EPA/530-SW-88-031G
FINAL
BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (BOAT)
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR
K103 AND K104
James R. Berlow, Chief
Treatment Technology Section
Juan Baez-Martinez
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 vi i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Legal Background 1-1
1.1.1 Requirements Under HSWA 1-1
1.1.2 Schedule for Developing Restrictions 1-4
1.2 Summary of Promulgated BOAT Methodology 1-5
1.2.1 Waste Treatability Group 1-7
1.2.2 Demonstrated and Available Treatment Technologies . 1-7
1.2.3 Collection of Performance Data 1-11
1.2.4 Hazardous Constituents Considered and Selected
for Regulation 1-17
1.2.5 Compliance with Performance Standards 1-30
1.2.6 Identification of BOAT 1-32
1.2.7 BOAT Treatment Standards for "Derived-From" and
"Mixed" Wastes 1-36
1.2.8 Transfer of Treatment Standards 1-40
1.3 Variance from the BOAT Treatment Standard 1-41
2. INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 2-1
2.1 Industry Affected and Process Description 2-2
2.1.1 Generation of K103 Waste 2-7
2.1.2 Generation of K104 Waste 2-8
2.2 Waste Characterization 2-8
3. APPLICABLE/DEMONSTRATED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 3-1
3.1 Applicable Treatment Technologies 3-1
3.2 Demonstrated Treatment Technologies 3-2
3.2.1 Solvent Extraction 3-4
3.2.2 Steam Stripping 3-12
3.2.3 Carbon Adsorption 3-21
3.2.4 Incineration 3-32
4. PERFORMANCE DATA BASE 4-1
5. IDENTIFICATION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY (BOAT) FOR K103 AND K104 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Data Screening 5-2
5.3 Data Accuracy 5-3
5.4 Analysis of Variance 5-4
5.5 Wastewaters 5-4
5.6 Nonwastewaters 5-7
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
6. SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS 6-1
7. CALCULATION OF BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS 7-1
7.1 Editing the Data 7-1
7.2 Correcting the Remaining Data 7-3
7.3 Calculating Variability Factors 7-4
7.4 Calculating the Treatment Standards 7-5
8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 8-1
9. REFERENCES ! 9-1
APPENDIX A Statistical Methods A-l
APPENDIX B Analysis of Variance Tests B-l
APPENDIX C Detection Limits for Constituents in the
Untreated and Treated Waste C-l
APPENDIX D Calculation of Treatment Standards D-l
APPENDIX E Analytical QA/QC E-l
APPENDIX F Method of Measurement for Thermal Conductivity .... F-l
APPENDIX G Strip Charts G-l
1i1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
BOAT Constituent List
Facilities Producing K103 and K104 (Listed by State)
Facilities Producing K103 and K104 (Totals by Region)
Major Constituent Composition for K103 and K104 Wastes ...
BOAT Constituent Analysis and Other Data
Treatment Data for Sample Set #1 - EPA-Collected Data
Treatment Data for Sample Set #2 - EPA-Collected Data
Treatment Data for Sample Set #3 - EPA-Collected Data
Treatment Data for Sample Set #4 - EPA-Collected Data
Treatment Data for Sample Set #5 - EPA-Collected Data ....
Treatment Data for Steam Stripper and/or Activated Carbon
Adsorption for Combined K103 and K104
Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K019
Plant A - Rotary Kiln Incinerator - Sample Set #1
Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K019
Plant A - Rotary Kiln Incinerator - Sample Set #2
Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K019
Plant A - Rotary Kiln Incinerator - Sample Set #3
Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K019
Plant A - Rotary Kiln Incinerator - Sample Set #4
Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K019
Plant A - Rotary Kiln Incinerator - Sample Set #5
Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K019
Plant A - Rotary Kiln Incinerator - Sample Set #6
Page
1-18
2-3
2-3
2-10
2-11
4-4
4-8
4-12
4-16
4-20
4-24
4-27
4-30
4-33
4-36
4-39
4-42
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
4-13 Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K048 and
K051, Plant A - Fluidized Bed Incineration -
Sample Set #1 4-45
4-14 Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K048 and
K051, Plant A - Fluidized Bed Incineration -
Sample Set #2 4-48
4-15 Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K048 and
K051, Plant A - Fluidized Bed Incineration -
Sample Set #3 4-51
4-16 Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K048 and
K051, Plant A - Fluidized Bed Incineration -
Sample Set #4 4-54
4-17 Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K048 and
K051, Plant A - Fluidized Bed Incineration -
Sample Set #5 4-57
4-18 Treatment Performance Data Collected by EPA for K048 and
K051, Plant A - Fluidized Bed Incineration -
Sample Set #6 4-60
5-1 K103 and K104 Wastewater Data Showing Substantial
Treatment 5-9
5-2 K019 and K048/K052 Nonwastewater Data Showing Substantial
Treatment 5-10
6-1 BOAT List Constituents in Untreated and Treated K103 and
K104 Waste 6-3
7-1 Regulated Constituents and Calculated Treatment Standards
for K103 and K104 Wastewaters 7-6
7-2 Regulated Constituents and Calculated Treatment Standards
for K019 Nonwastewaters 7-9
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Facilities Producing K103 and K104 by State and EPA
Region 2-4
2-2 Generation of K103 and K104 from Nitrobenzene/Aniline
Production 2-5
3-1 Two-stage Mixer-Settler Extraction System 3-8
3-2 Extraction Columns with Nonmechanical Agitation 3-9
3-3 Steam Stripping 3-15
3-4 Typical Column Configurations 3-27
3-5 Plot of Breakthrough. Curve 3-29
3-6 Liquid Injection Incineration 3-36
3-7 Rotary Kiln Incinerator 3-37
3-8 Fluidized Bed Incinerator 3-39
3-9 Fixed Hearth Incinerator 3-40
F-l Schematic Diagram of the Comparative Method F-2
VI
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BOAT Treatment Standards for K103 and K104
Pursuant to section 3004(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act as enacted by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments on November 8,
1984, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is establishing best
demonstrated available technology (BOAT) treatment standards for the
listed wastes identified in 40 CFR 261.31 as K103 and K104. Compliance
with these BOAT treatment standards is a prerequisite for placement of
the waste in units designated as land disposal units according to 40 CFR
Part 268. The effective date of these treatment standards is August 8,
1988.
This background document provides the Agency's rationale and
technical support for selecting the constituents to be regulated in the
K103 and K104 wastes and for developing treatment standards for those
regulated constituents. The document also provides waste
characterization and treatment information that serves as a basis for
determining whether variances may be warranted.
EPA may grant a treatment variance in cases where the Agency
determines that the waste in question is more difficult to treat than the
waste upon which the BOAT treatment standard is based.
The introductory section, which appears verbatim in all the First
Third background documents being issued at this time, summarizes the
Agency's legal authority and promulgated methodology for establishing
treatment standards and discusses the petition process necessary for
requesting a variance from the treatment standards. The remainder of the
Vll
-------
document presents waste-specific information—the number and locations of
facilities affected by the land disposal restrictions for the K103 and
K104 wastes, the waste-generating process, characterization data, the
technologies used to treat the waste (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 regulated, and calculation of treatment standards.
According to 40 CFR 261.32, waste codes K103 and K104, which are
generated by the nitrobenzene and aniline industries, are listed as
follows:
K103: Process residues from aniline extraction from the production
of aniline.
K104: Combined wastewater streams generated from
nitrobenzene/aniline production.
EPA has estimated that six facilities in the nitrobenzene and aniline
industries are potential generators of the K103 and K104 wastes.
Generators of K103 and K104 generally fall under Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code 2869 (nitrobenzene/aniline).
Treatment standards are established for both nonwastewater and
wastewater forms of K103 and K104. (For the purpose of determining the
applicability of the treatment standards, wastewaters for K103 and K104
are defined as wastes containing less than 1 percent (weight basis) total
*
suspended solids and less than 4 percent (weight basis) total organic
* 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. 16th edition.
Vlll
-------
carbon (TOC).) Waste not meeting this definition must comply with the
treatment standards for nonwastewaters.
For K103/K104 wastewater, the Agency is establishing treatment
standards for aniline, benzene, 2,4-dinitrophenol, nitrobenzene, and
phenol. A treatment standard is also established for total cyanides in
K104. The treatment standards are based on a treatment train consisting
of liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping and activated
carbon adsorption.
For K103/K104 nonwastewater, the Agency is establishing treatment
standards for aniline, benzene, 2,4-dinitrophenol, nitrobenzene, and
phenol. A treatment standard is also established for total cyanides in
K104. The treatment standards are based on performance data from rotary
r
kiln incineration. Performance data were transferred from K019 for •' /
benzene, aniline, 2,4-dinitrophenol, nitrobenzene, and phenol, and from '
K048/K051 for total cyanides.
The following table presents the treatment standards for K103 and
K104 wastes. The treatment standards are total composition and reflect
the concentration of constituents in the waste. The units are mg/1
(parts per million on a weight-by-volume basis) for wastewater and mg/kg
(parts per million on a weight-by-weight basis) for nonwastewater. If
the concentrations of the regulated constituents in K103 and K104 wastes,
as generated, are lower than or equal to the proposed BOAT treatment
standards, then treatment is not necessary as a prerequisite to land
disposal.
IX
-------
BDAT Treatment Standards for K103
Maximum for any single grab sample
Nonwastewater Wastewater
Total TCLP leachate Total
concentration concentration concentration
Constituent (mg/kg) (mg/1)
Volatile Organics
Benzene 6.0 NA 0.15
Semi volatile Orqanics
Aniline 5.6 NA 4.5
2,4-Dinitrophenol 5.6 NA 0.61
Nitrobenzene 5.6 NA 0.073
Phenol 5.6 NA 1.4
NA = Not applicable.
-------
BOAT Treatment Standards for K104
Maximum for any single grab sample
Nonwastewater Wastewater
Total TCLP leachate Total
concentration concentration concentration
Constituent (mgAg) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Volatile Orqanics
Benzene 6.0 NA 0.15
Semivolatile Orqanics
Aniline 5.6 NA 4.5
2,4-Dinitrophenol 5.6 NA 0.61
Nitrobenzene 5.6 NA 0.073
Phenol 5.6 NA 1.4
Inorganics
Cyanides (total) 1.8 NA 2.7
NA = Not applicable.
xi
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This section of the background document presents a summary of the
legal authority pursuant to which the best demonstrated available
technology (BOAT) treatment standards were developed, a summary of EPA's
promulgated methodology for developing the BOAT treatment standards, 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 were
enacted on November 8, 1984, and which amended the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), impose substantial new responsibilities
on those who handle hazardous waste. In particular, the amendments
require the Agency to promulgate regulations that restrict the land
disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. In its enactment of HSWA,
Congress stated explicitly that "reliance on land disposal should be
minimized or eliminated, and land disposal, particularly landfill and
surface impoundment, should be the least favored method for managing
hazardous wastes" (RCRA section 1002(b)(7), 42 U.S.C. 6901(b)(7)).
One part of the amendments specifies dates on which particular groups
of untreated hazardous wastes will be prohibited from land disposal
unless "it has been demonstrated to the Administrator, to a reasonable
degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous
1-1
-------
constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the
wastes remain hazardous" (RCRA section 3004(d)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5),
42 U.S.C. 6924 (d)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5)).
For the purpose of the restrictions, HSWA defines land disposal "to
include, but not be limited to, any placement of ... hazardous waste in
a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land
treatment facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, or
underground mine or cave" (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C. 6924(k)).
Although HSWA defines land disposal to include injection wells, such
disposal of solvents, dioxins, and certain other wastes, known as the
California List wastes, is covered on a separate schedule (RCRA section
3004(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (f)(2)). This schedule requires that EPA
develop land disposal restrictions for deep well injection by
August 8, 1988.
The amendments also require the Agency to set "levels or methods of
treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste
or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are minimized" (RCRA section 3004(m)(l),
42 U.S.C. 6924 (m)(l)). Wastes that satisfy such levels or methods of
treatment established by EPA, i.e., treatment standards, are not
prohibited from being land disposed.
In setting treatment standards for listed or characteristic wastes,
EPA may establish different standards for particular wastes within a
single waste code with differing treatability characteristics. One such
1-2
-------
characteristic is the physical form of the waste. This frequently leads
to different standards for wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
Alternatively, EPA can establish a treatment standard that is applicable
to more than one waste code when, in EPA's judgment, a particular
constituent present in the wastes can be treated to the same
concentration in all the wastes.
In those instances where a generator can demonstrate that the
standard promulgated for the generator's waste cannot be achieved, the
amendments allow the Agency to 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 treatment standards by the statutory deadline for
any hazardous waste in the First Third or Second Third waste groups (see
Section 1.1.2), the waste may not be disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment unless the facility is in compliance with the minimum
technological requirements specified in section 3004(o) of RCRA. In
1-3
-------
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 treatment
standards for the waste or until May 8, 1990, whichever is sooner. If
the Agency fails to set treatment standards 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. Solvent and dioxin wastes by November 8, 1986;
2. The "California List" wastes by July 8, 1987;
3. At least one-third of all listed hazardous wastes by
August 8, 1988 (First Third);
1-4
-------
4. At least two-thirds of all listed hazardous wastes 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 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 HSWA, are liquid hazardous wastes containing
metals, free cyanides, PCBs, corrosives (i.e., a pH less than or equal to
2.0), and any liquid or nonliquid hazardous waste containing halogenated
organic compounds (HOCs) above 0.1 percent by weight. Rules for the
California List were proposed on December 11, 1986, and final rules for
PCBs, corrosives, and HOC-containing wastes were established
August 12, 1987. In that rule, EPA elected not to establish treatment
standards for metals. Therefore, the statutory limits became effective.
On May 28, 1986, EPA published a final rule (51 FR 19300) that
delineated the specific waste codes that would be addressed by the First
Third, Second Third, and Third Third land disposal restriction rules.
This schedule is incorporated into 40 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).
1-5
-------
Congress indicated in the legislative history accompanying the HSWA that
"[t]he requisite levels of [sic] methods of treatment established by the
Agency should be the best that has been demonstrated to be achievable,"
noting that the intent is "to require utilization of available
technology" and not a "process which contemplates technology-forcing
standards" (Vol. 130 Cong. Rec. S9178 (daily ed., July 25, 1984)). EPA
has interpreted this legislative history as suggesting that Congress
considered the requirement under 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.
The treatment standards, according to the statute, can represent
levels or methods of treatment, if any, that substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration
of hazardous constituents. Wherever possible, the Agency prefers to
establish BOAT treatment standards as "levels" of treatment
(i.e., performance standards), rather than to require the use of specific
treatment "methods." EPA believes that concentration-based treatment
1-6
-------
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 hazardous constituents in wastes represented by different
waste codes could be treated to similar concentrations using identical
technologies, the Agency combines the wastes into one treatability
group. EPA generally considers wastes to be similar when they are both
generated from the same industry and from similar processing stages. In
addition, EPA may combine two or more separate wastes into the same
treatability group when data are available showing that the waste
characteristics affecting performance are similar or that one of the
wastes in the group, the waste from which treatment standards are to be
developed, is expected to be most difficult to treat.
Once the treatability groups have been established, EPA collects and
analyzes data on identified technologies used to treat the wastes in each
treatability group. The technologies evaluated must be demonstrated on
the waste or a similar waste and must be available for use.
1.2.2 Demonstrated and Available Treatment Technologies
Consistent with legislative history, EPA considers demonstrated
technologies to be those that are currently used on a full-scale basis to
1-7
-------
treat the waste of interest or a waste judged to be similar (see 51 FR
40588, November 7, 1986). EPA also will consider as demonstrated
treatment those technologies used to separate or otherwise process
chemicals and other materials on a full-scale basis. Some of these
technologies clearly are applicable to waste treatment, since the wastes
are similar to raw materials processed in industrial applications.
For most of the waste treatability groups for which EPA will
promulgate treatment standards, EPA will identify demonstrated
technologies either through review of literature related to current waste
treatment practices or on the basis of information provided by specific
facilities currently treating the waste or similar wastes.
In cases where the Agency does not identify any facilities treating
wastes represented by a particular waste treatability group, EPA may
transfer a finding of demonstrated treatment. To do this, EPA will
compare the parameters affecting treatment selection for the waste
treatability group of interest to other wastes for which demonstrated
technologies already have been determined. (The parameters affecting
treatment selection and their use for this waste are described in
Section 3.2 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
technology for many waste codes containing hazardous organic
1-8
-------
constituents, high total organic content, and high filterable solids
content, regardless of whether any facility is currently treating these
wastes. The basis for this determination is data found in literature and
data generated by EPA confirming the use of rotary kiln incineration on
wastes having the above characteristics.
If no full-scale treatment or recovery operations are identified for
a waste or wastes with similar physical or chemical characteristics that
affect treatment selection, the Agency will be unable to identify any
demonstrated treatment technologies for the waste, and, accordingly, the
waste will be prohibited from land disposal (unless handled in accordance
with the exemption and variance provisions of the rule). The Agency is,
however, committed to establishing treatment standards as soon as new or
improved treatment processes are demonstrated (and available).
Operations only available at research facilities, pilot- and bench-
scale operations, will not be considered in identifying demonstrated
treatment technologies for a waste. Nevertheless, EPA may use data
generated at research facilities in assessing the performance of
demonstrated technologies.
As discussed earlier, Congress intended that technologies used to
establish treatment standards under section 3004(m) be not only
"demonstrated," but also "available." To decide whether demonstrated
technologies may be considered "available," the Agency determines whether
they (1) are commercially available and (2) substantially diminish the
1-9
-------
toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration
of hazardous constituents from the waste. These criteria are discussed
below.
1. Commercially available treatment. If the demonstrated treatment
technology is a proprietary or patented process that is not
generally available, EPA will not consider the technology in its
determination of the treatment standards. EPA will consider
proprietary or patented processes available if it determines
that the treatment method can be purchased or licensed from the
proprietor or is 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
demonstrated 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 (provided the nondetectable
levels are low relative to the concentrations in the untreated
waste). If nondetectable levels are not achieved, then a
determination of substantial treatment will be made on a
case-by-case basis. This approach is necessary because of the
difficulty of establishing a meaningful guideline that can be
applied broadly to the many wastes and technologies to be
considered. EPA will consider the following factors in an
effort to evaluate whether a technology provides substantial
treatment on a case-by-case basis:
• Number and types of constituents treated;
• Performance (concentration of the constituents in the
treatment residuals); and
• Percent of constituents removed.
1-10
-------
EPA will only set treatment standards based on a technology that
meets both availability criteria. Thus, the decision to classify a
technology as "unavailable" will have a direct impact on the treatment
standard. If the best demonstrated technology is unavailable, the
treatment standards will be based on the next best demonstrated treatment
technology determined to be available. To the extent that the resulting
treatment standards are less stringent, greater concentrations of
hazardous constituents in the treatment residuals could be placed in land
disposal units.
There also may be circumstances in which EPA concludes that for a
given waste none of the demonstrated treatment technologies are
"available" for purposes of establishing the 3004(m) treatment
performance standards. Subsequently, these wastes will be prohibited
from continued placement in or on the land unless managed in accordance
with applicable exemptions and variance provisions. The Agency is,
however, committed to establishing new treatment standards as soon as new
or improved treatment processes become available.
1.2.3 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 considered in determining
BOAT. The data evaluation includes data already collected directly by
1-11
-------
EPA and/or data provided by industry. In those instances where
additional data are needed to supplement existing information, EPA
collects additional data through a sampling and analysis program. The
principal elements of this data collection program are: (1) the
identification of facilities for site visits, (2) the engineering site
visit, (3) the sampling and analysis plan, (4) the sampling visit, and
(5) the onsite engineering report.
(1) Identification of facilities for site visits. To identify
facilities that generate and/or treat the waste of concern, EPA uses a
number of information sources. These include Stanford Research
Institute's Directory of Chemical Producers; EPA's Hazardous Waste Data
Management System (HWDMS); the 1986 Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facility
(TSDF) National Screening Survey; and EPA's Industry Studies Data Base.
In addition, EPA contacts trade associations to inform them that the
Agency is considering visits to facilities in their industry and to
solicit their assistance in identifying facilities for EPA to consider in
its treatment sampling program.
After identifying facilities that treat the waste, EPA uses this
hierarchy to select sites for engineering visits: (1) generators treating
single wastes on site; (2) generators treating multiple wastes together
on site; (3) commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDFs); and (4) EPA in-house treatment. This hierarchy is based on two
concepts: (1) to the extent possible, EPA should develop treatment
1-12
-------
standards from data produced by treatment facilities handling only a
single waste, and (2) facilities that routinely treat a specific waste
have had the best opportunity to optimize design parameters. Although
excellent treatment can occur at many facilities that are not high in
this hierarchy, EPA has adopted this approach to avoid, when possible,
ambiguities related to the mixing of wastes before and during treatment.
When possible, the Agency will evaluate treatment technologies using
full-scale treatment systems. If performance data from properly designed
and operated full-scale systems treating a particular waste or a waste
judged to be similar are not available, EPA may use data from research
facility 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 EPA's data bases provide information on treatment for
individual wastes, the data bases rarely provide data that support the
selection of one facility for sampling over another. In cases where
several treatment sites appear to fall into the same level of the
hierarchy, EPA selects sites for visits strictly on the basis of which
facility could most expeditiously be visited and later sampled if
justified by the engineering visit.
(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
1-13
-------
ensure that the necessary sampling points can be accessed to determine
operating parameters and treatment effectiveness. During the visit, EPA
also confirms that the facility appears to be well operated, although the
actual operation of the treatment system during sampling is the basis for
EPA's decisions regarding proper operation of the treatment unit. In
general, the Agency considers a well-designed facility to be one that
contains the unit operations necessary to treat the various hazardous
constituents of the waste, as well as to control other nonhazardous
materials in the waste that may affect treatment performance.
In addition to ensuring that a system is reasonably well designed,
the engineering visit examines whether the facility has a way to measure
the operating parameters that affect performance of the treatment system
during the waste treatment period. For example, EPA may choose not to
sample a treatment system that operates in a continuous mode, for which
an important operating parameter cannot be continuously recorded. In
such systems, instrumentation is important in determining whether the
treatment system is operating at design values during the waste treatment
period.
(3) Sampling and analysis plan. If after the engineering site visit
the Agency decides to sample a particular plant, the Agency will then
develop a site-specific sampling and analysis plan (SAP) according to the
Generic Quality Assurance Pro.iect Plan for the Land Disposal Restrictions
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
1-14
-------
of sampling, the constituents to be analyzed and the method of analysis,
operational parameters .to be obtained, and specific laboratory quality
control checks on the analytical results.
The Agency will generally produce a draft of the site-specific SAP
within 2 to 3 weeks of the engineering visit. The draft of the SAP is
then sent to the plant for review and comment. With few exceptions, the
draft SAP should be a confirmation of data collection activities
discussed with the plant personnel during the engineering site visit.
EPA encourages plant personnel to recommend any modifications to the SAP
that they believe will improve the quality of the data.
It is important to note that sampling of a plant by EPA does not mean
that the data will be used in the development of BOAT treatment
standards. EPA's final decision on whether to use data from a sampled
plant depends on the actual analysis of the waste being treated and on
the operating conditions at the time of sampling. Although EPA would not
plan to sample a facility that was not ostensibly well designed and well
operated, there is no way to ensure that at the time of the sampling the
facility will not experience operating problems. Additionally, EPA
statistically compares its test data to suitable industry-provided data,
where available, in its determination of what data to use in developing
treatment standards. The methodology for comparing data is presented
later in this section.
1-15
-------
(Note: Facilities wishing to submit data for consideration in the
development of BOAT standards should, to the extent possible, provide
sampling information similar to that acquired by EPA. Such facilities
should review the Generic Quality Assurance Pro.iect Plan for the Land
Disposal Restrictions Program ("BOAT"), which delineates all of the
quality control and quality assurance measures associated with sampling
and analysis. Quality assurance and quality control procedures are
summarized in Section 1.2.6 of this document.)
(4) Sampling visit. The purpose of the sampling visit is to collect
samples that characterize the performance of the treatment system and to
document the operating conditions that existed during the waste treatment
period. At a minimum, the Agency attempts to collect sufficient samples
of the untreated waste and solid and liquid treatment residuals so that
variability in the treatment process can be accounted for in the
development of the treatment standards. To the extent practicable, and
within safety constraints, EPA or its contractors collect all samples and
ensure that chain-of-custody procedures are conducted so that the
integrity of the data is maintained.
In general, the samples collected during the sampling visit will have
already been specified in the SAP. In some instances, however, EPA will
not be able to collect all planned samples because of changes in the
facility operation or plant upsets; EPA will explain any such deviations
from the SAP in its follow-up onsite engineering report.
1-16
-------
(5) Onsite engineering report. EPA summarizes all its data
collection activities and associated analytical results for testing at a
facility in a report referred to as the onsite engineering report (OER).
This report characterizes the waste(s) treated, the treated residual
concentrations, the design and operating data, and all analytical results
including methods used and accuracy results. This report also describes
any deviations from EPA's suggested analytical methods for hazardous
wastes that appear in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. SW-846,
Third Edition, November 1986.
After the OER is completed, the report is submitted to the waste
generator and/or treater for review. This review provides a final
opportunity for claiming any information contained in the report as
confidential. Following the review and incorporation of comments, as
appropriate, the report is made available to the public with the
exception of any material claimed as confidential.
1.2.4 Hazardous Constituents Considered and Selected for Regulation
(1) Development of BOAT list. The list of hazardous constituents
within the waste codes that are targeted for treatment is referred to by
the Agency as the BOAT constituent list. This list, provided as
Table 1-1, is derived from the constituents presented in 40 CFR Part 261,
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
1-17
-------
1521g
Table 1-1 BDAI Constituent List
BOAT
reference
no.
222.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
223.
/.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
224.
225.
226..
30.
227.
31.
214.
32.
33.
??8.
34.
Constituent
Volat i 1e organ ics
Acetone
Acctonitri le
Aero le in
Acrylonitnle
Benzene
B romod i c h 1 o romc I ha nc
Bronone thane
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon tetrach lor ide
Carbon disulf ide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-1.3-butadiene
Ch lorod ibronome thane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
1.2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Oibromomethane
trans-1 ,4-Oichloro-2-butcne
Oich lorod if luoromethane
1 , 1 -0 ich loroethane
1 , 2-D ich loroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lenc
trans-1. 2-Oichloroethene
1.2-0 ich loropropane
trans-1. 3-D ich loropropune
cis-l,3-Dich loropropene
1.4-Dioxane
2-Cthoxyethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl ether
Ethyl raethacry late
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Muthdno 1
Methyl ethyl kelonc
CAS no.
6/-64-1
75-05-8
107-02-8
107-13-1
71-43-2
75-27-4
74-83-9
71-36-3
56-23-5
75-15-0
108-90-7
126-99-8
124-48-1
75-00-3
110 75 8
67-66-3
74-87-3
107-05-1
96-12-8
106-93-4
74-9S-3
110-57-6
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-60-5
78-B7-5
10061-02-6
10061-01-5
123-91-1
no-ao-5
141-/8-6
100-41-4
107-12-0
60-29-/
97-63-2
75-21-8
74 88 4
78-83-1
6/-hli-l
78 93-3
1-18
-------
Ib21g
Idblu 1-1 (Cunlmuud)
UDA1
reference
no.
229.
35.
37.
38.
Z30.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
4b.
46.
47.
48.
49.
231.
SO.
215.
216.
217.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
218.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Constituent
Volat i le orqanics (continued)
Methyl isobutyl kctonc
Methyl methacrylate
Hethacrylomtri le
Methylene chloride
2-Nitropropane
Pyridine
1,1.1.2-letrachloroethane
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrach loroethenc
Toluene
Tribromomethane
1 . 1 , 1 - 1 r ich loroethdne
1 .1 ,?-Trichlorocthane
Trichloroethene
Irichloromonof luoromethane
1 . 2 . 3- [ r ich loropropdne
1.1,2-Trichloro- 1.2.2- trifluoro-
ethane
Vinyl chloride
1.2-Xylene
1.3-Xylcne
1 .4 Xylene
Sanivo lat i le orqanics
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acety laminof luoreno
4-Aminobipheny 1
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
Benz ( a )anthracene
Benzal chloride
Benzenethiol
Deleted
6enzo(a)pyrene
Benzot b ) f luoranthcne
Bcnzo(yhi )pery lene
Bunzofk ) f luorjnthctii;
p Benzoqinnone
CAS no.
108-10-1
80-62-6
126-98-7
75-09-2
79-46-9
110-86 1
630-20-6
79-34-6
127-18-4
108-88-3
75-25-2
/1-55-b
79-00-5
79-01 6
75-G9-4
96-1B-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
97-47-6
108-38-3
106-44-5
208 96-8
S3 -32 -9
96-86-2
53-96-3
92-67 1
62-53-3
1PO-12-/
140-57-8
56 55-3
98-87-3
108-9H-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-?
P07-08-!)
106 51-4
1-19
-------
15?lg
Table 1-1 (Conlinuud)
BDAI
reference
no.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
//.
78.
79.
80.
81.
8?.
232.
83.
B4.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
101.
105.
106.
219.
Constituent
Semivoldt i le organ ics (continued)
B is( 2 -ch loroethoxy (methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Uis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(?-elhylhcxyl)phthaldtc
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Buty 1-4,6-dimtrophenol
p-Chloroani 1 ine
Chlorobenzi late
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Ch loronaphtha lene
2-Ch loropheno 1
3-Chloropropionitri le
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
Cyc lohexanone
Dibenz( a, h (anthracene
Dibenzo(a.t*)pyrene
Ui benzo( a, ijpyrene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-D ich lorobenzene
p-Oichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobcnzidine
2. 4-0 ich loropheno 1
2. 6- Dich loropheno 1
Diethyl phthalate
3,3'-Oimethoxybcn/ idinc
p Dime thy laminoazoben/ene
3.3'-Dimethylbenzidine
2 . 4 -D imethy Ipheno 1
Dimethyl phthdldtc
Oi-n-butyl phthalate
1.4-Dinitrobenzene
4 . 6-D in i tro-o-creso 1
2.4-Oinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Oi-n-octyl phtha Idle
1) i-n-propy In i tros.mnni;
Oipheny lamine
Diphenylnitrosamine
CAS no.
111-91 -1
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
101 55-3
85-68-7
88-Bb-/
106-47-8
510-15 6
59-50-7
91-58-/
95-57-8
542-76 7
218-01-9
95-48-7
106-44-5
108 94 I
53-70-3
192-65-4
189-55-9
541 73-1
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
120-83 2
87-65-0
84-66-2
119-90-4
60-11-7
119-93-7
105-67-9
131-11-3
84 74-2
100-25-4
534-52-1
51-P8-5
121 14 2
606-20-2
11/-84-0
6?l-li4-/
122 39 4
8G-30-6
1-20
-------
1521g
Table 1-1 (Continued)
BOAT
reference
no.
107.
10H.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
36.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
220.
143.
144.
145.
146.
Const ituent
San i volatile organ ics (continued)
1.2-Oiphenylhydrazine
F luoranthene
F luorene
Hexach loroben/ene
Hexach lorobutad iene
Hexach lorocyc lopentadiene
Hexach loroethane
Hexach lorophene
Hexach loropropene
1 ndeno ( 1 . 2 . 3 -cd ) pyrene
Isosafrole
Methapyri Iene
3 -Methy Icho lanthrene
4,4'-Methylenebis
(2-chloroam 1 ine)
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphtha Iene
1,4-Naphthoqu inane
1-Naphthy lamine
2-Naphthylamine
p-Nitroani 1 me
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-N i trosodi-n -but y lamine
N-Nitrosodiethy)amme
N-Nitrosodimethy lamine
N-N i trosomethy le thy lamine
N-N itrosomorpho line
N-Nitrosopiperldine
N-Nitrosopyrrol idine
5-N itro-o-tolu id ine
Pcntachlorobcnzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentach loron i t robenzene
Pentach lorophcno 1
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Pheno 1
Phtha 1 ic anhydride
?-Picol ine
Pronamide
Pyrene
Kesorc ino 1
CAS no.
122-66-7
206-44-0
86-73-7
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47-4
67-72-1
70-30-4
1888-71 7
193-39-5
120-58-1
91-80-5
56 49 5
101-14-4
66-27-3
91-20-3
130-15-4
134-32-7
91-59-8
100-01 6
9d-95-3
100-02-7
924-16-3
55-18-5
62-75-9
10595-95-6
59-89-2
100-75-4
930-55-2
99-6S-8
608 93 5
76-01-7
82-68-8
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
1-21
-------
1521q
Table 1 1 (Continued)
BOAT
reference
no.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
Ib6.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
1/1.
172.
1/3.
174.
175.
Constituent
Semivolat i IP organ ics (continued)
Safrole
1 . 2.4.5-letrachloroben/ene
2,3,4, 6- Tet rach lorophcno 1
1 , 2 , 4 - T r i ch lorobenzene
2 . 4 . 5-Tr ich loropheno 1
2,4.6-Trichlorophenol
Tris(2.3-dibromopropyl)
phosphate
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl lium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
S i Iver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Inorganics other than metals
Cyanide
Tluor ide
Sulf ide
Organochlorine pesticides
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
bcta-BHC
delta-BHC
CAS no.
94-59-7
95-94-3
58-90-2
120-82-1
95-95-4
88-06-2
126-72-7
7440-36 0
/440-38-2
/440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
-
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
/440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22 4
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
57-12 5
16964-48 8
8496-25-8
309-00-2
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
1-22
-------
1521g
Table 1-1 (Continued)
BOAT
reference
no.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
161.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
19S.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
Constituent
Orqanochlorine pesticides (continued)
ydimvt-BHC
Chlordane
ODD
DOC
DD1
Oieldrin
Endosulfan I
tndosulfan 11
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
isodrtn
Kepone
Methoxyclor
Toxaphene
Phenoxvacct ic acid herbicides
2.4-Oichlorophenoxyacetic acid
Si Ivex
2.4.5-T
Orqanophosphorous insecticides
Oisulfoton
Famphur
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Phorate
PCBs
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 12(30
CAS no.
58-89-9
57 74-9
^2-54 8
72-55-9
50-Z9-3
60-57-1
939-98 8
33213-6-5
72-20-8
7421-93 4
76-44-8
1024-57-3
465- /3-6
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
?98 0? ?
12674-11-2
11104 28 2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
l?67?-?9-6
11097-09-1
1109b-«2-5
1-23
-------
ISZlg
Table 1-1 (Continued)
BOAT
reference Constituent CAS no.
no.
Dioxins and furdns
?07. Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
208. Hexachlorodibenzofurans
209. Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxms
210. Pentachlorodibenzolurans
211. Tetrachlorodibcnzo-p-dioxins
212. Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
213. 2.3.7,8-Ietrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxm 1746-01-6
1-24
-------
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.
The initial BOAT constituent list was published in EPA's Generic
Quality Assurance Pro.iect Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program
("BOAT") in March 1987. Additional constituents are added to the BOAT
constituent list as more key constituents are identified for specific
waste codes or as new analytical methods are developed for hazardous
constituents. For example, since the list was published in March 1987,
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,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane, and cyclohexanone) have been added
to the list.
Chemicals are listed in Appendix VIII if they are shown in scientific
studies to have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on
humans or other life-forms, and they include such substances as those
identified by the Agency's Carcinogen Assessment Group as being
carcinogenic. A waste can be listed as a toxic waste on the basis that
it contains a constituent in Appendix VIII.
Although Appendix VII, Appendix VIII, and the F003 and F005
ignitables provide a comprehensive list of RCRA-regulated hazardous
constituents, not all of the constituents can be analyzed in a complex
1-25
-------
waste matrix. Therefore, constituents that could not be readily analyzed
in an unknown waste matrix were not included on the initial BOAT
constituent list. As mentioned above, however, the BOAT constituent list
is a continuously growing list that does not preclude the addition of new
constituents when analytical methods are developed.
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
analytical 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.). Constituents
listed as N.O.S., such as chlorinated phenols, are a generic
group of some types of chemicals for which a single analytical
procedure is not available. The individual members of each such
group need to be listed to determine whether the constituents
can be analyzed. For each N.O.S. group, all those constituents
that can be readily analyzed are included in the BOAT
constituent list.
4. 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
performance 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 developed on a case-specific basis to verify the identity
of constituents present in the samples. Therefore, HPLC is
usually not an appropriate analytical procedure for complex
samples containing unknown constituents.
1-26
-------
5. Standards for analytical instrument calibration are not
commercially available. For several constituents, such as
benz(c)acridine, commercially available standards of a
"reasonably" pure grade are not available. The unavailability
of a standard was determined by a review of catalogs from
specialty chemical manufacturers.
