Evaluation of the B.E^S.T. (Trade Name)
Solvent Extraction Sludge Treatment
Technology Twertty-Four Hour Test
Enviresponse, Inc., Livingston, NJ
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OK
Aug 88
PB88-245907*
Ttchaicai' tafwiuUiB Scrnct
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(rirat retd lxaruNO.
P5 8 Jl - 3 J4"£ 9 & ~I
S. REPORT DATE
Auqust 1988
». PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
», PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRAtt/GRANT NO.
68-03-3255
13. TYPE Of REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
1
16. ABSTRACT
A twer ty- f cur hour sampling and analytical effort was conducted on P°sources
Conservation Co.'* Solvent Extraction Sludge Treatment Technology prototype full-scale
commercial facility while operating at the General Refining Superfund site in Garden
Citv. Georgia. The site was contaminated with oily residues resulting from waste oil
re- ref ir.i-. -, and reclamation operations.. The B.E.S.T.
was testei to determine its suitability as a transport
for spill a-d -aste site cleanups, with special potent
sludge treatment technology
able on-site treatment technoloq,.
lal for oily hazardous waste
materials. T-e process separates oily sludges into their component oil, solids, and
water fractions, ar.c! conlitions them for disrosal or for further treatment. The test
datj co-.fir- th" system's capability to separatethe si
uclges. often in efficiencies of
over 3?» Co-parison of laboratory simulation data to field data indicate that
laboratory-scale s .-.•_: la t i c- s can be useful in predicting system performance. Further
testing is needed to confirm the system efficiencies and develop complete operating
cost data.
17. KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
i. DESCR.PTORS b. IOCNTIFIE RS/
Unclassi
Se^ease to public 20. SECURITY c
Unclassi
OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
-ASS iTtui Rrporil SI. NO. OF PAGES
fiea ) a
-------
PB8a-245907
EPA/600/2-88/051
August 1988
EVALUATION OF THE B.E.S.T.
SOLVENT E \TRAL TU.'N SLUDGE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
-FOUR HOUR 1EbT
bv
Ger _u d W. Sudel 1
t-nv i r e'sporrse. Inc.
.or,, NK>W Jt^rsev 0883"
h F',"i !' nil t r .act ob — O3 "31jui
1 r ,j i <-•!-1. 0 f * i cer
^1 -i r , t' . '.fi t i n ^or>
q,'f-jj r• .•<-3<• • s Cunt r'ol Branch
i: 1 i •- HI. M^w Jerse-/ ' 'B83T
c> el, _f t-,,j t or
lirr. ir TMirT : t d 1 f-r otection Hqenc , Region
>t -.ft li-'. Wric3h i not on ^tH'.'l
- : ;i RfMJCTIilN hUlTlNEEFlNu l.Al'l |RM TOP
"iFhlLt OR ^'t'-^ nfa H Ml-lL' DLVt LC.H ML-'NT
O.b. *' r-l : < hONMEM ! ML F F-.O ! EC" F ION HL-fNC
' ! ' 'i 1 NtlM 1 1 . I'M IU 4L-"iJo8
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S.
Envi ronmenta"! Protection Agency policy and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidlv developing and chanqinq technologies and
trial products and practices -frequently carry with them the
increased jeneration of materials that, if iinproperiv dealt with,
can threaten both public health and trie environment. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is charqed by Conqress with
protecting the Nat ion's land, air, and water svstems. Under a
IT ,-' 11 d a t t; ci-t national environmental laws, the agency strives to
i or inul a te and implement actions leading to a compatible balance
Defween human activities and the abilitv of natural s/stem^> to
support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform
r (p-ie-ar c h to define our environmental problems, measure the
impacts, and search tor solutions..
1 he Risk Reduction Ei iq i neer i nq Laboratory is responsible? for"
planning, implementation, ,:ind management o-f research, development,
ar.i.: ij.?mi ji i -, tr a 11 on programs to pro*..1, de an authoritative, defensible
eni; i i et-rinq basis in support o-f the policies, proqrams, and
-. r" IL> 1 a 11 on;, o-f the EFV-i w i t: h respect to drinking water, wastewater .
ue •:. t: c i Ot? •." , to-; ic sub1; t anci^s . solid and ha:ai"dous wastos, and Supertund-
rf-ljt-'d .AC t i -)tif->-3. This putjl i cat i on is one o-f the prodticts o-f
that rt'ssarch and pr-cvides a vital co nmun i cat i on link between the?
i f-.-t it '.'her and the use," ironimuni t v.
Th i - r-tjprjrt wa& pr spared at the request of USEF'A's Region
v
It nt e-5i-jii f ii.fiir iiiciiiori collected tron a twenty —-four hoLir test of
T rn
f'iif P . F . ' ^. T. sol-, ent e'-'traction ;-.luOqe treatment technology
duir-'.iiq its reiiai-.a] autirjn operation .at the Genet-al Refining Co.
=; i t f> in Garden Cit--.', Geor-qia. The repcr.t supplies a brief
i.lf-.rr ipt-.ii.in tjf the bite ,-ifu'i the B.E.S.T. process, and presents
i-hs- ^a.nj.-1 !. nu and an 3 1 -.• t i r. .-•> 1 results obtained di.irinq the test. The
•.'-i1 < t rid =inu so'iv-' i.oni. iu.-1 ns are of rerecj. For further
i nf o'"ma f i on , t/.Je.'se contact the Supi r ^ nd Technol oq v.- Demonstr a+ i on
Divirii.i. of tru1 Risk Pedui. t i on Engineering Laboratory.
E. Timothy Oppplt, Acting Director
Pist Pedi ii-t.i on Engineering Liibor a t or v
-------
ABSTRACT
A twenty-four hour sampling and analytical effort was
conducted on Resources Conservation Co.'s Solvent Extraction
Sludge Treatment Technology prototype full-scale commercial
facility while operating at the General Refining Superfund site
in Garden City, Georgia. The site was contaminated with oily
residues resulting from waste oil re-refining and reclamation
operations. The B.E.S.T. m sludge treatment technology was
tested to determine its suitability for application as a
transportable on-site treatment technology for spill and waste
site cleanups, with special potential for oily hazardous waste
materials. The process separates oily sludges into their
component oil, solids, and water fractions, and conditions them
for disposal or for further treatment.
The test data confirm the system's capability to separate
the sludges, often in efficiencies of over 98%. Comparison of
laboratory simulation data to field data indicate that
1aboratory-seale simulations can be useful in predicting system
performance. Further testing is needed to confirm the system
efficiencies and develop complete operating and cost data.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Abbreviations and Symbols ix
English/Metric Conversion Factors x
Acknowledgement xi
1 Introduction 1
2 Summary and Conclusions 5
3 General Refining Site Description 7
4 Process Description 15
5 General Refining Test Results 26
Operations 26
Separation performance 28
Contaminant separation 31
Comparisons of field and laboratory data 44
6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 50
Bibliography 58
Appendices
A. Sampling and analysis plan for
performance evaluation testing A-0
B. Data Summary, February 26 and 27, 1987,
B.E.S.T.tm Sludge Treatment Process at
the General Refining Co. Site,
Garden City, Georgia B-0
C. Material safety data sheet Triethyl amine . C-0
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 General Refining site location 8
2 General Refining site lagoons 1, 2, and 3 ... 9
3 General Refining Site 11
4 Sludge sampling 14
5 3.E.S.T.tm sludge processing unit on location. 16
6 Triethyl amine-water solubility curve 17
7 Separation diagram 19
8 Operations site plan 20
9 Process flow diagram 22
10 Uater treatment plant 24
11 Process overview 25
12 Sample locations identification 27
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Test Program Development Chronology
2 General Refining B.E.S.T.tm Cleanup Performance
Test Results Table of Contents 4
3 Site Contaminants 10
4 Sample Listing 12
5 Sludge Feed Composition During The
Twenty-four Hour Test 13
D
6 Test Parameters Listing 29
7 Overall Material Balance 30
8 BESTtm Unit Separation Performance 30
9 Operating Data 32
10 Metals Analytical Results 33
11 Total Metals°Material Balance 33
12 Volatile Organics Analytical Results 35
13 Semivolati1e Organics Analytical Results ... 36
14 Lead and PCB Analytical Results 38
15 PCB Material Balance 38
16 Lead Material Balance 39
17 Oil and Grease and Triethyl amine
Analytical Results 39
18 TEA Material Balance 41
19 Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans
in the Feed Sludge 42
vi i
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
20 TCLP Analytical Results 43
21 Air Emissions Results 45
22 Recycle Triethyl amine Hazardous Substance
Li ,t Volatiles Analytical Results 46
23 Ccnparison of General Refining Laboratory
Da a to Full-Scale Processing Data 47
24 Laboratory Phase Separation Data for General
Refining Sludge vs. Other Materials . . . . 47
25 Laboratory Contaminant Partitioning Data
for General Refining Sludge vs. Other
Materials 49
26 Sample Quantities and Field Duplicates ... 52
27 Laboratory Control Sample Report:
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry .... 54
28 Laboratory Control Sample Report:
Gas Chromatography 54
29 Surrogate Control Sample Report:
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry .... 55
VI 1 1
-------
-
Al
API
°API
As
Ba
BOAT
B.E.S.T.
BNA
BOO
BS&W
BTX
CL?
COD
Cr
Cu
EP
EPA
ERCS
Fe
Hg
HSL
HWERL
HX
Ib/hr
mg/1
mg/kg
ml
Mn
N
Ni
O&G
Pb
PCB
POTW
ppb
ppm
ppmvd
QA/qc
RGB
RCC
RCRA
S&A
Se
TCLP
IDS
TEA
TKN
Zn
tm
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
Aluroi num
American Petroleum Institute
A unit of vi scosi ty
Arsenic
Barium
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
RCC's trademark for the Solvent Extraction
Sludge Treatment System
Base Neutral/Acid (Extractables )
Biological Oxygen Demand
Bottom Sediment and Water
Benzene, Toluene, Xylene
Contract Laboratory Program
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chromi urn
Copper
Extraction Procedure
Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency Response Cleanup Services
I ron
Mercury
Hazardous Substance List
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
Heat Exchangero
Pounds per hour
Mi 11i grams per liter
Milligrams per kilogram
Milliliter
Manganese
Ni trogen
Nickel
Oil and Grease
Lead
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Parts per billion
Parts per million
Parts per million, dry volume basis
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Releases Control Branch
Resources Conservation Co.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Sampling an
-------
ENGLISH/METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
Equals
cubic
foot
US gal.
inch
ounce
part per
foot
billion (ppb)
0.0283 cubic meters
0.3048 meters
3.785 liters
2.54 centimeters
28.35 grams
One part in 10y.
For gaseous mixtures
volume:volume basis
typi cally used and 1
i s
on
the order of 1 ug/nr :
ug/nr
ppb x
MW
where RT = 22.4 L/mole at 0°
and 1 atm
- 24.5 L/mole at 25°
and 1 atm
For liquid materials, a
weight:volume basis is most
commonly used and 1 ppb - 1
ug/L (= 1 ug/kg for liquids
with density = 1).
1 part per million (ppm)
For solid materials
wei ght:wei ght basis
common!y used and 1
ug/kg.
One part in 10^
1 ppm =
streams
1 ppm =
streams
1 ppm =
st reams
is most
ppb 1
= 1 mg/m° gaseous
1 m g/1 liquid
1 mg/kg solid
1 pound
1 U.S. quart
1 short ton
453.6 grams
0.9463 liters
907.2 kilograms
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to acknowledge the extensive assistance and comments
from John J. Barich III of EPA's Region X Environmental Services
Division, and key personnel at Resources Conservation Co.,
particularly Hark K. lose and R. Reams Goodloe, Or , for their
contributions to this document. Comments and suggestions
received from Edward R. Bates, Alternative Technologies
Division, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, were
also instrumental in developing the final report copy. EPA's
Region IV Emergency Response and Control Branch provided
information concerning site operations.
x i
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents an evaluation of the B.E.S.T. m
solvent extraction sludge treatment technology data that were
generated during a twenty-four hour performance test conducted
at the General Refining site in Garden City. Georgia. The test
was conducted by the Resources Conservation Co. (RCC) with the
assistance of EPA's Region X Environmental Services Division in
cooperation with EPA's Region IV Emergency Response and Control
Branch .
The General Refining site, located near Savannah, Georgia,
was operated as a waste oil reclamation and re-refining facility
from the early 1950s until 1975. Sulfuric acid used to treat
the waste oil produced an acidic oily sludge, while process
filtration produced an oily filter cake byproduct. The sludge
was disposed of in four unlined lagoons, and the filter cake was
buried and stockpiled on site
To remedy the situation, site cleanup actions were initiated
in the summer of 1986 to stabilize the site, secure the
facility, and explore disposal alternatives. In evaluating
disposal alternatives, consideration was given to on-site and
off-site incineration, landfilling, and on-site solvent
extraction. Except for landfilling, all options offered an
ultimate solution to waste disposal The B.E.S.T. m solvent
extraction process was chosen as the most suitable and
cost-effective option.
In mid 1986 RCC mobilized and installed its prototype
full scale commercial solvent extraction sludge treatment system
at the General Refining site in response to EPA's Region IV
request for a removal action at the site under contract to
Haztech, Inc., the EPA's ERCS contractor for the operation.
After shakedown and modification of the prototype 100 ton/day
system, approximately 3,700 tons of oily sludges from the
petroleum re-refining operations were treated. The B.E S.T *m
system operation concluded in March 1987.
The initial sampling and analytical activity conducted
during the removal operation was directed at verifying the
composition of the product streams. RCC's previous analysis
-------
efforts were directed toward evaluating API sludges at the
1aboratory-seale level. These efforts resulted in data that
tracked the isolation of contaminants into the oil, water, and
solids fractions, and also determined EP toxicity and TCLP
results for the solids residues. The General Refining operation
provided the opportunity to compare a prototype full-scale
commercial facility's data with the 1aboratory-seale data for
the treatment of hazardous waste sludges.
In early February 1987, RCC decided to obtain test data
during the system's final week of operation at the site since
the system had been operating for some time, was essentially
debugged, and had an experienced operating crew to control the
process. RCC contacted EPA's Region X for support and advice,
after which RCC and Region X developed and implemented a
twenty-four hour sampling and analysis effort to evaluate the
system's performance and efficiency both in the separation of
the feed components and in the isolation of contaminants into
specific product streams. The test program was completed within
a week after agreement was reached to perform the test. During
this week, the sampling and analysis plan was developed, and the
testing and analytical contractors selected. The time for
development of the plan and implementation of the sampling
program w?s brief, as shown in Table 1. The test program was
tailored to meet the constraints imposed by the primary purpose
of the operation the removal action initiated by EPA's Region
IV. By selecting an EPA contract laboratory for sample
analysis, the test program was able to be organized and
completed quickly without major quality assurance complications.
This report is divided into six sections: Introduction;
summary and conclusions outlining the performance of the
technology during the sampling effort; a brief description of
the General Refining site; description of the technology;
discussion of the system operation and data collected during the
test period; and quality assurance/quality control.
Detailed results of the test have been assembled into six
three-ring notebooks, which include copies of the analytical
data and the laboratory quality assurance/quality control data.
Table 2 presents the contents of the analytical notebooks. In
addition, RCC maintains logbook records, computer control system
archive files of operations during the test period, and
chain-of-custody data records for the samples.
-------
TABLE 1. TEST PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT CHRONOLOGY
Date Event
2/21/87 RCC discusses desirability of
obtaining test data at the
General Refining site.
2/23/87 RCC contacts Region X for
comments and advice.
2/24/87 Sampling and analysis plan
developed.
2/25/87 Region X p-ovides QA/QC-certified
sample bottles to the General
Refining site.
2/23 to 2/25/87 RCC obtains quotations on
analytical and environmental
sampling services.
2/26/87 Sample bottles arrive on site and
test begi ns.
2/27/87 Test ends.
-------
TABLE 2. GENERAL REFINING B.E.S.T.tm CLEAN"? PERFORMANCE
TEST RESULTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 1. ENSECO Analytical Results for Resources
Conservation Company Enseco Project 63109
Dated April 30, 1987
Volume 2. ENSECO Data Package Case 6955, QC #7227
Volume 3. ENSECO Data Package Case 6955, QC #7227 continued
Volume 4. ENSECO Data Package Case 6995, QC #7228
Volume 5. ENSECO Data Package Case 6995, QC #7228 continued
Volume 6. la) Rocky Mountain Analytical, Inorganic Analysis
Dated 4/6/87
2a) Rocky Mountain Analytical, Inorganic Analysis
Dated 3/24/87
3a) Rocky Mountain Analytical, Inorganic Analysis
Dated 3/23/87
Ib) Entropy Environmentalists Inc., Stationary
Source Sampling Report, Dated 2/26-28/87
2b) ENSECO Analytical Results Dated 4/8/87
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The B.E.S.T.tm solvent extraction sludge treatment 100
ton/day prototype commercial facility operation at the General
Refining site demonstrated the system's capability to separate
oily feedstock into its oil, water, and solids product fractions
and to concentrate certain contaminants into a specific product
fraction. An evaluation of the separation performance shows
that metals were separated and isolated mostly into the solids
fraction; PCBs were concentrated into the oil fraction; and the
water product, after additional on-site treatment, was suitable
for disposal in a nearby industrial wastewater treatment
system. Separation efficiencies, defined as the amount of
casired product less the amount of all undesired products times
100, often exceeded 98%. The solids product stream was shown to
contain less than 0.5% moisture, with very little oil
contamination; the oil product contained only 0.88% water; and
the water product contained 0.0033% oil and less than .81% total
solids.
After separation, the streams were analyzed for contaminant
concentrations to ascertain that specific key contaminants had
concentrated preferentially into a prescribed product fraction.
The contaminants of interest were PCBs, lead, metals, volatiles,
semivolatiles, and chlorinated dioxins and furans. In general,
the PCBs, volatiles, and semivolatiles concentrated in the oil
fraction, with little contamination found in the solids and
water product fractions. Metals mostly concentrated in the
solids fraction but lead (Pb) concentrated into both the solid
and oil fractions, suggesting that lead initially was bound
inorganically as well as organically. Chlorinated dioxins and
furans were below detection limits in the raw sludge feed.
On-site water treatment reduced most levels of contaminants in
the discharged treated product water, maintaining about the same
semivolatiles concentrations, slightly reduced volatiles, and
significantly reduced metals concentrations.
The overall system operation during the test period resulted
in the generation of important correlations between feedstock
constituents and system performance, and provided the
opportunity to determine the validity of comparing
laboratory-scale data to full-scale operational data. The data
-------
show good correlation of both separation efficiencies and
contaminant partitioning to specific product streams.
Future evaluations of the system should be designed to
generate additional information that will confirm further the
efficacy of-the system, and could include:
o Accumulation of additional data on a variety of
feedstocks to establish the range of the applicability
of the process.
o Measurements required to further verify existing data
or compare laboratory-scale data with field data.
o Verification of system performance over an extended
period of time.
o Collection of samples at key process points within the
system to accumulate a larger data base to assist in
system performance evaluations.
o Identification of process variables and analytical
information needed to develop mass and energy balances.
o Identification of the investment and operating cost
information needed to develop a projected treatment
cost for the technology, in units of dollars per ton of
treated materi al .
o Verification that startup and system operational
difficulties have been overcome.
o Monitoring of ambient air at strategic peripheral
locations to track system fugitive emissions.
The General Refining operation was the first full-scale test
of the B.E.S.T.tm sludge treatment technology. Further
testing over an extended period of time should be undertaken
when the system is operating at another site. The current data
confirms the system's capabi'lity to perform as designed. Data
collected over a longer period of time can aid in the
affirmation of the effectiveness of the process.
-------
SECTION 3
GENERAL REFINING SITE DESCRIPTION
The General Refining site was used from the early 1950s to
1975 as a waste oil reclamation and re-refining facility. The
jite is located off Route 80, Chatham County, in Garden City,
Georgia, west of Savannah (Figure 1). The by-product acidic
oily sludges from the process were disposed of in four unlined
lagoons, and the oily filter cake was buried or stockpiled on
site. An additional unlined lagoon that had baen used as an
oil/water separator was backfilled with filter cake and sludge,
and waste oil was stored in bulk tanks on site. The total
volume of waste was estimated to be in excess of 10,000 tons.
Analysis of the waste oil, sludge, and filter cake performed
during an early material characterization phase of the project
revealed the presence of petroleum compounds, heavy metals
including lead and copper, PCBs, and low pH sludges and water.
An analysis of the waste material is shown in Table 3.
Since the site is located in the Coastal plains and is
characterized by sandy, permeable soils with a shallow
groundwater table, concern was expressed that the abandoned site
could contribute to groundwater contamination; or that
contaminants could migrate into an adjoining drainage ditch,
then into the Dundee Canal, and subsequently into the Savannah
River. After being contracted by Haztech, RCC implemented a
three-phase approach to identify the site waste characteristics,
establish standards for the system operation, and determine
waste disposal techniques. Preliminary work included a detailed
analysis of all the waste streams and pond strata to identify
treatment and disposal requirements. Pilot-scale testing was
conducted to evaluate each waste component to determine
treatment system operating requirements. After the initial
studies the solvent extraction sludge treatment system was
mobilized, and on-site operation commenced.
During the initial site work it was determined by visual
observation that the sludge depth in all four lagoons was about
three to five feet, thereby minimizing the necessity for depth
profile sampling. The total depth of lagoon 1 was about two
feet, and was mainly sludge. The sludge in lagoons 2, 3, and 4
was floating on a free water layer. Lagoon 3 was the largest of
the four, and lagoon 1 the smallest (Figure 2). To obtain the
-------
Genera!
Refining
SOURCE RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO BELLEVUE. WA
Figure 1. General Refining site location
-------
Figure 2. General Refining site lagoons 1, 2, and 3
-------
TABLE 3. SITE CONTAMINANTS
Location
PH
Lead (ppm) Copper (ppm) PCB (ppm) Oil & Grease(%)
Lagoon Sludge 1.3-1.6 200-5900 83-87 4.4-5.0
Filter Cake 3,3 10000 190 3.5
Buried Lagoon 0.63 „ 8100 170 2.9
Waste Oil 3.3-7.0 170-1700 16-190 < 1
15-20%
30-40%
30-40%
N/A
samples for the material characterization, drums were composited
from materials in the four lagoons. Samples of the site well
water, three oil tanks, and several soil core samples adjacent
to the lagoons also were taken. Filter cake materials were
sampled at approximately ten surface locations in the solids
pile adjacent to lagoon 1, at the filter cake pile outside the
fence, and at the backfilled lagoon (Figure 3). A listing of
the sample locations and sample types is given in Table 4.
Examination of the composited lagoon sludge samples
determined that the sample was not homogeneous and had
stratified into two distinct layers. Since the two layers could
not be homogenized, the sample was separated into two samples
for analysis. It was determined that the only additional
samples (of those that were initially collected) that were
required for feed composition analysis to adequately
characterize the site, were backfilled lagoon and lagoon
sediments. The following are the feed stocks finally analyzed
for composition (percent oil, water, and sludge) and subjected
to laboratory glassware simulation testing:
o Lagoon 1
o Lagoons 2-4 surface
o Lagoons 2-4 subsurface
o Lagoons 2-4 surface i free water in proportionate
quantities
o Filter cake
10
-------
3)
o
o
o
Figure 3. General Refining site.
11
-------
TABLE 4. SAMPLE LISTING
Locati on
Sample type
Lagoon 1
Lagoon 2
Lagoon 3
Lagoon 4
Oil Tanks
T3
T5
T6
Soil
Site well water
SIudge mound
Backfilled lagoon
siudge
sediment
core
lagoon
1agoon
sludge
sediment
surface
subsurface
core
water
lagoon
lagoon
siudge
sediment
core
water
surface
subsurface
1 agoon
lagoon
siudge
sediment
water
liquid
liquid
liquid
soil
liquid
filter cake
sediment
surface
subsurface
12
-------
o Backfi11ed 1agoon
o Lagoons 1-4 sediment
The original scope of work agreed to by Haztech Inc. and RCC
did not include analysis of PCBs. Howaver, after it was
determined that the PCB levels in the oil product could have an
effect on disposition of the oil, an investigation of the PCB
levels in the oil product stream from the laboratory treatment
of the various on-site materials was conducted. The PCB
concentration in three oil storage tanks on site and in the
system water product also were determined.
