SERA
          United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
         Office of Air Quality
         Planning and Standards
         Research Triangle Park NC 27711
March 1988
          Air
Hazardous Waste
TSDF-Background
Information for
Proposed RCRA
Air Emission
Standards
Draft
EIS
          Volume IE-Appendices
          PRELIMINARY DRAFT

-------
                             NOTICE
This document has not been formally released by EPA and should not now be construed to represent Agency policy. It is being
circulated for comment on its technical accuracy and policy implications.
        Hazardous Waste TSDF-Background
        Information for Proposed RCRA Air
                  Emission Standards

                 Volume Il-Appendices

                PRELIMINARY DRAFT
                       Emission Standards Division
                   U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        Office of Air and Radiation
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                           March 1988

-------
                                 CONTENTS


Appendix                                                               Page

          Figures	    vi i
          Tables	   viii
          Abbreviations and Conversion Factors	     xv

Chapter  (bound separately  in Volume  I)

  1.0     Introduction	      *

  2.0     Regulatory Authority and Standards Development	      *

  3.0     Industry Description and Air Emissions	    3-1

  4.0     Control Technologies	    4-1

  5.0     Control Strategies	    5-1

  6.0     National Organic Emissions and Health  Risk  Impacts	    6-1

  7.0     National Control Costs	    7-1

Appendix

  A       Evolution of Proposed  Standards	    A-l

  B       Index to Environmental Impact Considerations	    B-l

  C       Emission Models  and  Emission Estimates	    C-l
          C.I  Emission Models 	    C-4
               C.I.I  Description of Models	    C-4
               C.I.2  Comparison of  Emission Estimates
                      with Test  Results	   C-13
               C.I.3  Sensitivity Analysis	   C-15
          C.2  Model TSDF  Waste  Management  Unit  Analyses	   C-17
               C.2.1  Model Unit Descriptions	   C-17
*This portion of the document is currently under development.

-------
                           CONTENTS (continued)


Appendix

               C.2.2  Model Wastes	   C-46
               C.2.3  Summary of Model Unit Analysis of
                      Emission Reductions and Control Costs	   C-49
          C.3  References	   C-92

  D       Source Assessment Model	    D-l
          D.I  Description of Model	    D-3
               D.I.I  Overview	    D-3
               D.I.2  Facility Processor	    D-4
               D.I.3  Industry Profile	    D-4
               D.I.4  Waste Characterization File	    D-6
               D.I.5  Chemical Properties File	    D-7
               D.I.6  Emission Factors File	    D-8
               D.I.7  Control Strategies and Test Method
                      Conversion Factors	    D-8
               D.I.8  Cost and Other Environmental  Impact Files	    D-9
               D.I.9  Incidence and Risk File...	   D-10
          D.2  Input Files	   D-10
               D.2.1  Industry Profile Data Base	   D-10
               D.2.2  TSDF Waste Characterization Data Base
                      (WCDB)	   D-23
               D.2.3  Chemical Properties	   D-50
               D.2.4  Emission Factors	   D-63
               D.2.5  Control Technology and Cost File	   D-67
               D.2.6  Test Method Conversion Factor File	   D-88
               D.2.7  Incidence and Risk Files	   D-93
          D.3  Output Files	   D-94
          D.4  References	   D-94

  E       Estimating Health Effects	    E-l
          E.I  Estimation of Cancer Potency	    E-4
               E.I.I  EPA Unit Risk Factors	    E-7
               E.I.2  Composite Unit Risk Factor	    E-7
          E.2  Determining Noncancer Health Effects	'	   E-17
               E.2.1  Health  Benchmark Levels	   E-17
               E.2.2  Noncarcinogenic Chemicals of Concern	   E-18
          E.3  Exposure Assessment	   E-18
               E.3.1  Human Exposure Model	   E-18
               E.3.2  ISCLT Model	   E-24
               E.3.3  ISCST Model	   E-24
          E.4  Risk Assessment	   E-25
               E.4.1  Cancer Risk Measurements	   E-25
               E.4.2  Noncancer Health Effects	   E-26
          E.5  Analytical Uncertainties Applicable to
               Calculations of Public Health Risks in
               This Appendix	   E-28
               E.5.1  Unit Risk Estimate	   E-28
               E.5.2  Public  Exposure	   E-28
          E.6  References	   E-30

-------
                           CONTENTS  (continued)


