of 4,000 ng/uL.
Each 1-mL sample extract
undergoing analysis should
be spiked with 10 uL of
the internal standard
solution, resulting In a
concentration uf 40 ng/uL
ot each internal standard.
The preparation of the
Internal standards was
changed to eliminate
carbon dlsulflde as a
solvent. The internal
standard concentration was
changed to SO ng/ul instead
of 40 ng/ul. The standards
•ere dissolved In methylene
chloride only. Perylene-djj
dissolved In methylene
chloride sufficiently to
yield reliable results.
-------
Table D-l»
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SU-846 METHODS
Ana lysis
SW-B46
Method Remark
Alternatives or Equivalents
Allowed by SW-B46 Methods
Specific Procedures
or Equipment Used
Fluldlzed Bed Incineration
Volatile Organic Constituents
(Total Composition)
6030 Sample Aliquot: SO
mil Hitters of liquid or
2 grams of sol Id
O
\D
The purge and trap
device to be used is
specified in the method
in fIgure I. the
desorber to be used is
described in Figures 2
and 3, and the packing
materials are described
in Section 4.10.2. The
method allo»s equiva-
lents of this equipment
or materials to be used.
The method specifies
that the trap must be at
least 25 cm long and
have an Inside diameter
of at least 0.IOS in.
The surrogates
recommended are toluene-
dB, 4-bromofluorobenzene.
and I,2-d1chloroethane-d4.
The recommended concen-
tration level Is 0.2S ug/
ml .
u The purge and trap
equipment, the
desorber. and the
packing materials
used were as speci-
fied in SW-846.
o The length of the
trap Mas 30 cm and
and the diameter was
0.25 cm.
All surrogates Mere
added at the concen-
tration recommended
in SW-B46.
-------
Table D-4 (Continued)
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SU-816 METHODS
Analysts
SW-846
Mathod Reaark
Alternatives or Equivalents
for Equipment or in Procedure
Specific Equipment or Procedures Used
Fluidlzed Bed Incineration (Continued)
Volatile Organic
Const Ituents
(Total Composition)
(ContInued)
6240 Sample o Recommended CC/MS operating conditions:
Prepar-
at Ion
Method)
5030
Actual GC/MS operating conditions:
Electron energy;
Mass ranget
Scan time:
O
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature:
Final column holding time:
Injector temperature:
Source temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Carrier gas:
70 vols (nominal)
35-260 amu
To give 5 scans/
peak but not to
eiiceed 7 sec/scan
45°C
3 min
8°C/mln
200°C
IS min
200-225°C
According to
manufacturer's
specif icatIon
250-300°C
Hydrogen at 50
cm/sec or helium
at 30 cot/sec
o The column should be 6-ft » 0.I in 1.0. glass,
packed Mlth 1* SP-IOOO on Cartopact B (60/BO
mesh) or an equivalent.
o Samples may be analyzed by purge and trap
technique or by direct injection.
Electron energy:
Mass range:
Scan time:
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature:
Final column holding time:
Injector temperature:
Source temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Carrier gas:
70 ev
35-350 amu
2 sec/scan
IO°C
5 min
6°C/min
I60°C
20 min
220°C
250°C
275°C
He I I urn 0
ml/min
30
o Additional Information on Actual System Used:
Equipment: Ftnnegan Mat model 5100 CC/MS/OS
System
Data system: SUPERINCOS*
Mode: Electron Impact
NBS library available
Interfact to MS - Jet separator
o The column used «as a capillary VOCOL which
Is 60 meters long and has an Inner diameter
of 0.75 mm and a 1.5 umdf.
o All samples Mere analyzed using the purge
and trap technique.
-------
Table D-4 (Continued)
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SW-846 METHODS
Analyses
SW-846
Method
Remark
Alternatives or Equivalents
Aliened by SW-846 Methods
Specific Procedures
or Equipment Used
Fluidited Bed Incineration (Continued)
SemlvolatIle Organic
Const Ituenta
(Total Composition)
3540
Sample A IIquot:
10 grams of aolId
The base/neutral
Surrogates reconunttnded
are 2-f luorobiphenyI,
nitrobenzene-dS. and
terphenyI-d4. The
acid surrogates
recommended are 2-
fluorophenoI. 2.4,6-
trIbromophenoI. and
phenol-d6. Additional
compounds may be used
for surrogates. The
recommended concentra-
tions for low medium
concentrations level
samples are 100 ug/ml
for acid surrogates and
200 ug/ml for base/
neutral surrogates.
Volume of surrogates
added may be adjusted.
Sample grinding may be
required for samples
not passing through a
1 mm standard sieve or
a 1 mm opening.
Surrogates were the
recommended by SW-846
with the exception
that phenoI-d5 MBS
substItuted for
phenoI-d6. The
concentrations of
surrogates in the
samples Here 100 ug/
ml of acid surrogates
and 200 ug/ml of base/
neutral surrogates.
o Sample grinding Mas
was not required.
-------
Table D-4 (Continued)
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SU-846 METHODS
Analysis
SW-B46
Method Remark
Alternatives or Equivalent!
for Equipment or In Procedure
Specific Equipment or Procedures Used
a
i
Fluidited Bed Incineration (Continued)
Semi volet 1 le 8270 Sample o Recommended CC/MS operating conditions: o
Organic Preper-
Constltuenta at Ion Maes range:
(Continued) Methods Scan time:
3520- Initial column temperature i
Liquid* Initial column holding timei
3S40- Column temperature program:
Solid*
Final column temperature
hold:
Injector temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Source temperature i
Injector:
Sample volume:
Carrier gas:
36-500 emu
1 sec/scan
40°C
4 mln
40-270°C at
IO°C/m1n
270°C. (until
benzo(g.h. 1 )
perylene has
eluded)
250-300°C
250-300°C
According to
manufacturer's
specif teat Ion
Crob-type. split
less
1-2 uL
Hydrogen at 50 cm/
sec or hel turn at
30 cm/sec
o
o
Actual GC/MS operating conditions:
Mass range:
Scan time:
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature
hold:
Injector temperature:
Source temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Source temperature
Injector:
Sample volume:
Carrier gas:
35-450 emu
0.5 sec/scan
35°C
10°C mln
35°C • IO°C/mln
275°C
275°C
250°C
275°C
250°C
Cool-on-co lumn
at 35°C
0.5 ul of
sample extract
Hydrogen a SO
cm/sec or
he 1 lum at 30
cm/sec
Additional Information on Actual system Used
Equipment: Hewelett Packard
598 7 A" CC/MS
(Operators Manual Revision B)
Software Package: AQUARIUS NBS library
aval Iable
The column should be 30 m by 0.25 mm I.0.. o
I-urn film thickness silicon-coated fused silica
capillary column (J1W Scientific OB-5 or
equivalent).
The column used was the J&W scientific OB-5
silica capillary column. It is 30 meters
with a 0.32 mm capillary column Inner
diameter and a 0.25 urn film.
-------
Table D-4 (Continued)
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SU-816 METHODS
Analysts
SW-846
Mathod
Remark
Alternatives or Equivalent
A Monad by SW-846 Methods
Specific Procedures
or Equipment Used
Fluldlnd Bed Incineration (CentInued)
Metal Constituents (TCLP) 6010
7421
Equipment Used:
ICPES-AppIled Research
Laboratories
(ARL)-34000
Equipment Used: Parkin
Elmer 3030
Operate equipment fol-
lOMlng Instructions
provided by Instru-
ment's manufacturer
For operation with
organic solvents.
auillllary argon gas
Inlet Is recommended.
Operate equipment fol-
lowing Instruction
provided by Instrument's
manufacturer.
For background
correction, use either
contlnous correction or
alternatives, e.g..
Zeeman correction.
If samples contain large
amount of organic
material, they should be
oxidized by conventional
acid digestion before
being analyzed.
o Equipment operated
using procedures
speclfled In the
ARL-34000 ICP
Software Guide and
the ARL-34000
Programmer's Guide.
o Auxiliary argon gas
•as not required for
sample matrices
analyzed In this
sampling episode.
o Equipment operated
using procedures
specified In Parkin
Elmer 3030
Instruction Manual.
o Background detection
•as used. Continuous
correct on Model 303.
Sample preparation was
required to remove
organlcs. •
-------
Table D-4 (Continued)
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES OR EQUIPMENT USED IN ANALYSIS OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
WHEN ALTERNATIVES OR EQUIVALENTS ARE ALLOWED IN SW-846 METHODS
Analysis
SW-846
Method
Remark
Alternatives or Equivalents
Allo»ad by SW-846 Methods
Specific Procedures
or Equipment Used
StablIliatIon
Metals Constituents (TCLP)
6010 Equipment Used:
Perkln Elmer Plasma II
Emission Spectrophoto-
meter
Operate equipment
following instructions
provided by Instru-
ment's manufacturer
For operation with
organic solvents.
aunt I Mary argon gas
Inlet Is recommended.
Equipment operated
using procedures
spec 1f ied In
operation manuals
prepared by Perkln
Elmer.
Auxiliary argon gas
was for sample
analyses.
-------
Table D-5
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR FLU I DI ZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
Spike Constituent
Original
Amount Found
(ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
9. Chlorobenzene
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane
22. 1,1-Dichloroethane
t3. Toluene
47. Trichloroethene
215-
217. Xylene (total)
Average
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Spike Constituent
SEMIVOLATILES
(BASE/NEUTRAL FRACTION)
52. Acenaphthene
59. Benz(a)anthracene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
80. Chrysene
87. o-Dichlorobenzene
Original
Amount Found
(ppm)
<0.2
Mtt
<0.2
Amount
Spiked
(ppm)
50
50
50
50
50
Amount
Spiked
(ppn)
10
10
Amount
Recovered
(ppm)
44
23
48
40
38
Percent*
Recovery
(*)
46
96
80
76
77
Sample Result
Amount Percent*
Recovered Recovery
(ppm) (%)
6.6
66
7.5
75
Duplicate Sample Result
Amount Percent*
Recovered Recovery
(ppm) (%)
6.3
63
7.6
76
•Percent recovery = 100 x (Cj - C0)/Ct, where C} = amount recovered, C0 = original amount found, and Ct =
amount spiked.
**No matrix spike was performed for this constituent. The percent recovery for this constituent is based on the
lower average percent recovery of the semivolatile (base/neutral) constituents. The lower average percent
recovery is ftl% from the duplicate sample.
***No matrix spike was performed for this constituent. The percent recovery is based on the average percent
recovery for the volatile constituents. This value is 11%.
-------
Table D-5 (Continued)
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
o
Spike Constituent
Original
Amount Pound
(ppm)
Sample Result
98.
102.
105.
109.
121.
mi.
115.
150.
Di-n-Butyl phthalate
2 ,1-Dinitro toluene
Di-N-propylnitrosamine
Pluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,1-Trichlorobenzene
Average
INORGANICS
•«
<5.0
<0.5
••
••
••
<0.2
<0.5
169. Cyanide
171. Sulfide
<0.51
<50
Amount
Spiked
(ppm)
50
50
10
10
0.10
523
Amount
Recovered
(ppm)
27
35
5.8
9
0.104
418
Percent*
Recovery
(*)
51
70
58
90
69
101
82
Duplicate Sample Result
Amount Percent*
Recovered Recovery
(ppm) (%)
26
35
5.3
8.6
52
70
53
86
67
••No matrix spike was performed for this constituent. The percent recovery for this constituent is based
on the lower average percent recovery of the semivolatile (base/neutral) constituents. The lower average
percent recovery is 67? from the duplicate sample. • *
-------
Table D-5 (Continued)
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
Spike Constituent
METALS (TCLP EXTRACT)
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Benyllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
166. Thallium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Original
Amount Found
(ppm)
Amount
Spiked
(ppm)
Sample Result
Amount
Recovered
(ppm)
Percent*
Recovery
(*)
71
136
93
76
75
80
63
88
83
73
81
75
59
77
71
Duplicate Sample Result
Amount Percent*
Recovered Recovery
(ppm) (%)
+No matrix spike was performed for this constituent. The percent recovery is the average percent recovery from
cement, kiln dust, and lime and fly ash TCLP extract for the stabilized ash for this constituent. Table D-6
presents the data for the percent recoveries for stabilized fluidized bed incinerator ash.
•Percent recovery = 100 x
Ct = amount spiked.
- C0)/Ct, where Cj = amount recovered, Co = original amount found, and
-------
Table D-6
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR THE TCLP EXTRACT FOR STABILIZED FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
CEMENT
Cement: Run 2
o
M
OO
CONSTITUENTS (ppm)
BOAT METALS
151. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium
(hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
166. Thallium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Original
Amount Found
(ppm)
< 0.004
«•
•ft
tttt
•ft
«•
< 0.006
«•
0.022
««
0.009
•«
«K
Amount
Spiked
(PPm)
0.1
1.0
0.05
1.0
Amount
Recovered
(ppm)
0.136
0.994
0.06
-------
o
VO
Table 0-6 (Continued)
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR THE TCLP EXTRACT FOR STABILIZED FLUIDIZEO BED INCINERATOR ASH
KILN DUST
Kiln Dust: Run 1
Original
Amount
Pound
CONSTITUENTS (ppm) (PPB)
BOAT
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
METALS
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chromium
(hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
<0.
•
0.
<0.
-------
Table D-6 (Continued)
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR THE TCLP EXTRACT FOR STABILIZED FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR ASH
LIME AND FLY ASH
CONSTITUENTS (ppm)
BOAT METALS
151. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
161. Selenium
165. Silver
166. Thallium
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Lime and Flyash: Run: 3
Original
Amount
Found
(ppm)
<0.163
0.006
0.599
<0.001
<0.003
1.08
0.171
0.006
< 0.006
<0.018
0.017
< 0.006
<0.001
0.156
0.052
Amount
Spiked
(ppm)
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.05
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Amount
Recovered
(ppm)
0.751
0.146
1.568
0.728
0.722
1.816
0.403
0.749
0.72
0.698
0.059
0.726
0.583
1.092
0.734
Percent
Recovery*
(%)
75
140
97
73
72
77
23
74
72
70
85
73
58
94
68
•Percent recovery = 100 x
Cfc = amount spiked.
(Cj - Co)/Ct, where Cj = amount recovered, Co = original amount found, and
-------
Table D-7
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR ORGANICS IN UASTEUATER RESIDUALS
Spike Constituent
VOLATILES
Original
Amount Found
(ppb)
Sample Result
4. Benzene
9. Chlorobenzene
2 1 . Dichlorod if luoromethane
24. 1,1-Dichloroe thane
43. Toluene
47. Trichloroethene
215. o-Xylene
216, m-Xylene
217. p-Xylene
SEMI VOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
76. p-Chloro-m-cresol
78. 2-Chlorophenol
80. Chrysene
88. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
98. Di-n-Butyl phthalate
102. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
105. Di-n-propylnitrosamine
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
•Percent recovery = 100 x
amount spiked.
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<20
Amount
Spiked
(ppb)
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
100
100
100
200
200
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Duplicate Sample Result
Amount
Recovered
(ppb)
27.86
29.07
ND
38.40
27.46
27.91
27.91
53.85
Percent*
Recovery
(I)
111
116
NA
154
110
112
112
108
91.58
98.51
83.71
265.15
230.40
105.64
75.82
108.06
111.34
93.05
105.11
117.85
92
99
84
133
115
106
76
108
111
93
105
118
Amount
Recovered
(ppb)
29.14^
29.45
ND
38.96
29.78
29.12
28.92
55.09
57.32
58.90
65.41
181.09
192.93
64.62
64.01
47.36
56.48
69.57
56.11
85.04
Percent*
Recovery
(*)
117
118
NA
156
119
116
116
110
57
59
65
91
96
65
64
47
56
70
56
85
- C0)/Ct, where Cj = amount recovered, Co = original amount found, and
-------
o
ro
M
Table D-7 (Continued)
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR ORGANICS IN UASTEUATER RESIDUALS
Spike Constituent
SEMIVOLATILES (Cont.)
127. 1-Nitrophenol
139. Pentachlorophenol
111. Phenanthrene
112. Phenol
115. Pyrene
150. 1,2,1-Trichlorobenzene
"Percent recovery = 100 x
amount spiked.
Original
Amount Found
(ppb)
<50
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
Amount
Spiked
(ppb)
200
200
100
200
100
100
Sample Result
Amount
Recovered
(ppb)
Percent*
Recovery
151.10
101.00
98.72
216.57
120.98
83.21
76
51
99
108
121
83
Duplicate Sample Result
Amount Percent*
Recovered Recovery
(ppb) (?)
123.87
117.68
71.12
118.81
61.67
66.28
62
59
71
59
62
66
- Co)/Ct, where C} = amount recovered, C0 = original amount found, and
-------
Table D-8
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR METALS IN WASTEWATER RESIDUALS*
Spike Constituent
159. Chromium (total)
161. Lead
168. Zinc
•iginal
int Found
(ppb)
<4.0
<5.0
2,640
Amount
Spiked
(ppb)
50
25
10,000
Sample Recovery
Amount Percent
Recovered Recovery
(ppb) HI
35 70
22 88
12,600 100
Duplicate Sample Result
Amount Percent
Recovered Recovery*
(ppb) <£)
34 68
19 76
12,400 98
V
ro
"Percent recovery = 100 x (Cj - Co)/Ct, where Cj = amount recovered, Co = original amount found, and
Ct = amount spiked.
^Matrix spike recoveries transferred from the Onsite Engineering Report for Horsehead (Reference 28).
-------
Table D-9
SUMMARY OF ACCURACY CORRECTION FACTORS FOR NONWASTEWATER
(Fluidized Bed Incineration)
Accuracy Correction Factor*
Constituent Total Concentration TCLP
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.30
43. Toluene 1.25
Xylene 1.30
59. Benz(a)anthracene 1.49
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 1.49
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.49
80. Chrysene 1.49
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 1.49
109. Fluorene 1.49
121. Naphthalene 1.49
141. Phenanthrene 1.49
145. Pyrene 1.89
154. Antimony 1.35
155. Arsenic 0.74
156. Barium 1.08
157. Beryllium 1.32
158. Cadmium 1.33
159. Chromium (total) 1.25
160. Copper 1.14
161. Lead 1.20
163. Nickel 1.34
164. Selenium 1.23
165. Silver 1.33
167. Vanadium 1.30
168. Zinc 1.35
169. Cyanide 0.96
171. Sulfide 1.22
•The Accuracy Correction Factor is equal to 1 divided by the Percent
Recovery.
D-24
-------
Table D-10
SUMMARY OF ACCURACY CORRECTION FACTORS FOR NONWASTEWATER
(Stabilization)
Constituent
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
Accuracy Correction Factor*
Cement
1.35
0.74
1.10
1.32
1.33
1.25
1.34
1.01
1.37
1.19
1.33
1.30
1.35
Kiln Dust
1.36
0.76
1.10
1.29
1.31
1.23
1.06
1.31
1.34
1.33
1.30
1.45
1.29
Lime and Fly Ash
1.33
0.71
1.03
1.37
1.39
1.31
1.35
1.39
1.43
1.18
1.38
1.07
1.47
•The Accuracy Correction Factor la equal to 1 divided by the Percent Recovery.
D-25
-------
Table D-11
SUMMARY OF ACCURACY CORRECTION FACTORS FOR WASTEWATER
(Fluidized Bed Incinerator Scrubber Water)
Constituent
4. Benzene
U3. Toluene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
80. Chrysene
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
215-217. Xylene (total)
226. Ethylbenzene
Accuracy Correction Factor*
0.90
0.91
1.70
1.54
1.54
2.13
1.79
1.18
1.41
1.70
1.61
0.93
0.85
(Chromium Reduction Followed by Lime and Sulfide
Precipitation and Vacuum Filtration)
Constituent
159. Chromium (total)
162. Lead
164. Zinc
Accuracy Correction Factor*
1.47
1.32
1.02
•The Accuracy Correction Factor is equal to 1 divided by the Percent Recovery,
D-26
-------
APPENDIX E
STRIP CHARTS FOR THE SAMPLING EPISODES AT PLANT A
PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS, INCINERATION TEMPERATURES,
AND STACK CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION
Figure E-1: Constriction Plate and Bed Pressure Differentials
from the January 13, 1987 Sampling Episode
Figure E-2: Bed and Freeboard Temperatures from the January 13,
1987 Sampling Episode
Figure E-3: Constriction Plate and Bed Pressure Differentials
from the January 26, 1988 Sampling Episode
Figure E-4: Bed and Freeboard Temperatures from the January 26,
1988 Sampling Episode
Figure E-5: Stack Carbon Monoxide Concentration from the January
26, 1988 Sampling Episode
E-1
-------
10 an
(1/15/87)
S am
6 an
Constriction
Plat*
Differential
U am
2 am
12 am
(1/14/87)
j : iSample Set 02
''.'I'll
Bed:
Constriction Plate:
Bed
Differential
50"H20
Figure E-1
CONSTRICTION PLATE AND BED PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS (inches of H20)
E-2
-------
3 pot
(1/15/87)
6 pm
Constriction
Plate
Differential
U pm
2 pm
12 pa
10 am
(1/15/87)
Ij.-l '. :
I;,. . =
I' .** •*•*»• ^
Bed:
Constriction Plate:
0WH20
0"H20
'-'a
V^|.j Sample Set
Bee
Differential
Sample
Set 12 (Cone.)
50"H20
Figure E-1
CONSTRICTION PLATE AND BED PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS (inches of H20)
(Continued)
E-3
-------
1O am
(1/15/87)
8 am
6 am
Constriction
Plato
Differential
2 am
12 am
10 pa
(1/15/87)
Bed: 0"H2
-------
10 pm
(1/15/87)
8 pm
6 pa
Constriction
Plate
Differential
4 pm
2 pa
12 pm
(1/15/87)
Bed:
Constriction Plate: CTMjO
!.• I.1'.! I; .1
i-i-'K-n
Figure E-1
\W\i'.\
•til!!;!
\,
>«
Bed
Differential
Saapl* Set 16
Soaple
S«t IS (Cone.)
CONSTRICTION PLATE AND BED PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS (inches of H20)
(Continued)
E-5
-------
6 p.
(1/1U/87)
pa
2 pa
12 pa
10 am
S am
(1/14/87)
'I'M
. ,
o . ' ; I , I . i
• . • • '- '- • «» ••*•' > 4>_:/-p «a
' ' •'•- -' ':'
! ' I
- "•
Saaple Sec 13
|!4 Staple Set 12
*'i ' .!.., I \> '\'." 'I'"
i; !:! :;- -
S««pl« Sec II
§i I ' —
!- ! • i
- A » i '
i.:j..; I i .: ! i- .! .!'»i -i I ..I.;--!•!
600 °F
1600 °F
Figure E-2
BED AND FREEBOARD TEMPERATURES (°F)
E-6
-------
6 am
(1/15/87)
U an
2 an
Bed Temperature
12 am
(1/15/87)
10 pm
8 pm
(1/14/87)
r -a
w
I
I
l?t" ? t i * i.
1 I I ! !|
~ M
;n » «"
i:'¥»i! ;.M i ir j ! -it ; i i
; -I--
M ' ! I : i i
| I ;. I I I
•'I. : ! i I :•
i:. ! : ' ' I •' .
i 2.Mf:
. I
i; •: i
H--h-| \: i..
i|" 'lit
'ij' : : i !
V • | !. !k
tl]. I ' '"»".
i '' • r I ! i . | i I
^"M'-fYMiilk
,:j,|' frUji
rr-i-:';:-.1:
Saapl* Sec
Freeboard
Temperature
I I
10 PM.
'•••ix^nm'
!,lSa«pl« S«e 13 (Cone.)
i!
600 °F
1600 °F
Figure E-2
BED AND FREEBOARD TEMPERATURES (°F)
(Continued)
E-7
-------
' G PM
(1/15/87) | ; •
6 pm
2 pm
12 pm
10 am
8 am
(1/15/87)
'• ! . I "I i ; • I ;
• M ! .'.—'. I: ! .! M ! : ;,
K,L, ' i^fi i,,i i/Mi^J-l-
*i.... i ; . i i • / • . ' i '
Saaple Sec 14 (Cone.)