Composition of the sludges and soils at the site varied
widely from point to point laterally and vertically within the
lagoons. Nominal composition in weight percent was
approximately 10% oil, 70% water, and 20% solids, but during
actual operation oil ranged from 0-40%, water from 60-100%, and
solids from 2-30%. PCBs ranged from 1 to 13 mg/kg and lead
ranged from 2200 to 7400 ppm. During the twenty-four hour test
period the feed was fairly consistent, as shown in Table 5.
The sludge at the site exnibited some unusual physical
properties. The untreated sludge formed an emulsion that was
hydrophobic and could not be mixed with water (Figure 4). The
sludge was determined to be rheopectic, since mixing acted to
increase its viscosity, changing it from a paste-like state to a
semi-solid. Viscosity readings on several samples ranged from
490,000 to 530,000 centipoise Brookfield.
The cleanup involved neutralizing the sludge from 'he
lagoons and then processing it through the B.E.S.T. m solvent
extraction system where it was separated into its oil, water,
and solids product fractions. Some of the oil was transported
off site with the remainder stored on site for subsequent
treatment; the water was first treated on site and then
transported to a nearby industrial wastewater treatment system;
and the solids were stored on site.
TABLE 5. SLUDGE FEED COMPOSITION DURING THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR
TEST
Sample wt. % Oil wt. % Water wt . % Solids
2/26
2/26
2/26
2/27
2/27
1345 hrs.
1637 hrs
2017 hrs.
0017 hrs.
1245 hrs.
28
26
27
28
27
65
66
66
65
66
7
8
7
7
7
13
-------
3ESC '"CES CCNSEav«nON CO
Figure 4. Sludge sampling
14
-------
SECTION 4
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The Resources Conservation Co.'s prototype full-scale
commercial facility has a nominal capacity of 100 tons/day wet
throughput. The system is modular, is capable of being
transported to contaminated sites for operation and cleanup, and
offers the capability to include all required on-site utilities
except for electricity and potable water (Figure 5).
The B.E.S.T.tm sludge 'reatment system processes
difficult-to-treat emulsified oily sludges by breaking the
emulsion and physically separating the sludge into three
separate fractions. These fractions--oi1, water and
solids--then can be handled separately. As the fraction
separations take place, certain contaminants can be removed from
the original sludge and concentrated into a specific phase, such
as PCBs concentrating in the product oil fraction, and metals
concentrating in the product solids fraction. This separation
can serve to assist in determining the suitability of the
separated fractions for recycling or reuse, or in determining
the most appropriate method for disposal.
The process uses one or more of a family of aliphatic amine
solvents to break oil/water emulsions and release bonded water
fro^i the sludge. The solvent used at the General Refining site,
triethyl amine (TEA), becomes completely miscible with water when
cooled below 20°C, but upon heating becomes immiscible (Figure
6). (Additional characteristics of TEA solvent are included in
Appendix C.) To take advantage of this property, the process
mixes refrigerated TEA solvent with the oily sludges The
solvent liquifies the sludge and turns the mixture into a
homogeneous solution. Since the t er.perature is kept below the
solubility curve, solids are no longer bonded by the oil/water
emulsion that was part of the original sludge, and they are
released from the emulsion. Once the solids are removed, the
temperature of the liquid fraction is heated above the
solubility point, and the water separates from the oil and
solvent. The last step in the process is to remove the solvent
from the oil and water fractions using distillation techniques.
The oil fraction is chemically unaltered by the process and
contains the same constituents as the original material. The
objective is to recover and reuse this fraction as a fuel or
process feedstock. The feasibility of reuse is dependent upon
15
-------
Figure 5. B.E.S.T.tm sludge processing unit on location
Source: Resources Conservation Co., Bellevue, WA
16
-------
o
o
UJ
tr
tr
LU
Q.
2
UJ
80
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
10 -
0 -
SOLVENT-WATER ,
IMMISCIBLE I
0 0.2
WATER
WATER-SOLVENT-OIL
MISCI3LE
0.4 0.6
r
0.8 1.0
TRIETHYLAMINE
Figure 6. Triethylamine-water s 11 u b i 1 i t y curve
SOURCE: RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO.. BELLEVUE. WA
17
-------
contaminant levels. The treatment process conditions the oil
for use as a feedstock in other treatment methods and so, if
necessary, outside disposal is feasible. The water fraction,
whose volume increases by approximately 20% due to steam
condensation within the system, is able to be treated and
discharged. The solids residual is powder dry and contains only
traces of the oil. The capability of the process to produce a
dry solids product fraction with reduced volume facilitates the
management and handling of the solids material and so, if
necessary, facilitates outside disposal. Metals in the solids
exist in a form causing the solids to resist leaching, and they
may therefore pass the EP Toxicity or Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests for heavj metal concentrations.
(This is not a specific process characteristic, however )
Figure /schematically illustrates the two primary stages of
the B.E.S.T. m process: the cold stage and the hot stage. In
th-> cold stage sludges or soils are mixed with the solvent at
temperatures below 20°C. At this temperature the liquid
fractions are soluble, and suspensions and emulsions are
eliminated. The solids fraction separates avid is removed by a
filter or centrifuge, and then dried to remove residual
solvent. It is suspected that, because the amine is alkaline at
a pH of approximately 10, heavy metals in the sludge are
converted to hydrated oxides, which precipitate and exit the
process with the solids fraction.
Sludge feed constraints are primarily large particle size
and reactivity with the process solvent. Process performance
can be influenced by the presence of detergents and emulsifiers
in the feed, or of low-pH material. Low-pH material must be
neutralized to prevent reactions with and loss of the TEA
solvent. Detergents can result in degraded separation
efficiency resulting in increased concentrations of oil and
grease in the product water, and increased water content in the
product oil. Emulsifiers can affect organics separation from
the water fraction and can result in increased loadings on the
water treatment plant, first with redact to oil and grease
removal from the water, and ^econd, for water removal from the
oil .
Figure 8 illustrates the cleanup operation's site layout.
During operations at the site, preprocessing treatment consisted
of screening the filter cake and backfill material through a
1/4-inch hammarmi11, which crushed the material to the size
desired for processing. Sludge from the ponds, often in excess
of 1,000,000 centipoises, was pumped into a vibrating screen and
placed into storage tanks to await processing. Since the sludge
was highly acidic, it was neutralized with sodium hydroxide. An
average feedrate of approximately forty ton/day was maintained
during the test period. The oil product was discharged into an
oil polisher to further separate water from the oil; the solids
18
-------
COLD SIDE
HOT SIDE
SLUDGE FEED
AMINE/OIL/WATER
AMINE/OIL
SOLIDS PRODUCT
SOURCE: RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO , BELLEVUE. WA.
OIL PRODUCT
• WATER PRODUCT
Figure 7. Separation diagram,
-------
CONTAMINATION
REDUCTION ZONE
CHEMICAL I WATER
STORAGE ,'TREATMENT
1 '
EXIT
I I I / SUPPORT
ill STDRAfiF . /
ZONE
OIL STORAGE
TANKS
1 /
V
DECONTAMINATION
TRAILER
FENCE
(TYP)
ADMINISTRATIVE
TRAILER
EXIT
J EXIT V.
SOURCE RESOURCES CONSEHVA, ION CO BELLEVUEWA
Figure 8. Operations site plan.
20
-------
were discharged from the solids dryer through an exit chute into
storage containers; and the water was further processed in an
on-site treatment system.
Figure 9 diagrams the B.E.S.T.tm sludge treatment process
flow. The sludge is introduced to the refrigerated solvent in a
mix tank, and the mixture is agitated. Sufficient residence
time is provided to permit complete solvation and formation of a
single liquid phase. The mixture then is sent to a solid bowl
decanter centrifuge whare the solid and liquid fractions are
separated. The solid cake from the first centrifuge normally
contains approximately 50% solids by weight. A second solids
washing step is used to ensure low organics residuals in the
product solids. Further washing steps can be used if even lower
oil concentrations are required. The solids cake from the final
extraction step is sent to a dryer.
The clarified effluent that leaves the first centrifuge is
essentially free of solids and contains nearly all of the oil
and water extracted from the raw sludge. This effluent, which
is still cool and in solution with the imine solvent, is heated
in a series of heat exchangers to a temperature above that where
the solvent and water are miscible. The heated two-phase stream
is passed ' tjirough an oil decanter where the top fraction, which
is primarily solvent but which also contains oil extracted from
the raw sludge, is removed and sent to the solvent stripping
column for solvent recovery. The lower fraction from the oil
decanter, which contains primarily water, is sent to the water
stripping column for residual solvent recovery. Oil is
recovered at the bottom solvent stripping column and is
discharged to temporary on-site storage. Water is recovered at
the bottom of the water stripping column and is discharged to
the water treatment plant.
The distillation column overheads are sent, along with the
solvent vapors from the solids dryer, to a condenser from which
the condensate is sent to a solvent decanter. In the solvent
decanter the bottom water fraction of the condensed
heterogeneous TEA azeotrope is removed and recycled through the
water stripper, leaving recovered solvent. The recovered
solvent is refrigerated and returned to the beginning of the
process, and the cycle is repeated. Residence time within the
system, from sludge entry to exit of the oil and water
fractions, is approximately two hours, and for the solids
fraction is approximately 30 minutes.
Posttreatment requirements for the separated fractions vary
between applications. Some product oil, water, or solids
upgrading may be needed depending on the intended disposition of
these materials. For example, if the solids are to be
landfilled, some further treatment such as fixation may be
21
-------
SLUDGE FEED
OIL/SOLVENT
FR.'.CTION
AZEOTROPE
OIL PRODUCT
SOLIDS PRODUCT
SOURCE: RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO , BELLEVUE, WA.
WATER PHODUCT
Figure 9. Process flow diagram.
-------
required. PCBs can be isolated in the oil fraction and either
can be chemically or thermally destroyed by subsequent treatment
or used as fuel if the PCB contamination is less than 50 ppm.
The product water is treated in a water treatment plant prior to
discharge. The water treatment plant is a modular facility
using two-stage clarification (Figure 10). The first stage
consists of acidifying the water and adding a flocculent and an
oil/water emulsion breaker. Then lime is added to raise the pH
and aid in precipitating lead (Pb); and a contact clarifier is
used to settle out sludge materials.
The B-E-S-T1-"1 sludge treatment process is operated with
the use of an automatic control system that monitors process
conditions and makes process adjustments as required. A process
operator monitors the control system and makes additional
adjustments. Samples of the feed and product streams are
collected periodically and analyzed to ensure proper system
operat ion.
Since the General Refining site was an inactive site,
Resources Conservation Co. was required to supply all necessary
utilities other than electricity and service water RCC
provided a mobile oil-fired boiler for steam generation, a
cooling tower for cooling water, a cryogenic nitrogen (No)
storage system, a water product treatment facility, and
compressed air for process equipment operation. Figure 11
illustrates the overall process scheme, including utilities.
23
-------
!S
Figure 10. Water treatment plant.
-------
FREE WATER
FROM PONDS
SAW SLUDGE
FROM PONDS
NaOH
SOURCE RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO , 8ELLEVUE, WA
Figure 11. Process overview.
-------
SECTION 5
GENERAL REFINING TEST RESULTS
OPERATIONS
The General Refining site testing that was conducted in
February 1987 collected data to further evaluate the phase
separation efficiency of the technology, and to verify and track
the fate of site contaminants. The twenty-four hour test
provided samples from the feed stream, the product streams, and
emission streams.
Sample locations are shown in Figure 12. The sludge feed
sampling point, point A, was at the outlet of the progressive
cavity pump transferring the sludge from the sludge surge tank
to the processing system mixing stage. The location of this
sampling point, combined with the variance in feed sludge
consistency and water content raised questions as to the
representativeness of the samples at this location. Since a
more suitable location could not be found in the limited time
allowed for the sampling program, additional samples were
collected at this location to assist in determining sample
vari abi1i ty .
Product water, sample location B, was taken where water
entered the water treatment plant, just prior to the treatment
plant holding tanks. The treated product water was taken at
point E where treated water overflows from the turbidimeter
sampling point, just prior to being pumped to the holding tank.
Sampling of blowdown sludge also occurred following Wd^er
treatment, at point F. Product solids were sampled at point C,
from the bin where the solids dropped onto the collected solids
pile. The product solids samples either were taken from the top
of the triangular pile formed by the most recently discharged
solids, or directly from the discharged stream if the conveyor
was operating during sampling. Product oil was sampled at the
outlet of the oil polisher, point D. The oil polisher is a
"heater-treater" vessel that further separates water from the
oil prior to oil storage. Process air emissions, point G, were
sampled at the condenser vent and at the oil polisher vent.
Recycled TEA was sampled at the outlet of the solvent recovery
pump, point H.
26
-------
A2EOTROPE
0
_[_.
OIL/SOLVENT
FRACTION |
CLARIFIED .( HX \f Hx )fc[ ucC..IJTCri 1
EFFLUEIJT 1 ""V. ^/V J*- •
1 WATER I
MIXINLi ^^ cnA/--rir\Ki fl
-fe- r-CHTRiFiir,F FRACTION 1
SLUDGE
FEED J
A soi ins J
' J ' v
, r i^
MIXING
(2ND EXTRACTION) ^™ Tj
1
^ ly SOLVENT
sonos I
J HX J
' ^r ,
A2EOTROPE
STRIPPING COLUMN
•+— • STEAM
ft?) ©
VENT V_/ y t
k
, ^
•n
CTION ,!_ 1 CONDENSER I
| '
1
t
•V ULIJ II Uk,L •> WATFR
J SOLIDS FRACTI°N
SOLVENT VAPOR
T r^
011 T ^ °
WATER
fv^
WATER
TREATMENT
SLOWDOWN
SLUDGE
L
DUCT
-I
TREATED
PRODUCT
WATER
SOLIDS PRODUCT
SOURCE RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO BELLEUUE WA
SAMPLING POINT LIST
A - SLUDGE FEED
8 • WATER PRODUCT
C - SOLIDS PRODUCT
D - OIL PRODUCT
E - TREATED PRODUCT WATER
f - WATER TREATMENT BLOWDOWN SLUDGE
G - AIR EMISSIONS
H - SOLVENT RECYCLE
figure 12. Sample locations identification.
-------
Table 54 in appendix B's data summary lists a cross
reference of the sample identification numbers and the sample
description, date, and sampling time. Approximately 162 samples
were sent for analysi' The various parameters for which
analyses were perform^, are listed in Table 6 of this report.
Although consistent concentration units are generally used
throughout this text, the reader is cautioned that some data are
reported in mixed units.
Because of the short test preparation period and limited
manpower, the test focused on the chemical composition of
various streams, and not on the mechanical or electrical data
that could determine throughput and economic parameters.
Determination of the chemical composition of the various sample
streams as a function of throughput was not stressed.
Nevertheless, RCC gathered operating information and process
samples before and after major separation equipment, and
maintained archival records from computer control equipment as
well as daily operating logs. These data were evaluated by RCC
in support of engineering and cost estimating objectives. All
major feed, product, and waste streams were sampled during the
test period including waste feed; solids, oil, and water product
streams; recycled TEA; process air emissions; and water
efTluent.
Table 7 presents an overall material balance of the system,
using the data provided in Appendix B. The balance was
developed based on the information that the product stream was
composed of 27% oil, 66% water and 7% solids. Based on an
average mixed sludge feed of 17,000 Ib/hr, the sludge feed rate,
based on an average TEA to feed ratio of 4:1, is 3,400 Ib/hr
(TEA free), and the average oil product stream flowrate is
calculated to be 918 Ib/hr, the average water product stream is
2,244 Ib/hr, and the average solids product stream is 238
Ib/hr. Note that the stream data are calculated values based on
the analytical data and not as-measured data.
The sampling and analytical plan developed by RCC served to
provide extensive information on the feed sludge and product
fraction streams. The specific data are presented in the tables
in Appendix B and are summarized in the following pages of this
report. Since the tables presented in this report are summaries
of the test data, the tables in Appendix B should be referred to
as needed to obtain details of the data taken during the
twenty-four hour test period.
SEPARATION PERFORMANCE
One measure of the effectivenes of the B.E.S.T tm sludge
treatment process is its phase separation efficiency, i.e ,
determination of the percentage of oil, water, and solids found
as impurities in each product fraction. Table 8 presents the
28
-------
TABLE 6. TEST PARAMETERS LISTING
(1)
Stream Hecats Pb PCSs Volatiles Se»i volatile* Appendix IX( ' OtG TEA TCLP
R~ Sludge'3'
Predict Solids
Product Oil
Raw Product Uater
Treated Product Uater
Uater Treat»ent
BLowJown Siudge
Air emissions
X X
X X
x x
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
-
-
„
X X
X
X X
x x
-
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
Recycle TEA
(1) Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Sumwry, Re-/. 3, April 18. 1988, Tables I, 6.
10, 15, and 19. See Appendix 8.
(2) Appendix IX of 40 CFR 26A, proposed rule. Federal Register, July 24. 1986.
(3) Indicates streams associated with Figure 12.
(4) Air missions parameters are listed separately in Table 21 of this report.
29
-------
TABLE 7. OVERALL MATERIAL BALANCE
Sludge feed
(Ib/hr)
3400 (Average)
Product streams (Ib/hr)
Oil Solids Water
918
238
2244
Product streams
Oil
Sol ids
Water
Total
% closure
Product stream flowrates (Ib/hr)
Oil Solids Water TEA
908.82
1.93
0.07
910.82
99%
233.24
18. 18
251.42
106%
8.08
1 . 19
2221.56
2230.83
99%
0.46
1.48
3.14
5.08
TABLE 8. B.E.S.T.tm UNIT SEPARATION PERFORMANCE
I 7
Separated phase Wt. % contaminant present in separated phase*'
fraction Oil % Water % Solids % TEA %
Sol ids .81 <0.5 > 98 C.62
Water (Raw) .0033 >99 0.81 0.14
Oil 99 0.88 -- <.05
(1) Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Summary, Rev. 3,
April 18, 1988, Table 24. See Appendix B.
(2) Average data. Refer to Table 17 for ranges of data.
30
-------
unit separation performance data as collected during the General
Refining site test evaluation. Note that these results are
based on the same data as presented in Table 17. Table 8
presents average data, whereas Table 17 presents ranges of
data. Results indicate that separation performance occurred as
anticipated. Oil contamination present in the solids fraction
was less than 1%, and very much less than 1% in the water
fraction; water contamination in both the solids and oil
fractions was less than 1%; and solids contamination in the
water fraction also was less than 1%. These results are within
the predicted values for system separation performance.
Triethyl amine concentrations in the product solids were higher
than anticipated due to interferences during emissions sampling
that adversely affected the dryer performance. The operator's
logbook entries show that pressure spikes in the dryer were a
result of vent gas sampling. Additional control and
optimization of steam stripping of the solvent from the product
streams will lower TEA concentrations in the streams.
Several of the key operating data collected during the test
are included in section 9 of Appendix B and are summarized in
Table 9 for reference.
CONTAMINANT SEPARATION
To determine the system's effectiveness in isolating
contaminants into a specific product fraction requires an
analysis of the feedstock and product streams. Tables 10
through 20 summarize the results of the feed and product stream
analyses. The tables present the following data:
o Table 10. Metals analytical results
o Table 11 Total metals material balance
o Table 12. Volatile organics analytical results
o Table 13. Semivolatile organics analytical results
o Table 14. Lead and PCB analytical results
o Table 15. PCB material balance
o Table 16. Lead material balance
o Table 17. Oil and grease and Triethyl amine analytical
results
o Table 18. TEA material balance
o Table 19. Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans in the feed
sludge
o Table 20. TCLP analytical results
31
-------
TABLE 9. OPERATING DATA
Minimum(l) Maximum(l) Average(l)
Mixed sludge feedrate, 15000 20000 17000
Ib/hr
Plant operating rate, 22(2) 70(2) 40
ton/day
Triethylamine (TEA)-to 2:1(2) 10:1(2) 4:1
- feed ratio
Water stripper steam 275 800 550
rate, Ib/hr
Dryer operating pressure, -9.6(2) 9.6(2) 2
in. water
(1) Rates approximate interpolated from graphs in Section 9 of
the Data Summary, Rev. 3, April 18, 1988. See Appendix B.
(2) Includes data spikes.
Metals Analytical Results
Metals analytical results are presented in Table 10. Only
those metals detected in the sludge feed are presented.
Additional metals analytical results can be found in the
Appendix B tables. The data indicate that metals mostly were
concentrated in the solids product fraction, which the system
separation performance is intended to achieve. Further,
reference to the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) results in Table 20 indicate that the metals in the
solids were in stable forms that resisted leaching, therefore
potentially qualifying the solids for land disposal techniques,
or delisting. High lead (Pb) content in the oil fraction was
anticipated from earlier laboratory simulations and is surpected
to be caused at least in part by lead existing in the organic
form in the feed and thus being extracted into the oil
fraction. High lead concentrations in the oil product could
present a problem in oil reuse or disposal. The reduction of
metals from the raw product water stream to the water treatment
system effluent demonstrates the water treatment system's
capability to further reduce metal levels in the effluent.
32
-------
TABLE 10. METALS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Sludge Feed (mg/kg)
Oil (mg/kg)
Product Fractions
Treated
Solids (rag/kg) Water (mg/1) Water (mg/1)
Al
As
Ba
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
330- 470
<.6
160- 370
5- 7
21- 30
660- 770
<.05
4.2-5.5
4- 8
2200-4300
2- 4
270- 350
390- 1000
<.6- 1.6
280- 910
10- 21
22- 72
1000- 2100
<.05
7.5- 17
<4
4000-10200
<4- <10
420- 940
2300- 3210
< .2 - <5.3
105- 585
18- 26
100- 137
4000- 5710
.007- <.l
23- 29
3.8- 10
15100-31100
<2.5- <8
839- 1260
23-91.4
.04- <.l
0.21-1.60
.028-. 155
.116-. 341
1.68-19.9
<.0001-<.002
.026-. 149
.069-. 193
33.2-230
<.05-<.08
2.35-14.5
33.2-38.6
<.l
.082-. 112
<.01-<.02
<.008-<.016
<.052-.264
<.0002
<.008-.022
.019-. 028
.082-. 429
<.05
.07-. 272
Source: Resources Conservation Co. Q?ta Summary, Rev. 3, April 18,
1988. See Appendix B.
This table is a summary of Tables 2, 7, 11, 16, and 20 of Appendix B.
For statistical information concerning the number of data points, the
mean, and standard deviations, refer to the Appendix B tables.
Only quantitative data are shown. Nondetected compounds are omitted.
Sludge feed nondetected metals are shown in Appendix B, Table 35.
TABLE 11. TOTAL METALS MATERIAL BALANCE
am
Minimum''
Maximum*
Average*
Sludge feed
Oil product
Solids product
Water product
% closure
1.55
0.70
0.71
0.02
92%
2.68
1.74
1.32
0.10
118%
2.09
1.17
0.99
0.08
107%
Based on minimum, average, and maximum concentrations from
Table 10; the Appendix B tables; and average stream rates (Ib/hy
from Table 7.
33
-------
A balance can be made on the product and feed stream metals
content by comparing the minimum, average, and maximum detected
metals concentration values, using the mass balance data
generated in Table 7, and taking averages of the metals
analytical results shown in Table 10. For example, the minimum
sludge feed metals rate is calculated to be 456.25 mg/kg
(average) as derived from the minimum metals concentrations in
Table 10; and the average flow of 3400 Ib/hr is taken from Table
7 to give 1.55 Ib/hr minimum metals flow. Average and maximum
metals flows are calculated in the same fashion. The completed
metals balance is presented in Table 11.
Results also can be obtained for any single metal of
interest, such as lead, by selecting from the desired metal's
results, and developing a material balance on the selected
metal. Table 16 illustrates such an analysis.
Volatile Organics Analytical Results
Table 12 summarizes the volatile organics analytical
results. The data are insufficient to determine volatile
organic separation efficiencies. However, using average
concentrations shown for specific compounds, total quantities of
the compound in the feed can be calculated. For example, for
xylene with an average concentration ir oil of 334.5 mg/kg, in
solids of 35 mg/kg, and in water of 0.514 mg/1, xylene in the
feed is calculated as follows:
(238)(35)(IO~6)+(918)(334.5)(10-6)+(2244)(0.514)(10~6) -
0.316554 Ib/hr
The amount of xylene in the oil is
(918)(334.5)(10"6) = 0.307071 Ib/hr
The efficiency for xylene removal from the feed stream to the
oil product fraction is calculated to be
(0.307071/0.316554)(100) = 97.0%
Applying the same type of calculation to the toluene and
ethylbenzene results yields an extraction efficiency from the
feed stream to the oil product of 94.8% for toluene and 94.4%
for ethyl benzene.