Appendix                                                                Page

  F       Test Data	     F-l
          F.I  Test Data at Emission Sources	     F-4
               F.I.I  Surface  Impoundments	     F-4
               F.I.2  Wastevyater Treatment	    F-52
               F.I.3  Landfills	    F-72
               F.I.4  Land Treatment	    F-93
               F.I.5  Transfer, Storage, and Handling Operations....   F-121
          F.2  Test Data on Controls	   F-129
               F.2.1  Capture  and Containment	   F-131
               F.2.2  Add-On Control Devices	   F-131
               F.2.3  Volatile  Organic  Removal  Processes	   F-142
               F.2.4  Other Process  Modifications	   F-177
          F.3  References	   F-180

  G       Emission Measurement  and Continuous Monitoring	     G-l
          G.I  Emission Measurement  Methods	     G-3
               G.I.I  Sampling	     G-3
               G.I.2  Analytical Approach	     G-5
          G.2  Monitoring Systems and Devices	    G-ll
          G.3  Emission Test Method	    G-ll

  H       Costing of Add-On and Suppression  Controls	     H-l
          H.I  Costing Approach	     H-4
               H.I.I  Data	     H-4
               H.I.2  Total Capital  Investment	     H-4
               H.I.3  Annual Operating  Costs	     H-5
               H.I.4  Total Annual Cost	     H-9
          H.2  Detailed Example Cost Analysis for  a  Fixed  Roof
               Vented to a Fixed-Bed Carbon  Adsorber Applied
               to an Uncovered, Aerated Treatment  Tank	     H-9
               H.2.1  Introduction	     H-9
               H.2.2  Model Unit	    H-ll
               H.2.3  Emission  Estimates	    H-ll
               H.2.4  Emission  Control  System	    H-ll
               H.2.5  Cost Analysis	    H-15
          H.3  Summary of Control Costs	    H-21
          H.4  References	    H-25

  I       Costing of Organic Removal Processes  and
          Hazardous Waste Incineration	     1-1
          I.I  Cost Analysis Methodologies	     1-3
               1.1.1  Organic  Removal Processes	     1-4
               1.1.2  Hazardous Waste Incinerators	     1-4
               1.1.3  Waste Stream Composition  and Throughput
                      Selection	     1-5

-------
                           CONTENTS (continued)


Appendix                                                               Page

          1.2  Steam Stripper Cost Analysis	    1-6
               1.2.1  Process Design Specifications	    1-6
               1.2.2  Equipment Component Size Determination	    1-7
               1.2.3  Total Process Cost Estimates	    1-8
               1.2.4  Modular Cost Estimates	   1-11
          1.3  Summary of Organic Removal Process and
               Incinerator Control Costs	   1-16
          1.4  References	   1-19

  J       Exposure Assessment for Maximum Risk and Noncancer
          Health Effects	    J-3
          J.I  TSDF Emission Models	    J-7
               J.I.I  Long-Term Emission Models	    J-7
               J.I.2  Short-Term Emission Models	    J-8
          J.2  Treatment,  Storage, and Disposal Facilities
               Selected for Detailed Analysis	    J-8
               J.2.1  Justification of Facility Selections	    J-9
               J.2.2  Description of Site 1	   J-10
               J.2.3  Description of Site 2	   J-28
          J.3  Long-Term TSDF Emission Control Strategies	   J-43
               J.3.1  Long-Term Control  Strategies for
                      Si te 1	   J -45
               J.3.2  Long-Term Control  Strategies for Site 2	   J-48
               J.3.3  Annual Average Emission  Estimates	   J-48
          J.4  Short-Term Controls	   J-53
          J.5  Dispersion Modeling for Chronic Health
               Effects Assessment	   J-53
               J.5.1  Description of the Atmospheric
                      Dispersion Model	   J-55
               J.5.2  Normalized Concentrations	   J-57
               J.5.3  Dispersion Model Application	   J-59
               J.5.4  Estimation of Average Annual Ambient
                      Concentration	   J-65
          J.6  Dispersion  Modeling for Acute Health Effects
               Assessment	   j-69
               J.6.1  Short-Term Modeling Approach	   J-70
               J.6.2  Shrot-Term Model Application	   J-73
          J.7  References	   j-80
                                   VI

-------
                                  FIGURES


Number                                                                 Page

  D-l     Source Assessment Model flow diagram	    D-5
  D-2     Logic flow chart for selection of final list of waste
          constituents	   D-27

  F-l     TSDF Site 3 refinery polishing pond dissolved
          oxygen uptake curve	   F-36
  F-2     TSDF Site 3 lube oil plant polishing pond
          dissolved oxygen uptake curve	   F-37
  F-3     TSDF Site 4 dissolved oxygen uptake curve	   F-41
  F-4     TSDF Site 4 biochemical oxygen demand curve	   F-42
  F-5     Measured emission flux for one plot over one test
          period at Site 18	  F-106
  F-6     Measured VO emission flux for first 12 days at Site 19	  F-110
  F-7     Measured emission flux at Site 14	  F-114
  F-8     Average measured emission flux at Site 20	  F-117
  F-9     Measured emission flux for tests at Site 21	  F-123