. 8JAM; ' I
600 °r
i ; '-h-1 ii T • •
Figure E-2
1600 °f
BED AND FREEBOARD TEMPERATURES (°F)
(Continued)
E-8
-------
33
oo
oo
CM
oe
x
NM*
U
s
*«••
e-
Constriction Plate Pressure Differential
(Scale: 0-50 inches H20)
Bed Pressure Differential
(Scale: 0-120 inches
-Sample Set 6
h-Sample Sec 5
Sample Sec 4
••Sample Sec 3
S—Sample Sec 2
44- Sample Sec 1
Figure E-3
CONSTRICTION PLATE AND BED PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS (inches H20)
E-9
-------
Bed Temperature (°F)
00
oo
oo
es
u
»—I
H
OS
<
r
M*
H
Freeboard Temperature (°F)
Sample Sec 6
Sample Sec 5
ample Sec 2
Sample See 1
Figure E-A
BED AND FREEBOARD TEMPERATURES (°F)
E-10
-------
Stack Carbon Monoxide Concentration (ppm)
oo
oo
00
CM
at
u
X
r
»*
H
Set 6
— Sample Set 5
Sample Set 4
— Sample Set 3
— Sample Set 2
3—Sample Set 1
Figure E-5
STACK CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION (ppm)
E-ll
-------
Appendix F
OTHER TREATMENT DATA
Appendix F contains treatment data for K048-K052 wastes which were
not used in the development of treatment standards. Table F-1 is an index of
all data presented in this appendix.
Table F-1
INDEX OF TREATMENT DATA
Facility Section
Plant B - API Report (Reference 26) F.1
Plant E - API Report (Reference 26) F.2
Plant F - API Report (Reference 26) F.3
Plant H - API Report (Reference 26) F.4
Plant J - API Report (Reference 26) F.5
Plant K - SOHIO Report (Reference 9) F.6
Plant L - CF Systems Report (Reference 30) F.7
Plant N - API Report (Reference 26) F.8
Plant 0 - CF System Report (Reference 38) F.9
Page
F-2
F-4
F-5
F-6
F-10
F-20
F-37
F-38
F-39
F-1
-------
F.1 Treatment Data for Plant B (K05D
PRESSURE FILTRATION (BELT FILTER PRESS)
Treated Waste
Untreated K051 Waste Filter Cake
mg/kg mg/kg
Detected BDAT List Constituents* (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene 74 10
226. Ethyl benzene 120 <30
43. Toluene 450 1.5
215-217. Xylene (total) 720 158
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene 13 <2
59. Benz(a)anthracene 13 15
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 7 <2
63. Benzo(b)fluoranthene <2 6
80. Chrysene 23 24
81. o-Cresol <2 <2
82. p-Cresol <2 <2
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol <2 <2
121. Naphthalene 200 220
141. Phenanthrene 110 170
142. Phenol <2 <2
145. Pyrene 27 42
METALS mg/kg TCLP mg/L
155. Arsenic 5.6 0.02
156. Barium . 68 0.26
158. Cadmium <0.5 <0.008
159. Chromium 80 0.01
161. Lead 64 <0.04
162. Mercury 4.4 <0.001
164. Selenium 1.6 <0.04
165. Silver <0.3 <0.006
•*- Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal
constituents.
F-2
-------
Design and Operating Parameters Operating Range*
Sludge feed rate (gpm) 21.5
Dilution water feed rate (gpm) 3
Polymer solution concentration (wt%) 1.3
Polymer solution feed rate (gpm) 1.5
Belt tension (psi) 200
Belt speed
Gravity section (ft/min) 20
Pressure section (ft/min) 35
•Design values were not presented in the API report.
F-3
-------
F.2 Treatment Data for Plant E (K051 and K052)
PRESSURE FILTRATION (PLATE FILTER PRESS)
Treated Waste
Untreated Waste* Filter Cake
mg/kg mg/kg
Detected BOAT List Constituents* (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene 9.8 60
226. Ethyl benzene 17 110
34. Methyl ethyl ketone <43 <300
43. Toluene 68 360
215-217. Xylene (total) 106 690
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene 0.069 9.4
59. Benz(a)anthracene 0.14 20
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 0.071 9.9
63. Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.041 6.2
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <0.009 <1
80. Chrysene 0.24 26
81. o-Creaol 0.33 <1
82. p-Cresol 0.42 <1
83. Dibenz(a,h)anthracene <0.009 <1
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol <0.009 <1
108. Fluoranthene 0.005 5.9
121. Naphthalene 1.1 90
141. Phenanthrene 0.53 47
142. Phenol 1.7 <1
145. Pyrene 0.25 22
METALS mg/kg TCLP mg/L
155. Arsenic oTs 0.004
156. Barium 54 0.57
158. Cadmium <0.5 <0.02
159. Chromium 328 <0.025
161. Lead 48 <0.1
162. Mercury 0.13 <0.001
164. Selenium <0.4 <0.004
165. Silver — <0.015
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted
•The untreated waste consists of K051, K052 and unleaded tank bottoms. These
wastes were conditioned with lime before sampling.
— Data were not available for this constituent.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT List organic and metal
constituents.
F-4
-------
F.3 Treatment Data for Plant F (K049 and K05D
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BOAT List Constituent*
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene
80. Chrysene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
1U2. Phenols
METALS
159. Chromium (total)
161. Lead
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted
Untreated Waste*
mg/kg
(ppm)
600
6,600
8,880
<46
<19
560
740
<1,900
mg/kg
220
27
Treated Waste
Extracted Residual
rag/kg
(ppm)
1.3
5.0
4.4
<0.001
<0.001
0.005
0.005
<0.10
TCLP mg/L
0.11
0.05
•The untreated waste is a mixture of K049 and K051 waste.
-••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT list organic and metal
constituents.
F-5
-------
F.4 Treatment Data for Plant H (K048 - K052)
(a) THERMAL DRYING (Specific Waste Codes Not Reported)
Treated Waste
Untreated Waste* Filter Cake Residue
mg/kg mg/kg
Detected BDftT List Constituents* (ppm) (ppm)
350°F550"F
VOLATILES
4. Benzene 80 0.5 CO.05
226. Ethylbenzene 86 <0.5 0.12
34. Methyl ethyl ketone <12 <5.0 3.4
43. Toluene 340 1.5 1.2
215-217. Xylene (total) 430 2.5 0.33
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene 13.3 100 96
59. Benz(a)anthracene 3.4 60 70
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 1.8 <48 44
63. Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.2 <48 29
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.1 <48 14
80. Chrysene 9.4 81 100
81. o-Cresol 0.4 <7.3 <1
82. p-Cresol 1.3 <7.3 19
83. Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.1 <48 21
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.7 <7.3 <1
108. Fluoranthene <1 <48 56
121. Naphthalene 82 120 15
141. Phenanthrene 109 720 590
142. Phenol 0.9 <7.3 12
145. Pyrene 26 200 200
METALS mg/kg TCLP mg/L
155. Arsenic 2.0 0.005 <0.04
156. Barium 115 <0.6 0.57
158. Cadmium <2 <0.01 <0.008
159. Chromium (total) 340 0.1 0.04
161. Lead 40 <0.04 <0.04
162. Mercury 0.2 <0.001 NA
164. Selenium <4 0.004 <0.1
165. Silver <1.5 <0.004 <0.006
•The untreated waste is the filter cake from the belt filter press at plant C
generated from treatment of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not specified).
NA Not Analyzed
— Data were not available for this constituent.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT organic and metal constituents.
BDL = Below Detection Limit.
F-6
-------
Design and Operating Parameters Operating Range*
350°F 550°F
Temperature of heat transfer fluid (°F) 450 650
Retention time (min) 50 36-42
•Design values were not presented in the API report.
F-7
-------
(b) THERMAL DRYING (K051 and K052)
Treated Waste
Untreated Waste* Filter Cake Residue
rag/kg mg/kg
Detected BOAT List Constituents* (ppm) (ppm)
35b"F 55077T~
VOLATILES
4. Benzene - 60 <1.5 0.17
226. Ethyl benzene 110 4.3 0.51
34. Methyl ethyl ketone <300 <1.5 <1.3
43. Toluene 360 8.3 1.0
215-217. Xylene (total) 690 3.2 3.4
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene 9.4 11 4.1
59. Benz(a)anthracene 20 19 17
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 9.9 20 16
63- Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6.2 10 11
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <1 <6.4 <1
80. Chrysene 26 37 28
81. o-Cresol <1 <0.64 <1
82. p-Cresol <1 <0.64 <1
83. Oibenz(a,h)anthracene <1 <6.4 <1
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol <1 <0.64 <1
108. Fluoranthene 5.9 13 4.6
121. Naphthalene 90 42 4.6
141. Phenanthrene 47 120 2.6
142. Phenol <1 1.2 1.0
145. Pyrene 22 92 16
METALS mg/kg TCLP mg/L
155. Arsenic 7.0 0.01 <0.1
156. Barium 142 0.8 1.3
158. Cadmium 1 <0.1 0.02
159. Chromium 835 <0.025 0.02
161. Lead 126 . <0.1 <0.1
162. Mercury 2.9 <0.001 NA
164. Selenium <4 <0.004 <0.3
165. Silver <0.6 <0.015 <0.02
•The untreated waste is the filter cake from the plate filter press at plant
E generated from treatment of K051, K052, and unleaded tank bottoms. These
wastes were conditioned with lime prior to filtration.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT organic and metal constituents.
NA = Not analyzed.
F-8
-------
Design and Operating Parameters Operating Range*
350°F 550°F
Temperature of heat transfer fluid (°F) 450 650
Retention time (min) 50 36-42
•Design values were not presented in the API report.
F-9
-------
F.5 Treatment Data for Plant J (K048-K052)
(a) MICROENCAPSULATION/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION (K049)
Untreated Waste*
Detected BOAT List Constituent
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
TCLP
mg/L
(pom)
26
27
51
101
0.05
0.06
0.27
0.1
0.02
BDL
1.4
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.16
0.13
0.66
0.63
0.07
0.07
0.22
0.01
0.94
0.01
1.4
•The untreated waste is slop oil emulsion solids (K049).
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT List organic and. metal
constituents.
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit not reported.
F-10
-------
(b) MICROENCAPSULATION/P02ZOLANIC STABILIZATION (K05D"
Untreated Waste*
Detected BOAT List Constituents<
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene
59. Benzo(a)anthracene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
80. Chrysene
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
159. Chromium (total)
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
22
8
28
33
3.6
0.49
0.38
0.99
0.25
0.25
10.2
<0.06
2.4
1.2
0.01
1.3
0.89
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.04
0.11
0.24
0.57
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.01
0.01
0.16
0.01
0.03
<0.005
<0.002
1.9
<0.025
•The untreated waste ia API separator sludge (K05D.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT List organic and metal
constituents.
F-11
-------
(c) MICROENCAPSULATION/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION (Specific Waste Codes Not
Reported)
Untreated Waste* Treated Waste
TCLP TCLP
mg/L mg/L
Detected BOAT List Constituents* (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
4. Benzene 1.3 <0.0005
43. Toluene 2.2 0.01
215-217. Xylene (total) 1.8 0.14
SEMIVOLATILES
121. Naphthalene 0.1 BDL
141. Phenanthrene <0.01 0.01
METALS
156. Barium 1.0 2.2
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
The untreated waste is the filter cake from the belt filter press at plant C
generated from treatment of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste
codes were not reported).
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT List organic and metal
constituents.
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit not reported.
F-12
-------
(d) MICROENCAPSULATION/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION (K051 and K052)
Detected BOAT List Constituents-*-
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.8
0.22
2.2
1.42
0.2
0.01
0.16
0.00««
0.1
0.00"
0.57
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.01
NA
0.09
0.47
NA
NA
NA
0.22
BDL
BDL
2.0
•The untreated waste is the filter cake from the plate filter press at
plant E generated from treatment of a mixture of K051 and K052.
••Value was reported as 0.00.
*Analyses were not performed for all BOAT List organic and metal
conatituenta.
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit was not reported.
NA = Not Analyzed
F-13
-------
(e) SODIUM SILICATE/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION (Specific Waste Codes Mot
Reported
Untreated Waste* Treated Waste
TCLP TCLP
mg/L mg/L
Detected 9DftT List Constituents-*- (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
U. Benzene 1.3 O.U3
43. Toluene 2.2 1.8
215-217. Xylene (total) 1.8 1.2
SEMIVOLATILES
81. ortho-Cresol 0.02
96. 2,U-Dimethylphenol O.OU
121. Naphthalene 0.1 0.18
METALS
155. Arsenic <0.1 0.01
156. Barium 1.0 BDL
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
•The untreated waste is the belt filter cake from plant C generated from
treatment of unknown petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste codes were
not reported).
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT List organic and metal constituents.
—Data were not available for this constituent.
F-14
-------
(f) SODIUM SILICATE/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION (K051 and K052)
Untreated Waste*
Detected BOAT List Constituents*
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
U3. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
81. ortho-Cresol
121. Naphthalene
142. Phenol
METALS
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.025
0.03
<0.05
0.012
0.02
0.01
0.08
1.3
0.02
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.00**
0.01
0.02
NA
NA
BDL
NA
0.5
BDL
*The untreated waste is the thermally dried plate filter cake from plant H
generated from treatment of a mixture of K051 and K052 at plant E.
••Value was reported as 0.00.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT List organic and metal
constituents.
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit was not reported.
NA = Not analyzed.
F-15
-------
(g) CEMENT. FLY ASH. AND LIME STABILIZATION (Specific Waste Codes Not
Reported".
Untreated Waste* Treated Waste
TCLP TCLP
mg/L mg/L
Detected BOAT List Constituents* (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
U. Benzene 1.50 .01
U3. Toluene 2.5 0.13
215-217. Xylene 1.8 0.39
SEMIVOLATILES
121. Naphthalene 0.1 0.00««
141. Phenanthrene BDL 0.01
METALS
155. Arsenic BDL 0.02
156. Barium 1.0 1.2
Design and Operating Parmeters
No data were submitted.
•The untreated waste is the belt filter cake from plant C generated from
treatment of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific waste codes were not
reported).
"Value was reported as 0.00.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT List organic and metal constituents.
BOL = Below detection limit; detection limit was not reported.
F-16
-------
(h) CEMENT. LIME. AND FLY ASH STABILIZATION (K051 and K'052)
Detected BOAT List Constituents*
VOLATILES
U . Benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenols**
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(DDm)
0.8
2.2
1.4
0.16
0.004
0.16
O.OO"
0.57
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.03
0.26
0.59
0.1
0.01
0.07
0.01
1.5
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
•The untreated waste is the plate filter cake from plant E generated from
treatment of a mixture of K051 and K052.
••Value was reported as 0.00.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT List organic and metal
constituents.
••••••The phenol analysis ia the sum of phenols, cresols, and 2,4-dimethylphenol.
F-17
-------
(i) SODIUM SILICATE/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION (Specific Waste Codes Not
Detected BOAT List Constituents*
VOLATILES
4 . Benzene
226. Ethyl benzene
43 . Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
81. ortho-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
METALS
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium (total)
Design and Operating Parameters
Reported)
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(DDm)
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.89
0.06
0.13
0.05
<0.04
0.57
BDL
0.04
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(DDtn)
0.01
NA
0.01
0.02
....
....
BDL
BDL
0.02
BDL
0.05
0.02
No data were submitted.
•The untreated waste is the thermally dried (550°F) belt filter cake from
plant H generated from treatment of petroleum refinery wastes (the specific
waste codes were not reported) at plant C.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BDAT List organic and metal
constituents.
BDL s Below detection limit; detection limit was not reported.
NA = Not analyzed.
—Data were not available for this constituent.
F-18
-------
(J) SODIUM SILICATE/POZZOLANIC STABILIZATION (K051 and K052)
Detected BOAT List Constituents*
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
81. ortho-Cresol
121. Naphthalene
142. Phenol
METALS
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
Design and Operating Parameters
No data were submitted.
Untreated Waste*
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.025
0.03
<0.05
0.012
0.02
0.01
0.08
1.3
0.02
Treated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.00»*
0.01
0.02
NA
NA
BDL
NA
0.5
BDL
•The untreated waste is the thermally dried plate filter cake from plant H
generated from treatment of a mixture of K051 and K052 at plant E.
••Value was reported as 0.00.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT List organic and metal
constituents.
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit was not reported.
NA = Not analyzed.
F-19
-------
F.6 Treatment Data for Plant K (Specific Waste Codes Not Reported)
SOLVENT EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STABILIZATION
F-20
-------
SOHIO
unt*»«CM
rcic
Cantt
-------
L SOMIO 04(4 (continued)
Untreated W40 31
0.21 "J 01
j.J -0.31
•j.&l ><5 Ot
1.5 «0-31
•3.01
«0 01
•0.01
•0 01
F-22
-------
r*0lt 1 SOhlO
fCL?
0 47
4 2
; i
3 2
0 35
3.384
0.323
0.322
0.046
3.U
0.10
0.0 Jd
0.030
0 25
4 7
46
•0.01
<0 01
•0.01
«0.fll
•0 01
•0.01
•0.01
•0.01
•0 31
•0.01
0.091
l.S
a 65
i 4
I./
4 I
•ifl.31
•0.01
•0 01
•o.ai
0.0l
•4.01
•4.31
•0.01
•a. 01
•0 01
O.Cl
•0 01
•o.ot
•0 31
F-23
-------
I iOhlO 0414 (continued)
untreated W«t» fre«te«
TCI? rota 1
CotmitutWtt I1"?/') (««g/W$)
te-i •>««-« (cant muM)
0»«nol 0.017
•O.J
•0.2
«3.
«0.4
»1.3
2Si, is
IS
22
19
27
iZ
a
• 13
•10
14
Aritflic <0.33 11
0. 01 94
•0.03 11
•0.03 10
•0.4 13
•0.33 4.4
12
12
10
14
britf 1-4 aSO
1.4 410
1.4 400
S.3 940
2.3 l.JOO
3.4 ?*0
teO
400
780
j.:oo
t^/i)
<0.01
•0.01
•0 01
•0.01
<0.31
•0.01
•0 01
•0.01
•0.31
•0.31
O.C1S
0.3C4
o.o:a
0.322
0.3:8
0.314
0.024
3.3C4
.Q.OOt
•0.008
«
«
4
<
4
<
<
»
•I
F-24
-------
r*ol« I SQHtO 04t4 (continued)
u,.™-*,..
rci? fatal
Canttituant (<«q/ U (i"9/»9)
8«r>Mn* 0-3
0.2
0.4
O.J
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
CM»IU« 0.4
1.3
1.4
1.0
l.S
l.l
I.*
12
1.9
Chrv^ 0.12 510
: 4 590
1.7 410
14. 450
5.9 420
10 620
450
570
550
*:o
caMit «a.« it
0.04 <:4
fl.fli U
0.02 12
o.04 i:
0.02 l«
9.7
1.7
12
12
««
-------
I SOHtO 0*tJ (continued)
WJltt
Constituent
foul TCI?
("9/1)
••tail (continued)
33
31
42
27
3i
27
37
28
39
1.3
1.5
1.4
2.1
2.3
2.S
2.1
i.a
«o.M
a. 11
0.12
0.27
0.13
•0.1
51
54
51
5«
50
43
53
«0 4
•04
«0.4
<0 4
i.;
3.1
•. J
l.S
«0.2
3.4
«o.:
<0 2
«0.2
0.2
•0.2
<0.2
0.7
3.S
F-26
-------
I SOHIO 04CJ (continued)
TIP
,onicitu«flt
rcu?
(••"9/M
42
JO
4]
36
40
J4
34
30
31
< • foli
net «t«ctte
>«I*M «<•• ottKtian baits
F-27
-------
F.6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
TCLP Concentration TCLP
Detected BOAT List mg/L mg/L mg/L
Organic Constituents* (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
U. Benzene 16
51
42
9.7
16
20
226. Ethyl benzene 5.7
12
28
7.5
6.8
8.5
43. Toluene 22
33
54
17
24
30
NA
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA = Not Analyzed.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BOAT List organic and metal constituents.
F-28
-------
F.6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT K (REPORT 2) .- SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents*
215-217. Xylene (total)
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene
59. Benzo(a)anthracene
Untreated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
16.3
48
62
21.9
30
36
Treated Waste
<0.013
1.2
0.45
5.2
<0.4
0.014
0.78
0.36
4.6
<0.4
2.2
Concentration
-.g/L
vppm)
<0.5
1.9
1.3
7.2
3
4.1
2.9
2.5
4.2
4.2
NA
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
0.8
<0.7
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.05
0.071
<0.05
0.153
0.089
0.132
0.161
0.118
0.185
0.185
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA = Not Analyzed.
•^Analyses were not performed for all BDAT List organic and metal constituents.
F-29
-------
F.6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR KOU8-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents*
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
80. Chrysene
Untreated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(Dom)
<0.013
0.51
0.21
3.5
<0.04
1.5
<0.013
<0.2
<0.2
<3
-------
F.6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents*
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
Untreated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.061
<0.3
<0.2
<3.0
<0.4
Treated Waste
0.47
4.2
2.5
28
3.2
7.3
0.25
4.7
2.5
4.6
8.9
24
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
7.8
18
6.6
8.5
8
16
14
18
5.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.021
0.084
0.023
0.022
0.046
0.11
0.1
0.058
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA = Not Analyzed.
•••Analyses were not performed for all BDAT List organic and metal constituents.
F-31
-------
F.6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents-*.
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
Treated Waste
Untreated Waste
TCLP Concentration
mg/L mg/L
(ppm) (ppm)
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
0.017
<0.3
<0.2
<3.0
<0.4
NA
0.051
1.5
0.65
9.4
1.7
4.1
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA = Not Analyzed.
-t-Analyses were not performed for all BDAT List organic and metal constituents.
F-32
-------
F.6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents*
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
Untreated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
Treated Waste
<0.03
0.01
<0.03
BDL
<0.8
<0.03
1.4
1.8
1.4
5.3
2.3
3.4
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
0.
0.
0.
0.
15
22
19
27
22
11
10
10
18
9.8
11
10
13
8.8
12
12
10
14
810 <1
800 <1
990 <1
1,300 <1
940 1
880 <1
800 <1
760 <1
3,200 <1
NA = Not Analyzed
•••Analyses were not performed for all BDAT List organic and metal constituents,
BDL = Below detection limit; detection limit was not reported.
.008
.028
0.022
0.026
.018
.024
0.024
<0.056
<0.006
F-33
-------
F.6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents*
METALS (Continued)
157. Beryllium
Untreated Waste
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
Treated .Waste
Concentration
mg/L
(ppm)
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
O.U
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
158. Cadmium
NA
159. Chromium
0.12
2.4
1.7
14
5.9
10
1.3
1.4
<0.8
NA
1.0
1.6
1.1
1.9
1.2
1.9
590
610
650
820
620
650
570
550
820
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.11
<0.05
NA = Not Analyzed
•••Analyses were not performed for all BDAT List organic and metal constituents.
-------
F.6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
TCLP Concentration TCLP
Detected BDAT List mg/L mg/L mg/L
Organic Constituents* (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
METALS (Continued)
161. Lead NA 31 NA
42
27
36
27
37
28
39
162. Mercury MA 1.5 NA
2.2
1.8
2.1
2.0
2.5
2.1
1.0
2.0
163. Nickel <0.08 58 0.8
0.16 51 <0.2
0.12 41 <0.2
0.27 45 <0.2
0.13 56 0.2
<0.13 50 <0.2
43 <0.2
42 0.7
53 0.6
NA = Not Analyzed
•••Analyses were not performed for all BDAT List organic and metal constituents.