Semivolatile Organics Analytical Results
Table 13 summarizes the semivolatile organic compounds that
were found in the product fractions in measurable
concentrations. The data indicate that the semivolatiles were
concentrated effectively in the oil fraction, were extracted
from the solids fraction, and were present in very low
34
-------
TABLE 12. VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Parameter
Sludge Feed Product Fractions
Treated
Oil (mgAg) Solids
-------
TABLE 13. SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Parameters
N-Mitrcso
diphenylamine
Anthracene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzerm
Dibenzofuran
Benzoic acid
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphtnene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
4-Methylphenol
4-Chloro 3-Methyl
phenol
2,4-Oimethylphenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Pyrene
Sludge Feed
4.8-8.3
-
<3-3.3
4.5-<7
<3-3.7
3.4-<7
22-30
36-50
13-17
<3-<7
<3-49
<3-3.6
(mg/kg)
Oil (mg/kg)
110-150
29-61
<18-62
<20-25
120-180
290-370
1200-1700
60-92
250-360
40-63
<18-85
<18-180
23-43
Product Fractions
Solids (mg/kg) Uater (mg/l)
<17-<20 <.13-<.2
<17-<20 ^.13-<.2
-
10-<97 1.2-4.6
<17-<20 <.13-<.2
<17-<20 <.13-<.2
<17-<20 <.13-<.2
2.3-<20 <.13-<.2
2.4-<20 <.13-<.2
2.1-2.5 <.13-<.2
<17-<20 .38-1.9
3.1-<20 .34-. 73
1.9-<20 <.13-<.2
.05-<.13
5.2-6.6 <.13-<-2
2.8-<20 <.13-<.2
<17-<20 <.13-<.2
Treated
Uater (mg/l)
03-<.2
<.13-<-2
.50-1.2
<.13-<.2
<.13-<-2
<.13-<.2
03-<.2
^.13-<.2
<.13-<.2
1.2-1.9
.45-. 73
<.13-<.2
<. 05-03
<.13-<.2
<.13-<.2
,.13-<.2
Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Sunmary, Rev. 3, April 18, 1988. See Appendix B
This table is a summary of Tables 3, 9, 14, 18, and 22 of Appendix 8. For statistical
information concerning the number of data points, the mean, and standard deviations, refer to
the Appendix B tables.
Only those compounds at or above detectable concentration limits are included. Nondetected
semivolatiles are shown in Appendix B, Tables 36, 38, 41, 43, 46, 49, and 52.
36
-------
concentrations in the water fraction, as predicted by laboratory
tests.
The table shows that the product water fr?ction contained
three semivolatile compounds in notable amounts: two phenolic
compounds and benzoic acid. The probable reason that, these
compounds did not completely extract into the oil fraction is
their similar solubility characteristics at the high pH of the
samples. As these compounds were partially ionized, fie ionic
form of the molecules would tend to separate into the water
fraction during the decantation step of th
-------
TABLE 14. LEAD AND PCB ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Parameter Sludge Feed (mg/kg) Product Fractions Water Treatment
Treated Slowdown
Solids Oil Wate'- Water Sludge
(mg/kg) (mg/kg} (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
Pb 2200-7400 4500-31100 4000-10200 33.2-230 .082-.429 72-150
(mean) 3480 21280 6654 108.9 .162 111
PCBs 1.8-11.4 0.37-<1.7 8.2-11 <.006-<.01 <-01
(mean) 5.94 -- 7.28
Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Sumiary, Rev. 3, April 18, 1988. See Aopendix 8.
This table is a sunmary of Tables 28 and 29A, 8, C, 0, and E of Aopendix 8. For
statistical information concerning the number of data points, the mean, and standard
deviations, refer to the Appendix 8 tables.
Mondetected PCBs and pesticides are shown in Appendix B, Tables 39, 43, 47, 50, and 53.
TABLE 15. PCB MATERIAL BALANCE
Stream
Sludge feed
Oil product
Solids product
Water product
X closure
Minimum* Maximum*
0.00612 0.03876
0.00747 0.01002
0.00009 0.00043
0.00001 0.00002
12tt 27X
Average*
0.02020
0.00845
0.00026
0.00002
43X
Based on minimum, average, and maximun concentrations from
Table 14 and average stream rates (Ib/hr) from Table 7.
38
-------
TABLE 16. LEAD MATERIAL BALANCE
Stream Minimum" Maximum* Average*
Sludge feed 7.48 25.16 11.83
Gil product 3.64 9.29 6.06
Solids product 1.13 7.28 5.35
Water product 0.07 0.51 0.24
% closure 65% 68% 98%
* Based on minimum, average, a..d maximum concentrations from
Table 14 and average stream rates (Ib/hr) from Table 7.
TABL: 17. OIL AND GREASE AND TRIETHYLAMINE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Parameter Sludge Feed Product Fractions
Treated
Solids Oil Water Water
O&G (mg/1) -- .583-10000 14-52 77-113
TEA (ppm) -- <100-9700 <500 1100-1800 380-760
Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Summary, Rev. 3, April
18, 1988. See ',jpendix B.
This table is a summary of Tables 26 and 27 of Appendix 8.
Refer to Table 8 for average data.
39
-------
predictions. This was not unexpected since interferences during
emissions testing affected TEA volatilization and resulted in
high TEA residuals.
Table 18 provides a TEA material balance. The consumption
of TEA during processing at the General Refining site was higher
than desired mainly due to fugitive losses from the centrifuge
seals and seals in the rotating shafts of the solids dryer. RCC
recognized that fugitive losses were higher than desired, and
they took corrective actions to modify the seals on the
centrifuges and dryer. It is expected that the sealing
modifications will result in reduced Fugitive emissions and
significantly reduced TEA consumptions.
The Table 18 data indicate that the makeup rate of TEA per
ton of sludge feed, based on an average sludge feedrate of 3400
Ib/hr, is about 16 pounds (2 1/2 gallons) of TEA per ton of
siudge.
RCC's laboratory simulations predict that, based on a 70
ton/day feedrate, 0.3 pounds of TEA per day will exit the
process in the product streams. TEA fugitive losses of 0.2
Ib/day are estimated based on equipment sealing modifications.
This represents a makeup rate of 2.5 pounds (approximately 1/2
gallon) of TEA per ton of sludge, as compared to the 16 pounds
per ton derived during the test.
Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans
Table 19 shows the analytical results of tests for
chlorinated dioxins and furans in a sample of the raw sludge
feed. The analysis was conducted using EPA SW846 Method 8280,
with results indicating that chlorinated dioxins and furans were
not detected.
Toxicitv Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Analytical
Results
Table 20 presents the TCLP analyses that were conducted on
the product solids to determine the effect of the 8.E.S.T.
process on contaminant Teachability As the data show, good
improvement was achieved in lowering the Teachability of most of
the metals and of all organics. The feed sludge TCLP results
have been omitted from the table since the use of the TCLP
procedure to compare the feedstock Teachability to the product
solids Teachability may not be dependable because of the
difference between the sample matrices. Also, the solids
constituted only seven percent of the raw sludge and the sludge
was found to be hydrophobic. The hydrophobic character of the
sludge may have limited the capability of the TCLP test to leach
metals from the sludge sample. These factors could have
affected the raw sludge sample characterization when evaluated
40
-------
TABLE 18. TEA MATERIAL BALANCE
Stream Average flowrate
TEA makeup 28
Oil product 0.46
Sol ids product 1.48
Water product 3.14
Process air emissions 0.31
% closure 19%
Based on average stream concentrations from Tables 8 and 21,
flowrates from Table 7, and a TEA makeup rate of 2
drums/day.
41
-------
TABLE 19. CHLORINATED OIOXINS AND FURANS IN THE FEED SLUDGE
Parameter
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxir. s
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinS
Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Gctachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
HeptachlorocMbenzofurans
Octachlorodibenzofurans
Resul ts
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
Units
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
Report i ng
Limits
0
1
0
1
7
0
1
1
1
0
.55
.5
.72
.0
.1
.32
.1
.7
.0
.32
Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Summary, Rev 3,
April 18, 1988, Table 5. See Appendix B.
42
-------
TABLE 20. TCLP ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Parameter
Solids Product
(mg/1)
Regulatory level
(mg/1)
Al
As
Ba
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Se
Zn
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
4-Methyl -2-pantanone
Phenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
Trichloroethene
To 1 uene
Xy 1 enes
1.0-2.4
<.C2-<.06
<.03-<.05
< . 05-< . 1
<.03-<.06
1.6-7.1
4.0-12
.43-. 61
<.001-<.002
< . 2 - < . 4
<.008-<.08
21-33
<.025-<.05
NO- .52
<.05- .059
.01- .056
.029- .071
.0086-. 019
<.025-.030
.09-. 56
.045-. 72
5
100
5
5
0.
1
0.
14.
14.
2
07
4
4
Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Summary, Rev. 3, April
18, 1988. See Appendix B.
For statistical information concerning the number of data
points, the mean, and standard deviations, refer to the Appendix
B tables .
Only quantitative data are shown. Nondetected compounds are
omitted. iJondetected compounds are shown in Appendix B, Tables
42 and 43.
Table 4 of Appendix 8 shows the slucge feed TCLP extract
results.
ND Not detected
43
-------
using the TCLP procedure. Nevertheless, the morp important
results on the solids indicate possible acceptability for
disposal. As mentioned earlier in this report, the solids TCLP
results indicate that the metals were stabilized and resisted
leaching.
Air Emissions
Air emissions results are listed in Table 21. Air emissions
were monitored at two sampling locations: the condenser vent
and the oil polisher, an oil/water reduction system vent. Five
parameters were tested: benzene, mercury, toluene,
triethylamine, and xylene.
Recycle Tristhvlamine
At the conclusion of the processing at the General Refining
site, samples were taken of the TEA recycle inventory and
analyzed for volatile organics to determine if the solvent was
contaminated during operation. Table 22 shows the results of
the recovered TEA analysis. Although the level of contaminants
found in the TEA at the General Refining site indicate that
solvent degradation had not occurred, for future tests volatile
contaminants in the recov3red solvent must be evaluated for each
test program to determine the effect of the contaminants on
solvent recovery and process efficiency. In any case, the TEA
solvent can be reused directly if it is mt adversely
contaminated, or treated to remove any undesirable contaminants.
COMPARISONS OF FIELD AND LABORATORY DATA
Performance of the B.E.S.T.cm solvent extraction
technology can be determined empirically by 1aboratory-seale
simulations of the process, followed by analytical testing of
the product streams from tne laboratory equipment. Prior to
full-scale operation, a laboratory-scale test of the intended
process is performed to determine relative process separation
efficiencies and to anticipate the ultimate quality of the
product fractions. Resources Conservation Co. has conducted
many laboratory tests and. developed correlations tu which data
from full-scale operations, such as the General Refining site,
can be compared.
Appendix B contains several tables of comparisons of RCC's
1aboratory-sea 1e test results on various sludges, as compared to
the results achieved in the operation of the prototype
full-scale commercial facility at the General Refining site.
The data contained in the Appendix B tables are summarized in
the following tables of this report:
44
-------
TABLE 21. AIR EMISSIONS RESULTS
Bin 1
Run 3
Average
Condenser Exhaust
Concentration (ppnvd)
Benzene
•tercury
Toluene
Triethytanine
Jfytene
321
<0. 00496
164
22.560
200
321
<0. 00496
144
13,235
182
339
<0. 00496
145
29,928
191
311
<0. 00496
132
29,003
'M
323
<0. 00496
146
23.682
in/
Emission Rate (Lb/hr)
Benzene
Hercury
Toulene
Triethylaaiine
Xylene
0.00127
<0. 000000052
0.000769
• 0.0985
0.00108
0.00127
tO. 000000041
0.000676
0.0492
0.000983
0.000926
0.000000042
0.000469
0.131
0.000710
0.00108
<0. 000000037
0.000540
0.0103
0.000763
0.00114
<0. 0000 00 043
0.000614
0.0954
0.000884
Oil Polisher Outlet
Concentration (ppmvd)
Benzene
Mercury
Toluene
Triethyl
Xylene
39.3
<0.0677
1502
20130
8271
Emission Rate (Ib/hr)
Benzene 0.00473
Hercury <0.00000210
Toluene 0.02U
Triethylanine 0,314
Xyler* 0.135
Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Suntnary, Rev. 3, April 18, 1988, Table 23.
See Appendix B.
45
-------
TABLE 22. RECYCLE TRIETHYLAMINE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIST
VOLATILES ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Parameter Concentration (mg/kg)
Benzene 220
Chloroform 210
Ethyl benzene 310
Methylene chloride 1100
Toluene 1800
Total Xylenes 1600
Source: Resources Conservation Co., B.E.S.T.tm Cleanup
Performance Test Results, Volume 6, Section 26, April 8,
1987.
o Table 23. Comparison of General Refining laboratory
data to full-scale processing data
o Table 24. Laboratory phase separation data for General
Refining sludge vs. other materials
o Table 25. Laboratory contaminant partitioning data for
General Refining sludge vs. other materials
Table 23 presents the data gath.red from laboratory
simulations of the General Refining site waste along with the
results obtained during actual process operation.
Sludges from the General Refining site were taken to RCC's
laboratory and processed through the 1aboratory - seale
equipment. These results are presented in Table 23, and are
compared to results of analyses of the sludge and product
streams taken from the full-scale, on-site operation. The
comparison shows good correlations between the two groups of
data. Specifically, for similar product feed compositions, the
actual full-scale results show product stream contamination
levels to be lower than those predicted by the laboratory
simulations. This indicates that the prototype full-scale
operation achieved better separations than were predicted by
laboratory results.
Table 24 presents comparisons of laboratory data on the
General Refining site sludge to laboratory data obtained on
other sludge types. These data are ranges only. The specific
data are included in Appendix B.
46
-------
TABLE 23. COMPARISON OF GENERAL REFINING LABORATORY DATA TO FULL-SCALE PROCESSING DATA
(1)
Composition
Laboratory Data
Raw
Sludge Phase Fractions
Oil Water Solids
Full-Scale Data
Raw
Sludge Phase Fractions
Oil Water Solids
Oil (X)
Water (X)
Solids (X)
36 84 0.017 5.7 27 99 0.0033 0.81
56 16(2) >99 66 0.88 >99 <0.5
8 (3) 94 7 (4) 0.81 >98
(1) Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Surmacy, Rev. 3, April 18, 1988, Table 25.
See Appendix B.
(2) Sortcm sediment and water (BSiW).
(3) Particulates are included in BSSW.
(4) Mot measured.
(5) Data is reported on a TEA-free basis.
TABLE 24. LABORATORY PHASE SEPARATION U»TA FOR GENERAL REFINING SLUDGE VS. OTHER MATERIALS
(1)
General Refining Data
Raw
COMPOSITION Sludge Phase Fractions
Oil Water Solids
Other Sludge Data(2)
Raw
Sludge Phase Fractions
Oil Water Solids
Oil (X)
Water (X)
Solids (XI
36 0.017 5.7 6.5-22 0.0097-0.37 .2-1.5
56 16(3) 45-87 <2-6
8 (4) 5-49 .29-.69 <0.001-.044
(1) Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Summary, Rev. 3, April 18, 1988, Table 30.
See Appendix B.
(2) Comparisons of slop oil emulsion, OAF float, and API bottoms sludges.
(3) Bottom sediment and water (BS&K).
(4) Particulates are included in BS&W.
47
-------
RCC processed sludge from the General Refining site through
their laboratory equipment and obtained data from other API
sludges also processed through the laboratory equipment. These
results are compared in Table 24. The data demonstrate that
better separation^ were achieved on the API sludges than on the
General Refining sludge, suggesting that full-scale processing
of API sludges would produce better separations and separation
efficiencies than were achieved in the General Refining
operation. RCC attributes the less efficient separations of the
General Refining materials to the presence of compounds such as
detergents and emulsifiers that were found in the General
Refining sludges, but that usually are not found in API
sludges. These agents can have detrimental effects on system
separation efficiencies.
Table 25 compares partitioning data derived from
1aboratory-seale tests on the General Refining sludge for
selected parameters such as oil and grease, lead, chromium, and
EP toxicity lead and chromium to data from 1aboratory-seale
tests on other sludges. Note the high lead concentrations in
the General Refining sludge.
The comparisons in Tables 23, 24, and 25 indicate that
treatability evaluations can be made based on 1aboratory-seale
testing. RCC suggests that 1aboratory-seale testing be done
prior to full-scale operation to determine anticipated
separation efficiencies and product fraction quality. To date
the 1aboratory-seale data has provided a reliable means to
predict full-scale operational results, and as such can be
expected to provide reliable treatability indications.
Continued comparisons of 1aboratory-seale data to full-scale
data will confirm further the reliablity of 1aboratory-seale
testing for use in treatability studies.
From the overall data presented in this section, it can be
concluded that the solvent extraction system did efficiently
separate the General Refining sludge into its three product
fractions and that organic contaminants concentrated mostly into
the oil fraction, metals concentrated mostly into the solids
fraction with partial partitioning into the oil fraction, and
the water fraction can be pretreated for dischargs into an
industrial or publicly owned treatment works.
48
-------
TABLE 25. LABORATORY CONTAMINANT PARTITIONING DATA FOR GENERAL REFINING SLUDGE VS. OTHER MATERIALS
(1)
Conpos i t i on
General Refining Data
Raw Phase Fractions
Sludge Oil Solid
Other Sludge Data '
Rau Phase Fractions
Sludge CU Solids
Oil and Grease (X) 5.7
Lead (mg/kg) 3223
Chromium (rag/kg) 6.2
EP Tox lead (mg/kg) 6.4
EP Tox chromium <0.1
(mg/kg)
6654
15
0.2-3.3
22809 1.4-1018 <1-27
20.8 1.65-1290 0.7-400
0.14-0.74
.02-1.3
220-4000
57-10800
(1) Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Suimary, Rev. 3, April 18, 1988, Tables 31, 32,
33, and 34. See Appendix B.
(2) Comparisons of slop oil emulsions, OAF float, API bottoms, and blind samples sludges.
49
-------
SECTION 6
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
To ensure that adequate quality control measures were
established to direct the sampling and analytical activities,
RCC and USEPA Region X developed the sampling and analysis plan
shown in Appendix A, and instituted a sampling program covering
the last two days of plant operation.
A program to obtain quality data was developed that
included:
o Custody seal requirements
o Chain-of-Custody record sheets
o Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) communication record
sheets
o , Chain-of-Custody tabulation forms
o Sample control requirements, including sample
identification, chain-of-custody procedures, sample
custody, field custody procedures, transfer of custody
and shipments, and laboratory custody procedures
o
o Document control requirements, including serialized
documents, project logbooks, field data records, sample
identification documents, chain-of-custody records,
analyst logbooks, instrument and sample entry logbooks,
photographs, corrections to documentation, constancy of
documentation, document numbering system and inventory
procedures, Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERCS)
files, Program Manager office files, reports, and
litigation documents
The sampling plan developed by Region X and RCC (Appendix A)
includes a project description and project objectives. The plar
describes sample locations, explains anticipated problems and
data interferences, develops a sample frequency matrix, and
outlines the analytical methodologies anticipated to be used for
each sample.
50
-------
There was insufficient time to develop a separate detailed
QA/QC plan. However, an EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
analytical laboratory was chosen, which therefore had an
EPA-approved CLP QA/QC program in place to define the required
data quality objectives; establish the analytical and corrective
action procedures; define and perform internal QC checks; and
develop data reouction, validation, and reporting procedures.
RCC's data quality objectives are stated in their sampling
and analysis plan. The objectives during the test were as
follows:
o Conduct a broad evaluation of the performance of the
process concept, including environmental emissions.
o Identify and record important process parameters.
o Determine the composition of the sludge feed and
product oil, water, and solids streams by analysis of
randomly taken samples.
o Evaluate the system performance from the data taken
during the test.
The plan describes the sampling locations, presents a matrix
showing the number of samples to be taken at each location,
lists the times that each sample is to be taken, shows the
analytical methods to be used for each test, lists the container
types for sampling handling, and establishes the requirements
for field duplicates and for field blanks. Sample containers
were obtained from the EPA sample bottle depository in Miramar,
California. Table 26 shows the quantity of samples and field
duplicates taken during testing.
RCC performed the sampling activities, with the exception of
emissions testing which was done by Entropy Environmentalists,
Inc. The analytical work was performed by Enseco, Inc. Rocky
Mountain Analytical Laboratory in accordance with EPA protocols
established in the EPA document SW846. Sample collection and
identification, sample volumes, handling, in-house preservation,
chain-of-custody, and transportation techniques and methods were
identified and recorded by RCC. The sampling and analysis work
met the objectives as outlined in the plan, including collection
of the requisite number of duplicate field samples and field
blanks.
Enseco's laboratories operate under a rigorous QA/QC program
designed to ensure the generation of scientifically valid,
legally defensible data by monitoring every aspect of
51
-------
TABLE 26. SAMPLE QUANTITIES AND FIELD DUPLICATES
Stream
Sludge feed
Product solids
Product oil
Product water
Treated product water
Metals
16 (2)
8 (3)
9 (1)
8 (1)
8 (1)
PCBs TCLP
16 (1) 2 (0)
3 (0) 8 (2)
4 (1)
3 (1)
2 (1)
Appendix IX VOA
1 (0)
2 (1)
4 (1)
1 (0) 2 (1)
1 (1) 2 (0)
SNA
4 (1)
3 (1)
4 (1)
1 (0)
2 <1)
TEA
2 (1)
4 (1)
2 (0)
2 (1)
OSG
_.
8 (2)
--
2 (1)
2 (1)
Source: Resources Conservation Co. Data Suimary, Rev. 3, April 18, 1988. See Appendix B.
This table is a summary of Tables 1, 6, 10, 15, and 19 of Appendix B.
Ouantity in parenthesis is the number of duplicate field samples taken.
-------
laboratory operations. Routine QA/QC procedures include the use
of approved methodologies, independent verification of
analytical standards, use of duplicate laboratory control
samples to assess the precision and accuracy of the methodology
on a routine basis, and a rigorous system of data review. Data
sheets contain a listing of the parameters measured in each
test, the analytical results, the Enseco reporting limits, and
regulatory limits where established.
Enseco's quality control program is based upon monitoring
the precision and accuracy of an analytical method by analyzing
a set of duplicate Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) at frequent
well-defined intervals (Tables 27 and 28). An LCS is a
wel1-characterized matrix that is spiked with target compounds
at 5 to 100 times the reporting limit, depending upon the
methodology being monitored. The purpose of the LCS is not to
duplicate the sample matrix, but rather to provide an
interference-free, homogeneous matrix from which to gather data
to establish control limits. These limits are used to determine
whether data generated by the laboratory on any given day meets
quality control objectives.
Control limits for accuracy (percent recovery) are based on
the historical average percent recovery, +.3 standard deviation
units. Control limits for precision (relative percent
difference) range from 0 (identical duplicate LCS results) to
the historical average relative percent difference, + 3 standard
deviation units. These control limits are fairly narrow based
on the consistency of the matrix being monitored and are updated
on a quarterly basis. For multi- analyte determinations, eighty
percent of the accuracy and precision measurements must be
within control limits for the QC lot to be considered
acceptable.
For organic analyses an additional control measure is taken
in the form of a Surrogate Control Sample (SCS). The SCS is a
control sample spiked with surrogate standards, which is
analyzed with every analytical lot (Table 29). The recovery of
the SCS is charted in exactly the same manner as described for
the LCS, and provides a daily check on the performance of the
method .
Accuracy for LCS and SCS is measured by Percent Recovery.
% Recovery = Measured Concentration x 100
Actual Concentration
53
-------
TABLE 27. LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE REPORT: GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY/MASS SPECTROMETRY
Analyte
Concentration
Spiking Measured
LCS1 LCS2
Accuracy (%)
LCS1 LCS2 Limits
Precision (RPD)
ir.S Limits
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloro-3-cresol
4-Nitrophenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
2,4-Oinitrotol uene
Pyrene
N-nitrosodi -n-propyl amine
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
100
100
100
100
100
50
50
50
50
50
50
69.
60.
75.
71.
69.
37.
39.
52.
53.
38.
35.
1
6
7
4
1
4
8
1
4
3
7
69.
60.
70.
71.
75.
32.
37.
53.
49.
36.
31.
1
3
1
1
8
8
6
7
4
6
5
69
61
76
71
69
75
80
104
107
77
71
69
60
70
70
76
66
75
107
99
73
63
9-103
12-89
27-123
23-97
10-80
39-98
46-118
24-96
26-127
41-116
36-97
0
0
7
0,
9
13
5.
3.
7.
4.