  H-l     Schematic diagram of dual, fixed-bed gas-phase
          carbon adsorption system with steam regeneration	   H-14

  1-1     Schematic of steam stripping process	    1-9

  J-l     Detailed facility analysis plot plan of Site 1	   J-12
  J-2     Detailed facility analysis:  treatment, storage,
          and disposal facility, Site 1 flow diagram	   J-13
  J-3     Detailed facility analysis plot plan of Site 2	   J-29
  J-4     Site 2 flow diagram	   J-30
  J-5     Receptor network for'Site 1	   J-66
  J-6     Receptor network for Site 2	   J-67
                                    VI

-------
                                  TABLES
Number                                                                 i-SflE

  A-l     Evolution of Proposed Treatment Storage,  and
          Disposal  Facility Air Standard	    A-°

  C-l     Hazardous Waste Surface Impoundment and Uncovered
          Tank Model  Units	   C-19
  C-2     Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Model  Units	   C-30
  C-3     Hazardous Waste Fixation Pit,  Wastepile  Storage,
          and Landfill Disposal Model  Units	   C-32
  C-4     Hazardous Waste Transfer,  Storage,  and Handling
          Operation Model Units	   C-40
  C-5     Model Waste Compositions	   C-47
  C-6     Summary of TSDF Model Analysis Results	   C-50

  D-l     Industry  Profile Data Base Contents	   D-ll
  D-2     Industry  Profile Data Base - Example Record	   D-12
  D-3     Industry  Profile Reference Key for Waste
          Management Process Combinations	   D-14
  D-4     Industry  Profile Data Base:   Distribution of
          Facilities Among Data Sources	   D-19
  D-5     Waste Characterization Data Base:  Example Waste
          Stream Record	   D-25
  D-6     Waste Streams by Industry  in the Field Test Data	   D-35
  D-7     Percentage Distribution for Waste Codes F002 to F005	   D-41
  D-8     Default Stream Compositions for Waste
          Codes F001  to F005	   D-43
  D-9     Concentration Limits.Assumed in Source Assessment
          Model (SAM)  for Organic Concentrations in Waste-
          waters and  Aqueous SIudges	   D-48
  D-10    Data Used for Waste Constituent Categorization
          and Surrogate Property Selection in the Source
          Assessment  Model	   D-54
  D-ll    Definition  of Waste Constituent Categories
          (Surrogates) Applied in the Source Assessment
          Model	   D-59
  D-12    Properties  for Vapor Pressure  and Biodegradation
          Groupings at 25 °C of Waste Constituent Categories
          (Surrogates) Shown in Table D-ll	   D-60
                                   vn i ~\

-------
                            TABLES  (continued)


Number                                                                  Page

  D-13    Properties for Henry's Law Constant and Biodegradation
          Groupings of Waste Constituent Categories  (Surrogates)
          Shown in Table D-ll	    D-61
  D-14    Classification of Biodegradation Data	    D-63
  D-15    Hazardous Waste Management Process Parameters and
          Waste Constituent Properties Used to  Estimate
          Emission Factors for Source Assessment Model	    D-66
  D-16    Emission Factor Files	    D-68
  D-17    Suppression and Add-on Control Cost File Used by
          the Source Assessment Model	    D-76
  D-18    Organic Removal and Incineration Control Cost File
          Used by the Source Assessment Model	    D-82
  D-19    Transfer, Handling, and Load Control  Cost  File
          Used by the Source Assessment Model	    D-84
  D-20    Summary of Test Method Conversion Factors	    D-91
  D-21    Summary of Headspace Conversion Factors to Obtain
          Kilopascals (kPa)	    D-92

  E-l     TSDF Carcinogen List	     E-8
  E-2     Emissions-weighted Composite Unit Risk Factor (URF)	    E-15
  E-3     TSDF Chemicals--Noncancer Health Effects Assessment	    E-19