F-35
-------
F.6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY FOR K048-K052 MIXTURE
PLANT K (REPORT 2) - SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
TCLP Concentration TCLP
Detected BDAT List mg/L mg/L mg/L
Organic Constituents* (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
METALS (Continued)
164. Selenium NA <0.4 NA
-------
F.7
Treatment Data for Plant L (K05D
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethylbenzene
43. Toluene
215- Xylene (total)
217.
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene
59. Benz(a)anthracene
62. Benzo(a)pyrene
63. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
80. Chrysene
81. o-Cresol
82. p-Cresol
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
109. Fluorene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
Detected BOAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
155. Arsenic
159. Chromium (total)
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Cyanide
171. Sulfide
Untreated Waste
K051 Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
<25
56
170
390
Treated Waste
14
11
97
70
10
24
<0.2
Solids Concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
<0.5
<0.5
0.61
0.57
<6.60
13.0
12.0
9.3
34.0
<6.60
<6.60
<6.60
<6.60
14.0
8.3
<6.60
16.0
TCLP
mg/L (ppm)
<0.03
0.21
2.0
<0.04
65
<0.5
120
<4
—Data were not available for this constituent.
F-37
-------
F.8 Treatment Data for Plant N
PYROLYSIS
Treated Waste
Detected BOAT List Constituents*
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
226. Ethylbenzene
43. Toluene
215.- Xylene (total)
217.
SEMIVOLATILES
57. Anthracene
80. Chrysene
81. o-Cresol
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
108. Fluoranthene
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium
161. Lead
163. Nickel
164. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
Untreated
Waste
mg/kg
(ppm)
180
390
1,300
1,890
7.6
15
15.6
2.3
ND
360
70
7.7
12
6.8
54
420
39
<0.8
Total
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<0.002
<0.003
0.01
<0.003
<2
<80
0.2
ND
0.02
<8
<4
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.6
<0.002
<0.01
1.3
<0.04
0.08
<0.6
<0.006
0.006
NA Not applicable.
— Data were not available for this constituent.
+ Analyses were not performed for all BDAT List organic and metal
constituents.
ND Not detected; a detection limit was not given for this constituent.
* The untreated waste is a mixture of K048, K049, and K051.
F-38
-------
F.9 Treatment Data for Plant 0 (KQU9 and K05D
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
(These data were submitted too late for consideration and are included here as
submitted to the Agency.)
F-39
-------
AC2 INC. LABORATORY 01 VISION
Client: C.F. Systems
46 Acorn Park
Cambridge, Maryland 02140
Atrn:
Ms. Karen Shaw
Date: 07/:i/?=
SAMPLE RESULTS SUMMARY
(All results reported
Volatile*
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
Extractables
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benro(a) pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhe*yl)phthalate
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
Oi -n-buty 1 phtha 1 ate
2,4-Olmethylphenol
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Oitch
Feed
0962
— —
--
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
9.3
16.5
18.6
NO
5.9
Skim
Slurry
0963
*•
—
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
in mg/kg as received)
Slop
Feed
0966
5.6
28.9
55.2
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
15.8
9.8
NO
4.5
Oil
Slurry
0965
0.29
1.46
3.36
NO
ND
NO
0.25
ND
NO
NO
0.25
NO
NO
0.25
0.38
NO
0.33
API
Feed
0967
133.7
59.4
1066.
NO
NO
NO
17.8
17.7
NO
NO
NO
NO
133.0
431.0
205.0
NO
30.4
SI urry
0968
0.09
0.04
0.34
NO
NO
NO
1 .12
0.28
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
0.26
NO
0.19
NO - Not Detected
Edqer 1 ey (_)
^
~/\
F-40
-------
I MC
I S I O M
Cl icrt: CF SYSTEMS
Sample I.O.: ftl FEED DITCH SKIMMER
Sample Date: 07/08/88
Lab No. =:
Date Received: Oi
Da t e Repo r t ec : 0!
Method 3270 GC/MS Extraetab1e^
Oatafile: >87102 7/13/88 20:19
Detection Limit: 8.2 mg/kg
Baae/Neu t ra1 a
1. Acenaphthene
2. An t hracene
3. SenzoCa)pyrene
4. Bia(2-ethyIhexy1)phthalate
5. Chryaene
6. Dt-n-butyIphthalate
7. Fluorene
8. Naphthalene
9. Phenanthrene
10. Pyrene
11. 2,4-Oimethylpheno1
12. 2-nethylphenol (HSL)
13. 4-Methylphenol (HSL)
14. Phenol
Atpoun t mq -'kg
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
9.3
16.5
18.6
5.9
NO
NO
NO
NO
F-A1
-------
MC . ^-L_<^
ORGi^M
ICS
IV DlkJISIOM
Cl lent: CF SYSTEMS
Sample I.O.: *2 RAFF[NATE
Sample Date: 07/08/88
DITCH SKIMMER
Lab No. SC''
Da t e Rece i ^ed '• 07-'
Date Reported: Q7/
GC/MS Ex t rac r -ab I e
Oatafile: >87103 7/13/88 21:22
Detection Limit: 7.3 mg/kg
Saae/Neut ra 1 s ftmount
1. Acenaphthene NO
2. Anthracene NO
3. Benzo(aJpyrene NO
4. Bis(2-cthyIhexyl)phthalate NO
5. Chryaene NO
6. Oi-n-butylphthalate NO
7. Fluorene NO
8. Naphthalene NO
9. Phenanthrene NO
10. Pyrene NO
11. 2,4-Oimethylphenol NO
12. 2-Methylphenol (HSL) NO
13. 4-Methylphenol (HSL) NO
14. Phenol NO
mg/kg
F-42
[TRPTCF
-------
I MC
DIUI
I OM
Cl icnt : CF SYSTEMS
Sample I.O.: SLURRY -
Samp le Da t e : ---
SLOP OIL TORONTO
Date
Date
Lab No.
Received:
Reported:
S0/0ci=
07/12/i
07/1-./'.
Hgthod 324Q
Pure and Trap
Oatafile: >87023
Detection Limit
7/13/83 3=37
0.02 mg/kg
Puroeab 1 es
1. Benzene
2. Toluene
3. Total Xylenes (HSL)
ftmoun t mg/kg
0.29
1.46
3.36
F-43
CTRPTUX
-------
I MC .
I CS
V DIUIS
l_V3 I 3
IOM
Cllent: CF SYSTEMS
Sample I.D.: SLURRY -
Sample Date:
SLOP OIL TORONTO
Lab No. SCVO'
Date Received: G7''L'
Date Reoorted: 07/1-
Method 9270
GC/nS Ex t rac tab I *
Oatafile: >87110 7/14/89 5:01
Detection Limit: 0.20 mg/kg
Saae/Neu t ra 1 s
1. Acenaphthene
2. Anthracene
J. 3enzo(aJpyrene
4. 8is(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate
5. Chrysene
6. Oi-n-butylphthalate
7. Fluorene
8. Naphthalene
9. Phenanthrene
10. Pyrene
11. 2,4-OimethyIpheno1
12. 2-rie thy Ipheno 1 (HSL)
13. 4-ttethylphenol CHSL)
14. Phenol
NO
NO
NO
0.25
NO
0.25
NO
0.25
0.38
0.33
NO
NO
NO
NO
mg-'kg
^x
/\
F-44
CTRPTCF 7/9:3
-------
DIUISIOM
Client: CF SYSTEMS Lab No. SC/"]9-6
Sample I.D.: FEED-SLOP OIL TORONTO 0* t e Received: O7.'12.':s3
Sample Date: ---- Date Reported: 07/l---".3 =
92~0 Pure and Trap GC^"a
Datafile: >87013 7x12/88 11:30
Detection Limit: 2.5 mgxu.g
Pureab 1 es fS
1. Benzene 5.6
2. Toluene 28.9
3. Total Xylenes CH3L) 55.2
fl. EdgeOey ' F'45
[TRPTyx ..
-------
I MC . /'l_^BORATOR V O I ^ I S I O M
ORGt^M I CS f^Mf=il_VS I S
Client: CF SYSTEMS Lab No. = G--'0=-
Sample I.O.: FEED-SLOP OIL TORONTO Date Received: 07-'i:
Sample Date: ---- Date Reported: 07-- ".±.
nethod 8270 GCVnS Extractables
Oatafile: >871Q5 7/13/33 23:23
Detection Limit: 5.4 mg/kg
t ra 1 s Amoun t mg/kg
1. Acenaphthene NO
2. Anthracene NO
3. Benzo (a )pyrene NO
4. Sis(2-ethy Ihexy I )phtha late NO
5. Chryaene NO
6. Oi-n-buty Iphtha late NO
7. Fluorene NO
8. Naphthalene 15.8
9. Phenanthrene 9.8
10. Pyrene 4.5
11. 2,4-Oimethylphenol NO
12. 2-«ethylphenol (HSL) NO
13. 4-nethylphenol (HSL) NO
14. Phenol NO
F-46
[TRPTCr
-------
I MC
O I
I OKI
Cl lent : CF SYSTEMS
Sample I.O.: FEED'-
Sample Da t e :
API nONTREAL
Lab No. SC'
Da t e Rece i vea : 07.••
Date Reported: 07/'
Method 82^0
Purge and Trap
Oatafile: >87017
Detect ion Limit
7X12/-38 16:28
4.9 mg/Ug
Purgeab1es
1. Benzene
2. Toluene
3. Total Xylenes (H3L)
Amoun t
133.7
59.4
1066.
mq/kq
F-A7
-------
I MC . ^Uf^BOR^TORV .DIV
ORGi^iM I CS #=*M^L_VS I S
ION
Client: CF SYSTEMS
Sample I.O.: FEED - API
Sample Date: ----
MONTREAL
Lab No. SC/'J'^
Date Received: 07/12.'
Date Reported: C7/L--'
Method 9270 GC/MS
OataFile: >87106
Detection Limit:
Extractables
7/14/88 0:24
8.2 mg/kg
Base/Neu t ra 1 5
1. Acenaphthene
2. Anthracene
7. Benzo (a )pyrene
4. Bis(2-ethy Ihexy I )phtha late
5. Chryaene
6. Oi-n-buty Iphtha late
7. Fluorene
8. Naphthalene
9. Phenanthrene
10. Pyrene
11. 2, 4-0 i methyl phenol
12. 2-nethylphenol (HSL)
13. 4-Hethylphenol (HSL)
14. Phenol
Amoun t mg/kg
NO
NO
NO
17.3
17.7
NO
133.0
431.0
205.0
30.4
NO
NO
NO
NO
CTRPTCF
/93
-------
DIUISIOM
Client: CF SYSTEMS Lab No. SG/09o.3
Sample I.D.: SLURRY-API MONTREAL Date Received: 07/12-:=
Sample Date: Date Reported: G7/1-/33
Method 824Q Purge and Trap GC/nS
Oatafile: >87022 7/12/83 19:12
Detection Limit: O.G2 mg/kg
Pu rgeab 1 es Amoun t mg/kg
1. Benzene 0.09
2. Toluene 0.04
3. Total Xylenes (HSL) 0.34
v/
nnis A. Edge)rlev/\ CTRPTUX -,;i
-------
MC
OI
I OM
I CS
C I tent: CF SYSTEMS
Sample I.D.: SLURRY-API
5amp le Date:
MONTREAL
Lab No. SC/
Date Received: G7/
Date Reporr.ee: '37'
Method 3270
Extractables
OataPile: >87112 7x14/38 9:05
Detection Limit: 0.28 mg/kg
t ra I a
1. Acenaphthene
2. Anthracene
3. Benzo (a )pyrene
4. Sta(2-ethy Ihexy 1 )phtha late
5. Chrysene
6. Oi-n-buty Iphtha late
7. Fluorene
8. Naphthalene
9. Phenanthrene
10. Pyrene
11. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
12. 2-flethylphenol (HSL)
13. 4-Methylphenol (HSL)
14. Phenol
Pfnoun t mg/kg
NO
NO
NO
1.12
0.28
NO
NO
NO
0.26
0.19
NO
NO
NO
NO
F-50
[ TRPTCF
-------
I ACZ INC. , Laoora f.ory Division
>8
Bromo f luo robenzene tSF3)
S Relative Abundance
Ion Abundance Base Appropriate
m/z Criteria • Peak Peak = ' ^ : •_ i
50 15-40% of mass 95 22.32
75 30-60S of mass 95 47.55
95 Base peak, 100J-; relative abundance 100.00
96 5-9S of mass 95 8.71
173 Less than 2S of mass 174 0.00
174 Greater than 50S of mass 95 69.15
175 5-9S of mass 174 4.90
176 95-101S of mass 174 67.88
177 5-9S of mass 176 4.90
Injection Date: 07.'12'S3
Injection Time: 08:15
Data Fi le: >87083
Scan: 115
Til« >3?QS3 94.7-og.? *»u. 5 / \ . :
• / \ r*°
*00" / \ [»«
3.4 3.» 9. 3 6.0 «>.£ «».4 6. » 6. a ,-.0 7.^
r: 1« '9"0e: tc\n 113
22.32 C1-
47.55 C',
100.00 Cu
8.71 ' C^
0.00 Cu
69.15 Cu
7.09 Gu
98.16 QU
7.22 . OU
-.*« ?'.?«
5ak CD lef 3
1600^
^
* «.;.
~ x' b?
4°C1 X I
«Ji -,i. , !!..'
^ ^
7V ATI A^.1
r«
I
|
i \
I,... II, .,1
J3
I !
i
90 ICO • 150 14'? leO 1>
•1C-?
•30
-iO
•40
-i'J
-0
F-51
-------
I -CZ IMC., Labo ra ? or-.j Division
GC/HS FEFFCFrirtNCE 'STANDARD ' ?C?7(i2'«=
Sromo f luo robenzene (BFS)
% Relative Abundance
Ion Abundance Base Appropriate
m/3
50
75
95
96
177
174
175
176
177
PU« >8<
1600"
1200-
800-
400-
/»
0"
Criteria . Peak Peak Ststjj
15-40% of mass 95 - 21.76 21.76 ^k
70-60% of mass 95 48 . 25 -3.25 Cu
Base peak, 10
5-9% of mass
Less than 2%
Greater than
5-9% of mass
0% relative abundance 100.00 100.00 Ck
95 6.56 6.56 Ck
of mass 174 0.00 0.00 Gk
50% of mass 95 77.40 77.40 Gl-
174 5.79 7.39 Ck
95-101% of mass 174 .72.67 93.95 ' GK
5-9% of mass
•
176 5.40 7.44 Ok
Injection Date: 07/12/38
Injection Time: 23:58
Data File: >870B4
Scan: 116
'084 94.7-93.7 *mu. 3$ «9 8FB & ul »70bc4-g3 DIRECT
EIP
1 ' 1 * 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1
5.4 9.6 5.3
filt >a?
-------
Calibration Report
Title: C*UH.'87i' FCR VGA ANALYSIS'(07-11-38)
Calibrated: 86Q7I1 09:08
Canpound
Files: >87002 >870Q1 >87flOJ >870G4 >87Q35
RF RF RF RF RF
20.00 50.00 80.00 120.00 160.00
RRT RF
RSD
Chloronethane .....
Brognmethane .....
Vinyl chloride - - . - •
Chloroethane - - -
flethylene chloride .96742 1.14247 1.09408 1.10275 1.12179
Acetone (HSL) .35894 .23309 .24345 .27599 .26505
Carbon disulftde (HSL) 2.74096 3.10170 3.01249 2.92456 2.77233
1,1-Oichloroethene .94834 1.06536 1.07393 1.08226 1.06749
1,1-Oichloroethane 2.52011 2.77516 2.87867 2.82165 2.78899
trans-l,2-0ichloroethene 1.04217 1.25109 1.22397 1.24939 1.18928
Chloroform 2.35834 2.62591 2.72027 2.70310 2.70481
l,2-0ichloroethane-d4 - - .07239 .07540 .07539
1,2-0ichloroethane 1.54366 1.70039 1.71787 1.74572 1.74515
2-ftjtanona (HSL) .09534 .07701 .08160 .08836 .08805
1,1,1-Trichloro.thane 1.57447 1.80242 1.80954 1.81565 1.81663
Cirbon tetrachloride 1.38315 1.61950 1.61779 1.61832 1.60553
Uinyl acetate (HSL) - .13603 .12885 .12981 .13116
BroaodichloroMthani 2.39848 2.59629 2.75905 2.77269 2.77991
1,2-O.chloroprooant .45124 .43696 .40186 .35147 .36554
trans-l,3-0ichloropropen« .37120 .31(453 .30109 .26969 .2J815
Trichloroethent .33494 .32556 .28775 .25473 .22364
OibroMcnloroMthant .36942 .36637 .32421 .29188 .26137
1,1,2-Tnchloroethant .29858 .27732 .24107 .21606 .18802
Benzene .80861 .78266 .70156 .61005 .53265
cis-i,3-0ichloropropene .58813 .57115 .50894 .44818 .39581
2-Otloroethylvinylether .25174 .21009 .18160 .16200 .14083
BroHfori .30457 .29931 .25752 .23822 .21160
2-Hennone (H5L) .03144 .03284 .03279 .03485 .03459
4-fethyl-2-pent«nont (HSL) .01637 .01751 .01783 .01944 .01963
Tetrachloroethent .35187 .42337 .42466 .41626 .42362
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethant .66447 .69609 .69442 .71284 .70581
Toluene .59874 .78839 .71797 .70693 .71468
Toluene d-8 (SS) .90762 1.07228 1.13514 1.09895 1.05236
CMorobenzent .78839 .93274 .94525 .92846 .93860
Ethylbenzene .34583 .42213 .42528 .42056 .42677
Styrene (HSL) .77483 .92105 .93690 .92187 .93400
Total Xylenes (HSL) .44133 .52389 .52985 .51777 .52294
8roMfluorobenzeni (SS) .71915 .85531 .90157 .87806 .84667
.609 1.38570 6.327
.722 .27930 16.929 (Conc«50.0,125.0,ICO.0,:::.:.
..8022.91041 5.295 (Conc«50.0,125.0,233.3,7::.:.
.961 1.04748 5.J28
1.1072.75692 5.015
1.204 1.19118 7.302
1.263 2.62249 5.803
1.355 .07439 2.337
1.357 1.69056 4.988
1.366 .08607 8.156 (Conc-50.0,125.0,200.0,300.:.
1.503 1.76374 6.008
1.547 1.56886 6.627
1.597 .13146 2.426 (Conc-50.0,125.0,200.0,303.:.
1.612 2.66129 6.212
.844 .38982 15.690
.934 .29933 16.776 (Conc-15.2,38.0,60.3,91.2,:::
.896 .28532 16.464
.922 .32265 14.539
.931 .24341 18.096
.927 .68710 16.894
.860 .50244 16.175 (Conc«27.2,68.0,108.8,163.:,I
.999 .18925 22.858
1.073 .26224 15.169
.906 .03330 4.254 (Conc-50.0,125.0,200.Q,JG:.:,-
.979 .01815 7.569 (Conc-50.0,125.0,200.0,303.:,-
.993 .40794 7.729
.984 .69464 2.686
1.056 .68414 7.691
1.047 1.05327 8.273
1.107 .90669 7.327
40811 8.553
89773 7.693 (Conc-50.0,125.0,200.3,J~.:.
50715 7.305 (Conc-50.0,125.0,200.0,}::.:.
1.192
1.339
1.386
1.285
.84015 8.442
RF
RRT
RF
XRSO
Resoonse Factor (Subscript is aiount in H6)
Average Relative Retention TIM (RT Std/RT Istd)
Average Response Factor
Percent Relative Standard Deviation F-53
Page 1 of 1
-------
Calibration Check Sepcrt
Title: CALI8S.'87!' FOR UCA ANALYSIS (07-11-33)
Calibrated: 530711 09:33
Check Standard Data File: >87312
Injection Tiee: 880712 38:J8
Conoound
RF
Wiff Calib feth
Chloroaethane
Sroaoaethane
Umyl chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene chloride
Acetone (HSL)
Carbon disulfide (HSL)
1,1-Oichloroethene
1,1-Oichloroethane
trans-l,2-0ichloroethene
Chloroforn
l,2-0ichloroethane-d4
1,2-Oichloroethane
2-flutanone (HSL)
1 ,1 ,1-Tr i Chloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Uinyl acitate (HSL)
Broeodichloroeathane
1,2-Qichloropropane
t rens-1 , J-Oich loropropene
Trichioroethene
Oibroancnloroeethane
1,1,2-Tnchloroe thane
Benzene
c is-1, 3-Oicn loropropene
2-Chloroethylvinylether
8 ro Before
2-Heianone (HSL)
4-flethyl-2-pentanene (HSL)
Tetraehloroetheni
1,1,2,2-Tetraehloroethane
Toluene
Toluene d-8 (SS)
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Styrene (HSL)
Total Xylenes (HSL)
Broiofluorobenzene (SS)
.
-
-
-
1.08570 1.10505
.279 JO .22578
2.91041 2.56392
1.04748 1.05818
2.75692 2.57642
1.19118 1.22086
2.62249 2.61942
.07439 .06400
1.69056 1.64825
.08607 .06822
1.76374 1.84630
1.56886 1.73209
.13146 .11991
2.66129 2.71565
.38982 .42390
.29933 .35016
.29532 .35604
.32265 .40569
.24341 .27803
.68710 .78596
.50244 .57396
.18925 .19841
.26224 .33151
.03330 .03419
.01815 .01905
.40796 .50126
.69444 .66474
.68414 .75539
1.05327 1.13670
.90649 1.03904
.40811 .45926
.89773 1.00487
.50715 .57385
.34015 .93377
Average
Average
Average
Average
1.78 Average
19.16 Average
11.91 Average
1.02 Average
6.55 Average
2.49 Average
.12 Average
13.97 Average
2.50 Average
20.74 Average
4.68 Average
10.40 Average
8.79 Avenge
2.04 Average
8.74 Average
16.98 Averse
24.78 Average
25.74 Average
14.22 Average
14.39 Average
14.23 Average
4.84 Average
26.41 Averaqe
2.68 Average
4.92 Average
22.87 Average
4.31 Average
10.41 Average
7.92 Average
14.60 Average
12.53 Average
11.93 Average
13.15 Average
11.14 Average
(Cone- 125. 00)
(Cone* 125. 00)
(Cenc-125.00)
(Cane- 125. 00)
(Cone-38.00)
(Conc-68.00)
•
(Conc-125.08)
(Cone- 125. 00)
(Cone- 125. 00)
(Cane* 125. 00)
RF - Response Factor fro« daily standard file at 50.00 NG
RF - Average Response Factor fro« Initial Calibration
>Diff - X Difference fro* original average or curve
Page 1 of 1
F-54
-------
Calibration Check Report
Title: CALIE3.'371' FOR VGA ANALYSIS (07-11-38)
Calibrated: 880711 09:Q8
Standard Data File: >87021
Injection Tioe: 880713 01:22
Ccnoound
RF
RF
XOiff Calib rteth
Chloronte thane
Sroaomethane
Umyl chloride
CMoroethane
Methylene chloride
Acetone (HSL)
Carbon disulfide (HSL)
1,1-Oichloroethene
1,1-Oichloroethane
trans-l,2-0ichloroethene
Chloroforn
1 , 2-0 1 ch 1 o roe t hane-d4
1,2-OicMoroethane
2-Butanorie (HSL)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachlortda
Uinyl acetate (HSL)
BroeadichloroMthane
1,2-Oichloropropani
trans-l,J-Oichloropropene
Trichloroethene
OibroeachloroMthane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
cis-l,3-0ichloropropene
2-Ch loroethylviny lethcr
Broeofore
2-Hexanone (HSL)
4-flethyl-2-pentanone (HSL)
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Toluene d-8 (SS)
Otlorobenzene
cthylbenzene
Styrene (HSL)
Total Xylenes (HSL)
Bromf luorobenzene (SS)
.