Two constituents (fluoride and sulfide) are not specifically included
in Appendices VII and VIII; however, these compounds are included on the
BOAT list as indicator constituents for compounds from Appendices VII and
VIII such as hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen sulfide, which ionize in
water.
The BOAT constituent list presented in Table 1-1 is divided into the
following nine groups:
Volatile organics;
Semivolatile organics;
Metals;
Other inorganics;
Organochlorine pesticides;
Phenoxyacetic acid herbicides;
Organophosphorous insecticides;
PCBs; and
Dioxins 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 the other inorganics, by using the same analytical methods.
(2) Constituent selection analysis. The constituents that the
Agency selects for regulation in each waste are, in general, those found
in the untreated wastes at treatable concentrations. For certain waste
1-27
-------
codes, the target list for the untreated waste may have been shortened
(relative to analyses performed to test treatment technologies) because
of the extreme unlikelihood that the constituent will be present.
In selecting constituents for regulation, the first step is to
develop of list of potentially regulated constituents by summarizing all
the constituents that are present or are likely to be present in the
untreated waste at treatable concentrations. A constituent is considered
present in a waste if the constituent (1) is detected in the untreated
waste above the detection limit, (2) is detected in any of the treated
residuals above the detection limit, or (3) is likely to be present based
on the Agency's analyses of the waste-generating process. In case (2),
the presence of other constituents in the untreated waste may interfere
with the quantification of the constituent of concern, making the
detection limit relatively high and resulting in a finding of "not
detected" when, in fact, the constituent is present in the waste. Thus,
the Agency reserves the right to regulate such constituents.
After developing a list of potential constituents for regulation.
EPA 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 on the list. This indicator analysis is done for
two reasons: (1) it reduces the analytical cost burdens on the treater
and (2) it facilitates implementation of the compliance and enforcement
program. EPA's rationale for selection of regulated constituents for
this waste code is presented in Section 6 of this background document.
1-28
-------
(3) Calculation of standards. The final step in the calculation of
the BOAT treatment standard is the multiplication of the average
accuracy-corrected 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 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.
1-29
-------
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 for each
constituent of concern is calculated by first averaging the mean
performance value for each technology and then multiplying that value by
the highest variability factor among the technologies considered. This
procedure ensures that all the technologies used as the basis for the
BOAT treatment standards will achieve full compliance.
1.2.5 Compliance with Performance Standards
Usually the treatment standards reflect performance achieved by the
best demonstrated available technology (BOAT). As such, compliance with
these numerical 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 standards is prohibited, wastes that are generated in
such a way as to naturally meet the standards can be land disposed
without treatment. With the exception of treatment standards that
prohibit land disposal, or that specify use of certain treatment methods.
all established treatment standards are expressed as concentration levels.
EPA is using both the total constituent concentration and the
concentration of the constituent in the TCLP extract of the treated waste
as a measure of technology performance.
1-30
-------
For all organic constituents, EPA is basing the treatment standards
on the total constituent concentration found in the treated waste. EPA
is using this measurement because most technologies for treatment of
organics destroy or remove organics compounds. Accordingly, the best
measure of performance would be 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 extract 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 extract concentration 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 that it reduces the amount of
metal in a waste by separating the metal for recovery; total constituent
concentration in the treated residual, therefore, is an important measure
of performance for this technology. Additionally, EPA also believes that
it is important that any remaining metal in a treated residual waste not
be in a state that is easily Teachable; accordingly, EPA is also using
the TCLP extract concentration as a measure of performance. It is
important to note that for wastes for which treatment standards are based
1-31
-------
on a metal recovery process, the facility has to comply with both the
total and the TCLP extract constituent concentrations prior to land
disposing the waste.
In cases where treatment standards for metals are not based on
recovery techniques but rather on stabilization, EPA is using only the
TCLP value 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
BOAT for a waste must be the "best" of the demonstrated available
technologies. EPA determines which technology constitutes "best" after
screening the available data from each demonstrated technology, adjusting
these data for accuracy, and comparing the performance of each
demonstrated technology to that of the others. If only one technology is
identified as demonstrated, it is considered "best"; if it is available,
the technology is BOAT.
(1) Screening of treatment data. The first activity in
determining which of the treatment technologies represent treatment by
BOAT 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 the waste
code(s) of interest are discussed in Section 3.2 of this
document.)
1-32
-------
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 true value may be different from the measured
value. This discrepancy generally is caused by other
constituents in the waste that can mask results or otherwise
interfere with the analysis of the constituent of concern.
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 extract concentration for metals 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 use the data
as a basis for the treatment standards. The factors included in this
case-by-case analysis will be the actual treatment levels achieved, the
availability of the treatment data and their completeness (with respect
to the above criteria), and EPA's assessment of whether the untreated
waste represents the waste code of concern.
(2) Comparison of treatment data. In cases in which EPA has
treatment data from more than one demonstrated available 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. Specifically, EPA uses the analysis of variance to
determine whether BOAT represents a level of performance achieved by only
one technology or represents a level of performance achieved by more than
one (or all) of the technologies. If EPA finds that one technology
performs significantly better (i.e., is "best"), BOAT treatment standards
1-33
-------
are the level of performance achieved by that best technology multiplied
by the corresponding variability factor for each regulated constituent.
If the Agency finds that the levels of performance for one or more
technologies are not statistically different, EPA averages the
performance values achieved by each technology and then multiplies this
value by the largest variability factor associated with any of the
technologies.
(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 Pro.iect Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program
("BOAT"). EPA/530-SW-87-011.
To calculate the treatment standards for the land disposal restriction
rules, it is first necessary to determine the recovery value for each
constituent (the amount of constituent recovered after spiking--which is
the addition of a known amount of the constituent—minus the initial
concentration in the samples, all divided by the spike amount added) for
each spiked sample of the treated residual. Once the recovery values are
determined, the following procedures are used to select the appropriate
percent recovery value to adjust the analytical data:
1-34
-------
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 spike sample are averaged and the constituent
concentration is adjusted by the average recovery value. If
spiked recovery data are available for more than one sample, the
average is calculated for each sample and the data are adjusted
by using the lowest average value.
4. 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 similar (e.g., if the data represent an ash from
incineration, then data from other incinerator ashes could be
used). While EPA recognizes that transfer of matrix spike
recovery data from a similar waste is not an exact analysis,
this is considered the best approach for adjusting the data to
account for the fact that most analyses do not result in
extraction of 100 percent of the constituent. In assessing the
recovery data to be transferred, the procedures outlined in (I),
(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. In cases where alternatives or equivalent procedures and/or
equipment are allowed in EPA's SW-846, Third Edition methods, the
1-35
-------
specific procedures and equipment used are documented. 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 of this document.
Accordingly, facilities should use these procedures in assessing the
performance of their treatment systems.
1.2.7 BOAT Treatment Standards for "Derived-From" and "Mixed" Wastes
(1) Wastes from treatment trains generating multiple residues. In a
number of instances, the proposed BOAT consists of a series of
operations, each of which generates a waste residue. For example, the
proposed BOAT for a certain waste code is based on solvent extraction,
steam stripping, and activated carbon adsorption. Each of these
treatment steps generates a waste requiring treatment — a
solvent-containing stream from solvent extraction, a stripper overhead,
and spent activated carbon. Treatment of these wastes may generate
further residues; for instance, spent activated carbon (if not
regenerated) could be incinerated, generating an ash and possibly a
scrubber water waste. Ultimately, additional wastes are generated that
may require land disposal. With respect to these wastes, the Agency
wishes to emphasize the following points:
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 261.3(c)(2). (This point
is discussed more fully in (2) below.) Consequently, all of the
wastes generated in the course of treatment would be prohibited
from land disposal unless they satisfy the treatment standard or
meet one of the exceptions to the prohibition.
1-36
-------
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 derived-from wastes meeting the Agency definition of
wastewater (less than 1 percent total organic carbon (TOC) and
less than 1 percent total suspended solids) would have to meet
the treatment standard for wastewaters. All residuals not
meeting this definition would have to meet the treatment
standard for nonwastewaters. 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 treatment
of the most concentrated form of the waste. Consequently, the
Agency believes that the less concentrated wastes generated in
the course of treatment will also be able to be treated to meet
this value.
(2) Mixtures and other derived-from residues. There is a further
question as to the applicability of the BOAT treatment standards to
residues generated not from treating the waste (as discussed above), but
from other types of management. Examples are contaminated soil or
leachate that is derived from managing the waste. In these cases, the
mixture is still deemed to be the listed waste, either because of the
derived-from rule (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)) or the mixture rule (40 CFR
261.3(a) (2)(iii) and (iv)) or because the listed waste is contained in
the matrix (see, for example, 40 CFR 261.33(d)). The prohibition for the
particular listed waste consequently applies to this type of waste.
The Agency believes that the majority of these types of residues can
meet the treatment standards for the underlying listed wastes (with the
possible exception of contaminated soil and debris for which the Agency
is currently investigating whether it is appropriate to establish a
1-37
-------
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 (40 CFR Part
268.44(a)). This provision provides a safety valve that allows persons
with unusual waste matrices to demonstrate the appropriateness of a
different standard. The Agency, to date, has not received any petitions
under this provision (for example, for residues contaminated with a
prohibited solvent waste), indicating, in the Agency's view, that the
existing standards are generally achievable.
(3) Residues from managing listed wastes or that contain listed
wastes. The Agency has been asked if and when residues from managing
hazardous wastes, such as leachate and contaminated ground water, become
subject to the land disposal prohibitions. Although the Agency believes
this question to be settled by existing rules and interpretative
statements, to avoid any possible confusion the Agency will address the
question again.
1-38
-------
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 listed hazardous waste as originally
generated. Residues from managing California List wastes likewise are
subject to the California List prohibitions when the residues themselves
exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste. This determination stems
directly from the derived-from rule in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) or, in some
cases, from the fact that the waste is mixed with or otherwise contains
the listed waste. The underlying principle stated in all of these
provisions is that listed wastes remain listed until delisted.
The Agency's historic practice in processing delisting petitions 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 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 original listed waste. Consequently, these residues are treated
as the original 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
1-39
-------
covered by the existing prohibitions and treatment standards for the
listed hazardous waste that these residues contain or 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 on the specific waste subject to the
treatment standard. The Agency has determined that the constituents
present in the untested waste can be treated to the same performance
levels as those observed in other wastes for which EPA has previously
developed treatment data. EPA believes that transferring treatment
performance data for use in establishing treatment standards for untested
wastes is technically valid in cases where the untested wastes are
generated from similar industries or 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
constituents in the untested wastes can be treated to the same level of
performance as in the tested waste. First, EPA reviews the available
waste characterization data to identify those parameters that are
1-40
-------
expected to affect treatment selection. EPA has identified some of the
most important constituents and other parameters needed to select the
treatment technology appropriate for the given waste(s) in Section 3.
Second, when analysis suggests that an untested waste can be treated
with the same technology as a waste for which treatment performance data
are already available, EPA analyzes a more detailed list of
characteristics that the Agency believes will affect the performance of
the technology. By examining and comparing these characteristics, the
Agency determines whether the untested wastes will achieve the same level
of treatment as the tested waste. Where the Agency determines that the
untested waste can be treated as well or better than the tested waste,
the treatment standards can be transferred.
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 on which
the treatment standards are based because the subject 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.
1-41
-------
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 submitted
to:
Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Petitions containing confidential information should be sent with
only the inner envelope marked "Treatability Variance" and "Confidential
Business Information" and with the contents marked in accordance with the
1-42
-------
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 facility
generating the waste, and the name and telephone number of the
plant contact.
4. The process(es) and feed materials generating the waste and an
assessment of whether such process(es) or feed materials may
produce a waste that is not covered by the demonstration.
5. A description of the waste sufficient for comparison with the
waste considered by the Agency in developing BOAT, and an
estimate of the average and maximum monthly and annual
quantities of waste covered by the demonstration. (Note: The
petitioner should consult the appropriate BOAT background
document for determining the characteristics of the wastes
considered in developing treatment standards.)
6. If the waste has been treated, a description of the system used
for treating the waste, including the process design and
operating conditions. The petition should include the reasons
the treatment standards are not achievable and/or why the
petitioner believes the standards are based on inappropriate
technology for treating the waste. (Note: The petitioner should
refer to the BOAT background document as guidance for
determining the design and operating parameters that the Agency
used in developing treatment standards.)
7. A description of the alternative treatment systems examined by
the petitioner (if any); a description of the treatment system
deemed appropriate by the petitioner for the waste in question:
and, as appropriate, the concentrations in the treatment
residual or extract of the treatment residual (i.e., using the
TCLP, where appropriate, for stabilized metals) that can be
achieved by applying such treatment to the waste.
8. A description of those parameters affecting treatment selection
and waste characteristics that affect performance, including
results of all analyses. (See Section 3 for a discussion of
1-43
-------
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 techniques,
including techniques used for extraction, containerization, and
preservation of the samples.
12. A description of analytical procedures used, including QA/QC
methods.
After receiving a petition for a variance, the Administrator may
request any additional information or waste samples that may be required
to evaluate and process the petition. Additionally, all petitioners must
certify that the information provided to the Agency is accurate under
40 CFR 268.4(b).
In determining whether a variance will be granted, the Agency will
first look at the design and operation of the treatment system being
used. If EPA determines that the technology and operation are consistent
with BOAT, the Agency will evaluate the waste to determine if the waste
matrix and/or physical parameters are such that the BOAT treatment
standards reflect treatment of this waste. Essentially, this latter
analysis will concern the parameters affecting treatment selection and
waste characteristics affecting performance parameters.
In cases where BOAT is based on more than one technology, the
petitioner will need to demonstrate that the treatment standard cannot be
met using any of the technologies, or that none of the technologies are
1-44
-------
appropriate for treatment of the waste. After the Agency has made a
determination on the petition, the Agency's findings will be published in
the Federal Register, followed by a 30-day period for public comment.
After review of the public comments, EPA will publish its final
determination in the Federal Register as an amendment to the treatment
standards in 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart D.
1-45
-------
2. INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
The purpose of this section is to describe the industry that will be
affected by land disposal restrictions on waste codes K103 and K104 and
to characterize these wastes. This section includes a description of the
industry affected and the production processes employed in this industry
as well as a discussion of how K103 and K104 wastes are generated by
these processes. The section concludes with a characterization of the
K103 and K104 waste streams and a determination of the waste treatability
group for these wastes.
The full list of hazardous waste codes from specific sources is given
in 40 CFR 261.32 (see discussion in Section 1 of this document). Within
this list, two specific hazardous waste codes are generated by the
aniline/nitrobenzene industry:
K103: Process residues from aniline extraction from the production
of aniline.
K104: Combined wastewater streams generated from
nitrobenzene/aniline production.
The Agency has determined that these waste codes (K103 and K104)
represent a separate waste treatability group. Industry processes are
similar; therefore, the wastes are expected to have similar physical and
chemical characteristics (see Section 1 for a discussion of waste
treatability groups). In addition, these wastes are frequently mixed in
industry prior to treatment. As a result, the Agency has examined the
sources of the wastes, applicable treatment technologies, and treatment
performance attainable in order to support a single regulatory approach
for the two wastes.
2-1
-------
2.1 Industry Affected and Process Description
The four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code reported
for the aniline/nitrobenzene industry is 2869. The Agency estimates that
six facilities in the United States are actively involved in aniline
production that could generate K103. Four of these facilities are
actively co-producing aniline and nitrobenzene and could generate K104
waste.
Information from trade associations provides a geographic
distribution of the number of these facilities across the United States.
Tables 2-1 and 2-2 present the location of those facilities that may
generate waste codes K103 and K104 in each State and in each EPA region.
As can be seen in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, these facilities are concentrated
in the central and eastern states (EPA Regions III through VI). Figure
2-1 illustrates this data plotted on a map of the United States.
Nitrobenzene is manufactured by either liquid or vapor phase
nitration of benzene. The liquid phase nitration process is reported to
be the more prevalent of the two processes used to manufacture
nitrobenzene. In liquid phase nitration, benzene is nitrated in a
reactor with an aqueous mixture of sulfuric acid and nitric acid (see
Figure 2-2). Crude nitrobenzene is formed and is separated from the
reactants and byproducts by a series of purification steps.
In the initial nitrobenzene purification step, the product stream
from the reactor enters a separator, where it is cooled and allowed to
settle and to separate by gravity into an organic phase and an aqueous
phase. The aqueous phase, consisting mainly of untreated sulfuric and
nitric acid, goes to the denitrator, where fresh benzene is added to
2-2
-------
Table 2-1 Facilities Producing K103 and K104 (Listed by State)
State (EPA Region) Number of facilities
Louisiana (VI) 1
Mississippi (IV) 1
North Carolina (IV) 1
Ohio (V) 1
Texas (VI) 1
West Virginia (III) I
Total 6
Reference: SRI 1985.
Table 2-2 Facilities Producing K103 and K104 (Totals by Region)
EPA Reqion
III
IV
V
VI
Total
Number of facil
1
2
1
2
6
ities
Reference: SRI 1985.
2-3
-------
ro
i
+ '
A - ANIUNE
PRODUCER
N - NITROBENZENE
PRODUCER
FIGURE 2-1 FACIUTES PRODUCING K103 AND K104 BY STATE AND EPA REGION
-------
SODIUM
HYDROXIDE
NITROBENZENE
PRODUCT
K103FRON SEPARATOR
TO FURTHER
IASTEIATER
TREATMENT
PRODUCT
ANILINE
KJ03
TO L/L EXTRACTOR
TO
INCINERATOR
REFERENCE: Delisting Petition For Waste Stream K104 - Combined
Wastewater Streams Generated from Nitrobenzene/Aniline
Production. Petition No. 0312.
Figure 2-2 Generation of K103 and K104 from
Nitrobenzene/Aniline Production
(Liquid Phase Nitration Of Benzene and
Liquid Phase Reduction Of Nitrobenzene)
2-5
-------
remove trace amounts of nitric acid. The benzene and trace amounts of
nitrobenzene, formed in the denitrator, are returned to the nitrobenzene
reactor. The acid phase from the denitrator is sent to the waste acid
stripper for acid recovery by volatilization. The recovered acid from
the waste acid stripper is recycled through an acid concentrator to the
reactor.
The organic phase from the separator, consisting mainly of
nitrobenzene, is washed with water in a prewasher and with
caustic soda in a washer to remove traces of acid. The washwater streams
from the prewasher and washer are both sent to a wastewater extractor,
where nitrobenzene is recovered from the washwater (or wastewater). In
the final purification step, the nitrobenzene stream from the washer is
distilled in the nitrobenzene topping column to produce a high-purity
nitrobenzene product.
Aniline is produced by reducing nitrobenzene with hydrogen in the
presence of a catalyst. The three alternative reduction processes
currently in use are the catalytic vapor phase, catalytic liquid phase,
and dissolving metal (or Bechamp) processes. Most of the aniline in the
United States is reported to be produced by the catalytic vapor phase and
catalytic liquid phase processes.
In the catalytic liquid phase process, nitrobenzene is reduced by
hydrogen to form aniline in the presence of a nickel catalyst in a
reactor (see Figure 2-2). The crude aniline from the reactor is
separated from water and other byproducts in a two-stage gravity
2-6
-------
decantation process consisting of a crude aniline separator and a
separator. The water phases from both separators are combined and sent
to the aniline liquid/liquid extractor, which recovers aniline from the
residual wastewater stream. The aniline stream from the crude aniline
separator is distilled in a rectification column to produce a high-purity
aniline product.
The listed wastes K103 and K104 are generated in the manufacture of
aniline and aniline/nitrobenzene, respectively. The generation of these
wastes is discussed further in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.
2.1.1 Generation of K103 Waste
The listed waste K103 is generated in the production of aniline in
both the crude aniline separator and the aniline/water separator after
the rectifier column. In the crude aniline separator (see Figure 2-2),
the product stream from the aniline reactor is cooled and allowed to
settle and separate by gravity into an organic phase and an aqueous
phase. The aqueous phase, which is the listed waste K103, is pumped to
the aniline liquid/liquid extractor.
The bottoms stream from the rectifier column that purifies the crude
aniline enters a purge recovery column, which separates water and aniline
by distillation. The aniline-containing stream from the purge recovery
columns enters a separator, where it is cooled and allowed to settle and
separate by gravity into an organic phase and an aqueous phase. The
organic phase, consisting mainly of aniline, is recycled to the aniline
reactor. The aqueous phase, which is the listed waste K103, is combined
2-7
-------
with the aqueous phase from the crude aniline separator and pumped to the
aniline liquid/liquid extractor. The bottoms from the purge recovery
column are stored in the tars tank and eventually incinerated.
2.1.2 Generation of K104 Waste
The listed waste K104 is a combined wastewater generated in the
co-production of nitrobenzene and aniline. In the prewasher, water is
used to remove acid from the nitrobenzene stream coming from the
separator by exploiting the relatively high solubility of the acids in
water. An organic phase, consisting mainly of nitrobenzene, is separated
from the aqueous phase in the prewasher and is sent to the washer. The
aqueous phase from the prewasher is sent to the nitrobenzene
liquid/liquid extractor.
In the washer, caustic soda is used to neutralize remaining traces of
acid in the nitrobenzene stream from the prewasher. As before, organic
and aqueous phases are formed by settling and gravity separation.
Nitrobenzene is removed with the organic phase from the washer and enters
the nitrobenzene topping column. The aqueous phase from the washer is
combined with the aqueous phase from the prewasher and enters the
nitrobenzene liquid/liquid extractor.
2.2 Waste Characterization
This section includes all waste characterization data available to
the Agency for the K103 and K104 waste treatability group. An estimate
of the major constituents that compose each waste and their approximate
concentrations is presented in Table 2-3. The percent concentration of
2-8
-------
each major constituent in the waste was determined from best estimates
based on chemical analyses. Table 2-3 shows that the major constituent
of both K103 and K104 is water (at >94.7 percent and >98.7 percent,
respectively). The primary organic BOAT constituent in K103 is aniline,
with benzene and sulfide being the other primary BOAT constituents
present (<1.0 percent). The primary organic BOAT constituent in K104 is
nitrobenzene, benzene and cyanides being the other primary BOAT
constituents present (<1.0 percent).
The ranges of BOAT constituents present in each waste and all other
available data concerning waste characterization parameters obtained from
the Onsite Engineering Report for E. I. duPont de Nemours, Beaumont,
Texas, are presented by waste code in Table 2-4. This table lists the
levels of BOAT organics (volatile and semivolatile), metals, and
inorganics present in K103 and K104 wastes. Other parameters analyzed in
the wastes include total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, total
organic carbon, and chemical oxygen demand. Tables 2-3 and 2-4 together
provide a thorough characterization of K103 and K104 wastes.
2-9
-------
Table 2-3 Major Constituent Composition for K103 and K104 Wastes3
Constituent
Water
Aniline
BOAT constituents
(other than aniline)
Total
K103 waste
concentration (wt. percent)
>94.7
4.3
100.0%
Constituent
Water
Nitrobenzene
BOAT constituents
(other than nitrobenzene)
Total
K104 waste
concentration (wt. percent)
>98.7
0.3
100.0
aPercent concentrations presented here were determined from best
estimates based on chemical analyses.
Reference: USEPA. 1987. Onsite engineering report for E. I. duPont de
Nemours, Beaumont, Texas. Pages 6 and 8.
2-10
-------
Table 2-4 BOAT Constituent Analysis and Other Data
a
Untreated Waste Concentration Range, mg/l
BOAT ORGAN ICS K103 K104
Volatile 32 - 81 4.5 - 320
4. Benzene
Semivolatile
56. Aniline 33,000 - 53,000 <150 - <300
101. 2,4-Dinitrophenol <7,500 - <15,000 750 - <1,500
126. Nitrobenzene 1,900 - 2,800° 2,200 - 3,900
142. Phenol 1,500 - <3,000 <150 - <300
BOAT Metals
155. Arsenic 0.01 - 21 <0.01
156. Barium <.001 .0015 - .017
159. Chromium <.007 <.007 - .432
160. Copper <.006 <.006 - .012
161. Lead <.005 • 6 <.020
161. Nickel <.011 <-011 • .238
168. Zinc 3 - 21 <.038 - .079
BOAT Inorganics
169. Total Cyanides
171. Sulfide O.010 - 0.075 3.06 - 6.28
62 - 89 <1.0
Other Parameters
Total Dissolved Solids d 10,200 - 27,200
Total Suspended Solids 8-24 21 - 172
Total Organic Carbon 33,500 - 36,300 1,420 - 2,990
Chemical Oxygen Demand 97,800 - 111,000 5,290 • 48,200
a Values obtained from Onsite engineering report of Treatment Technology Performance for E.I. du Pont
de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas. Tables 6-6 and 6-8.
" Data from the Effluent Limitations Guideline Data Base show untreated nitrobenzene in the range
87 - 5,460 ppm and untreated 2,4-dinitrophenol in the range 20 - 58 mg/l.
c Value represents the treated waste from the aniline liquid/liquid extractor. Nitrobenzene was used
as a solvent in the aniline liquid/liquid extractor.
° Total dissolved solids could not be analyzed since the sample flashed before an analysis could be
completed. This was the result of the amount of organics contained in the sample.
2-11
-------
3. APPLICABLE/DEMONSTRATED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
The purpose of this section is to describe applicable treatment
technologies for treatment of K103 and K104 wastes that the Agency has
identified as applicable and to describe which of the applicable
technologies the Agency has determined to be demonstrated. Included in
this section are discussions of those applicable treatment technologies
that have been demonstrated on a commercial basis. The technologies
considered to be applicable are those that treat organic compounds by
concentration reduction.
The previous section described the industry that will be affected by
the land disposal restrictions on K103 and K104 wastes and presented a
characterization of these wastes. Analysis of the K103 wastewaters
indicates that they primarily consist of water (94.7 percent) and aniline
(4.3 percent). The K104 wastewater primarily consists of water (98.7
percent), nitrobenzene (0.3 percent), and small amounts of cyanides. The
Agency has identified treatment technologies that may be applicable to
K103 and K104 because the technologies are designed to reduce the
concentration of organic compounds present in the untreated waste. The
selection of the treatment technologies applicable for treating organic
compounds and cyanides in K103 and K104 wastewaters is based on
information obtained from engineering site visits and available
1iterature sources.
3.1 Applicable Treatment Technologies
For K103 and K104 wastewaters, the Agency has identified the
following treatment technologies as being applicable: liquid/liquid (or
3-1
-------
solvent) extraction, which separates the organic components from the
aqueous components by exploiting the relative differential or selective
solubility of the organic constituents in a particular solvent; steam
stripping, which removes organics from the liquid phase through
volatilization; activated carbon adsorption, which uses carbon granules
to selectively remove organic contaminants by adsorption; and biological
treatment, which involves the use of microorganisms to degrade organic
compounds.
The use of activated carbon adsorption in treating the wastewaters
generates a spent carbon that is a nonwastewater. Spent carbon will
generally be regenerated by a thermal process, such as low temperature
incineration (700°C) or steam stripping. In both cases, the
wastewaters generated will be similar to K103 and K104 wastewaters and
can be treated accordingly. After several cycles of regeneration and
reuse, the spent carbon is discarded. The Agency has identified rotary
kiln incineration as being an applicable treatment technology for this
nonwastewater form of K103 and K104.
Another nonwastewater stream is generated from the nitrobenzene
liquid/liquid extractor; it may be recycled or returned to the process
stream. If it is incinerated as a waste, special consideration must be
given because of the possible reactive nature of the waste.
3.2 Demonstrated Treatment Technologies
Nonwastewaters
The demonstrated technology that the Agency has identified for
treatment of K103 and K104 nonwastewaters is rotary kiln incineration.
3-2
-------
This technology is not currently being used for the treatment of K103 and
K104 nonwastewaters, but it is used for wastes similar to K103 and K104
nonwastewaters. Accordingly, EPA believes this technology is
demonstrated for K103 and K104.
Wastewaters
The Agency has determined that all of the applicable technologies for
wastewaters are demonstrated. Solvent extraction is a demonstrated
treatment technology. The facility tested has used this technology on a
full-scale basis for K103 and K104. Solvent extraction is regularly used
for the separation of organics in manufacturing processes and waste
treatment. For example, solvent extraction is used in the petroleum
refining industry, both in product processes and waste treatment.* Waste
characteristics affecting the performance of solvent extraction include
the following: total organic carbon, filterable solids, viscosity, and
BOAT list metals content. The demonstrated treatment technologies listed
above for K103 and K104, generally, are combined to form treatment
systems or treatment trains, which are more effective than single
technologies alone in removing and recovering organics from wastewater.
The three treatment technology systems that are demonstrated or are
currently in commercial use are as follows:
• Liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping and
activated carbon adsorption;
• Steam stripping followed by activated carbon adsorption; and
• Steam stripping followed by biological treatment.
For a further discussion on the use of solvent extraction in waste
treatment systems, refer to Section 3 of the Background Document for
K048-52 (Petroleum Refinery Wastes).
3-3
-------
A more detailed discussion of the treatment technology system for
which the Agency has collected performance data is presented in
Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.3.
3.2.1 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.
(1) 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 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 extraction. For a predominately liquid waste matrix with low
filterable solids, the extracted liquid (referred to as the raffinate)
could be reused. Solvent extraction can seldom be used without
additional treatment (e.g., incineration) of the extract; however, some
industries may be able to recycle the solvent stream contaminated with
the BOAT constituents back to the process.
3-4
-------
(2) Underlying principles of operation. For solvent extraction to
occur, the BOAT 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 constituent in the
solvent to the equilibrium concentration of the constituent in the waste.
The solvent and waste stream are mixed to allow mass transfer of the
constituent(s) from the waste stream to the solvent. The solvent and
waste stream are then allowed to separate under quiescent conditions.
The solvent solution containing the extracted contaminant is called the
extract. The extracted waste stream with the contaminants removed is
called the raffinate. The simplest extraction system comprises three
components: (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 difference exists between the solvent and waste stream phases.
The extract can be either the heavy phase or the light phase.
(3) Physical description of a solvent extraction process. The
simplest method of extraction is a single-stage system. The solvent and
waste stream are brought together; clean effluent and solvent are
recovered without further extraction. The clean effluent is referred to
as the raffinate, and the solvent containing the constituents that were
removed from the waste stream are known as the extract. The amount of
3-5
-------
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
extraction. 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. Raffinate 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.
(a) 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. Dispersion 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
3-6
-------
separates in a horizontal settler. The extract from the second settler
is recycled to the first settler (see Figure 3-1). 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. In-tense
agitation to provide high rates of mass transfer can produce solvent-feed
dispersions that are difficult to separate into distinct phases.
(b) Column contactors. Packed and sieve-tray are two
different types of column contactors that do not require mechanical
agitation. Figure 3-2 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 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.
3-7
-------
WASTE
GO
I
oo
MIXER
RECYCLED SOLVENT FROM
RECOVERY/FRESH SOLVENT
MAKEUP
RAFFINATE
RAFFINATE
SOLVENT
EXTRACT
MIXER
RAFFINATE
SOLVENT
RECYCLED
SOLVENT
EXTRACT TO RECOVERY
Figure 3-1
TWO-STAGE MIXER-SETTLER EXTRACTION SYSTEM
-------
SOLVENT
LIQUID
INTERFACE
SOLVENT.
GO
VD
WASTE
RAFFINATE
rm
IJJJ
SOLVENT
PACKING
SUPPORT
REDISTRIBUTOR
\PACKING
SUPORT
EXTRACT
RAFFINATE
r------
SOLVENT
LIQUID
INTERFACE
DOWNCOMER
WASTE
A. PACKED EXTRACTOR
EXTRACT
B. SIEVE TRAY EXTRACTOR
Figure 3-2
EXTRACTION COLUMNS WITH NONMECHANICAL AGITATION
-------
(4) Waste characteristics affecting performance. In
determining whether solvent extraction 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 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 coefficients 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 decisions regarding transfer of treatment standards.
For the liquid/liquid extraction system, the WCAPs are the relative
solubilities (a measure of the partitioning coefficient) of the various
waste constituents in water and in nitrobenzene. The primary organic
constituents of K103 and K104 (benzene, aniline, nitrobenzene, phenol,
and 2,4-dinitrophenol), along with cyanides, are all soluble in
nitrobenzene at 40°C. Phenol and cyanides are soluble in water at
40CC, while benzene, aniline, and nitrobenzene are relatively
insoluble in water (0.137 g/100 g HO saturated solution at
54.5°C). It should also be noted that the density of nitrobenzene
relative to water is 1.205 at 4°C.
(5) 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
3-10
-------
from the waste. The particular design and operating parameters to be
evaluated are: (1) the selection of a solvent, (2) equilibrium data,
(3) temperature and pH, (4) mixing, and (5) settling time.
(a) 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 preferentially soluble in the selected solvent
that determines the effectiveness of this technology. In addition to
this information, EPA reviews any empirical extraction data used to
design the system.
(b) 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 evaluates these data as part of assessing the design of the
system.
(c) Temperature and pH. Temperature and pH changes
can affect equilibrium conditions and, consequently, the performance of
the extraction system. Thus, it is important to attempt to monitor and
record these values on a continuous basis.
3-11
-------
(d) 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. Therefore, it is important to identify the
type of mixers used and the basis for determining that this system would
provide sufficient mixing.
(e) 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, the
settling time allowed and the basis for selection must be identified.
3.2.2 Steam Stripping
Steam stripping is a technology that can separate more volatile
materials from less volatile materials by a process of vaporization and
condensation. As such, it is a type of distillation process.
(1) Applicability and use of steam stripping. Steam stripping is
applicable to wastewaters that contain BOAT organics that are
sufficiently volatile such that they can be removed by the application of
steam. Waste parameters affecting treatment selection are filterable
solids, total organic carbon (TOC), and the presence of BOAT organics
that are either not volatile or only minimally volatile.
(2) Underlying principles of operation. The basic principle of
operation for steam stripping is the volatilization of hazardous
constituents through the application of heat. The constituents that are
volatilized are then condensed and either reused or further treated by
liquid injection incineration.
3-12
-------
An integral part of the theory of steam stripping is the principle of
vapor-liquid equilibrium. When a liquid mixture of two or more
components is heated, a vapor phase is created above the liquid phase.
The vapor phase will be more concentrated in the constituents having the
higher vapor pressure. If the vapor phase above the liquid phase is
cooled to yield a condensate, a partial separation of the components
results. The degree of separation would depend on the relative
differences in the vapor pressures of the constituents; the larger the
difference in the vapor pressure, the more easily the separation can be
accomplished.
If the difference between the vapor pressures is extremely large, a
single separation cycle or single equilibrium stage of vaporization and
condensation may achieve a significant separation of the constituents.
If the difference between the vapor pressures is small, then multiple
equilibrium stages are needed to achieve effective separation. In
practice, the multiple equilibrium stages are obtained by stacking trays
or placing.packing into a column. The vapor phase from a tray rises to
the tray above it and the liquid phase falls to the tray below it.
Essentially, each tray represents one equilibrium stage. In a packed
steam stripping column, the individual equilibrium stages are not
discernible, but the number of equivalent trays can be calculated from
mathematical relationships.
The vapor-liquid equilibrium is expressed as relative volatility or
the ratio of the vapor-to-liquid concentration for a constituent divided
by the ratio of the vapor-to-liquid concentration of the other
3-13
-------
constituent. The relative volatility is a direct measure of the ease of
separation. If the numerical value is 1, then separation is impossible
because the constituents have the same concentrations in the vapor and
liquid phases. Separation becomes easier as the value of the relative
volatility becomes increasingly greater than unity.
(3) Physical description of the process. A steam stripping
unit consists of a boiler, a stripping section, a condenser, and a
collection tank as shown by Figure 3-3. The boiler provides the heat
required to vaporize the liquid fraction of the waste. The stripping
section is composed of a set of trays or packing in a vertical column.
The feed enters at the top.
The stripping process uses multiple equilibrium stages, with the
initial waste mixture entering the uppermost equilibrium stage. The
boiler is located below the lowermost equilibrium stage so that vapor
generated moves upward in the column, coming into contact with the
falling liquid. As the vapor comes into contact with the liquid at each
stage, the more volatile components are removed or "stripped" from the
liquid by the vapor phase. The concentration of the emerging vapor is
slightly enriched (as it is in equilibrium with the incoming liquid), and
the liquid exiting the bottom of the boiler ("bottoms") is considerably
enriched in the lower vapor pressure constituent(s). The process of
stripping is very effective for wastewaters where the relative
volatilities are large between the organics of concern and wastewater.
Steam stripping is used to strip the organic volatiles from wastewater.
The water effluent from the bottom of the stripper is reduced in organic
3-14
-------
VENT OF
NON-CONDENSED
VAPORS
CONDENSER
WASTE
INFLUENT
TREATED
EFFLUENT
RECOVERED SOLVENT
FOR REUSE
OR TREATMENT
Figure 3-3
STEAM STRIPPING
3-15
-------
content, but in some circumstances may require additional treatment, such
as carbon adsorption or biological treatment. The steam and organic
vapors leaving the top of the column are condensed. Organics in the
condensate that form a separate phase in water usually can be separated
and recovered or disposed of in a liquid injection incinerator. After
separation the aqueous condensate is usually recycled to the stripper.