  F-l     Summary of TSDF Surface Impoundment Testing	     F-5
  F-2     Summary of TSDF Surface Impoundment Measured
          Emission Rates and Mass Transfer Coefficients	     F-6
  F-3     Summary of TSDF Wastewater Treatment  System  Testing	     F-7
  F-4     Summary of TSDF Wastewater Treatment  System  Measured
          Emission Rates and Mass Transfer Coefficients	     F-8
  F-5     Summary of TSDF Landfill Testing	     F-9
  F-6     Summary of TSDF Landfill Measured Emission Rates
          and Emission Flux Rates	    F-10
  F-7     Summary of TSDF Land Treatment Testing and
          Test Results	    F-ll
  F-8     Summary of TSDF Transfer, Storage, and Handling
          Operations Testing and Test Results	    F-14
  F-9     Summary of TSDF Controls Testing	    F-15
  F-10    Surface Impoundment Dimensions at TSDF Site  1	    F-23
  F-ll    Analyses of Samples Taken at Site 1 Surface
          Impoundments:   Purgeable Organics	    F-25
  F-12    Analyses of Samples Taken at Site 1 Surface
          Impoundments:   Extractable Organics	    F-26
  F-13    Summary of Constituent-Specific Biodegradation
          Rates in Samples Taken at Site 1 Surface Impoundments	    F-29
  F-14    Purgeable Organics Analyses for Waste Samples Taken
          at Site 2 Surface Impoundments	    F-31
                                    IX

-------
                            TABLES (continued)


Number                                                                 Page

  F-15    Summary of Results for all  Oxygen Uptake Experiments
          Performed with Samples Taken at Site 2 Surface
          Impoundments	   F-34
  F-16    Organic Priority Pollutants Found at Detectable
          Levels in TSDF Site 4 Wastewater Effluent	   F-39
  F-17    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 5,  Wastewater
          Holding Lagoon	   F-46
  F-18    Stratification Study Results for TSDF Site 5,
          Wastewater Holding Lagoon	   F-47
  F-19    SludgecLiquid Organic Content Comparison for TSDF
          Site 5, Wastewater Holding  Lagoon	   F-48
  F-20    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 6,  Surface
          Impoundment	   F-50
  F-21    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 7,  Holding Pond	   F-53
  F-22    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 7,  Reducing Lagoon...   F-54
  F-23    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 7,
          Oxidizing Lagoon	   F-55
  F-24    Air Emissions and Mixed-Liquor Composition in  the
          Aeration Tank at Site 9	   F-58
  F-25    Biodegradation Rate Constants Observed in Shaker
          Tests Conducted at Site 9 Aeration Tank	   F-60
  F-26    Biochemical Oxygen Demand Results from Equalization
          Basin at TSDF Site 10	   F-63
  F-27    Acrylonitrile Concentrations of the Equalization Basin
          Spiked Samples at TSDF Site 10	   F-65
  F-28    Dissolved Oxygen Data for Equalization Basin Samples
          at TSDF Site 10	   F-66
  F-29    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 11,  Covered Aerated
          Lagoon	   F-69
  F-30    Physical  Parameters of Process Units at  TSDF Site 12,
          Wastewater Treatment System	   F-71
  F-31    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 12,  Primary
          Clarifiers	   F-73
  F-32    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 12,  Equalization
          Basin	   F-74
  F-33    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 12,  Aerated
          Stabilization Basins	   F-75
  F-34    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 13,
          Active Landfill	   F-77
  F-35    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 6,
          Inactive  Landfill	   F-80
  F-36    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 6,
          Active Landfill,  Temporary  Storage Area	   F-81
  F-37    Source Testing Results for  TSDF Site 6,
          Active Landfill,  Active Working Area	   F-82

-------
                            TABLES  (continued)


Number                                                                 Page

  F-38    Source Testing Results for TSDF Site 14, Active
          Landfill, Cell A	   F-84
  F-39    Source Testing Results for TSDF Site 15,
          Inactive Landfill 0	   F-87
  F-40    Source Testing Results for TSDF Site 15, Active
          Landfill P, Flammable Waste Cel 1	   F-88
  F-41    Description of TSDF Site  7, Description
          of Subcells in Active Landfill B	   F-90
  F-42    Purgeable Organics Reported in Leachate from
          Chemical Landfill A at TSDF Site 5	   F-92
  F-43    Source Testing Results for TSDF Site 7, Inactive
          Landfill A	   F-94
  F-44    Source Testing Results for TSDF Site 7, Active
          Landfill B, Flammable Waste Cel 1	   F-95
  F-45    Source Testing Results for TSDF Site 7, Active
          Landfill B, General Organic Waste Cell	   F-96
  F-46    Waste Analyses of Petroleum Refinery Sludges Used in
          Land Treatment Tests at Site  16	   F-98
  F-47    Measured Air Emissions from Land Treatment Laboratory
          Simulation at Site 16	   F-99
  F-48    Waste Analyses of Petroleum Refinery Sludges Used in
          Land Treatment Laboratory Simulation at Site 17	  F-101
  F-49    Total VO Emissions at 740 Hours After  Application of
          Petroleum Refinery Sludges to Land Treatment Soil
          Boxes, Site 17	  F-102
  F-50    Waste 'Analysis, Concentration of Volatile Organic
          Constituents in Petroleum Refinery Sludges Applied
          in Land Treatment Field Experiments at TSDF Site 18	  F-105
  F-51    Results of Petroleum Refinery Sludge Land Treatment
          Field Experiments at TSDF Site 18	  F-107
  F-52    Estimated Cumulative Emissions of Selected Organic
          Constituents and Total  VO from Crude Oil Refinery
          Waste Land Treatment Field Tests at TSDF Site 19	  F-lll
  F-53    TSDF Site 14 Waste and Land Treatment  Facility
          Characteristics	  F-113
  F-54    Measured Cumulative Land Treatment Emissions at
          TSDF Site 14	  F-115
  F-55    Average Cumulative Emissions from a Laboratory
          Simulation of Petroleum Refinery Waste Land
          Treatment at Site 20	  F-118
  F-56    Waste Characteristics and Application  Rates for
          Field Experiments on Petroleum Refinery Waste Land
          Treatment,  TSDF Site 21	  F-120
  F-57    Fraction of Applied Oil Emitted by Land Treatment
          Test at TSDF Site 21	  F-122