-
-
-
1.08570 1.22869
.27930 .25244
2.91041 2.60869
1.04748 1.15268
2.75692 2.71790
1.19118 1.35961
2.62249 2.94036
.07439 .07064
1.69056 1.80386
.08607 .09244
1.76374 2.09794
1.56886 1.95961
.13144 .12392
2.66129 3.04191
.38982 .46384
.29933 .39589
.28532 .44458
.32265 .51054
.24341 .33530
.68710 .89302
.50244 .65123
.18925 .10794
.26224 .42202
.03331 .03765
.01815 .02171
.40794 .40423
.69444 .75198
.48414 .84473
1.05327 1.14123
.90449 1.19554
.40811 .53140
.89773 1.14587
.50715 .65897
.84015 .96455
Average
Average
Average
Average
13.17 Average
9.61 Average
10.37 Average
10.04 Average
1.42 Average
14.14 Average
12.12 Average
5.04 Average
6.70 Average
7.39 Average
18.95 Average
24.65 Average
5.74 Average
15.05 Average
18.99 Average
32.26 Average
55.82 Average
58.23 Average
37.75 Average
29.97 Average
29.61 Average
42.95 Average
60.93 Average
13.05 Average
14.04 Average
48.11 Average
8.25 Average
23.77 Average
8.35 Average
31.84 Average
38.21 Average
27.64 Average
28.36 Average
14.31 Average
(Conc-125.00)
(Cone* 125. 00)
(Conc-125.00)
(Conc-125.00)
(Conc«38.QO)
(Gmc*68.00)
(Cone-125.00)
(Conc«125.00)
(Conc-125.00)
(Cone* 125. 00)
RF • Response Factor froe daily standard file at 50.00 NC
RF - Average Response Factor froei Initial Calibration
XOiff - * Difference froi original average or curve
Page 1 of 1 F-55
-------
CL'SNT -£.= CP7
Ooerator ID: 833 Quant Rev:
Output File: ^87020::OT
Oara Fi le: >87020:':03
Name: BLANK REAGENT WATER
Plisc: 5ml? w/ IQ.jL IS/3URR SHOT 7-13-8S
6 Quan t T i ,-.ie :
Injec ted 3 t :
0ilu tion Fac t c r :
ID File: IDU371::PS
Title: IOFILE "871" FOR UQA ANALYSIS
Last Calibration: 8S0711 09:13
Compound
(07-11-33)
R.T. Scan*
Area
Cone
Un i t 3
1)
6)
15)
20)
30)
36)
41 )
'Sromoch 1 orome thane
ttethylene chloride
2-8utanone (HSL)
*l-Chloro-2-bro mo propane
•1,4-Oichlorobutane
Toluene d-3 (SS)
Bromof luorobenzene
(S3)
8.
5 .
11.
17.
21.
27.
26
00
23
40
39
40
47
210
126
2S3
575
706
T
3 Id 1
•id 2
101661
81630
98702
8
2872
5
5
c
5
6
0.
1 .
3.
0.
0.
a.
00
19
07
00
00
40
42
PP =
P°S
PPS
PPS
PPB
PPS
* Compound is ISTO
F-56
-------
rnc.
:=r.rracz: CF-Svstess '
C-a
•±
S.-.S :,'c. :
Ravel: (lev/nee)
JSAMPLZ NC
SI I
(TOL) =!
22
i CTHZ?. i TCT ;
I ! C'JT |
Cl, flfl.<;n/nqfit;
C2i 88-SU/0966
C2! 88-SU/0967
C4i 88-SU/0968
05!
051 Blank
07|
08)
09|
10|
11!
121
131
141
151
16!
171
iai
i e i
201
211
221
231
241
251
26|
27|
231
291
301
ion !
104?
109%
110%
110%
113% !
112% !
119%
116% !
120*.
n
:
• 1
1
1
1
SI (TOL) = Toluene-d3
S2 (3F3) » aromaflu.Trcc
? Cclur.r. tc se used ~a flag .-acsvery values vi~r. an a-
* Values cuzside cf csnrracz required QC linits
F-57
Cf
-------
fir?
2 Cede:
Case Nc.:
Saerie No.:
C-< —«• — -—— . r- S'/b £-•-•
— • • ~— «__. ^' »/j'••..•i
SIC *',-
r*.^ iiC . .
SDG
Level:(lev/red)
! Ai-icuNT
I AD DID
Ruiuxiiio ' • 25°- •
benzene I ^^^^^^^
1
Toluene 1 250
1
M & P-Xylene | cnn
1
1
1
1
(uc/Aig)
90
40
340
(1 * ^** / ^ ,. \
/ /C. M I
8661
b/b^
14596
RIC ?
78
^1
66
CCMPCC7ID
Benzene
Toluene
M i P-Xvlene
H50 CCNC
8405
6532
14347
MSD%
RZC i
B^BBaBBa
76
59
65
MS*
RZC
mmm
78
61
iso s
03
03
3-0
i_"5H"r^
cu- c:
= U1 Gf
F-58
-------
ACZ INC.
b Cede:
:rix £ci>e -
Case We.:
Samaie Wo.:
Ccr.rracz: C" Systems
S'C l^ . C-'- »"
ft— 11 CJ . . • i U >J 4 <
Level:(lev/red)
CS.XS3CCT
Benzene
Toluene
<1 & P-Xylenes
AD DID
(nc)
250
250
bUU
CONC. Tst Inj.
8508
b^3d
13878
CONC. 2nd Inj.
8751
6802
14937
a
Oiff
03
0)
07
F-59
-------
. ,=OFTr =
m-'z
I ACZ I NC. , Laboratory
* — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -. — — — — —
GC-'HS PERFORMANCE S
Decafluorotriphenylphospine (OFTPP)
Ion Abundance
Cr i ten 14
Relative Abundance
Ease Appropriate
Peak Peak
r 1 3 '.'.
51
63
69
70
127
197
198
199 •
275
365
441
442
44?
30-60*. of mass 199
Less than 2* of mass 69
(reference only)
Less th-an 2-J of mass 69
40-60* of mass 198
Less
Sase
5-9*
10-3
Grea
than IS of mass 198
peak, 100* re
of
0*
ter
' 0-100*
Grea
ter
17-23*
mass 198
of mass 198
than 1* of
of mass 443
than 40* o
of mass 442
In
In
1 a t i ve
abundance
mass 198
f mass
ject ion
ject ion
Data
198
Date:
Time:
Fi le:
Scan:
07/13
17:52
>871D
331
58
0
67
44
0
100
6
15
1
6
48
9
/•88
3
.74
.00
.98
.24
.51
.00
.00
.41
.67
.24
.32
.80
.43
53.
0.
67.
44.
0.
100.
6.
15.
1.
72.
43.
19.
74
00
93
35
51
00
00
41
67
24
32
80
32
:rf U
Ck
c-
•3k
Ck
Ck
01.
Ck
C:.-.
Ck
Ck
Ck
FiU >8ri03 50 nq OFTPP
Sptc Ab 105208
110000-
100000-
90000-
80000-
70000-
60000-
50000-
40COC-
30000-
£0000-
6?
51
•
* \
11,
CH^L;
i
s
1 ui S70409-02 DIRECT INJCCT Scxn 331
000 11.9* «in.
19«
12T
,
" ' I
Xx
19s
\
, ] v1 ,
•• ',', • ' ' -n* ^
,
X'
1
1
!
i
"x
A i
•.'«—-*•.-
j
!.
:iio
•100
j-40
P-i'i
\ £„„
F-60
w * *
to
t
K ,.,
K
-'" "" >.'• 40: 1 =
^ i •• • - - -.1-,
-------
TUNER,-OFTPF
m/z
">•£•? i / 1
I ACZ INC., Labor*to TV Division
*-——————————--—----___________-_.
ijL/fTs Fw^> OPTMAN'., c a i r^NOAKO
Decafluorotriphenylphospine (DFTPP)
Ion Abundance
Cr i ter ia
* Relative Abundance
Base Appropriate
F-s-ak Peak
51
68
69
70
127
197
198
199
275
365
441
442
443
30-60* of mass 198
Less than 2* of mass 69
(reference only)
Less than 2* of mass 69
40-60S of mass 198
Less than 1* of mass 193
43 . 72
0.00
54.27
.20
40.32
0.00
Base peak, 100* relative abundance 100.00
5-9* of mass 193
10-30* of mass 198
Greater than 1* of mass 198
1 0-100* of mass 443
Greater than 40* of mass 193
17-23* of mass 442
Injection Date:
In ject ion Time :
Data File:
Scan:
6.32
23.49
2.52
13.56
97.42
13.65
07/14/88
07:31
>871D4
331
43.72
0. 00
54.27
.36
40.32
0.00 '
100.00
6.32
23.49
2.52
72.74
97.42
19. 14
'Jk
Ok
Ck
Ck
r""» i
•_K
Ok
Ok
Gt-
Ck
Gk
Gk
Gk
Ck
NEU
lru« >87i04 orrpp CRITCRIA CHK i ui
Bok rtb 89744
,
90000-
80000-
70000-
bOOOO-
90000-
(j*
*
-------
Calibration Report
Title: Base/Neutral/Ac id Extractables (Priority Pollutants)
Calibrated: 880202 14:46
Files: >81108
RF
Compound 20.00
2-Fluorophenol
Pheno l-d5
Pheno 1
b Js(-2-Chloroethy I )Ether
2-Chlorophenol
1,3-Oichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Oich lorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
1, 2-0 ich lorobenzene
2-flethy Ipheno I
1.12159
1.80200
1.67039
1.60909
1.30174
1.34232
It TT(t^
.43307
-
1.39393
-
bis(2-CMoroisopropyl)ether
4-flethylphenol
N-N i t roso-0 i -n-p ropy i ai i ne
Hexachloroe thane
Nitrobenzene-d5
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
Decaf luorofaiphenyl
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-OiMthylphenol
Benzoic Acid
-
1.19564
.63418
.51578
.47272
.85744
.40522
.20346
.28010
-
bis(-2-Chlortjethoiy)f1ethane .55794
2,4-Oichlorophenol
1 , 2 , 4-Tr i ch 1 o robenzene
Naphthalene
4-Qiloroaniline
Heiach 1 o robu t ad i ene
4-Qi loro- J-e« thy Ipheno 1
2-flethylnaphthalene
Heiach I or ocyc 1 open t ad t ene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Fluorobtphenyl
2-Nit roan ilme
OiMthyl Phthalate
Acenaphthylene
.26012
.37502
1.21427
-
.23286
.33205
-
.23964
.40111
.48111
1.21564
-
.
1.54547
1.97150
RF - Response Factor (Subscript is
RRT - Average Relative
RF - Average Response
*RSO - Percent Relative
Retention Ti
Factor
>81109
RF
50.00
1.19401
1.78797
1.66914
1.59452
1.28846
1.36689
1.41500
-
1.37232
-
.23678
-
1.22939
-
.54596
.49503
.89361
.40978
.21398
.29508
.
.57015
.30301
.37296
1.23128
-
.23468
.36425
-
.27368
.42977
.42977
1.16360
•
.
1.57439
2.02759
anunt
m (RT
RF
80.00
1.22937
1.79632
1.63363
1.57357
1.24460
1.29513
1.38404
-
1.34262
-
.25432
-
1.22957
.62111
.52760
.47564
.87588
.38904
.21276
.27450
.
.56666
.28816
.35489
1.16462
-
.22246
.32830
-
.30570
.41613
.41613
1.15055
-
.
1.54120
2.00207
in ug/«
RF
120.00
1.21271
1.74157
1.59189
1.52102
1.22158
1.29138
1.35387
-
1.31235
-
.24011
-
1.18246
.61599
.54281
.47971
.86997
.38923
.21222
.27248
.
.55291
.29473
.34194
1.14153
-
.21975
.34658
-
.30307
.40557
.40557
1.06118
-
.
1.51105
1.89725
1)
RF
160.00
1.23062
1.71336
1.57112
1.47079
1.18258
1.29266
1.34290
-
1.29369
-
.23514
-
1.19253
-
.53773
.48129
.86475
.36574
.21597
.26516
.
.56053
.28955
.33652
1.11034
-
.21280
.36073
-
.31027
.48062
.40062
1.05396
-
.
1.46849
1.86518
RF
240.00
1.25197
1.68862
1.53431
1.42959
1.16033
1.26734
1.31226
-
1.26796
-
.22352
-
1.23293
-
.53697
.46520
.83953
.34847
.21775
.26039
.
.53899
.29306
.32546
1.05425
-
.20019
.36413
-
.31417
.39124
-
1.03110
-
-
1.39722
RF
320.30
1.26443
1.63237
1.48435
1.39730
1.13220
1.26387
1.29933
-
1.25707
-
.22389
-
1.21636
-
.52496
.45988
.80788
.32120
.21831
.24942
.
.52565
.28779
.31748
1.02684
-
.18747
.36168
-
.30496
.36741
.36741
.96476
-
-
1.36055
1.76024 1.67621
RRT
.696
.955
.958
.955
.961
.989
1.004
-
1.354
-
1.103
-
1.143
1.135
.860
.863
.914
.916
.929
.956
.
.971
.985
.994
1.004
-
1.048
1.148
-
.874
.891
.891
.911
-
-
RF
1.21496
1.77746
1.59355
1.51377
1.22164
1.J0280
1.36292
-
1.31999
-
.23563
-
1.21127
.62376
.53312
.47564
.85844
.37553
.21349
.27102
-
.55326
.28806
.34632
1.13473
-
.21575
.35109
-
.29307
.40169
.40344
1.09154
-
-
.977 1.48548
.976 1.88572
IRS)
3.3?4 ,
3.656.,
4.375"
5.532
5.323
2.929 .
3.689
-
3.928
-
4.859
-
1.713
1.503
2.015
2.413
3.2J6
8.563
2.345
5.410
.
2.863
4.648
6.445
6.760
-
7.944
4.429
-
9.212
4.872
5.164
9.034
-
-
5.424
6.388
CIr"l
, r--- .}
,??9?1-
.?»?io5
. ??9wS7
.7*9443
.999933
.^770/4
-
.999=37
-
.999327
-
.999777
.999988
.999786
.999718
.999211
.996313
.999963
.?99209
-
.999458
.999818
.999559
.999087
-
.997286
.999634
-
.999583
.998412
.998600
.9984*4
-
-
.999015
.9?Bi:4
Std/RT Istd)
Standard Deviation
CORRn - Coefficient of Correlation (nth deqree)
F-62
Page 1 of 2
-------
Calibration Report
Title: Base/Neutral/Actd Extractables (Priority Pollutants)
Calibrated: 880202 14:4*
Files: >81108
RF
Compound 20.00
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Oinitrsphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Dibeniofuran
2,4-Oinitrotoluene
2,6-Oinitrotoluene
Oiethylphthalate
4-CMorophenyi-phenylether
Fluorene
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-Oinitro-2-«thylphenol
H-N i t rosod ipheny 1 aiine
Azobenzene
2,4,6-Tribroeophenol
4-8roMphenyl-phenylether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentechlorophenol
Pbenanthrene
Anthracene
0:-n-8utylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Terphenyl-dl4
Butylbenzylphthaiate
3,3'-Oichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Bis(2-£thylhexyl)Phthelate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo ( b ) f 1 uo r an t hent
Benzo(k IFluoranthene
8cnzo(a)Pyrent
IndenoC 1 ,2 ,3-cd)Pyrene
Oibenzo(a,h)Anthracent
Benzo (g,h, i )Perylen4
.
1.31508
-
.15581
-
.30716
.28722
1.62705
.68584
1.47476
.
-
.55203
1.18792
.16661
.29452
.38440
.21623
1.34025
1.34726
1.73870
1.30802
1.59571
.99174
.81865
-
1.40353
1.27806
1.4028?
3.40052
1.66219
1.66219
1.56701
.74807
.65801
.63383
RF • Response Factor (Subscript is
RRT - Average Relative
RF - Average Response
ffiSO • Percent Relative
Retention Ti
Factor
>81109
RF
50.00
.
1.32635
-
.20715
-
.41026
.33422
1.72528
.67265
1.50519
.
.12673
.57201
1.26024
.17605
.30473
.37813
.16479
1.40094
1.42597
1.86676
1.32325
1.82778
1.14648
.89305
-
1.40682
1.29458
1.38706
3.52144
1.71069
1.71069
1.56791
.69694
>8111C
RF
80.00
„
1.30045
.09985
.23164
-
.39934
.33990
1.64606
.64697
1.47754
.
.13872
.59048
1.29386
.18704
.31157
.36581
.16546
1.33250
1.32827
1.72860
1.29682
1.71658
1.05640
.87563
-
1.39143
1.22302
1.38100
3.62315
2.02709
2.02789
1.62256
.67509
.64666- .61606
.62847
atount
ee (RT
.58623
>8illl
RF
120.00
—
1.25776
.15516
.29491
-
.45045
.36206
1.60756
.60719
1.43754
.
.15813
.54028
1.16558
.17692
.28030
.34003
.17544
r.27751
1.29158
1.68232
1.25210
1.72047
t. 08783
.93762
-
1.39543
1.25504
1.36460
3.85112
1.90814
1.91814
1.59590
.68271
.64182
.59453
>81112 >81113 >81114
RF RF SF
160.00 240.00 320.30
—
1.21958
.16120
.28959
-
.43454
.36251
1.51475
.56551
1.40084
-
.16500
.54338
1.21262
.18265
.28290
.34666
.18251
1.26564
1.29524
1.74473
1.30092
1.83764
1.15859
.97580
•
1.41212
1.31314
1.35897
3.84310
1.99477
1.99477
1.60026
.71815
.67050
.64122
m
1.14665
.19611
.30696
-
.43777
.37060
1.37292
-
1.34711
-
.18650
.50451
1.16032
.17702
.27159
.33300
.19611
1.22565
1.23010
1.71965
1.30145
1.76957
1.12578
.95629
-
1.37432
1.27164
1.25181
3.944Sa
1.72634
1.72634
1.57722
.69432
.64953
.63716
„
1.10935
.20454
.31267
-
-
.36393
1.29113
-
1.24723
.
.18517
.46561
1.15858
.17670
.26667
.32390
.19687
1.17224
1.16036
1.60797
1.23755
1.69676
1.04728
.93362
-
1.39616
1.22303
1.30360
4.35228
1.85544
1.85544
1.62495
.73419
.70981
.70048
RST
—
1.005 :
1.020
1.048
.
1.044
.985
1.Q89
1.090
1.084
.
.902
.906
.908
.917
.949
.963
.989
1.003
1.009
1.095
1.155
.883
.905
.959
-
.999
1.019
1.013
.953
.974
.974
.996
1.097
1.100
1.124
RF
—
L. 23932
. 16347
.25696
.
.40659
.34578
1.54068
.63563
1.41289
.
.16004
.53833
1.20559
.17757
.28747
.35313
.18535
1.28782
1.29697
1.72696
1.28859
1.73779
1.08773
.91295
-
1.39712
1.26550
1.34999
3.79093
1.83952
1.83952
1.59370
.78707
.65606
.63170
X RSO
—
6.352
25.342"
23.275
-
12.841
8.422
10.201
7.766
6.399
.
15.110
7.772
4.415
3.557
5.830
.6.576
10.158
5.961
6.551
4.498
2.434
4.797
5.535
5.923
-
.884
2.705
3.968
8.330
7.817
7.817
1.516
3.839
4.416
5.893
CIr 3 1
.
.995514
.9991*3
.r991:3
.
.999273
.999608
.594981
.99631J
.997291
.
.9990?!