12
.0
.5
.7
.4
.2
.1
.7
.0
.8
.5
.5
50
42
40
42
50
28
31
38
31
38
28
* Test: BNA on reagent water (ug/1)
TABLE 28. LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE REPORT: GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
^ Concentration
Analyte Spiking Measured
LCS1 LCS2
Accuracy (%) Precision (RPD)
LCS1 LCS2 Limits LCS Limits
Arochlor 1254 5.0 4.2 3.9 84 78 20-160 7.4 20
Test: BNA on Reagent Water (ug/1)
54
-------
TABLE 29. SURROGATE CONTROL SAMPLE REPORT: GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY/
MASS SPECTROMETRY
Anal
Concentration
Spiking Measured
Accuracy (%}
SCS Limits
Phenol -D5
2-fl uorophenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Ni trobenzene-D5
2-F1 uorobi phen ^
Terphenyl -014
200
200
200
100
100
100
122
118
163
70.4
70.9 '
85.5
61
59
82
70
71
86
10-94
21 100
10-123
35-114
,43-116
33-141
* Test: BNA on reagent water (ug/1)
Precision for LCS is measured by Relative Percent Difference
(RPD).
RPD « Measured Concentration LCS1 - Measured Concentration LSC2
(Measured Concentration LCS1 + Measured Concentration LCS2)/2
All samples analyzed concurrencly by the same test are
assigned the same QC lot number. Projects that contain numerous
samples analyzed over several days may have multiple QC lot
numbers associated with each test. The QC information
illustrated in Tables 27, 28, and 29 shows the LCS and SCS
recoveries from the QC lots associated with the samples, and
control limits for these lots.
The samples taken during the twenty-four hour test period
were received at RMAL in March 1987 under EPA Case #6955, and
were logged in under two separate projects according to matrix
type. The soil samples were assigned numbers JB662, JB669,
JB677, JB680, and JB681. The water samples were assigned
numbers JB661, JB663, JB664, JB665, JB666, JB667, JB668, JB670,
JB671, JB672, JB673. JB674, JB675, JB679, JB682, JB685, JB686,
JB687, and JB688.
The soil samples were analyzed as medium level soils.
Samples JB662 and JB667 were also analyzed at low levels for the
pesticide analysis, to achieve low detection limits. Since
these samples were contaminated with organic compounds, the
detection limits were lowered only by 30% in the low level
analysis. Samples JB662 and JB667 were analyzed for volatile
organics. Both samples foamed in the purge and trap unit during
the analysis, and both contained Hazardous Substances List (HSL)
aromatic hydrocarbons and acetone. Sample JB662 contained two
55
-------
chlorinated hydrocarbons below reporting detection limits.
The samples contained three classes of tentatively identified
(TIC) volatile compounds: aromatic hydrocarbons; amines; and
saturated hydrocarbons. No HSL pesticides were found in
either sample. Samples JB669, JB630, and JB681 were analyzed
for semivolati1e organic compounds only. The samples all
contained HSL polyatomatic hydrocarbons below reportabla
detection limits. Samples JB669 and JB680 were contaminated
with HSL phenolic compounds and sample JB669 contained a
carboxylic acid. All three samples were heavily contaminated
with saturated hydrocarbons in the semivolatile fraction.
Other TICs found in the sample set were aromatic hydrocarbons
and non-HSL polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
The water samples were analyzed for a single fraction.
The samples which were analyzed for volatile organics mostly
contained three common compounds: acetone ranging from 2300
to 7000 ug/1; 2-butanone ranging from 520 to 1500 ug/1; and
triethyl amine (N,N-Diethylethaneamine) ranging from 300 to
2200 ug/1. A saturated hydrocarbon was identified above
reportable detection limits in three of the five samples.
The samples analyzed for semivolati1es contained three HSL
compounds: Benzoic acid ranging from 500 to 4600 ug/1;
4-methylphenol ranging from 340 to 730 ug/1; and phenol
ranging from 380 to 1900 ug/1. An examination of the
chromatogram for all of the samples between 5 and 15 minutes
showed several very large carboxylic acid interference peaks.
All the target compounds within this area experienced
retention time shifts, however, only benzoic acid in sample
JB665 had a relative retention time shift of greater than
0.06. Benzoic acid was also found in all other samples
analyzed in this sample set. Three classes of tentatively
identified compounds were found in the semivolatile
fractions: carboxylic acids; amines; and saturated
hydrocarbons. The carboxylic acids were the most concentrated
organic contaminant found throughout the sample set, ranging
as high as 79000 ug/1 in sample JB665. No HSL pesticides were
found .
All surrogate compound recoveries for the volatile
fractions of both sample sets were within quality control
limits. In the pesticide fraction, several samples had the
surrogate diluted out, and thrie others had interfering peaks
in the chromatograms, which prevented the calculation of the
dibutyl chlorendate (DBC) recovery In the semivolatile
fraction, several samples had the surrogate tribromophenol
above its statistical QC limits. Sixteen spike compound
recoveries in the volatile and semivolatile fractions were
outside QC limits in the matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike
duplicate (MSD) samples. Many of the recoveries and
56
-------
corresponding relative percent differences were outside QC
limits, due to the complexity of the contamination within each
sample.
Supporting data for the results given above are available
in the six volumes developed by Enseco, Inc. Rocky Mountain
Analytical Laboratory, entitled "B.E.S.T. Clean Up,
Performance Test Results". Supporting testing and system
operating data exist also in the logbook records, computer
control system archival files of operations during the test
period, and cha.n of custody records of the samples taken and
retained by Resources Conservation Co.
57
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Burrell, J S. Hitchcock, M. Norman, and M.J. Lampkin. The
B.E.S.T.tm Sludge Treatment Process: An Innovative
Alternative Used at a Superfund Site. In: Treatment and
Di sposal, 1986.
Austin, D.A. The B.E.S.T.tm Process Deoi1ing/Dewatering of
Sludge and Soils. Hazmacon '88; Hazmat '87, Atlantic City,
1987.
Tose, M.K. Removal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls 'PCBs) from
Sludges and Sediments with B.E.S.T.tm Extraction
Technology. 1987 Annual Meeting AICHE.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
A New SIudae-Treatment Process. Chemical Engineering, July
21, 1986 p. 17
Company Hopes to Clean Up On PCBs. Journal - American,
December 29, 1987
EPA Rates Local PCB Method No. 1. Journal of Commerce,
December 30, 1987
PCB Contamination Process Rates No. 1. Hazardous Waste
Management, January February 1988
Spend Toxic-Waste Dollars on Cleanup, Not Studies. Puget
Sound Business Journal, February 29, 1988
Best Could Clean Up. Dailv Journal of Commerce, March 9,
1988
Process Removes PCBs From Sludge US Water News, May 1988
PATENTS
3,925,201 dated December 9, 1975; Method of Dewatering
Material Containing Solid Matter and Bound and Unbound
Water, R. K. Ames
4,002,562 dated January 11, 1977; Oil Emulsion Processing,
R. K. Ames
3,889,419 dated August 12, 1975; Method for Chemical
Fract i onat i on , Defatting and Dewa'cering of Solids and
Suspensions, C. F. Emanual
4,056,466 dated November 1, 1977; Method of Dewatering
Material Containing Solid Matter and Bound and Unbound
Water, H. H. Peters
58
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
Preceding page blank
-------
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
for
Performance Evaluation Testing
B.E.S.T. Sludge Processing System
General Refining Co. Site
Garden City, Ge<-.-gia
1.0 BACKGROUND
Resources Conservation Co. has developed and- tested a prototype
solvent extraction based processing system for use in treating a
variety of oily waste sludges. Such sludges may be used oil re-
refining wastes, such as have been encountered at the General
Refining Co. site, or petroleum refining sludges, such as RCRA
listed wastes K-048 to K-052. The system's overall process
approach is to physically separate- the incoming sludge into its
components of oil, water, and solids. This separation of the
phases makes further treatment or disposal easier. The hazardous
characteristics of sludges can potentially be isolated in a
specific phase fraction, allowing each fraction to be treated
more efficiently.
2.0 OBJECTIVE
A broad evaluation of the performance of the B.E.S.T. process
concept, including environmental emissions, is desired. This
e"2l'j2tion should be representative of the performance of the
system while processing the material from the General Refining
Sup3rfund site. All important process parameters shall be
identified and recorded, Composition of sludge feed into the
unit, and composition of processed oil, water and solids will be
determined by analysis of randomly taken samples. The data
should permit a comprehensive evaluation of the system
performance during the test period.
Due to the short test preparation period and the limited
manpower, the test will focus on the chemical composition of
various streams, and not on the mechanical or electrical
parameters that may determine the through-put and economic
parameters. No attempt will be made to determine the chemical
composition of the various sample streams af a function of
through-put.
3.0 TEST PERIOD
The test period shall be from 14:00 hours on Thursday, 26
February, 1987 to 14:00 hours on Friday 27 February, 1937-
A-l
-------
Description
The General Refining Site is the location of a former oil
recycling operation. Used motor oil was reprocessed at the
facility for resale. Waste sludges were dumped in four sludge
ponds at the site. There are also earlier lagoons which are
presently backfill--.-) with filter cake from a filter press
apparatus used in -h? process.
RCC, under subcontract to Haztech, Inc., is processing the
sludges under a SUPERFUND Removal Action. The sludges exhibit a
number of unusual ohysical properties which will be defined by
physical testing vjf the raw sludge materials.v
The sludge is removed from ponds by use of pneumatic sludge
pumps. The sludge is then screened in a SWECO Screen "trash
rack" to remove debris larger than 1/4". Screened sludge is
stored in a large surge tank, capacity approximately 50,000
gallons. The tank was part of the existing site inventory. It
has been modified to allow cleaning of larger particle size
debris which tends to settle to the bottom of the tank during
processing.
Sludge is removed from the surge tank and sent to the B.E.S.T.
sludge processing unit skids via a moyno type sludge pump. The
raw sludge sampling point ( discussed later ) is at the outlet
of the moyno pump.
The central apparatus of the B.E.S.T. sludge processing system
consists of 6 skids of process equipment. The apparatus
primarily consists of a method to mix the TEA with the sludge at
low temperature, a centrifuge for particulates removal, an
3pp2ratus to raise the temperature of the mixture thereby
achieving phase separation via decantation, and means to recover
solvent from the water and oil streams. Products are dry solids,
oil, and water. Presently, the water is taken to an additional
water treatment system, and the oil to an oil polishing system.
Primary additives to the central apparatus are the solvent,
Triethylamine, antifoam, and diesel fuel. Triethylaraine is the
solvent used in the extraction process. Antifoam is used to
control foaming in the water TEA stripping column. Diesel is
used to decrease viscosity of the oil fraction. Viscosity
reduction allows the oil to flow freely down the stripping column
trays. Attachment (X) shows why this is necessary on this
particular site. As can be seen, the viscosity of the oil is a
function of water content. At a water content of about 65 %, the
viscosity is so high that it prevents the oil from flowing down
the trays, greatly decreasing the TEA stripping efficiency of the
apparatus. Lowering the viscosity enables the stripping column
to remove TEA from the oil fraction more efficiently.
A-2
-------
4.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Sample locations are identified below. Specific valve locations
shall be noted and the locations recorded by photo. Photo of the
TEA recycle point Pump T-324 (solvent recycle pump) done on 2/27.
In order to take samples as representative as possible, it was
decided in conjunction with EPA Region 10 representatives that
sample stations should be sampled at random intervals over a 24
hr. operation period. The exact number of tests to be analyzed
at each sample station is outlined in section 8.0. Because of
limitations in physically taking the samples, the random times
generated for sample gathering were rounded to the nearest 15
min. interval. Section (****) shows a schematic representation
of the 24 hr. sanrjling matrix used for sampling on-site.
Sample locations for this sampling are as follows;
(refer to liquid separation flow schematic of the unit)
Feed Sludge
It was very difficult to decide where to get a representative
feed sample. The only location where a feed sample could be
obtained downstream of the sludge feed pump (P-405) was at a "T"
in the line about 4 feet from the pump. Because of the variance
in consistency in the feed sludge and the variability in the
amount of entrained water contained in the sludge, obtaining
representative samples of the feed was thought to be the most
questionable of all the sample stations. The reason for this is
that the sample has to negotiate a right angle turn to reach the
sample port. Because of the viscosity and density differences
between the sludge and the entrained water, confidence in
obtaining a completely representative sample from this location
could not be achieved. As a consequence, additional samples were
taken at this location to help determine sample variability.
Product Solids
It was desired to take all samples where actual process streams
were flowing. Unfortunately, this was not possible for this
station due to the equipment used to convey the solids from the
dryer to the product solids bin. This conveyor does not operate
continuously, but only on demand from a sensor located within the
dryer (see C-1038 on flow diagram). Becaue of the intermittent
nature of the solids discharge from the unit, it was agreed that
obtaining the sample from the top of the product solids bin where
the solids drop onto the collected solids pile would be the best
alternative. This would ensure that the solids collected would
be representative of the most current solids produced by the
A-3
-------
Product Oil
The oil product was sampled from the outlet of the oil polisher.
The oil polisher is a device for the purpose of lowering the
residual water content of the oil prior to discharge from the
unit to a holding tank. The sample was collected from the oil
polisher product line downstream of the Moyno pump.
Raw Product Water
The raw product water (prior to water i -eatment) was taken at a
point where it enters the water treatment plant by the trim
caustic pH probe. This is at a point before any water treatment
plant holding tanks and represents water just as it is produced
from the main B.E.S.T. unit.
Treated Product Water
It was desired to take this sample just after the two stage water
treatment system. This sample was taken at the point where the
treated water overflows from the turbidimeter sampling point,
just prior to the pump which pumps the treated water to a holding
tank.
Process Air Emissions
Ther
-------
H20 Oil Sludge Solids
Metals 1 litre poly 2- 40 ml VOA 1- 32 oz. gl. 1-32.oz gl.
VGA's 2 40 ml VGA's 2- 40 ml VOA 2- 40 ml VOA 2- 40 ml VOA
PCB's 1- 32 oz. gl. 1- 40 ml VOA 1- 32 oz. gl. 1- 32 oz. gl.
BNA's 1 - 32 oz. gl 2- 40 ml VOA 1- 32 oz. gl. 1- 32 oz. gl.
TEA 1 - 40 ml VOA 1- 40 ml VOA 1- 32 oz. gl.
6.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS
Evaluation of test samples shall be by the following test methods:
1. Test T-1
Total Metals: EPA-SW-846-3000 Series
Include the following metals:
Al
As
Ba
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
2. Test T-2
VGA's
(Volatile Organic
Analysis) EPA Method 624 Purge 4 Trap GC/MS
3. Test T-3
PCB's: EPA Method 608 GC/ECD
A-5
-------
4. Test T-4
BNA's
(Base-Neutral-Acid Extractables) EPA Method 625 GC/MS
5. Test T-5
Triethylamine Packed Column GC/FID
6. Test T-6
Oil 4 Grease EPA Method 413.1 Partition Gravimetric
(for water fraction)
7. Test T-7
TCLP
(Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) November 7, 1986
Federal Register Appendix
Do metal spectrum as shown above for the Total Metals.
8. Test T-8
Oil 4 Grease Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 15th Edition, 1980 Method 503 D. (for
solids fraction)
9. Test T-9
Physical Data TEL
As appropriate
nH
temp
viscosity
particle size
process physical separation performance monitoring
10. Test T-10
ETX in gas stream
(Benzene, Toluene Xylene) Carbon Bed - Purge/Trap GC/MS
11. Test T-11
Mercury in gas stream; EPA Method as used by Entropy
A-6
-------
7.0 SAMPLE STATION IDENTIFICATION
Key sample stations have been identified as follows:
A. Sludge Feed to unit
B. Water out of B.E.S.T. Skid
C. Solids out of B.E.S.T. Skid
D. Oil out of B.E.S.T. Skids (after polisher)
E. Treated Product Water
F. Water Treatment Plant Sludge
G. Air Emissions
8.0 SAMPLE GATHERING PROCEDURE/PLAN
Sample? were gathered from the locations identified in
above as follows:
Station A B C D E F G
Metals 16r 8r 8r 8r con. 8r end
VOA NO 2r 2r 2r con 2r 2r
PCB's 8r 2r 2r 2r NO 2r 2r
5IiA:3 Mr 2r 2r 2r NO 2r 2r
TEA NO 2r 2r 2r NO 2r 2r
Sample time are at the frequency indicated at random times.
The random numbers for sample frequency were generated on a
portable calculator, Model HP-11C, S/N 2-442A13899. The random
number is generated as a part of a uniformly distributed pseudo-
random number sequence based on "seed" used to initiate the
sequence. The calculator manufacturer's instruction book
indicates that the program passes the spectral test (D. Knuth,
Seminumerical Algorithms, Vol.2, 1969.)
A-7
-------
The Random Number generation procedure resulted in sample times
as follows:
For Location A: Raw Sludge Feed
2:16
3:33
3:39
3:49
4:31
4:34
6:16
10:36
15:45
17:27
19:11
19:50
20:40
For Location B:
1:17
3:56
7:27
8:59
9:31
9:58
19:22
20:50
For Location C:
1:11
1:13
10:00
13:24
13:^3
20:20
21:26
22:04
For Location D:
4:43
10:58
13:14
14:4?
16:30
19:21
21:30
23:29
A-8
-------
For Location E:
1:51
7:33
13:51
18:36
Field Duplicates:
Field Duplicates equal to 10 % of field samples
will be gathered.
Field Blanks:
Distilled water Field Blanks in 32 oz. glass
containers were placed in ice chests included with
the sample shipment to the laboratory.
A-9
-------
B.E.S.T. SLUDGE TREATMENT PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
GENERAL REFINING SITE
20 FEBRUARY - 27 FEBRUARY, 1987
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
AIR
EMISSIONS "G"
SLUDGE 'A'
B.E.S.T. SLUDGE
TREATMENT PROCESS
OIL "C"
SOUDS 'B"
B.E.S.T. PROCESS
PRODUCT WATER "D"
WATER TREATMENT
SLOWDOWN SLUDGE "F"
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT
WATER '£'
(FINAL EFFLUENT)
-------
CTA RUN NO 2 OIL WITH DISTILLED WATER
CTA RUN NO 2 OIL WITH "FREE" WAT ER
TEMP: 170* F
6,000
O
5,000
4.000
2
LU
CJ
>-
o
u
to
3.00C
2.000
l.OOO
10
20
30
40 50
(\ WATER IN OIL)
60
80
90
95
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA SUMMARY
Preceding page blank
-------
DATA SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 26-27. 1987
B.E.S.T.™ SLUDGE TREATMENT PROCESS
AT THE
GENERAL REFINING CO. SITE
GARDEN CITY, GEORGIA
UNDER SUBCONTRCT
TO THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
THROUGH
ERCS CONTRACT 68-01-6859
SUPERFUND REMOVAL ACTION
RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO.
3101 N.E. NORTHUP WAY
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
(206) 828-2400
APRIL 18, 1988
REVISION: 3
B-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION 1 Process Overview 1
SECTION 2 Raw Sludge Feed 3
SECTION 3 Raw Product Water 9
SECTION -4 Product Solids 1*
SECTION 5 Product Oil 20
SECTION 6 Treated Product Water 25
SECTION 7 Air 30
SECTION R Process Performance 32
SECTION 9 Key Operating Data 44
SECTION 10 Comparison with RCRA Listed Wastes 50
from the Petroleum Refinery Industry
SECTION 11 Analytes Not Detected in Raw Sludge 56
SECTION 12 Analytes Not Detected in Product Solids 64
SECTION 13 Analytes Not Detected in Raw Product Water 72
SECTION 14 Analytes Not Detected in Treated Product Water . 77
SECTION 15 Analytes Not Detected in Product Oil 82
SECTION 16 Sample Key 87
8-2
-------
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1 Raw Sludge Feed 4
Sample Location Identification "A"
Table 2 Metals Concentration in Raw Sludge 5
General Refining Site
Table 3 Raw Sludge Feed (mg/kg) 6
SeraiVolatiles
Tabla 4 TCLP Extract in Raw Sludge 7
General Refining Site
Table 5 Raw Sludge Feed 8
Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans EPA Method 8280
Table 6 Raw Water Product 10
Sample Location Identification "B"
Table 1 Raw Product Water (mg/L) 11
Metals
Table 8 Raw Water (mg/L) 12
Volatiles
Table 9 Raw Product Water (mg/L) 13
SemiVolatiles
Table 10 Product Solids 15
Sample Location Identification "C"
Table 11 Total Metals in Product Solids 16
General Refining Site
Table 12 TCLP Extract of Product Solids 17
General Refining Site
Table 13 Volatile Organic Constituents in Product Solids . 18
General Refining Site
Table 14 Total Semi-Volatile Organic Constituents in
Product Solids 19
General Refining Site
Table 15 Product Oil 21
Sample Location Identification "D"
Table 16 Metals Concentration in Product Oil 22
General Refining Site
Table 17 Volatiles Concentration in Product Oil 23
General Refining Site
Table 18 Semi Volatiles Concentration ir Product Oil 24
General Refining Site
Table 19 Treated Water Product 26
Sample Location Identification "E"
Table 20 Treated Product Water (mg/L) 27
Metals
Table 21 Treated Product Water (ug/L) 28
Volatiles
Table 22 Treated Product Water (mg/L) 29
SemiVolatiles
Table 23 Summary of Emissions 31
B-3
-------
Table 24 B.E.S.T.™ 'Init Separation Performance 33
Full Scale Processing Performance
General Refining Site Materials
Table 25 Comparison of Laboratory B.E.S.T.™ Simulation .. 34
to Full Scale Processing Performance on
General Refining Site Materials
Table 26 0 & G (mg/L) 35
Table 27 Product Fractions TEA (ppm) 36
Table 28 B.E.S.T.™ Performance Summary 37
General Refining Site
Lead In Input/Output Streams
Taole 29 B.E.S.T.™ Performance Summary 38
General Refining Site
PCBs In Input/Output Streams
Table 29A Raw Sludge 39
Table 29B Product Solids 40
Table 29C Product Oil 41
Table 29D Raw Product Water 42
Table 29E Water Treatment Slowdown 43
Table 30 Laboratory Data on Slop Oil Emulsion, DAF Float,
and API Bottoms 51
Compared with General Refining Site Sludge
Table 31 Oil & Grease in Product Solids 52
Table 32 Lead Concentration in Product Oil 53
Comparison Between Listed Sludges and
General Refining Sludge
Table 33 Chromium Concentration in Product Oil 54
Comparison Between Listed Sludges and
General Refining Sludge
Table 34 EP Toxicitv of Waste Extract 55
B.E.S.T.™ Treated Solids Comparison between
Listed Sludges and General Refining Site
Table 35 Raw Sludge Metals 57
Table 36 Raw Sludge SemiVolatile Organics 58
Table 37 Raw Sludge HSL Volatile Organics TCLP 60
Aqueous Leachate EPA Method 624
Table 38 Raw Sludge HSL SemiVolatile Organics TCLP 61
Aqueous Leachate
Table 39 Raw Sludge PCBs TCLP Aqueous Lsachate 63
EPA Matnod 608
Table 40 Product Solids Volatile Compounds 65
EPA Method 608
TabAe 41 Product Solids SemiVolatile Compounds 66
EPA Method 608
Table 42 Product Solids HSL Volatile Organics TCLP 68
Aqueous Leachate EPA Method 624
Table A3 Product Solids HSL SemiVolatile Organics 69
TCLP Aqueous Leachate
Table 44 Product Solids Pesticides/PCB's 71
EPA Method 608
Table 45 Raw Product Water Volatile Compounds 73
EPA Method 608'
Table 46 Raw Product Water SemiVolatile Compounds ........ 74
5-4
-------
EPA Method 608
Table 47 Raw Product Water PCBs Pesticides EPA 76
Method 608
Table 48 Treated Product Water Volatile Compounds 78
EPA Method 608
Table 49 Treated Product Water SemiVolatile Compounds .... 79
EPA Method 608
Table 50 Treated Product Water Pesticides/PCB's 81
EPA Method 608
Table 51 Product Oil HSL Volatile Organics TCLF 83
Aqueous Leachate EPA Method 624
Table 52 Product Oil HSL SemiVolatile Organics TCLP 84
Aqueous Leachate
Table 53 Product Oil PCBs TCLP Aqueous Leachate 86
EPA Method 608
Table 54 Sample Key for B.E.S.T.™ Sludge 88
Processing BOAT Test
5-5
-------
LIST OP FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1 B.E.S.T.™ Sludge Treatment Performance
Summary : 2
General Refining Site
26 February - 27 February 1987
Figure 2 Fl-201 Mixed Sludge Feed #lB/Hr 45
Figure 3 Plant Operating Rate - Ton/Day 46
Figure 4 TEA/Feed Ratio 47
Figure 5 F1-F514 Steam to Water Stripper - IB/Hr 48
Figure 6 Pl-305 Dryer Operating Pressure - f^O 49
5-6
-------
SECTION 1
PROCESS OVERVIEW
-1-
-------
B.E.S.T. SLUDGE TREATMENT PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
GENERAL RERNING SITE
26 FEBRUARY - 27 FEBRUARY, 1987
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
AIR
EMISSIONS "G"
SLUDGE "A"
WATER TREATMENT
SLOWDOWN SLUDGE V
B.E.S.T. SLUDGE
TREATMENT PROCESS
OIL "D"
SOUDS '
B.E.S.T. PROCESS
PRODUCT WATER "B"
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT
WATER '
(RNAL EFFLUENT)
FIGURE 1
-------
SECTION 2
RAW SLUDGE FEED
-3-
-------
TABU I
••v sludg* r««d
3a>pl* Laotian Idantiflc«tio« "A"
Ti
16
17
17
IS
1 J
It
20
CO
05
1
I 01
09
09
10 :
11 :
11:
11 :
..