(4) Waste characteristics affecting performance. In determining
whether steam stripping is likely to achieve the same level of
performance on an untested waste as on a previously tested waste, EPA
will focus on the following characteristics: boiling point, total
dissolved solids, total dissolved volatile solids, and oil and grease.
EPA recognizes that these characteristics have some limitations in
assessing transfer of performance; nevertheless, the Agency believes that
they provide the best possible indicator of the preferred waste
characteristic analysis, i.e., relative volatility. Below is a
discussion of relative volatility, as well as EPA's rationale for
evaluating the above-described waste characteristics in determining
transfer of treatment performance.
As discussed earlier, the term relative volatility (a) refers to
the ease with which a substance present in a solid or liquid waste will
vaporize from that waste upon application of heat from an external
source. Hence, it bears a relationship to the equilibrium vapor pressure
of the substance.
3-16
-------
*
For an ideal binary mixture, the relative volatility (a) is
expressed as:
K
i
1
where K. and K. are equilibrium concentrations for components i and j
' J
respectively, Y is the mole fraction of the component in the vapor, and X
is the mole fraction of the component in the liquid.
For non ideal binary mixtures, the relative volatility (a) is
expressed as:
where f is the fugacity. The term "fugacity" is a conveniently defined
thermodynamic term to account for departures from ideal behavior of the
gas and liquid; it can only be determined empirically.
EPA recognizes that the relative volatilities cannot be measured or
calculated directly for the types of wastes generally treated by steam
stripping even if these wastes behaved in an ideal manner. Determining
relative volatilities is further complicated by the fact that the
relative volatility changes as the temperature conditions change
The term "ideal" refers to whether the vapor pressures of the two
components can be linearly related to their respective compositions
in the liquid phase; this is known as Raoult's law. In general,
binary solutions at low pressures follow this law and are, therefore,
"ideal"; most mixtures do not.
3-17
-------
throughout the steam stripper. Accordingly, EPA will use the following
surrogates: boiling point of the constituent, oil and grease content,
total dissolved inorganic solids, and total dissolved volatile solids.
For a given pressure and temperature, compounds with lower boiling
points will have higher vapor pressures. Therefore, in the case of
wastewaters containing low concentrations of organics where relative
volatility is effectively a comparison of vapor pressures, the ratio of
boiling points of the untested and tested constituents will indicate
whether the untested waste can be treated to the same degree as the
tested constituent. Boiling point alone would not account for any non-
ideal behavior of the solution. Accordingly, EPA will examine the
concentrations of oil and grease, total dissolved solids, and total
dissolved volatile solids. All of these characteristics affect the
partial pressures of the individual organic constituents of concern as
well as the solubility. Accordingly, these characteristics will affect
relative volatility of a constituent and, hence, the ability of the
constituent to be treated using steam stripping.
The waste characteristics affecting performance for the steam
stripper are the vapor pressures of the various constituents in the
waste. The higher the vapor pressure, the more easily stripped. At
40°C, benzene has a vapor pressure of 182.7 mm Hg, aniline has a
vapor pressure of 2.90 mm Hg, and phenol has a vapor pressure of
2.02 mm Hg. Nitrobenzene has a vapor pressure of 1 mm Hg at 44.4°C,
and 2,4-dinitrophenol has a vapor pressure of 1 mm Hg at 49.3°C. The
3-18
-------
cyanides present are primarily solid salts, and hence have low vapor
pressures or decompose upon heating. There are no known azeotropes among
the constituents of these wastes, and there is no known polymerization
potential upon heating these wastes.
(5) Design and operating parameters. EPA's analysis of
whether a steam stripping system is well designed focuses on the degree
of separation the system is designed to achieve and the controls
installed to maintain the proper operating conditions. The specific
parameters are presented below.
(a) Treated and untreated concentrations. In determining
whether to sample a particular steam stripper as a candidate for BOAT,
EPA pays close attention to the treated design concentration of the unit
to ensure that it is consistent with best demonstrated practice. This
evaluation is important in that a treatment system will usually not
perform its design. The various untreated waste characteristics that
affect performance are important, because operation of the system with
untreated waste concentrations in excess of initial design conditions can
easily result in poor performance of the treatment unit. In evaluating
the performance of a steam stripper, EPA reviews data on the untreated
waste characteristics to ensure that these data conform with design
specifications.
(b) Vapor-liquid equilibrium data. The vapor-liquid
equilibrium data are determined in laboratory tests unless already
available. The use of these data is required for several reasons.
First, the data are used to calculate the number of theoretical stages
3-19
-------
required to achieve the desire separation. Using the theoretical number
of stages, the actual number of stages can then be determined through the
use of empirical tray efficiency data supplied by an equipment
manufacturer.
Secondly, the vapor-liquid equilibrium data are used to determine the
liquid and vapor flow rates that ensure sufficient contact between the
liquid and vapor streams. These rates are, in turn, used to determine
the column diameter.
(c) Column temperature and pressure. These parameters
are integrally related to the vapor-liquid equilibrium conditions.
Column temperature design includes performing a heat balance around the
steam stripping unit, accounting for the heat removed in the condenser,
heat input in the feed, heat input from steam injectors, and heat loss
from the column. Column pressure influences the boiling point of the
liquid. For example, the column temperature required to achieve the
desired separation can be reduced by operating the system under vacuum.
During treatment, it is important to continuously monitor these
parameters to ensure that the system is operated at design conditions.
(d) Column internals. Column internals are designed
to accommodate the physical and chemical properties of the wastewater to
be stripped. Two types of internals may be used in steam stripping:
trays or packing. Tray types include bubble cap, sieve, valve and
turbo-grid. Trays have several advantages over packing. Trays are less
susceptible to blockage by solids, have a lower capital cost for large
diameter columns (greater than or equal to 3 feet), and accommodate a
3-20
-------
wider range of liquid and vapor flow rates. Compared to trays, packing
has the advantages of having a lower pressure drop per theoretical stage,
being more resistant to corrosive materials, having a lower capital cost
for a small-diameter column (less than 3 feet), and finally being less
susceptible to foaming because of a more uniform flow distribution.
3.2.3 Carbon Adsorption
Adsorption with activated carbon is an important separation method
for removing organics and some other dissolved materials from liquids.
It occurs when the surface of the activated carbon attracts the ions or
molecules of the organic or dissolved solid to form a layer on the carbon
surface and accumulate in its pores.
(1) Applicability and use of carbon adsorption. Activated
carbon treatment is used to remove dissolved organic pollutants from
aqueous streams. To a lesser extent it also is used to remove dissolved
heavy metal and other inorganic contaminants. Inorganics are usually not
very adsorbable, but there are some exceptions (e.g., molybdates, gold
chloride, mercuric chloride, silver salts, and iodine). The most
effective metals removal occurs with metal/inorganic complexes or metal
organic complexes.
Activated carbon treatment is not selective in the organic
contaminants it will remove. Hence, all organics will compete for system
capacity, including organics that need not be removed. In some systems
(downflow granular activated carbon beds), suspended solids over 50 mg/1
cannot be tolerated and must be removed prior to activated carbon
treatment. Activated carbon is frequently applied as a final polishing
3-21
-------
mechanism following other treatment technologies (e.g., biological
treatment). These waste component separations most commonly occur in
industries manufacturing organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, dyes and
pigments, insecticides, refineries, textiles, explosives, food, tobacco,
leather, primary metals, fabricated metals, Pharmaceuticals, and plastics.
(2) Underlying principles of operation. Activated carbon
treatment is an application of the principle of adsorption. Adsorption
is the mass transfer of a molecule from a liquid or gas into a solid
surface.
Activated carbon is manufactured in such a way as to produce
extremely porous carbon particles, whose internal surface area is very
large (500 to 1400 square meters per gram of carbon). This porous
structure, through chemical and physical forces, attracts and holds
(adsorbs) organic molecules as well as certain inorganic molecules. It
is not unusual for activated carbon to adsorb from aqueous solution 0.15
grams of an organic contaminant per gram of carbon, though 0.10 gram/gram
is probably a more realistic general estimate. The principal factor that
affects carbon adsorption is the chemical affinity between the carbon and
the organic compound. Other characteristics such as solubility,
temperature, pH, type of activated carbon used, and presence of other
organics also influence the effectiveness of carbon adsorption.
The effectiveness of adsorption generally improves with increasing
contact time. Exceptions to this rule include chemical compounds that
are not preferentially adsorbed onto the carbon surface. These compounds
3-22
-------
can be adsorbed from adsorption sites in favor of compounds that have a
higher affinity for the carbon over a longer contact time.
Once the contaminants/impurities have been removed from the waste
stream onto the carbon, two options are available. The activated carbon
can be (1) disposed of by approved methods (usually incineration) or (2)
regenerated by thermal or chemical methods for further use.
There is a loss of performance with each regeneration step;
therefore, the activity is never restored to its original level. The
number of times that the carbon can be regenerated is determined by the
extent of physical erosion and the loss of adsorptive capacity. Isotherm
tests on the regenerated carbon can be used to determine adsorptive
capacity, thereby aiding in the prediction of the number of times the
carbon can be regenerated.
(3) Waste characteristics affecting performance. The waste
characteristics that will affect an activated carbon system's performance
are as follows: (1) type of organic contaminants, (2) concentration of
contaminants, and (3) suspended solids, grease and oil concentration.
At first, it might appear that pH and temperature would be
significant factors that would affect adsorption. Polarity of some
organic compounds is affected by pH, and polarity changes influence
adsorption. Particularly with heavy metals, the activated carbon must
have the proper pH to achieve satisfactory removal. Temperature becomes
a significant factor when temperatures become high enough to desorb
contaminants from activated carbon (usually over 100 C). However, these
3-23
-------
factors are considered to be easily controlled during the actual process
and, as such, are not major hindrances to efficient adsorption.
(a) Type of organic contaminants. All organic molecules can be
adsorbed by activated carbon to some degree. Generally, adsorption will
increase with molecular weight until the particle size becomes too large
for carbon pore size. However, the activated carbon usually has a
greater affinity for aromatic compounds than for straight chain compounds.
Nonpolar compounds are usually easily adsorbed, whereas polar ones are
not. Halogenated organic compounds (HOCs), if aromatic (such as PCBs),
are readily adsorbed. Finally, it has been demonstrated in practice that
adsorption will increase with decreasing solubility.
For the carbon adsorption system, the WCAPs are the molecular weights
of the constituents present. The molecular weights of the major
constituents in the waste are as follows: 78.12 for benzene, 123.11 for
nitrobenzene, 93.13 for aniline, 94.11 for phenol, and 184.11 for
2,4-dinitrophenol. The cyanides present are thought to be a mixture of
complex organic and inorganic cyanide compounds, and therefore the
molecular weight cannot be determined. Other important characteristics
of the waste for the carbon adsorption unit are the total organic carbon
content (which is 444 mg/1) and the total suspended solids content (which
is 196 mg/1). The amount of oil and grease in the waste is not known.
(b) Concentration of contaminants. In actual practice
this process becomes ineffective at concentrations exceeding a few
thousand mg/1. The carbon will adsorb concentrated contaminants so fast
that carbon consumption will become excessive, and frequent disposal
3-24
-------
and/or regeneration of carbon is likely to become a greater problem than
removal of the organic materials from the waste stream. For excessively
concentrated waste streams, other organic compound destruction techniques
(e.g., incineration or reuse as a fuel) would probably be more
appropriate.
(c) Suspended solids and grease and oil concentration. In
powdered activated carbon (PAC) systems, suspended solids and grease
concentrations in the wastewater stream have no effect, since they are
removed from the waste along with the spent PAC. However, in
nonfluidized granular activated carbon (GAC) systems (see Section (4)(b)
for a description of these systems), the column of GAC acts as a filter
for suspended particles and greases. It will eventually become plugged
or bound with solids, or coated with grease and oils, and will not be
able to sustain the flow of wastewater. Consequently, the more suspended
solids or grease and oils in the GAC column influent, the sooner it must
be backwashed, hence slowing the dissolved organic compound removal rate.
(4) Physical description of the process. Specific designs will
depend on the waste stream to be treated and the type of end product
desired. However, a few examples will provide some idea of how these
systems work.
(a) Systems using PAC. PAC can be easily used in
exiting equipment such as tanks, filtration, or settling apparatus.
Since it is a fine powder, it is usually put directly into the waste
stream. It needs lower contact times than GAC because it adsorbs
3-25
-------
contaminants more quickly. PAC usually has less adsorption capacity than
GAC, so more is required. A few treatment systems are described below.
(i) Batch system. The incoming waste stream is
thoroughly stirred with the PAC, usually with some type of mechanical
agitator. The stirring time (contact time) is usually 20 to 30 minutes
in most cases. After adsorption equilibrium is reached, the mixture is
settled and/or filtered to separate the PAC from the wastewater. This
procedure can be separated to increase filtrate clarity.
(ii) Continuous system. In a continuous system
both the waste liquid and carbon slurry enter mixing tanks simultaneously
and continuously. Continuous settling and/or filtration again follows
the mixing.
(b) Systems using GAC. In GAC systems the carbon is
packed in columns and the liquid is passed through a bed of the carbon.
The liquid flow can be either up or down through the vertical column.
Figure 3-4 shows some common systems.
Typically, the wastewater to be treated is passed downward through a
stationary bed of carbon. The constituent to be
removed is adsorbed most rapidly and effectively by the upper few layers
of fresh carbon during the initial stages of operation. These upper
layers are in contact with the wastewater at its highest concentration
level. The small amounts of target constituent that escape adsorption in
the first few layers of the activated carbon are removed from solution in
3-26
-------
CO
CO
I
rv>
O
O
o
o
o
o
c
33
O
z
en
IN
OUT
DOHNFLOH IN SERIES
IN
OUT
IN
MOVING BED
IN
OUT
COCURRENT IN PARALLEL
COUNTERCURHENT- EXPANDED IN SERIES
-------
the lower or downstream portion of the bed. Initially, hone of the
constituent to be removed escapes from the adsorbent.
As the liquid flows down the column, the adsorption capacity is
reached in the top layers and the adsorption zone starts moving down the
column. As the adsorption zone moves near the end of the bed, the
concentration in the effluent rapidly approaches the influent
concentration. This point in the operation is referred to as
breakthrough. A breakthrough curve (Figure 3-5) is the plot of the ratio
of effluent to influent concentrations versus time of operation. At
breakthrough the bed is exhausted and little additional removal of the
constituent will occur. At this point, the carbon must be replaced or
regenerated.
(5) Design and operating parameters.
(a) Design parameters. The system design must account
for three parameters that affect the ability of activated carbon to
adsorb contaminants: (1) contact time, (2) carbon particle type and size,
and (3) wastewater flow rate.
(i) Contact time. For both PAC and GAC systems,
contact time must be determined by testing individual wastes with
different activated carbon samples. Once contact time is determined for
adequate removal of contaminants, tank sizing is the next step and it
will depend on waste flow rate.
3-28
-------
CO
I
ro
vc
A080W>TION~
ZONC .
« ui
t- ui »-
X U
-JO
U. »-
U. »- U
FEED
co co
1 1
;
I'iS'1';';'
£''£'£'''''
co
;i:
T T
C C
EFFLUENT
1 0
0.6
0
CB
1 '
C|
l'l J
3
co
\ '
CE
I IMF rf ^
•REAKTHROUW
Figure 3-5 PLOT OF BREAKTHROUGH CURVE
SOURCE: USEPA 1986
-------
(ii) Carbon particle type and size. Activated carbon
is made from a variety of substances (e.g., coal, wood), ground to many
different sizes, and manufactured with "customized" pore sizes. A range
of surface areas and individual pore sizes will determine the carbon's
adsorptive capacity. Bench testing is recommended to determine the most
effective activated carbon product for a particular waste stream and
desired effluent.
(iii) Wastewater flow rate. GAC systems are designed
for upflow or downflow operation. For both types, there are practical
limits to the liquid velocity. Once the velocity and contact time are
determined, the bed cross-section and depth are sized to meet these
requirements.
(b) Operating parameters. A number of parameters must
be maintained during operation to ensure that the adsorption system
adheres to the design specifications. These are: (1) waste liquid
concentration, (2) suspended oils and solids, and (3) contact time.
(i) Waste liquid concentration. In GAC systems,
the concentration has a direct effect on the operation of an adsorption
system because if the concentration is significantly higher than the
design concentration, column breakthrough will occur quickly and
excessive regeneration will be required. Conversely, if, during the
operation of a column, the waste liquid concentration decreases
significantly, previously adsorbed molecules can be desorbed from the
carbon and discharged in the effluent stream. Additionally, changes in
the waste composition can cause previously adsorbed molecules to be
3-30
-------
desorbed and replaced by molecules of a different constituent if the new
constituent has a higher affinity for the carbon surface. These types of
situations can lead to effluent concentrations for a particular waste
constituent that are higher than influent concentrations. Waste liquid
concentration has a lesser effect on PAC systems because the PAC is
removed as it is spent. Desorption is not a problem. However, if the
concentration increases significantly over the design concentrations,
excessive quantities of PAC may be required. In any case, the effluent
must be monitored for breakthrough of contaminants.
(ii) Suspended oils and solids. Suspended oils and
solids are not usually a problem with PAC systems. However, in GAC
systems, oils and suspended solids in the waste will eventually plug the
column. If the concentration of solids is significant (typically greater
than 200 mg/1), the waste will need to be pretreated to remove them. In
any case, suspended solids and greases present in the GAC column influent
will necessitate backwashing and/or column cleaning. The need for such
cleaning can be detected with pressure gauges that monitor the degree of
plugging.
(iii) Contact time. Contact time requirements vary
with the type of system but must be maintained within design
specifications. Typical contact times vary between 100 and 300 minutes
for GAC systems, and are somewhat lower for PAC systems. For GAC
2
systems, typical downflow rates are between 20 and 330 1/min m of bed
2
area. A typical upflow rate is 610 1/min m of bed area, unless the
3-31
-------
bed is fluidized, in which case higher velocities are necessary. Contact
time is monitored by measuring wastewater flow rate, since system volume
is predetermined.
3.2.4 Incineration
This section addresses the commonly used incineration technologies:
liquid injection, rotary kiln, fluidized bed, 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.
(1) Applicability and use of incineration.
(a) Liquid injection. Liquid injection is applicable
to wastes that have viscosity values sufficiently low so that the waste
can be atomized in the combustion chamber. A range of literature maximum
viscosity values are reported, with the low being 100 SSU and the high
4
being 10,000 SSU. It is important to note that viscosity is temperature
dependent so that while liquid injection may not be applicable to a waste
at ambient conditions, it may be applicable when the waste is heated.
Other factors that affect the use of liquid injection are particle size
and the presence of suspended solids. Both of these waste parameters can
cause plugging of the burner nozzle.
3-32
-------
(b) Rotary kiln/fluidized bed/fixed hearth. These incineration
technologies are applicable to a wide range of hazardous wastes. They
can be used on wastes that contain high or low total organic content,
high or low filterable solids, various viscosity ranges, and a range of
other waste parameters. EPA has not found these technologies to be
demonstrated on wastes that are composed essentially of metals with low
organic concentrations. In addition, the Agency expects that some of the
high metal content wastes may not be compatible with existing and future
air emission limits without emission controls far more extensive than
those currently used.
(2) Underlying principles of operation.
(a) Liquid injection. The basic operating principle
of this incineration technology is that incoming liquid wastes are
volatilized and then additional heat is supplied to the waste to
destabilize the chemical bonds. Once the chemical bonds are broken,
these constituents react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water
vapor. The energy needed to destabilize the bonds is referred to as the
energy of activation.
(b) Rotary kiln and fixed hearth. There are two
distinct principles of operation for these incineration 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 volatilization
process some of the organic constituents will oxidize to carbon dioxide
and water vapor. In the secondary chamber, additional heat is supplied
3-33
-------
to overcome 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.
(c) Fluidized bed. The principle of operation for
this incineration technology is somewhat different from that for rotary
kiln and fixed hearth incineration relative to the functions of the
primary and secondary chambers. In fluidized bed incineration, the
purpose of the primary chamber is not only to volatilize the wastes but
also to essentially combust the waste. Destruction of the waste organics
can be accomplished to a better degree in the primary chamber of the
fluidized bed than in that of the rotary kiln or fixed hearth because of
(1) improved heat transfer from fluidization of the waste using forced
air and (2) the fact that the fluidization process provides sufficient
oxygen and turbulence to convert the organics to carbon dioxide and water
vapor. The secondary chamber (referred to as the freeboard) generally
does not have an afterburner; however, additional time is provided for
conversion of the organic constituents to carbon dioxide, water vapor,
and hydrochloric acid if chlorine is present in the waste.
(3) Description of incineration technologies.
(a) 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 virtually 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
3-34
-------
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
downward. Figure 3-6 illustrates a liquid injection incineration system.
(b) Rotary kiln. A rotary kiln is a slowly rotating,
refractory-lined cylinder that is mounted at a slight incline from the
horizontal (see Figure 3-7). Solid wastes enter at the high end of the
kiln, and liquid or gaseous wastes enter through atomizing nozzles in the
kiln or afterburner section. Rotation of the kiln exposes the solids to
the heat, vaporizes them, and allows them to combust by mixing with air.
The rotation also causes the ash to move to the lower end of the kiln,
where it can be removed. Rotary kiln systems usually have a secondary
combustion chamber or afterburner following the kiln for further
combustion of the volatilized components of solid wastes.
(c) Fluidized bed. A fluidized bed incinerator
consists of a column containing inert particles such as sand which is
referred to as the bed. Air, driven by a blower, enters the bottom of
the bed to fluidize the sand. Air passage through the bed promotes rapid
and uniform mixing of the injected waste material within the fluidized
bed. The fluidized bed has an extremely high heat capacity
(approximately three times that of flue gas at the same temperature),
providing a large heat reservoir. The injected waste reaches ignition
3-35
-------
WATER
AUXILIARY FUEL
HBURNER
AIR-
CO
I
CO
CTl
LIQUID OR GASEOUS.
WASTE INJECTION
^BURNER
PRIMARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
AFTERBURNER
(SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER)
SPRAY
CHAMBER
GAS TO AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
HORIZONTALLY FIRED
LIQUID INJECTION
INCINERATOR
ASH
WATER
Figure 3-6
LIQUID INJECTION INCINERATOR
-------
GAS TO
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
AUXILIARY
FUEL
AFTERBURNER
SOLID
WASTE
INFLUENT
FEED
MECHANISM
COMBUSTION
GASES
LIQUID OR
GASEOUS
WASTE
INJECTION
ASH
Figure 3-7
ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
3-37
-------
temperature quickly and transfers the heat of combustion back to the
bed. Continued bed agitation by the fluidizing air allows larger
particles to remain suspended in the combustion zone. (See Figure 3-8).
(d) Fixed hearth incineration. Fixed hearth incinerators, also
called controlled air or starved air incinerators, are another major
technology used for hazardous waste incineration. Fixed hearth
incineration is a two-stage combustion process (see Figure 3-9). 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.
(e) Air pollution controls. Following incineration of
hazardous wastes, combustion gases are generally further treated in an
air pollution control system. The presence of chlorine or other halogens
in the waste requires a scrubbing or absorption step to remove HC1 and
other halo-acids from the combustion gases. Ash in the waste is not
destroyed in the combustion process. Depending on its composition, ash
will exit either as bottom ash, at the discharge end of a kiln or hearth
for example, or as particulate matter (fly ash) suspended in the
3-38
-------
WASTE
INJECTION
BURNER
FREEBOARD
SAND BED
GAS TO
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
MAKE-UP
SAND
AIR
ASH
Figure 3-8
FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR
3-39
-------
AIR
WASTE
INJECTION
BURNER
AIR
GAS TO AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
PRIMARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
GRATE
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
AUXILIARY
FUEL
2-STAGE FIXED HEARTH
INCINERATOR
ASH
Figure 3-9
FIXED HEARTH INCINERATOR
-------
combustion gas stream. Particulate emissions from most hazardous waste
combustion systems generally have particle diameters of less than 1
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
resulting from poor combustion efficiency or combustion upsets, such as
flame-outs.
(4) Waste characteristics affecting performance .
(a) Liquid injection. In determining whether liquid injection
is likely to achieve the same level of performance on an untested waste
as on a previously tested waste, the Agency will compare dissociation
bond 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, destabilizes molecular bonds. In theory,
the bond dissociation energy would be equal to the activation energy;
however, in practice this is not always the case. Other energy effects
(e.g., vibrational effects, the formation of intermediates, and
interactions between different molecular bonds) may have a significant
influence on activation energy.
Because of the shortcomings of bond energies in estimating activation
energy, EPA analyzed other waste characteristic parameters to determine
whether these parameters would provide a better basis for transferring
treatment standards from an untested waste to a tested waste. These
parameters include heat of combustion, heat of formation, use of
3-41
-------
available kinetic data to predict activation energies, and general
structural class. All of these were rejected for the reasons provided
below.
The heat of combustion measures only the difference in energy of the
products and reactants; it does not provide information on the transition
state (i.e., the energy input needed to initiate the reaction). Heat of
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 free energy values (&G) for the wide range of hazardous
constituents to be addressed by this rule. Finally, EPA decided not to
use structural classes because the Agency believes that evaluation of
bond dissociation energies allows for a more direct determination of
whether a constituent will be destabilized.
(b) Rotary kiln/fluidized bed/fixed hearth. Unlike
liquid injection, these incineration technologies also generate a
residual ash. Accordingly, in determining whether these technologies are
likely to achieve the same level of performance on an untested waste as
on a previously tested waste, EPA examines the waste characteristics that
affect volatilization of organics from the waste, as well as destruction
of the organics once volatilized. Relative to volatilization, EPA
examines thermal conductivity of the entire waste and boiling point of
the various constituents. As with liquid injection, EPA examines bond
3-42
-------
energies in determining whether treatment standards for scrubber water
residuals can be transferred from a tested waste to an untested waste.
Below is a discussion of how EPA arrived at thermal conductivity and
boiling point as the best method to assess volatilization of organics
from the waste; the discussion relative to bond energies is the same for
these technologies as for liquid injection and will not be repeated here.
(i) Thermal conductivity. Consistent with the
underlying principles 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 the 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 will have the greatest impact on
3-43
-------
volatilization of organic constituents. To measure this characteristic,
EPA will use thermal conductivity; an explanation of this parameter, as
well as how it can be measured, is provided below.
Heat flow by conduction is proportional to the temperature gradient
across the material. The proportionality constant is a property of the
material and is referred to as the thermal conductivity. (Note: The
analytical method that EPA has identified for measurement of thermal
conductivity is named "Guarded, Comparative, Longitudinal Heat Flow
Technique"; it is described in Appendix F.) In theory, thermal
conductivity would always provide a good indication of whether a
constituent in an untested waste would be treated to the same extent in
the primary incinerator chamber as the same constituent in a previously
tested waste.
In practice, thermal conductivity has some limitations in assessing
the transferability of treatment standards; however, EPA has not
identified a parameter that can provide a better indication of heat
transfer characteristics of a waste. Below is a discussion of the
limitations associated with thermal conductivity, as well as other
parameters considered.
Thermal conductivity measurements, as part of a treatability
comparison for two different wastes through a single incinerator, are
most meaningful when applied to wastes that are homogeneous (i.e., major
constituents are essentially the same). As wastes exhibit greater
degrees of nonhomogeneity (e.g., significant concentration of metals in
3-44
-------
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.
BTU value, specific heat, and ash content were also considered for
predicting heat transfer characteristics. These parameters can no better
account for nonhomogeneity than can 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.
(ii) Boil ing point. Once heat is transferred to a
constituent within a waste, removal of this constituent from the waste
will depend on its volatility. EPA is using boiling point of the
constituent as a surrogate of volatility. 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.
(5) Incineration design and operating parameters.
(a) Liquid injection. For a liquid injection unit,
EPA's analysis of whether the unit is well designed focuses on (1) the
likelihood that sufficient energy is provided to the waste to overcome
the activation level for breaking molecular bonds and (2) whether
sufficient oxygen is present to convert the waste constituents to carbon
3-45
-------
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 should be monitored during operation.
It is important to point out that, relative to the development of
land disposal restriction standards, EPA is concerned with these design
parameters only 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 be concerned with only the waste
characteristics that affect selection of the unit, not the
above-mentioned design parameters.
(i) 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, it becomes more likely that the molecular bonds
will be destabilized and the reaction completed.
The temperature is normally controlled automatically through the use
of instrumentation that senses the temperature and automatically adjusts
the amount of fuel and/or waste being fed. The temperature signal
transmitted to the controller can be simultaneously transmitted to a
recording device, referred to as a strip chart, and thereby continuously
3-46
-------
recorded. To fully assess the operation of the unit, it is important to
know not only the exact location in the incinerator at which the
temperature is being monitored but also the location of the design
temperature.
(ii) Excess oxygen. It is important that the incinerator
contain oxygen in excess of the stoichiometric amount necessary to
convert the organic compounds to carbon dioxide and water vapor. If
insufficient oxygen is present, then destabilized waste constituents
could recombine to the same or other BOAT list organic compounds and
potentially cause the scrubber water to contain higher concentrations of
BOAT list constituents than would be the case for a well-operated unit.
In practice, the amount of oxygen fed to the incinerator is
controlled by continuous sampling and analysis of the stack gas. If the
amount of oxygen drops below the design value, then the analyzer
transmits a signal to the valve controlling the air supply, thereby
increasing 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.
(iii) Carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is an important
operating parameter because it provides an indication of the extent to
which the waste organic constituents are being converted to carbon
dioxide water vapor. An increase in carbon monoxide level indicates that
greater amounts of organic waste constituents are unreacted or partially
3-47
-------
reacted. Increased carbon monoxide levels can result from insufficient
excess oxygen, insufficient turbulence in the combustion zone, or
insufficient residence time.
(iv) Waste feed rate. The waste feed rate is important to
monitor because it is correlated to the residence time. The residence
time 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 calorimeter. The volume of combustion gas
generated from the waste to be incinerated is determined from an analysis
referred to as an ultimate analysis. This analysis determines the amount
of elemental constituents present, which include carbon, hydrogen,
sulfur, oxygen, nitrogen, and halogens. Using this analysis plus the
total amount of air added, one can calculate the volume of combustion
gas. After both the Btu content and the expected combustion gas volume
have been determined, 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.
(b) Rotary kiln. For this form of incineration, EPA
examines both the primary and secondary chambers in evaluating the design
of a particular incinerator. Relative to the primary chamber, EPA's
assessment of design will focus on whether it is likely that sufficient
energy will be provided to the waste to volatilize the waste
constituents. For the secondary chamber, analogous to the sole liquid
3-48
-------
injection incineration chamber, EPA will examine the same parameters
discussed previously under liquid injection incineration. These
parameters will not be discussed again here.
The specific design parameters 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
operation.
(i) 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 in a given kiln, the more likely it is that the constituents
will volatilize. 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.
(ii) Residence time. This parameter is important in that it
affects whether sufficient heat is transferred to a particular
constituent for volatilization to occur. As the time that the waste is
in the kiln is increased, a greater quantity of heat is transferred to
the hazardous waste constituents. The residence time will be a function
of the specific configuration of the rotary kiln, including the length
and diameter of the kiln, the waste feed rate, and the rate of rotation.
(iii) 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
3-49
-------
heat transferred to the waste would also be expected to increase.
However, as the RPM value increases, the residence time decreases
resulting in a reduction of the quantity of heat transferred to the
waste. This parameter needs to be carefully evaluated because it
provides a balance between turbulence and residence time.
(c) Fluidized bed. As discussed previously, in the
section on "Underlying principles of operation," the primary chamber
accounts for almost all of the conversion of organic wastes to carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and acid gas if halogens are present. The
secondary chamber will generally provide additional residence time for
thermal oxidation of the waste constituents. Relative to the primary
chamber, the parameters that the Agency examines in assessing the
effectiveness of the design are temperature, residence time, and bed
pressure differential. The first two were discussed under rotary kiln
and will not be repeated here. The third, bed pressure differential, is
important in that it provides an indication of the amount of turbulence
and, therefore, indirectly the amount of heat supplied to the waste. In
general, as the pressure drop increases, both the turbulence and heat
supplied increase. The pressure drop through the bed should be
continuously monitored and recorded to ensure that the designed valued is
achieved.
(d) Fixed hearth. The design considerations for this
incineration unit are similar to those for 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
3-50
-------
Agency will examine in assessing how well the unit is designed are the
same as those discussed under rotary kiln; for the secondary chamber
(i.e., afterburner), the design and operating parameters of concern are
the same as those previously discussed under "Liquid Injection."
3-51
-------
4. PERFORMANCE DATA BASE
This section discusses all available performance data that EPA has on
the demonstrated technologies discussed in Section 3. Performance data
include the untreated and treated waste concentrations for a given
constituent, the operating values that existed at the time the waste was
being treated, the design values for the treatment technology, and data
on waste characteristics that affect treatment performance. EPA has
provided all such data to the extent that they are available.
EPA's use of these data in determining the technology that represents
BOAT and in the development of treatment standards is discussed in
Sections 5 and 7, respectively. For K103 and K104 wastewaters, EPA has
performance data on liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping
and activated carbon adsorption.
Performance data collected by EPA for liquid/liquid extraction
followed by stream stripping and carbon adsorption are presented in
Tables 4-1 to 4-5 at the end of this section. Tables 4-1 through 4-5
present the analytical data for sample sets 1 through 5 collected during
the Agency's sampling visit. The untreated K103 and K104 wastes and the
combined treated stream leaving the carbon adsorption beds for each
sample set were analyzed for BOAT volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds, metals, inorganic compounds, and other parameters.
Included in Tables 4-1 through 4-5 are the design values and actual
operating ranges for the key operating parameters of the aniline
liquid/liquid extractor, nitrobenzene liquid/liquid extractor, steam
4-1
-------
stripper, and activated carbon adsorption beds for each sample set
collected.
Additional performance data for K103 and K104 wastewaters were
extracted from the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Data
Base for the aniline and nitrobenzene industry. The treatment system
used was either steam stripping or steam stripping followed by activated
carbon adsorption. Table 4-6 presents the composite analytical data for
nitrobenzene and 2,4-dinitrophenol. The specific treatment system is
footnoted on Table 4-6. Design and operating ranges were not submitted
by Facility 500P. The design and operating ranges for Facility 2680T
have been claimed as RCRA Confidential Business Information. The design
and operating data are available in the confidential portion of the
Administrative Record for this rulemaking.
EPA does not have performance data from rotary kiln incineration
specifically for K103 and K104 nonwastewaters. Six sample sets from the
treatment of K019 were collected by the Agency for rotary kiln
incineration. The six data sets were transferred* to the resulting K103
and K104 nonwastewaters based on waste characteristics affecting
performance. None of the data sets in K019 were deleted because of poor
design or operation of the treatment system during the time data were
being collected.
See Section 7.4 for a discussion on how the data were transferred.
4-2
-------
Six sample sets from the treatment of K048-K052 by incineration were
also collected by the Agency. These performance data sets for cyanide
(total) were transferred to K103 and K104 nonwastewaters.
Tables 4-7 through 4-12 represent treatment performance data
collected by EPA for K019 at Plant A for rotary kiln incineration.
Design values are claimed as RCRA Confidential Business Information.
Design values are available in the confidential portion of the
Administrative Record for this rulemaking. Tables 4-13 through 4-18
represent treatment performance data collected by EPA for K048 and K051
at Plant A for fluidized bed incineration. Included in Tables 4-13
through 4-18 are the design values and actual operating ranges for the
key operating parameters of the fluidized bed incineration for each
sample set collected.