.995753
.999424
.999711
.999236
.999455
.998J77
.999037
.998172
.998472
.999206
.998807
.997648
.999398
-
.999889
.9991CO
.998939
.997354
.996416
.996415
.999765
.999039
.997907
.997323
in ug/«l)
Std/RT Istd)
Standard Deviation
CORRn • Coefficient of Correlation (nth degree)
F-63
Page 2 of 2
-------
Calibration Check Report
Title: Base/Neutral /Ac id Extractables (Priority Pollutants)
Calibrated: 5902Q2 14:46
Check Standard 3ata File: >871QQ
Injection TJM: 880713 18:22
Compound
RF
RF
XOiff Calib rieth
2-Fluorophenol
Phenol-d5
Pheno 1
bis(-2-Chloroethyn£ther
2-Chlorophenol
1,3-Oichlorobenzene
1,4-Oichlorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
1,2-Oichlorobenzene
2 -fie thy I phenol
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
4-flethyl phenol
N-N i t roso-0 i -n-propy I an me
Hexachldroethane
Nitrobenzene-d5
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
Decaf luorobiphenyl
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Oieethylphenol
Benzoic Acid
bis(-2-Chloroethoxy)f1ethane
2,4-Oichlorophenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-CMoroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Qiioro-J-aathylphenol
2-flethyinaphthalene
Hexach lorocyc lopentad lene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Fluorobiphenyl
2-Nitroanilme
Oiatthyl Phthalate
Acenaph thy lene
J-Nit roam line
ftcenaph there
2,4-Otnitrophenol
1.21496 1.02057
1.73744 1.81075
1.59355 1.64283
1.51377 1.59402
1.22164 1.39496
1.30280 1.34076
1.36292 1.44918
-
1.31999 1.43637
-
.23563 .21320
-
1.21127 1.19770
.62376 .59368
.53312 .47449
.47564 .42362
.85644 .77832
.37553 .29841
.21349 .20690
.27102 .21602
-
.55326 .56989
.28806 .27836
.34632 .34691
1.13473 1.17967
-
.21575 .17475
.35109 .30221
-
.29307 .15445
.40169 .36293
.40344 .36293
1.09154 1.16080
-
-
1.48548 1.37695
1.88572 1.96053
-
1.23932 1.28299
.16347 .05346
16.00 Average
4.22 Average
3.09 Average
5.30 Average
6.82 Average
2.91 Average
6.33 Average
Average
8.82 Average
Average
9.52 Average
Average
1.12 Average
4.82 Average
11.00 Average
Iff. 94 Average
9.37 Average
20.48 Average
3.09 Average
20.29 Average
Average
3.01 Average
3.37 Average
.17 Average
3.96 Average
Average
19.00 Average
13.92 Average
Average
46.90 1st Degree
9.65 Average
10.04 Average
6.34 Average
Average
Average
7.31 Average
3.97 Average
Average
3.52 Average
178.04 1st Degree
RF
RF
- Response Factor froa daily standard file at 50.00 ug/el
- Average Response Factor Froa Initial Calibration
- \ Difference froe original average or curve F-64
Page i of 2
-------
Cjlibratian Check Report
Ti.tle: Base/Neutral/ficid Extractables (Priority PsUutants)
Calibrated: 880202 14:46
Check Standard Data File: >87100
Injection TIM: 880713 18:22
Compound
4-NitrophenoI
Oibenzofuran
2,4-Omitrotoluene
2,6-Oinitrotoluone
Otethylphthalate
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether
Fluorene
4-N it roan i line
4,6-Oinitro-2-*ethylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylaiine
Azobenzene
2,4,6-TribroMphenol
4-8ro«opheny 1 -phony 1 e t her
Hexjchlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Oi-fl-8utylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Terphenyl-dl4
Butylbenzylphthalate
I , 3 ' -Oich lorobenz id me
8enzo(a)Anthracene
8is(2-£thylhexyl JPhthalate
Qirysene
Oi-fi-octyl phthalata
8enzo(b)Huoranthene
Beflzo(k)Flueranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-<:d)Pvrtfl«
Oibenzo(a,h)ftnthpacent
8cnzo(g,h,i JPerylent
SF RF
.29696 .14689
-
.40659 .40207
.J4578 .33898
1.54068 1.31187
.63563 .59736
1.41289 1.45929
-
.16004 .13310
.53833 .57584
1.20559 1.09544
.17757 .12124
.28747 .25414
.3531J .27447
.18535 .21309
1.28782 1.32201
1.2?697 1.31333
1.72696 1.63455
1.28859 1.30132
1.73779 2.06622
1.08773 1.11789
.91295 .86421
-
1.39712 1.43088
1.26550 1.17465
1.34999 1.44359
3.79093 2.64241
1.83952 1.72074
1.839W 1.72074
1.59378 1.58940
.70787 1.25077
.65604 1.16879
.63170 1.14211
XOiff blib reth
33.33 1st Degree
Average
.06 lit Degree
1.97 Average
26.34 1st Degree
6.02 Average
3.28 Average
Average
22.75 1st Degree
6.97 Average
9.14 Average
31.72 Average
11.59 Average
22.22 Average
28.97 1st Degree
2.65 Average
1.26 Average
5.35 Average
.99 Average
18.90 Average
2.77 Average
5.34 Average
Average
2.42 Average
7.18 Average
6.93 Average
30.30 Average
6.46 Average
6.46 Average
.27 Average
76.89 Average
78.15 Average
80.80 Averaq*
RF
RF
- Response Factor froi daily standard File at 50.00 ug/*l
- Average Response Factor froa Initial Calibration
- X Difference froi original average or curve
Page 2 of 2
F-65
-------
Calibration Check Report
Title: 8ase/Neutral/Acid Extractables (Priority Pollutants)
Calibrated: 880202 14:44
Check Standard Data File:
Injection Tie*:
CoBQOund
2-Fluorophenol
Phenol-o5
Phenol
bis(-2-Chloroethyl)Ether
2-Chlorophenol
1,3-Oichlorobenzene
1,4-Oichlorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
1,2-Oichlorobenzene
2-nethylphenol
bis(2-Chlorotsopropyl)ether
4-flethylphenol
N-MitrosoMh-ft-propylaiine
Hexachloroathene
Nitrobenzefte-d5
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
Decafluorobipheny1
2-Mitrophenol
2,4-Oieethylphenol
Benzote Acid
bis(-2-Oiloroethoxy)Hethane
2,4-Oichlorophenel
1,2,4-rrichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-ChloroamIine
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Ch loro-3-eethyIpheno 1
2-flethylnaphthalene
Hexachlorocycloptntad tent
2,4,6-rrichlorophtnal
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Oiloron«phth«lenc
2-ftuorobiphetiyi
2-Nttroanilint
OtHthyl PhthaUtd
Acenaphthylent
3-Nit roam line
ftcinaphthtne
2,4-Oinitrophenol
680714 08:00
RF
RF Wiff Calib fleth
1.21496 1.27185
1.73746 2.03590
1.59355 1.82914
1.51377 1.77094
1.22164 1.38387
1.30280 1.36873
1.36292 1.48711
1.31999 1.44067
.2J563 .24796
1.21127
.62376
.53312
.47564
.85844
.37593
.21349
.27102
1.35393
.63051
.50942
.45471
.87157
.27502
.21532
.22087
.55326 .60202
.28804 .27030
.34632 .32353
1.13473 1.17794
.21579 .16204
.35109 .32454
.29307 .12494
.40U9 .37097
.40344 .37097
1.09154 1.13547
1.48541 1.40419
1.88572 1.99274
1.23932 1.29318
.16347 .11390
4.68 Average
17.18 Average
14.78 Average
16.99 Average
13.28 Average
5.06 Average
9.11 Average
Average
9.14 Average
Average
5.23 Average
Average
11.78 Average
1.08 Average
4.45 Average
4.40 Average
1.53 Average
26.77 Average
.86 Average
18.51 Avcrege
Average
8.81 Average
6.16 Average
6.58 Average
3.81 Average
Average
24.89 Average
7.56 Average
Average
57.04 1st Degree
7.65 Average
8.05 Average
4.02 Average
Average
Average
5.34 Average
5.68 Average
Average
4.35 Average
534.94 1st Degree
RF - Response Factor froe daily standard file at 50.00 ug/el
RF - Average Response Factor froa Initial Calibration
XOiff - % Difference fro* original average or curve
Page 1 of 2
F-66
-------
Calibration Check Report
Title: Base/Neutral/fie id Extractables (Priority Pollutants)
Calibrated: 880202 14:44
Check Standard Data File: >87111
Injection Tine: 880714 08:00
Compound
RF
RF ttiff Calib feth
4-Nitrophenol
Oibenzofuran
2,4-Oinitratoluene
2,6-Oinitrotoluene
Oiethyiphthalate
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether
Fluorene
4-Nit roan i line
4,6-Oinitro-2-«ethylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylaiine
Azobenzene
2,4,6-Tribroeophenol
4-8roeoprleny 1 -pheny 1 e t her
Hei«chlorobenzent
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Oi-n-flutylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Terphenyl-dl4
Butylbenzylphthalate
7,3'-Oichlorobenzidine
8enzo(a)Anthracene
8is(2-€thylheiyl)Phthalate
Chrysene
Oi-n-octyl phthalata
Benzo(b)flueranthene
8enzo(k)Fluoranthene
8enzo(a)Pyrtne
I ndene ( 1 , 2 , 3-cd ) Pyr ene
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
8enzo(g,h,i)Perylene
.25696 .21870
-
.40659 .47784
.34578 .35452
1.54068 1.41611
.63563 .58101
1.41289 1.46205
-
.16004 .14561
.53833 .58587
1.20559 1.21820
.17757 .12259
.28747 .24310
.35313 .26013
.18535 .16065
1.28782 1.31578
1.29497 1.31223
1.72694 1.72554
1.28859 1.33334
1.75779 1.76843
1.08773 .98257
.91295 .88477
-
1.39712 1.42940
1.26550 1.23257
1.34999 1.45552
3.79093 2.69791
1.83952 1.53896
1.83952 1.53894
1.59370 1.55948
.70707 .94591
.656M .95225
.63170 .80434
.73 1st Degree
Average
7.96 1st Degree
. 2.53 Average
21.02 1st Degree
8.59 Average
7.48 Average
Average
74.29 1st Degree
8.83 Average
1.05 Average
30.96 Average
15.43 Average
26.34 Average
2.77 1st Degree
2.17 Average
1.18 Average
.08 Average
3.47 Average
1.76 Average
9.67 Average
3.09 Average
Average
2.31 Average
2.60 Average
7.82 Average
28.83 Average
16.34 Average
16.34 Average
2.13 Average
36.61 Average
45.15 Average
27.33 Average
RF - Response Factor fro* daily standard file at 50.00 ug/el
RF - Average Response Factor fro« Initial Calibration
ffliff - X Difference froi original average or curve F-67
Page 2 of 2
-------
QUANT REPORT
Operator ID: USER6
Output File: /S87101::QT
Data File: >87101::L2
Name: BLANK CF SYSTEMS
Plisc: 1 ul w/ 13 & SURR
Quant Rev: 6
Quan t Time:
In jected at:
Di lut ion Factor:
3807U •::.- :•:
880713 1?:;=
1. 3 G C 0 0
DIRECT INJECTION SHOT 7-17-88 Uf-lML
ID File: IDES 11::D2
Title: Sase/Neutra1/Acid Extractables
Last Calibration: 880621 14:46
Compound
(Priority Pollutants)
R.T. Q ion
Area
Cone
* Compound is ISTD
Un i t s
1)
2)
3)
16)
17)
20)
32)
52)
56)
59)
64)
66)
72)
*d4-l ,4-Oich lorobenzene (IS)
2-Fluoropheno 1 (SS)
Phenol-d5 (S3)
•dS-Naphtha lene (IS)
Ni t robenzene-d5 (SS
Decaf luorobiphenyl
)
(SS)
•dlO-Acenaphthene (IS)
»dlO-Phenantnrene (I
2,4,6-Trtbromopheno
Pentachlorophenol
*d!2-Chrysene (IS)
Terphenyl-dl4 (SS)
•d!2-Perylene (IS)
S)
1 (SS)
10.
7.
10.
14.
12.
13.
19.
24.
22.
24.
32.
29.
37.
60
26
07
47
40
27
99
60
53
34
99
84
19
152.
112.
99.
136.
82.
334.
164.
188.
330.
266.
240.
244.
264.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47300
107022
167592
164090
80021
59928
87578
119685
34746
5344
84280
109329
61328
40.
74.
81.
40.
36.
38.
40.
40.
65.
18.
40.
47.
40.
00
49
57
00
59
90
00
00
40
10
00
70
00
ug-'n
ug/m
ug^'m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
F-68
-------
CLWNT REPORT
Operator ID: USER6
Output File: ~a7107::C]T
Data File: >87107::L2
Name: BLANK-2 CF SYSTEMS
Misc: 1 ul wx IS & SURR DIRECT
Quant Rev: 6
Quant Time
In jec ted at
0 ilution Fac tor
INJECTION SHOT 7-14-33
330714 :
330714 G
1. 0
ID File: IOE811::02
Title: 8ase/NeutraI/Ac id
Last Calibration: 38Q621
Compound
Ext ractables
1:4:46
(Priority Pollutants)
R.T. Q
ion
Area
Cone
Un i t 5
1)
2)
3)
16)
17)
20)
32)
52)
56)
62)
64)
66)
72)
•d4-l ,4-Dich lorobenzene (IS)
2-Fluoropheno I (3S)
Phenol-d5 (SS)
•d8-Naphtha lene (IS)
Ni trobenzene-d5 (SS)
Oecaf luorob ipheny 1 (SS)
•dIO-Acenaphtnene (IS)
•dlO-Phenanthrene (IS)
2 ,4,6-Tr ibromopheno 1 (SS)
Oi-n-butylphthalate
•dl2-Chrysena (IS)
Terphenyl-dl4 (SS)
•d!2-Perylene (IS)
10
7
10
14
12
13
19
24
22
26
32
29
37
.61
.25
.07
.46
.39
.26
.99
.59
.52
.98
.99
.83
.19
152.
112.
99.
136.
82.
334.
164.
188.
330.
149.
240.
244.
264.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40383
32836
130146
142960
58318
43360
80502
120656
35557
3245
102140
102704
93257
40
67
74
40
30
36
40
4Q
66
40
36
40
. 00
.57
.20
.00
.61
.40
.00
.00
.38
.62
. 00
.98
. 00
ug/m
ug /m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/rn
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
ug/m
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
;
-
~
: '
; .
» :
9 •
•»
^
V
? .
9
9:
* Compound is ISTD
F-69
-------
^» ^ *
'
lac .
ACZ INC.
Case No.:
Centrazz: 'CF Systems
SAS No.:
lev r,ed)
1
! -' -_M?LZ NO .
0 Q fi * /fiQ^>?
* ^^D • ••• '
'. , 88-SU/0963
- i 88-SU/0965 !
r | 88-SU/0966
3 | 88-SU/0967
5 | 88-SU/0968
;? |
JSI
•09 I Blank 962-9631
10'| Blank 965-9681
11!
121
131
14 |
151
161
171
131
19 i
201
211
221
231
241
251
261
27|
281
291
301
SI
(N3Z) ?
13*
63%
61%
40%
86%
79%
73*
61%
S2
fifl*
97%
70% !
55%
94%
62%
7fl*
73%
S3 .
(T?K) a
~~~~~~
101%
65%
53%
79%
81%
95*
74%
S4
?4»
62*
82%
32%
78%
99%
P2*
74%
.
S3
r?«
47%
80%
35%
86%
94%
74*
68%
So j C.HI?. .11
W. :
55% ;
73% !
36% i ;
62% I j
81% |
1
1
65* 1 !
66% 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
I I
1 1
i
1
1
|
|
1
1
1
;
!
1
i
SI (NBZ) - Nitrabenzene-d5
S3 (T?K) » Ter?henyl-dl4
S-; (?H1) =» ?her.ol-d5
S3 (2F?) = 2-rluorschenol
So (75?) = 2 , 4 , 6-7riJsrcncpr.er.oi •
5 Column to be used to flag recovery values wi:
* Values outside of contract required QC lir.it;
F-70
-------
30
SOIL S2CVOIATILS MATRIX s?ixz/MAT?.ix s?i:-e DUPLICATE =ir:vi.-/;
~ab Name: ACZ INC. -Contract: CF Systems
Ib Cade: Case' No.: SAS No.: SDG
— atrix Spike - SaapJ
COMPOUND
1 Phenol
2-Chiarcshenol
l, 4-Dichlcro-
benzene
Di-n-butyl-
oh trial ate
1,2,4-Trichloro-
benzene
4-Chloro-3-Methyl-
• phenol
•Acenanhthene
4-Nitrophenol
•Naohthalene
•Pantachloroohenol
Pvrene
• COMPOUND
Phenol
t£ -Chi o r opneno 1
§., 4-Dichloro-
benzene
»1-n-buty1-
phtnalate __
1,2, 4-Trichloro-
1 benzene
-Chloro-3 -Methyl-
phenol
^cenaphthene
p-Nitrorhenol
Naphthalene
.e No. : 0968 L
AMOUNT
ADDED
(ng)
100,000
100,000
50.000
50,000
qn.nnn
100.000
50,000
100.000
50.000
^^^^^
SAMPLE CCNC.
IN EXTRACT
(ugA9)
190
avel: (low/med)
MS C3NC.
IN EXTRACT
(ug/kg)
52273
4n^5
27229
25403
20240
38447
29151
Not So iked .
2337Z
68900
22236
MSO CONC. IN | £50%
43796 91
35176 73
27875 116
26955 112
22352 93
32593 68
29774 U4
Not Soiked
24319 101
jer.tacr.lcrcphencl 63584 132
MS*
REC |
109
HZ
113
106
^•••^•B
84
80
121
TT-
Jyrane 2"?q98 95 92
% 1
RPD #U
18 |
^^^^^^^^^^ i
•LO — ~w —
03 -j,
06 _[•
10 -[
-sH
uy — h
-BT--4
No. :
REC ?
109
113
106
84
80
121 |
3JF«!
• 1
^y D&ft
C~ CM^6--
' /4f.O
- j.o
-5» /^-C*
* Z-
§pluan co be used co 'lag recovery and RPD
lues outside of CC liaics
F-71
values wich an ascsrisk
I
our of
outside liaita
-------
SOIL SZ2IVCLATILZ MAT5IX SPIvi/vi^-v cp-yjr cu,r -,
ACZ INC.
b Cede:
:atrix Sci>e -
Case No.:
Sasple No.
sr.trac-: CF Systems
SAS No. :
SDG No.:
0968
Level:(low/aed)
Ut Tnj^
COMPOUND
Pher.ci
2-Ci:Icrs=r.er.oi
1, 4-Dicnlcra-
benzene '••""
Di-n-butyl-
phthalate
1,2,4-Tricliloro-
benzene
4 -Chlora-3 -••lecnyi-
phenbl
Acenacht^iene
4-N*itrcchenol
Naphthalene
Pgntaeiiloroghenol
Pvrene
AMOUNT
ADDED
(nc)
100,000
100,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
inn nnn
«;nfnnn
Nnt
-------
Appendix G
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS
Table G-1 ANOVA for fluidized bed incineration and three-cycle
solvent extraction.
Table G-2 ANOVA for three-cycle solvent extraction and
single-cycle solvent extraction.
Table G-3 ANOVA for three-cycle solvent extraction and solvent
extraction at plant G.
Table G-4 ANOVA for three-cycle solvent extraction and pressure
filtration at plant C.
Table G-5 ANOVA for three-cycle solvent extraction and pressure
filtration at plant D.
Table G-6 ANOVA for fluidized bed incineration at plant A and
stabilization at Plant I.
G-l
-------
TABLE 0-1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION
AT PLANT M
Analysis of Variance for B1s[2-«thylhaxyl]phtholete
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees Sun of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squarea F Ratio F Value
1 0.0114 0.0114 0.0108 4.75
12 12.7258 1.0605
13 12.7372
There Is no significant difference between the treatments.
Analysis of Variance for Dl-n-toutyl pnthalata
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Oegreee SUM of Mean Critical
of freedom Squarea Squarea F Ratio F Value
1 1.3281 1.3281
12 0.0000 0.0000
13 1.3281
There la no statistical difference between the treatments.
G-2
-------
TABLE G-1 (Continue^
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING R.UIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION
AT PLANT M
Analysis of Variance for Cyanlda
Sourca
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Oagraas Sum of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Velue
1 73.8690 73.8690 201.8980
10 3.8488 0.3843
11 77.3179
There Is a significant difference between the treatments. Fluldlzed bed
Incineration Is better.
Analysis of Verlance for Xylenee (total)
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Totel
Degrees SUB of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squires F Ratio F Value
1 48.8878 48.8878 80.9285 4.96
10 8.0161 0.8016
11 54.7037
There 1e e significant difference between the treatments. Fluldlzed bed
Incineration Is better.
G-3
-------
TABLE 6-1 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION
AT PLANT M
Analysis of Variance for Benz(a]anthracane
Source
Degrees SUM of Mean Critical
of freedom Squarea Squaree F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Tot el
1 3.8879 3.8879 130.5080 4.75
12 0.3391 0.0283
13 4.0270
There is e significant difference between the tree Slants. Fluidized bed
incineration la batter.
Analysis of Variance for Ethylbenzene
Source
Oegreea SUM of Mean Critical
of freedom Squaree Squaree F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1 5.8485 5.8485 17.4759 4.98
10 3.2322 0.3232
11 8.8807
There la a significant difference between the traatnanta. Fluidized bed
incineration la better.
G-4
-------
TABLE 0-1 (Continued.)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION
AT PLANT M
Analysis of Variance for Toluene
Source
Between Groups
WithIn Groups
Total
Oagreaa Sum of Mean Critical
of freedom Square! Squares F Ratio F Value
1 0.0061 0.0081 0.0405 4.36
10 1.5069 0.1507
11 1.5130
There Is no statistical difference between the treatments.
Analyela of Variance for Chryaane
Source
Batmen Groups
W1thin Groupe
Tote I
Degrees SUM of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squires F Ratio F Vslue
1
12
13
6.2929 6.2929 148.9600 4.75
0.5070 0.0422
6.7998
There Is s significant difference between the treaiaenta. Fluldlzed bed
Incineration Is better.
G-5
-------
TABLE G-1 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION
AT PUNT M
Analysis of Variance for Naphthalene
Source
Oegreea Sum of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1 122.3426 12.3426 241.6455 4.75
12 6.0755 0.5063
13 128.4160
There Is a significant difference between the treatments. Fluldlzed bed
Incineration Is better.
Analysis of Variance for Phenenthrone
Source
Between Groupe
Within Groups
Total
Oagreea SUB of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1 16.3964 16.3984 135.1513 4.75
12 1.4560 0.1213
13 17.8544
There Is a significant difference between the treatments. Fluldlzed bed
Incineration It better.
G-6
-------
TABLE G-1 [Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING R.UIOIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION
AT PLANT M
Analysis of Variance for Pyrene
Source
Degrees Sum of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Oroupa
Total
1 3.4729 3.4729 80.3855
12 0.5164 0.0432
13 3.9914
4.75
There la a significant difference between the treatments. Fluldlzad bad
Incineration la batter.
G-7
-------
TABLE G-2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH SINGLE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT
PLANT M
Analysis of Variance for Ethylbenzane
Source
Batmen Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degraaa Sun of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Velue
1 4.7883 4.7683 7.7830 4.67
13 7.9645 0.6127
14 12.7328
There la e significant difference between the treataanta. Slngle-^ycLe
solvent extraction 1s batter.
Analyele of Variance for Toluene
Source
Between Groups
Within Groupa
Total
Oagraaa SUM of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Retlo F Velue
1
13
14
0.0404 0.0404 0.1843 4.87
2.8510 0.2193
2.8914
There la no algnlfleant difference between the treateanta.
G-3
-------
TABLE G-S (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH SINGLE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT
PLANT M
Analysis of Variance for Xylanes
Source
Between Group*
Within Groups
Total
Oegreee ' Sum of Mean Critical
of freedon Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1 8.7947 8.7947 8.1888
12 12.9198 1.0787
13 21.7148
4.75
There Is e algnlflcant difference between the treet»ente. Single-cycle
eolvent extraction Is better.
Analysis of Variance for Anthracene
Source
Between Groupa
Within Groupa
Total
Oagreea SUB of Mean Critical
of fraedosi Squarea Squeree F Ratio F Value
1 1.0288 1.0288 3.8003 4.80
14 3.7901 0.2707
15 4.8188
There la no algnlflcant difference betaven the treabeanta.
G-9
-------
TABLE G-2 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH SINGLE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT
PLANT M
Analysis of Variance for Benz(a]snthracena
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees Sum of Mean Critics I
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1 0.8794 0.9794 5.2335
14 2.6199 0.1871
15 3.5983
4.80
There 1s s significant difference between the treatments. Three-«ycle
solvent extraction
-------
TABLE Q-fi (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH SINGLE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT
PLANT M
Analysis of Variance for B1e(2-sthylhexyl] phchalate
Source
Between Group*
Within Groupa
Total
Degrees Sun of Mean Critical
of fraedon Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1 0.4385 0.4385 0.3143 4.80
14 19.5276 1.3948
15 19.9861
There la no significant difference between the treatMnta.
Anelyel* of Verlence for Chryeene
Source
Between Groups
W1 thin Groupa
Totel
Oegreee SUB of Keen Critical
of freedom Square* Squires F Ratio F Velue
1 6.6485 8.8465 70.2418 4.80
14 1.3247 0.0948
15 7.9712
There Is a significant difference between the treetaants. Three-cycle
solvent extraction la better.
G-ll
-------
TABLE G-S (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH SINGLE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT
PLANT M
Analysis of Variance for Naphthalene
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees Sum of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1 23.7243 23.7243 38.8474 4.80
14 8.5489 0.8107
15 32.2741
There Is a significant difference between the traaownts. Single-cycle
solvant extraction Is batter.
Analysis of Variance for Phananthrene
Source
Between Groupa
Within Groupa
Total
Dagraaa SUB of Maan Critical
of fraadaaj Squares Squarea F Ratio F Valua
1 5.2289 5.2289 28.7227 4.60
14 2.7394 0.1957
15 7.9884
There la a significant difference batmen the traatMnta. Three-cycle
solvent extraction Is battar.
3-12
-------
TABLE G-2 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH SINGLE-CYCLE SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT
PLANT M
Analysis of Variance for Pyrena
Sourea
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Oagraaa Sun of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1 5.7838 5.7838 48.6439 4.80
14 1.8988 0.1356
15 7.8827
There 1s a significant difference bataeen the treatments. Three-cycle
solvent extrectlon la better.
Anelyels of Verlence for p-Creaol
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees Sue of Mean Critical
of freedom Squeree Squaree F Ratio F Value
1 0.1838 Q.183B 0.8720 4.80
14 2.9807 0.2108
18 3.1345
Thar* la no significant difference batmen the treatments.
G-13
-------
TABLE G-3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH SOLVENT EXTRACTION
AT PLANT 6
Analysis of Variance for B1s(2-«thylhexyl]phthalata
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees Sun of Keen Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1 3.6329 3.8329 2.5630 5.12
9 12.7569 1.4174
10 18.3898
There 1s no significant difference between the treatments.
Analysis of Variance for Xylanea (total]
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Oagreaa SUM of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1 3.8688 3.8888 4.5748 5.98
6 5.0738 0.8458
7 8.9424
There la no significant difference between the treatments.
G-14
-------
TABLE 6-3 (Continued.)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT H WITH SOLVENT EXTRACTION
AT PLANT Q
Analytic of Variance for Ethylbenzane .
Source
Batman Groups
Ml thin Groups
Total
Oagraaa Sum of Maan Critical
of freedom Squerea Squaraa F Ratio F Valua
1 0.5307 0.5307 0.9760 5.99
6 3.2627 0.5438
7 3.7934
Thar a 1s no significant difference between the treatments.
Analysis of Variance for Toluene
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees Su» of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squeres F Rstlo F Value
1 2.0859 2.0858 9.1348 5.99
8 1.3701 0.2284
7 3.4581
There Is e significant difference between the treetaente. Three cycle
eolvent extraction at Plant M 1s batter.
G-15
-------
TABLE G-3 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH SOLVENT EXTRACTION
AT PLANT G
Analysis of Variance for Chrysene
Sou res
Degrees SUM of Mean Critical
of fraadon Squares Squares F Ratio F Valua
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1 18.6412 18.8412 299.5512 5.12
9 0.5000 0.0556
10 17.1412
There la a significant difference between the traananta. Three-cycle
solvent extraction at Plant M la better.