: IS
: 10
:45
:00
: JO
: 45
: 15
: 10
: 45
: JO
: 15(9 : SSI
:45
45(11:00
00 1 dup )
45
00
Matals
(X 1
1 X 1 1 X Idup
1 X>
IX)
IX)
(XI
I X 1 X dup
(XI
(X) '
(XI
(XI
PCR's TCLP Appendix IX VOA
(XI
1 X I A
A
A
A
(XI
( X ) X dup
A
A A"
(X)
A
A A
(XI
A
IX)
IX)
BNA Discrepancies
1) Additional PC* analysis added at
th« raquast of J. Barich
21 TCLP 4 Appendii IX added at the
(X) X dup request of D. Pepson of EPA Land
Disposal Aastractions Frograft
J) Saapla
-------
TABLE •
METALS cone imv ATI an in RAW SLUDGE
GENERAL REFINING SITE
B-HAL/KPA S»pl< Ho.
N.t.la
Al
A3
8«
Ct
C'j
r«
Pb
Mn
Hg
Nl
S«
2 n
1
Ln
t
Al
A3
Ba
Cr
Cu
K.
Pb
«n
Hg
Ni
5.
Zn
005
460 .
(06
210 .
6 . 2
23 .
6«0 .
2 . TOO .
S . 5
( . 05
< 4 .
<4 .
310 .
043
430 .
< . 6
360 .
7 .
27 .
770 .
4.100.
5 . 4
< . 05
( 4 .
( 4 .
350 .
006
340 .
(0.6
190 .
5 .
23 .
-------
TABLE ]
RAW SLUDOI TEED
(•q/kq 1
RMAL/BPA S«»pl. 1
007 012 0 ?4
Bis-t^-ethylhajfyilphthaljta ' 3 . <4
-------
T All LI 4
TCLf IIT!ACT !• IAW ILUDOI
OKKIIAL tirillBO 1ITI
(•I/LI
•HAL/IPA •••pi* •».
Conit itucnt
Al
At
»
Ct
Cu
r«
Pb
Mn
HI
Nl
3*
Zn
PCS' l
Ac • t on*
B*n i «n*
2 -bu t anon*
tthy lb«ni«n»
4-««thyl-2-ptntanon*
To 1 u«n«
1 , 1 , 1-Tr ichlor»th«n«
Trichloroeth«n«
Xy I«n4«
M-Xy 1 «n«i
O*f Xyl«n««
BulJ-«thylh««yllphth«l«t«
NAptha l«n«
J-H
-------
1
oo
i
T«Ccporl
0.
|
0.
1 .
7.
0.
1 .
1 .
1 .
0.
:ing Limit
S5
i
,11
0
1
)]
1
1
0
1]
5aapl«d: OJ/21/11
Antlyi.d: 05/05/J1
II.0. - Not d»t.ct«d
BCC - SAMPLE NO. 1074
LAB 10 NO. 61109-0)0
-------
SECTION 3
RAU PRODUCT WATER
-9-
-------
TABLK «
la* Mater Product
Saapla Locatloa Idaot1(leation *B*
Ti«a
li:
11 :
11 :
1) :
]) :
li
00
10
00
JO
Hatall PCB'l TCLP Appandll IX VOA BHA TtA 010
1X1 ( X 1
IX 1 IX) IX dupl IX)
IX I 1X1
1X1 IX)
1X1 IX)
14:00100:lit IX) IX) ,
0»:lil09:?OI IXHX dupl IX) IX) I dup
10:49 IX I (XIX dup A
I i
O Piicrapine i««; |
( ';
1) BNA not analytad (or J/37 10:19 \
1) 2/21 10:19 rlald dupllcata -»• brokan in traniit j
1) O fc O fiald dup waa not analyiad \
X - To B* Taitad
IX)- Coaplatad
A - Addad Latar
-------
TABLE 7
•AW PRODUCT WATII
l-q/LI
KAAL/EPA
n.t.i.
Al
Jo
Al
B*
B<
Cd
Cj
C r
Co
Cu
P.
Pb
x-3
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
S-
Ag
NI
Tl
Sn
V
In
MJC201
43.6
< . 12
< .1
. 21
< .005
.026
80.
.028
< .025
.116
1.68
33.2
. 398
.026
.0003
.069
18.7
< . 05
< .02
2 ,800 . 2
.019
< . 1
< .015
2.35
MJC204
65.7
< . 12
< . 1
.61
< .005
.028
6J. 1
. 062
> .025
.212
4.93
51. 5
.816
.042
. 0003
.101
20 .4
< .05
< .02
,910 . 3
.032
< .1
< .015
4 . 49
MJC205
71 .0
< . 12
< . 1
. 56
< .005
.052
49 .5
.079
< .625
.174
6.47
80.4
.816
.040
.0003
.124
19 . 9
< .05
< .02
, 080 .
.018
< .1
< .0
6 . '
MJC206
64 . 3
< .12
< . 1
.57
< .005
.038
41 .3
.087
< .025
.172
7.94
86 .0
1 .06
.054
.0007
.120
17.9
< .05
< .02
,730. 2
< .01
< . 1
< .015
7.21
MJC208
51 .0
< . 12
< . 1
.557
< .005
.045
36 . 2
.08)
< .025
.341
5.95
73.0
.875
.047
.0007
.112
18 .7
< .05
( .02
, 880 .
.016
» . 1
( .015
6.71
MJC02)
23 .
N/A
.04
1 .0
N/A
N/A
N/A
.09
N/A
. 35
7.3
56.0
N/A
.06
< .0001
< .08
N/A
< . 08
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4 .4
MJC221
54
<
<
1
<
31
t
14
158
3
<
13
^
<
2, 490
<
11
5
12
1
18
005
058
6
114
025
294
1
20
111
002
145
4
050
020
018
1
025
i
MJC222
15.3
< . 12
< .1
1 .60
< .005
.080
38.0
.155
< .025
.325
19.9
230.
3.8
.149
< .002
.193
16.6
< .05
< .02
2,890.
.015
. 101
.028
14.5
MJC225 I
91
<
<
1
<
30
<
16
206
2
18
<
<
3,320
<
12
4
12
1
19
005
063
6
123
025
149
3
55
106
000
189
05
02
018
1
034
t
60.0
-
-
.831
-
.049
47.
.091
-
.237
9.40
109 .
1.70
.011
.000)
.117
17.9
-
-
2,512.
.016
-
-
7.8
9
19.8
-
-
.43)
-
.018
18.2
.036
-
.091
5.98
71 .
1.2*
.041
.0003
.059
2.2
-
_
902.
.007
-
-
4 .1
n
9
-
-
9
-
8
8
9
-
9
9
9
8
9
9
9
8
-
-
8
8
-
-
—
-------
TABLE I
•AW WATCI VOLATILE!
(•I/LI
•HAL/EPA Saapl* |
JB66 J
J8664
JB6T.
Vol«til««
Ch1o roa* th« n*
M«thyl«n« Chlorld*
Ac* ton*
2-butanon«
Tr i • t hy 1 *•!(!•
(£ltl««t«d Irom GC/M5 output)
Total Xyl*n«i
<1 . 0
0.12
5. TO
1 .JO
2.20
<0. 5
0.11
0.12
1.00
1.50
0. JO
0.17
0.93
SI
I
-------
TABLI *
•AW PtOOUCT CATEI
(•g/M
RMA!./KPA Saapl* I
S.niVol.tll.
Bl.U-.thylh..yl)phth.l.t4
Ch ry s ana
F 1 uo r ana
2-Mathylnaphtlialana
Naphtha L ana
N-n i t cos idlphanylaalna
Phanan t h tana
Phanol
1 , 2-dlchlorobanzana
fluoranthana
1
^j Py r ana
4-iathylphanol
Banio i c Ac i d
4-chloro-3-«athylphanol
Butylbanzylphthalata
2, 4-di»« thy Iph.nol
JB665
< . 13
f . 13
< .13
< . 13
< . 13
< . 13
< .13
.31
< . 13
< .13
< .13
.34
4 .6
< .11
< .11
< .13
JB67J
< . 2
< . 2
< . 2
< . 2
< .2
< . 2
< .2
1 .9
< . 2
< .2
< .2
.73
1 .2
< .2
< .2
.05
JB674 I a
( .13
< . 13
< .11
< .13
< . 13
< . 13
< .13
1 .« 1.29
< .13
< .13
< . 11
.63 .57
1.2 2.3
< .11
( .13
.Oil .03
-------
SECTION 4
PRODUCT SOLIDS
-------
TABLS 10
Product Solids
Simpl* Location Idcatificatlon *C*
TIB*
15:15
IS: 10
24:00
0«:15
Ot :4S
10:00
11:30
12:00
X » To Be.
1
-------
TABLE 11
TOTAL METALS IB PRODUCT SOLIDS
GENERAL lErimna SITE
PRODUCT SOLIDS
TOTAL HETALS
RHAL/EPA S««.>1« Ho.
H.t
Al
Sb
As
B«
B*
Cd
c«
Ct
HJ C°
(f- Cu
r«
Pb
"9
Mn
Hi
RI
K
S»
Ag
N«
Tl
Sn
V
Zn
HJC202
ml*
2,490.
( 13 .
(5.2
554 .
( . 52
4 . 1
13 , 900 .
19 .
(2.6
103 .
4,970 .
19 , 800 .
515.
26 .
( .1
10.
218.
(2 '.6
(2.1
75, 100.
(S. 2
11 .
6 .9
909 .
HJC201
2,530.
( 13 .
(5.2
585.
( . 52
(2.6
1 1 . 100 .
19.
(2.6
101 .
4 , 900 .
18 . 900 .
533 .
27.
( . 1
9 . 4
271 .
<2 .6
(2.1
74,900.
(5.2
16 .
6 . 2
862 .
MJC212
2,190.
( 13 .
(5.3
516 .
( . 53
3 . 9
14.400.
19.
(2.7
112.
4 , 460 .
21 , 300 .
506 .
25.
(0.1
9 . 6
241 .
<2. 7
(2.1
93 , 300 .
(5.3
(11 .
5 . a
902 .
MJC21 3
2 , 450.
(13.
(5.3
549 .
< .53
3 . 5
13,100.
19 .
(2.6
105.
4 , 650 .
20 , 000 .
526.
25.
< . 1
7.9
261.
(2.6
(2.1
94,600.
(5.3
(11 .
6 . 3
939.
HJC219
2,970.
( 12 .
(5.2
105 .
< . 52
4 . 5
11 , 900 .
20 .
( 2 .fi
115.
5,220.
24,700.
55J.
26 .
< .1
9 . 1
301 .
<2.6
(2.1
97,000 .
(5.2
(10.
5.5
1 .030 .
070
2.300 .
N/A
( . 2
140.
N/A
N/A
N/A
19 .
N/A
100.
4 ,000 .
21 , 300.
N/A
23 .
.007
(9 .
R/A
(8.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
930 .
MJC219
3,100.
(25.
(5.2
321 .
(1 .
(5.2
14 , 200.
21 .
(5.2
134 .
5, 290.
15,100.
608.
26 .
R/A
10.
229.
<2.6
(4.2
10,100.
(5.1
(21 .
4. 4
1 , 210.
MJC220
2, 450.
(12.
(5.2
190.
2.4
7.6
12,600.
22 .
4.3
114.
4 ,500.
23 , 200.
755.
24 .
< .1
9.5
490.
(2.6
2.9
98,000.
(5.2
(10.
7.7
97J.
MJC224
3 , 000 .
(12 .
(5.1
578 .
( . 51
3 .
12,300 .
21.
4 .2
112.
4 ,760.
31, 100 .
571 .
23 .
( . 1
3 . 8
114 .
(2.6
(2.
81 ,700.
<5 . 1
10.
7 . 1
1,040.
MJC226
1, 200.
(12 .
(5.1
416 .
( .5
3 .
16,200.
24 .
<2.i
116.
5,200.
27, 300.
641.
J7.
<.l
8.6
291.
(2.5
(2 .
87,900.
(5.1
30.
7 .6
1,240.
NJC36S « o
1,210.
(12.
(5.1
593 .
( . 51
4 .7
16 ,600.
26.
(2.5
137.
5,710.
29, 300.
679 .
2}.
<.l
10.
187.
<:.s
(1.
87,600 .
<5.1
(10.
7.4
1 , 260 .
2,725. 352.
-
-
412 . 190 .
-
3.4 2.2
13,830 . 1 , 576 .
20.8 2.6
-
115. 14.
4 , 45i . 1,382.
22,809 . 4,886 .
589 . 82 .
23.7 6.1
>.l
7.8 1.1
101 . 81 .
-
-
77,010. 14,181.
-
16.75 9.22
6.5 1.05
,018 . 154 .
n
11
-
11
-
10
10
11
_
11
11
11
10
11
-
11
10
-
-
10
-
10
10
11
-------
TABLE 12
TCLP IITHACT or PIODUCT SOLIDS
CINIRAL RErmiMO SITE
Constituent
Al
As
Ba
Cr
Cu
r«
Pb
tin
Hq
Ni
s.
Zn
E t by Iben t ana
To luana
T-Xylanas (B
M-Xylana
0, P-Xylanaa
2 , 4-di«athylphenol
4-nJthylphanol
Phano 1
4 -mathy 1-2 -pant inane
Bant ana
Tnchlotoethana
003
1 . 1
< .03
< . 03
< .05
< .03
1 . 8
5.9
. 44
i .001
< . 2
< .04
22 .
.52
. 17
. 2!
.13
.15
.019
.037
.0)5
< .05
< .025
< .025
004
1 .0
< .03
< .03
< .05
< .03
1 .6
5.2
.43
< . 001
< . 2
.008
21 .
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
H/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
021
1 . 3
< .06
< .05
< .1
( .06
2.8
11 .
45
< .001
< .4
< .008
22 .
.054
.18
.31
. 14
. 16
.013
.053
.040
.052
< .025
< .025
022
1 .5
< . 06
< .05
» . 1
< .06
3.0
4.2
.44
< .001
< .4
< .04
22.
.096
.35
.51
. 24
.27
.018
.071
.056
.059
< .025
( .025
» HAL/EPA
040
1 . 9
< .06
< .05
< .1
< . 06
4.7
4 .0
.52
< .001
( . 4
< .04
25.
.12
.42
.71
.30
.41
.013
.060
.020 <
< .05 «
< .025 <
.030
3aa.pl.
070
N/A 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
14
56
72
H/A
N/\
0086
029
.01
.10
.05
.030
• o.
041
7
< .06
< .05
< .1
< . 06
4. 1
4 .0
.49
. .001
< . 4
( .04
25.
.059
. 22
. 31
. 15
.16
.013
.057
.033
< .05
> .025
<0 . 25
052
2.4
( .06
< .05
t . 1
< .06
S.J
4 .9
.49
( .001
< . 4
< .04
26 .
.042
.16
.21
.099
.11
.011
.045
.013
< .05
< .025
( .025
059
1 .6
< .06
< .05
< .1
< .06
5.0
N/A
.54
< .001
< .4
< .04
30.
< .025
.090
.17
.073
.093
.011
.050
.018
< .05
< .025
< .025
062
2. 1
< .02
< .05
< . 1
< . 06
7.1
12 .
.61
< .002
< . 4
< . 08
33 .
ND
.11
.097
.045
.052
< .01
.044
.017
< .05
<. .025
< .025
X
1.62
3.93
6 . 4
. 49
.0009
25.1
.11
.251
.369
.147
.176
.11
.0495
.026
.11
.006
0
.46
1.796
3 .2
.059
.003
4 .08
.16
.158
.227
.085
.114
.007
.0125
027
.023
.013
-------
TABLI 1)
VOLATILE OROAIIIC COB5TITUKHTS II PRODUCT SOLIDS
GEIHRAL BirmiHG SITE
UlAL/IPA Saapl* Ho.
CD
I
Conn 1 1 1 u«nt a
M*thyl*n* Chloride
Ac* ton*
Trichloro*th*n*
B • n z • n •
To 1 u*n*
C t hy 1 b*nc*n*
To t * 1 Xy 1 *n* a
T r i • thy 1 «•! n«
(Esti««t*d by GC/MS)
J866 J
0.97
2.5
0 . 32
0.20
0 70
9.
5.
as.
ai .
JB677
1.0
3 . t
< 2 . 4
. 49
f -\ A
( / . H
9 . 2
6 .4
J5.
10.
-------
TABLI 14
TOTAL SZHI-VOLATTE.I OHO ABIC CONSTITUENTS
III PRODUCT SOLIDS
GENERAL REflHING SITE
Const i tu*nt»
8is- ( 2-«thylh«xyL }phth«lAt*
Ch t y s «n«
F L uo r «n«
2-M«thyln«phth«l«n»
Niphthalon*
N-nitco9ldlph.nyl..ln.
Ph.n.nthr.n.
Ph «no 1
l,2-dlchlorob*nz»n«
r 1 uo r an t h«n«
Py r «n«
•)-•• thy lph«no 1
Bantolc Acid
4-chloro J-»« t hy 1 phano 1
8utylb«n«ylphthalat«
RflAL/lPA Sc^pl* No.
JB669 J8610 JB681
6.6 S.2 i.S
< 19 . < 1 7 . < 20 .
<19. <17. 20.
2 . 4 <17. <20.
2.3 < 17 . <20 .
< 19 . <17. < JO .
2.S 2.1 2.3
<19. (17. (20.
<19. <17. <20.
< 19 . < 17 . < 20 .
<19. <17. < JO.
3 .S 1.1 < JO .
<8J. <»7.
<19. 1.9 < JO.
<19. 2.1 < JO.
-------
SECTION 5
PRODUCT OIL
-20-
-------
TABIB 11
rroduct Oil
laapl* Location Idiot 1flc«tion *O*
T...
14 :00
li :4»
01:00
0 J: IS
OS: 1 J
0 « ; J 0
09:1)
11 : JO
14:00
1
*-•
1
H«t«l« rCB'l TCLP
IX) IXI
IX) IXI
( X 1
(X)
(X 1
IX) IX dup)
IXI IXI IX dupl
IXI
IX) IXI
Dlfcr«panci«« :
AppcndlK IX VOA SNA TEA OlO Phy»
IX) (XI IXI X
X
(XI
IXI X dup
IXI
1 X ) IX dup)
1 X I IX) 1 X dupl X
(XI (X I IXI
1) One TEA ri*ld dut> not >n>lyi>d
II Bath S««pl« 1 ritld dup (at BNA'i an I/It 11:10 u*t« nat «n«ly««d
II Phyilc*! Ch*r»ct•ri•tlet v«r* inalyttd on diff«c«nt lAMpl*!
I . To B« T»«t«d
IX)- Ca»pl*t«d
A • Added L«t«r
-------
TJULI 11
NITXL4 COICimiATIOl II tlOOUCT OIL
lirilIIO IITI
UIAL/IVA l*«pl« lo.
H.t.l.
Al
Al
a*
Cr
1
M
f-J Cu
1
r«
Pb
Mn
Hq
ni
s«
Zn
001 010
700. 190.
> .< < .6
5f>0. 190.
14 . 11 .
50 . 11.
1 , 100 . 1 . 000 .
< , 000 . 4 , 100 .
15. 7.5
< .05 < .05
<4. <4.
< 10 . < 4 .
<«0. 410.
016
410.
< .6
110 .
10 .
11 .
1 ,100 .
4.000.
7.1
< .05
(4 .
<10.
460 .
03:
170 .
1 .0
740 .
19 .
55.
1,900.
7,900.
15.
< .05
<4.
<10.
100.
035
540.
1 .«
310.
13 .
47.
1 ,500.
5,900.
11 .
< .05
<4 .
it.
510.
016
1 ,000.
0 . 1
910.
11.
71 .
1, 100.
10,100.
17.
< .05
(4 .
<10.
940.
031
710
1
350
15
54
1, (00
6 ,000
11
«
<4
<10
750
045
110.
o o.i
730 .
17.
59.
1,100.
1 , 300.
11.
05 . .05
(4 .
(10.
770.
041
790.
O.I
360.
17.
59 .
1 ,100.
1,100.
11.
< .05
(4 .
<10.
710.
051
710 .
0 . 1
150.
15.
54.
1 ,700.
(.500 .
11 .
< .05
«4.
(10.
-------
TABLI 17
VOLATILE3 COBCtBTILATIOB !• f»OOUCT OIL
HiriHIBO 3ITI
l-9/kql
RrtAL/IPA Siapl* Ha.
001 0 J6 03»(Dup. I 059 049
Volatllx
Ethylb»nz«n« 12. 31. 95. 14. 28.
Tolu«n« 5.0 <1J. 92. <11. 14.
Xyl«n«« 99. 290. 510. 110. 150.
X 0
36. 34 .
20. 35.
261 . 190 .
I
M
U»
-------
TABLE II
SIHI VOLATILIS COaCCITTBATIO !• PRODUCT OIL
GEBKRAL BEriMIHG SITE
RHAL/EPA 3mmfl» Bo.
Cons t i tu«nt •
Ac«na ph t b «n«
Ant h r a c«n«
Ch f y s «n«
Di b«nz o f u r en
Fluor«n«
2— ••thylnaphthal*n«
Naph t ha 1 «n«
N>
£>. N-n 1 1 r os i d i pha ny 1 an i n«
1
Phana n t h r «n«
Py r «n«
4-B«thylph«nol
Ph«no 1
Bi3(2-«thylh*xyllphthalat«
001
92 .
61 .
<20 .
62.
ISO .
1 , 100 .
330.
150.
360 .
30 .
85.
46 .
(20.
026
60 .
29.
(20.
39.
120.
1 , 200 .
320.
110.
250.
21.
(20 .
40.
(20.
068
66 .
44 .
20 .
(11 .
120 .
1 . 200 .
290 .
110.
250 .
23 .
418.
50.
-------
SECTION j
TREATED PRODUCT WATER
-25-
-------
TABLI 1*
Tr.at.d H.t.r rcoduct
S.apl. Location Id.at 1 fie.tion •«•
Tl«. M«t«l» fCB'l TCLP App.ndlx IX VOX
23.-IS (XI II) I")
23 :30 I XI IX) X dup
23:45(24:00) (XHX dup) (X)
03:45 (X) (X)(X dup) A > dup
04:45 (X) (X)
05:00 (X) (X)(X dup) X X dup
09:301X1 (X)
12:00 (X) (X)
Diacr.p.nci.a:
S>
O 1) TEA not run on 2/21 05:00 sa*pl« (unknown [•••on)
X - To B* T.jted
(XI- Co«pl.t.d
A ' Add.d L«t.r
-------
TABLI 20
TREATID PRODUCT MATE!
(•9/L)
WIAL/EPA Staple I
Ratals
Al
Sb
A3
Ba
B«
Cd
C«
Ct
Co
Cu
r*
fb
Mg
Kn
Hg
Ni
K
S»
Ag
Ha
Tl
Sn
V
Zn
MJC201
31.6
< .04)
< . 1
. 106
< .002
< .01
639 .
< .01
< .01
< . 00)
< .052
. 152
.124
< .00)
< .0002
.022
9 . 11
< .05
< .00)
1,110 .
< . 1
< .04
< .006
.012
MJC209
31 .5
( . 049
< .1
< .002
< .01
656 .
< .01
< .01
< . 008
< .052
. 15)
.111
< .009
< .0002
.021
9.15
< .05
< .OC)
1,690.