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 1
- EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichloromonof luoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
H2 Phenol
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sul fides
UNTREATED
K103
(mg/l)
81
<2.5
51,000
<7.500
<1,500
<1,500
<0.010
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.021
0.0748
<0.20
89.0
WASTE
IC104
240
<10
<150
<750
2,700
<150
<0.010
0.0078
0.432
0.012
<0.050
0.238
<0.006
0.079
6.28
<0.20
<1.0*
K103
2.8
<0.5
<60
<300
2,300
<60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TREATED WASTE
K104
(mg/l)
45
<0.5
<75
<375
2,800
<75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E.I. Dupont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14
NA - Not Analyzed
* - Less than detection limit -- caused by interference
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-1 (continued) TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 1
EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STRIPPING
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichloromonof luoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
127 4-Nitrophenol
142 Phenol
** Benzoic Acid
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
UNTREATED
1C 103
(mg/l)
81
<2.5
51.000
<7,500
<1,500
<7,500
•0,500
<7,500
<0.010
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.021
0.0748
<0.20
89.0
WASTE
K104
240
<10
<150
<750
2,700
<750
<150
<750
<0.010
0.0078
0.432
0.012
<0.050
0.238
<0.006
0.079
6.28
<0.20
<1.0«
TREATED WASTE
(mg/l)
<0.005
0.010
<3
57
<3
<15
<3
15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.77
NA
<1.0«
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E.I. Dupont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, 'Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14
NA - Not Analyzed
* - Less than detection limit -- caused by interference
** - Not on BOAT list of constituents
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-1 (continued) TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 1 - EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAH STRIPPING AND ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichloromonof luoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
H2 Phenol
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
UNTREATED
1C 103
(mg/l)
81
<2.5
51,000
<7,500
<1,500
<1.500
<0.010
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.021
0.0748
<0.20
89.0
WASTE
IC104
240
<10
<150
<750
2,700
<150
<0.010
0.0078
0.432
0.012
<0.050
0.238
<0.006
0.079
6.28
<0.20
<1.0*
TREATED WASTE
(mg/l)
0.042
0.007
<0.030
0.380
<0.030
-------
TABLE 4-1 (Continued)
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 1 - EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STRIPPING AMD ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
OPERATING PARAMETERS
Design Value
Operating Range
Aniline Liquid/Liquid Extractor :
Feed Rate to the Extractor (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the Extractor
Feed Temperature to the
Extractor ( C)
Nitrobenzene Liquid/Liquid Extractor
Feed Rate to the Extractor (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the Extractor
Feed Temperature to the
Extractor ( C)
Steam Stripper :
o
Top Column Temperature ( C)
Pressure Drop Across the
Column(inches of water)
Feed Rate to Steam StrippedIbs/hr)
Activated Carbon Adsorption:
Solvent - Nitrobenzene
7,000 - 25,000
9 - 1D*«
40.0««
Solvent • Nitrobenzene
27,000 - 35,000
Max. 2.4
25.0 - 65.0
Min. 95.0
Max. 90.0
Min. 20,000, Max. 90,000
14.400 - 14,500
10.3
13.0
21,300 - 46,000
0.2
39.0
44.26 - 51.00
59,400 • 59,480
Feed Rate to the System (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the System
Feed Temperature to the
System ( C)
Total Organic Carbon in treated
waste (mg/l)
Calculated Residence time (minutes)
Max. 65,300
Min. 7.0
40.0"
Max. 250
Instantaneous
Min. 85
61,600 - 68,600
10.6
25.0
79.3
+
81 - 90
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E. I. duPont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14.
** - Not controlled. Normal operating value is given.
*** - Mid column substituted for top column temperature due to technical difficulties.
+ - Values outside the design range are instantaneous maximum or minimum. Refer to strip charts in
Appendix G.
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-2
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 2 - EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichtoromonof luoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
U2 Phenol
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
UNTREATED
•C103
{mg/D
73
<5
33,000
<7,500
<1,500
<1,500
O.010
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.003
0.0595
<0.20
89.0
WASTE
K104
320
<20
<150
<750
2,200
<150
<0.100
0.0015
0.097
<0.006
<0.100
0.055
<0.006
0.011
3.30
<0.20
<1.0*
K103
6.3
<5
95
<300
2,800
<60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TREATED UASTE
K104
(mg/l)
58
<5
<150
<750
3,200
<150
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
a • Onsite Engineering Report for E.I. Dupont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3; 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14
NA - Not Analyzed
* - Less than detection limit -- caused by interference
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-2 (continued) TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 2 - EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STRIPPING
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichloromonof luoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
127 4-Nitrophenol
142 Phenol
** Benzoic Acid
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
UNTREATED
K103
(rng/l)
73
<5
33,000
<7,500
<1,500
<7.500
<1,500
<7,500
<0.010
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.003
0.0595
<0.20
89.0
WASTE
K104
320
<20
<150
<750
2,200
<750
<150
<750
<0.100
0.0015
0.097
<0.006
<0.100
0.055
<0.006
0.011
3.30
<0.20
<1.0*
TREATED WASTE
(mg/l)
0.008
<0.5
<3
36
<3
<15
<3
25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.87
NA
<1.0*
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E.I. Dupont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14
NA - Not Analyzed
* - Less than detection limit •• caused by interference
** - Not on BOAT list of constituents
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-2 (continued)
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 2 • EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STRIPPING AMD ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichloromonof luoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
142 Phenol
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
UNTREATED
K103
(mg/l)
73
<5
33,000
<7,500
<1,500
<1.500
<0.010
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.003
0.0595
<0.20
89.0
WASTE
KIM
320
<20
<150
<750
2,200
<150
<0.100
0.0015
0.097
<0.006
<0.100
0.055
<0.006
0.011
3.30
<0.20
<1.0«
TREATED WASTE
(mg/l)
<0.005
0.010
<0.030
0.320
<0.030
<0.030
<0.100
0.042
0.024
<0.006
<0.050
<0.011
0.012
0.052
0.597
0.420
<1.0*
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E. 1. duPont de Nemours, Inc.
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14.
* - Less than detection limit -- caused by interference
Beaumont, Texas,
Cont i nued
4-10
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 2 - EPA COLLECTED DATA
e
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STRIPPING AND ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
OPERATING PARAMETERS
Design Value
Operating Range
Aniline Liquid/Liquid Extractor :
Feed Rate to the Extractor (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the Extractor
Feed Temperature to the
Extractor ( C)
Nitrobenzene Liquid/Liquid Extractor
Feed Rate to the Extractor (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the Extractor
Feed Temperature to the
Extractor ( C)
Solvent - Nitrobenzene
7,000 - 25.000
9 - 10"
40.0"
Solvent - Nitrobenzene
27,000 - 35,000
Max. 2.4
25.0 - 65.0
15,900 - 16,000
10.3
22.0
9,800 - 26,000
0.2
43.0
Steam Stripper :
o
Top Column Temperature ( C)
Pressure Drop Across the
Column(inches of water)
Feed Rate to Steam Stripper(Ibs/hr)
Min. 95.0
Max. 90.0
Min. 20,000, Max. 90,000
102.2 - 103.3
42.40 - 58.00
49,000 - 60,100
Activated Carbon Adsorption:
Feed Rate to the System (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the System
Feed Temperature to the
System ( C)
Total Organic Carbon in treated
waste (mg/l)
Calculated Residence time (minutes)
Max. 65,300
Min. 7.0
40.0"
Max. 250
Instantaneous
Min. 85
63,000 - 76,000
4.6*
28.0
73.5+
73 - 88*
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E. I. duPont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14.
** - Not controlled. Normal operating value is given.
+ - Values outside the design range are instantaneous maximum or minimum. Refer to strip charts in
Appendix G.
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-3
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 3
a
- EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION
BOAT
4
48
56
101
126
142
155
156
159
160
161
163
167
168
169
170
171
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
T r i ch 1 orof I uoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
Aniline
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Inorganics
Total Cyanides
Fluorides
Sul fides
UNTREATED
IC103
(mg/l)
65
<2.5
39,000
<15,000
<3,000
<3,000
<0.010
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.0099
0.0411
<0.20
74.0
WASTE
K104
70
<1
<150
<750
2,300
<150
<0.010
0.011
<0.007
0.0075
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.031
5.70
<0.20
<1.0*
K103
3.6
<0.25
<75
<374
1,900
<74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TREATED WASTE
K104
(mg/l)
34
<5
<150
<750
1,800
<150
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E.I. Dupont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14
NA - Not Analyzed
* - Less than detection limit -- caused by interference
4-12
-------
TABLE 4-3 (continued)
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 3
EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STRIPPING
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
t> Benzene
48 Trichloromonof luoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
127 4-Nitrophenol
142 Phenol
** Benzoic Acid
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
UNTREATED
K103
(mg/l)
65
<2.5
39,000
<15,000
<3.000
-------
TABLE 4-3 (continued)
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 3 - EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAH STRIPPING AMD ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
UNTREATED WASTE
K103 K104
TREATED WASTE
(mg/l)
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichlorofluoromethane
65
<2.5
70
<5
0.018
<0.005
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
142 Phenol
39,000
<15,000
<3,000
<3,000
<150
<750
2,300
<150
4.20
<0.760
<0.150
<0.150
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
<0.010
0.001
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.006
0.0099
<0.010
0.011
<0.007
0.0075
<0.005
<0.006
0.031
<0.010
0.068
0.008
<0.006
<0.005
0.0091
0.016
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
0.0411
<0.20
74.0
5.70
<0.20
<1.0*
0.201
0.220
•0.0*
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E. I. duPont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-U.
* - Less than detection limit -- caused by interference
Cont i nued
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 3
EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STRIPPING AND ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
OPERATING PARAMETERS
Design Value
Operating Range
Aniline Liquid/Liquid Extractor :
Feed Rate to the Extractor (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the Extractor
Feed Temperature to the
Extractor ( C)
Nitrobenzene Liquid/Liquid Extractor
Feed Rate to the Extractor (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the Extractor
Feed Temperature to the
Extractor ( C)
Solvent • Nitrobenzene
7,000 - 25.000
9 - 10«*
40.0"
Solvent - Nitrobenzene
27,000 - 35,000
Max. 2.4
25.0 - 65.0
17,600 - 17,800
10.1
24.0
24,100 - 33,000
5.7
42.5
Steam Stripper :
o
Top Column Temperature ( C)
Pressure Drop Across the
ColumnCinches of water)
Feed Rate to Steam StripperCIbs/hr)
Activated Carbon Adsorption:
Feed Rate to the System (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the System
Feed Temperature to the
System ( C)
Total Organic Carbon in treated
waste (mg/l)
Calculated Residence time (minutes)
Min. 95.0
Max. 90.0
Min. 20,000, Max. 90,000
Max. 65,300
Min. 7.0
40.0**
Max. 250
Instantaneous
Min. 85
102.6 - 103.0
46.42 - 50.33
60,200 - 60,400
57,700 - 58,140
3.1*
44.0
10.8
96 - 97
a • Onsite Engineering Report for E. I. duPont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14.
** - Not controlled. Normal operating value is given.
+ - Values outside the design range are instantaneous maximum or minimum. Refer to strip charts in
Appendix G.
4-15
-------
TABLE 4-4
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 4 - EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichlorof luoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
142 Phenol
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sul fides
UNTREATED
K103
(mg/l)
55
<2.5
39,000
<15.000
<3,000
<3,000
0.021
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.018
<0.0100
<0.20
62.0
WASTE
K104
11
<0.5
<300
<1,500
2,900
<300
<0.010
0.017
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.064
3.06
<0.20
<1.0*
K103
2.35
<0.25
<74
<374
2000
<74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TREATED WASTE
K104
(mg/l)
26
<1
<150
<750
2500
<150
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E.I. Dupont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14
NA - Not Analyzed
* - Less than detection limit -- caused by interference
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-4 (continued)
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET l>
EPA COLLECTED DATA
a
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STR1PP1NG
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichloromonof luoromethane
Semivolati le Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
127 4-Nitrophenol
142 Phenol
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
UNTREATED
K103
(mg/l)
55
<2.5
39,000
<15,000
<3,000
<15,000
<3,000
0.021
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.018
<0.0100
<0.20
62.0
WASTE
K104
11
<0.5
<300
<1,500
2,900
<1,500
<300
<0.010
0.017
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.064
3.06
<0.20
<1.0*
TREATED WASTE
(mg/l)
<0.005
<0.005
<1.5
52
<1.5
13
<1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.08
NA
<1.0*
a • Onsite Engineering Report for E.I. Dupont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14
NA - Not Analyzed
* - Less than detection limit -• caused by interference
** - Not on BOAT list of constituents
4-17
-------
TABLE 4-4 (continued)
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 4 • EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAH STRIPPING AND ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
i> Benzene
48 Trichlorof luoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
142 Phenol
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
UNTREATED
K103
(mg/l)
55
<2.5
39,000
<15.000
<3,000
<3,000
0.021
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.018
<0.0100
<0.20
62.0
WASTE
H04
11
<0.5
<300
<1,500
2,900
<300
<0.010
0.017
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
0.064
3.06
<0.20
<1.0*
TREATED WASTE
(mg/l)
0.019
<0.005
<0.030
0.260
<0.030
<0.030
<0.500
0.076
<0.007
<0.006
<0.005
0.015
<0.006
0.033
0.156
0.220
<1.0*
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E. I. duPont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14.
* - Less than detection limit -- caused by interference
Cont i nued
4-18
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 4
EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STRIPPING AND ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
OPERATING PARAMETERS
Design Value
Operating Range
Aniline Liquid/Liquid Extractor :
Feed Rate to the Extractor (Ibs/hr)
Feed pN to the Extractor
Feed Temperature to the
Extractor ( C)
Solvent - Nitrobenzene
7,000 - 25.000
9 - 10"
40.0"
14,900 - 15,200
10.0
31.0
Nitrobenzene Liquid/Liquid Extractor
Feed Rate to the Extractor (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the Extractor
Feed Temperature to the
Extractor ( C)
Solvent - Nitrobenzene
27,000 - 35.000
Max. 2.4
25.0 - 65.0
12,800 - 35,000
0.8
50.0
Steam Stripper :
o
Top Column Temperature ( C)
Pressure Drop Across the
ColumnCinches of water)
Feed Rate to Steam StripperCIbs/hr)
Min. 95.0
Max. 90.0
Min. 20,000, Max. 90,000
102.9 - 103.0
44.05 - 46.10
60,300
Activated Carbon Adsorption:
Feed Rate to the System (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the System
Feed Temperature to the
System ( C)
Total Organic Carbon in treated
waste (mg/l)
Calculated Residence time (minutes)
Max. 65,300
Min. 7.0
40.0"
Max. 250
Instantaneous
Min. 85
59,900 - 60,000
4.
4.0
38.0
10.0
90 - 93
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E. I. duPont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14.
** • Not controlled. Normal operating value is given.
+ - Values outside the design range are instantaneous maximum or minimum. Refer to strip charts in
Appendix G.
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-5
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 5 • EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichlorof luoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
142 Phenol
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
UNTREATED
IC103
(mg/l)
32
<2.5
53,000
<15,000
<3,000
<3.000
-------
TABLE 4-5 (continued) TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 5
a
EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STRIPPING
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichloromonof luoromethane
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
127 4-Nitrophenol
U2 Phenol
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
UNTREATED
K103
(mg/O
32
<2.5
53,000
<15,000
<3,000
<15,000
<3,000
<0.500
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
0.006
<0.011
<0.006
O.OK
0.0384
<0.20
80.0
WASTE
K104
4.5
<0.25
<300
<1,500
3,900
<1,500
<300
<0.500
0.013
0.0071
<0.006
<0.050
0.014
<0.006
0.014
4.44
<0.20
<1.0«
TREATED WASTE
(mg/l>
<0.005
<0.005
<3
16
<3
<15
<3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.70
NA
<1.0*
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E.I. Dupont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14
NA - Not Analyzed
* - Less than detection limit -- caused by interference
** - Not on BOAT list of constituents
4-21
-------
TABLE 4-5 (continued)
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 5 - EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STRIPPING AND ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
BOAT CONSTITUENTS DETECTED
Volatile Organic Compounds
4 Benzene
48 Trichlorof luoromethane
Seimvotati le Organic Compounds
56 Aniline
101 2,4-Dinitrophenol
126 Nitrobenzene
142 Phenol
Metals
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
159 Chromium
160 Copper
161 Lead
163 Nickel
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Total Cyanides
170 Fluorides
171 Sulfides
UNTREATED WASTE
K103 K104
(mg/l)
32
<2.5
53,000
<15,000
<3,000
<3.000
<0.500
<0.001
<0.007
<0.006
0.006
<0.011
<0.006
0.014
0.0384
<0.20
80.0
4.5
<0.25
<300
<1,500
3,900
<300
<0.500
0.013
0.0071
<0.006
<0.050
0.014
<0.006
0.014
4.44
<0.20
<1.0*
TREATED WASTE
(mg/l)
0.011
<0.005
0.960
0.230
<0.030
0.150
<0.010
0.073
0.017
<0.006
<0.100
0.030
<0.006
0.012
0.129
0.620
<1.0*
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E. I. duPont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14.
* - Less than detection limit -- caused by interference
Continued
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-5 (Continued)
TREATMENT DATA FOR SAMPLE SET 5 - EPA COLLECTED DATA
LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION FOLLOWED BY STEAM STRIPPING AND ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
OPERATING PARAMETERS
Design Value
Operating Range
Aniline Liquid/Liquid Extractor :
Feed Rate to the Extractor (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the Extractor
Feed Temperature to the
Extractor ( C)
Solvent • Nitrobenzene
7,000 • 25,000
9 - 10"
40.0"
14,800 - 14,900
10.2
28.0
Nitrobenzene Liquid/Liquid Extractor
Feed Rate to the Extractor (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the Extractor
Feed Temperature to the
Extractor ( C)
Solvent - Nitrobenzene
27,000 - 35,000
Max. 2.4
25.0 - 65.0
24,700 - 31,500
1.5
47.5
Steam Stripper :
o
Top Column Temperature ( C)
Pressure Drop Across the
ColurmCinches of water)
Feed Rate to Steam Stripper(Ibs/hr)
Min. 95.0
Max. 90.0
Min. 20,000, Max. 90,000
102.6 - 102.7
44.80 - 51.80
57,590 - 57,660
Activated Carbon Adsorption:
Feed Rate to the System (Ibs/hr)
Feed pH to the System
Feed Temperature to the
System ( C)
Total Organic Carbon in treated
waste (mg/l)
Calculated Residence time (minutes)
Max. 65,300
Min. 7.0
40.0"
Max. 250
Instantaneous
Min. 85
52,200 - 61,500
3.5*
33.5
7.0
91 - 107
a - Onsite Engineering Report for E. I. duPont de Nemours, Inc., Beaumont, Texas,
Tables 4-1 through 4-3, 6-6, 6-8, and 6-14.
" • Not controlled. Normal operating value is given.
+ - Values outside the design range are instantaneous maximum or minimum. Refer to strip charts in
Appendix G.
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-6 TREATMENT DATA FOR STEAM STRIPPER AND/OR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION FOR
COMBINED K103 AND KICK
SOURCE: Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category Data Base
Sample Number
UNTREATED WASTE
(ug/l)
TREATED WASTE
(ug/l)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
•
2,460,000
2,630,000
1,690,000
3,390,000
3,140,000
780,000
4,390,000
2,760,000
3,280,000
2,340,000
448,000
2,500,000
4,220,000
2,500,000
2,760,000
5,060,000
2,810,000
2,810,000
2,300,000
375,000
3,460,000
2,740,000
5,160,000
5,100,000
5,460,000
3,610,000
4,820,000
2,760,000
2,430,000
2,920,000
*
2,200,000
2,560,000
•
3,680,000
145,000
b
NITROBENZENE
<14
98
<14
<14
<14
281
<14
2,160
<14
<14
<14
1,960
49
3,240
<14
- <14
26
<14
96
71
240
<14
<14
232
234
9,800
69
<14
<14
<14
<14
77
323
<14
<14
<14
<14
b - Facility identification number is 500P. Design and operating data was not
submitted. Treatment system was steam stripping followed by carbon adsorption.
* - No value given.
4-24
-------
TABLE 4-6 TREATMENT DATA FOR STEAM STRIPPER AND/OR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION FOR
COMBINED K103 AND K104 (Continued)
SOURCE: Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category Data Base
Sample Number
UNTREATED WASTE
(ug/l)
TREATED WASTE
(ug/l)
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
330,000
190,000
267,160
309,920
106,995
144,860
139,530
87,000
139,340
189,054
58,155
29.500
30,700
37.000
56,517
30,000
20,000
27.000
30,900
c
NITROBENZENE
374
150
143
330
372
140
4,900
135
331
251
d
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
1,059
<50
1,761
237
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
c - Facility identification number is 2680T. Design and operating data is
considered CBI. Treatment system was steam stripping followed by carbon
adsorption.
d - Facility identification number is 2680T.
Treatment system was carbon adsorption.
4-25
-------
TABLE 4-6 TREATMENT DATA FOR STEAM STRIPPER AND/OR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION FOR
COMBINED K103 AND K104
SOURCE: Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category Data Base
Parameters Design Range Operating Range
This information has been claimed as RCRA Confidential Business
Information. The information is available in the confidential
portion of the Administrative Record for this rulemaking.
4-26
-------
Table 4-7
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR KOI9
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET II
Untreated Waste
Detected BDAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
7. Carbon tetrachloride
9. Chlorobenzene
14. Chloroform
22. 1,1-Dichloroethane
23- 1,2-Dichloroethane
34. Methyl ethyl ketone
38. Methylene chloride
42. Tetrachloroethene
43. Toluene
45. 1,1,1-Tr ichloroethane
47. Trichloroethene
215-217. Xylene (total)
222. Acetone
226. Ethyl benzene
229- Methyl isobutyl ketone
SEMIVOLATILES
51. Acenaphthalene
57. Anthracene
65. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
68. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
80. Chrysene
87. o-Dichlorobenzene
88. p-Dichlorobenzene
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
108. Fluoranthene
109. Fluorene
110. Hexachlorobenzene
K019
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2,000
4,000
3,000
4,600
2,200
93,000
<1,000
<1,000
7,300
<200
81,000
3,210
<200
<1,000
<200
<1,000
280
<10
SNA
<10
81
20
69
RCRA Blend*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
2,000
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
940
910
490
2,300
130
360
3,400
1,200
2,200
1,100
150
110
67
<20
40
28
250
32
31
120
53
<100
Treated Waste
Kiln Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
SNA A standard is not available; the compound was searched using an NBS Library data-
base of 42,000 compounds. The compound was not detected.
* Only one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken. The results are repeated in each
sample set.
4-27
-------
Table 4-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET #1 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
111. Hexachlorobutadiene
113. Hexachloroethane
121. Naphthalene
126. Nitrobenzene
136. Pentachlorobenzene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
148. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
150. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Detected BOAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium
160. Copper
161. Lead
163- Nickel
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
K019
Concentration
mg /kg
(ppm)
<50
120
470
<25
61
21
76
100
<6.0
1.2
0.97
0.63
4.0
2.1
s!o
<0.9
<2.0
5.8
<0.5
<5.0
790
RCRA Blend*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
210
<100
<20
3,400
<100
240
78
200
<50
<50
Kiln Ash Kiln Ash
Concentration TCLP
24
94
1.3
<0.3
40
165
27
8.8
<0.9
2.2
4,170
0.9
31
830
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<5
10
<2
<2
<2
<5
<5
mg/L
(ppm)
8.0
3.6
26
0.66
44
2,370
120
66
3.3
4.1
12
<0.060
<0.002
0.033
<0.003
0.200
2.690
0.380
0.680
<0.009
<0.020
0.052
<0.47
38
68
"Only one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken.
sample set.
The results are repeated in each
4-28
-------
Table 4-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET 11 (Continued)
DESIGN AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
Parameter
Kiln Temperature (°F)+
Kiln Solids Residence Time (mi
Waste Feed Rate (MMBTU/hr)*
Kiln Rotational Speed (RPM)
Design
*
*
*
Operating Value
1825-1900
120
K019: 13.1
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner #1: 3-9-5.5
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner <2: H.M-9.7
0.19-0.21
•••Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix C.
*This information has been claimed as RCRA Confidential Business
Information. The information is available in the confidential
portion of the Administrative Record for this rulemaking.
4-29
-------
Table 4-8
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET 02
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4 . Benzene
7. Carbon tetrachloride
9. Chlorobenzene
14. Chloroform
22. 1,1 -Dichloroethane
23. 1 ,2-Dichloroethane
34. Methyl ethyl ketone
38. Methylene chloride
42. Tetrachloroethene
43. Toluene
45. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
47. Trichloroethene
215-217. Xylene (total)
222. Acetone
226. Ethyl benzene
229. Methyl isobutyl ketone
SEMIVOLATILES
51. Acenaphthalene
57. Anthracene
65. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
68. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
80. Chrysene
87. o-Dichlorobenzene
88. p-Dichlorobenzene
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
108. Fluoranthene
109. Fluorene
K019
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2,000
3,800
<2,000
5,800
<2,000
96,000
<10,000
<10,000
6,700
<2,000
33,000
2,400
<2,000
<10,000
<2,000
<10,000
.
110. Hexachlorobenzene
280
<10
SNA
<10
74
16
60
RCRA Blend"
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
2,000
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
940
910
490
2,300
130
360
3,400
1,200
2,200
1,100
150
110
67
<20
40
28
250
32
31
120
53
<100
Treated Waste
Kiln Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
SNA A standard is not available; the compound was searched using an NBS Library data-
base of 42,000 compounds. The compound was not detected.
* Only one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken. The results are repeated in each
sample set.
4-30
-------
Table 4-8 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET 42 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste
K019 RCRA Blend* Kiln Ash
Concentration Concentration Concentration
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
111. Hexachlorobutadiene
113. Hexachloroethane
121. Naphthalene
126. Nitrobenzene
136. Pentachlorobenzene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
148. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzerie
150. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Detected BOAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
mg/kg
(ppm)
<50
85
314
<25
51
15
62
65
<6.0
<0.2
<0.9
0.46
3.4
1.7
2.3
3.6
<0.9
<2.0
6.9
<0.5
<5.0
NA
mg/kg
(ppm)
210
<100
<20
3,400
<100
240
78
200
<50
<50
24
94
1.3
<0.3
40
165
27
8.8
<0.9
2.2
4,170
0.9
31
830
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<5
10
<2
<2
<2
<5
<5
Kiln Ash
TCLP
mg/L
(PPm)
6.8
2.8
23
0.96
60
3,430
42
89
3.4
4.8
13
<0.060
<0.002
0.036
0.004
0.130
2.380
0.260
0.560
<0.009
<0.020
0.071
<0.47
5.1
<50
NA Not Analyzed.
*0nly one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken.
sample set.
The results are repeated in each
4-31
-------
Table 4-8 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET 12 (Continued) .
DESIGN AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
Parameter
Kiln Temperature (°F)«-
Kiln Solids Residence Time (min)
Waste Feed Rate (MMBTU/hr)*
Kiln Rotational Speed (RPM)
Design
*
*
*
Operating Value
1800-1880
120
K019: 12.2
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner 11: 5.2-5.5
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner #2: U.4-9.7
0.19-0.21
•••Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix C.
*This information has been claimed as RCRA Confidential Business
Information. The information is available in the confidential
portion of the Administrative Record for this rulemaking.
4-32
-------
Table 4-9
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET #3
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
1. Benzene
7. Carbon tetrachloride
9. Chlorobenzene
11. Chloroform
22. 1,1-Dichloroethane
23. 1,2-Dichloroethane
31. Methyl ethyl ketone
38. Methylene chloride
12. Tetrachloroethene
13. Toluene
15. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
17. Trichloroethene
215-217. Xylene (total)
222. Acetone
226. Ethyl benzene
229. Methyl isobutyl ketone
SEMIVOLATILES
51. Acenaphthalene
57. Anthracene
65. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
68. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
80. Chrysene
87. o-Dichlorobenzene
88. p-Dichlorobenzene
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
108. Fluoranthene
109. Fluorene
110. Hexachlorobenzene
K019
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2,000
3,500
<2,000
5,000
<2,000
87,000
< 10, 000
<10,000
6,000
<2,000
31,000
2,200
<2,000
< 10, 000
<2,000
<10,000
<10
<10
<10
290
<10
SNA
<10
80
<10
<10
19
73
RCRA Blend*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
2,000
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
910
910
190
2,300
130
360
3,100
1,200
2,200
1,100
150
110
67
<20
10
28
250
32
31
120
53
<100
Treated Waste
Kiln Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
SNA A standard is not available; the compound was searched using an NBS Library data-
base of 12,000 compounds. The compound was not detected.
* Only one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken. The results are repeated in each
sample set.
4-33
-------
Table 4-9 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET #3 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste
KOI9 RCRA Blend* Kiln Ash
Concentration Concentration Concentration
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
111. Hexachlorobutadiene
113. Hexachloroethane
121. Naphthalene
126. Nitrobenzene
136. Pentachlorobenzene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
148. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
150. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Detected BOAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
mg/kg
(ppm)
<50
95
350
<25
59
11
67
70
.7
.4
<6.0
<0.2
<0.9
0.53
3.5
1.
3.
2.3
<0.9
<2.0
4.4
<0.5
<5.0
NA
mg/kg
(ppm)
210
<100
<20
3,400
<100
240
78
200
<50
<50
24
94
1.3
<0.3
40
165
27
8.8
<0.9
2.2
4,170
0.9
31
830
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<5
10
<2
<2
<2
5
<5
Kiln Ash
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
9.2
5.7
54
3.6
202
290
118
169
1.9
6.0
16
<0.060
<0.002
0.057
0.005
0.260
7.030
0.620
0.960
<0.009
<0.020
0.170
<0.47
6.1
64
NA = Not Analyzed.
* Only one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken. The results are repeated in each
sample set.
4-34
-------
Table 4-9 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET #3 (Continued)
DESIGN AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
Parameter
Kiln Temperature (°F)+
Kiln Solids Residence Time (min)
Waste Feed Rate (MMBTU/hr)*
Kiln Rotational Speed (RPM)
Design
*
*
*
Operating Value
1850-1900
120
K019: 12.1
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner #1: 5.2-5.8
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner *2: 1.1-8.1
0.19-0.21
+Strip charts fop this parameter are included in Appendix C.
*This information has been claimed as RCRA Confidential Business
Information. The information is available in the confidential
portion of the Administrative Record for this rulemaking.
4-35
-------
Table 4-10
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET 04
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
7. Carbon tetrachloride
9. Chlorobenzene
14. Chloroform
22. 1,1-Dichloroethane
23. 1,2-Dichloroethane
34. Methyl ethyl ketone
38. Methylene chloride
42. Tetrachloroethene
43. Toluene
45. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
47. Trichloroethene
215-217. Xylene (total)
222. Acetone
226. Ethyl benzene
229. Methyl isobutyl ketone
SEMIVOLATILES
51. Acenaphthalene
57. Anthracene
65. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
68. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
80. Chrysene
87. o-Dichlorobenzene
88. p-Dichlorobenzene
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
108. Fluoranthene
109. Fluorene
110. Hexachlorobenzene
K019
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2,000
3,900
<2,000
5,300
<2,000
122,000
<10,000
<10,000
7,200
<2,000
44,000
2,300
<2,000
<10,000
<2,000
< 10, 000
<10
<10
<10
310
<10
SNA
<10
84
<10
<10
21
61
RCRA Blend*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
2,000
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
940
910
490
2,300
130
360
3,400
1,200
2,200
1,100
150
110
67
<20
40
28
250
32
31
120
53
<100
Treated Waste
Kiln Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
12
<2
<2
<2
230
<2
<2
SNA A standard is not available; the compound was searched using an NBS Library data-
base of 42,000 compounds. The compound was not detected.
•Only one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken. The results are repeated in each
sample set.
4-36
-------
Table 4-10 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR KOI9
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET *4 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste
K019 RCRA Blend* Kiln Ash
Concentration Concentration Concentration
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
111. Hexachlorobutadiene
113. Hexachloroethane
121. Naphthalene
126. Nitrobenzene
136. Pentachlorobenzene
111. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
1^*5. Pyrene
148. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
150. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Detected BOAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
NA = Not Analyzed.
mg/kg
(ppm)
<50
94
360
<25
64
19
82
74
<6.0
<0.2
<0.9
<0.3
1.8
2^4
2.2
<0.9
<2.0
9.4
<0.5
<5.0
NA
mg/kg
(ppm)
210
<100
<20
3,1*00
<100
21*0
78
200
<50
<50
21*
94
1.3
<0.3
40
165
27
8.8
<0.9
2.2
4,170
0.9
31
830
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<5
10
<2
<2
<2
<5
<5
<6.0
5.7
8.4
<0.3
28
1,270
25
69
2.6
<2.0
11
<0.47
3.2
<50
Kiln Ash
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
<0.060
<0.002
0.036
0.005
110
.940
0.320
0.870
<0.009
<0.020
0.056
0.
1
* Only one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken. The results are repeated in each
sample set.
4-37
-------
Table 4-10 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET tH (Continued)
DESIGN AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
Parameter
Kiln Temperature (°F)+
Kiln Solids Residence Time (min)
Waste Feed Rate (MMBTU/hr)*
Kiln Rotational Speed (RPM)
Design
*
*
*
Operating Value
1775-1900
120
K019: 12.7
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner 11: 5.2-5.8
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner #2: 1.U-7.3
0.19-0.21
•••Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix C.
*This information has been claimed as RCRA Confidential Business
Information. The information is available in the confidential
portion of the Administrative Record for this rulemaking.
4-38
-------
Table 4-11
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET #5
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
7. Carbon tetrachloride
9. Chlorobenzene
14. Chloroform
22. 1,1-Dichloroethane
23. 1,2-Dichloroethane
34. Methyl ethyl ketone
38. Methylene chloride
42. Tetrachloroethene
43. Toluene
45. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
47. Trichloroethene
215-217. Xylene (total)
222. Acetone
226. Ethyl benzene
229. Methyl isobutyl ketone
SEMIVOLATILES
51. Acenaphthalene
57. Anthracene
65. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
68. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
80. Chrysene
87. o-Dichlorobenzene
88. p-Dichlorobenzene
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
108. Fluoranthene
109. Fluorene
110. Hexachlorobenzene
SNA
K019
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2,000
4,000
<2,000
6,000
<2,000
130,000
<10,000
<10,000
7,800
<2,000
45,000
2,500
<2,000
<10,000
<2,000
<10,000
340
SNA
90
RCRA Blend*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
2,000
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
940
910
490
2,300
130
360
3,400
1,200
2,200
1,100
150
110
67
<20
40
28
250
32
31
Treated Waste
Kiln Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<10 120
19 53
87 <100 <10
A standard is not available; the compound was searched using an NBS Library data-
base of 42,000 compounds. The compound was not detected.
* Only one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken. The results are repeated in each
sample set.
4-39
-------
Table 4-11 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR KOI9
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET #5 (Continued)
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
111. Hexachlorobutadiene
113. Hexachloroethane
121. Naphthalene
126. Nitrobenzene
136. Pentachlorobenzene
141. Phenanthrene
142. Phenol
145. Pyrene
148. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
150. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Detected BOAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
Untreated Waste
K019
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<50
113
371
<25
63
19
<10
<10
73
72
RCRA Blend*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
210
<100
<20
3,400
<100
240
78
200
<50
<50
Treated
Kiln Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<10
<10
<2
<5
<10
<2
<2
<2
<5
<5
Waste
Kiln Ash
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
<6.0
<0.2
<0.9
0.36
3.2
2.1
2.5
4.8
<0.9
<2.0
4.7
<0.5
<5.0
NA
24
94
1.3
<0.3
40
165
27
8.8
<0.9
2.2
4,170
0.9
31
830
9.1
3.9
21
1.2
125
780
86
166
3.3
5.7
22
<0.060
<0.002
0.054
0.006
0.210
2.140
0.290
1.270
<0.009
<0.020
0.086
<0.47
23
64
NA = Not Analyzed.
•Only one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken.
sample set.
The results are repeated in each
4-40
-------
Table 4-11 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET #5 (Continued)
DESIGN AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
Parameter
Kiln Temperature (°F) +
Kiln Solids Residence Time (min)
Waste Feed Rate (MMBTU/hr)+
Kiln Rotational Speed (RPM)
*
*
Operating Value
1775-1800
120
K019: 11.7
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner 11: 5.2-6.0
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner *2: 5.2-9.7
0.19-0.21
•••Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix C.
*This information has been claimed as RCRA Confidential Business
Information. The information is available in the confidential
portion of the Administrative Record for this rulemaking.
4-41
-------
Table 4-12
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET 06
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
4. Benzene
7. Carbon tetrachloride
9. Chlorobenzene
14. Chloroform
22. 1,1-Dichloroethane
23. 1,2-Dichloroethane
34. Methyl ethyl ketone
38. Methylene chloride
42. Tetrachloroethene
43. Toluene
45. 1,1,1 -Tr ichloroethane
U7. Trichloroethene
215-217. Xylene (total)
222. Acetone
226. Ethyl benzene
229. Methyl isobutyl ketone
SEMIVOLATILES
51. Acenapthalene
57. Anthracene
65. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
68. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
80. Chrysene
87. o-Dichlorobenzene
88. p-Dichlorobenzene
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate
108. Fluoranthene
109. Fluorene
110. Hexachlorobenzene
K019
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
C2.000
4,100
<2,000
5,600
<2,000
98,000
<10,000
<10,000
6,900
<2,000
44,000
2,500
<2,000
<10,000
<2,000
<10,000
330
<10
SNA
<10
90
22
66
RCRA Blend*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
2,000
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
940
910
490
2,300
130
360
3,400
1,200
2,200
1,100
150
110
67
<20
40
28
250
32
31
120
53
<100
Treated Waste
Kiln Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
SNA A standard is not available; the compound was searched using an NBS Library data-
base of 42,000 compounds. The compound was not detected.