Analysis of Variance for Naphthalene
Source
Oegreea SUB of Maan Critical
of freadoai Square* Squaraa F Ratio F Valua
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1 14.1796 14.1756 14.2115
9 8.9773 0.9975
10 23.1589
5.12
Thara la a significant dlffaranca between the traataanta. Solvent
extraction at Plant S la battar.
3-16
-------
TABLE G-3 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT H WITH SOLVENT EXTRACTION
AT PLANT G
Analysis of Variance for Phananthrena
Sourca
Batman Groups
Ml thin Groups
Total
Oagrees Sum of Mean Critical
of freedom Squaraa Squares F Ratio F Value
1 0.0508 0.0508 0.3109 5.12
9 1.4712 0.1635
10 1.5220
There la no significant difference between the treaoients.
Analysis of Variance for Pyrans
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Totsl
Degrees SUB of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squaree F Ratio F Value
1
9
10
18.1873 18.1873 307.1977 5.12
0.5322 0.0591
18.8988
There 1s a elgnlflcent difference between the treatments. Three-cycle
solvant extraction at Plant M la batter.
•17
-------
TABLE G-3 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH SOLVENT EXTRACTION
AT PLANT G
Analysis of Variance for Benzene
Source
Oegreee Sun of Meen Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Velue
Between Groups
Ml thin Groups
Total
1 6.133S 8.1335 24.1082 5.38
6 1.S2BS 0.2544
7 7.8600
There Is e significant difference between the treedents. Solvent
extraction at Plant G Is better.
G-18
-------
TABLE 6-4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION AT PLANT C
Analysis of Variance for Banzana
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degreee Sun of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1
5
8
8.1775 8.1775 22.5474 8.81
1.3B99 0.2740
7.5474
There Is e significant difference between the treetmenta. Three-cycle
solvent extrectlon Is better.
Analysis of Vsrlanca for Ethylbenzene
Source
Between Groupe
Within Groupe
Total
Oegreee SUM of Me en " Critical
of freedom Squares Squaree F Ratio F Value
1 1.1710 1.1710 1.8118 8.81
8 3.2322 0.8484
8 4.4038
There Is no significant difference between the treetnente.
3-19
-------
TABLE G-4 [Contlnuadl .-
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION AT PLANT C
Analysis of Variancs for Toluana
Sourca
Batwaan Groups
Within Groups
Total
Oagraaa Sun of Haan Critical
of fraado* Squaraa Squaras F Ratio F Valua
1 19.2503 15.2503 55.8682 8.81
5 1.3899 0.2740
6 16.8202
Thara Is a significant dlffaranca batvaan tha traatMnts. Thraa-cycla
solvant extraction Is battar.
Ana I y 81 • of Varlanca for Xylanaa (total)
Sourca
Bataaan Groupa
Within Groupa
Total
Oagraaa SUM of Maan Crl tl cal
of fraadosi Squaraa Squaraa F Ratio F Valua
1 0.0448 0.0448 0.0438 8.81
5 S.0738 1.0148
8 5.1183
Thara la no significant dlffaranca batwaan tha traataanta.
G-20
-------
TABLE 6-4 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT H WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION AT PLANT C
Analysis of Variance for vtthrecene
Source
Batman Groups
Within Groups
Total
Oagraaa Sum of Maan Critical
of freedom Squares, Squares F Ratio F Value
1 3.8856 3.8888 38.7383 5.59
7 0.7346 0.1048
8 4.5903
There 1s a significant difference be mean the treatments. Three-cycle
solvent extraction 1s better.
Analysis of Variance for 8enz(e)anthracene
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Totel
Oegreea SUB of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squarae F Ratio F Value
1 4.4882 4.4882 92.5877
7 0.3381 0.0484
8 4.8843
5.58
There IB e significant difference between the treatments. Three-cycle
solvent extraction la better.
3-21
-------
TABLE G-4 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION AT PLANT C
Analysis of Varlence for Banzo(a)pyrena
Source
BetMsn Groups
Within Groups
Total
Oagreea Sun of Maan Critical
of freadosi Squaraa Squaras F Ratio F Valua
1
7
8
5.5623 5.5823 528.1219 5.59
0.0740 0.0108
5.6363
Thara la a significant dlffaranca between the traataanta. Threa-cycla
solvant axtractlon 1s battar.
Analysis of Variance for B1a(2-ethylhaxyl]phthalata
Source
Batvaan Groupa
Within Groupa
Total
Dagreee Sus of Maan Critical
of freedom Squaraa Squaree F Ratio F Value
1 3.0296 3.0298 1.6884 5.59
7 12.7258 1.8180
8 15.7954
There te no significant difference between the treatments.
G-22
-------
TABLE G-4 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION AT PLANT C
Analysis of Variance for Chryaana
Source
Between Sroupa
Within Groups
Total
Degrees Sum of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squarea F Ratio F Value
1 4.0703 4.0703 58.8033 5.5S
7 0.4888 0.06SS
8 4.5584
There Is a significant difference between the treatnenta. Three-cycle
solvent extraction is better.
AnaIyale of Variance for Naphthalene
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees SUB of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
0.0465 0.0465 0.0524 5.59
8.0755 0.8879
8.1210
There 1s no significant difference between the treetmenta.
-23
-------
TABLE G-4 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION AT PLANT C
Analysis of Variance for Phsnanthrane
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees Sum of Meen Critical
of freedoei Squares Squaree F Ratio F Value
1 12.8859 12.8869 81.8551 5.58
7 1.4560 0.2080
8 14.3219
There Is a significant difference between the treeonnta. Three-cycle
solvent extraction la better.
Analysis of Verlence for Pyrsne
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Tots I
Degrees
of freedo
SUB of Meen Critical
Squares Squares F Ratio F Velue
1 10.0481 10.0481 135.8830 5.58
7 0.5184 0.0741
8 10.5878
There la a significant difference between the treetaants. Three-cycle
eolvent extraction ie better.
G-24
-------
TABLE G-4 (Continued) ,
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION AT PLANT C
Analysis of Variance for p-Cresol
Source
Oagreaa Sum of Mean Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1 0.1970 0.1970 113.6101 5.59
7 0.0121 0.0017
8 0.2092
There Is a significant difference between the treet»ents. Three-cycle
solvent ax traction 1e better.
Anelyala of Variance for Phenol
Source
Degrees Sue of Mean
of freedom Squires Squaree
Critical
Ratio F Value
Between Groupe
Within Groups
Total
1 0.0110 0.0110 0.0812 S.59
7 1.2584 0.1799
8 1.2704
There Is no significant difference between the treatments.
G-25
-------
TABLE 6-6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION
AT PLANT D
Analysis of Variance for Banzana
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees Sun of Maan Critical
of fraadom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1 10.2594 10.2594 37.4459 8.61
5 1.3899 0.2740
8 11.8833
There Is a significant difference between the treaosanta. Three-cycle
solvent extraction Is batter.
Analysis of Variance for Ethylbenzena
Source
Between Groupe
Within Groupe
Total
Degrees SUM of Mean Critical
of freedo* Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1
5
6
10.5076 10.S078 18.2548 6.81
3.2322 0.8484
13.7398
There la • algnlfleant difference between the treatments. Three-cycle
solvent extraction la batter.
•26
-------
TABLE 6-5 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION
AT PLANT D
Analysis of Variance for Toluene
Sourca
Between Group*
Within Groupa
Total
Degrees Sun of Meen Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Valua
1
5
6
20.4503 20.4503 74.8418 8.81
1.3899 0.2740
21.8202
There la a algnlfleant difference bemean the treatments. Three-cycle
solvent extraction la better.
Analysis of Variance for Xylene (total)
Sourca
BetMaan Groupa
Within Groupa
Total
Oagraaa SUB of Mean Critical
of freedos) Squares Squares F Ratio F Valua
1 2.9847 2.9847 2.9218 8.81
5 5.0738 1.0146
6 8.0385
There la no algnlf leant difference banmn the traataanta.
•27
-------
TABLE 6-5 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION
AT PUNT 0
Analytic of Variance for Anthracene
Sourca
Oagraaa SIB of Mean Critical
of fraadon Squaraa Squaraa F Ratio F Valua
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1 1.8254 1.8264 17.3832 5.58
7 0.7346 0.1048
8 2.5800
There la a algnlflcant difference between the treet»ente. Three-cycle
aolvant extraction la batter.
Analyaie of Variance for Benz(a)anthracana
Sourca
Between Groupa
Within Groupa
Total
Oagraaa SUB of Mean Critical
of freadoi Squaraa Squaraa F Ratio F Valua
1 4.3338 4.3338 88.4837
7 0.3381 0.0484
8 4.8728
5.58
There la a algnlflcant difference between the traetaanta. Three-cycle
aolvant extraction la batter.
G-28
-------
TABLE G-5 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION
AT PLANT D
Analyale of Variance for Banzo(a]pyrane
Source
Between Groupa
Within Groupa
Total
Oegreea Sun of Maan Critical
of freedom Squaraa Squarea F Ratio F Value
1 2.7443 2.7443 253.5746 5.53
7 0.0740 0.0106
8 2.8163
There la a alghlfleant difference between the treeoaente. Three-cycle
aolvant extraction la batter.
Ana I y ale of Variance for B1a(2-ethylhexyl]phthalata
Source
Oagreea SUB of Mean Critical
of freedom Squarea Squarea F Ratio F Valua
Between Groupa
Within Groupa
Total
1 0.1832 0.1862 0.1018 5.58
7 12.7286 1.8180
8 12.8110
There la no a10n1fleant difference between the treataente.
G-29
-------
TABLE G-5 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION
AT PLANT D
Analysis of Variance for Chryaane
Source
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degrees Sum of Maen Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1
7
B
4.7934 4.7934 69.0150 S.5S
0.4882 0.089S
5.2798
There is s significant difference between the treeOsenta. Three-cycle
aolvant extraction ia better.
Anslysis of Variance for Naphthalene
Source
Between Groupe
Within Groupe
Total
Oegreea SUB of Mean Critical
of freedo» Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
1 0.0830 0.0830 0.0958 5.59
7 8.07S8 O.BB79
8 8.1588
There la no significant difference between the treetaenta.
-------
TABLE 6-5 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT M WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION
AT PUNT D
Analysis of Variance for Phenanthrena
Sourca
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Oagreaa Sum of Mean Critical
of freedom Squaraa Squares F Ratio F Value
1 7.7294 7.7294 37.1804
7 1.4560 0.2080
8 9.1854
S.59
Thara la a significant difference between the treatments. Three-cycle
aolvent extraction Is better.
Analysis of Verlence for Pyrene
Source
BetMoen Groups
Within Groups
Total
Degreee Sue) of Mean Critical
of freedoa Squeree Squerae F Ratio F Value
1 9.4288 9.4298 127.3128 5.59
7 0.5148 0.0741
8 9.9477
There la a algnlfleant difference between the treetisente. Three-cycle
aolvent extraction ie better.
0-31
-------
TABLE 6-5 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING THREE-CYCLE
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AT PLANT N WITH PRESSURE FILTRATION
AT PLANT o
Analysis of Variance for p-Cresol
Sourca
Oagreas Sun of Maan Critical
of freedom Squares Squares F Ratio F Value
Between Croupe
Within Croupe
Total
1 0.0388 0.0386 22.2666 5.59
7 0.0121 0.0017
8 0.0508
There Is e significant difference between the treatments. Three-cycle
eolvent extraction 1e better.
G-32
-------
TABLE G-6
ANALYSIS Of VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING R.UIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT 'l
Analysis of VsHsnoa for Antlaony
CoapaHsan of All Pour Traataamts
Source
Bat»aan Groups
Within Groups
Total
Oagraas
of fraadou
3
11
14
SUB of
Squirt •
3.3081
0.1381
3.4432
Mean Squirts
1.1017
0.012B
f Ratio
P.777 4
Critical
F Vslus
3.S9
Thsrs Is s significant dlffsrsnea bBtaaan tha four traatasnts} fluldlzad bad Inclnaratlon
Is bast.
Analysis of VaHanoa for Antlaony
Comparison of Caaant, Kiln Ouat, and Llaa and Fly Ash Stabilization
F Ratio
20.4889
Bat
Sourea
«aan Qroupa
Within Qroups
Total
Oagraaa
of fraadoa
2
8
8
SUB of
Squaraa
0.0487
0.0083
0.0880
Mian Squaraa
0.0238
0.0008
Critical
F Valua
5.14
Thara la a significant dlffaranoa bataaan
fly sah stabilization traataants.
Win duatt and MM and
G-33
-------
TABLE G-6 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIOIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I*
Analyala of Variance for Antlaony
CoapoMaon Bataeen Coaant and Kiln Quit Stabilization
Source
BotMoon Groupa
Within Groupa
Total
Degree a
of freedoe)
1
4
S
Sue of
Squerea
0.0317
0.0083
0.0370
Mean Squeree F Retlo
0.0317 24.0158
0.0013
CM t1 eal
F Value
7.71
There la e algnlflcent difference between the coaant atablUzatlon and kiln duet
atablUzatlon treetaentai ceamnt atablUzatlon treeaent 1e batter then kiln
duet atablUzatlon treetaant.
Analyela of Verlence for Antlajeny
CoipoMeon BetajMn Caaent end Lleie end Fly Aeh Stabilization
Comnt ateWUzetlon end Uaa end fly aan etab1Uzot1on cannot be compared by ANOVA
baeauee each oato aet hee e etandard deviation of zero. Baaed on Judgement, there
1e no algnlfleant dlfferenoa beacon the tM treofleenta.
Analyele of Variance for Antlaany
CoapaMeon Betaeen Kiln Duet end L1ea end Fly Aan Stabilization
Cr111 cal
F Ratio F Value
28.7841 7.71
Souroa
Bataaen Qroupe
VI thin Orouva
Total
Degree e
of f raadea)
1
4
8
SUB of
Squaraa
0.0380
0.0063
0.0439
Maan Squaraa
0.0880
0.0013
There 1a a algnlfleant difference bate-eon the kiln duet ateWUzetlon end UM and
fly eeh atablUzatlon traaaantei UM and fly eeh ateblllzatlon treetavnt la
batter then kiln duet eteWUzetlon traevent.
G-34
-------
TABLE 6-6 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING R.UIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I*
Analysis of Verlsnce for Arsenic
Comparison of All Four Treatments
Oegreee Sue of Critical
Source of freedom Squares Maen Square a F Ratio F Value
Betmaen Oroupe 3 8.1370 2.0487 29.9718 3.59
Within Qroupe 11 0.8884 0.0788
Totel 14 7.0034
There 1s s slgnlflcent difference between the four treetmentet fluldlzad bed 1nc1neret1on
Is aorat.
Anelyala of Variance for Areenlc
Coeperleon Bateeen Cement end Kiln Oust StobUlzetlon
Cement atablUzatlon and kiln dust stabilization cannot be compared by ANOVA
becauaa each data aet hee e atendard deviation of saro. Baaed on judgaaant, there
Is no significant difference batmen the tao troataanta.
Anelyala of Variance for Araanlc
Comparison Between Caaent end Llea end Fly Aah 9taMl1tet1on
Critical
f Ratio F Value
1.0000 7.71
Bat
Source
•aan Qroupa
V1tn1n Sroupa
Total
Oa grace
of f raaoaa)
1
4
8
Sua of
Squares
0.0000
0*0000
0.0000
Maan Squares
0.0000
0.0000
There la not a el gnlf leant dlfferenoe bataaan the ceMnt stabilization and I lea and fly
eah stabilization treaoainta.
G-35
-------
TABLE 6-6 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I'
Analysis of Variance for Arsenic
Comparison Baarssn Kiln Ouat and L1s» and Fly Aafi Stabilization
Degree a SUB of Critical
Souroa of freedom Squarta Maan Squaraa F Ratio F Valua
Batveen Groups 1 0.0888 0.0888 4.0000 7.71
Within Group a 4 0.0882 0.0138
Total 3 0.1103
There la not a significant difference between the Mln duet stebUlzetlon end Us» and fly
a en steblUzatlon treaaaanta.
Anelyala of Verlenoe for Barlua
Caaperlaon of All Four Treaaaanta
Bat
Souroa
wan Qroupa
Within Oroupe
Total
Oegreee
of freedOB
3
11
14
Sue of
Square*
2.0S77
0.1880
8.188B
Meen Squeree
0.8788
0.0118
Critical
F Patio F Velue
88.3887 3.88
There la a significant difference between the four trooOMntaf He* end fly aeh
atablnation la eoret.
G-36
-------
TABLE 6-6 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I.
Analysis of Variance for BorluM
Comparison of Flu1d1isd Bad Incineration, Caaent Stabilization, and Kiln Oust Stabilization
Degrees Sui of Critical
Sourca of fraadoai Squaraa Mian Squaraa F Ratio F Valua
Beoieon Groupa 2 0.1972 0.098B 7.4807 4.26
Within Group a 9 0.1191 0.0138
Total 11 0.3183
Thara la a significant dlffaranoa batsman fluldlxad bad 1nc1narat1on, oasiant stabilization,
and kiln duet stabilization traaoaanta.
Analyala of Varlanea for Be HUB
CoMporleon Between Fluldlzad Bad Incineration and Caaant Stabilization
Dagraaa SUB of Critical
Source of fraadoai Squaraa Mian Squaraa F Ratio F Valua
13.3108 4.74
Bat
aaen Groupa
Within Groupa
Total
1
7
B
0.0114
0.0080
0.0174
0.0114
0.0008
Thara la a significant dlffaranoa bafiaaan the fluldlzad bad Incineration and oaaant
stabilization traaoaintai fluldlzad bad Incineration treataant 1a batter titan
caswnt stabilization traatoant.
G-37
-------
TABLE G-6 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDI2ED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I'
Analysis of VaHence for B«Mui
CoMpeMson Batvean Fluldlzad Bad Incineration and Kiln Oust Stabilization
Oagraaa Sui of Critical
Source of froedoe) Squares Naen Squerea F Ratio F Value
Between Qroupa
Within Groupa
Total
1
10
11
0.0043
0.0148
0.0188
0.0043
0.0018
2.9588 4.10
There 1 a not a algnlfleant difference between the fluldlzed bed Incineration and kiln
duet stabilization traaaanta.
Analyala of Variance for Berlua
CoapeMson BitMen Caavnt and Kiln Duet Stabilization
Bat
Source
iveen Qroupa
Within Qroupe
Totel
Degree*
of freedoei
1
4
9
SUB of
Squarae
0.1851
0.0003
0.1888
Mean Squares f Ratio
0.1881 1817.8881
0.0001
Critical
F Velue
7.71
There la a significant difference batteen the eeaent etaMUsatlon end kiln duet
stablUzetlon treetsaintai kiln duet atablUzatlon treetejant la batter then ceeent
stabilization treaaant.
;-38
-------
TABLE G-€ (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I •
Anal yd* of Variance for ChroBlua (total]
CoMpaHion of All Four Treaoionta
Souroa
Between Group*
Within Group*
Total
Oegraea
of fraedaaj
3
11
14
SUB of
Squaraa
0.9089
0.0448
0.9814
Mean Square* F Ratio
0.3083 74.8888
0.0040
Critical
F Value
3.59
Thara la a algnlflcant dlffaranea bat*aan ttia four treatment* | UM and fly aeh
etabU1zet1on la baat.
Analyala of Varlanoa for ChraaMua (total)
CaapaHaon of Fluldlzad Bad Inc1narat1on, Caaant Stabilization, and Kiln Ouat Stabilization
Oagraaa SUB of Critical
Source of fraadoai Squaree fean Square a F Ratio F Valua
Bat
•aan Group*
Within Sroupa
Total
a
9
11
0.0438
0.0380
0.0813
0.0818
0.0048
S.1S98 4.2B
Thara la a algnlfleant d1f fa ranee battaan fluldlxad bad Inolnaretlon, oaawnt *tab1Uxat1on,
and kiln duet *tabU1iat1on traataanta.
G-39
-------
TABLE G-6 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIOIZEO BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I*
of Variance for Chroaluai (total)
Comparison Bateean Fluldlzed Bod Incineration and Caaant Stabilization
Oagraaa Sue of Cr1t1c«l
Source of freodn Squaraa Moon Squeraa F Ratio F Value
Beteoen Group*
Within Groups
Total
1
7
B
0.0741
0.2984
0.3729
0.0741
0.0488
1.7388 S.S9
There 1s not • significant dlffaranea bat»aan tha fluldlzad bad Incineration and oaaant
ataoUlatlon traa«a»nta.
Analyala of Variance for Chrojilua (total)
CoMparlaon Batavan Fluldlzad Bad Incineration and Kiln Duet Stabilization
OaQroee Sue of Critical
Source of free doe Squaree Naan Squeraa F Ratio F Value
8.8141 4.98
Bet
•van Sroupa
Within Groupo
Totel
1
10
11
0.2898
0.3781
03378
0.2898
0.0378
There 1a a significant dlffaranea the baflteen fluldlted bed Incineration and kiln
duet stabilization treeteentai Mln duct atab1l1zet1on tree tea nt la batter then
fluldlzad bed Incineration treatment.
G-AO
-------
TABLE Q-6 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT *
Analyals of VsMsncs far Chraalu* (total)
Comparison Bstassn Craant snd Kiln Oust Stabilization
Souroi
Bataiaan Groups
Within Groups
Total
Oa grass
Or i CCalQOaV
1
4
S
Sua of
Squaras
0.0088
0.0033
0.0188
Ma an Squares
0.0098
0.0008
F Ratio
11.8573
Critical
F Valua
7.71
Thsrs la a significant dlffsranos bataswn the caajant stabilization and kiln duat
atablllzatlan trssflisntsi Win duat stsblUzstlon traataant la bat tar than easiant
stsblUzstlon trsstaant.
Sourca
Oaori
of fraados)
Analysis of Varlanes for Coppar
Comparison of All Pour Traataanta
Ntan Squaraa F Ratio
Bataawn Qroupa 3
VltMn Qroupa 11
Total 14
Thars la a significant dlffa
la sorst.
9.0788 3.0888 14.3088 3.SO
2.3888 0.8118
11.4017
bataaan tha four traaoiantai fluldlzad tad Inolnaratlon
G-41
-------
TABLE G-6 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZEO BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I .
Analysis of Verlence for Capper
CoapeHson of Caeont, Kiln Oust, and LlM and Fly Aah Stabilization
Soure
Degrees
of freedom
Mian Square* F Ratio
Batman Groups 2
Within Groups 8
Total 8
0.1413
2.3888
8.4079
0.0707
0.3877
0.1883
Cr1 tlcal
F Valua
5.14
There la not a significant difference between
•sh steal nation treetaents.
nt» Mln duet, and Uee end fly
Anelyele of VeHenoa for Metal
Coeperleon of All Four Treeteante
Source
Beteeen Groups
Within Qroupe
Total
Oegreee
of freedom
3
11
14
Sue of
Square e
0.0508
0.1484
0.1988
Men Squereo
0.0188
0.0138
F Retlo
1.8800
There 1s not a s1gn1f1oent difference between the four treeOftente.
Anelyelo of Variance for SelonluB
COBperleon of All Four Treeaente
Souree
Oegreee
of f
Nsen Squeree F Retlo
8.8870
Crltlcel
F Velue
3.58
Critical
F Velue
3.58
Between Sroupe 3 5.9783 1.8874
V1tn1n Groupe 11 8.8084 0.8881
Total 14 8.9347
There 1a e slgnlflcent difference beteeen the four treeOMnti fluldlxed bed Indneretlon
1s ecret.
3-42
-------
TABLE 8-6 (Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING R.UIDIZEO BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Salanlui
Comparison of Caaantt Kiln Oust, and LlM and Fly Ash Stabilization
Dagraaa SUB of Critical
Sourea of fraado* Squaraa Ha an Squaraa F Ratio F Valua
Bataaan Groupa
Within Sroupa
Total
2
8
a
2.0018
0.0843
2.0887
1.0007
0.0107
93.4280 S.14
Thara 1a a significant dlffaranoa bataaan caaantt Win duat, and MM and fly aaft
stabilization traatMnta.