< . 1
< .04
< .006
.010
MJC210
39.6
( .04)
< .1
.112
< .002
< .01
696 .
< .01
..01
< .012
< .052
.143
195
< .00)
< .0002
. 019
9 35
< .05
< . 00)
1,140 .
< .1
< .04
< .006
.0)1
MJC211
3) .1
< .04)
< .1
. 104
< .002
< .01
695.
< .01
< .01
< .00)
< .052
. 150
.961
< .00)
< .0002
.029
9 .69
< .05
< . 009
1 ,140 .
( .1
< .04
< .006
.011
MJC215
35.6
< .04)
< .1
. 109
< .002
< .01
143.
< .01
< .01
< .009
. .052
. 121
1.22
< .009
< .0002
.02)
9.93
< .05
< .00)
1 ,160.
< . 1
< .04
< .006
.095
WJC214
35.)
( .041
< .1
.0)6
< .002
< .01
113.
< .01
< .01
< .00)
< .052
. 095
1.1)
( .00)
< .0002
.026
9.13
< .05
< .009
1,160.
< . 1
< .04
< .006
.091
MJC216
35.)
< .04)
i . 1
.092
< .002
< .01
14).
<.01
( .01
< .009
< .052
.095
1.42
< . 009
< .0002
.025
9.99
< .05
( .009
1 ,160.
< .1
< .04
< .006
.101
HJC211
39.6
< .041
< .1
.091
< .002
< .01
156.
< .01
< . 01
.015
.132
. 125
1.41
.01
.0002
.026
11 .6
<.OS
< .00)
1, 980.
< . 1
< .04
< .006
.135
HJC223
33 .2
<.096
< .1
.0)4
< .004
< . 02
U2 .
< .02
< .02
< .016
.110
.0)2
2.11
.022
< .0002
< .02
13.3
< .05
< .016
2,210.
< .1
< .0)
( .012
.1)3
MJC361
36.3
< .096
« .1
.091
< . 004
< .02
SOS.
< .02
< . 02
i .016
.264
.429
2.11
« . 016
< .0002
.03
11.1
< .05
o (.016
2,620.
< .1
< .0)
< .012
.212
7 a n-10
36 .3 2.16
-
-
.105 .09) .011
-
-
122. 54.
-
-
_
_
.155 .10
1.26 .52
-
-
.0225 .00)6
11 .0 J.61
-
-
,896. 30
-
-
-
.120 .064
-------
TAB LI 21
TREATED PRODUCT MATER
RMAL/EPA
Vol.t il.a
M.thyl.ne chlorid«
Ac • t on*
2~Bu t anon*
T r i • thy 1 a*i n*
JB66I
.at s
2. J
. 51
. 42
JB672
< . J5
2.3
. 52
.30
!E3Cl«aC«d by OC/MSI
Nl
CD
-------
I
K)
TABLE 22
TREATED PRODUCT NATE*
HHAL/EFA 3l»pl« I
SEHIVOLATILKS
BIS(l-ETHYLHEXVL) PHTHALATE
CHRYSENE
FLUORENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
N-NITROSIDIPHENYLAtUNE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
1,2-DICHLORO BENZENE
fLUORANTHENE
PYRENE
4-METHYLPHENOL
BENZOIC ACID
4-CHLORO-3-METHVLPHENOL
BUTYL8ENZYLPHTHALATE
2.J-DIMETHYLPHENOL
J8673
< . 2
< .1
< .2
< . 2
< .1
< .2
< .2
1 .9
< .2
( .2
( .2
.73
1 .2
< .2
< .2
( .05
JB682
< .11
< .13
« .13
< .13
< .13
< .13
< .13
1 . 2
< .13
< .13
< .13
. 45
.50
< .13
< . 13
< .13
-------
SECTION 7
AIR
-30-
-------
Cond«aa«r Cxhaust
TABLI 21
SOHHABT OF All EMISSIONS
Concentration, ppavd
Banz en*
Mercury
To 1uen*
TrL«thyl«i»,in*
Xyl«n«
E«lsilon Rat*, Lb/Hr
Ben E ane
Me r cu ry
To 1 uene
Triethylaatne
Xy1ene
Oil Polisher Outlet
Concontration, ppmvd
Benz en*
M« t c u r y
Tolu«na
Tci«thyl«Hlna
Xyl»n.
Eaiaaiona Rat«, Lb/ Hr
Ban t en•
M« c cu cy
To 1uan«
Tr i «thy1a«ln«
Xylan*
121
(0.00496
164
22,560
200
0 .00127
<0.000000051
0 . 000769
0.0985
0.00108
19 . 3
<0.0617
1 , 502
20,130
« , 271
0.00473
<0 . 00000210
0.0214
0.314
0.135
321
<0.00496
144
13,235
112
0.00127
<0.000000041
0.000676
0.0492
0.000983
339
(0.00496
145
29,928
191
0.000926
(0 .000000042
0 .000469
0.131
0 .000710
111
<0.00496
132
29,003
161
0.00108
'. 0.000000037
0.000540
0.0103
0 .000763
323
<0 .00496
146
23,682
184
0.00114
<0.000000043
0.000614
0 .0954
0 .0008)4
-------
SECTION 8
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
-32-
-------
TABLE 24
8.I.3.T.™ OBIT JIPA«ATIOPI PCirORJtAHCI
fOLL SCALI PROCESSING PKRrOBtlANCI
dEICERAL JIKFIHIRO SITt HATERIALS
SEPARATED PHASE FRACTIONS
S1udq«
Oil \
H«t.r % Solld>
OIL
99.
0 .0013
0. tl
WATER
0 . »«
>99.
(0.5
SOLIDS %
0.81
T«st not conduct«d on routine baaia.
L-J
I
-------
TABLE 15
C0.1P Alison or I-ABOtATOlT • . I . 5 . T . ™ SIMULATION
TO
FULL 3CALI PHOCISSIBO PIirofcflABCI
OH
icrimaa SITE MATERIALS
LAB PROCESS SIMULATION
SEPABATeD PHASE rRACTTOW
RAH
SLUDGE OIL HATER SOLI09
fULL SCALE TREATMENT
SEPARATED PHASE rRACTlOl?
RAH
SLUDGE OIL HATER SOLIDS
OIL t
}<
1.017 5.7
2^ »9
o. 003j a .11
SS 16- >99
0.S« >9»
(0.5
SOLIDS \
0.11 >9»
8S4W
" PARTICULATCS ARC INCLUDED IN BS4W
••« NOT MEASURED
-------
TABLI 2«
O 4 0
(•9/1.1
fcflAL/CPA
004
-017
-021
-022
-040
-04 1
-042
bJ -052
Ln
1 -054
-062
-010
Solidi R»w H20 Tr««t«d H20
.S0» 14.
113.
1 .0*
.«9t
.JIM
.gg>
52.
.593
71 .
.691
.116
-------
TAIU.E 27
CKACT1ONS
TKA
HHAL/tl'A Sample
-001
i, -°15
f -016
-018
-023
-032
-014
-035
-031
-046
-049
-060
-062
Oil I'lodiict UjCoc Product WdLol Solids
< 500 .
1,800.
380 .
460 .
1 , 100
< 500 .
760 .
< 100 .
720.
9 , 700 .
<500. '
7, 700 .
7 . 400 .
-------
TABLE 21
G«u«r*l B*fining Sit*
LEAD
In Input/Output Str««Ba
2/26 - 1/27/11
R.w
S 1 udq«
A
• q/kq
So I Ida
a
.q/kq
Oil
C
•9/1")
Product
H20
O
• q/L
HJ0
Etf lutnt
e
.q/L
HJ0
W«s t«
f
»q/L
S«apl« I.D.
11.
1J.
11 .
R
-------
TABU 29
res*
in Input/Output Str«a»
i/it - 2/n/n
Raw
S \ udq«
A
• 9/kq
P r oduc t
H,0
B
• 9/1.
Solids
C
• q/k,
Oil
0
• 9/kg
H20
Cfduant
C
• g/t
H30 TNT
Wait* Sludg*
f
• 9/L
Suapl* 1.0-
11 .
J.
5.
- 11.4
5.94
SD(n-l)
> .01
o - o . n
t . 2 - 11 .
9.28
1.1
> .01
-------
TABLE J»A
3 .T. Performance Saai
G*n«ml ft*fining Sit*
RAW SLO&GK
{TOTAL AHAI.Y5IS)
2/2S - l/27/«7
SAMPLE 1
005
006
012
001
001
Oil
012
013
024
030
039
04)
051
Oil
050
051
064
065
PCS
».!
4 .
1 .
3 .
«.
i.-
3.
5.(
5.'
2.
1.
6.
11 .
11.
1 .
5.
4 .
5.(
!
i
)
)
)
)
)
-------
TABLC 29B
r»clotm*ac* SUM
Q«n»r«l ••fining Sit*
PIODUCT SOLIDS
- i/n/n
SAMPLE I PCB
003
JB662
JB6T1
I
s
I
-------
TABLE 29C
B.t.S.T.™ F»rfor»nc» Summitj
G*n*r«l ••fining Sit*
PRODUCT OIL
(mq/kq}
i/it - i/n/ti
SXXPLE I
001
010
04S
073
049
6 .
».
9.
11
8.
.2
.7
.6
.0
9
-------
TXBLI J»D
B.l.S.T." F«rfora*nc« Su«r
G*n«ral Refining Sit*
RAW PRODUCT WATER
SAMPLE 1
JB661
JB666
JB661
JB610
JB611
JB679
PCS
< .006
< .010
< .006
< .006
( .006
< .006
fo
I
-------
TABLE 2*1
B.E.S.T.™ P«rfor»«nc« Suamry
a*a*rml ••fining Sit«
MATE* TkEATHEITT BLOWDOmi
Z/2* - 2/17/il
SAMPLE I RESULT
057 <.010
066 (.010
*-
-------
SECTION 9
KEY OPERATING DATA
-44-
-------
I/HR
e
13:89:88
88:56:24
12:52:48
FI-201 MIXED SLUDGE FEED #1B/HR
(FROM 1300HR 2/26/87 THRU 1252HR 2/27/87)
FIGURE 1
-45-
-------
TONS/DAY
8-
13:88:00 86:56:24 12:52:'
PLANT OPERATING RATE - TON/DAY
(FROM 1300HR 2/26/87 THRU 1252HR 2/27/87)
FIGURE 3
-46-
-------
ie,81
12:52:48
TEA/FEED RATIO
(FROM 1300HR 2/26/87 THRU 1252HR 2/27/87)
FIGURE
-47-
-------
#/HR -
88:56:24
12:52:48
Fl-514 STEAM TO WATER STRIPPER- 1B/HR
(FROM 1300HR 2/26/87 THRU 1252HR 2/27/87)
FIGURE 5
-48-
-------
24,00 i
•24,00
13:80:00 %:56:24 12:52:48
PI-305 DRYER OPERATING PRESSURE-'H2(O
(FROM 1300HR 2/26/87 THRU 1252HR 2/27/87)
FIGURE 6
-49-
-------
SECTION 10
COMPARISON
WITH
RCRA LISTED WASTES
FROM THE
PETROLEUM REFINERY INDUSTRY
-50-
-------
TABLE 3C
LABORATOBT DATA
OH
SLOP OIL EMULSION. DAT rLCAT, AJID API BOTTOH5
COHPMtEO WITH
OEBELM. BEPIHIHO SITE SLUDGE
CLIENT -A" K049 WASTE CLIENT "A" K04« WASTE CLIENT "A" K051 WASTE GENERAL REFINERY SITE
RAW PHASE FRACTIONS RAW PHASE FRACTIONS RAW PHASE FRACTIONS RAW PHASE FRACTION
COMPOSITION SLUDGE OIL WATER SOLIDS SLUDGE OIL WATER SOLIDS SLUDGE OIL WATER SOLIDS SLUDGE OIL WATER SOLIDS
OIL % 22 0.037 1.5 1.9 - 0.0097 0.2 6.5 - 0.032 0.2 16 - C.017 5.7
UJ WATER » 70 6.0- - «7 2 - - 45 <2 - - 56 16*
I
SOLIDS % ( 0.69 0.0092 - 5. 0.29
-------
TABLE 31
OIL t GREASE IB PRODUCT SOLIDS
BKBCH 5CALI SIMULATION DATA
COMPARED WITB
GEBKKAL REFlniHG SITI SLHtXJE
CLIENT JO
SLUDGE HASTE ID t OIL I GREASE
R«fininq Sit*
5. 7
K049
1 .5
0 .2
NJ
i
BLIND REMNGRY SLUDGE
SAMPLE
0 . 2
BLIND REFINERY SLUDGE
SAMPLE
0.9
BLIND REFINERY SLUDGE
SAMPLE
I .2
item
0. 1
KOS1
3. 3
K048
1.4
K051
0.4
-------
TABLE 11
LEAD COBCEHTBATIOH !• PBODOCT OIL
COHPAKISOB BETVKtH LISTED SLUDGES
AND
GENERAL BEFININQ SLUDGE
Pb -
CLIENT ID
A
A
A
t
E
0. D
OJ
1 D
r
r
a
B
B
a
a
H
SLUDGE WASTE ID
K049
K048
K051
K051
K052
K048
K051
K051
K048
BLIND SAMPLE
BLIND SAMPLE
BLIND TAMPLE
K051
1(051
K048
RAW SLUDGE OIL PRODUCT
345 21
55 <1
310 15
39 3.5
i^ 5.3
106 <5
1,018 4.0
4.6 <2
1.4 <2
255 2 . 8
154 < 2 . 0
1.8 6.1
430 <5
460 <5
41 <1
» or
2
0
0
0
1
<0
<0
<1
0.
<0
3
<0
<0
<0
TOTAL Pb
. 6
.2
.4
. 3
. 1
.12
. 10
. 3
.6
02
. 2
. 3
.02
.01
.2
SOLIDS
2 , 800
840
540 °
660
410
1, 800
4 ,000
290
280
390
640
220
900
2, 100
150
* or •
91
99
99
99.
91.
99 ,
•
10
100
100
19
100
100
99
TOTAL Pb
. 4
.8
.6
.8
.5
2
. 8
-------
TABLI 11
CBROIIIDM CO»CKirr«_»TIO« IH PIODUCT OIL
COHPAEISOB BETWKIH LISTED SLUDGIS
AJIO
GSBBIAL IKrlMIlO SLDDOI
Ct - (ag/kq)
CLIENT ID
EPA
A
1 k
\ A
e
E
0
D
f
f
B
B
B
a
a
G
SLUDGE WASTE ID
G • n • c a 1 Rftfinir. q Sit*
K049
K04I
HO 51
K051
K052
K04S
K051
K051
S04a
BLIND SAMPLE
BLIND SAMPLE
BLIND SAMPLE
K051
K051
K04)
RAW SLUDGE
6.2
376
115
1 ,290
260
18S
621
190
19
26
12
24
1 .65
260
400
440
OIL PRODUCT
IS
IS
S
21
61
1 .6
2. 7
3 .6
2. a
1 .9
0.1
0.9
1 .2
160
400
1 . 2
% Of TOTAL C
16 . 4
1 . 1
0. 3
0 . 2
o.a
0.1
0.43
0 .01
2
<0.1
0. 2
0.5
3 .1
1 .2
6
0.2
r SOLIDS
10. a
3,600
3 ,200
2 , 300
4, 300
3 , 300
10, too
3 ,100
1,600
6,500
110
100
51
540
1,100
1,100
« or
23.
98.
99 .
99 .
99.
99.
100
100
98
<99
99
99
96
98
94
99
' TOTAL Cr
6
9
,1
.a
. 2
.9
.9
.8
.a
-------
TABLE 34
IP TOIICITT OF WASTI EXTRACT
B,E.S.T.TI* T1EATED SOLIDS
COMPAilSOB BITWtEM LISTED SLUDGES
ABO
GENERAL BErlBIHa SITE
(•q/kq)
CLIENT ID
EPA
E
E
D
D
1
O1 .
01 '
|
B
B
a
a
H
SLUDOE WASTE ID
<3an«r«l Refining sit*
KOS1
KOS2
K04»
KOS1
K051
BLIND SAMPLE
BLIND SAMPLE
SO 51
K051
K048
LEAD («q/k9)
TOTAL EP
It ,000
660
410
1 ,900
4 ,000
290
390
640
900
2,100
150
6
0 .
0.
<0.
0.
0
(0
(0
0
<0
TOX
. 4
.14
.33
. 1
.21
.33
. 2
.2
.14
. 1
.2
CHROMIUM l»q/kq)
TOTAL EP
20
4 ,300
3,300
10, too
3 ,100
1 ,600
110
100
S40
1,100
7,100
<0 .
1 .
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0 .
0.
0.
TOX
1
3
10
1
a:
02
02
02
OS
12
04
-------
SECTION 11
ANALYTES NOT DETECTED
IN
RAW SLUDGE
-56-
-------
TABLE 35
mjM SLUDGE
HETALS
Ant iaony
Bacyll iua
Cobalt
S 1 1 v« r
Thalliua
Tin
R
N
K
n
it
N
N
N
•suits
. D.
.D.
.0.
.0.
. D .
. D.
.0.
.0.
Uni t a
• g/kg
• g/kq
• q/kq
•g/kq
• g/kg
• q/kq
• g/kq
.
Reporting LiBit
5
0.1
1
10
500
0.5
O.t
3
Sa«pl«ti: 02/21/»7
Analyt*d: 01/22/81
N.D. > Rot d.t«ct«d
I
cn
-------
TABLI 36
RAM SLUDGE
SCHIVOLATILE OBGAJIICS
I
Ul
00
I
Acanaph t nan*
AcanaphthyLara
Anthracana
Ban o ( • ) py r ana
Ban o ( b ) f I uo r an t hana
Ban o ( q , h , i ) pa r y 1 ana
Ban o(k)fluoranthana
Ban yl alcohol
Bis42-chloroathoxylMathana
Bis 2 -ch 1 o r oa t hy 1 1 a t ha r
B i 3 ( 2-chlorolaopropyl ) a t ha r
4- B r o«ophany 1 phanyl athar
Butylbanxyl phthalata
4-chloroani 1 in«
2-Chloronaphthalana
4 -Ch I o r ophany 1 phanyl athar
Di banz ( a , h ) anthracana
Di ban i o f u ran
1 . 3-Dichlorobaniana
1 , '1-Dichlorobantana
3,3'-Dichlorobanzidina
Df.athyl phth.l«t«
Diaathyl phthalat*
Di-n-butyl phthalat*
2,4-Dinitro*. o 1 u « n •
2 , 6-Oinitrotolu«na
Di-n-octyl phthalat*
H*xachlorob«nz«n«
Haxachlorobutadiana
H«xachlorocyclop«ntadi«n«
H«xachloro«thana
Indano ( 1 , 2 , 3-cd)pyr«n«
laophorona
2--Nitroanilln«
3-Nitcoanilln*
4-Ni t roanl 1 in«
Nit robaniana
H-Nitrosodi-n-propylaBina
1.2,4-Trlchlotob«ni«na
Bancoic acid
2-Chlorophanol
II
11
II
II
II
N
N
N
II
II
II
n
N
II
II
H
N
N
N
II
N
II
H
N
n
n
H
H
R
II
N
II
n
H
II
II
N
n
H
H
N
O.
D.
D.
D .
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
0.
O.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
O.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
Units
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
• q/kq
Raport inq
> 3
> 3
»
> 3
> 3
>3
>3
>3
> 3
> 3
>3
>3
> 3
>3
>3
> 3
> 3
>3
>3
> 3
> 3
> 12
>3
>3
>3
>3
> )
>3
>3
)3
>2
> 3
>3
>3
>3
>3
> 3
>3
>3
>3
> IS
>3
.
Li • i t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
-------
TABLf 16 \COHT-D)
RAW SLUMS
SEHIVOI.ATILI OHO AJIICS
2 . 4-Dlchlorophenol
2 , 4-Dl«6thylph*nol
4,6-Dlnltro-2-««thylph«nol
2 , 4-Oinitrophflnol
i-M«thy lph.no 1
4-M«thylph«nol
2— Nitroph.nol
4 -N i t r oph«no 1
4-Chloro-3-»«thylph«nol
P*nthachloroph«nol
2 , 4 , 5-Tr ichloroph«nol
2 , 4 , 6-Tricrloroph«nol
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N
N.
N .
N .
D .
D.
0.
D.
D.
D .
D.
D.
D.
D .
D.
.0.
Units
• g/kg
• g/kq
• g/ka
•9/kq
• q/kg
• g/kg
• g/kq
• g/kq
•9/kq
• q/kq
• g/kq
• g/kq
R.por ing
>3
)3
> 1 5
) IS
> 3
> 3 ,
>3
> 15 .
) 3
>3 .
> 3 .
) 3.
L 1 • 1 t
.0
.0
.0
.0
. 0
. 0
.0
.0
. 0
,0
.0
0
I
en
5>»pl«d: 02/26/81
An»lyi«d: 04/16/81
N.0. - Nat d4t«ct«d
-------
o
I
TABLI 37
(AW SLUDGI
BSL VOLATILE OIGAIICS
TCLr AOUtOUS LCACBATI
IPA IUTBOD 624
B r OMO Cor*
B roMOB* than*
Carbon disulfid*
Carbon tvtiachlorida
Ch lor ob«nc *n«
Ch 1 o r o« t han*
2~Chloro«thylvinyl • th« r
Chloiofora
Chioroa«t,han«
DichlorobroHOM«than«
1 , l-Dichloro«than«
1 , 2-Oichloro«than«
L , l-Dichloro»thyl«n«
1 , 2-Dichloropropan*
c i a - I , J-Pichloroprop«n»
2-H« xa non*
M«thlyl«n« chlorid*
S ty r«n*
1 , 1 , 2 , 2-T«trachloro«th*n«
T*trachloro«th«n*
1 , 2-tr*n*-Dichloro«thyl«n*
i , 1 , 2-Trichloro«than«
Trichloro«th«n«
Vinyl Ac«ta t«
Vinyl ch 1 o r i d«
1 - 4 -Di o x an*
l-2-Dibro«o«than«
Saipltd: 02/27/aT
Analysed: 04/01/67
It
*
n
ii
N
ii
ii
N
ii
N
N
N
II
n
n
n
fj
N
n
N
II
II
II
N
N
II
N
H
N
•suits
. D.
. D.
. 0.
. 0.
. D.
. 0 .
. 0.
. D.
. 0.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. 0.
. D.
. D.
Q
. D.
.D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
-D.
Units
•
-------
TABLI 31
RAM SLODGK
HSL SIIUVOLATILI OHGAJUCS
TCLP AQUEOUS LKACHATE
_ -
Ac* napht h«n*
Ac*naphthyl«n«
,.n th r ac *n*
B nro(a)*nthrac*n«
B n to ( a } py r «n*
B nto(b)fluoranth*n*
B nto(g,h,l)p*ryl*n«
8 nto(k)fluoranth*n*
B ncyl alcohol
B 3(2-chloro*thoxy)>i*thftn«
B s(2-chloro*thyl)«th*r
Bis ( 2-chloroisopropyi ) • th« r
4-Bro«oph*nyl ph *ny 1 • t h* r
Butylb*nzyl phthalat*
4 -Ch loroanilin*
2-Chloronaphtha l*n«
4-chloroph«nyl ph«ny 1 «t h* f
Ch r y 3 *n*
Dib«nt(t,K)tnthctc«n«
D L b«n r o f u r a n
1 , 2-Dichlorob*ni*n«
1 , )-DLchLorob*ne*n*
I , 4-Dichlorob*nz*n«
3 , 3 '-OichLorob*nsidin«
Dicthy 1 pht hi !• t •
D l » e t h y 1 phthalat*
Di-n-butyl phthalat*
2 , 4-Dlnxtrotolu«n«
Di-n-octyl phth*l»t«
r 1 uo r *n t h«n«
Fluor *n«
H«xachlo rob«nt«n«
H»n*chiorobut*di«n«
H«K4chlorocyclop«nt«di*n«
H«x*chloro«thin«
I nd«no ( 1 , 2 , 3-cd)pyr*n«
I aophoron*
2 -N 1 1 r o • n i 1 in*
3-Nitro«nilin«
4-Ni t roani 1 in*
Nit r ob«nt • n •
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamin*
n
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
It
n
n
N
n
N
R
N
N
N
tf
N
N
N
n
N
n
II
N
11
N
11
II
II
II
n
ii
N
11
11
II
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
0.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D .
D.
Q
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
C.