* Only one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken. The results are repeated in each
sample set.
4-42
-------
Table 4-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR KOI9
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET #6 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Treated Waste
K019 RCRA Blend* Kiln Ash
Concentration Concentration Concentration
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
SEMIVOLATILES (Continued)
111. Hexachlorobutadiene
113. Hexachloroethane
121. Naphthalene
126. Nitrobenzene
136. Pentachlorobenzene
111. Phenanthrene
112. Phenol
115. Pyrene
118. 1,2,1,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
150. 1,2,1-Trichloroenzene
Detected BOAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
151. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
158. Cadmium
159. Chromium
160. Copper
161. Lead
163. Nickel
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total Cyanide
170. Fluoride
171. Sulfide
NA = Not Analyzed.
mg/kg
(ppm)
<50
88
390
<25
65
17
86
79
<6.0
<0.2
<0.9
0.62
5.3
3.6
3.5
6.0
<0.9
<2.0
8.1
<0.5
<5.0
NA
mg/kg
(ppm)
210
<100
<20
3,100
<100
210
78
200
<50
<50
21
91
1.3
<0.3
10
165
27
8.8
<0.9
2.2
1,170
0.9
31
830
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<5
10
<2
<2
<2
<5
<5
<0.17
1.7
92
Kiln Ash
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
9.6
2.3
11
2.2
111
2,520
31
288
3.1
8.7
13
< 0.06
<0.002
0.027
0.006
0.092
2.100
0.270
0.690
<0.009
<0.020
0.061
*0nly one sample of RCRA Blend waste was taken.
sample set.
The results are repeated in each
4-43
-------
Table 4-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K019
PLANT A - ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
SAMPLE SET 6 (Continued)
DESIGN AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
Parameter
Kiln Temperature (°F)+
Kiln Solids Residence Time (min)
Waste Feed Rate (MMBTU/hr)+
Kiln Rotational Speed (RPM)
Design Operating Value
* 1775-1850
* 120
* K019: 11.5
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner *1: 5.2-5.8
RCRA Blend,
Waste Burner 12: 5.2-9.7
* 0.19-0.21
-••Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix C.
*This information has been claimed as RCRA Confidential Business
Information. The information is available in the confidential
portion of the Administrative Record for this rulemaking.
4-44
-------
Table 4-13
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR KOM8 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 41
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
21. Dichiorodifluoromethane
226. Ethyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
310
U6
120
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
1H1. Phenanthrene 85
1*45. Pyrene 35
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
U8
50
80
33
29
28
1*6
150
33
160
120
66
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(PPm)
<2
<2
3
<2
<0.2
<0.2
<1.0
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
*K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-45
-------
Table 4-13 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 01 (Continued)
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
K048» K051 Incinerator Ash
Concentration Concentration Concentration TCLP
Detected BOAT List Metal mg/kg mg/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 1100 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.
§Colorimetric interference may have occurred in analysis of this sample.
4-46
-------
Table 4-13 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #1 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1213-1240
1240-1253
22.3
43
10.7-18.7
90.4-102.4
8.2-16.2
50-135
2.2-9.0
+Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA Not applicable
4-47
-------
Table 4-14
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #2
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane
226. Ethyl benzene
>43- Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
K048«
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
260
120
22
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
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
46
44
71
<20
25
<20
47
73
37
160
120
67
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<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.
4-48
-------
Table 4-14 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K018 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 92 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
151. Antimony
155. Arsenic
156. Barium
157. Beryllium
158. Cadmium
221. Chromium (hexavalent)
159. Chromium (total)
160.. Copper
161. Lead
162. Mercury
163. Nickel
161. Selenium
165. Silver
167. Vanadium
168. Zinc
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide
171. Sulfide
K018»
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
7
5.1
67
<0.1
0.7
<0.05
9UO
55
390
0.11
11
9.9
<0.9
150
150
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
mg/kg
(ppm)
13
19
160
<0.1
3
21
1500
210
1100
<0.02
71
<0.3
<1.0
730
1100
0.1
<50
TCLP
mg/L
Dm)
0.06
0.008
0.21
<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
» K018 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K018) and waste biosludge.
4-49
-------
Table 4-14 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR KOU8 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.
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In.
02 (* Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1100 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-2U
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.
4-50
-------
Table 4-15
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #3
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
K048» K051 Incinerator Ash
Concentration Concentration Concentration
Detected BOAT List mg/kg mg/kg . rag/kg
Organic Constituents (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
VOLATILES
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane <14 <14 <2
226. Ethyl benzene 33 52 <2
43. Toluene 59 42 <2
215-217. Xylene (total) 100 73 <2
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20 <20 <0.2
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20 22 <0.2
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate <20 30 <1.0
80. Chrysene 21 45 <0.2
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 160 200 <1.0
109. Fluorene 32 35 <0.2
121. Naphthalene 110 150 <0.2
141. Phenanthrene 84 110 <0.2
145. Pyrene 33 62 <0.2
*K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-51
-------
Table 4-15 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set 83 (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
161. 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 Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
13
13
140
0.5
2
23
1300
200
1100
<0.02
51
<0.3
<4
690
1000
<50
TCLP
mg/L
(ppm)
0.09
0.022
0.17
<0.001
<0.003
NA
2.1
0.02
<0.05
<0.0002
<0.02
0.085
<0.009
3.1
0.087
NA = Not Analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-52
-------
Table 4-15 (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. F^O)*
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1150 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
+Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA = Not analyzed.
4-53
-------
Table 4-16
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #4
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane
226. Ehtyl benzene
43. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
K048*
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
28
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
33
72
<20
23
26
48
170
35
150
120
74
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
5.8
.2
.2
<0
<1
<0
<0
<0
,2
.0
.2
.2
.2
<0.2
*K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-54
-------
Table 4-16 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #4 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
155.
156.
157.
158.
221.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
167.
168.
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
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.
4-55
-------
Table 4-16 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K018 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #1 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In. F^O)*-
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In. H20)+
Oj (1> Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
C02 (% Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1100 max.)
1250-1350
(1150 max.)
0-21
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1200-1260
1253-1273
22.3-22.1
61
8.7-18.3
91.2-105.6
10.5-17.0
10-310
2.8-7.9
i-Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA = Not applicable.
4-56
-------
Table 4-17
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K018 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #5
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
21. Dichlorodifluororaethane
226. Ethyl benzene
13. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
K018«
Concentration
rag/kg
(ppm)
11
11
110
SEMIVOLATILES
52. Acenaphthene <20
59. Benz(a)anthracene <20
70. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 21
80. Chrysene 22
98. Di-n-butyl phthalate 71
109. Fluorene 32
121. Naphthalene 91
1^1. Phenanthrene 83
Pyrene 31
K051
Concentration
rag/kg
(ppm)
19
31
71
<20
21
28
17
230
37
160
120
71
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<0.2
<0.2
-------
Table 4-17 (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
Detected BOAT List Metal mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
and Inorganic Constituents (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.
4-58
-------
Table 4-17 (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.
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
(1150 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.
4-59
-------
Table 4-18
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR KOU8 AND K051
PLANT A-FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #6
Untreated Waste
Detected BOAT List
Organic Constituents
VOLATILES
21. Dichlorodifluoromethane
226. Ethyl benzene
H3. Toluene
215-217. Xylene (total)
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
49
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
UM. Phenanthrene 86
Pyrene 31
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
52
71
83
<20
25
<20
51
43
36
170
120
67
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<2
<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.
4-60
-------
Table 4-18 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #6 (Continued)
Untreated Waste
K048*
Concentration
Detected BOAT List Metal
and Inorganic Constituents
METALS
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
221.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
167.
168.
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
mg/kg
(ppm)
<6
5.1
61
<0.1
O.M
<0.05
830
48
350
0.14
13
11
<0.9
380
390
INORGANICS
169. Total cyanide
171. Sulfide
0.9
360
K051
Concentration
mg/kg
(ppm)
<6
5.4
72
<0.1
1.2
<0.05
840
130
640
0.11
26
0.9
<0.9
280
570
0.6
3400
Treated Waste
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator Ash
Concentration TCLP
mg/kg
(ppm)
15
16
180
<0.1
3.1
30
1700
250
1100
<0.02
73
<0.3
<4
910
1200
0.5
<50
mg/L
(ppm)
0.07
0.025
0.21
<0.001
<0.003
NA
2.1
0.02
<0.05
<0.0002
0.03
0.12
<0.009
3.6
0.11
NA = Not Analyzed
* K048 is a dewatered mixture of DAF float (K048) and waste biosludge.
4-61
-------
Table 4-18 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED BY EPA FOR K048 AND K051
PLANT A - FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
Sample Set #6 (Continued)
Design and Operating Parameters
Bed Temperature (F)+
Freeboard Temperature (F)+
API Separator Sludge Feed Rate
(gpm)
Undewatered DAF Float Mixture
Feed Rate (gpm)
Constriction Plate Pressure
Differential (In.
Fluidized Bed Pressure
Differential (In.
02 (% Volume)
CO (ppm-Volume)
(I Volume)
Nominal
Operating Range
Operating Range
During Sampling
Episode
1200-1300
(1400 max.)
1250-1350
(1450 max.)
0-24
30-90
15-20
60-100
NA
35-800
NA
1220-1240
1253-1267
22.3
61
10.0-18.0
92.8-105.6
10.8-16.0
50-770
5.7-7.7
•••Strip charts for this parameter are included in Appendix E.
NA = Not applicable.
4-62
-------
5. IDENTIFICATION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY (BOAT) FOR K103 AND K104
5.1 Introduction
In this section, EPA explains its determination of which technologies
represent BOAT for K103 and K104 waste groups. As discussed in detail in
Section 1, this determination essentially involves determining which of
the "demonstrated" technologies will provide the "best" treatment and, at
the same time, is determined to be "available" (i.e., the technology can
be purchased or licensed and provides substantial treatment).
In general, performance data are screened according to the following
three conditions:
• Proper design and operation of the treatment system;
• The existence of quality assurance/quality control measures in
the data analysis; and
• The use of proper analytical tests in assessing treatment
performance.
Sets.of performance data that do not meet these three conditions are
not considered in the selection of BOAT. In addition, if performance
data indicate that the treatment system was not well-designed and
well-operated at the time of testing, these data would also not be used.
The remaining performance data are then corrected to account for
incomplete recovery of certain constituents during the analyses.
Finally, in cases where the Agency has adequate performance data for
treatment of the waste by more than one technology, an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) test is used to select the best treatment technology.
Before the ANOVA calculations could be done, the data had to be screened
and accuracy-corrected. This is explained below.
5-1
-------
The Agency specifically collected performance data for the treatment
of waste codes K103 and K104 from one treatment technology system:
liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping and activated carbon
adsorption. These data are shown in Section 4. Review of the operating
performance of the system, compared to the design and operating standards
(also shown in Section 4), indicates that the system represents a
well-designed and well-operated system. In searching for additional
performance data for these waste streams, the Agency found data for steam
stripping followed by carbon adsorption in an effluent guidelines
database (USEPA 1987a). These data do not include all of the
constituents found in the specific data collected under the BOAT
program. All of the design and operating standards for the effluent
treatment system necessary to fully evaluate the utility of these data
are not available. Since the input waste and treated waste concentration
values are in the same order of magnitude as the BOAT data, it would
appear that substantial treatment occurred and it was a well-designed and
well-operated system. However, this assumption is not fully supported by
the data available. The validity and utility of these data will be
further discussed in Section 7.
5.2 Data Screening
Wastewaters
In the selection of BOAT for treatment of K103 and K104 wastewaters,
the only performance data available were those collected during the
Agency's sampling visit. Five data sets were collected by the Agency for
treatment of the wastewaters by liquid/liquid extraction followed by
5-2
-------
steam stripping and carbon adsorption. These data were evaluated to
determine whether any of the data represented poor design or poor
operation of the system. One of the data sets (Sample Set 3) was deleted
because of poor operation of the carbon adsorption unit during the time
data were being collected. This was indicated by a higher than normal
system temperature and a relatively high aniline concentration in the
treated waste. The four remaining data sets were used for the
development of treatment standards for K103 and K104 wastewaters. These
data sets are Sample Sets 1, 2, 4 and 5.
Nonwastewaters
In the selection of BOAT for treatment of K103 and K104
nonwastewaters, the only performance data available were those
transferred from waste codes K019 and K048-K052. Six sample sets were
available from both K019 and K048-K052. None of the data sets were
deleted because of poor design or poor operation of the treatment system.
5.3 Data Accuracy
After data were eliminated from consideration for analysis of BOAT
based on the screening tests, the Agency adjusted the remaining data
using analytical recovery values to take into account analytical
interferences and' incomplete recoveries associated with the chemical
makeup of the sample. The Agency developed the recovery data (also
referred to as accuracy data) by first analyzing a waste for a given
constituent and then adding a known amount of the same constituent (i.e.,
spike) to the waste material. The total amount recovered after spiking,
minus the initial concentration in the sample, divided by the amount
5-3
-------
added, is the recovery value. At least two recovery values were
calculated for spiked constituents, and the analytical data were adjusted
for accuracy using the lowest recovery value for each constituent.
This was accomplished by calculating an accuracy factor from the
percent recoveries for each selected constituent. The reciprocal of the
lower of the two recovery values, divided by 100, yields the accuracy
factor. The corrected concentration for each sample set is obtained by
multiplying the accuracy factor by the raw data value. The actual
recovery values and accuracy factors for the selected constituents are
presented in Appendix E.
5.4 Analysis of Variance
In cases where the Agency has adequate performance data on treatment
of the same or similar wastes using more than one technology, an analysis
of variance (ANOVA) test is performed to determine if one of the
technologies provides significantly better treatment than the others. In
cases where a particular treatment technology is shown to provide better
treatment, the treatment standards will be based on this best
technology. The procedure followed for the analysis of variance (ANOVA)
test is described in Appendix A.
5.5 Wastewaters
As explained in Section 3, EPA has determined that the "demonstrated"
technologies for K103 and K104 are as follows:
• Liquid/liquid extraction;
• Liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping; and
• Liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping; and
activated carbon adsorption.
5-4
-------
Of these three treatment trains, EPA has determined that liquid/liquid
extraction followed by steam stripping and activated carbon adsorption
provides the "best" level of treatment.
EPA compared the performance achieved by reduction in organic
constituents. Consistent with EPA's methodology, discussed in Section 1,
EPA made this comparison using a statistical test known as the analysis
of variance (ANOVA) test.
To determine BOAT for waste codes K103 and K104, three combinations
of demonstrated technologies, for which adequate performance data were
available, were considered for the treatment of these wastes:
• Liquid/liquid extraction;
• Liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping; and
• Liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping and
activated carbon adsorption.
The corrected data for sample sets 1, 2, 4, and 5 were used to
perform analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests to compare these three
technology combinations. The three combinations of treatment
technologies were compared based on the concentration of primary waste
constituents (benzene, aniline, nitrobenzene, phenol, 2,4-dinitrophenol,
and total cyanides) in the treated waste. The rationale for selecting
these constituents for the ANOVA comparison is presented in Section 7.
The statistical results of the ANOVA test for liquid/liquid
extraction followed by steam stripping versus liquid/liquid extraction
indicate the following:
5-5
-------
1. Liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping provides
significantly better treatment for benzene and nitrobenzene in
waste codes K103 and K104 than does liquid/liquid extraction alone.
2. Liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping provides
equivalent treatment for total cyanides in waste codes K103 and
K104 compared to liquid/liquid extraction alone.
3. Insufficient data exist to compare the treatment for phenol,
aniline, and 2,4-dinitrophenol achieved by liquid/liquid
extraction alone with that achieved by liquid/liquid extraction
followed by steam stripping.
The statistical results of the ANOVA test of liquid/liquid extraction
followed by steam stripping and activated carbon adsorption versus
liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping indicate the
following:
1. Liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping and activated
carbon adsorption provides significantly better treatment for
aniline, 2,4-dinitrophenol, phenol, and total cyanides in waste
codes K103 and K104 than does liquid/liquid extraction followed by
steam stripping.
2. Liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping and activated
carbon adsorption provides equivalent treatment for benzene in
waste codes K103 and K104 compared to liquid/liquid extraction
followed by steam stripping.
3. Insufficient data exist to compare the treatment for nitrobenzene
achieved by liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping
with that achieved by liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam
stripping and activated carbon adsorption.
The three-step treatment technology system consisting of
liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping and activated carbon
adsorption provides significantly better or
equivalent treatment overall for the primary constituents present in
waste codes K103 and K104 when compared with either liquid/liquid
5-6
-------
extraction alone or liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam
stripping. Therefore, the Agency has chosen this three-step treatment
system to be BOAT for waste codes K103 and K104.
Substantial treatment for K103 and K104 wastewaters is based on the
following observations for reduction in total concentrations (see Table
5-1 at the end of this section). Benzene is reduced from 81 mg/1 to
0.007 mg/1, aniline from 53,000 mg/1 to 0.033 mg/1, and total cyanides
from 6.28 mg/1 to 0.179 mg/1. In addition, the Agency believes that
2,4-dinitrophenol was substantially reduced to 0.288 mg/1, nitrobenzene
to 0.026 mg/1, and phenol to 0.143 mg/1. These three constituents were
not detected in the untreated waste because the detection limits for
these three constituents were relatively high.
The Agency believes the reduction in the range and magnitude of these
hazardous constituents to be substantial. For K103 and K104 wastewaters,
liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping and activated carbon
adsorption has been determined to be demonstrated and best, has provided
substantial treatment, and is commercially available, and, therefore,
represents BOAT.
5.6 Nonwastewaters
Substantial treatment for K103 and K104 nonwastewater is based on the
following observation for reduction in total concentrations (see Table
5-2). Chlorobenzene is reduced from 3,000 ppm, chloroform from 6,000
ppm, 1,2-dichloroethane from 130,000 ppm, tetrachloroethene from 7,800
ppm, 1,1,1-trichloro- ethene from 81,000 ppm, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
5-7
-------
from 340 ppm, naphthalene from 470 ppm and phenanthrene from 21 ppm, all
to <2 ppm. Hexachloroethane is reduced from 120 ppm to <10 ppm and
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene from 100 to <5 ppm.
The Agency believes the reduction in the range and magnitude of these
hazardous constituents to be substantial. For K103 and K104
nonwastewaters, incineration has been determined to be demonstrated and
best, has provided substantial treatment, and is commercially available,
and, therefore, represents BOAT.
5-8
-------
TABLE 5-1 K103 and K104 Vastewater Data Showing Substantial Treatment
en
i
vo
DATA TYPE Source Beniene Aniline 2.4-Dlnltrophenol Nitrobenzene Phenol Total Cyanides
Untreated K103 (1) 32 - 61 33.000 - 53,000 <7,500 • <15.000 1.500 - <3,000 <300 - <3.000 0.038 - 0.075
Untreated K104 (1) 4.5 • 320 - <150 • <300 <750 - <1,500 2.200 - 3.900 <150 - <300 3.06 - 6.28
Accuracy-Corrected (2) 0.007 - 0.055 0.033 - 1.056 0.288 - 0.475 0.026 0.143 - 0.714 0.179 - 0.830
Treated
• - Range of data point* given In mg/l. For individual cample point* *ee Table* 4-1 thru 4-5.
1. On»ite Engineering Report for E.t. du Pont de Honour*, Inc., Beaumont, Texas, Tables 6-6, 6-8 and 6-14.
2. Calculations shown In Appendix D of this Background Document.
-------
TABLE 5-2 K019 and K048/K052 Nonwastewater Data Showing Substantial Treatment
BOAT List Constituent
K019
mg/kg
Untreated
Treated
K048/K052
Untreated
Treated
Volatiles:
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tet rachIoroethene**
1,1,1-TrichIoroethene**
<2,000 - 3,000 <2
4,600 - 6,000 <2
87,000 - 130,000 <2
6,000 - 7,800 <2
33,000 - 81,000 <2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Semivolatiies:
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Hexach Ioroethane**
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene**
280 - 340
85 • 120
3U - 470
11 - 21
65 - 100
<2
<2
<5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Inorganics:
Cyanides (Total)
<0.5
<0.47
<0.1 - 0.9 <0.1 - 0.5
* - For individual sample points see Background Document for K019, Tables 4-1 thru 4-5.
** - The Agency believes the detection limits for these constituents were abnormally high due to matrix
interferences. These constituents were therefore eliminated from consideration when transferring
performance data to K103 and K104 nonwastewaters.
N/A - Not Applicable
5-10
-------
6. SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
As discussed in Section 1, the Agency has developed a list of
hazardous constituents (Table 1-1) from which the constituents to be
regulated are selected. EPA may revise this list as additional data and
information become available. The list is divided into the following
categories: volatile organics, semivolatile organics, metals, inorganics
other than metals, organochlorine pesticides, phenoxyacetic acid
herbicides, organophosphorous insecticides, PCBs, and dioxins and furans.
This section describes the process used to select the constituents to
be regulated for K103 and K104. The process involves developing a list
(or classes) of potential regulated constituents and then eliminating
those constituents that would not be treated by the chosen BOAT or that
would be controlled by regulation of the remaining constituents.
As discussed in Sections 2 and 4, the Agency has characterization
data as well as performance data from treatment of K103 and K104. All
these data, as well as information on the waste-generating process, have
been used to determine which BOAT- list constituents may be present in
the waste and thus which are potential candidates for regulation in K103
and K104 wastewater.
Table 6-1 shows which constituents were analyzed, which constituents
were detected, and which constituents the Agency believes to be present
even though not detected in the untreated waste. For constituents that
were detected, the concentration range is shown.
6-1
-------
Under the column "Believed to be present," those constituents marked
with Y have been detected in the treated residual(s), and thus EPA
believes that they are present in the untreated waste. Constituents may
not have been detected in the untreated waste for one of several
reasons: (1) none of the untreated waste samples were analyzed for these
constituents; (2) masking or interference by other constituents prevented
detection; or (3) the specific waste is defined as being generated by a
process and the process can involve a number of different constituents,
only some of which would be present in any given sample.
As shown in Table 6-1, 16 constituents have been detected and one has
been identified as believed to be present. Of these constituents, EPA
has selected aniline, benzene, 2,4-dinitro- phenol, nitrobenzene, phenol,
and cyanide (total) for regulation. Of the ten not being regulated, one
is believed to be treatable. EPA is not regulating this constituent
because it is controlled by the treatment of the other regulated
constituents.
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1 BOAT List Constituents in Untreated K103 and K104 Waste
Parameter
Untreated Believed to Untreated Believed to
K103 be Present K104 be Present
(mg/l) (mg/l)
Volatiles
222
1
2
3
4
5
6
223
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
224
225
226
30
227
31
2U
32
Acetone
Acetonitri le
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
B romod i ch I oromet hane
Bromomethane
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
Ch 1 orobenzene
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene
Ch I orod i bromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chi oromet hane
3-Chloropropene
1 ,2-Dibrcmo-3-ehloropropane
1 , 2-D i bromoethane
Di bromomethane
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
D ich lorodi f luoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1, 2-D i Chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 2-D i ch 1 oropropane
t rans - 1 , 3 • D i ch I oropropene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
1,4-Dioxane
2-Ethoxyethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
NO
ND
M>
ND
32 - 81
ND
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.5 - 320
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected
6-3
-------
TABLE 6-1 BOAT List Constituents in Untreated K103 and K104 Waste (Continued)
Parameter
Untreated Believed to
K103 be Present
(mg/l)
Untreated Believed to
K104 be Present
(mg/l)
volatiles (continued)
33
228
34
229
35
37
38
230
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
231
50
215
216
217
Isobutyl alcohol
Methanol
Methyl ethyl tcetone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methylacrylonitri le
Methylene chloride
2-Nitropropane
Pyridine
1,1, 1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
T r i bromomethane
1,1, 1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2- Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
T r i eh 1 oromonof luromethane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trif luoroethane
Vinyl chloride
1,2-Xylene
1,3-Xylene
1,4-Xylene
NO
HD
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO Y
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Semivolati les
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
218
60
61
62
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminof luorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
Benz(a)anth r scene
Benzal chloride
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
33000 • 53000
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
HD
Y - Detected in the treated waste.
ND - Not detected
•* - indicates that only one sample contained this constituent at detectable levels.
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-1 BOAT List Constituents in Untreated K103 and K104 Waste (Continued)
Parameter
Untreated Believed to Untreated Believed to
C103 be Present K104 be Present
(•g/l) (mg/l)
Sctnivolatiles (continued)
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
232
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
Benzo( b) f I uoranthene
Benzo(ghi )perylene
Benzo( k ) f I uoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)ethane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropy)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthlate
2-sec-Butyl-4>6-dinitrophenol
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzilate
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitri le
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
Cyc I ohexanone
D i benz ( a , h ) anthracene
D i benzo(a, e)pyrene
Dibenzo(e,i)pyrene
m-D i eh I orobenzene
o-D i ch I orobenzene
p-0 i ch I orobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2 , 4 -0 i ch I orophenol
2, 6-Dich I orophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3,3'-Diroethyoxlbenzidine
p- D i methy I ami noazobenzene
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
2,4-Diinethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 , 4 -D i ni t robenzene
4,6-Oinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO - Not detected
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-1 BDAT List Constituents in Untreated K103 and K104 Waste (Continued)
Parameter
Untreated Believed to Untreated Believed to
K103 be Present K104 be Present
(•8/1) (mg/l)
Semivolatiles (cont.)
102
103
104
105
106
219
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
IK
115
116
117
118
119
120
36
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-0 initrotoluene
Di-n-octyt phthalate
Di -n-propylni trosamine
Diphenylamine
D i pheny t ni trosemi ne
1 , 2 - 0 i pheny I hydraz i ne
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexach I orobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexach I orocyc I opentsdi ene
Hexach I oroe thane
Hexach 1 oroph ene
Hexach I oropropene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isosafrole
Methapyrilene
3-Methycholanthrene
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
Methyl methanesulfonate
Napthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Napthylamine
2-Napthylamine
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylmine
N -N itrosodi ethyl ami ne
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N - N i t rosomorpho I i ne
N-Nitrosopiperidine
n-N i t rosopyrrol idine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentach I orobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentach loronitrobenzene
NO
HD
KD
MD
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
MD
NO
NO
HO
NO
HD
HD
ND
HD
HD
HO
NO
ND
HD
HO
ND
HD
KD
HD
HD
HD
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
KD
HD
HD
KD
HD
2200 - 3900
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
HD
HD
ND - Not detected
6-6
-------
TABLE 6-1 BOAT List Constituents in Untreated 1C 103 and KIM Waste (Continued)
Parameter
Semivolatiles (cont.)
139 Pentachlorophenol
140 Phenacetin
141 Phenanthrene
142 Phenol
220 Phthalic anhydride
143 2-Picoline
144 Pronamide
145 Pyrene
146 Resorcinol
147 Safrole
148 1,2.4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
149 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
150 1,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
151 2,4.5-Trichlorophenol
152 2,4.6-Trichlorophenol
153 Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Metals
154 Antimony
155 Arsenic
156 Barium
157 Beryllium
158 Cadmium
159 Chromium
221 Chromium (hexavalent)
160 Copper
161 Lead
162 Mercury
163 Nickel
164 Seleniun
165 Silver
166 Thallium
167 Vanadium
168 Zinc
Inorganics
169 Cyanide
170 Fluoride
171 Sulfide
Untreated Believed to
K103 be Present
(mg/l)
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
0.021"
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.006"
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.003 - 0.021
0.038 - 0.075
ND
62.0 • 89.0
Untreated Believed to
K104 be Present
(mg/l)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
HO
ND
ND
0.0015 - 0.017
ND
ND
0.007 • 0.432
ND
0.012*«
ND
ND
0.014 - 0.238
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.011 - 0.079
3.06 - 6.28
ND
ND
•* - Indicates that only one sanple contained this constituent at detectable levels.
6-7
-------
TABLE 6-1 BOAT List Constituents in Untreated K103 and KICK Waste (Continued)
Parameter
Organochlcrine Pesticides
172 Aldrin
173 alpha-BHC
174 beta-BHC
175 delta-BHC
176 gaimta-BHC
177 Chlordane
178 ODD
179 DDE
180 DDT
181 Dieldrin
182 Endosulfan 1
183 Endosulfan 11
184 Endrin
185 Endrin aldehyde
186 Heptachlor
187 Heptachlor epoxide
188 Isodrin
189 Kepone
190 Mehoxychlor
191 Toxaphene
Phenoxvacetic Acid Herbicides
192 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyecetic acid
193 Silvex
194 2,4,5-T
Organophosphorous Insecticides
195 Disulfoton
196 Famphur
197 Methyl parathion
198 Paration
199 Phorate
PCBs
200 Aroclor 1016
201 Aroclor 1221
202 Aroclor 1232
Untreated
K103
(•g/l)
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
Believed to Untreated Believed to
be Present K104 be Present
(mg/l)
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
ND
ND
ND
ND - Not detected
NA - Not analyzed
6-8
-------
TABLE 6-1 BOAT List Constituents in Untreated K103 and KICK Waste (Continued)
Untreated Believed to Untreated Believed to
Parameter 1C 103 be Present K104 be Present
(ng/l) (mg/l)
PCBs (continued?
203 Aroclor 1242 NO ND
204 Aroclor 1248 ND ND
205 Aroclor 1254 ND ND
206 Aroclor 1260 ND ND
Pi ox ins and Furans
207 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ND ND
208 Hexachlorodibenzofuran ND ND
209 Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ND ND
210 Pentachlorodibenzofuran ND ND
211 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ND ND
212 Tetrachlorodibenzofuran ND ND
213 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ND ND
ND • Not detected
6-9
-------
7. CALCULATION OF BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
In this section, the treatment standards for waste codes K103 and
K104 are presented. These standards were calculated based on the
performance of the treatment system that was determined by the Agency to
represent the best demonstrated available technology for K103 and K104.
In Section 5, BOAT for K103 and K104 wastewaters was determined to be
liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping and activated carbon
adsorption; BOAT for K103 and K104 nonwastewaters was determined to be
incineration. The previous section identified the constituents to be
regulated for the wastewater and nonwastewater forms of K103 and K104
wastes.
As discussed in Section 1, the Agency calculated the BOAT treatment
standards for waste codes K103 and K104 by following a four-step
procedure: (1) editing the data; (2) correcting the remaining data for
analytical interference; (3) calculating adjustment factors (variability
factors) to account for process variability; and (4) calculating the
actual treatment standards using variability factors and average
treatment values. The four steps in this procedure are discussed in
detail in Sections 7.1 through 7.4.
7.1 Editing the Data
Five sets of treatment data for waste codes K103 and K104 were
collected by the Agency at one facility, which operated a treatment
system consisting of liquid/liquid extraction followed by steam stripping
and activated carbon adsorption. The Agency evaluated the five data sets
7-1
-------
to determine whether the treatment system was well operated at the time
of the sampling visit. The Agency eliminated one data set, Sample Set 3,
because the treatment system was not well operated when the samples were
collected (as discussed in Section 6). For further details on the five
data sets, refer to the Onsite Engineering Report for K103 and K104. The
remaining four data sets were used to calculate treatment standards.
The data from the effluent guidelines data base (USEPA 1987a) were
evaluated to determine their suitability for establishing treatment
standards. Two problems were present that led to the Agency's decision
not to use the data in setting BOAT. First, data were not available for
all of the constituents of concern in K103 and K104 wastewaters. It is
not clear whether other constituents were not present, not detected, or
not tested for. When this problem is coupled with the uncertainties of
knowledge on the design and operating standards (and the performance),
the Agency is reluctant to set regulatory levels for some constituents
from one set of data and for other constituents from data from another
treatment system.
The second problem may override the first. As noted in the
introduction, the BOAT sampling (and enforcement) program is based on
"grab" samples. This decision was made early in the program to
facilitate a viable and workable approach. For other purposes, the
effluent guidelines system, in looking at pollutant load on a stream, is
based on composite samples. Even though the values shown in Section 4
are on the same order of magnitude for both systems, it is not
7-2
-------
appropriate to interchange data from grab samples and data from composite
samples. The Agency finds no reason to change its earlier decision to
base BOAT levels on grab samples and, in setting standards for K103 and
K104, will not use the data provided in New Source Performance Standards
for the Organic Chemical, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source
Database.
Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) data were not used in
setting treatment standards for waste codes K103 and K104 because metals
were not one of the classes of BOAT list constituents identified for
regulation (see Section 6 for further details). For a discussion on the
use of TCLP data in setting treatment standards, refer to Section 1 of
this background document.
In instances where a selected constituent was not detected in the
treated waste, the treated value for that constituent was assumed to be
the Practical Quantification Level. This was the case for the following
constituents: (1) benzene in Sample Set 2; (2) aniline in Sample Sets 1,
2, and 4; (3) nitrobenzene in Sample Sets 1, 2, 4, and 5; and (4) phenol
in Sample Sets 1, 2, and 4. Analytical values for the treated waste are
presented in Section 4, Tables 4-1 through 4-5, of this report.
7.2 Correcting the Remaining Data
Data values for the constituents selected for regulation were taken
from the four data sets (Sample Sets 1, 2, 4 and 5). These values were
corrected in order to take into account analytical interferences
associated with the chemical makeup of the treated sample. This was
7-3
-------
accomplished by calculating an accuracy factor from the percent recoveries
for each selected constituent. The reciprocal of the lower of the two
recovery values, divided by 100, yields the accuracy factor. The
corrected concentration for each Sample Set is obtained by multiplying
the accuracy factor by the uncorrected data value. The calculation of
recovery values is described in Section ] of this background document.
The actual recovery values and accuracy factors for the selected
constituents are presented in Appendix E.
The accuracy factors calculated for the selected constituents varied
from a high value of 4.76 for phenol to a low value of 0.87 for
nitrobenzene. The corrected concentration values for the selected
constituents are shown for the four data sets in Table 7-1. These
corrected concentration values were obtained by multiplying the accuracy
factors (Appendix E) by the concentration values for the selected
constituents in the treated waste. An arithmetic average value,
representing the treated waste concentration, was calculated for each
selected constituent from the four corrected values. These averages are
presented in Table 7-1.
7.3 Calculating Variability Factors
It is expected that in normal operation of a well-designed and
well-operated treatment system there will be some variability in
performance. Based on the test data, a measure of this variability is
expressed by the variability factor (see Appendix A). These factors were
calculated for each of the selected regulated constituents. The
7-4
-------
methodology for calculating variability factors is explained in Appendix
A of this report. Table 7-1 presents the results of calculations for the
selected constituents. Appendix D of this report shows how the actual
values in Table 7-1 were calculated.
The variability factors calculated for the selected constituents vary
from a high value of 15.4 for aniline to a low value of 1.7 for
2,4-dinitrophenol. A variability factor of 1.0 represents test data from
a process measured without variation and analytical interferences.
Nitrobenzene was not detected in the treated waste, and concentration
values for the treated waste were set at the Practical Quantification
Level for nitrobenzene. This resulted in no apparent variation among the
treated values and a calculated variability factor of 1.0. Instead of
using the calculated value of 1.0, the variability factor for
nitrobenzene was fixed at 2.8 as justified in Appendix D of this document.
7.4 Calculating the Treatment Standards
The treatment standards for the selected constituents were calculated
by multiplying the variability factors by the average concentration
values for the treated waste. The treatment standards are presented in
Table 7-1. Standards were calculated for wastewaters only. The
treatment standards for K103 and K104 nonwastewaters are transferred from
the treatment tests of K019 and K048/K051 wastes.
7-5
-------
Table 7-1 Regulated Constituents and Calculated Treatment Standards for K103 and K104 Uastewaters
Accuracy-Corrected
Constituent
Volatiles:
4. Benzene
Semi vol at iles:
56. Aniline
101. 2,4-Oinitrophenol*
126. Nitrobenzene
142. Phenol
Inorganics:
169. Total Cyanides**
Sample
Set «1
0.055
0.033
0.475
0.026
0.143
0.785
Sample
Set *2
0.007
0.033
0.400
0.026
0.143
0.830
Concentration
Sample
Set «4
0.025
0.033
0.325
0.026
0.143
0.217
(mg/l)
Sample
Set *5
0.015
1.056
0.288
0.026
0.714
0.179
Average
Treated
Waste
Concentration
(mg/l)
0.026
0.289
0.372
0.026
0.286
0.503
Variability
Factor
(VF)
5.654
15.398
1.648
2.800
4.864
5.334
Treatment
Standard
(mg/l)
(Average
X VF)
0.15
4.5
0.61
0.073
1.4
2.7
* - Percent recovery of 4-Nitrophenol was used in the calculation of the standard for 2,4-Dinitrophenol.