-------
                            TABLES (continued)
Number
Page
  F-58    Summary of Drum Storage and  Handling Area Survey
          of Ambient Hydrocarbon  Characteristics,  Site 6		   F-125
  F-59    Results of Emission Survey at  Drum Storage Area,
          Site 22	   F-128
  F-60    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 7  Drum Storage
          Bui 1 ding	   F-130
  F-61    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 23,  Air Stripper
          Emissions with Gas-Phase,  Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorption
          System Applied	   F-133
  F-62    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 11,  Aerated
          Lagoon Emissions with Gas-Phase Carbon  Adsorption
          Fixed-Bed System Applied	   F-134
  F-63    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 11,  Neutralizer
          Tank Emissions with a Gas-Phase Carbon  Drum Applied,
          TSDF Site 11	   F-135
  F-64    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 5,  Steam Stripper
          Wastewater Treated  by a Liquid-Phase Carbon Adsorption
          System	   F-138
  F-65    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 24,  Steam Stripper
          Overhead Treated by Primary  Water-Cooled  Condenser	   F-139
  F-66    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 25,  Steam Stripper
          Overhead Treated by Condenser  System	   F-141
  F-67    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 24,  Steam Stripper...   F-145
  F-68    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 25,  Steam Stripper...   F-147
  F-69    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 5,  Steam Stripper	   F-149
  F-70    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 26,  Steam Stripper...   F-152
  F-71    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 27,  Steam Stripper...   F-155
  F-72    Source Testing Results  for Test Yielding  Highest VO
          Removal  Percentage  at TSDF Site 23,  Air  Stripper	   F-158
  F-73    Source Testing Results  for Standard Operating
          Conditions at  TSDF  Site 23,  Air Stripper	   F-159
  F-74    Performance of Thin-Film Evaporator Run  #7 at Site
          28 for Treatments of Petroleum Refinery  Emulsion
          Tank Sludge	   F-161
  F-75    Performance of Thin-Film Evaporator Run  #10 at Site 28
          for Treatments of Petroleum  Refinery Emulsion Tank
          Sludge	   F-162
  F-76    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 29,  Thin-Film
          Evaporator	   F-166
  F-77    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 30,  Thin-Film
          Evaporator	   F-168
  F-78    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 22,  Thin-Film
          Evaporator	   F-171
  F-79    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 29,  Steam
          Distillation Unit	   F-173
  F-80    Source Testing Results  for TSDF Site 31,  Fractional
          Distillation Unit One	   F-178
                                   Xll

-------
                            TABLES  (continued)


Number                                                                 Page

  F-81    Source Testing Results for TSDF Site 31, Fractional
          Distillation Unit Two	  F-179

  H-l     Cost Adjustment Multipliers	    H-6
  H-2     Factors Used to Estimate  Purchased Equipment Costs	    H-6
  H-3     Utility Rates, Labor Rates, and Interest Rate
          Used in Example Cost Estimate	   H-10
  H-4     Model Unit Parameters for an  Uncovered, Diffused-Air
          Treatment Tank (T01G)	   H-12
  H-5     Estimated Uncontrolled Emissions from an Uncovered,
          Diffused-Air Treatment Tank (T01G) Handling Two
          Different Model Wastes	   H-13
  H-6     Major Equipment Items Needed  to Install a Fixed Roof
          Vented to a Fixed-Bed Carbon  Adsorber on an Uncovered,
          Diffused-Air Treatment Tank (T01G)	   H-16
  H-7     Total Capital  Investment  for  a Tank Cover Vented
          to a Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorber Applied to an
          Uncovered, Diffused-Air Treatment Tank (T01G) 	   H-17
  H-8     Annual Operating and Total Annual Cost for a Fixed Roof
          Vented to a Fixed-Bed Carbon  Adsorber Applied to an
          Uncovered, Diffused-Air Treatment Tank (T01G) 	   H-18
  H-9     Total Capital  Investment, Annual Operating Cost, and
          Total Annual Cost for Add-On  and Suppression Controls
          Appl ied to a TSDF Source	   H-22