Units
• 9/L
• 9/1,
• q/L
»q/L
• q/L
mq/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
•q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
»q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• a /I
S/ **
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
•q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
R*portinQ L i • i t
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
01
01
01
01
0 1
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
05
OS
OS
01
01
-------
to
I
TABU )l ICOHT'D)
KAW SLDOGE
BSL SiniVOLATILI ORGUIC3
TCI.r AQUIOUS LIACBATI
N-Ni t rosodiph«ny L a • 1 n« •
Ph«n»n thr«n«
Py r «n«
•ntoic acid
-Ch loroph«nol
, 4-Dichloroph«nol
,6-Oinltro 2 -•• t hy 1 ph«no 1
, 4-Dinltro /h«no 1
-Nitroph«r >l
-Rltrophcr *•
-Chloro-l-««thylph«nol
•nt*chloroph«nol
, 4 , S-T r ich lorophanol
,4,6-Trichloroph«nol
Py r idln«
I nd*n •
B«ncan«thiol
^ . 12-Dl»«thylb«nt«nthr«c«r\«
]u ino 1 in*
.-M*thy n*pthth«l«n«
>«.pi.d: oi/n/n
Mlilyi«d: 04/J2/11
S
N
R
R
N
N
R
n
N
N
N
R
N
N
R
H
R
R
R
R
•suits
. D.
. D .
. D.
. D .
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. 0.
0.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. 0.
. D.
. D.
. 0.
n l
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• a / I
q/ L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/t
• q/L
oq/L
• q/t
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• o/l.
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
opor
0 .
0 .
0.
Q
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
0.
0.
0 .
0 .
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
tino L i • i t
01
01
01
0 1
05
01
01
0)
OS
01
05
01
01
01
01
0
01
01
01
01
01
N.O. - Not d«t«ct.d
-------
TABU 3*
*AV SLUtKlI
rcai
rcLr AQOKOUS
(FA MtTBOD 601
P« r «••t•r
R.sul tl
Unit!
Rtporting Ll»i t
Aro
Aro
Aro
Aro
Aro
Aro
Aro
lo
lo
lo
1 0
lo
lo
lo
1016
1221
12)2
1242
1248
1 254
1 260
n . D.
N . D.
1). D.
N . D.
N . D.
N . D.
N.D.
U9/L
UO./L
ug/L
ucj/L
u
-------
SECTION 12
ANALYTES NOT DETECTED
IN
PRODUCT SOLIDS
-------
Ul
I
TABLE 40
PRODUCT SOLIDS
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
rfA METHOD 608
CAS NUMBER
74-83- J
-83-9
15-01-4
15-00-3
15-15-10
15-35-4
15-34-3
156-6'J-S
61-66-3
101-06-2
U-93-3
11-55-6
56-23-5
108-05-4
'. 3-21-4
19-34-5
18-81-5
10061-02-6
124-48-1
19-00-5
10061-01-S
110-15-4
15-25-2
591-18-6
108-10-1
108-90-1
100-42-5
PARAMETER
Chloro«than«
B roaom* t han«
VinylChlorid.
Chi o r oa than*
CarbonDiaulfid*
1 , l-Dichloro«th«n«
1 , l-Dichloro«than«
T tans - 1 , 2-Dichloro«th*n«
Ch lorofora
1 , 2-oich lo r o« t han*
2 -Bu t anon*
1 , 1 , l-Trichloro*than*
CarbonT*trachlorld*
VinylAc«tat*
BroModichloroa*than*
1 , 1 , 2 , 2-T«trachloro*than*
1 , 2-Dichloropropan*
T r ana- 1 , 3-Dichloroprop*n*
Dlbroiaochloroa*than*
1 . 1 , 2-Trichloro*than*
cis-1 , 3-Dichlorprop«n*
2-Chloro*thylvinyl*th«r
Broaofor*
2-H«Kanon«
4-M«thyl-2-P«nt«non«
Chlorob«nc«n«
S t y r«na
HESULTS
N.
0.
N
R.
N.
N.
N .
N
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N .
11 .
N .
N.
R.
R.
N.
R.
N .
H.
R,
N.
R.
H
. D.
.0.
. D.
. D.
, D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. 0.
. D .
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D .
. D.
D.
D.
.0.
UNITS
ug/L
uq/L
ug/L
ug/L
uq/L
ug/L
uq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
ug/L
uq/L
ug/L
ug/L
REPORTING LIMIT
2100
2100
2100
2700
1400
1400
1410
1400
1400
1400
2100
1400
1400
2700
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
2100
1400
2700
2700
1400
1400
-------
TABLI 41
PRODUCT SOLIDS
3IHIVOLATILI COMPOUNDS
IP* HITBOD 601
PARAMETER
111-4-4
95-57-4
541-71-1
106-46-7
100-51-6
35-48-7
39638-3 J-9
881-64-7
72-1
58-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
1 20-83-2
1 1 1-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
106-47-8
87-68-J
77-47-4
88-66-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
131-11-4
208-96-8
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
100-02-7
132-64-9
121-14-2
606-20-2
84-66-2
7005-7J-J
CAS NUMBER
bls(-2-Chloro*thyl)Eth«r
2-Chloroph*nol
l,3-Dichlorob«nt«n«
1 , 4-Oichlorob«nc*n«
Ban ty 1 Alcohol
2-H*thylph«nol
b i s ( 2~chloroisopropyl ) E t h« r
N-Ritro-Ol-n-l>ropyl*»ln«
H«x>chloro«than«
Nittob«nE«n«
I a opho r on*
2-Rl t r oph*nol
2,4-Dichloroph*nol
b i i ( 2-Chlo r o« t ho«y 1 H«th«n«
2 , 4-Dichloroph«nol
1 t 2 , 4-Trichlorob*nt*n*
4-Chloroanilin*
H*»chlorobut>dl*n*
H*i>chlorocyclop«nt«dl*n*
2,4,6-Trlchlorophtnol
2,4,5-Trichlocoph»nol
2-Chloron«phth«l«n«
2-Nl t roini 1 in*
Di»«thyl Phth«l«t»
Ac*naphthyl«a«
3-Ni t ro*ni lln«
Ac«naph t h«n«
2,4-Dlnitrophtnol
4-Hi t roph4nol
Dibantofurtn
2,4-Dinitrotolu*n«
2,6-Oinitrotolu«n«
Di«thy lphth»l»t«
4-chloroph«nyl-ph«nyl»th«r
RESULTS
B
N.
N
N
N.
N .
N.
II.
N
R
N.
N
N
N
N
N
H
N
N.
N.
n.
n
N
N.
P.
H
N
R .
N,
R.
R.
H.
R.
R.
. D.
,D.
. 0.
. 0.
. D.
. D.
. 0.
. 0.
. D.
. D.
. D.
D.
D.
. D.
. 0.
. D.
.0.
. D.
.D.
. D.
. D.
.D.
.0.
.0.
.D.
.0.
.0.
.D.
.D.
.D.
D.
,D.
.0.
D.
UNITS
u
-------
TABLI 41 (COBT'D)
PBOO0CT SOLIDS
SEHIVOLATILt COnPOUHDS
EPA HIT80D 60«
PARAMETER
CAS NUMBER
REPORTING LIMIT
100-01-6
514-52-1
101-55-1
1H-14-1
8 /-86-5
120-12-1
84-74-2
91-94-1
56-55-1
in-84-0
205-99-2
207-09-9
50-3J-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
4-Nitro»lin*
4,6-Dlnitro-2-Mathylphanol
4-Broaophanyl-phanylattiaer
H«K*chlorobanzana
Pantachlorophanol
Anthr meana
Di-N-8utylphth»l«ta
3,3'-Dichlorobantidlna
Bant oI a)Anthrac«n«
Di-n-Octylphthal«t«
BAnzu(b)fluornnth«n«
Banzo(k)fluoranth*n«
B»nto ( > ) Pyt OTI«
lnd«nol(1,2,3-cd)Pyr«n*
DLb«nco{a,hIAnthracana
Benzo(9,h,i)Parylana
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N. D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
H . D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
90000
90000
19000
19000
90000
19000
19000
37000
19000
19000
19000
19000
19000
19000
19000
19000
-------
o>
I
S«»pl«d: 02/26/17
Aiulyt.d: 04/07/97
ft.D. • Not d»t«ct«d
TABLS 42
PRODUCT SOLIDS
• 5L VOLATILE OBOAJIICS
TCLP AQUEOUS LEACBATE
EPA HETBOD 624
Ac* ton*
B roMo f o r •
B roKon* t ban*
2 - bu t A non •
Carbon disulfid*
Carbon tetrachlorid*
Ch L o t ob*nt en*
ChlorodibroBO*th*n*
Chi o r o* t h an*
2-Chloro*ihylvinyl *th*r
Ch lo ro t o r •
Ch 1 o roa* t han«
DLchlorobroBOH*th*n*
, l-Dichloro*th*n*
, 2— Oichloro*than«
, l-Dichloio*thyl*n*
, 2-Dichloropcopan*
ia-1 , 3-Dichloroprop*n*
r arts- 1 , 3-Dichloroprop*n*
M*thly l*n* chlorid*
S ty r *n*
1 , 1 , 2 , 2-T*t rachloro*th*n*
T*trachloro*th*n*
1 , 2-trans-Dichloro*thyl*n«
1 . 1 . l-Trichloro*than«
1 , 1 , 2-Trichloro*th«n*
Trlchloro«th«n*
Vinyl Ac*tat«
Vinyl chlond*
1 - 4 -Di o inn*
l-2-DibroMo*than«
F
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
n
R
N
N
11
N
N
N
N
N
fl
N
1*
n
N
N
N
N
N
N
n
N
N
- ..
•suits
. 0.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. 0.
. 0.
. O.
.0.
. D.
.0.
.D.
.D.
.D.
. D.
.0.
.0.
.0.
. D .
. D.
. D.
. 0.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
.O.
.O.
.0.
.D.
. 0.
Units
»g/L
• g/L
• 9/1
• 9/1-
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• a / 1
tj/ LI
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/L
• 9/1.
• 9/L
•9/L
— ~
R«por
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0 .
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
Q
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0 .
tino L 1 • i t
1]
025
025
11
025
025
025
025
OS
OS
02S
OS
025
02S
02S
025
025
025
025
0 5
OS
025
025
025
025
025
02S
025
05
OS
5
02S
-------
-o
I
TABLK 4]
PBODOCT SOLIDS
RSL SlftlVOLATtLI ORQAfllCS
TCLP AQUEOUS LKACBATI
Paraaatar
Acan aph t hana
Acanaphthylana
An t h r ac ana
Bunio ( a ) an th racana
Bane o ( a ) py r ana
Bansa(b)fluoranthana
Banto(g,h,i )parylana
Banio(k)fluoranthana
Bancy 1 alcohol
Bis ( 2-chloroathoKy)«athana
Bis ( 2-chloroathyl athar
Bis ( 2-chloroisopropyl ) a t ha r
3li(2-athylhaiiyllphthalata
4-B c oaophany 1 phanyl athar
Rutylbantyl phthalata
4-Chlocoani lina
'!-Chloronaphthalana
•i-Ch 1 o rophany 1 phanyl athar
C h r y a a n •
DL banz ( a , h ) anthrac«n*
Dibanzofuran
1 , 2~Dichlorob«nzan«
1 , 3~Dichlocob«n£«n«
1 , 4-Dlchlorobenzan*
3 , 3 • -Dichlorob«n31din«
Oiathyl phtha 1 j t«
Dt««thyl phthalat
Di-n-butyl phthal t«
2 , 4-Dinitrotolu«n
2 , 6-Dinitrotolu«n
Di-n-octyl phthal t«
Fluoranth^na
Fluor«n«
Httxachl^rob«ni«n«
HftKachl irobutadiana
Hox«chlorocyclop*ntadi«n«
Haxa^hloroathan*
Indano ( 1 , 2 , 3-cd)pyrana
Isophoror. a
2-Hi troanilina
3-Nitroanilina
4-Nitroanilina
Nltrobanzana
Raiults
N
R
N
11
R
N
h
N
tl
N
N
N
N
N
If
N
n
N
N
II
N
N
N
n
N
N
R
H
N
H
N
n
H
N
R
R
R
N
R
R
R
H
N
O.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
0.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
D.
3.
D.
D.
D.
D.
O.
.0.
D.
.0.
0.
.D.
D.
D.
.0.
.D.
.0.
.D.
D.
.0.
.D.
.0.
.D.
.D.
.D.
.0.
Units
•g/t
• 9/L
«q/L
«g/L
• g/L
• g/L
•9/L
• g/L
• g/L
ig/L
• g/L
• g/L
•g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
rq/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
•9/L
•g/L
• g/L
• 9/L
• g/L
• g/L
• g/L
•g/L
•9/L
Reporting Li«lt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
OS
05
05
01
-------
o
TXBLI 4) ICOITT'D)
FBODUC7 SOLIDS
• SI. JIHIVOLATILC OIGJUIICS
TCLP AQUEOUS LEACBATI
N-Nltrosodi-n-propylAain*
N-Ni t rosodiphvnylBHina *
Ph«nan t h r *na
Py r«na
1 , 2 , 4-Trichlorob«nz«n«
B«n t o i c rcid
2-Chloroph«nol
2 ( 4-Dichloroph«nol
4,6-Dinitro-2-«»thylph«nol
2 , 4 -D l n i t rophvnol
2-Nt t roph.nol
4 -Ni t roph«no 1
4-Chloro-J-««thylph«nol
P«ntachLoroph«nol
2 , 4 , 5-Tcichloroph«nol
2 . 4 , 6-Trichloroph«nol
Pyc idin*
Indan*
B«n z »n« t hi o 1
T , 12-Diaethylb«nEanthr*c*n*
Qu i no I i n«
l-H«thy napththAlvna
S»»pl.d: 02/27/17
Analyt*d: 04/22/87
- --.
"**"
n .
n .
N
11
II.
II .
N
II
It
N
A.
N.
N.
N
II .
It
It
N .
N
n.
N
N.
.0.
D.
. D.
0 .
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
.0.
. 0.
D.
D.
. D.
D.
D.
.0.
.0.
.0.
D.
,D.
.O.
Units
• q/L
• q/L
.q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
•9/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
.q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
Lit
•por ing !•
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0 ,
0
o ,
0,
0 .
0.
0.
0 .
0 .
0.
0 .
0 .
0.
o .
0.
0.
01
.01
.01
01
.01
,05
.01
.01
.OS
.05
.01
05
01
.01
.01
.01
0
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
Rot d« t«c t «d
-------
TABLE 44
PRODUCT SOLIDS
PESTICIDES/PCB'S
EPA METHOD tat
CAS NUMBER
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-36-8
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
1 204-51-3
959-98-8
60-57-1
72-55-9
72-20-8
33213-65-9
72-54-8
1031-07-8
50-29-3
72-43-5
53494-70-5
57-74-9
8001-35-2
1 2674-11-2
1 1104-28-2
11 1 41-16-5
53«69-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
PARAMETER
Alpha-BHC
B«t>-BHC
D«l ta-BHC
Ganua-BHC (Llndan«)
H«ptachlor
Aldr la
H«ptachlor Epoxid*
Endosulfan I
Dialdrin
4,4' -DDE
End r in
Endosul Can II
4 , 4 '-ODD
Cndoaulfan Sulfata
4,4' -DDT
H« t hony ch 1 o r
Endrin K« t on*
Ch 1 o r d n*
To x a ph n*
Aroclo -101S
Aroclo -1221
• roclo -1232
Aroclo -1242
Aroclo -1248
Aroclo -1254
Aroclo -1260
RESULTS
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
R
N
N
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D .
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
UNITS
uq/L
uq/L
ug/L
uq/L
ug/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
ug/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
ug/L
ug/L
uq/L
REPORTING LIMIT
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
170
170
no
no
170
170
170
860
170
860
1700
860
860
860
860
860
1700
1700
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. 0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
SECTION 13
ANALYTES NOT DETECTED
IN
RAU PRODUCT WATER
-72-
-------
TABLK 45
RAW PRODUCT WATER
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
KPA HETBOD 60S
CAS NUMBER
3-9
15-01-4
15-00-3
15-15-0
15-35-4
15-34-3
156-60-5
61-66-3
101-66-2
-11 C C £
1 1 — D j — a
e, c •) \ c
j o — 1 J — j
108-05-4
-j e -j -t *
1 J — i 1 — 1
19-34-5
18-81-5
1006 1-02-6
19-10-6
1 24-48-1
19-00-5
11-43-2
10061-01-5
110-15-8
15-25-2
591-18-6
108-10-1
1 21-13-4
108-88-3
108-90-1
100-41-4
100-42-5
PARAMETER
Bro.o«.than»
VinylChlorid*
Ch lo r o« than*
CarbonDLaulfid*
1 , l-Dlchloroeth«n«
1 , l-0ichloiro«than«
Trana-1 , 2-Oichloro«th«na
Chloroform
1 . 2-Dlchloro*than«
Viny !Ac«t it •
1 1,2,^-Tetrachloroftthan*
1 , 2-Dlchloroptopan«
T r an s- 1 , 3-Pichloropcop«n<
Trlchloro4th«n«
DibroAochloroacthan*
1 , 1 , 2-Trichloro«than«
B«nr «n«
cla-L , 3-Dichloroprop«n«
2-Chloro«thylvinyl«th«r
Broaofora
2-H.
. D .
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
.0.
. D.
. D-
. D.
. D.
.O.
. D.
. 0.
.D.
UNITS
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
Uo / f
S/ "
ug/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
REPORTING LIMIT
1000
1000
1000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
50C
500
1000
500
1000
1000
eoo
500
500
500
500
-------
*-
I
TABLI 46
IAW PIODUCT MATE!
SIMI9OLATIL1 COMPOUNDS
KPA fUTBOD 603
CAS NUMBER
111-44-4
95-57-8
541-71-1
106-46-7
100-51-6
95-41-7
J96 38-12-9
621-64-7
-J 1 |
— / 1 — 1
11-95-1
71-59-1
81-75-5
111-91-1
120-8 )-2
I 20-8 2-1
106-47-8
87-68-1
77-47-4
81-06-2
95-95-4
91-51-7
11-74 -4
111-! 1-4
201-96-1
99-09-2
11-J2-9
51-28-5
100-02-7
1 32-64-9
121-14-2
606-20-2
84-66-J
7005-72-3
PARAMETER
bll(-2-Chloro«thyl ICth.r
2-Chlorophanol
1 , 3-DLchlorobtnt«n«
1 , 4-Dlchlorob«nr«n»
B*n t y 1 Alcohol
2 -M« thy lph«no 1
bis( 2-chloroisopropyl t C t h« r
N-NLtro-Di-n-Propyl«»ln«
N i t r ob«n t «n«
tsophoron*
2 -N L t r oph*no 1
bl s | 2-Ch lococthoiy ) n«th«n«
] , 4-Dlchloroph»nol
1 , 2 , 4-Trichlorobant*n«
4 -Ch lorotnllinc
H«xachlorobuttdi«n«
H«x«chlcrocyclop«nt«dittn«
2 , 4 , 6-Trich loroph«nol
2 , 4 , 5-Trlchlorophanol
2-Chloron«phthal«n«
2-Nitroinll In*
Di»*thyl Phthilit*
Ac*nAphthyl«a«
3-Nitroanilin«
Ac«n«phth«n«
2,4-Dinitroph«nol
4-Nitrophanol
?lb«ntofuran
2,6-Dlnitrotoluan*
Di« t hy Iph t h« 1« t •
4-Chloroph«nyl-ph«nyl«th*r
RESULTS
H .
N .
N .
R .
n .
N .
N .
N .
n
K .
n ,
N.
N .
N
N .
N .
N .
N
N .
N
n.
If .
n.
N
n
n
ii
H
n
n
If
II
It
0.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
C .
D.
D.
0.
0.
0.
D.
D.
0.
0.
. D.
D.
D.
D .
. 0.
. D.
. D.
. D.
.D.
. 0.
. D.
p
. D.
.0.
.0.
UNITS
U9/L
U9/L
ug/L
uq/L
uq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
REPORTING LIMIT
110
670
610
110
110
130
110
(70
670
130
130
110
130
130
130
130
270
130
110
130
130
130
130
110
110
110
(70
130
110
110
130
130
130
-------
TABLI 46 (CONT'C)
RAW PRODUCT WATER
StfllVOLATILE COHPOUHDS
IPA nCTBOD 601
CAS NUMBER
100-01-6
534-52-1
101-55-3
114-74-1
47-86-5
120-12-7
44-7s-2
91-94-1
56-55-3
1 1 7-84-0
205-99-2
20 7 — 04 — 9
50-32-8
19 J-39-5
5 J-10-3
191-24-2
PARAMETER
4 -N i t roan i 1 i n«
4 , 6-Oinitro-2-M*«thylph«nol
4-Bro»oph«nyl-ph«nyl • t h« r
H«H«chlorob«nz«n*
P*nt«chlocoph«nol
Ant h i » c«n«
Di-N-Buty Iphth* lit*
3 , 3 ' -Dlchlocob«nzldln«
Banco i * ) Anthr«cc«n«
Di-n-Octy lphth*l*t«
B«n x o (b ) Pluoc«nth«n«
_ / W I F 1 fr h
B.ntoH IPyr.n.
Ind*no{ 1 , 2 , 3-cd) Pyr*n»
Dib«nco(a,h)Anthr«c«n«
Ba-.zo ( g,h. i ) P.ry l.n.
RESULTS
N.
N .
N .
N.
N .
N .
N .
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0.
D.
0.
0.
0.
. D.
D.
. D.
. 0.
. D.
. D.
. D .
. D.
. D .
. D.
. D .
USITS
ug/L
ug/L
ug/l.
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
REPORTING LIMIT
670
670
130
130
670
130
130
270
130
130
130
130
130
130
1 30
130
en
I
-------
TABLK 47
RAW PRODUCT MATH
I
-O
rcai
rtsTictoi s
IPA HITBOD (01
QAS NUMBER
] 19-84-4
M9-85-7
1 19-86- J
5«-»1-9
/6-44-«
309-00-J
1204-57- J
959-98-J
80-57-1
72-55-9
7 2-20-«
l!2l 1-65-9
72-54-«
10 Jl-07-6-
50-29-J
71-43-5
51494-70-5
57-74-9
J ( 0 1 - 1 5 - J
1 ; 6 7 4 - 1 1 - 2
11104-21-2
1114 1-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-J9-6
1 1097-69-1
1 1096-82-5
PARAMETER
Alph.-BHC
B«t«-BFIC
0*1 tl-BHCO
B1...-BHC (Lind.n.l
H*pttchlor
Aldr in
H«pt«chlor Epould*
Cndo t u 1 f • n I
Olttldrln
4 . 4 '-DOE
Cnd r 1 n
Cndoiul (in II
4.4' -ODD
Cndosulfan Sulfat*
4.4' -DOT
H*thoxychlor
Endrln K«ton«
Chlordtn*
Toxaph«n«
Acocloc-1016
Aroclor-1 221
Aroclor-1 2 12
Aroclor-1 242
/.roc lor-1 241
Aroclor-1 254
Aroclor-1260
RESULTS
It
H
N
N
N
N
N .
N
N
N
R
N.
n .
n .
N
N .
N .
n .
N
N
N .
It.
N
It.
It.
H .
. D.
. D.
. D.
. O.
. 0 .
D.
D .
0.
. O.
O.
. D.
. D.
D.
. 0.
. D.
D.
. !> .
D.
D.
. D.
. D.
. 0.
, D.
. D.
. 0.
.D.
UNITS
uq/L
"9VL
uq/L
ug/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
REPORTING LIMIT
0
0
(l
0
0
0
u .
o .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
.06
. 06
. 06
.06
.06
.06
.06
.06
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 1)
. 1)
.13
. 11
.61
.13
.63
. 10
.61
. 61
.61
.61
.61
. 10
.10
-------
SECTION 14
ANALYTES NOT DETECTED
IN
TREATED PRODUCT VATER
-77-
-------
CD
I
TABLE 41
TREATED PRODUCT MATE*
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
EPA METHOD 601
CAS NUMBER
74-83-1
- 3-9
75-01-4
75-00-3
75-15-10
75-15-4
75-34-J
156-60-5
67-66-3
71-55-6
56-23-5
108-05-4
75-27-4
79-34-5
78-87-5
1 061 02 6
79-10-0
1 24-4S-1
79-00-5
71-43-2
1006 1-01-5
110-75-8
75-25-2
591-78-6
105-10-1
127-1 J-4
106-94-3
108-f 0-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
PARAMETER
Ch 1 o to* t hana
B r oaoaa t hana
Vlny IChlor l -it
Chloroathana
Ca cbonUl sul (id*
1 , 1-Dlchloroathana
1 , l-Dlchloroathana
T c an a - 1 , 2-Dichloroathana
Chlorofora
1,1, 1-Trlchloroathana
Vinyl Acata ta
Broaodlchloroaathana
1 , 1 , 2 , 2-Tatrachloroathan«
1 , 2-Dlchloropropana
Trichl oroathana
Dibtoajochloroaathana
1 , 1 , 2-Trichloroathan»
Bane ana
CL9-1 , 2-Dichlorprop«n«
2-Chloroathyli inylathar
Broaofora
2-Haxanon«
4-Mathyl-2-P«ntanon«
Tfltrachloroathana
To 1 u«n*
Chlorob«ns«n«
Ethylb«nB*n«
S t y r an •
RESULTS
N .