** - Total cyanides are regulated for K104 only.
-------
The BOAT wastewater treatment standard for waste code K103 are as
follows:
Constituent Total composition (mq/1)
Aniline 4.5
Benzene 0.15
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.61
Nitrobenzene 0.073
Phenol 1.4
The BOAT wastewater treatment standard for waste code K104 are as
follows:
Constituent Total composition (mq/1)
Aniline 4.5
Benzene 0.15
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.61
Nitrobenzene 0.073
Phenol 1.4
Total Cyanides (CN) 2.7
The treatment standards for waste codes K103 and K104 vary from 4.5
mg/1 for aniline to 0.073 mg/1 for nitrobenzene.
Nonwastewater treatment standards for waste codes K103 and
and K104 were also determined by the Agency. These treatment standards
apply to the spent carbon from the carbon adsorber; these treatment
standards do not apply to the nitrobenzene solvent extract from the
liquid/liquid extractor because the Agency believes that no ash is formed
when this stream is incinerated.
As discussed in Section 4, no performance data were available for the
treatment of K103 and K104 nonwastewaters. The Agency therefore decided
7-7
-------
to transfer treatment standards from the treatment of wastes that were
determined to be similar to K103 and K104 nonwastewaters based on waste
characteristics affecting performance. The nonwastewater treatment
standards for waste codes K103 and K104 were transferred from treatment
data for wastes K019 and K048/K051. The thermal conductivities of wastes
K019, K048, and K051 were compared with the thermal conductivities of
waste codes K103 and K104. Waste K019 was selected for transferring
treatment standards to wastes K103 and K104 because its thermal
conductivity was lower than that of both wastes K103 and K104. The
treated waste concentrations and treatment standards for K019 are
presented in Table 7-2. The boiling points of the selected constituents
in waste codes K103 and K104 were compared with the boiling points of the
regulated constituents in waste code K019. Constituents were matched as
closely as possible on the basis of the boiling point (see Table 7-2).
Chlorinated organic constituents in K019 with three or more chlorine
atoms in their structure were eliminated from consideration for this
matching. All chlorinated organics with three or more chlorine atoms
were below detectable levels in treated K019. The treated concentrations
were therefore set at the detection limit for these constituents.
However, the detection limits for these constituents were abnormally high
in treated K019 because of matrix interferences, leading to high
treatment standards. Therefore, chlorinated organic constituents with
three or more chlorine atoms were not considered when matching
constituents from K103 and K104 with those from K019. The remaining
constituents in K019 were matched as closely as possible with those in
7-8
-------
Table 7-2 Regulated Constituents and Calculated Treatment Standards for K019 Nonuasteuaters
Constituent
Volatiles:
9. Ch I orobenzene
14. Chloroform
23. 1,2-Dichloroethane
Sanivolatiles:
68. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
121. Naphthalene
141. Phenanthrene
Treated
Waste
Concentration
Range
(mg/kg)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Average
Treated
Waste
Concentration
(mg/kg)
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.0
2.0
2.0
Treatment
Standard
Variability (mg/kg)
Factor (Average
(VF) X VF)
2.8 6.0
2.8 6.0
2.8 6.0
2.8 5.6
2.8 5.6
2.8 5.6
Boiling
Point
(deg. C)
132
61.7
83.5
116
218
340
2 - Treatment standard calculations are described in detail in the Background Document for K019.
-------
K103 and K104 on the basis of boiling point.* Treatment standards were
then transferred from waste code K019 to the matched constituent.
Cyanide treatment standards were transferred from the treatment of
K048/K051, since cyanide was not present in K019 waste.
The BOAT nonwastewater treatment standards for waste codes K103 and
K104 are as follows:
Constituent Total composition (mq/kq)
K103 K104
Aniline 5.6 5.6
Benzene 6.0 6.0
2,4-Dinitrophenol 5.6 5.6
Nitrobenzene 5.6 5.6
Phenol 5.6 5.6
Total Cyanides (CN) NR 1.8
NR - Not regulated for this waste code.
The removal of highly chlorinated organic constituents in K019 from
consideration for transfer affected the treatment standards for the
following constituents in K103 and K104: nitrobenzene (naphthalene
was used rather than 1,2,4-tri- chlorobenzene), aniline, and phenol
(naphthalene was used rather than hexachloroethane or
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene).
7-10
-------
8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste, by Versar Inc. under Contract No.
68-01-7053 and by Jacobs Engineering, acting as a subcontractor to Versar
Inc. Mr. James Berlow, Chief, Treatment Technology Section, Waste
Treatment Branch, served as the EPA Program Manager during the
preparation of this document and the development of treatment standards
for the K103 and K104 wastes from the aniline/nitrobenzene industry. The
technical project officer for the waste was Mr. Juan Baez-Martinez. Mr.
Steven Silverman served as legal advisor.
Versar personnel involved with preparing this document included Mr.
Jerome Strauss, Program Manager; Ms. Justine Alchowiak, quality assurance
officer; Mr. David Pepson, senior technical reviewer; and Ms. Juliet
Crumrine, technical editor.
Jacobs personnel included Mr. Alan Corson, Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Manager; Mr. Ramesh Maraj, project manager; Mr. Bradford Kauffman
and Ms. Desire Lege, engineering team leaders; and Ms. Rosetta Swann,
project secretary.
K103 and K104 treatment test was executed at E. I. du Pont de Nemours
Inc. Field sampling for the test was conducted under the leadership of
Mr. William Myers of Versar; laboratory coordination was provided by Mr.
Jay Bernarding, also of Versar.
We greatly appreciated the cooperation of E. I. du Pont de Nemours
Inc., Beaumont, Texas, and the individual companies and trade
associations that submitted detailed information to the U.S. EPA.
8-1
-------
9. REFERENCES
Ackerman D.G., McGaughey J.F., Wagoner D.E., "At sea incineration of
PCB-containing wastes on board the M/T Vulcanus. EPA 600/7-83-024.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1977. Physical, chemical and biological
treatment techniques for industrial wastes, Vol. I, pp. 1-1 to 1-18 and
1-37 to 1-41. NTIS, PB275-054.
Bonner T.A., et al. 1981. Engineering handbook for hazardous waste
incineration. SW889. Prepared by Monsanto Research Corporation for
U.S. EPA. NTIS PB 81-248163.
De Renzo, D.J., ed. 1978. Unit operations for treatment of hazardous
industrial wastes. Park Ridge, New Jersey: Noyes Data Corporation.
Enckenfelder, W., et al. 1985. Wastewater treatment Chemical
Engineering. September 2, 1985.
Gallacher, L.V. 1981. Liquid ion exchange in metal recovery and
recycling. 3rd Conference on Advanced Pollution Control for the Metal
Finishing Industry, pp. 39-41. EPA 600/2-81-028.
GCA Corp. 1984. Technical assessment of treatment alternatives for
wastes containing halogenated organics. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, contract no. 68-01-6871. pp. 150-160.
Hackman, E. 1978. Toxic organic chemicals, destruction and waste
treatment. Park Ridge, New Jersey: Noyes Data Corporation,
pp. 109-111.
Hanson, C. 1968. Solvent extraction theory, equipment, commercial
operations, and economics. Chemical Engineering, p. 81.
Humphrey, J.L., J.A. Rocha, and J.R. Fair. 1984. The essentials of
extraction. Chemical Engineering, pp. 76-95.
Hutchins, R. 1979. Activated carbon systems for separation of liquids.
In Handbook of separation technigues for chemical engineers, ed., P.A.
Schweitzer, pp. 1-415 through 1-486 1979. McGraw-Hill.
9-1
-------
Kirk & Othmer. 1965. Encyclopedia of chemical technology. 2nd ed.,
Vol. 7, pp. 204-248. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Kirk & Othmer. Encyclopedia of chemical technology. Volume 2,
pp. 37-361; Vol. 15, pp. 916-925. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Ku, W. and Peters, R.W. 1987. Innovative uses or carbon adsorption of
heavy metals from plating wastewaters: I. Activated carbon polishing
treatment, Environmental Progress. May, 1987.
Lo, T.C., Baird, M.H.I., and Manson, C., ed. 1983. Handbook of solvent
extraction. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 53-89.
McCabe, W.L., Smith, J.C., and Harriot, P. 1985. Unit operations of
chemical engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp. 533-606.
Metcalf and Eddy Inc. 1985. Briefing: technologies applicable to
hazardous waste. Prepared for USEPA, ORD, HWERL. Section 2.13.
Mitre Corp. 1983. Guidance manual for waste incinerator permits.
NTIS PB84-100577.
Novak, R.G., Troxler, W.L., and Dehnke, T.H.. 1984. Recovering energy
from hazardous waste incineration. Chemical Engineering Progress 91:146.
Oppelt, E.T. 1987. Incineration of hazardous waste. JAPCA Vol. 37,
no. 5
Patterson, J. 1985. Industrial wastewater treatment technology.
2nd ed. Butterworth Pub., pp. 329-340.
Perry, R.H. and Chilton, C.H. 1973. Chemical engineer's handbook.
5th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp. 13-1 to 13-60
and pp. 15-1 to 15-24.
Rose, L.M. 1985. Distillation design in practice. New York: pp. 1-307.
Santoleri, J.J. 1983. 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.
SRI. 1985. Stanford Research Institute. Chemical economics handbook
(CEH). Menlo Park, Calif: Stanford Research Institute.
9-2
-------
Touhill, Shuckrow & Assoc. 1981. Concentration technologies for
hazardous aqueous waste treatment. NTIS, PB81-150583, pp. 53-55.
USEPA. 1973. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process design
manual for carbon adsorption. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, pp. 3-21 and 53. NTIS PB227-157.
USEPA. 1981. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Identification
and listing hazardous waste under RCRA, Subtitle C, Section 3001,
background document. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA. 1984. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Appendix IV
In Appendices supporting documentation for the RCRA Incinerator
Regulations 40 CFR 264 Subpart 0 - Incinerators. NTIS PB 86-110293.
USEPA. 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Best demonstrated
available technology (BOAT) background document for F001-F005 spent
solvents. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA/530-SW-86-056.
USEPA. 1987a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Effluent
limitations guidelines: new source performance standards for the
organic chemical, plastics and synthetic fibers point source database.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Van Winkle, M. 1967. Distillation. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, pp. 1-684.
Versar. 1985. Versar Inc. An overview of carbon adsorption. Draft
final report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Exposure Evaluation Division, Office of Toxic Substances, EPA contract
no. 68-02-3968, task no. 58.
Vogel, G., et al. 1986. Incineration and cement kiln capacity for
hazardous waste treatment. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Research
Symposium on Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous Wastes,
Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1986.
Water Chemical Corporation. 1984. Process design manual of stripping
of orqanics. Prepared for the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, pp. 1-1 to F4. PB84-232628.
9-3
-------
APPENDIX A
STATISTICAL METHODS
A.I F Value Determination for ANOVA Test
As noted in Section 1.2, EPA is using the statistical method known as
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine 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 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), the "best" technology would be the
technology that achieves the best level of performance, i.e., the
technology with the lowest mean value.
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).
A-l
-------
Table A-l
95th PERCENTILE VALUES FOR
THE F DISTRIBUTION
ni « decrees of freedom for numerator
n» = decrees of freedom for denominator
(shaded are* = .95)
\
11 *S
1
0
s
t
««
5
C
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
IT
18
19
20
no
24
26
28
30
40
SO
60
70
80
100
ISO
200
400
•D
1
k
161.4
1S.51
10.13
7.71
6.61
5.99
5.59
5.32
5.12
4.96
4.84
4.75
4.67
4.GO
4.54
4.49
4.45
4.41
4.38
4.35
4.30
4.26
4.23
4.20
4.17
4.08
4.03
4.00
3.98
3.96
3.94
3.91
3.89
3.86
3.84
2
199.5
19.00
9.55
6.94
5.79
5.14
4.74
4.46
4.26
4.10
3.98
3.89
3.S1
3.74
3.68
3.63
3.59
3.55
3.52
3.49
3.44
3.40
3.37
3.34
3.32
3.23
3.18
3.15
3.13
3.11
3.09
3.06
3.04
3.02
2.99
3
215.7
19.16
9.28
6.59
5.41
4.76
4.35
4.07
5.86
3.71
3.59
3.49
3.41
3.34
3.29
3.24
3.20
3.16
3.13
3.10
3.05
3.01
2.98
2.95
2,92
2.84
2.79
2.76
2.74
2.72
2.70
2.67
2.65
2.62
2.60
4
224.6
19.25
9.12
6.39
5.19
4.53
4.12
3.84
3.63
3.48
3.36
3.26
3.18
3.11
3.06
3.01
2.96
2.93
2.90
2.87
2.82
2.78
2.74
2.71
2.69
2.61
2.56
2.53
2.50
2.48
2.46
2.43
2.41
2.39
2.37
6
230.2
19.30
9.01
6.26
S.05
4.39
3.97
3.69
3.48
3.33
3.20
3.11
3.03
2.96
2.90
2.85
2.81
2.77
2.74
2.71
2.66
2.62
2.59
2.56
2.53
2.45
2.40
2.37
2.35
2.33
2.30
2J27
2.26
2.23
2^1
6
234.0
19.33
8.94
6.16
4.95
4.28
3.87
3.58
3.37
3.22
3.09
3.00
2.92
2.85
2.79
2.74
2.70
2.66
2.63
2.60
2.55
2.51
2.47
2.45
2.42
2.34
2JJ9
2JJ5
2J»
2.21
2.19
2.16
2.14
2.12
2.09
8
238.9
19.37
8.85
6.04
4.82
4.15
3.73
3.44
3.23
3.07
2.95
2.85
2.77
2.70
2.64
2.59
2.55
2.51
2.48
2.45
2.40
2.36
2.32
2.29
2J>7
2.18
2.13
2.10
2.07
2.05
2.03
2.00
1.98
1.96
1.94
12
243.9
19.41
8.74
5.91
4.68
4.00
3.57
3.28
3.07
2.91
2.79
2.69
2.60
2.53
2.48
2.42
2.38
2.34
2.31
2^8
2.23
2.18
2.15
2.12
2.09
2.00
1.95
1.92
1.89
1.88
1.85
1.82
1.80
1.78
1.75
16
246.3
19.43
8.69
5.84
4.60
3.92
3.49
3.20
2.98
2.82
2.70
2.60
2.51
2.44
2.39
2.33
o 70
2j>5
2.21
2.18
2.13
2.09
2.05
2.02
1.99
1.90
1.85
1.81
1.79
1.77
1.75
1.71
1.69
1.67
1.64
20
248.0
19.45
8.66
5.80
4.56
3.87
3.44
3.15
2.93
2.77
2.65
2.54
2.46
2.39
2.33
2.28
ZJ23
2.19
2.15
2.12
2.07
2.03
1.99
1.96
1.93
1.84
1.78
1.75
1.72
1.70
1.68
1.64
1.62
1.60
1.57
30
250.1
19.46
S.62
5.75
4.50
3.81
2.38
3.08
2.86
2.70
2.57
2.46
2.38
2.31
2J!5
2.20
2.15
2.11
2.07
2.04
1.98
1.94
1.90
1.S7
1.84
1.74
1.69
1.65
1.62
1.60
1.57
1.54
1.52
1.49
1.46
40
251.1
19.46
8.CO
5.71
4.46
3.77
3.34
3.05
2.82
2.67
2.53
2.42
2.34
•> O^
«> O1
2.16
2.11
2.07
2.02
1.99
1.93
1.89
1.85
1.81
1.79
1.69
1.63
1.59
1.56
1.54
1.51
1.47
1.45
1.42
1.40
50
**5** **
19.47
8.58
5.70
4.44
3.75
3.32
3.03
2.80
2.64
2.50
2.40
2.32
2^4
2.18
2.13
2.08
2.04
2.00
1.96
1.91
1.86
1.82
1.78
1.76
1.66
1.60
1.56
1.53
1.51
1.48
1.44
1.42
1.38
1.32
100
253.0
19.49
8.56
5.66
4.40
3.71
3.28
2.98
2.76
2.59
2.45
2.35
2.26
2.19
2.12
2.07
2.02
1.98
1.94
1.90
1.84
1.80
1.76
1.72
1.69
1.59
1.52
1.48
1.45
1.42
1.39
1.34
1.22
1.28
1.24
m
25-^.c
19.50
6.55
5.63
•i.35
3.6T
3.23
2.93
2.71
2.5;
2.40
2.30
2.21
2.13
2.07
2.01
1.96
1.92
1.8S
1.84
1.78
1.73
1.69
1.65
1.62
1.51
1.44
1.39
1.35
1.32
1.28
1.22
1.19
1.13
1.00
A-2
-------
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
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:
Ir I T:~ I I V T: ^
SSB '
where:
[i,m -[Lkil
k = number of treatment technologies
n.j = number of data points for technology i
N = number of data points for all technologies
T^ = sum of natural logtransformed data points for each technology.
(iv) The sum of the squares within data sets (SSW) is computed:
SSW =
k n1 ,
v* v* 2
i=l j=l
k
"i-1
T.2
1 -I
ni
where:
i i = the natural logtransformed observations (j) for treatment
technology (i).
A-3
-------
(v) The degrees of freedom corresponding to SSB and SSW are
calculated. For SSB, the degree of freedom is given by k-1. For SSW,
the degree of freedom is given by N-k.
(vi) Using the above parameters, the F value is calculated as
follows:
MSB
F = MSW
where:
MSB = SSB/(k-l) and
MSW = SSW/(N-k).
A computational table summarizing the above parameters is shown below.
Computational Table for the F Value
Source
Between
Within
Degrees of
freedom
k-1
N-k
Sum of
squares
SSB
SSW
Mean square
MSB = SSB/k-1
MSW = SSW/N-k
F value
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 in which one
technology achieves significantly better treatment than the other
technology.
A-4
-------
1790g
Example 1
Methylene Chloride
Steam stripping
Influent Effluent
(M9/D
1550.00
1790.00
1640.00
5100.00
1450.00
4600.00
1760.00
2400.00
4HOO.OO
12100.00
(<*g/i)
10.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Biological treatment
In(effluent) [ln(eff luent)]2 Influent Effluent In(effluent)
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.48
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
(/ig/D Ug/D
5.29 1960.00 10.00 2.30
5.29 2568.00 10.00 2.30
5.29 1817.00 10.00 2.30
6.15 1640.00 26.00 3.26
5.29 3907.00 10.00 2.30
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
[In(effluent)]2
5.29
5.29
5.29
10.63
5.29
Sum:
23.18
53.76
12.46
31.79
Sample Si/c:
10 10
10
Mean:
3669 10.2
Standard Deviation:
3328.67 .63
Variability Factor:
2.32
.06
2378
923.04
1.15
13.2
7.15
2.48
2.49
.43
ANOVA Calculations:
SSB =
[A
T,'
i
_
[U")'i
L N J
1=1 JM
MSB = SSB/(k-l)
HSW = SSW/(N-k)
A-5
-------
1790g
Example 1 (Continued)
F = MSB/HSU
where:
k = number of treatment technologies
n. = number of data points for technology i
N - number of natural logtransformed data points for all technologies
T = sum of logtransformed data points for each technology
X - the nat. logtransformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
ij
n = 10. n = 5. N = 15. k = 2. T = 23.18. T = 12.46. T = 35.64. T = 1270.21
= 537.31 T = 155.25
SSB =
537.31 155.25
+
10 5
1270.21
15
= 0.10
SSU - (53.76 + 31.79) -
537.31 155.25
+•
10 5
= 0.77
MSB = 0.10/1 = 0.10
HSW = 0.77/13 - 0.06
0.10
= 1.67
0.06
ANOVA Table
Degrees of
Source freedom
Between (B) 1
Within(U) 13
SS MS F yalue
0.10 0.10 1.G7
O.// 0.06
The critical value of the F test at the 0.05 significance level is 4.67. Since
the F vd lue is less than the critical value, the means arc not -jiynil icdiil ly
different (i.e.. they are homogeneous).
Note: All calculations were rounded to two decimal places. Results may differ.
depending upon the number of decimal places used in each step of the calculations.
A-6
-------
1790g
Example 2
Inchloroethylene
Steam stripping
Influent
Ug/D
1650.00
5?00.00
5000.00
1720.00
1560.00
10300.00
210.00
1600.00
204.00
160.00
Sum:
Sample Size:
10
Mean:
2760
Effluent
(*J/1)
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
27.00
85.00
10.00
10
19.2
ln(ef fluent)
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
3.30
4.44
2.30
26.14
10
2.61
[In(effluent)]2
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
10.89
19.71
5.29
72.92
-
-
Influent
(W/D
200.00
224.00
134.00
150.00
484.00
163.00
182.00
_
7
220
Biological treatment
Effluent In(effluent) [Infeff luent)]2
Ug/i)
10.00 2.30 5.29
10.00 2.30 5.29
10.00 2.30 5.29
10.00 2.30 5.29
16.25 2.79 /./«
10.00 2.30 5.29
10.00 2.30 5.29
16.59 39.52
7 /
10.89 2.37
Standard Deviation:
3209.6
23.7
.71
-
120.5
2.36 .19
VariabiIity Factor:
3.70
1.53
ANOVA Calculations:
2
SSB --
li
n.
•[
, „,.,
MSB = SSB/(k-l)
MSU - SSU/(N-k)
N
Ti2
•Mif)
A-7
-------
1790g
Example 2 (Continued)
F - MSB/NSW
where:
k = number of treatment technologies
n. = number of data points for technology i
N = number of data points for all technologies
T - sum of natural logtransformed data points for each technology
X . - the natural logtransformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
N = 10. N - 7. N - 17. k - 2. 1 - 26.14. I ^ 16.59. I - 42.73. I - 1825.85. I - 683.30.
T2 = 275.23
(683.30 275.23 ) 1825.85
SSB * + - = 0.25
10 7 I 17
S»- (72.92* 39.52) -lJ^!*!±f!l •«•«
10 7
MSB * 0.25/1 = 0.25
HSU = 4.79/15 = 0.32
0.32
ANOVA Table
Degrees of
Source freedom
Between(B) 1
Uithin(U) 15
SS MS F value
0.25 0.25 0.78
4.79 0.3?
I he critical value of the K test at the 0.05 signif iccincu level is 1. Li4. Since'
the F value is less than the critical value, the means
-------
1790q
Example 3
Chlorobenzene
Activated sludge followed by carbon adsorption
Biolonic.il treatment
Influent
Ug/1)
Effluent
Ug/D
In(effluent) [ln(effluent)]' Influent
Effluent
Ug/D
ln(effluent)
ln[(eff luent)]'
7200.00
6500.00
6075.00
3040.00
80.00
70.00
35.00
10.00
4.38
4.25
3.56
?.30
19.18
18.06
12.67
5.20
9206.00
16646.00
497/5.00
14731.00
3159.00
6756.00
3040.00
1083.00
709.50
460.00
14?.00
603.00
153.00
17.00
6.99
6.56
6.13
4.96
6.40
5.03
2.83
48.86
43.03
3/.5B
?4.60
40.96
25.30
8.01
Sum:
Sample Size:
4 4
Mean:
5703
49
Standard Deviation:
1835.4 32.24
14.49
3.62
.95
55.20
14759
16311.86
452.5
379.04
38.90
b.56
1.42
228.34
VariabiIily Factor:
7.00
15.79
ANOVA Calculations:
2
SSB
M^)l-[i
'-I I n., 1 -
SSW - £ £' x2i
[ 1=1 j=l "
MSB = SSB/(k-l)
MSU = SSU/(N k)
H - MSB/MSU
,1,
2 1
k f Tj2 ^
"A I" ]
A-9
-------
1790g
•here.
Example 3 (Continued)
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 logtransformed data points for each technology
i
X - the natural logtransformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
>J
N = 4. N = 7. N = 11. k = 2. T = 14.49. T = 38.90. T = 53.39. T = 2850.49. T = 209.96
SSO -
^ 9.52
= (55.20 + 228.34)
= 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 freedom
SS
MS
F value
Betwecn(B)
Uithm(U)
1
9
9.53
14.89
9.53
1.65
5.77
The critical value of the F tost at the 0.05 significance level is 5.1?. Since
the P value is larger than the critical value, the means are significantly
different (i.e.. they are heterogeneous). Activated sludge followed by carbon
adsorption is "best" in this example because the mean ol the long-term performance
value, i.e., the effluent concent rat ion, is lowor.
Note: All calculations Here rounded to two decimal places. Results may differ depending
upon the number of decimal places used in each stop of the calculations.
A-10
-------
A.2 Variability Factor
Cgg
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. Cgq 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; and
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.
Agency data show that the treatment residual concentrations are
A-ll
-------
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), as follows:
VF = C99. (1)
Mean
The relationship between the parameters of the lognormal distribution
and the parameters of the normal distribution created by taking the
natural logarithms of the lognormally distributed concentrations can be
found in most mathematical statistics texts (see, for example,
Distribution in Statistics-Volume 1 by Johnson and Kotz, 1970). The mean
of the lognormal distribution can be expressed in terms of the
mean (^) and standard deviation (a) of the normal distribution as
follows:
C99 = Exp (M + 2.33a) (2)
Mean = Exp (M + 0.5o2). (3)
By substituting (2) and (3) in (1), the variability factor can then
be expressed in terms of a as follows:
VF = Exp (2.33 o - 0.5<72). (4)
For residuals with concentrations that are not all below the
detection limit, the 99th percentile and the mean can be estimated from
the actual analytical data and, accordingly, the variability factor (VF)
can be estimated using equation (1). For residuals with concentrations
A-12
-------
that are below the detection limit, the above equations can be used in
conjunction with the following assumptions to develop a variability
factor.
• Assumption 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 fall within one order of magnitude.
• Assumption 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).
• Assumption 3: The standard deviation («) of the normal
distribution is approximated by:
o - [ln(UL) - ln(LL)] / [(2)(2.33)]
= [ln(UL/LL)] / 4.66. (5)
(Note that when LL = (0.1)(UL) as in Assumption 1, then
a - (InlO) / 4.66 = 0.494.)
Substitution of the a value from equation (5) into equation (4)
yields the variability factor, VF, as shown:
VF = 2.8. (6)
A-13
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TESTS
ANOVA II
Comparison of L/L Extraction with L/L Extraction Followed by
Steam Stripping
Compare sample point SD-5 (Untreated Waste to Steam Stripper)
with sample point SD-6 (Treated Waste From Steam Stripper)
Regulated Constituents: Benzene
Nitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Phenol
Aniline
Cyanide
Regulated Constituents Present in Untreated Waste (SD-5):
Benzene
Nitrobenzene
Cyanide
Regulated Constituents Present in Treated Waste (SD-6):
Benzene
2,4-Dinitrophenol (*)
Cyanide
* - An ANOVA analysis could hot be completed on this
constituent, since no information is available on the
concentration of this constituent in the untreated waste
(SD-5).
Rev- 3
-------
1) Benzene (ug/1)
AF = 1.32
Raw SD-5
Corr. SD-5
Raw SD-6
Corr. SD-6
170,000
224,400
(5)
6.6
2) Nitrobenzene (ug/1)
AF = 0.87
Raw SD-5
Corr. SD-5
Raw SD-6
Corr. SD-6
3) Cyanide (fflg/1)
AF = 1.39
190,000
250,800
8
10.6
26,000
34,320
(5)
6.6
17,000
22,440
(5)
6.6
2.3X106
2.0X106
(3000)
2610
2.8X106
2.4X106
(3000)
2610
2.0X106
1.7X106
(1500)
1305
2.0X106
1.7X106
(3000)
2610
Raw SD-5
Corr. SD-5
Raw SD-6
Corr. SD-6
4.36
6.06
4.77
6.63
3.45
4.80
3.87
5.38
2.54
3.53
2.08
2.89
2.27
3.16
1.70
2.36
Note;
Numbers in parentheses indicate that the compound was
not detected in this sample. The detection limit has
been used in place of the actual value for this
compound.
(Above raw values are taken from the EPA's Onsite Engineering
Report for K103 and K104. Tables 6-10 and 6-11).
B-2
Rev. 3
-------
1) Benzene
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 _ x^_ _ g2
SSI 224,400 6.6 12.32 1.89
SS2 250,800 10.6 12.43 2.36
SS4 34,320 6.6 10.44 1.89
SS5 22,440 6.6 10.02 1.89
nl = 4 n2 = 4
N = 8
SSB - (T12/n1 + T22/n2) - T2/N
= (2043.94/4 + 64.48/4) - 2834.5/8
= (510.99 -H6.12) - 354.31
= 527.11 - 354.31
= 172.80
MSB = SSB/k-1 = 172.80/1 = 172.80
SSW = t t Xi -;2 - 527.11
= 531.97 - 527.11
= 4.86
MSW = SSW/N-k - 4.86/6 =0.81
F = MSB/MSW « 172.80/0.81 - 213.3
Fk-l,N-k = Fl 6 = 5-99 (critical value for 95% confidence)
B-3
-------
2) Nitrobenzene
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 x^ _ — *-2—
SSI 2.00X106 2610 14.51 7.87
SS2 2.44X106 2610 14.71 7.87
SS4 1.74X106 1305 14.37 7.17
SS5 1.74X106 2610 14.37 7.87
k = 2
nj_ = 4 r\2 = 4
N = 8
SSB = (T12/n1 + T22/n2) - T2/N
= (3359.36/4 + 947.41/4) - 7874.79/8
= (839.84 + 236.85) - 984.35
= 1076.69 - 984.35
= 92.34
MSB = SSB/k-1 = 92.34/1 = 92.34
SSW = t t Xi j2 - 1076.69
= 1077. l4 - 1076.69
= .45
MSW = SSW/N-k = 0.45/6 = 0.08*
F = MSB/MSW = 92.34/0.08 «= 1154.25
Fk-l,N-k = Fl,6 = 5-99 (critical value for 95% confidence)
B-4 Rev. 3
-------
3) Cyanide
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 —2£i_ —2^2—
SSI 6.06 6.63 1.80 1.89
SS2 4.80 5.38 1.57 1.68
SS4 3.53 2.89 1.26 1.06
SS5 3.16 2.36 1.15 0.86
k - 2
n^ = 4 r\2 - 4
N = 8
SSB = (T12/n1 + T22/n2) - T2/N
= (33.41/4 + 30.14/4) - 127.01/8
= (8.35 + 7.54) - 15.88
= 15.89 - 15.88
= 0.01
MSB = SSB/k-1 = 0.01/1 =0.01
SSW = t t Xi -s2 - 15.89
= 16.87 -15.89
= 0.98
MSW = SSW/N-k = 0.98/6 =0.16
F = MSB/MSW = 0.01/0.16 «= 0.06
Fk-l N-k = Fl 6 = 5-99 (critical value for 95% confidence)
B-b . Rev- 3
-------
Computational Table for the F Value
Constituent
Benzene
Nitrobenzene
Total Cyanides
Source
Between
Within
Between
Within
Between
Within
Sun of
Squares
172.80
4.86
92.34
0.45
0.01
0.98
Degrees of
Freedom
1
6
1
6
1
6
Mean
Square
172.80
0.81
92.34
0.08
0.01
0.16
F
213.3*
1154.25*
0.06
* - Indicates that the calculated F value exceeds the critical value.
Conclusion
L/L Extraction followed by steam stripping is more efficient at
reducing the concentration of benzene and nitrobenzene in
K103/K104 than L/L extraction alone, but is not more efficient at
reducing the concentration of total cyanides in K103/K104 than
L/L extraction alone.
B-fa
Rev. 3
-------
ANOVA *2
Comparison of L/L Extraction Followed by Steam Stripping with L/L
Extraction Followed by Steam Stripping Followed by Activated
Carbon Adsorption
Compare sample point SD-8 (Untreated Waste to Activated Carbon
Adsorption Beds) with sample point SD-9 (Treated Waste from
Carbon Adsorption System)
Regulated Constituents: Benzene
Nitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Phenol
Aniline
Cyanide
Regulated Constituents Present in Untreated Waste (SD-8):
Benzene
Aniline
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Phenol
Cyanide
Regulated Constituents Present in Treated Waste (SD-9):
Benzene
Aniline
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Phenol
Cyanide
B-7
Rev. 3
-------
1) Benzene (ug/1)
AF = 1.32
Raw SD-8
Corr. SD-8
880
1161.60
130
171.60
39
51.48
20
26.40
Raw SD-9
Corr. SD-9
42
55.44
2) Aniline (ug/1)
AF = 1.10
(5)
6.6
19
25.08
11
14.52
Raw SD-8
Corr. SD-8
57000
62700
ND
ND
56000
61600
300000
330000
Raw SD-9 (30)
Corr. SD-9 33
(30)
33
3) 2,4-Dinitrophenol (ug/1)
AF = 1.25
(30)
33
960
1056
Raw SD-8
Corr. SD-8
53000
66250
ND
ND
24000
30000
24000
30000
Raw SD-9 380
Corr. SD-9 475
Note;
320
400
260
325
230
288
Numbers in parentheses indicate that the compound was
not detected in this sample. The detection limit has
been used in place of the actual value for this
compound. "ND" indicates that this compound was not
detected in the untreated waste (SD-8), and hence this
reading was not used in the ANOVA calculations.
B-8
Rev. 3
-------
4) Phenol (ug/1)
AF = 4.76
Raw SD-8 ND 29000 39000 41000
Corr. SD-8 ND 138040 185640 195160
Raw SD-9 (30) (30) (30) 150
Corr. SD-9 142.8 142.8 142.8 714
5) Cyanide (rog/1)
AF = 1.39
Raw SD-8 6.850 4.590 3.470 0.952
Corr. SD-8 9.52 6.38 4.82 1.32
Raw SD-9 0.565 0.597 0.156 0.129
Corr. SD-9 0.79 0.83 0.22 0.18
Note; Numbers in parentheses indicate that the compound was
not detected in this sample. The detection limit has
been used in place of the actual value for this
compound. "ND" indicates that this compound was not
detected in the untreated waste (SD-8), and hence this
reading was not used in the ANOVA calculations.
(Above raw values are taken from the EPA's Onsite Engineering
Report for K103 and K104. Tables 6-13 and 6-14).
B-9
-------
1) Benzene
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 xi
SSI 1161.6 55.4 7.06 4.01
SS2 171.6 6.6 5.15 1.89
SS4 51.5 25.1 3.94 3.22
SS5 26.4 14.5 3.27 2.67
* - 2
nl ~ 4 n2 = 4
N = 8
SSB = (T12/n1 + T22/n2) - T2/N
= (377.14/4 + 139.00/4) - 974.06/8
= (94.29 + 34.75) - 121.76
= 129.04 - 121.76
= 7.28
MSB = SSB/k-1 = 7.28/1 =7.28
SSW = t t Xi j2 - 129.04
= 139.73- 129.04
- 10.69
MSW = SSW/N-k = 10.69/6 =1.78
F = MSB/MSW • 7.28/1.78 =4.09
Fk-l,N-k = Fl,6 = 5«" (critical value for 95% confidence)
B-1U Rev« 3
-------
2) Aniline
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 xj__ x2
SSI 62700 33 11.05 3.50
SS2 ND 33 ND 3.50
SS4 61600 33 11.03 3.50
SS5 330000 1056 12.71 6.96
k = 2
HI = 3 n2 = 4
N = 7
SSB -'(T12/n1 + T22/n2) - T2/N
= (1210.34/3 + 304.85/4) - 2730.06/7
= (403.45 + 76.21) - 390.01
= 479.66 - 390.01
= 89.65
MSB » SSB/k-1 = 89.65/1 = 89.65
SSW = t t X£ j2 - 479.66
= 490.49- 479.66
= 10.83
MSW = SSW/N-k = 10.83/5 =2.17
F = MSB/MSW = 89.65/2.17 « 41.31
Fk-l N-k = Fl,5 = 6'61 (critical value for 95% confidence)
B-ll Rev. 3
-------
3) 2,4-Dinitrophenol
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 £i_
SSI 66250 475 11.10 6.16
SS2 ND 400 ND 5.99
SS4 30000 325 10.31 5.78
SS5 30000 288 10.31 5.66
k = 2
nl ~ 3 n2 = 4
N = 7
SSB = (T12/n1 + T22/n2) - T2/N
= (1006.16/3 + 556.49/4) - 3059.20/7
= (335.39 + 139.12) - 437.03
= 474.51 - 437.03
= 37.48
MSB = SSB/k-1 = 37.48/1 = 37.48
SSW = t t Xi -j2 - 474.51
= 475.07- 474.51
= 0.56
MSW = SSW/N-k = 0.56/5 =0.11
F = MSB/MSW = 37.48/0.11 = 340.73
Fk-l N-k = Fl 5 = 6-61 (critical value for 95% confidence)
B-12 Rev* 3
-------
4) Phenol
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 2C^_
SSI ND 142.8 ND 4.96
SS2 138040 142.8 11.84 4.96
SS4 185640 142.8 12.13 4.96
SS5 195160 714.0 12.18 6.57
k = 2
nl = 3 n2 = 4
N = 7
SSB = (T12/n1 + T22/n2) ~ T2/N
- (1306.82/3 + 460.10/4) - 3317.76/7
= (435.61 + 115.02) - 473.97
= 550.63 - 473.97
= 76.66
MSB = SSB/k-1 = 76.66/1 = 76.66
SSW = t t Xi j2 - 550.63
= 552.64- 550.63
= 2.01
MSW = SSW/N-k = 2.01/5 =0.40
F = MSB/MSW = 76.66/0.40 = 191.65
Fk-l,N-k ~ Fl,5 = 6-61 (critical value for 95% confidence)
B-13
-------
5) Cyanide
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 _£i_ _ &2-
SS1 9.52 0.79 2.25 -0.24
SS2 6.38 0.83 1.85 -0.19
SS4 4.82 0.22 1.57 -1.51
SS5 1.32 0.18 0.28 -1.71
nl ~ 4 n2 = 4
N = 8
SSB = (T12/n1 + T22/n2) - T2/N
= (35.4/4 + 13.3/4) - 5.29/8
= (8.85 + 3.33) - 0.66
= 12.18 - 0.66
= 11.52
MSB = SSB/k-1 = 11.52/1 = 11.52
SSW = t t Xi j2 - 12.18
= 16.33 - 12.18
= 4.15
MSW = SSW/N-k = 4.15/6 =0.69
F « MSB/MSW = 11.52/0.69 « 16.70
F^.^ jj.^ = FI g = 5.99 (critical value for 95% confidence)
B-14
-------
Computational Table for the F Value
Constituent
Benzene
Aniline
2 , 4-Dinitro-
phenol
Phenol
Total Cyanides
Source
Between
Within
Between
Within
Between
Within
Between
Within
Between
Within
Sum of
Squares
7.28
10.69
89.65
10.83
37.48
0.56
76.66
2.01
11.52
4.15
Degrees of
Freedom
1
6
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
6
Mean
Square
7.28
1.78
89.65
2.17
37.48
0.11
76.66
0.40
11.52
0.69
F
4.09
41.31*
340.73*
191.65*
16.70*
* - Indicates that the calculated F value exceeds the critical value.