  1-1     Material Balance for a Steam  Stripping Organic Removal
          Process	   1-10
  1-2     Base Equipment Costs for  a Steam Stripping Organic
          Removal Process	   1-12
  1-3     Total Capital  Investment  for  a Steam Stripping
          Organic Removal Process	   1-13
  1-4     Total Annual Cost for a Steam Stripping Organic
          Removal Process	   1-14
  1-5     Comparison of Modular Costs for a Steam Stripping
          Organic Removal Process	   1-17
  1-6     Summary of Estimated Organic  Removal Process and
          Hazardous Waste Incinerator Control Costs	   1-18

  J-l     Physical Properties of Organic Surrogates Used in the
          Detailed Facility Analyses	    J-6
  J-2     Detailed Facility Analysis:   Short-Term and Continuous
          Process Flow Rates Within TSDF Site 1	   J-14
  J-3     Detailed Facility Analysis:   Contents of Each Waste
          Mixture Managed at TSDF Site  1	   0-15
  0-4     Detailed Facility Analysis:   Waste Characterization
          by Constituent of Concern for TSDF Site 1	   0-16
                                   xm

-------
                            TABLES (continued)


Number

  J-5     Detailed Facility Analysis:   Average  Concentrations
          of Surrogates in Waste Stream Mixtures at TSDF Site 1	   J-21
  J-6     Detailed Facility Analysis:   Definition of Variables
          Used in Short-Term TSDF Emission  Equations	   J-22
  J-7     Detailed Facility Analysis:   Short-Term and Continuous
          Process Flow Rates Within  TSDF Site 2	   J-31
  J-8     Detailed Facility Analysis:   Contents of Each Waste
          Mixture Managed  at TSDF Site  2	   J-32
  J-9     Detailed Facility Analysis:   Waste Characterization
          by Constituent  of Concern  for TSDF Site 2	   J-34
  J-10    Detailed Facility Analysis:   Average  Concentrations
          of Surrogates in Waste Stream Mixtures at TSDF Site 2	   J-37
  J-ll    Detailed Facility Analysis:   TSDF Site 1 Example
          Control Strategies Applications	   J-46
  J-12    Detailed Facility Analysis:   TSDF Site 2 Example
          Control Strategies Applications	   J-49
  J-13    Detailed Facility Analysis:   Estimates of Annual
          Average Organic  Emissions  for TSDF Sites 1 and 2	   J-51
  J-14    Source Characterization for Site  1	   J-60
  J-15    Source Characterization for Site  2	   J-62
  J-16    Options Used in  ISCLT  Model Applications	   J-68
  J-17    Options Used in  ISCST  Model Applications	   J-75
  J-18    Summary of  Results for Acute  Health Effects Modeling
          Analysis of Site 1	   J-76
  0-19    Summary of  Results for Acute  Health Effects Modeling
          Analysis of Site 2	   j-78
                                   xnv

-------
                  ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVERSION FACTORS
     The EPA policy is to express all measurements in Agency documents in
the International System of Units (SI).  Listed below are abbreviations
and conversion factors for equivalents of these units.
Abbreviations

L - liters


kg - kilograms


Mg - megagrams
m  - meters
cm - centimeters

kPa - kilopascals
ha - hectares
rad - radians
kW - kilowatts
                Conversion Factor

                liter X 0.26   = gallons
                gallons X 3.79 = liters

                kilograms X 2.203 = pounds
                pounds X 0.454    = kilograms

                megagram XI       = metric tons
                megagram X 1.1     = short tons
                short tons X 0.907 = megagrams

                meters X 3.28       = feet
                centimeters X 0.396 = inches
                kilopascals X
                bars X 100
                kilopascals X
                atmospheres X
                kilopascals X
                  square inch
                pound per square
                  kilopascals
                              0.01
                 = bars
                 = kilopascals
            0.0099 = atmospheres
            101    = kilopascals
            0.145 = pound per
                                                        inch X 6.90 -
                hectares X 2.471 = acres
                acres X 0.40469  = hectares
                radians X 0.1592
                revolutions X 6.281

                kilowatts X 1.341
                horsepower X 0.7457
                                      revolutions
                                      radians