Analyala of VaHanaa for Salanlua
CoBpaMaon Batvaan Caaant and Kiln Oust Stabilization
Oagraaa 3\m of Critical
Sourea of fraadon Sqtaraa Ntan Squaraa F Ratio F Valua
Batwan Sroupa
•1th In Qroupa
Total
1
4
8
0.7108
0.0178
0.7874
0^108
0.0048
188.3701 7.71
Thara la a significant dlffaranoa batBaan tha oaawnt stabilization and kiln duat
stabilization traataantai casant atablUzBtlon traa«asnt 1a battar than kiln duat
stabilization traaaant.
G-43
-------
TABLE 6-6 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING R.UIDIZEO BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I .
Analysis of VaHanca for Salanlun
Comparison Batvaan Caaant and LlM and Fly Aan Stabilization
Souroa
Bstnsan Groups
VI thin Groupa
Total
Oagraaa
of fraadoa)
1
4
9
SIM of
Squaraa
0.0002
0.0000
0.0008
Ha an Squaraa
0.0008
0.0000
Critical
F Ratio F Valua
28.8647 7.71
Thara la a significant dlffsrsnos batvaan tha csaant stabilization and MM and fly
aan atablUzatlon traatasntaj lias and fly a ah atabl nation trsstaant 1a battar
than caaant stabilization traa«ant.
Analyala of Varlanoa for Salanlua
CoBparlaon Batavan Kiln Ouat and L1a« and Fly Aan Stabilization
Oagraaa SUB of Critical
Source of fraadoa) Squaraa Naan Squirts F Ratio F Valua
Banna n Groupa
Within Groups
Total
1
4
9
1.8793
0.0931
8.0884
1.8793
0.0133
148.8408 7.71
Thara 1s a significant dlffcrsnos battaan tha Win dust atablUzatlon and MM and
fly ash stabilization trssitHntSf UM and fly a ah atabl nation traaoant 1s
battar than kiln dust atsalllzstlon trasonnt.
G-4A
-------
TABLE G-6 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I •
Analysis of Variance for Vanadlua
Comparison of All Four Tres emeriti
Oagreee SUB of Critical
Source of fraadoB Squares Mean Squarea F Ratio F Value
Bataaen Groupa
Within Groupa
Total
3
11
14
22.2778
0.1134
22.3910
7.4889
0.0103
720.1488 3.59
There Is a significant difference batvean the four treeoaentei Us* snd fly ash
stabilization la bast.
Analysis of Varlanes for Vaaadlus
CoBparlaon of Fluldlzed Bad Incineration, Caaant Stabl 11 ration, and Kiln Oust Stabilization
Oagraaa SUB of Critical
Source of fraadoa Squaree HMD Squares F Ratio F Value
28.8188 4.28
Batvaan Groupa
V1tn1n Sroupa
Total
2
9
11
9.B8BB
1.M8B
11.SOB8
4.9883
0.1748
There Is s significant difference baflsaan fluldlxad bad 1 nelnaratlon, eaawnt stabilization,
and kiln duat stabilization traataanta.
G-45
-------
TABLE 6-6 (Contlnuad)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I •
Analysis of Variance for Vanadlua
Comparison Bstfsan Fluldlzad Bad Inclnoratlon and Casiant Stabilization
Souroa
Batawan Groups
Within Groups
Totsl
Osgrsss
OT f raadoaj
1
10
11
SUB of
Squares
0.2SSB
0.3798
0.8378
Mssn Squarss F Ratio
0.2981 8.8841
0.0378
Cr1 tl eal
F Valua
4.96
Thara Is a significant dlffsrsnos bataaan tha fluldlzad bad 1no1naration and eaaant
stabilization traaosantaf caaant stabilization traataant la battar than fluldlzad
bad Inelnaration traaotant.
Analyala of Varlanca for Vanadlui
Comparison Bataaan Fluldlzad Bad Inclnaratlon and Kiln Ouat Stabilization
Oagraaa SUB of Critical
3ourea of fraadoa) Squarss Maan Squaraa F Ratio F Valua
Batawan Groups 1 0.0741 0.0741 1.738B 3.38
•1thIn Groups 7 0.2884 0.0481
Total 8 0.3788
Thara 1a not a significant dlffaranea batvaan tha fluldlzad bad 1no1naration and kiln
duat stabilization traataanta.
G-46
-------
TABLE G-6 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZEO BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I
Anal yds of Variance for Vanadlue
CoapeHeon Betaeon Ceaent and Kiln Quit Stabilization
Source
Betaeen Groups
Within Groupa
Total
Degree e
of freedom
1
4
3
Sua of
Squaraa
0.0880
0.0800
O.OBBO
Naan Squaraa
0.0880
0.0080
F Ratio
18.4084
Critical
F Valua
7.71
Thara la a algnlflcant difference between the ceaant tteblUzatlon and kiln duet
atablllzatlon treattentaf ceajent •teblUzetlon troottrant 1e batter than Mln duet
atabUlzatlon treatment.
Source
Analyala of Varlanoa for Zlno
CaapaHaon of All Four Traataanta
Oagreea SUB of
of fraadoa Squaraa
Man Squaree F Ratio
10.0711
Bateaan Sroupa
Vlthln Sroupe
Total
3
11
14
8.3471
0.9874
3.4748
0.8480
0.0848
Critical
F Valua
3.99
Thara la a significant difference bataeen the four traattantef fluldlzed bad Incineration
1 a eorat.
G-47
-------
TABLE 6-6 [Continued]
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR COMPARING FLUIDIZED BED
INCINERATION AT PLANT A AND STABILIZATION AT PLANT I
Analysis of Variance for Zinc
Comparison of Ceaent, Kiln Oust, and LlM and Fly Aah Stabilization
Degrees 3m of Critical
Souroa of fraadoai Squaree Maan Squares F Ratio F Valua
8.4184 9.14
Befareen Qroups
V1th1n Sroupa
Total
2
8
8
0.0088
0.0038
0.0087
0.0013
0.0008
There la not a significant difference batejean onont. Win duet, and I lee) and fly een
stabilization traateante.
G-48
-------
Appendix H
DETECTION LIMITS FOR UNTREATED WASTES
Table H.1: Detection limits for the dewatered DAP float
samples - K048.
Table H.2: Detection limits for the slop oil emulsion solids
samples - K049.
Table H.3: Detection limits for the API separator sludge
samples - K051.
Table H.4: Detection limits for the leaded tank bottoms
samples - K052.
Page
H-2
H-9
H-15
H-22
H-l
-------
TABLE H.1I DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE DEVATERED OAF FLOAT MIXTURE SAMPLES
EC
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE
1
e
3
4
6
6
7
8
B
10
11
18
13
14
1B
16
17
IB
IB
eo
61
ee
83
B4
B6
88
87
88
89
30
31
38
CONSTITUENTS
AMtont trll*
Aorolaln
Aorylonttrlle
Baniana
BroBOdlchl or OM thane
Bro»OMthana
Carbon tatraohlortda
Carbon dlauirida
Chlorobanzana
B-Chloro-1 ,3-butadi ana
ChlorodtbroMOM thane
Chi oroa thane
8-Chloroathyl vinyl athar
Chlorofoni
ChloroM thane
3-Qiloropropana
1 ,e-l)lbro»o-3-ohlaropropana
1 t8-OI broBoathana
Dlbro«OBathana
Trana-1 ,4-dlchloro-C-buttne
OlchlorodiriuoroMethana
Ifl-Otchloroathana
1 tB-Olohloroathana
1,1-Olchloroa thy tana
Trana-1 ,8-dlohloroe thane
1i8-0ichloropropane
Trane-1,3-d1chloropropane
cl B-1 ,3-01 chloropropana
1,4-Otoxane
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl •ethacrylate
lodoae thane
Detection
L1«1t
(PP.)
70
700
70
14
14
14
14
NB
14
14
14
14
NB
14
14
14
14
14
14
70
14
14
14
14
14
35
35
35
NA
700
14
14
-------
LiniTS ™S r,£
BOAT GONaTITUENT
VOUTIUE OON8TITUENT8 (Continued)
aa
34
as
aa
87
aa
aa
40
41
42
43
44
46
48
47
48
48
60
••
••
••
••
*•
••
••
*•
••
••
*•
*•
Isobutyl •leohol
Methyl athyl katonc
Ha thy I MthaoryUta
Ncthyl MthwiMuiroMU
N*thylaorylon(trlla
Msthylcn* ohlorld*
Pyrtdlna
1 ,1 ,1 ,B-T«tr«ohloro«th«n«
1 (1 ,8,B-T«tr«ohloro«th«n«
T«tr*ohloroath«(M
Toluanc
TrlbroBoiathcna
1,1,1-Trlohloro«th«n»
1 11 tB-TrlehloriMthuia
TrlohloriMthcna
Trtchloroionof luoroicthani
1 ,B,3-Tr«ohloroprop«n«
Vinyl ohlorld*
Anton*
Ally I Bloohol
Ethyl banana
Ethylcn* oxl da
B-Haxanona
Malononltrlla
4-Na thy l-B-pcntanona
B-Propyn-1-ol
Styrana
Trtchloroaa thane thtol
Vinyl aoatata
Xylana (total)
Detection
L1*.1t
(PP-)
14
70
14
100
70
70
200
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
36
14
70
NA
14
NA
70
NA
70
NA
14
NA
14
14
-------
TABLE H.Ii DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE DEHATEREO OAF FLOAT MIXTURE SAMPLES (Continued)
sc
BOAT CONSTITUENT
8GMIVOUTILE
61
B8
B3
B4
68
68
67
68
68
80
61
88
63
64
86
88
87
6B
68
70
71
72
73
74
76
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
CONSTITUENTS
Aoanepthelene
Ace nap thane
Aoatophenone
2-Aoetyleelnofluorene
4-Ae)lnoblphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Areal te
Banz(a)enthrecena
Benzene thlol
Benzldlne
Benzol a Ipyrene
Benzo(b)riuorenthene
Benzoin, h,1 )paryl*n«
B«nxo(k|riuor«nth«n«
p-B«nzoquinon«
BU(8-ohloro«thoxy)«than«
BUle-ohloro* thy I lather
B1«(8-chloroUopropyll«th«r
Bl «l8-ethy Ihexy 1 Iphthalate
4-BroMphenyl phtnyl ether
Butyl benzyl ph thai eta
8-eec-Buty l-4fB-dl nl troptienol
p-Chloroanl Una
Chlorobenzllete
p-Chloro-er-craaol
8-Chloronephthelene
8-Chlorophenol
3-Chloroproplonl trt la
Chryeene
ortho-Creeol
para-Creeol
Detection
Limit
(PP«)
20
20
20
NA
20
60
20
NA
20
NA
20
20
NA
60
20
NA
20
80
20
20
100
20
NA
60
NB
50
20
20
NA
20
20
20
-------
• • •••-fc •• • • • •*%• • kw • **fr* a_*ri* • M • w«« • ••e> wkivn • a»»»a»»* w • UMV-* * *-**r* • vn*. H* • •• ».^w ^«^v>> • • ••«— «»^ *
BOAT CONSTITUENT
8SUVOUTILE
83
84
85
88
87
88
88
80
81
se
83
84
85
88
87
88
88
100
101
102
103
104
106
108
107
108
108
110
111
112
113
114
115
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
Dlbanz(a,h)anthracena
Dt benzole, a Ipyrane
Dlbanzo(a,l Ipyrene
aHDIchlorobanzana
o-OI ohlorobanzene
p-Olchlorobanzene
3,3>-Olohlorobanzldlne
2,4-Otchlorophanol
2, 8-01 ohloro phenol
Dletnyl phthalata
3,3'-OI«ethoxybanzldlna
p-Otaathylaailnoazobanzena
3,3'-OlMthylbanzldtna
2, 4-01 M thy I phenol
Ola* thy I phthalata
Dt-n-outyl phthalata
1,4-Olnltrobanzane
4,8-01 nl tro-o-oreeol
2, 4-Dlnltro phenol
2,4-Olnltrotoluena
2,8-01 nttrotoluana
DI-«-ootyl phthalata
01-n-propy Inl troeaalna
Dlphanylaailna
1,2-Olphenylhydrezlne
Fluoranthana
Fluorana
Haxaohlorobanzane
Haxaohlorobutadlena
Haxechlorooycl opentadl ana
Hexachloroa thane
Hexachlorophene
Haxachloropropane
Detection
Llajlt
(PP»)
20
NA
NA
20
20
20
100
60
50
20
100
SO
NA
50
20
20
100
600
500
500
100
20
50
20
20
20
20
100
100
100
100
NA
100
-------
TABLE H.ll DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE OEHATERED OAF FLOAT MIXTURE SAMPLES (Continued)
rc
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILE
116
117
118
118
180
181
188
183
184
186
188
187
188
188
ISO
131
138
133
134
136
138
137
138
138
140
141
148
143
144
145
147
148
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
Indeno(1,8,3-cd)pyrene
laoeefrole
Methepyrt lane
3-Methy Icholanthrena
4,4*-Me thy leneblale-ohloroenl line)
Naphthalene
1,4-Naphthoqulnone
1-Nephthylulne
8-Naphthyleeilne
p-Nltroenlllne
Nitrobenzene
4-411 trophenol
N-N1 troaodl-n-buty laeilna
N-NI troeodl ethy leal ne
N-N1 troeodlMthylaeilne
N-NI troaoju thy lethyleeilne
N-NI troao»orpholtne
N-Nltroaoplpertdlne
N-Nltroaopyrrolldlne
6-NI tro-o-toluldl ne
Pentechlorobenzene
Pentechloroethene
Penteohloronl trobenzene
Penteohlorophenol
Pheneoatln
Phananthrane
Phenol
8-Plcollne
Prone* Ide
Py rene
Safrole
1 ,8,4t6-Tetrachlorobanzena
Detection
LlBlt
(PP»)
60
NA
NB
NA
NA
80
80
80
80
100
60
100
60
100
800
NA
100
100
100
NA
100
100
100
600
80
80
80
800
100
20
NB
50
-------
TABLE H.ll DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE OBMTEREO OAF FLOAT MIXTURE SAMPLES |Umtlnueo|
ac
BOAT ODNBTITUENT
fiailVDUTILE
148
160
161
160
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
METALS
164
166
158
167
168
169
158
180
181
182
183
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
2,3,4f6-Tetrechloro phenol
1,2,4-Trtchloroberuene
Bf4lB-Tr I ohloro phenol
B,4,8— Trlchlorophenol
Benzole ecld
Benzyl alcohol
4-Chlorophenyl phanyl ether
Dlbenzofuren
Oibenzo(e»h)pyrene
7fie-OtMthylbenz(e)enthrecene
elphe.elphe-OtBethylphenethylealne
leophorone
B-Me thy Inephthelene
e-Nltroentline
3-NltraentUne
B-Nt trophenol
N-Nltroeodtphenylealne
Anttaony
Areenlo
BerliM
BeryltlM
CedatM
ChrcBlu*, hexevelent
Chromtu*, totel
Capper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Detection
L1*U
(PP-)
100
50
100
100
500
60
50
80
NA
60
100
eo
20
100
100
100
eo .
(PP-)
8
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.3
O.OS
0.8
1
5
0.02
2
-------
TABLE H.ll DETECTION UNITS FOR THE DEBATERS) OAF FLOAT MIXTURE SANPLE8 (Continued)
Oatactlon
BOAT CONSTITUENT Ll«1t
NETALB (Continued) (pp»)
184 Selenlu* 0.3
186 Silver 0.9
188 Thai HUB 0.2
187 Vanadlui 2
188 Zlno 0.8
•• AlualnuB 20
•• Calclu* 8
•• Cobalt 1
•• Iron 3
•• Magnaal tm 20
sc •• Manganeae 0.3
oo *• PotaaaluB) 29
•• SodluB 8
•• Tin 60
188 TOTAL CYANIDE (ppai) 0.1
171 BULFIOE (ppi) 60
NB = The compound ••• Marched ualng an NB8 library database of 42,000 ciapounda.
NA = The atendard la not available} the compound *aa aeerched ualng en NBS library
datebaae of 42,000 coMpounda.
•• s This oonatltuant la not on the Mat of conatltuenta In the GENERIC QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS PROGRAM ("BOAT"),
EPA/630-6M-B7-O11, March 1987. It IB e ground-aater Monitoring constituent as
Meted In Appendix IX, Pege 28639, of the FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 61, No. 142.
-------
TABLE H.2: 06TKTION LIMrTB FOR THE SLOP OIL BWLSXON SOLIDS SAMPLES - K049
0«ttct1on
BOAT CONSTITUaiT LI alt
VOLATXLE8 ' (ppa)
1 Aatonl trite 1000
2 Aerol«-toutrt1«fw 1000
11 Chtopod1br««»tti«n« SO
18 Oilorecthww 100
19 8-Chtora«thyl vinyl «tMr 100
14 Qiloporar* 90
19 Qitor«atti«n« 100
18 >Oiloroprop*M 1000
17 1,8-(HbP«o-a-cMarappopwia 1000
18 1.2-01 bf>«M0MM 80
19 01brai««tt««n« 90
20 Tr«t»-1,4-d1aliloro-«-butc>» SO
21 01ohlarodiriiMPaHttiwi« 1000
28 1,1-OlahloPMtlMM 100
23 1,2-01 eftl era* than* 90
24 1,1-01 atilopMthylnw 80
28 Ti^nHI^-«1emflro««»«»« SO
88 1,2-01 <*lora»r*m SO
87 Trvw-1t»-«aM««prap«n« SO
28 rt «H ,8-01 cfttof tfftftnt 90
28 1^«1«WM 8000
30 Ettrl •y«rtdi 100°
31 Rtkri •«Honru«« 1000
38 lodaattniM 800
39 Zsabutyl •leafcol 8000
34 Natfiyl «thyl to tarn 100
38 Mthyl Mtluerylatc 1000
38 Nctftyl MtlMMWilfBmw NO
37 NithyUorylomtMl* 1000
38 MOiylMw eftlarltf* SO
38 P»rtd1n« 4000
40 1,1,1.8-T»trMMore«ttiww SO
H-9
-------
TABLE H.2: DETECTION LIMITS RJR THE SLOP OIL EMULSION SOLIDS SAMPLES - K048 (Continued)
Oatactlon
BOAT OM8TITUENT Llalt
VQLATILES (Contlnuad) tpp»l
41 1,1,2,a-Tatraohloroathona 50
48 Tatrechloroettiana 30
48 Toluana 90
44 TrlbroBOMthww 90
48 1,1,1-Trlcnloroatftana 50
48 1,1,2-TMchloroatnana SO
47 Trtchloroathana 30
48 Tr1enloraBonofluor«attiana SO
30 Vinyl eftIorIda 100
•• Aoatana 100
•• Ethyl banana SO
•• 4-Natnyl-e-pantanona 100
•• Styrana 30
•• Vinyl aeatata 100
+*• Xylana( total) 30
SEMIVOLATXLEB (PP«)
31 Aeanapftthalam 40
38 AoanapJittwiiQ ^*
38 4-Aalnotolphanyl 40
38 AnUlira «
37 AntltFMMaj 40
38 A^ilta NA
80 taMMMttllol 1°
81 Bamldln* 800
88 Bano(a)pyp«na *
88 Bano(b)fluorw«tafw 40
84 8«mo(8>h,1|p«nrlM* *°
88 B*mo(l()riMr*flttiaM *°
68 p-8anxoqu1nona "°
87 81a(8-oftloroMttrajiy)athan« 40
88 B1e(8-«hloro«tnyl)at»iar 40
U-10
-------
TABLS H.2: DETECTION LIMITS POR THE SLOP OIL EMULSION SOLIDS SAMPLES - K049 (Continued)
BOAT CDN8TITUBIT
SEMIVOLATILES (ContlniMd)
89
70
71
78
73
74
78
7S
77
78
78
80
n
81
a
84
88
88
87
88
88
go
81
8t
88
84
SB
98
87
98
88
100
101
108
103
104
108
108
107
81 • ( 2-chl orol •opropy U«tft« r
B1«(2-«thylhwyl)phtlial»w
4-8raM0i«nyl ptranyl «th«r
Butyl tamyl phthalit*
8 MC 8utyl-4t9-d1rrttrep>>«nol
p-ChloraanlllM
CMorotanzUat*
p-Ch l oro m cfMol
2-Oileron«plitfi«lana
2-Chlorophwwl
3-QUorapraploiri tH It
ChryMiw
arttiOF
-------
TABLE H.2: OBJECTION LIMITS FOR THE SLOP OIL EMULSION SOL 108 SAMPLES - K048 (Contlnuid)
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVOLATILEB (Continued)
108
108
110
111
118
113
114
118
118
117
118
118
180
181
188
183
184
188
188
187
188
188
130
131
138
138
134
131
fmm
137
138
138
140
141
148
148
144
148
148
Fluoranthene
Fluarm*
HexacM orotenan*
H*MetUorobut*d1 *n*
Hiaehl orooy etop*ntad1 *n*
H>naM.ore*tf)*n*
Henohloroptwn*
H*i*oh I orooroMn*
Indwia ( 1 ,8 »3-od ) py ran*
Icoafrol*
Nitti*eyr1 l*n*
3-N*thylehal*nthrww
4,4'Htothy l*n*M •(8-ehlorwnl 1 1 n* )
N*entn*l*n*
1 ,4>N*ahthaqu1nan*
i ^floipn Uly LAB • noj
•T^vlflpntliy LflBi R9
p-N1tr«*nU1n*
NltroHnan*
4-NUraptiwiel
N-N1 tro*od1 n butyi*»1 n*
N-N1 treaaril •thy l«)1n*
N-N1 tpoiodl •*tnyt*Bl n*
N-NU rosaM thy l*ttiy iMl n*
N-NUra«aMrphai1n*
NHIttro*oe4p*r1«1iM
N-N1 tra**pyprai1 « M
0 NUr* • tot*1tli»
Ik ill ikl ii nhaiiMiia
rntu+l»fnttimm
PwrMcHiorairi ir***ni*m
P*nt*eMore*H*nei
^^OjflojQB 99 n
r^H vf^Bfl v8t rwflV
RlOTOl
8-P1oo41n»
Pron*Bld*
Pyran*
Rt**pe1nal
Detection
L1*1t
(PP»)
40
40
40
40
40
40
NA
NO
40
BO
N8
80
80
40
NA
800
800
800
40
800
NO
NO
40
40
80
40
800
80
NO
NA
400
800
80
40
40
40
NO
40
NA
H-12
-------
TABLE H.2: DETECTION LIMITS PON THE SLOP OIL EMULSION SOLIDS SAMPLES - K048 (Continued)
Detection
BOAT CONSTITUENT Ltelt
3EMIVOLATILES (Continued) (ppe)
147 Sefrole 200
148 1,2,4,5-Totrechlorobonzono 80
148 2,3,4,8-Totroehlorophonol NO
150 1,2,4-Trlohlorobenzene SO
151 2,4,5-Trlehlorophonol 100
158 2,4,8-Trlehloraphonol 40
153 Tr1e(2,3-d1broBOpropyl) phoophoto NO
•• Benzole odd 200
•• Benzyl olcohol 40
•• 4-Chlorophonyl phony I other 40
•• 01 bora of ur on 40
•• 01benzo(o,h)pyrone N8
•• 7,12-01eBthylbenx(e)enthreoene NO
•• elphe,elphe-OlBBthylphenethyle»1ne N8
•• leophorone 40
•• Mel onl trlle NA
•• 2-Me«hylnephtholone 40
•• 2-N1troen1llne 200
•• 3-NUroenH1no 200
•• 2-Nltrophonot 400
•• »-N1«roeod1phenylOBi1ne 40
METALS (DOB)
154 Antinomy 3.8
158 Aroonlo 8.0
158 BorlBi 0.1
157 BeryUlBB 0.1
188 QidfelHB 0.4
158 ChroBluBt total 0.7
181 Copper 0.8
181 Lead 5.1
188 Mercury 0.8
184 Nickel 1.1
188 Sol onl UB 8.0
188 Silver 0.8
187 ThaUlui 1.0
188 VenedluB 0.8
188 Zlno 0.2
H-13
-------
TABLE H.2: oeTECTXOM LIMITS FOR THE SLOP OIL EMULSION SOLIDS SAMPLES - K04S (Continued)
Detection
BOAT GON8TXTUENT LI Bit
(ppa)
170 Total Cyonlde 0.9
171 Fluoride 1.0
178 Sulfldo 0.5
NA • Anelyelo comot bo don* by eathod 8870 et this MM duo to Inadequate
roeovorloo In laboratory QA/OC onelyeoe.