Conclusion
L/L extraction followed by steam stripping and activated carbon
adsorption is more efficient at reducing the concentration of
aniline, 2,4-dinitrophenol, phenol and cyanide in K103/K104 than
L/L extraction followed by steam stripping alone, but is not more
efficient at reducing the concentration of benzene in K103/K104
than L/L extraction followed by steam stripping alone.
B-15
Rev. 3
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED AND TREATED WASTE
The following tables show detection limits for the BOAT list
constituents in the untreated and treated K103/K104 wastes.
C-l
-------
SAMPLE SET 1
o
i
ro
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE ORGANICS(ug/L)
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichlorome thane
Bromome thane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l, 3-Butadiene
Chlorodibromome thane
Chloroethane
2 -Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1 , 2-Dibromoethane
Dibromome thane
Trans-1 , 4-Dichloro-2-Butene
Dichlorodif luorqmethane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
Trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Trans-1 , 3-Dichloropropene
cis-1 , 3 , Dichloropropene
1, 4-Dioxane
Ethyl Cyanide
Ethyl Methacrylate
lodomethane
Isobutyl Alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
UNTREATED
K103
10000
10000
10000
500
500
1000
500
500
500
10000
500
1000
1000
500
1000
10000
1000
500
500
10000
1000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
20000
10000
10000
5000
20000
10000
10000
UNTREATED
K104
10000
10000
10000
500
500
1000
500
500
500
10000
500
1000
1000
500
1000
10000
1000
500
500
10000
1000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
20000
10000
10000
5000
20000
10000
10000
TREATED
K103 & K104
100
100
100
5
5
10
5
5
5
100
5
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
100
100
50
200
100
100
(Continued)
'O
w
2
D
H
o
I
C
2
H
JC
W
M
O
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 1
i
00
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L) (Continued)
Methyl Methanesulfonate*
Methacrylonitrile
Methylene Chloride
Pyridine
1,1,1, 2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tribromomethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1, 2-Tr ichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromonof luorome thane
1,2, 3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl Chloride
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminof luorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b) f luoranthene
UNTREATED
K103
ND
10000
500
40000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1000
1500000
1500000
3000000
3000000
3000000
1500000
1500000
NA
1500000
ND
7500000
1500000
1500000
UNTREATED
K104
ND
10000
500
40000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1000
150000
150000
300000
300000
300000
150000
150000
NA
150000
ND
750000
150000
150000
TREATED
K103 & K104
ND
100
5
400
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
30
30
60
60
60
30
30
NA
30
ND
150
30
30
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 1
o
i
64
65
' 66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
UNTREATED
K103
UNTREATED
K104
TREATED
K103 & K104
SEMI-VOLATILE ORG AN I CS (ug/L) (Continued)
Benzo(g,h,i) perylene
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyi) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-Sec-Butyl-4 , 6-Dinitrophenol
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzilate
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2 -Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitrile
Chrysene
Ortho-cresol
para-cresol
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Dibenzo(a,e, ) Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,i) Pyrene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3' Dichlorobenzidine
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3,3' -Dimethoxybenzidine
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
3,3' -Dimethylbenzidine
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
1500000
1500000
ND
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
7500000
1500000
NA
1500000
1500000
1500000
NA
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
NA
NA
1500000
1500000
1500000
3000000
1500000
ND
1500000
1500000
3000000
ND
1500000
150000
150000
ND
150000
150000
150000
150000
150000
150000
750000
150000
NA
150000
150000
150000
NA
150000
150000
150000
150000
NA
NA
150000
150000
150000
300000
150000
ND
150000
150000
300000
ND
150000
30
30
ND
30
30
30
30
30
30
150
30
NA
30
30
30
NA
30
30
30
30
NA
NA
30
30
30
60
30
ND
30
30
60
ND
30
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 1
i
en
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
BOAT UNTREATED
CONSTITUENT K103
UNTREATED
K104
TREATED
K103 6 K104
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L) (Continued)
Dimethyl Phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 , 4-Dinitrobenzene
4 , 6-dinitro-o-cresol
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propylnitrosoamine
Diphenylamine (1)
1,2, -Diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(l, 2, 3,-cd) Pyrene
Isosaf role
Methapyrilene
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4' -Methylene-bis- ( 2-chloroaniline)
Naphthalene
1 , 4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
p-N it roan i line
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
1500000
1500000
7500000
7500000
7500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
3000000
7500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
NA
NO
1500000
3000000
NA
3000000
3000000
1500000
NA
7500000
7500000
7500000
1500000
7500000
ND
150000
150000
750000
750000
750000
150000
150000
150000
150000
300000
750000
150000
150000
150000
150000
150000
150000
NA
ND
150000
300000
NA
300000
300000
150000
NA
750000
750000
750000
150000
750000
ND
30
30
150
150
150
30
30
30
30
60
150
30
30
30
30
30
30
NA
ND
30
60
NA
60
60
30
NA
150
150
150
30
150
ND
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 1
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
UNTREATED
K103
UNTREATED
K104
TREATED
K103 & K104
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L) (Continued)
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorphol ine
1-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pent achloroe thane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picoline
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorcinol
Safrole
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4, 6-Tetrachlorophenol
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
Tris ( 2 , 3-dibromopropyl ) phosphate
Benzole Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
1 , 2-Diaminobenzene
1, 3-Diaminobenzene
1 , 4-Diaminobenzene
Diphenylnitrosamine
2-Nitroaniline
ND
1500000
1500000
3000000
1500000
7500000
3000000
ND
NA
15000000
7500000
3000000
1500000
1500000
1500000
ND
1500000
NA
7500000
3000000
ND
1500000
7500000
1500000
ND
7500000
1500000
ND
ND
ND
1500000
7500000
ND
150000
150000
300000
150000
750000
300000
ND
NA
15000OO
750000
300000
150000
150000
150000
ND
150000
NA
750000
300000
ND
150000
750000
150000
ND
750000
150000
ND
ND
ND
150000
750000
ND
30
30
60
30
150
60
ND
NA
300
150
60
30
30
30
ND
30
NA
150
60
ND
30
150
30
ND
150
30
ND
ND
ND
30
150
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 1
o
**
**
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
•
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
3-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
METALS (ug/L)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
7500000
1500000
32.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
20.0
11.0
5.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
UNTREATED
K104
750000
150000
32.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
4.O
7.0
6.0
50.0
20.0
11.0
500.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
TREATED
K103 6 K104
150
30
32.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
500.0
20.0
11.0
50.0
6.0
1000.0
6.0
2.0
ND
NA
* —
** -
Constituent was not Detected, however, a matrix detection limit has not
been determined.
The standard is not available;compound was searched using an NBS library of
42,000 compounds.
This constituent was analyzed as a semivolatile by Method 8270. The Generic Quality
Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program("BOAT"),EPA/530-SW-87
-Oil,March 1987,lists this compound as a Volatile ,however,it may be analyzed as
either a volatile or semivolatile organic
This constituent is not on the list of constituents in the Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program ("BOAT"),
EPA/530-SW-011,March 1987. It is a ground-water monitoring constituent as listed
in Appendix IX, Page 26639, of the Fedral Register,Vol. 51, No.142.
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 2
o
oo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichlorome thane
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l, 3-Butadiene
Chlorodibromome thane
Chloroe thane
2-Chloroethylvinylether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
1 , 2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1 , 2-Dibromoethane
Dibromome thane
Trans-1 , 4-Dichloro-2-Butene
Dichlorodif luorome thane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethene
Trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Trans-1, 3-Dichloropropene
cis-1 , 3 , Dichloropropene
1, 4-Dioxane
Ethyl Cyanide
Ethyl Methacrylate
lodomethane
Isobutyl Alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
UNTREATED
K103
10000
10000
10000
500
500
1000
500
500
500
, 10000
500
1000
1000
500
1000
1OOOO
1000
500
500
10000
1000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
20000
10000
10000
5000
20000
10000
10000
UNTREATED
K104
10000
10000
10000
500
500
1000
500
500
500
10000
500
1000
1000
500
1000
10000
1000
500
500
10000
1000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
20000
10000
10000
5000
20000
10000
10000
TREATED
K103 6 K104
100
100
100
5
5
10
5
5
5
100
5
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
100
100
50
200
100
100
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 2
o
i
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 2
o
i
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGAN ICS (ug/L)
Benzo(g,h,i) perylene
Benzo(k) f luoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-Broroophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
1500000
1500000
ND
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
2-Sec-Butyl-4 , 6-Dinitrophenol 7500OOO
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzilate
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2 -Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitrile
Chrysene
Ortho-cresol
para-cresol
Dibenz (a , h) anthracene
Dibenzo(a,e, ) Pyrene
Dibenzo(a, i) Pyrene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3' Dichlorobenzidine
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3 , 3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
p-Diroethylaminoazobenzene
3, 3'-Dimethylbenzidine
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
1500000
NA
1500000
1500000
1500000
NA
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
NA
NA
1500000
1500000
1500000
3000000
1500000
ND
1500000
1500000
3OOOOOO
ND
1500000
UNTREATED
K104
150000
150000
ND
150000
150000
150000
150000
150000
15OOOO
750000
150000
NA
150000
150000
150000
NA
150000
150000
150000
150000
NA
NA
150000
150000
150000
300000
150000
ND
150000
150000
300000
ND
150000
TREATED
K103 & K104
30
30
ND
30
30
30
30
30
30
150
30
NA
30
30
30
NA
30
30
30
30
NA
NA
30
30
30
60
30
ND
30
30
60
ND
30
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 2
o
i
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
Dimethyl Phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 , 4-Dinitrobenzene
4 , 6-dinitro-o-cresol
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propylnitrosoamine
Diphenylamine (1)
1,2, -Diphenylhydraz ine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(l,2,3,-cd) Pyrene
Isosaf role
Methapyrilene
3-Methylcholanthrene
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
1500000
1500000
7500000
7500000
7500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
3000000
7500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
1500000
NA
ND
1500000
3000000
NA
3000000
4,4' -Methylene-bis- ( 2-chloroaniline) 3000000
Naphthalene
1 , 4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
1500000
NA
7500000
7500000
7500000
1500000
7500000
ND
UNTREATED
K104
150000
150000
750000
750000
750000
150000
150000
150000
150000
300000
750000
150000
150000
150000
150000
150000
150000
NA
ND
150000
300000
NA
300000
300000
150000
NA
750000
750000
750000
150000
750000
ND
TREATED
K103 & K104
30
30
150
150
150
30
30
30
30
60
150
30
30
30
30
30
30
NA
ND
30
60
NA
60
60
30
NA
150
150
150
30
150
ND
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 2
o
i
tVJ
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
UNTREATED
K103
UNTREATED
K104
TREATED
K103 & K104
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L) (Continued)
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
N~Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorphol ine
1-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picoline
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorcinol
Safrole
1 2 , 4 , 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2 3 , 4 , 6-Tetrachlorophenol
1 2 , 4-Trichlorobenzene
2 4 , 5-Trichlorophenol
2 4 , 6-Trichlorophenol
Tris ( 2 , 3-dibromopropy 1 ) phosphate
Benzole Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
1 , 2-Diaminobenzene
1 , 3-Diaminobenzene
1 , 4-Diaminobenzene
Diphenylnitrosamine
2-Nitroaniline
ND
1500000
1500000
3000000
1500000
7500000
3000000
ND
NA
15000000
7500000
3000000
1500000
1500000
1500000
ND
1500000
NA
7500000
3000000
ND
1500000
7500000
1500000
ND
7500000
1500000
ND
ND
ND
1500000
7500000
ND
150000
150000
3OOOOO
150000
750000
300000
ND
NA
1500000
750000
300000
150000
150000
150000
ND
150000
NA
750000
300000
ND
150000
750000
150000
ND
750000
150000
ND
ND
ND
150000
750000
ND
30
30
60
30
150
60
ND
NA
300
150
60
30
30
30
ND
30
NA
150
60
ND
30
150
30
ND
150
30
ND
ND
ND
30
150
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 2
**
**
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGAN I CS (ug/L)
3-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
METALS (ug/L)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
7500000
1500000
32.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
20.0
11.0
5.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
UNTREATED
K104
750000
150000
32.0
100.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
100.0
20.0
11.0
50.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
TREATED
K103 & K104
150
30
32.0
100.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
50.0
20.0
11.0
50.0
6.0
100.0
6.0
2.0
ND - Constituent was not Detected, however, a matrix detection limit has not
been determined.
NA - The standard is not available;compound was searched using an NBS library of
4 2,000 compounds.
* - This constituent was analyzed as a semivolatile by Method 8270. The Generic Quality
Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program("BOAT"),EPA/530-SW-87
-Oil,March 1987,lists this compound as a Volatile ,however,it may be analyzed as
either a volatile or semivolatile organic
** - This constituent is not on the list of constituents in the Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program ("BOAT"),
EPA/530-SW-011,March 1987. It is a ground-water monitoring constituent as listed
in Appendix IX, Page 26639, of the Fedral Register,Vol. 51, No.142.
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 3
o
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE ORGAN I CS (ug/L)
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichlorome thane
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l , 3-Butadiene
Chlorodibromome thane
Chloroe thane
2-Chloroethylvinylether
Chloroform
Chlororoethane
3 -Chloropropene
1, 2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1 , 2-Dibromoethane
Dibromome thane
Trans-1, 4-Dichloro-2-Butene
Dichlorodif luorome thane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1., 2-Dichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethene
Trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Trans-1, 3-Dichloropropene
cis-1 , 3 , Dichloropropene
1,4-Dioxane
Ethyl Cyanide
Ethyl Methacrylate
lodomethane
Isobutyl Alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
UNTREATED
K103
50000
50000
50000
2500
2500
5000
2500
2500
2500
50000
2500
5000
5000
2500
5000
50000
5000
2500
2500
50000
5000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
100000
50000
50000
25000
100000
50000
50OOO
UNTREATED
K104
20000
20000
20000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
20000
1000
2000
2OOO
1000
2000
20000
2000
1000
1000
20000
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
40000
20000
20000
10000
40000
20000
20000
TREATED
K103 & K104
100
100
100
5
5
10
5
5
5
100
5
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
100
100
50
200
100
100
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 3
o
h-»
tn
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE ORGANICS(ug/L) (Continued)
Methyl Methanesulfonate*
Methacrylonitrile
Methylene Chloride
Pyridine
1,1,1, 2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tribromomethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromonof luoromethane
'1,2, 3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl Chloride
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminof luorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b) f luoranthene
UNTREATED
K103
ND
50000
2500
200000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
5000
3000000
3000000
600000O
6000000
60OOOOO
3000000
3000000
NA
3000000
ND
15000000
3000000
3000000
UNTREATED
K104
ND
20000
1000
80000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
150000
150000
300000
300000
300000
150000
150000
NA
150000
ND
750000
150000
150000
TREATED
K103 & K104
ND
100
5
400
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
150
150
300
300
300
150
150
NA
150
ND
750
150
150
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 3
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
UNTREATED
K103
UNTREATED
K104
TREATED
K103 & K104
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGAN ICS (ug/L) (Continued)
Benzo(g,h,i) perylene
Benzo(k) f luoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
Bis (2-Chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-Sec-Butyl-4 , 6-Dinitrophenol
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzilate
p-Chloro-ro-cresol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2 -Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitrile
Chrysene
Ortho-cresol
para-cresol
Dibenz (a, h) anthracene
Dibenzo(a,e, ) Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,i) Pyrene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3' Dichlorobenzidine
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3,3' -Dimethoxybenzidine
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
3,3' -Dimethylbenzidine
2 , 4-Dimethylpheriol
3000000
3000000
ND
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
15000000
3000000
NA
3000000
3000000
3000000
NA
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
NA
NA
3000000
3000000
3000000
6000000
3000000
ND
3000000
3000000
6000000
ND
3OOOOOO
150000
150000
ND
150OOO
150000
150000
150000
150000
150000
750000
150000
NA
150000
150000
150000
NA
150000
150000
150000
150000
NA
NA
150000
150000
150000
300000
150000
ND
150000
150000
300000
ND
15OOOO
150
150
ND
150
150
150
150
150
150
750
150
NA
150
150
150
NA
150
150
150
150
NA
ND
150
150
150
300
150
ND
150
150
300
ND
150
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 3
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
o 109
^ 110
^ 111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
Dimethyl Phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 , 4-Dinitrobenzene
4 , 6-dinitro-o-cresol
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propylnitrosoamine
Diphenylamine (1)
1,2, -Diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(l, 2 , 3 , -cd) Pyrene
Isosafrole
Methapyrilene
3-Methylcholanthrene
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
3000000
3000000
15000000
15000000
15000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
6000000
15000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
NA
ND
3000000
6000000
NA
6000000
4,4'-Methylene-bis-(2-chloroaniline) 6000000
Naphthalene
1 , 4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthy lamine
2 -Naphthy lamine
p-N it roan i line
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-buty lamine
3000000
NA
15000000
15000000
15000000
3000000
15000000
ND
UNTREATED
K104
150000
150000
750000
750000
750000
150000
150000
150000
150000
300000
750000
150000
150000
150000
150000
150000
150000
NA
ND
150000
300000
NA
300000
300000
150000
NA
750000
750000
750000
150000
750000
ND
TREATED
K103 & K104
150
150
750
760
760
150
150
150
150
300
750
150
150
150
150
150
150
NA
ND
150
300
NA
300
300
150
NA
750
750
760
150
760
ND
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 3
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
o 142
^ 143
00 144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosoroethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorphol ine
1-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picoline
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorcinol
Safrole
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4, 6-Tetrachlorophenol
1 , 2 , 4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
ND
3000000
3000000
6000000
3000000
15000000
6000000
ND
NA
30000000
15000000
6000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
ND
3000000
NA
15000000
6000000
ND
3000000
15000000
3000000
Tris(2 , 3-dibromopropyl ) phosphate ND
Benzole Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
1 , 2-Diaminobenzene
1 , 3-Diaminobenzene
1 , 4-Diaminobenzene
Diphenylnitrosoamine
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
15000000
3000000
ND
ND
ND
15000000
15000000
15000000
3000000
UNTREATED
K104
ND
150000
150000
300000
150000
750000
300000
ND
NA
1500000
750000
300000
150000
150000
150000
ND
150000
NA
750000
300000
ND
150000
750000
150000
ND
750000
150000
ND
ND
ND
750000
750000
750000
150000
TREATED
K103 & K104
ND
150
150
300
150
750
300
ND
NA
1500
760
300
150
150
150
ND
150
NA
750
300
ND
150
760
150
ND
760
150
ND
ND
ND
760
760
760
150
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 3
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
^ 165
£ 166
£ 167
168
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
METALS (ug/L)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
UNTREATED
K103
32.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
20.0
11.0
5.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
UNTREATED
K104
32.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
20.0
11.0
50.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
TREATED
K103 & K104
32.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
20.0
11.0
50.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
ND
NA
* _
** —
Constituent was not Detected, however, a matrix detection limit has not
been determined.
The standard is not available;compound was searched using an NBS library of
42,000 compounds.
This constituent was analyzed as a semivolatile by Method 8270. The Generic Quality
Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program("BOAT"),EPA/530-SW-87
-Oil,March 1987,lists this compound as a Volatile ,however,it may be analyzed as
either a volatile or semivolatile organic
This constituent is not on the list of constituents in the Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program ("BOAT"),
EPA/530-SW-011,March 1987. It is a ground-water monitoring constituent as listed
in Appendix IX, Page 26639, of the Fedral Register,Vol. 51, No.142.
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 4
o
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE ORGANICS(ug/L)
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Aery Ion itrile
Benzene
Bromodichlorome thane
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l , 3-Butadiene
Chlorodibromome thane
Chloroethane
2 -Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
1 , 2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1 , 2-Dibromoethane
Dibromome thane
Trans-1, 4-Dichloro-2-Butene
Dichlorodif luorome thane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethene
Trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Trans-1 , 3-Dichloropropene
cis-1, 3 , Dichloropropene
1, 4-Dioxane
Ethyl Cyanide
Ethyl Methacrylate
lodomethane
Isobutyl Alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
UNTREATED
K103
50000
50000
50000
2500
2500
5000
2500
2500
2500
50000
2500
5000
5000
2500
5000
50000
5000
2500
2500
50000
5000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
100000
50000
50000
25000
100000
50000
50000
UNTREATED
. K104
10000
10000
10000
500
500
1000
500
500
500
10000
500
1000
1000
500
1000
10000
1000
500
500
10000
1000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
20000
10000
10000
5000
20000
10000
10000
TREATED
K103 & K104
100
100
100
5
5
10
5
5
5
100
5
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
100
100
50
200
100
100
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 4
o
i
PO
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE ORGANICS(ug/L) (Continued)
Methyl Methanesulfonate*
Methacryloni.tr lie
Methylene Chloride
Pyridine
1,1,1, 2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tribromome thane
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromonof luoromethane
1,2, 3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl Chloride
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminof luorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Benzo(a) Pyrene
Benzo(b) Fluoranthene
UNTREATED
K103
ND
50000
2500
2OOOOO
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
5000
3000000
3000000
6000000
6000000
6000000
3000000
3000000
NA
. 3000000
ND
15000000
3000000
3000000
UNTREATED
K104
ND
10000
500
40000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1000
300000
300000
600000
600000
600000
300000
300000
NA
300000
ND
1500000
300000
300000
TREATED
K103 & K104
ND
100
5
400
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
30
30
60
60
60
30
30
NA
30
ND
150
30
30
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 4
i
ro
i
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
Benzo(g,h,i) perylene
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-Sec-Butyl-4 , 6-Dinitrophenol
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzilate
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitrile
Chrysene
Ortho-cresol
para-cresol
Dibenz (a , h) anthracene
Dibenzo(a,e, ) Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,i) Pyrene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
3 , 3 'Dichlorobenzidine
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3 , 3 '-Dimethoxybenzidine
p- Dimethyl am inoazobenzene
3 , 3 '-Dimethylbenzidine
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
3000000
3000000
ND
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
15000000
3000000
NA
300000O
3000000
30OOOOO
NA
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
NA
NA
3000000
3000000
3000000
6000000
3000000
ND
3000000
3000000
6000000
ND
3000000
UNTREATED
K104
300000
300000
ND
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
1500000
300000
NA
300000
300000
300000
NA
300000
300000
300000
300000
NA
NA
300000
300000
300000
600000
300000
ND
300000
300000
600000
ND
300000
TREATED
K103 & K104
4
30
30
ND
30
30
30
30
30
30
150
30
NA
30
30
30
NA
30
30
30
30
NA
NA
30
30
30
60
30
ND
30
30
60
ND
30
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 4
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
Dimethyl Phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 , 4-Dinitrobenzene
4 , 6-dinitro-o-cresol
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propylnitrosoamine
Diphenylamine (1)
1 , 2 , -Diphenylhydraz ine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
Indeno( 1, 2 , 3 , -cd) Pyrene
Isosaf role
Methapyrilene
3-Methylcholanthrene
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
3000000
3000000
15000000
15000000
15000000
3000000
3000OOO
3000000
3000000
6000000
15000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
NA
ND
3000000
6000000
NA
6000000
4,4' -Methylene-bis- (2-chloroaniline) 6000000
Naphthalene
1 , 4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
3000000
NA
15000000
15000000
15000000
3000000
15000000
NA
UNTREATED
K104
300000
300000
1500000
1500000
1500000
300000
3OOOOO
300000
300000
600000
1500000
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
NA
ND
300000
600000
NA
600000
600000
300000
NA
1500000
1500000
1500000
300000
1500000
NA
TREATED
K103 & K104
30
30
150
150
150
30
30
30
30
60
150
30
30
30
30
30
30
NA
ND
30
60
NA
60
60
30
NA
150
150
150
30
150
NA
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 4
r>
i
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
**
**
**
**
**
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodiroethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
1-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picoline
Pronaroide
Pyrene
Resorcinol
Safrole
1,2 4 , 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3 4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
1,2 4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4 5-Trichlorophenol
2,4 6-Trichlorophenol
Tris(2, 3-dibromopropyl) phosj
Benzoic Acid
1 , 2-Diaminobenzene
1 , 3-Diaminobenzene
1 , 4-Diaminobenzene
2-Nitroaniline
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
ND
3000000
3000000
6000000
3000000
15000000
6000000
ND
NA
30000000
15000000
6000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
ND
3000000
NA
15000000
6000000
ND
3000000
15000000
3000000
>hate ND
15000000
ND
ND
ND
15000000
UNTREATED
K104
ND
300000
300000
600000
300000
1500000
600000
ND
NA
3000000
1500000
600000
300000
300000
300000
ND
300000
NA
1500000
600000
ND
300000
1500000
300000
ND
1500000
ND
ND
ND
1500000
TREATED
K103 & K104
ND
30
30
60
30
150
60
ND
NA
300
150
60
30
30
30
ND
30
NA
150
60
ND
30
150
30
ND
150
ND
ND
ND
150
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 4
o
I
rv>
en
**
**
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
3-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
METALS (ug/L)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
15000000
3000000
32.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
20.0
11.0
5.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
UNTREATED
K104
1500000
300000
32.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
20.0
11.0
50.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
TREATED
K103 & K104
150
30
32.0
500.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
20.0
11.0
50.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
ND
NA
** —
Constituent was not Detected, however, a matrix detection limit has not
been determined.
The standard is not available,'compound was searched using an NBS library of
42,000 compounds.
This constituent was analyzed as a semivolatile by Method 8270. The Generic Quality
Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program("BOAT"),EPA/530-SW-87
-Oil,March 1987,lists this compound as a Volatile ,however,it may be analyzed as
either a volatile or semivolatile organic
This constituent is not on the list of constituents in the Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program ("BOAT"),
EPA/530-SW-011,March 1987. It is a ground-water monitoring constituent as listed
in Appendix IX, Page 26639, of the Fedral Register,Vol. 51, No.142.
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 5
o
i
no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE ORGANICS(ug/L)
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromome thane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l, 3-Butadiene
Chlorodibromome thane
Chloroethane
2 -Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3 -Chloropropene
1 , 2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1 , 2-Dibromoethane
Dibroraoroethane
Trans-1 , 4-Dichloro-2-Butene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethene
Trans-1, 2-Dichloroethene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Trans-1 , 3-Dichloropropene
cis-1 , 3 , Dichloropropene
1,4-Dioxane
Ethyl Cyanide
Ethyl Methacrylate
lodomethane
Isobutyl Alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
UNTREATED
K103
50000
50000
50000
2500
2500
5000
2500
' 2500
2500
50000
2500
5000
5000
2500
5000
50000
5000
2500
2500
50000
5000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
100000
50000
50000
25000
100000
50000
50000
UNTREATED
K104
5000
5000
5000
250
250
500
250
250
250
5000
250
500
500
250
500
5000
500
250
250
5000
500
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
10000
5000
5000
2500
10000
5000
5000
TREATED
K103 & K104
100
100
100
5
5
10
5
5
5
100
5
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
100
100
50
200
100
100
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 5
o
i
ro
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
VOLATILE ORGANICS(ug/L) (Continued)
Methyl Methanesulfonate*
Methacryloni.tr lie
Methylene Chloride
Pyridine
1,1,1, 2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tribromomethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromonof luorome thane
1,2, 3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl Chloride
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaroinof luorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Araroite
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b) f luoranthene
UNTREATED
K103
ND
50000
2500
200000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
5000
3000000
3000000
6000000
6000000
6000000
3000000
3000000
NA
3000000
ND
15000000
3000000
3000000
UNTREATED
K104
ND
5000
250
20000
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
500
300000
300000
600000
600000
600000
300000
300000
NA
300000
ND
1500000
300000
300000
TREATED
K103 & K104
ND
100
5
400
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
30
30
60
60
60
30
30
NA
30
ND
150
30
30
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 5
o
ro
Co
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
Benzo(g,h,i) perylene
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-Sec-Butyl-4 , 6-Dinitrophenol
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzilate
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitrile
Chrysene
Ortho-cresol
para-cresol
Dibenz (a, h) anthracene
Dibenzo(a,e, ) Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,i) Pyrene
1, 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
3 , 3 'Dichlorobenzidine
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3,3' -Dimethoxybenzidine
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
3,3' -Dimethylbenzidine
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
3000000
3000000
ND
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
15000000
3000000
NA
3000000
3000000
3000000
NA
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
NA
NA
3000000
3000000
3000000
6000000
3000000
ND
3000000
3000000
6000000
ND
3000000
UNTREATED
K104
300000
300000
ND
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
150OOOO
300000
NA
300000
300000
300000
NA
300000
300000
300000
300000
NA
NA
300000
300000
300000
600000
300000
ND
300000
300000
600000
ND
300000
TREATED
K103 & K104
30
30
ND
30
30
30
30
30
30
150
30
NA
30
30
30
NA
30
30
30
30
NA
NA
30
30
30
60
30
ND
30
30
60
ND
30
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THIS UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 5
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
Dimethyl Phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 , 4-Dinitrobenzene
4 , 6-dinitro-o-cresol
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-DinitrotoIuene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propylnitrosoamine
Diphenylamine (1)
1,2, -Dlphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(l , 2 , 3 , -cd) Pyrene
Isosafrole
Methapyrilene
3-Methylcholanthrene
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
3000000
3000000
15000000
15000000
15000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
6000000
15000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
NA
ND
3000000
6000000
NA
6000000
4,4' -Methylene-bis- ( 2-chloroaniline) 6000000
Naphthalene
1 , 4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
3000000
NA
15000000
15000000
15000000
3000000
15000000
ND
UNTREATED
K104
300000
300000
1500000
1500000
1500000
300000
300000
300000
300000
600000
1500000
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
NA
ND
3000OO
6000OO
NA
600000
600000
300000
NA
1500000
1500000
1500000
300000
1500000
ND
TREATED
K103 6 K104
30
30
150
150
150
30
30
30
30
60
150
30
30
30
30
30
30
NA
ND
30
60
NA
60
60
30
NA
150
150
150
30
150
ND
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 5
u>
o
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
UNTREATED
K103
UNTREATED
K104
TREATED
K103 & K104
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L) (Continued)
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylaroine
N-Nitrosomorphol ine
1-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrol idine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroe thane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picoline
Pronaraide
Pyrene
Resorcinol
Safrole
1 2 , 4 , 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2 3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
1 2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2 4, 5-Trichlorophenol
2 4 , 6-Trichlorophenol
Tris (2 , 3-dibromopropyl) phosphate
Benzole Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
1 , 2-Diaminobenzene
1, 3-Diaminobenzene
1 , 4-Diaminobenzene
Diphenylnitrosoamine
2-Nitroaniline
ND
3000000
3000000
6000000
3000000
15000000
3000000
ND
NA
30000000
15000000
6000000
3000000
3000000
3000000
ND
3000000
NA
15000000
6000000
ND
3000000
15000000
3000000
ND
15000000
3000000
ND
ND
ND
15000000
15000000
ND
300000
300000
600000
300000
1500000
300000
ND
NA
3000000
1500000
600000
300000
300000
300000
ND
300000
NA
1500000
600000
ND
300000
1500000
300000
ND
1500000
300000
ND
ND
ND
1500000
1500000
ND
30
30
60
30
150
60
ND
NA
300
150
60
30
30
30
ND
30
NA
150
60
ND
30
150
30
ND
150
30
ND
ND
ND
150
150
(Continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
DETECTION LIMITS FOR CONSTITUENTS IN THE UNTREATED
AND TREATED WASTE OF SAMPLE SET 5
o
CO
**
**
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
BOAT
CONSTITUENT
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)
3-Nitroaniline
2 -Ni trophenol
METALS (ug/L)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
UNTREATED
K103
(Continued)
15000000
3000000
32.0
50O.O
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
"20.0
11.0
5.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
UNTREATED
K104
1500000
300000
32.0
500.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
50.0
20.0
11.0
50.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
TREATED
K103 & K104
150
30
32.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
100.0
20.0
11.0
50.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
ND - Constituent was not Detected, however, a matrix detection limit has not
been determined.
NA - The standard is not available;compound was searched using an NBS library of
42,000 compounds.
* - This constituent was analyzed as a semivolatile by Method 8270. The Generic Quality
Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program("BOAT"),EPA/53O-SW-87
-Oil,March 1987,lists this compound as a Volatile ,however,it may be analyzed as
either a volatile or semivolatile organic
** - This constituent is not on the list of constituents in the Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program ("BOAT"),
EPA/530-SW-011,March 1987. It is a ground-water monitoring constituent as listed
in Appendix IX, Page 26639, of the Fedral Register,Vol. 51, No.142.
-------
APPENDII D Calculation of Treatment Standards
Constituent: Benzene
Sample Set
1
2
4
5
Effluent 1
Concentration
(mg/l)
0.042
0.005
0.019
0.011
I
Percent 2
Recovery
76
76
76
76
Accuracy 3
Correction
Factor
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
x
Corrected
Concentration
(mg/l)
0.055
0.007
0.025
0.015
= 0.026
4
Log 5
Transform
•2.900
•4.962
•3.689
-4.200
y * -3.938
s o 0.867
1 - Obtained from the Onsite Engineering Report, E. I. du Pont de Nemours, Table 6-14.
2 • Obtained from the Onsite Engineering Report, E. 1. du Pont de Nemours, Table 7-12.
3 - Accuracy Correction Factor * 100 / Percent Recovery.
4 - Corrected Concentration « Effluent Concentration X Accuracy Correction Factor.
5 - Log Transform using the natural logarithm. In, of the Corrected Concentration.
Treatment Standard » Corrected Effluent Mean X VF
Calculation of Variability Factor (VF):
C • txp (y » 2.33t)
where
y * the Mean of the log transforms
s * the standard deviation of the log transforms.
Therefore, C * exp (-3.938 « 2.33(0.867))
« exp (-1.918)
« 0.147
and VF « C^ / x
where
x = the wean of the corrected effluent concentrations.
Therefore, VF « C / x
« 0?U7 / 0.026
» 5.654
Treatment Standard * Corrected Effluent Mean X VF
> 0.026 X 5.654
> 0.147 ng/l
D-i
-------
APPENDIX P
Calculation of Treatment Standards
Constituent: Aniline
Sample Set
1
2
4
5
Effluent 1 Accuracy 3 Corrected 4
Concentration Percent 2 Correction Concentration Log 5
(MB/I) Recovery Factor Corrected Effluent Mean X VF
Calculation of Variability Factor (VF):
C » exp (y » 2.33s)
Mhere
y = the mean of the log transforms
s * the standard deviation of the log transforms.