                                      horsepower
                                      kilowatts
          Frequently used measurements in this document are:
                 0.21
                 5.7
                30
                76
               800
                 1.83
            210
          5,700
         30,000
         76,000
m
 3      800,000 L
kg 02/kW/h

kW/28.3 m3
          55 gal
       1,500 gal
       8,000 gal
      20,000 gal
     210,000 gal
 3 Ib 02/hp/h

1.341 hp/103 ft3
                       kPa»m3/g«mol       0.0099 atm«m3/g»mol
                                   xv

-------
          APPENDIX A



EVOLUTION OF PROPOSED STANDARDS

-------
                                 APPENDIX  A
                       EVOLUTION  OF  PROPOSED  STANDARDS


     The  EPA Office  of Solid  Waste  and  Emergency  Response  (OSWER) first
 initiated the  development  of  air emission standards for hazardous waste
 treatment,  storage,  and  disposal  facilities  (TSDF)  in  1978.   In December
 1978, OSWER proposed air emission standards  for treatment  and disposal of
 hazardous waste  based on an approach  that included  definition of volatile
 waste solely in  terms of its  vapor  pressure  and use of the U.S. Occupa-
 tional Safety  and  Health Administration  (OSHA)  levels  for  determining
 acceptable  emission  levels  (43 FR 59008,  December 18,  1978).  A supple-
 mental notice  of proposed  rulemaking  was  published  on  October 8, 1980
 (45  FR 66816).
     The  1978  and  1980 actions were reproposed  in 1981 (46 FR 11126,
 February  5, 1981); the proposed  standards included  requirements for systems
 to monitor  ambient air quality and  gaseous emissions,  sampling and analysis
 plans, data evaluation by  predictive  models,  and  recordkeeping/reporting.
 General control  requirements  to  prevent wind  dispersion of particulate
 matter from land disposal  sources also were  proposed.  The final standards
 adopted by  EPA included  the particulate control requirements, but they did
 not  incorporate  any  other measures  for air emission management
 (47  FR 32274, July 26,  1982).
     In February 1984,  EPA considered the need to further  evaluate air
 emission standards and  delegated  authority to the Office of Air Quality
 Planning and Standards  (OAQPS) to develop standards for air emissions from
 area sources at  TSDF.  At that time,  OAQPS initiated the project that led
 to this draft background information  document (BID).   The  program plan
 outlining the technical  and regulatory approaches selected for the project
was reviewed by  the  National  Air  Pollution Control  Technique Advisory
Committee (NAPCTAC)  meeting held  August 29-30, 1984.   In November 1984,
Congress passed  the  Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the
                                    A-3

-------
 Resource  Conservation  and  Recovery Act  (RCRA)  of  1976.   Section  3004(n)  of
 HSWA  specifically  directs  the Administrator  to establish  standards  for the
 monitoring  and  control  of  air emissions  from hazardous waste  TSDF  as
 necessary to  protect human  health and the environment.   It  is  under the
 authority of  Section 3004(n) that these  standards  are being developed.
      This OAQPS study  to develop air standards for TSDF  air emissions  began
 with  the  collection of information on waste  management processes,  hazardous
 waste characteristics,  and  controls that could potentially be  applied  to
 reduce air  emissions.   This  information  was  obtained through  site  visits
 and sampling  surveys,  OSWER  permit data  and  industry surveys,  various
 Agency data bases, and testing programs.  Additional information was
 gathered  through literature  searches, meetings, and telephone  contacts  with
 experts within  EPA, State  and local regulatory authorities, and  affected
 industries.   Based on  this  information,  preliminary draft BID  chapters,
 which described the TSDF industry, emission  sources, and  potential  controls
 were  prepared and  transmitted to representatives of industry,  trade
 associations, and  environmental groups for review  and comment  in February
 1985.   The  comments received were analyzed and incorporated in the  BID,  as
 was additional  data obtained through test programs, updated permit
 information,  field trips,  other data bases,  and internal  review  through  EPA
 Working Group meetings.
      Public comments were  also solicited on  three  specific aspects  of  the
 project.  In  February  1987, comments were solicited from  TSDF  operators,
 major trade associations, and environmental  groups on potential  volatile
 organics  (VO) test methods.  In April 1987,  a  draft report on  predictive
 models for  estimating  organic air emissions  was mailed out for public
 review.   (This  report was finalized and distributed December  10, 1987.)  On
 June  9, 1987,  OAQPS presented a status report  on the project  and test
 method development work at a public meeting  of the NAPCTAC.
      Under a separate project,  the OAQPS prepared, on an  accelerated
 schedule,  its  initial  set of TSDF air standards.   In early February 1987,
 EPA published  the proposed standards in the  Federal Register  (52 FR 3748,
 February 5,  1987).   At  that time,  EPA requested comments  from TSDF
operators, trade associations,  and environmental groups on the proposed  air
controls for organic  air emissions from equipment  leaks and process vents
                                    A-4