NO • Not detected, ootlMtod dotootlon Halt hoo not boon ditoralnad.
NS » The standard to not ovollobloi tho eoapound *oo searched uolng on NB1 library
dotataoo of 48fOOO ooBpoundo.
•M" • Totol xylono 1o tho total roowlt for oPtho-Xylono* ooto-Xylonof and pororXylono
with CAB niaeoro 8B-47-*, 10t-88-8( and 108-48-9, roopootlvoly.
•* • Thlo eonotltuont to not on tho Mot of eonotltuonto In tho OENEiaC QUALnY
taaunma muter PUN ROM LAND DISPOSAL HmmuiuKS PNOBMM CBOAT«I,
EPA/830-e*^fl7-011, Woixh 1S87. It 1o o ground-voter «on1 taring eonotltuont ee
llotod in Appendix XX, Pego 88888, of the PfOCTAL R8B28TEM, Vol. 81. No. 148.
H-14
-------
TABLE H.3I DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE API SEPARATOR SLUDGE SAMPLES
I
*-•
to
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE
1
e
a
4
B
8
7
8
8
10
11
18
13
14
IB
18
17
18
18
BO
81
88
83
84
86
88
87
88
88
30
31
32
CONSTITUENTS
Acatonttrtle
Aorolatn
Aorylonttrila
Benzene
Broiodl chloroMthane
BroaoBe thane
Carbon tatraohlorlda
Carbon dtaulrtde
Chlorobenzane
B-Chloro-1 ,3-butadl an*
ChlorodlbroBOM thane
Chloroathene
e-ChlonMthyl vinyl «th«r
Chlorofor*
ChloroMtban*
3-Chloroprop*n«
1 ,8-Otbrow>-3-ehloropropan«
1 ,B-OI broBO«than«
OibroBCMWthan*
Trana-1 , 4-dl ch I oro-2-bu t*na
Olohlorodl riuorowtbanc
1,1-Oichtoroa thane
1 (8-Otchloroathana
1 (1-0lchloroathy lana
Trana-1 ,8-dlchloroa thane
1,8-Otcbloropropana
Trana-1 ,3-dlchloropropane
ol 8-1 ,3-01 chloropropane
1,4-Oloxana
Ethyl cyan! da
Ethyl Mthacrylata
lod one thane
Datactfon
LlMtt
(PP-)
70
700
70
14
14
14
14
NB
14
14
14
14
NB
14
14
14
14
14
14
70
14
14
14
14
14
35
35
35
NA
700
14
14
-------
TABLE M.3l DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE API SEPARATOR SLUDGE SAMPLES (Continued]
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
88
84
SB
88
87
88
88
40
41
42
43
44
46
48
47
48
48
60
••
•*
••
••
••
••
••
••
*•
••
••
*»
loobutyl alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl M theory lete
Methyl uetheneeulfonete
Nethyleorylonltrtle
Nethylene chloride
Pyrtdlne
1f1t1»&-Tetrechloroethene
1 (1 |£(B-Tetreahloroethene
Tetreohloroethene
Toluene
Trlbro*oeethene
1i1i1-Trtohloroethene
1,1,e-Trlohloroe thane
Trtchloroethene
TrichloroBonofluoroMthene
1 ,8, 3-Trtohloropropene
Vinyl chloride
Acetone
Allyl elcohol
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene oxide
B-Hexenone
Nelononltrlle
4-Methyl-e-pentenone
8-PropynH-ol
Btyrene
Trlchloroaethenethlol
Vinyl aoeteta
Xylene (totel)
Detection
LiMit
(PP«)
14
70
14
100
70
70
eoo
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
36
14
70
NA
14
NA
70
NA
70
NA
14
NA
14
14
-------
BOAT CONSTITUENT
SEMIVaUTILE
61
68
63
84
66
68
67
68
68
60
61
88
83
84
86
88
87
88
68
70
71
78
73
74
76
78
77
78
78
80
81
82
CONSTITUENTS
Acanapthalana
Acanapthana
Aoatophanona
B-Aca ty IM( nof I uorana
4-telnobtphanyl
Ant Una
Anthraoana
Araalta
Banz(a)anthracana
Banzanathlol
Banzldlna
B*nzo(a)pyrana
Banzo(b)riuoranthana
Baruo(g,h,t )parylana
Banzo(k)riuoranthana
p-BanzoquI nona
B1a(8-chloroathoxy)athana
B1a(8-ctiloroathyl)athar
Bla(8-ohlorolaopropyl)athar
Bla(8-«thylha*yl)phtnalat*
4-Braa)Ophanyl phanyl a that
Butyl banzyl phthalata
8-aac-8utyl-4,8-d1n1trophanol
p-Chloroanlltna
Chlorobanzllata
p-Chloro-aj-craaol
8-Chloronaphtt)alana
2-Chlorophenot
3-Chloroproptonl trt la
Chryeena
ortho-Craaol
para-Creeol
Oataction
Limit
(PP-)
80
80
80
NA
80
50
80
NA
80
NA
20
80
NA
50
80
NA
80
80
80
80
100
80
NA
50
NB
50
80
20
NA
20
20
20
-------
TABLE H.3l DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE API SEPARATOR SLUDGE SAMPLES (Continued)
rc
*-•
o>
BOAT CONSTITUENT
8SUVQLATILE
83
84
68
88
87
88
88
80
81
82
83
84
86
88
87
88
88
100
101
102
103
104
105
108
107
108
108
110
111
118
113
114
115
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
Dtbanz(a,h)anthracana
D1banzo(a,a)pyrana
Dlbanzo(a,l Ipyrana
aHMchlorobaruana
o-OI ohlorobanzena
p-OI chlorobanzana
a,3'-0
-------
DETECTION LI?*!T? FOR THE AP! «H>«iATnB ra innp RUUXF& (nnntlnuadl
BOAT CONSTITUENT
8ENIVDLATILE
118
117
118
118
180
181
188
183
184
185
188
187
188
188
130
131
138
133
134
135
138
137
138
138
140
141
148
143
144
145
147
148
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
Indano(1f8|3-od)pyrana
Xaoaafrola
Mathapyrt lana
3-Ma thy ! chol anth rana
4.4'-4tatnylenable(8-chloroanUlna)
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqutnona
1-Naphthylee>lne
8-Naphthylaailna
p-Nttroanlllna
Nitrobenzene
4-Nltro phenol
N-NI troaodl-n-buty leal na
N-Nltroeodlethyle*lne
N-NI troaodlM thy lamina
N-NI t roaomethy lathy Ian tna
N-NI troaoaorphol 1 na
N-Nitroaoplparldlna
N-Nltroaopyrrolldlna
6-Nltro-o-toluldlna
Pantaohlorobanzana
Pantach 1 oroe thane
Pantachloron! trobenzana
Pantachlorophanol
Phenaoatln
Phananthrana
Phenol
8-Plcollna
Pronaailda
Pyrane
Safrole
1,2,4,5-Tatrachlorobenzene
Detection
LlBit
(PP-)
50
NA
NB
NA
NA
80
20
20
80
100
60
100
50
100
800
NA
100
100
100
NA
100
100
100
600
20
20
20
200
100
20
NB
50
-------
TABLE H.3l DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE API SEPARATOR SLUDGE SAMPLES (Continued)
f
N>
O
BOAT CONSTITUENT
8ENIVOLATILE
148
160
161
16B
••
»•
••
••
••
••
••
••
•*
*•
••
••
••
METALS
164
166
168
167
158
168
158
180
181
182
183
CONSTITUENTS (Continued)
2,3,4,8-Tetrechlorophenol
1f8i4-Tr
-------
IMOLC n.oi
Detection
BOAT CONSTITUENT Ltsilt
METALS (Continued) (pp«)
184 Salenliai 0.4
186 Silver 0.9
188 Thai HUB 0.2
187 Vanadium 2
188 Zinc 0.6
*• AluBinua 20
•• CalcluH 6
•• Cobalt 1
•• Iron 3
•• Nagnaatua) 20
••• Manganese 0.3
•• Potaaaiu* 29
•• Sodluai 8
•• Tin BO
169 TOTAL CYANIDE (PPM) 0.1
171 SULFIDE (ppa) SO
KB = The compound BOB aearchad using an MBS library database of 42,000 compounds.
NA = Tha standard la not aval tablet the coapound «aa aaarched using an NBS library
database of 42,000 compounds.
•* = This constituent la not on the list of constituents in the QBJERIC QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS PROGRAM ("BOAT").
EPA/530-SM-B7-011, March 19B7. It is a ground-water Monitoring constituent as
listed in Appendix IX, Page 26639, of the FEDERAL REGISTER. Vol. 51, No. 142.
-------
TABLE H.4t DETECTION LINIT3 FOR THE LEADED TANK BOTTOM SAMPLES - K088
BOAT CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE
1
a
3
4
S
8
7
a
9
10
11
18
13
14
18
16
17
18
16
80
81
88
83
84
88
86
87
88
88
30
31
38
38
34
36
36
37
38
36
40
coNSTiTuerrs
Aoatanltrlla
Aero lain
AerylonltrUa
Bam ana
BroMdl ehl or on thana
BroBOM thana
Carton tatraehloHda
Carbon dlaulflda
Chlorobansana
8-ChloroH ,3-butadl ana
Chlorodl broBOBe thana
Chi or oa thana
a-Chloroathyl vinyl athar
ChloroforB
ChloroBOttiono
3-Ch 1 oropr opana
1 ,8-01 broBO-3-chloropropana
1,8-01bro»oathana
01 broioBB thana
Trana-1f4-41ehloro-e-butana
OlehlorodlfluoroBathana
1, 1-01 ehlorea thana
1,8-Olehloroattiano
1, 1-01 ohloroa thy lana
Trana-1 ,8-dlehloroa thana
1 .8-01 ohioroor opana
TranaH r3-d1 chief opr opana
el a-1 ,3H)1 ohloropropana
1,4-0lo»na
Ethyl oyanlda
Ethyl Mthoerylata
lodOBotfiono
laofcmyl aleohol
Na«Jiyl athyl hatano
Natkyl MtMoryUta
NBjffcyl MCJUMMHtfOMt*
NothylaoryloiritrUa
Mathylan* ohloHdo
Pyr1d1n«
1 ,1 ,1 f2-Tatraohloroathona
. Oataotlon
L1»1t
(Pt»)
1000
1000
1000
50
SO
100
50
SO
SO
1000
so
100
100
so
100
1000
1000
so
so
1000
100
so
50
so
50
80
so
so
8000
1000
1000
30
8000
100
1000
NO
1000
BO
4000
SO
H-22
-------
TABLE H.4i DETECTION U1HITS FOR THE LEADED TANK BDTTOI8J SAMPLES - KQB2 (Continued)
. Detection
BOAT CONSTITUENT LI Bit
VOLATILES (Continued)
41 1,1,2,8-TatrtcMoroatftanc SO
48 Tat rtehloPM thin* SO
43 ToliMiw SO
44 Tr1bri»oB»th«n« SO
48 1,1,1-Trlonlorovttiww SO
48 1,1,8-TH ehlOfMthmi SO
47 Tr1cnloro«th«M 30
48 Tr1eftlor«onofluorcMttian« SO
SO Vinyl ehloMd* 100
•• Aoiton* 100
•• Ethyl b»nnna SO
•• 2-Hounem 100
•• 4-4tothyl-*-panunon« 100
•• Styrww SO
•• Vinyl aettata 100
++ Xyl«iw« (total] SO
SEMIVOUTXLEB
91 AOBnBjpntt^slBim • «8
MAj4aKf^BflaJt4>tta^flkA 4 A
MBjBjnBJpBl »nVft8J < »O
93 AflB*0(^l0nOH0 3«B
84 2-AMtylaBlMfluormM 3.8
SB 4-A«1no«1pMnyl 3.8
SB Aniline 1.8
37 Anthraoino 1.8
38 Arvilta NA
SB B*ni((i)inttr««nc 1.8
80 B«nzMWtM«l NO
81 linldliia 8 0
88 BanMfMfluorwittiaiM 1.8
88 p*4ap]i04Vfl nontt NO
87 81a(8-«hloraBBtliaxy)otliano 1.8
H-23
-------
TABLE H.4i DETECTION LIMITS RJB THE LEADED TANK BOTTQNB 9ANPIE9 - KDBB (Continued)
BOAT OONSTITUerr
SEMIVOLATXLES (Continued)
6B
70
71
78
73
74
78
78
77
78
79
BO
81
ae
aa
84
88
88
87
88
88
90
91
9B
98
84
88
98
97
98
99
100
101
108
108
104
108
106
107
81 • (2-ehl orol oopropy I lothor
B1o(2-ethylheiyl]phtholoto
4-BroMphenyl phony I other
Butyl benzyl phtholeto
2-ooc-auty 1-4,8-41 nl tro phenol
p-Chloroonl Una
CMoroboiulloto
p-Chloro • croool
2-CM oronaphttioleno
2-Chlorophenol
3-Cnloroprop1on1tr1lo
Chryeono
ortho-Craaol
p«r«-CrMol
01b«nz(«»h)«nthr«ain«
01bcnzo(«t«)pyr«n«
01 b*nzo( »t 1 ) pyr«n«
•-01 ehloratanxcn*
oH)1 onl orate nan*
p-01 cAloretenzon*
3 ,3 '-O1 ohl orotenzl dl no
2,4-01 diloroohonol
a*8-01ehloroptMnol
01 • thy I phtholoto
3^'-01«otho«ytent1d1n«
p-OlHthyloBlnoozotenxon*
3t3'-OlMtnylten>1d1no
2,4-OlMthylphwwl
OlHtnyl phtholoto
01-tf-butyl phttwlot*
1 ,441 nl trotanano
4t8^1 iH tro~o<^roB*l
2 ,4>4Ma1tra phenol
2,4<«1n1t ratal uoiw
2 (tHN nl trotol IOIHO
01 n ootyl phthoioto
Ol^r^rapy I irt troooal no
01 phony iMliw
1 .2-01 phony I hydrul no
. Ootootlon
LleU
(PP>)
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
9.0
1.9
NA
1.8
1.
1.
N
1.
1.
1.
1.8
N8
NA
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
N
1.
1.
3.
NO
1.
1.
1.
9.0
9.0
9.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
3.8
9.0
H-24
-------
TABLE H.4I DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE LEADED TANK BOTTOM SAMPLES - KOS8 (Continued)
BOAT CONSTITUWT
S94IVOLATILES (Continued)
108
108
110
111
118
113
114
115
118
117
118
119
180
181
188
183
184
188
188
187
188
189
130
131
138
133
134
138
138
137
138
138
140
141
148
143
144
148
148
147
Fluoranthane
Fluorane
Hexachloroberuana
Hexachlorobutadl ana
Henonl orooy elopanta tfl ana
Hauohlaroe thane
Hexaohloropnene
Ha*aoh I oropropene
Indano ( 1 1 2 ,3-od ) py rana
laoaafrola
Nathapypl lane
3-Nethylcholanthrene
4,4'-Mathylaneb1a(8-chloroenU1ne)
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqulnone
1-«aphtnylaa1ne
2-ftaphthylaBtna
p-N1troan1l1ne
Nitrate nan*
4-Nltrophanot
N-N1 tro«pd1-n-but»laa1ne
N-Nltroaodletftylaalna
N-N1 troeod1e»tby leal na
N-N1 1 raaoMthy lathy laal na
N-N1 trmoMrpfiel 1 ne
N-N1troaop1per1d1na
N-N1 troaopy rroll dl na
8-N1 1 ro-«-tol irt dl na
Pantaohl orotenana
PantaehloroatKafw
Pantaohl oronl trotenana
Pantaaft I oraphane*
Pnenaeatln
Ph«HMttraiw
Phaaial
8-Plaallna
Pranaajlda
Pyrajw
Raaorclnol
Safrata
.Oataotlon
Halt
(PP>)
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
NA
NO
1.
3.
N
3.
3.
1.
NA
9.0
9.0
9.0
1.8
9.0
NO
NO
1.8
1.8
3.8
1.8
9.0
3.8
NO
NA
18.0
8.0
3.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
NO
1.8
NA
9.0
H-25
-------
TABLE H.4i DETECTIOH LIMITS RJR THE LEADED T*IC BDTTOW 3AHRJE3 - KQB3 (Contlnuod)
. Detection
BOAT CQM8TITUEMT !•'•<*
SEMIVQLATILES (Contlnuod) fPP"1
148 1,2,4,5-Totroanlorobenmno 3.8
148 2,3,4,e-Totroonlorophonol NO
150 1,2f4»Tr1ehlorobenxono 1.B
151 2,4,5-Trlenlorophenol 9.0
158 2.4,8-THenloropfcenol 1.8
153 Tr1o(8.3-d1broBopropyl] phoopnoto NO
•• Bonioleoeld 9.0
•• Benzyl olcohol 1.8
•• 4-CMoropftenyl phony I otttor 1.8
•• Olbonxofuron 1.8
•• 01bonxo(o,h)pyrono N8
•• 7,12-01o»thylbeiu(o)onthroeene NO
•• olpho,olpho-01«othylphonothylo«1no N8
•• laophorono 1.8
•• Noiom tn io NA
•• 2-MottiylMpntho:lom 1.8
•• 2-N1troon1Uno 9.0
9.0
1.8
M-*1troood1 phony le»1 no 1.8
METALS (PP>)
154 AntlBony 3
-------
TABLE H.4i DETECTION IXNXT8 TOR THE LEADED TAJIK BOTTOMB SAMPLES - KOB8 (Continued)
. Detection
BOAT QON8TTTUWT Unit
INOHBANIC8 (pp>)
170 Total Cyanide O.S
171 Fluoride 1.0
178 9ulf1do O.S
NA • Analysis cannot be dona by Mtftod 8870 at this tie* due to Inadaqueta
recavorleo In laboratory OVOC analyaaa.
NO • Not dataetad, aatlMtad dataetlon Halt has not baan ditaralnad.
N8 • Tha atandard la not avallablai tha oavpownd aaa aaarohad ualng an NM library
databaaa of 48*000 eoapounda.
++ • Total iylan« la tha total rooult for ortfto-Xylanaf a»ta-Xylam( and para-Xylana,
•1 tit CM nia*ara 9B-47-f, 108-88-1. and 108-48-8, raapaotlvaly.
•• • Th1a oonatltuant la net on tha Hot of oonatltuanta In tha 8ENEmC OUM.ZTY
A88WUMOE PWUECr PUN RDM UNO OOP08AL NE8T1tZCTXON8 PNOMUM ("BOAT*].
EPAVBao 81 B7-011, Ha rah 18V. It la a ground-aatar aonltorlng oonatltuant aa
Hated in Appendix IX, Page 28838, of the PEORUL RBHTEN, Vol. 81, Ne. 148.
H-27
-------
Appendix I
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE
Page
List of boiling points for constituents of interest. 1-2
List of bond dissociation energies for constituents
of interest. 1-3
Calculation of thermal conductivity for waste treated
at plant A. 1-4
1-1
-------
Constituent Boiling Points
Constituent Boiling Point (°C) Reference Number
4. Benzene 80-80.1 1
8. Carbon disulfide 46-46.5 1
21. Diehlorodifluoromethane (-30)-(-29.8) 1
226. Ethyl benzene 136.25 1
43. Toluene 110.6-111 1
215. 1,2-Xylene 144 1
216. 1,3-Xylene 139.3 1
217. 1,4-Xylene 137-138 1
52. Aeenaphthene 279 1
57. Anthracene 242 1
59. Benz(a)anthracene 435 3
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 310-312 1
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 385 2
80. Chrysene 448 1
81. o-Cresol 191-192 1
82. p-Cresol 201.8-202 1
96. 2,4-Dimethylphenol 211.5-212 1
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 340 1
109. Fluorene 295 1
121. Naphthalene 217.9-218 1
141. Phenanthrene 340 1
142. Phenol 182 1
145. Pyrene 404 1
1 = Merck Index (Reference 31).
2 s Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals (Reference 32),
3 a Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (Reference 33).
1-2
-------
Bond Dissociation Energies
Estimated
Constituent Bond Dissociation Energy
4. Benzene 1320
8. Carbon disulfide 279
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane 380
226. Ethyl benzene 1920
43. Toluene 1235
215-217. Xylene 1220
52. Acenaphthene 2570
57. Anthracene 2870
59. Benz(a)anthracene 3580
62. Benzo(a)pyrene 4030
68. Bla(2-chloroethyl)ether 1290
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 6610
80. Chrysene 3650
81. o-Cresol 1405
82. p-Cresol 1405
87. o-Dimethylbenzene 1325
96. 2,4-Dlmethylphenol 1390
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 4340
109. Fluorene 2700
121. Naphthalene 2095
141. Phenanthrene 2900
142. Phenol 1421
145. Pyrene 3240
Sources: Sanderson, R.T., Chemical Bonds and Bond Energy (Reference 35)
Lange's Handbook of Chemistry (Reference 34).
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (Reference 33).
1-3
-------
CALCULATION OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY FOR
WASTE TREATED AT PLANT A
Calculation of weight fractions of K048 and K051 in the total feed stream;
From tables 4-1 through 4-6 in the Amoco OER (Reference 6) the
average K048 and K051 waste feed rates are 53 gpm and 22.3 gpm,
respectively. Since these are the only feeds to the Incinerator,
the weight fractions of the wastes feed are calculated as follows:
K048:(100) 53/ (53 * 22.3) = 71* * X K048
K051:(100) 22/ (22.3 * 53) * 29* * X K051
Major constituent analysis;
From sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.2 In the Amoco OER (Reference 6) the
major constituent composition of K048 and K051 is as follows:
Constituent K048 (*) K051 «)
Water 15 30
Oil 14 15
Sand, Dirt and other soils 70 54
Major constituent composition of the total waste stream;
The composition of the total waste stream is calculated as follows:
% Water = (% water in K048MX K048) «• (% water in K05D (X K05D
= (15X0.71) * (30K.29)
= 20
% Oil 3 (% oil in K048)(X K048) > (% oil in K05D(X K05D
» (14)(0.71) * (15X0.29)
* 14
* Sand & Dirt
* (% Sand & dirt in K048KX K048) + (% Sand & dirt in
K05D(X K05D
s (70)(0.7D * (54M.29)
= 66
1-4
-------
CALCULATION OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY FOR
WASTE TREATED AT PLANT A (Continued)
Thermal conductivity (k) of major constituents:
From Lange'a Handbook of Chemistry (Reference 3*0 the thermal
conductivities (k) for the major constituents are:
k water = 0.329 BTU/hr ft °F « 5M°F
k gasoline = 0.078 BTU/hr ft °F £ 86°F
k dry sand = 0.225 BTU/hr ft °F 6 68°F
In the absence of thermal conductivity values for oil and wet sand
and dirt, we have used the thermal conductivity values for gasoline
and dry sand for the purposes of this calculation.
Calculations of the overall waste thermal conductivity:
Using the major constituent compositions of the total waste stream
and the thermal conductivities presented above, the calculations of
the overall waste thermal conductivity is as follows:
k overall = (% water) (k water) + (% oil)(k gasoline) * (% sand
& dirtKk dry sand)
= (0.20X0.329 BTU/hr ft °F) + (0.1U)(0.078 BTU/hr ft
°F) * (0.66X0.225 BTU/hr ft °F)
= 0.23 BTU/hr ft °F
1-5
------- |