Therefore. C^ « exp (-2.545 » 2.33(1.733))
• exp (1.493)
• 4.450
and VF « C / x
Wr1
where
x « the tcan of the corrected effluent concentrations.
Therefore, VF • C / *
* 4?450 / 0.289
« 15.398
Treatment Standard * Corrected Effluent Mean X VF
> 0.289 X 15.398
• 4.450 «g/t
D-2
-------
APPENDIX 0 Calculation of Treatment Standard*
Constituent: 2,4-Oinitrophenol
Sample Set
1
2
1
2
4
5
• Obtained
• Obtained
Effluent
Concentration
(•)
0
0
0
0
from the
from the
B/l)
.380
.320
.260
.230
Ons ite
Ons ite
• • Average of Percent
3
4
5
20X
• Accuracy
• Corrected
recovery
1 Accuracy 3 Corrected 4
Percent 2* Correction Concentration
Recovery Factor
80
80
80
80
Engineering leport
Engineering Report
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
. E. I.
. E. 1.
Recovery for Semivolatiles
(•g/i)
0
0
0
0
x « 0
Log 5
Transform
.475
.400
.325
.288
.372 y «
s «
du Pont de Nemours,
du Pont de Nemours,
with greater
than or
•0.744
-0.916
-1.124
-1.245
-1.007
0.222
Table 6-
Table 7-
14
13
equal to
as listed in Table 7-13.
Correction Factor • 100 / Percent
Concentration
• Log Transform using the
Recovery.
• Effluent Concentration X
natural logartthn,
In. of
Accuracy Correction
the Corrected
Factor.
Concentration.
Treatment Standard > Corrected Effluent Mean X VF
Calculation of Variability Factor (VF):
C * exp (y « 2.33s)
yy
where
y * the wan of the log transform
s = the standard deviation of the log transforms.
Therefore, C * exp (-1.007 » 2.33(0.222))
« exp (-0.490)
« 0.613
and VF « C / x
where
x « the aean of the corrected effluent concentrations.
Therefore, VF • C / x
« 01613 / 0.372
« 1.648
Treatment Standard ' Corrected Effluent Mean X VF
> 0.372 X 1.648
> 0.613 «g/l
D-3
-------
APPENDIX D Calculation of Treatment Standards
Constituent: Nitrobenzene
Sample Set
1
2
4
5
Effluent 1
Concentration
(•g/l)
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Percent 2
Recovery
115
115
115
115
Accuracy 3
Correction
Factor
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
Corrected 4
Concentration
(•8/1)
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.026
Log 5
Transform
•3.650
•3.650
-3.650
-3.650
0.026 y * -3.650
s « 0.000
1 - Obtained from the Onsite Engineering Report, E. I. du Pont de Nemours, Table 6-U.
2 • Obtained from the Onsite Engineering Report, E. I. du Pont de Nemours, Table 7-13.
3 • Accuracy Correction Factor « 100 / Percent Recovery.
4 • Corrected Concentration • Effluent Concentration X Accuracy Correction Factor.
5 • Log Transform using the natural logarithm. In, of the Corrected Concentration.
Treat«ent Standard « Corrected Effluent Mean X VF
Calculation of Variability Factor (VF):
coo « txp
-------
APPENDIX 0
Calculation of Treatment Standard*
Constituent: Phenol
Sample Set
1
2
4
5
Effluent 1
Concentration
(ng/l)
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.150
Percent 2
Recovery
21
21
21
21
Accuracy 3
Correction
Factor
4.76
4.76
4.76
4.76
Corrected 4
Concentration
(MQ/l)
0.143
0.143
0.143
0.714
Log 5
Transfer*
-1.945
•1.945
•1.945
-0.337
0.286 y * -1.543
t " 0.804
1 • Obtained from the Ons it* Engineering Report, E. I. du Pont de Nemours, Table 6-14.
2 • Obtained from the Onsite Engineering Report, E. I. du Pont de Nemours, Table 7-13.
3 • Accuracy Correction Factor * 100 / Percent Recovery.
4 - Corrected Concentration > Effluent Concentration X Accuracy Correction Factor.
5 - Log Transfer* using the natural logarithm, In, of the Corrected Concentration.
Treatment Standard • Corrected Effluent Mean I VF
Calculation of Variability Factor (VF):
yr
exp (y • 2.33s)
where
y > the mean of the log transform
t * the standard deviation of the log transforms.
Therefore, C « exp (-1.543 « 2.33(0.804))
• exp (0.330)
« 1.391
and VF • C / x
. 99
where
x s the mean of the corrected effluent concentrations.
Therefore, VF « C / x
« 1?391 / 0.286
» 4.864
Treatment Standard « Corrected Effluent Mean X VF
- 0.286 X 4.864
s 1.391 »g/l
D-5
-------
APPEMOIX D Calculation of Treatment Standards
Constituent: Total Cyanide*
Sample Set
X
1
2
4
5
Effluent 1
Concentration
<«g/l)
0.565
0.597
0.156
0.129
Percent 2
Recovery
72
72
72
72
Accuracy 3
Correction
factor
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
Corrected 4
Concentration
(•0/1)
0.785
0.630
0.217
0.179
Log 5
Transfer*
-0.242
-0.186
-1.528
-1.720
0.503 y * -0.919
s = 0.818
1 - Obtained from the Onsite Engineering Report, E. I. du Pont de Honours, Table 6-U.
2 - Obtained from the Ons ite Engineering Report. E. 1. du Pont de Nemours, Table 7-14.
3 - Accuracy Correction Factor * 100 / Percent Recovery.
4 - Corrected Concentration « Effluent Concentration X Accuracy Correction Factor.
5 - Log Trans for* using the natural logarithm, In, of the Corrected Concentration.
Treatnent Standard * Corrected Effluent Mean X VF
Calculation of Variability Factor (VF):
C « exp (y « 2.33$)
yv
where
y « the scan of the log transforms
s * the standard deviation of the log transforms.
Therefore, C « exp (-0.919 « 2.33(0.818))
« exp (0.987) •
> 2.683
and VF • C. / x
99
where
x = the mean of the corrected effluent concentrations.
Therefore, VF • C / x
. 2T683 / 0.503
- 5.334
Treatment Standard * Corrected Effluent Mean X VF
• 0.503 X 5.334
> 2.683 eg/I
D-6
-------
APPENDIX E - ANALYTICAL QA/QC
The analytical methods used for analysis of the regulated
constituents identified in Section 5 are listed in Table E-l. SW-846
methods (EPA's Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste; Physical/Chemical
Methods. SW-846, Third Edition, November 1986) are used in most cases for
determining total waste concentrations.
Deviations from SW-846 methods required to analyze the sample matrix
are listed in Table E-2. These deviations are approved methods for
determining constituent concentrations. SW-846 also allows for the use
of alternative or equivalent procedures or equipment; these are described
in Tabled E-3 through E-5. These alternatives or equivalents included
use of alternative sample preparation methods and/or use of different
extraction techniques to reduce sample matrix interferences.
The accuracy determination for a constituent is based on the matrix
spike recovery values. Table E-6 present the matrix spike recovery
values for total waste concentrations of benzene, aniline, nitrobenzene,
and phenol for K103/K104 and for total cyanides for K104 for the
EPA-collected data. Because 2,4-dinitrophenol matrix spike recoveries
were not collected, the average of the percent recoveries equal to or
greater than 20 percent for all semivolatiles was used as the percent
recovery for 2,4-dinitrophenol.
The accuracy correction factors for the regulated constituents for
the treatment residuals are presented in Table E-6. The accuracy
correction factors were determined in accordance with the general
methodology presented in the Introduction. For example, for benzene,
E-l
-------
actual spike recovery data were obtained for analysis of liquid matrices
and the lowest percent recovery value was used to calculate the accuracy
correction factor. An example of the calculation of the corrected
concentration value for benzene is shown below.
Analytical Average Correction Corrected
value % recovery factor value
0.042 mg/kg 76 100 = 1.32 1.32 x 0.042 = 0.055 mg/kg
76
E-2
-------
Table E-1 Analytical Nethodt for Regulated Constituent*
Regulated Constituent
Analytical Method
Method Number
Volatiles
Benzene
Purge and Trap 5030
Gas Chrcnatography/Mass 6240
Spectronetry for Volatile
Organic*
Seffiivolatiles
AniIine
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
Continuous liquid/Liquid 3520
Extraction
Gas Chrcmatography/Mass 8270
Spectronetry Column
Technique
•Inorganics
Cyanides
Total and Amenable Cyanide* 9012
a - Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Uaste. Third Edition. U. S. EPA. Office of
Sol id Waste and Emergency Response. Novenfeer 1986.
E-3
-------
table €-2 Deviations from SU-846
Method
SW
spec if i
Oeviat ton I'll" iW 046
Rationale for deviation
Continunus Iiquid/
Iiquid I"traction
JS?0 A Ihe internal standards are piepared
by dissolving Iliem in carbon
disulf ide and llwn di lul ing to
volume so I rial Ihe final solvent is
?0/. carlHin disulf ide and BO/
melhylene ililoride.
8 Ihe extracts are concentrated to a
final volume of I ? ml
the preparation ol Hir lr>lern«l
standards «as clwngvil to «limm*tc the
use of carbon disullnJp Ihe intern*!
standards vere prrpareU i
Chlor ide only.
Due to the high orqjnic content in
many samples, the V'lrjtli could not
be reduced to the I ? ml final
volume Irie mcrraifii sample volune
in the entracl «»v U>en mto account
when the dilutions «*re made and «*lt
and the secondary (acid) extraction
is at p*l
-------
Table E-2 (Continued)
Analysis
Method
SV-84C specif ic«tion
Devi»t ion from SW-846
Rat Ion* It for deviation
Conl muous I (quid/
I iquid l»lr*ct Ion
(Continued)
fitcr sample and the pM did not
change fro» the Initial pN of
iero.)
0 the samples ere extracted (or
b«se/neutr«1 and tor acid
e>tr«ct«btes.
for SO 10. the one sample liken »«t
extracted for the acid extraction only.
I
tr
the saople contained about *0»
nltrobentene. therefore, to
obtain Inforvatlon on the
presence of the acid eitrectable
conpoundt. the an«1y*lt itat
computed only on the acid
eitractables. The high quantity
of nttrobenicne In the
baie/neutraI fraction uoutd have
required entreneTy high dilution
of the aMterlaT to prevent cotujen
saturation and to bring the
concentration level Into the ppb
linear range of the Method.
Therefore, only the level of
nitrobenzene could have been
quantified.
OnsIte Engineering Report of Treatment Technology Performance for E.
de Nemours. Inc.. Beaumont, Texas. Table 7-4.
duPont
-------
Table E-3 Specific Procedures or Equipment Used in Extraction of Organic Compound* When
Alternatives or Equivalent* are Allowed In the SU-846 Methods
Analysis
SU 846 Method
Sample Aliquot
Alternatives or equivalents Allowed
by SV-846 Methods
Specific Procedures or
Iqulpment Used
Purge and Trap
S030
S mi III liters of liquid
Ihe purge and trap device to be
used Is specified In the method In
Figure I. the desorber to be used
Is described In Figures t and 3.
and the packing materials are
described In Section 4.10 ? Ihe
method allows equivalents of this
equipment or materials to be used.
Ihe method specifies that the
trap must be at least ?S cm long
and have an Inside diameter of at
least O.IOS In.
The purge and trap equipment and
the desorber used were a* specified
In SV-646. The. purge and trap
equipment I* a Teckmar ISC-2 with
standard purging chamber* (Supelco
cat. 2-0293). The packing Material*
for the trap* were 1/3 *lllc* gel
and 2/3 2.6-dlphenylene.
The length of thai trap was 30 em
and the diameter was O.IOS em.
Continuous Iiquid-
liquld Extract Ion
3570
I liter of liquid
The surrogates recommended are
toluene-d8.*-bromof luorobentene.
and I ,2-dlchloroethane-d«. The
recommended concentrat ion level Is
SO ug/1.
Acid and base/neutral extracts
are usually combined before
analysis by GC/HS. However.
under some situations, they may
be extracted and analyzed
separately.
The surrogates were added a*
specified In SW-846.
Acid and baie/neutral extract*
were combined.
The base/neutral surrogates
recommended are ?-f luorobiphenyl,
nitrobentene-dS. terphenyl-dl*.
The acid surrogates recommended
are 2-f luorophenol.
2.4.6-trIbromophenol. and
phenol-d6 Additional compounds
Surrogates were the sane a* those
recommended by SW-646. The volume
of the surrogate* added was
Increased due t« the *amp1e Mtrl«.
All cample* except, the on* sample
from Sample Point 10 had 3 •! of th*
surrogate* containing 100 ppm of tha
-------
Table E-J (Continued)
An<* lysis
SV-846 Method
Sample Aliquot
Alternatives or Equivalents Allowed
by SU 8«6 Methods
Specific Procedures or
equipment Used
Continuous liquid-
liquid Extract ion
(Continued)
may be used for surrogates, the
rec emended concent rat ions for
low-medium concentration level
samples are 100 ppn for acid
surrogates and 200 ppm for
base/neutral surrogates. Volume
of surrogate may be adjusted.
base neutral surrogate and 200 pp«
of the acid surrogates added. 1o
the one samp!* fro» Sample Point
10. 10 ml of the surrogates were
added.
• - On*It* Engineering Report of Treatment Technology Performance for E. I. duPont
de Honours. Inc.. •••umont, Texas. Table 7-5.
-------
Table E-4 Special Procedures or Equipment Used for Analysis of Organic Compounds When
Alternatives or Equivalents are Allowed in the SU-646 Methods
Analysis
SW 846
Method
Sample
Preparation
Method
AMernM ives or equivalents
Allowed m SU 646 lor
(quipment or in Procedure
Specific equipment or Procedures Used
Recommended GC'MS operating conditions.
Actual GC/MS operating conditions:
*s Chro"iatography/
Mass Spectrometry
for volatlie
01 games
8?40
$030
t
co
( lectron eneruy
HaSS range
Stan t tine
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program
final column temperature:
Final column holding time:
Injector temperature:
Source temperature:
transfer line temperature:
tarr ier gas:
70 vols (nominal)
3S-?tO amu
lo give 5 scans/peak but
not to exceed J sec/scan
«5 C
J mm
B'C/min
eoo-c
15 mm
?00 Z2VC
According to manufacturer's
spec if teat Ion
?SO-300*C
Hydrogen at 50 cm/sec or
helium at 30 cm/sec
I lect ron 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 tine temperature:
Carrier gas:
70 ev
3S - 260 amu
? S sec/scan
38'C
t »in
10'C/min
?IS'C
30 ntn or lyUn* • lutes
HVC
100'C
m-c
Helium • 30 «l/mtn
•Additional Information on Actual System Used:
(quipment: Ttnnegan model SIOO 6C/HS/OS system
Data system: SUPtRINCOS Autoquan
Mode: electron Impact
NbS library available
Interface to MS - Jet separator
Ihe column should be 6-ft * O.I In. 1.0. glass.
packed with 17 SP 1000 on CarbopacH 6 (60/60 mesh) or
an equivalent
Samples may be analyred by purge and trap technique
or by direct injection
the column used was an 8-ft. i O.I in. 1.0. flats.
packed with IX SP-IOOO on Carbopack 0 (60/80 a*sh).
i
All samples «er« analyted using the purge and trap
technique.
-------
Table I-A (Continued)
Analysis
SV 846
Method
Sample
Preparat ion
Method
Alternatives or Equivalents
Allowed in
Equipment or
SW 846 for
in Procedure
Specific [quipment or Procedures Used
Recommended GC/HS operating conditions:
Actual GC/MS operating conditions:
Gas Chromatograpri)/
Mass Specirowetry
(or semtvolat i le
organics: capi <'«' >
column technique
B?/0 3520-1iquids
I
ID
Mass range
Scan time:
Initial column temperature
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature hold:
Injector temperature:
transfer line temperature:
Source temperature:
In lector •
Sample volume:
Carrier gas:
3S SOO atnu
I sec/scan
40 C
4 mm
40 2/0 C at
IO"C/min
7/0'C (until
beniolg.h.i.Jperylene has
e luted)
?50-300'C
ZSO-300'C
According to
manufacturer's
spec ifIcatIon
Grob-type. split less
1-2 ul
Hydrogen at 50 cm/sec or
helium at 30 cm/sec
I he column should be 30 m by 0 25 mjn 10. l-um film
thickness silicon-coated fused silica capillary column
(J&W Scientific OB-S or equivalent)
range:
Scan t ime:
Initial column temperature:
Initial CO limn holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature hold:
Injector temperature:
transfer line temperature:
Source temperature:
Injector:
Sample volume:
Carrier gas:
3S - SOO amu
I sec/scan
30'C
4 utin
8'C/mln to ?75*
and IC'C/mln until
30S'C
30S'C
240-260'C
300'C
Won-heated
Grob-type. spit less
1 ul of sawpte titract
Helium » 40 €•/*««.
• Additional Information on Actual Syste* U**dJ:
(quipment: FInncgan node I 5100 6C/MS/DS »yst«
Software Package: SUPCRINCOS AUtOQUAN
the column used vac a 30 • • 0.32 «m .1.0.
BT^ -5 (SIC phenyl wethyl tlllccne) r$CC
• - Orwlte Engineering Report of Treatment Technology Performance for E. I. duPont
d* Namourc, Inc., leaunont, Texaa. Table 7-6.
-------
Table E-5 Specific Procedure or Equipment U«ed for Analyst* of
Cyanides When Alternative* or Equivalent! art Allowed
in the SW-Bte Method**
Analysis
total and
amenable
cyanide
SW-M6 Sample Alternatives or Equivalent
Method Aliquot A llo»ed by SV-M6 Method*
9012 SOO •! Hydrogen sulfide treat»ent
My be required.
Spec if tc
Procedure* Used
Hydrogen sulfide
treatment MS not
required.
A fisner-Hulligan absorber
or equivalent should be used.
A Wheaton Distilling
Apparatus absorber «as
used.
• • Onsite Engineering Report of Treatment Technology Performance for E. I. duPom
de Nemours, Inc., Beaunom, Texas. Table 7-6.
E-10
-------
Table E-6 Matrix Spike Recoveries for Treated Waste
BOAT Constituent
Volatile
4. Benitne
Semi volatile
56. Aniline
* 4
Original Amount Sample Set Sample Set Duplicate
Found Spike Added Spike Result Percent Spike Added Spike Result Percent Accuracy
(ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) Recovery* (ug/L>
-------
APPENDIX F
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT FOR THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
The comparative method of measuring thermal conductivity has been
proposed as an ASTM test method under the name "Guarded, Comparative,
Longitudinal Heat Flow Technique." A thermal heat flow circuit is used
that is the analog of an electrical circuit with resistances in series.
A reference material is chosen to have a thermal conductivity close to
that estimated for the sample. Reference standards (also known as heat
meters) having the same cross-sectional dimensions as the sample are
placed above and below the sample. An upper heater, a lower heater, and
a heat sink are added to the "stack" to complete the heat flow circuit.
See Figure F-l.
The temperature gradients (analogous to potential differences) along
the stack are measured with type K (chromel/alumel) thermocouples placed
at known separations. The thermocouples are placed into holes or grooves
in the references and also in the sample whenever the sample is thick
enough to accommodate them.
For molten samples, pastes, greases, and other materials that must be
contained, the material is placed into a cell consisting of a top and
bottom of Pyrex 7740 and a containment ring of marinite. The sample is 2
inches in diameter and 0.5 inch thick. Thermocouples are not placed into
the sample; rather, the temperatures measured in the Pyrex disks are
extrapolated to give the temperature at the top and bottom surfaces of
the sample material. The Pyrex disks also serve as the thermal
conductivity reference material.
F-l
-------
GUARD
GRADIENTX
STACK
GRADIENT
r0
X
/o
1
1
1
1
THERMOCOUPLE >— ^
\ /T
\
\
\
\
\
*~~~
^
CLAMP
v''
\£
•
i
i
UPPER STACK
HEATER
i
i
TOP
REFERENCE
SAMP
S* . *
^x.
V
'/
tf
TEST yT SAMPLE
/i
^X^^. '
•f
y
r
BOTTOM
REFERENCE
SAMPLE
i
A.
i
LOWER STACK
HEATER
i
i
LIQUID COOLED
HEAT SINK
i
»r
±
HEAT FLOW
DIRECTION
— _• 1
UPPER
GUARD
HEATER
^
c;
LOWER
GUARD
HEATER
FIGURE F-l SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE COMPARATIVE METHOD
F-2
-------
The stack is clamped with a reproducible load to ensure intimate
contact between the components. To produce a linear flow of heat down
the stack and reduce the amount of heat that flows radially, a guard tube
is placed around the stack and the intervening space is filled with
insulating grains or powder. The temperature gradient in the guard is
matched to that in the stack to further reduce radial heat flow.
The comparative method is a steady-state method of measuring thermal
conductivity. When equilibrium is reached, the first flux (analogous to
current flow) down the stack can be determined from the references. The
heat into the sample is given by
Qin ' v top(dT/dx)top
and the heat out of the sample is given by
Qout = A bottom(dT/dx)bottom
where
A = thermal conductivity
dT/dx = temperature gradient
and top refers to the upper reference, while bottom refers to the lower
reference. If the heat was confined just to flow down the stack, then
n
Q and Q would be equal. If Qin and out are in reasonable
in out
agreement, the average heat flow is calculated from
Q - (Qin + Qout)/2-
The sample thermal conductivity is then found from
x sample = Q/(dT/dx) sample.
The result for the K102 Activated Charcoal Waste tested is given in
o
Table F-l. The sample was held at an average temperature of 42 C, with a
53 C temperature drop across the sample for approximately 20 hours
F-3
-------
before the temperature profile became steady and the conductivity was
measured. At the conclusion of the test, it appeared that some "drying"
of the sample had occurred.
The result for the K101 waste tested is given in Table F-l. The
o
sample was held at an average temperature of 39 C, with a 39°C
temperature drop across the sample for approximately 4 hours before the
temperature profile became steady and the conductivity was measured. At
the conclusion of the test, it appeared that some "drying" of the sample
had occurred. Bubbles had formed in the sample and had migrated to the
top of the sample in contact with the upper reference. Approximately 15
percent of the upper Pyrex reference was not in contact with the sample
when thermal equilibrium was reached. Thus, the conductivity given in
Table F-l may be low by 5 to 10 percent.
Table F-l The Results of the Measurement of the Thermal
Conductivity Using the Comparative Method
Sample
Thermal
Temperature Conductivity
(°C) (W/mK)*
K101 Waste
K102 Activated
Charcoal Waste
39 .273
42 .136
*1 W/mK = 6.933 Btu in/h ft2 F = .5778 Btu/h ft F
F-4
-------
APPENDIX G
STRIP CHARTS
SAI»U SET /I
31, 1917
7i«0 - 8iOO AM
ornt WTO sr; i
hr
2HW-B7 09:44:
FEED RATE TO THE ANILINE LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTOR
FIGURE G-l RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103: SAMPLE SET fl
G-i
-------
oc
t/3 T
U KC C
200 000
"IM.OOO"
-120.000'
LOOO
'457000"
SA»TU SCT H
lUrch
SET f 1
Jl, W7
9iM - lOtM AH
2360
Inches
of
Water
STEAM STRIPPER TOP COLUNM TEIPERATURE
:N w:
M^£W^
FIGURE 11-5
PRESSURE DROP ACROSS THE STEAM STRIPPER COLINI
FIGURE G-l
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103: SAMPLE SET fl
(Continued)
G-2
-------
SAlTLfc SET II
torch 31. 19*7
9:00 - lOtOO AN
09:46:11
FEED RATE TO THE STEAH STRIPPER
FIGURE G-l
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103:
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET fl
6-3
-------
SAHM.E SET /I
"•rch 31, 1987
10:00 - 1HOO AM
hr
09:43:08
FEED RATE TO THE CARBON ADSOKPTION SYSTEM
FIGURE G-l
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103:
(Continued)
6-4
SAMPLE SET fl
-------
UT n
31, IP7
ItOO - 2tOO
DTK WTO 5TC i
hr
2HW-87 09'.44:%S
FEED RATE TO THE ANIUK LIQUI&/UQUIP EXTRACTOR
FIGURE G-2
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103: SAMPLE SET #2
6-5
-------
ft TV1W
II KCC
SAMfLC SET tl
lurch 31, 1987
3*00 • 4tOt Ml
"12C.OOO"
J2K
2300
STEAM STRIPTEt TOP COLINI TEITERATURE
Inches
of
Water
^
PRESSURE DROP ACROSS TMi STEAM STRIPPU COLUM
FIGURE G-2
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103:
(Continued)
6-6
SAMPLE SET I2
-------
3:00 • 4iOO PH
S/S
-A.°R-87 09:44:11
FEED RATE TO THE STEAH STRIPPER
FIGURE G-2
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET I2
6-7
-------
SAMPLE SET
31, 1987
• 5tOO PH
hr
09:43:01
FEED RATE TO THE CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
FIGURE G-2
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103: SAMPIi SET I2
(Continued)
G-8
-------
SAflFLC SET
^ SET fl
I I. 1W
7>00 - 6:00 AM
EXT1
1Q3ibs
hr
o5ooo.oooo iST
FEED RATE TO THE ANILIK LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTOR
FIGURE G-3
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103: SAMPLE SET 13
G-9
-------
oc
SAHEU S£T
ru SET n
" '. W7
9i»t - llstt AM
t/« T» IDT •
tf KCC
200 OOC
160.000
i
i
"120.000"
1
90.OX
"40.000"
0.00? ISO
02)0
1230
2300
STEAM STRIPPEI TOP C9LIMI TEMPERATURE
Inches
of
Water
PRESSURE DROP ACROSS THE STEAM STRIPPER COLIM
FIGURE G-3
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103:
(Continued)
6-10
SAMPLE SET f3
-------
SAJ»U SET
April 1,
. ||1M AH
5/5
10+4
ISooo.ooojiff
FIGURE 11-9
FEED RATE TO THE STEAM STRIPPER
FIGURE G-3
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET 13
6-11
-------
SAVLE SET f3
April 1, 19W
10.00 - lliOO AM
1Q3lb>
hr
1007
2HW-I7 09:43:01
FEED RATE TO THE CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
FIGURE G-3
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103:
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET I3
6-12
-------
SAflTU SET
April
SET Ik
I, 1987
ItOO - 2:00 PN
crrc UATO re i
hr
25.
20.-
IS.
10.
5.0
«55 o.o
1000
coo
1000
MOC
wo
•
900 1SJO
'
,»*— —
•
-*• ^
oeoo IE
•.
r
2900
err
09:44:4*
FEED KATE TO THE AMILIME LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTOR
FIGURE G-4
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103: SAMPLE SET I4
6-13
-------
SAMPLE SET jk
April I. 1967
),OI -
oc
t/SVIW •
tl KCC
"120.000"
BO.OvJ
.}
05CC 0.000 iSO
0200
2300
STEAM STRIPPER TOP CQLUM TEJTERATURE
is *:
fnches
of
Water
BC.
oc"
'. ice—
MWKNttttT.'JJ
40.
20. 100'
05000.
100'
000 15*
C2W
1230
CJT
2300
PftESSUKE DROP ACROSS THE STEAM STRIPPER COLIM
FIGURE G-4
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET {4
G-14
-------
SAHfU S£T jk
April \, I»B7
3.00 -
Pl»
hr
S/S ?E
::** *??,
"too;:::"
i
"50.PC0"
055) i.WC1537 ' ' ' '
020C
1230
230C
CXT
2-APS-87 W:4£:i|
FEED RATE TO THE STEM! SHIFTER
FIGURE G-4
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103:
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET #4
G-15
-------
SAMPLE SET Ik
April 1, 1987
- 5«00
1Q3lb»
hr
FEED RATE TO THE CARBON ADSORPTIM SYSTEH
FIGURE G-4
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET |4
G-16
-------
SAHPLt SET IS
April I, Ijl?
7tOO - 8:00
hr
om
"20 .-WOO"
I
"15.0000'
'iO.booc'
•OpOO"
0500 o.oooo HBO"
31-**-»?
0200
1230
2300
KDCT
2HVD-B7 09:44:46
FEED RATE TO THE ANILINE LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTOR
FIGURE G-5
RECORDING CHARTS FOR-K103: SAMPLE SET 15
6-17
-------
SAMPLE SET
0C
»>:0t) • 10:00 PM
1*
u
I
1
i
•
i
1
i
i—
i
1
0500
v* •
TVTW •
KCC
200. OK I
!
1
•
160.000
i ;
120.000
80.000
•
i
>•
•
40.000
1
!
•
.
•
0.000 1530 CMC ., • 1230 2300
STEAM STRIPPER TOP COLUM TEMPERATURE
Inches
of
Water
PRESSURE DROP ACROSS THE STEAM STRIPPER COLIM
FIGURE G-5
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103:
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET 45
G-18
-------
SAHfLE SET IS
April \, 198?
9:00 - 10:00 PH
S/S
hr
FEED RATE TO THE STEAM STtlPPER
FIGURE G-5
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103:
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET f5
6-19
-------
SAMPLE SET t$
April 1, 1987
lOtOO - llsOO PM
hr
«55—d.'otf
7» J»J9^?
IOT
09:43:08
FEED KATE TO THE CARBON ADSOOTION SYSTEM
FIGURE G-5
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K103:
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET I5
G-20
-------
orrt *n* rrc i
E SCTJ1
J», IM7
SAMPLE S£T /I
torch
7itO - 8iOO AH
2?.3000
hr
tt.ocoo :
i r-
15.0000
: i i : i
1 ' T^"^^""! ~- t /
' 1 . ' 1
i 1 ' : i
ic.otxxr
OODC
0500 0.0000
1230
230C
«3T
2-«f-S7 09:44:4fi
FEED RATE TO THE ANILINE LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTOR
FIGURE G-6 RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104: SAMPLE SET II
6-21
-------
oc
t/S TUP
U KCC
200.000
"160.000"
"120.000'
'00.000
'40:000"
1
SAITU SET II
lUrch Jl, 1997
91 Of - list! AM
..A.
1530
2300
STEAM STRIPPER TOP COLUMN TEMPERATURE
Inches
of
Water
"CS.iOC"
*^^
ZHW-f?
FIGURE 11-5
PRESSURE DROP ACROSS THE STEAM STRIPPER COUM
- FIGURE G-6
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104:
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET «1
G-22
-------
SArtfLt SET II
lUrch Jl, !*•?
9:00 • lOtOO AN
S/S
hr
2-AM-87 09:46:11
FEED RATE TO THE STEAM STRIPPER
FIGURE G-6 RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104: SAMPLE SET |1
(Continued)
-------
SAMPLE SET l\
March 31, 1987
10:00 • 11:00 AH
hr
Z-API-17 09:43:01
FEED RATE TO THE CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
FIGURE G-6
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET fl
G-24
-------
SET n
31, IM7
ItOO • 2iOO
DTT1
STC
hr
25.5000
ocoo
; 1
oooo • •
: r i ; 1
i ; ; i
i
5555—a.oW
31
0200
1230
250C
KCCT
FEED KATE TO THE ANILIIC UQUID/LIQUU EJCTRACTW
FIGURE G-7
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104: SAKPIZ SET |2
G-25
-------
SAMP.U SET 12
»Urch Jl, 1987
)iOO •
t/i irr
II KCC
°c
'120.000'
32K
2300
STEAM STRIPPER TOP COLIM TEMPERATURE
.V
Inches
of
Water
•&*X^*WWMlx
PRESSURE DROP ACROSS TNC STEAM STRIPPER CflUM
FIGURE G-7
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104:
(Continued^
SAMPLE SET #2
G-26
-------
SCT
w«rch 31, 1517
3:00 -
hr
S/S
"100.000"
o5oc o.ooc'
31-^-67
1230
230C
ICXT
2-A?S-87 W 144:
FEED RATE TO THE STEAM STRIPPER
FIGURE G-7
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104;
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET I2
G-27
-------
SWLE SET
31, 1987
4:00 • 5*00 PM
hr
FEED RAH TO THE CARBQH ADSOMTIOK SYSTEM
FIGURE G-7 RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104: SAMPLE SET |2
(Continued)
-------
SAflfLC SET fl
April I, 1)1)
7«00 • 8:00 AM
om *TO rrc i
I03lbs
hr
Soo o.oooo floe
09:44:41
FEED RATE TO THE ANILIK LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTOR
FIGURE G-8
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104: SAMPLE SET 13
G-29
-------
SAHPU SET
HPU SET n
'»! 1, IM7
oc
t/?
If
TOT •
KCC
200 OW
160,000
"120.000"
"90.000"
"40.000"
:«Ct 0.00?
1550"
AN
0200
STEAM STRIPPU TOP COLIM TEMPEKATWE
tnches
of
Water
PtESSUKE DROP ACROSS THE STEAM STRIPPER COLUN1
FIGURE G-8
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104:
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET I3
G-30
-------
**** SET H
April 1, 1987
9»0« - ie,M AN
/
1044
5556 o.ooo 130
09:46:11
FI CUKE 11-4
FEED RATE TO THE STEAM STRIPPER
FIGURE G-8
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104
(Continued)
6-31
SAMPLE SET I3
-------
SAHPLE SET
SET f 1
\, 1967
lOiOO - 11:00 AN
hr
1007
09:43:08
FEED RATE TO THE CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
FIGURE G-8
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104;
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET I3
G-32
-------
hr
SAflfU SET Ik
April I, 198?
ornt WTO re i
ItOO - 2:01
2?.
20.-
IS.
10.
1.0
o!55 — O.o
KOO
WOO
1000
ttOC
xc
W 1530
_^"-" ^-
t
•*- ,
0200 12J
r
2300
IBCT
FEED RATE TO THE ANILIIC LIQUIPAIdUID
FIGURE G-9
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104: SAMPLE SET
G-33
-------
°C
SAMPLE SET ft
April 1, 198?
3*01 - till Pfl
t/s
Ift
KCC
"120.000"
I
"eo.ft>;
oscc o.ooo [so
0200
Ik
2300
STEAM STRIPPER TOP COLIMH TEMPERATURE
Inches
of
Water
:,5 ve
:£ " " :N ri:
Ivw
BC.
— «•
Mw«^
40.
20.
. i
OOv
IQv
,7.J.^
(00
XX)
W^'^v
*V^
j*Jk#/
<^*^&rj
41 • •
-------
SAHfLE SET |»
April I, 19B7
).00 •
s/s
hr
2-APS-87 O9'.4i:i|
FEED RAH TO THE STEAM STRIPTER
FIGURE G-9
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104;
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET f4
G-35
-------
SAfTLE SET
April 1, 1J
III00 - $100
hr
:x:
09:43:M
FEED RATE TO THE CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
FIGURE G-9
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104: SAMPLE SET |4
(Continued)
G-36
-------
April
SET fS
I, 1M7
7«00 - 8:00 P*
hr
DO* WTO STC 1
906 NPPH
.. .
».-
15.
10.
5.0
^
»coo
woo
we
xo
»^*"
• ' ~
-.
»
i
1
1
1230
2300
err
FEED RATE TO THE ANILINE LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTOR
FIGURE G-10
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104: SAMPLE SET f5
G-37
-------
oc
SAMPLE SET IS
April I, 198?
y:00 • 10:00 PH
t/9 TOP TOT •
ii KCC
200 ~X
"J60.000"
i
'iZO.OOO'
•eo.000"
"40.000"
0506
020C
1Z30
STEAM STRIPPER TOP COLUMI TEMPEKATWE
Inches
of
Water
•
:.s .-.2:
"8C. CC
•«c.wc'
"20.
POO"
.jM44A-4x«M,;V^lw.4^*1 **tf*lfV*?Wf*tifyt
o5i55 o.ooo
"IS5"
IOT
1-HPfr-i?
PRESSURE DROP ACROSS THE STEAM STRIPPER COLUMI
FIGURE G-10 RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104: SAMPLE SET f5
G-38
-------
SAMPLE SET K
April 1, 1987
9:00 - 10:00
I03)bs
hr
5/5 ?ZE
::**
.(..
100
D<\
50.|
25.1
o5oo :.
'.^
OCD ;
4
i
4
JCC
5
\
- | I
!
JCC 'Eff ' ' ' '
rV* it »J^'
!
I ' !
; ! ' '
t<
__
ten
2-AP9-87
FEED RATE TO THE STEAM STRIPPER
FIGURE G-10
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104: SAMPLE SET #5
(Continued)
G-39
-------
SWLE SET K
April 1, 1987
tOtOO • liiOO
"KF
09:43:01
FEED RATE TO THE CARBCW ADSOHTTIOII SYSTEM
FIGURE G-10
RECORDING CHARTS FOR K104
(Continued)
SAMPLE SET #5
G-40
------- |