N .
N.
n
N .
R
R.
N .
N.
N
M
K
N
N
N
N
N
R.
n .
R
H .
R
R
R
11
H
If.
N
H
n
D.
D.
0.
D.
0 .
D.
D.
D .
.D.
D.
n
.D.
. 0.
D.
. D.
D .
D.
D.
D .
D.
D .
0.
0.
D.
D.
0.
. D.
.0.
. D.
.D.
UNITS
uq/L
ug/L
ug/L
•-,/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ua / L
*j/ i*
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
i j/L
ug/L
U.J/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/t
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
REPORTIRG LIMIT
SOO
50U
500
500
250
250
500
250
SOO
250
2 50
500
250
250
25C
250
250
250
2SO
250
250
500
J50
500
500
250
250
250
250
250
-------
TKBLI 49
TREATED I>«ODOCT WATER
SEMI VOLATILE C'CHFOURDS
EPA METHOD 60S
vO
I
PARAMETER
111-4-4
95-51-8
541-13-1
106-46-1
100-51-6
35-48-1
14£lA 11 <3
JjO JO — j 4 — »
881-64-1
12-1
58-95-3
18-59-1
88-15-5
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
106-41-8
81-68-
11-41-
88-66-
95-95-
91-5'
88-14-
131-11-4
208-96-8
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
100-02-1
132-64-9
121-14-1
606-20-2
84-66-2
1005-12-3
CAS NUMBER
bis|-2-Chlocoathyl)Cthac
2-Chlorophanol
1 , 3-Olchlorobaniana
1 , 4-Dichlorobanzana
Baneyl Alcohol
2-Mathylphanol
N-~Nltro-Di-n-Propyla«lna
Haxachloroathana
Nltrobancana
I aopho rona
2-Kitrophanol
bis ( 2-Chloroathoxy ) Mathana
2 , 4-Dlchlorophanol
1 , 2 , 4-Tr ichlorobanzana
4-Chloroanilina
Haxachlorobutadiana
Haxachlorocyclopantadlana
2 , 4 , 6-Tr ichlorophanol
2 , 4 , 5-Trlchlorophanol
2-Chloronaphthalana
2-Rltroanilina
Di»*thyl Phthalata
Acanaphthylaca
3-Nitcoanilina
Acana ph t h na
2,4-Dinlt ophanol
4-Nttroph nol
Dibantofu an
2,4-Dinit otoluana
2,6-Dinlt otoluana
Ola thylphthala ta
4-Chlocophanyl-phanylathar
RESULTS
R
R
N
R
H
R
R
ti
R
N
N
N
R
R
R
R
R
R
N
R
H
H
H
R
H
H
R
R
H
H
R
R
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
UNITS
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
UI/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
REPORTING LIMIT
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
1000
200
1000
200
200
1000
200
1000
1000
200
200
200
200
200
-------
TABLE 49 (COHT'D)
TREATED PRODUCT WATER
SEHIVOLATILE COBPOUHOS
EPA HCTBOD 601
PARAMETER
100-01-6
534-52-1
101-55-3
1 1J- M-l
87-46-5
120-12-7
84-74-2
91-94-1
56-55-3
1 17-84-0
205-99-2
307-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
CAS NUMBER
4-Ni.t roll in.
4,6-Dinitro-2-M»thylph«nol
4-Bro»oph«nyl-ph«nyl«th««r
H«xichlocob«nc«n«
P«nt«chloraph«nol
An t h r «c »n«
Di-N-Butylphth«l«t«
3 , 3 ' -Dlchlorob«ni i d In*
D*neo f • IAnthrac«n«
Dl-n-Octylphthll«t«
B«n o ( b > T I uo t tn t h«n«
Ban o ( k ) r L uo r an t h«n«
B«n o(<) Py i »n«
Ind no ( 1 , 2 , 3 -cd ) Py r «n«
Dlb nco ( • , h ) An t h r ac^n*
B«n o ( q , h , i ) P« r y 1 «n«
RESULTS
H
H
n
N
It
N
n
n
N
N
N
N
N
r.
a
H
D.
D.
D.
D .
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
0.
0.
D.
D.
0.
UNITS
ug/L
U9/L
uq/L
UO./L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
REPORTING LIMIT
1000
1000
200
200
JCOo
2,10
200
400
200
200
200
200
200
200
o 200
200
00
o
-------
TABLE SO
TREATED FHOOUCT WATER
PESTICIDES/FOB1S
EPA HETBOD 60S
CAS NUMBER
319-S4-6
319-t 5-7
319-S6-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
109-00-2
1204-57-3
9S9-9S-8
60-57-1
72-55-9
72-20-8
33 21 3-65-9
72-54-8
1031-07-8
50-29-3
72-43-5
53494-70-5
57-74-9
8001-35-2
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141 -- 16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
PARAMETER
Alpha-BHC
B«ta-BHC
D«l to -BHC
BaB>a-BHC (Lindant)
H«ptachlor
Aldtin
H«ptachlor Epoxid*
Endosu 1 f a n I
Dlddr in
4 , 4 '-DDE
£nd r i n
Endoiul fan II
4,4' -ODD
Endosulfan Sulfate
4,4' -UDT
Htthoxychlor
Endrin K«ton«
Chlord n«
Toxaph n«
Aroclo -1016
Aroclo -1221
Aroclo -1232
Aroclo -1242
Aroclo -1248
Aroclo -1254
Aroclo -1260
RESULTS
11
N
N
N
N
N
N
I)
N
N
N
N
n
n
N
, N
n
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0 .
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
UNITS
uq/L
U9/L
U9/L
uq/L
ug/L,
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
uq/L
REPORTING LIMIT
0
0
0
1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
1.
.17
.17
.17
17
.17
17
17
17
33
33
33
33
31
33
33
70
33
70
30
70
70
70
70
70
30
30
-------
SECTION 15
ANALYTES NOT LxTECTED
IN
PRODUCT OIL
-82-
-------
TABLE SI
PRODUCT OIL
BSL VOLATILE OHGJUIICJ
TC.LP AQUEOUS LEACBATt
EPA METHOD 624
Ac* t on*
B*ne*n*
B r o«o t o t*
B r oaoM* than*
2-Bu t anon*
Carbon t*trachlorida
Ch 1 o r ob*ne«n*
Dibroaochloro»«than*
ChlorodibcoHOflthan*
Ch I o ro* t h*n*
2-Chloro*thylvinyl *th* r
Ch lorofora
Ch lo ro«* than*
BroHodichloroa*than*
1,1-Dichlo o* t han*
1,2-Dichlo o*than«
1,1-Dichlo o*thylan*
1,2-Dichlo opropan*
c i s — 1 , 3— Di hlocoprop*n*
t r a n s - 1 , 3-Dichloroprop*n*
2 -H • K a non •
M*thlyl«n* chlorid*
4-M*thyl-2-pentanon*
S ty r *n*
1 , 1 , 2 , 2-T*trachloro«than*
T*trachloro*th*n*
Trans-i , 2-Oichloro*thyl*n*
1 , 1 , l-Trichloro*than*
1 , 1, 2-Tcichloro«than*
Tcichloro«th*n*
Vinyl «c*tat*
V i ny 1 ch 1 o r id*
-
Results
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
R
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0 .
D.
D.
0.
D .
D.
D.
D .
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
0.
0.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D .
0.
D.
D .
D.
Un its
• 9/L
mq/L
• q/L
• q/L
»q/1.
"
-------
I
(3D
t-
I
TABLE 52
PRODUCT OIL
DSL SIHIVOLATILI ORCAIICS
TCLP AQUEOUS LEACBATI
Pa r a Ha t a r
Acanaphthylana
Banco 1 • ) anthracana
Banz o ( t ) py r <»na
Banco ( b ) { 1 uo ranthana
Banz o ( q , h , 1 Iparylana
Banzo(k)fluoranthana
Ban cy 1 alcohol
Bis 1 2-chloroathoxy)»athana
Bi5( 2-chloroathyl ) a t ha r
B l s 1 2-chloroisopropyl ) a t ha r
4 - B r ovophany 1 phanyl athar
Butylbanzyl phthilata
4-Chloroanilina
2-Chloronaphthalana
4-Ch 1 o rophany 1 phanyl athar
Oib«ni(a,htanthracana
L , 2-Dichlocobant«n*
1, - D l ch 1 o L ob«nz ana
L, - Di ch 1 o r obanc an*
3, ' - Di ch 1 o r oban a L dlna
01 thyl phthalata
Di athyl phthalat
Di-n-butyl phthaL ta
2, 4-Dinitrotoluan
2,6-Dinitrotoluan
Dl-n-octyl phthal ta
fluoranthana
Haxachlorocyclopantadiana
Haxachloroathana
Indanoll,2,3-cd)pyrana
Isophorona
2-Nitroanilin«
3-Nitroanilina
4-Nitroanilina
Nitrobansana
Raiul t 5
It
N
N
N
N
N
»
N
N
N
N
N
If
N
N
N
II
N
N
11
II
N
II
N
N
H
n
n
ii
K
II
II
II
II
N
H
D.
0.
D.
D.
0.
D.
D.
D.
0.
D.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
D.
0.
D.
0.
Q
D .
D.
D.
0.
D.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Uni tl
• q/L
rnq/t
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
^q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• a /L
*j/ **
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
• q/L
Rapoctinq Limit
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
JO
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
20
) n
t U
20
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
-------
00
Ul
I
TKBLI 52 {COHT-OI
P«ODUCT Oil.
HSL SEMI VOLATILE OBGAJIICS
TCLP AQUEOUS LEACBATt
N-Nitrosodi -n-propyl««in«
1 , 2 , 4-Trichlorob«nz«n«
Benzole acid
2 -Ch 1 o r oph«no 1
2 , 4-Dichloroph«nol
2 , 4-Di»»thylph«nol
4 ,6-Dinitro-2-a«thylph«nol
2 , 4-Dinitroph«noL
2-M«thy lph«no L
2-Ni t roph»no 1
4 -N 1 1 r ophano 1
P«ntachloroph«nol
2 , 4 , S-Trichloroph«noI
2 , 4 , 6-Trichloroph«nol
S««pl»d: 02/26/87
Analyzed: 04/16/87
n i
N
N
N .
N
N
N
N
R
N
N
N
j^
N
N
N
isul t 3
. n.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
.D.
. D.
. D.
. D.
. 0.
.O.
p
. D.
.D.
. D.
Units
• q/L
mq/L
mq/L
»ij/L
• q/L
iiq/L
nq/L
• q/L
• g/L
«q/L
«q/L
• a / 1
9X LI
Bg/L
mq/L
• q/L
nit
• pot nq ll»l
20
20
20
100
20
20
100
100
20
20
100
t rt
i U
20
20
20
Not d«t«ct«d
-------
TABLI S3
PRODUCT OIL
PCB«
TCLP AQUEOUS LIACBATt
SPA flETHOD 401
X r o c 1 o
)v r o c 1 o
Ar oc 1 o
Ar oc 1 o
Ar oc 1 o
A c o c 1 o
Ar oc 1 o
1016
1221
1212
1242
1241
1254
1260
S.«pl«d: 02/26/97
Anilyt.d: 04/09/S7
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0.
0.
0.
D.
0.
D.
D.
units 1
UO./L
u<3/L
U9/L
U9/L
U9/L
U9/L
"9/1-
(•pot nq li
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
.If
1 1 C
2
2
2
2
5
SO
SO
Not d«t«ct«
-------
SECTION 16
SAMPLE KEY
-87-
-------
TABLE 54
5AMPLI KIT rot B I.5.T.™ 3LUDCI r»OC«S5I«Q BOAT TIST
I
OJ
CD
\
Staple Tag 1
1001
100]
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
100)
1009
L 0 i C
1011
101 2
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
lOil
1019
1020
1021
102)
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
102J
1019
1030
1031
103)
1333
1034
1015
10)6
1037
10 J J
1-39
1040
104 1
1042
HMAL 1
001
001
00 1
00 1
001
001
OC1
or i
not
002
00]
003
004
004
004
00"
006
072
007
007
007
001
009
009
009
009
009
009
010
010
010
010
010
01 1
01 V
01]
013
071
014
014
015
015
EPA I Sample Dxcription D
-------
SAJ4PLI (XT ro» I.C.S.T
TABLI 14 (COHT'D)
T«
SLUDGE PHOCtSSINC BOAT TIST
t
CO
•£>
1
Sa.pla T»
104)
1044
1045
1046
1047
1049
1049
1050
I rt e 1
1 U D L
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1059
1059
1060
1061
lO->2
106)
1064
1065
1066
1067
1069
1069
10 70
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
4 1 RMAL 1
016
016
014
CM 7
017
017
019
019
0*9
0 19
020
020
020
021
02 1
022
All
I1 * J
023
024
024
026
026
026
026
027
027
027
027
029
029
029
029
0)0
CPA 1 Sample Description Data
MJC 207 Traated Product Watar 2/26
JB 666 '
•
•
* * . .
MJC 209 ....
MJC 211 " " ' "
• • • at
JB 667 ...
MJC 210 Treatod Product Watar
JB 661
ja 669 ....
JB 669 Product SolldJ
MJC 212
MJC 213 ' " (dup |
Top of Soli da Bin *
i
RawSludqa
. . .
Product ot 1
. . .
.
JB 6 7 1 " • • | Dup 1
•
MJC21 4 ,MJCJ15 - ...
HJC 216 ....
MJC 217 ....
JB 67 3
JB 674
RawSludqe "
Oil Poll she r Out lat
Ti.a
2315
"
•
23 30
"
•
2400
2 3 1 0
234)
•
•
2400
•
•
0 0 1 S
00 JO
•
0100
•
•
n \ i I
U J f )
•
•
0445
0500
•
•
0545
0630
hri
hri
hri
hri
hri
hri
hri
hri
h r s
hri
hri
hri
hri
-------
TABLI 54 (COHT'DI
SAMPLE «et roi B.I.S.T
JLUDCl riOCtSSlHO BOAT TIST
S a *p 1 e Tag 1
ion
1079
loao
1 0 6 I
10t2
109)
lot 4
1085
10S6
1017
1011
1089
1090
1091
1092
109)
1094
1095
( 1096
\O 1097
O 1091
1 1099
1 100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
not
1 107
1101
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1119
1119
HMAL 1 CPA 1
0)2
0)2
0 1 2
/iii t n A 1 I
U J J J o o I t
0)3 JB (,72
0)4
0) 7
0 )5
0)5
0)5
0 )«,
OK
018
0 )8
0 16
0 )6
0)8
0 18
0)9
040 HJC 21 1
070 HJC 219
041 MJC 220
042
04 2
042 HJC 221
042 MJC 222
04)
045
07J
046
047 JB 675
047 JB 675
04t
Staple Description Date
Product Oil 1/27
•
• • •
•
•
Product Oil
•
-
•
.
•
.
.
.
.
-
Raw Sludge
TopofSolldiBln
Product Solids
Product Solldi 2/27
Rlw Product Water "
•
.
.
RtwSludqe "
Product Oil
-
Product Solid! 2/27
Rlw Product Watet
•
Product Oil 2/27
T,.e
011S
"
ft 1 A *
u % < j
0500
•
0515
•
•
0630
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0710
0115
•
.
Ot45
0915
-
•
•
0925
0415
•
0115
0920
•
1400
hri
h f 3
hri
hri
hri
he!
hrs
hri
hri
hri
hrs
hri
hri
-------
TABLI 44 (COBT-DI
3AJ1PLI KIT ro» B.E.S.T.
SLUDUX PROCESSING BOAT TIST
S a rap 1 • Tag 1
ll?0
1121
1122
1123
1124
Ii25
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
11-1-1
1 1 J J
1134
1135
t 1 3 6
1137
1138
, 1139
••0 1140
*"* 1141
1142
1143
1114
1145
1146
1147
1148
1 H9
1 150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1 159
1 160
1161
1162
1163
RMAL 1
048
049
049
049
049
049
049
050
051
052
053
n e A
U 3 1
054
031
044
rt e t
U j o
056
056
057
058
058
059
059
060
060
062
062
063
063
064
065
065
066
067
055
025
EPA 1
MJC224/JB677
M J C 223
JB 685
JB 677
JB 677
M J C 225
JB 678
JB 679
JB 680
HJC 226
JB 681
KJC 368
J B 682
KJC 367
JB 684
JB 687
Sample Description
Product Oil
"
" •
"
-
•
•
Raw s 1 udq •
< dup )
P r oduc t Solids
Haw Sludge
rield Blank
Product Solids
-
,
"
Water T r t • t . Slowdown
Product Oil
•
Product Solids
-
•
"
-
" "
.
ft«ld Blank
Raw Sludq*
Raw Sludqa
"
Wat«r Trtat Slowdown
Product Oil
r l« Id Blank
Dat.
2/27
"
'
"
"
"
•
2/27
2/27
"
J / T ~J
* / * i
2/27
"
•j / •) -i
i. / 2. 1
"
'
"
"
"
"
"
•
•
"
-
2/27
i/27
"
-
"
Tl..
1400
"
"
"
•
"
•
1100
"
1015
0945
0930
09)0
1015
•
1045
•
1120
1 130
•
1135
•
1200
•
•
i ~t n ^
1 i U 3
1245
1300
•
1330
•
hri
hr 9
hr>
hrs
h_ _
r s
h r a
hrs
h r a
hrs
hrs
hra
hri
hr _
f 3
hrs
hri
ho
-------
TABLE S4 (CONT-D)
I
vO
SJ
I
SAJ1PI.K Igf fO« S.I.S.T.
Fiocissino IOAT TEST
S a np 1 • Tag 4
1164
1165
1166
1167
Il6t
1169
1170
1171
1172
1497
1499
RCC 7040-64
HOC 7040-71
RMAL 1 EPA 1
061 JB 68 t
068
074
074
069
069 JB 6S6
Saapl* Description Dai.*
fl.ld Blank
Product Oil 2/27
-
•
•
r i «ld Blank
Oil Pollah«r Outlat 2/27
Top of Solids Bin
Oil Pol uh«r Out l.t 2/26
Raw B.CS.T. Prod. H2O *
RawSludqa "
Raw Sludo,* 2/27
Ti..
0100
•
"
•
1 1 10
1135
IMS
itoo
U4S
001 1
hr s
hr
hr
hr
hr
hr
hr
-------
APPENDIX C
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
-------
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
EFFECTIVE DATE: MARCH 1, 1986
C*rttM Carton!** «rqti tfii (UHIHW recemitfl iftn Utt*n« Salwy 0*U Shml to it«d> n*a»vt* In int in
aa am) cDntnclon ol IM inroonatwi tn inn mt«l |?l (umnfl • con '• •«• t( T»¥' Cu*lW «n f»» tn» p ««t Jrt (3| rv^
flH a »«U __ __ __
I. IDENTIFICATION
PRODUCT NAME: 7R:E7HVLAi::riE
CHEMICAL NAME: Ti lechylamne CHEMICAL FAMILY:
FORMULA: jC,H53;i MOLECULAR WEIGH r: .":.:c
SYNONYMS: 7E71I
DEPARTMENT OF Hazard Classification Flnmnuble Liq-jiJ
TRANSPORTATION Shipping Name ~i ie t:<. 1 IIVIM-
CAS « .;;--.4-3 CAS NAME l-Etlmi.ini.-,- :i
II. PHYSICAL DATA
BOILING POINT. ic.:-'C ii9i..-"Fi FREEZING POINT
760 mm Hg
SPECIFIC GRAVITY J.";c'0 .u :c :'°'" VAPOR PRESSURE
(H,0 = 1) at 20°C
VAPOR DENSITY :.5 1OLU6ILITY IN
(air = I ) WATER. *. by wt.
PERCENT VOLATILES ICO EVAPORATION RATE ='---
BY VOLUME (Butyl Acetate = 1)
APPEARANCE AND ODOR .Jv.-?i-• :.i te IKI'I.J fi,!.-li.e ?cbi
III. INGREDIENTS
MATERIAL '. TLV HAZARD
IV. FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA
FLASH POINT 17°.- T.iJ ::.->--! r;D n.,rt: : r.i _^°F ' .-. :-
FLAMMABLE LIMITS LOWER ..: UPPER ...0
IN AIR, \ by volume
EXTINGUISHING
MEDIA
SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING '-'se watev *f,:iy tc cool f :• ---xpos- -: c ;i.:.i l: - i s jr.d s -. : .::'.:-;
PROCEDURES Fl=:.: n:e '-I--!, "no:- .c: ?y ^cr.i: o: ; ,i :i-n .-.M:.; 5..-.j=.
Use se 1 f - :cr. t .1 i:.-c 1: i - ^ : h.: j ^ppir.TUG ji.j p'::e:::--- -l:::.;.-j.
UNUSUAL FIRE AND V^rr:s frrT fiotr -..i^ p:oa'jct ?i:-,d mav •-. v.-^L cr re -^--- cv 311
EXPLOSION HAZARDS :u::er.-.s ar,d '.^ri-.-d L". p. lor llqr.ts" :::.-r :!=-• -= :--. -.;•.!;
sparks -e:ir.e-s e-e.-tiic.il fj'jip. s:i:.r d;3 ::'.-r- -* i r:- -t:-r
iar. itior. 5cij:rec a' IJCT'ICI'.S zis'^r. t :ir~ ;. ir.dl : r. j c;.r. 1.
EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBER • 1-800-UCC-HELP • This number is available days, nights, weekends, and holidays.
UNION CASBIOE CORPORATION • SOLVENTS ICOATIMGS MATERlitS DIVISION • 39 OLD RIOGEBURV BOO OAN8UB'' CT068IT0001
-------
V. HEALTH HAZARD DATA
TLA AND SOURCE:
EFFECTS OF ACUTE OVEREXPOSURE
SWALLOWING ::iy -i. - . !,- ; -1 :•'.:;,•- o:
SKIN ABSORPTION :• : .-l.--..i- i •. .:••:;.-.: .1:.
INHALATION L:-:..'-, .:•• .: v- -.,..- TLV -,.
SKIN CONTACT
E> E CONTACT
EFFECTS OF REPEATED OVEREXPOSURE
OTHER HEALTH HAZARDS
EMERGENCE AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES:
bWALLOWING '- -'• •'-•• '•
INHALATION
E\ES
-------
V, I. REACTIVITY DATA
STABILITY
UNSTABLE STABLE CONDITIONS .v j;a ;i:e, -,:?..; :=
TO AVOID
INCOMPATIBILITY
(materials to avoid)
HAZARDOUS COMBUSTION OR =.::.::i.: i:. r..-J--.-- MIMC:-I. jx:J-^ .11 b?:-. ^^i.cx..ie
DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS >:. ! -,; L-.-I .:'; v.:.\-
HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION
May Occur Aill Not Occur CONDITIONS •• L 1 1 :..-: rjl •-:.;•• b'i: njy ci:i..;-
TO AVOID ?-"! -.-i i;ir i^M o: -jic.xu-0 01 .1 : .l-'.y i-s
-i - .L ••-' . 1 1 ly ^c: oi- I:. ' .
VII. SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES
STEPS TO BE TAKEN
IF MATERIAL IS RELEASED
OR SPILLED
WASTE DISPOSAL : ..j ::.-:••- .• . v.s •. ic- •.•:,-: ^ •_•-:••'::• -d .:,,-i-i
METHOD T^' r:ii'-. :--i-: .1 _> • i : - i:..: _-M. i --j^ Lj t i
i'l. SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION ;>-! :--;.-.•.<..-::-:- i-.l..:. 3 ipri:.i-.. in!i:jli
' , ', A T I O N ' . - L : . . . '. . ..:.:.-:
EYE
PROTECTION
.T •.. • PROTECTIVE - '- ->•:. .... .,:-••-
EO. 'M£ST
IX. SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS
PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORING
FOR INDUSTRY USE ONLY
OTHER PRECAUTIONS
-------
------- |