-------
on distillation and separation units at TSDF with waste streams containing
10 percent or more total organics.  The proposed standards were developed
on an accelerated schedule based on technology transfer from Clean Air Act
standards applicable to the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
industry and petroleum refineries.  A public hearing was held on March 23,
1987, in Durham, North Carolina, to obtain external comments on the
proposed standards.
~   This BID reflects revisions that have been made since transmittal of"
the preliminary draft in February 1985.   It does not reflect decisions on
the accelerated air standards.  Comments  received will be considered  in a
revised draft following the upcoming review by the NAPCTAC and the public.
The NAPCTAC is composed of 16 persons from industry, State and local  air
pollution agencies, environmental groups, and others with expertise in air
pollution control.  This meeting, tentatively scheduled for May 17, 1988,
will be open to the public and will provide an opportunity for industry and
environmental groups to comment on the draft rulemaking prior to proposal
in early 1989.  Major events that have occurred to date in the development
of background information for this preliminary draft BID are presented in
Table A-l.
*NOTE:  This discussion will be  updated prior to proposal to reflect events
        as they occur between now and proposal.
                                    A-5

-------
           TABLE A-l.   EVOLUTION  OF  PROPOSED  TREATMENT,  STORAGE,
                     AND  DISPOSAL FACILITY  AIR  STANDARD3
      Date
                       Event
 Contractors  begin  site  visits  and  source  sampling at
 over 100  TSDF;  testing  under OAQPS/ORD/OSW  program
 extending through  1986  also begins.
 November 1983
 December 1983
 February  1984


 August  29-30,  1984



 November  9,  1984


 November  9,  1984
 April 24,  1985


 January 8, 1985



 October 1985
February 6,  1986


March 6-7,  1986
                                                                       to
 Meeting  with  Chemical Manufacturers  Association
 review  "Evaluation  and  Selection  of  Models  for
 Estimating  Air  Emissions  from  Hazardous  Waste
 Treatment,  Storage,  and Disposal  Facilities,"
 "Assessment of  Air  Emissions from Hazadous  Waste
 Treatment,  Storage,  and Disposal  Facilities:
 Hazardous Waste Rankings,"  and  "Assessment  of  Air
 Emissions from  Hazardous  Waste  Treatment, Storage,
 and  Disposal  Facilities:   Preliminary  National
 Emissions Estimates."

 OSWER delegates authority  for  development of air
 standards for TSDF  area sources to OAQPS.

 National Air  Pollution Control  Techniques Advisory
 Committee meeting held  in  Durham,  North  Carolina, to
 review TSDF program  plan  (49 FR 26808).

 Congress passes Hazardous  and  Solid  Waste Amendments
 to Resource Conservation  and Recovery  Act of 1976.

 Meeting with Chemical Manufacturers  Association
 Secondary Emissions  Work Group  to  review and comment
 on draft technical note,  "Basis for  Design  of  Test
 Facility for Flux Chamber  Emissions  Measurement
 Validat ion."

 Meeting with American Petroleum Institute to discuss
 status of standards  development for  land treatment.

 Meeting with Chemicals Manufacturers Association  to
 discuss current  studies of  air  source  emissions from
 TSDF.

 Research Triangle Institute begins work  to  develop air
 emissions for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
 disposal  facilities, under  EPA  Contract  No. 68-02-
 4326.

Mailout of  preliminary BID  Chapters  3.0  to  6.0 to
 industry and environmental  groups.

Meeting with Chevron Chemical Co. to discuss planned
 landfarm simulation  study.
                                    A-6
                                                                 (continued)

-------
                          TABLE A-l   (continued)
     Date
                      Event
April 24, 1986


May 14,  1986


December 17, 1986


February 5, 1987


February 11, 1987


March 23, 1987



April 10, 1987


June 9,  1987



September 30, 1987


December 10, 1987


January  14, 1988


To be determined
To be determined
Meeting with American Petroleum Institute on status
of TSDF standards development.

Meeting with Chemical Manufacturers Association to
discuss project status and BID comments.

Meeting with American Petroleum Institute on land
treatment air emission research.

Proposal of accelerated standards for selected
sources at hazardous waste TSDF (52 FR 3748).

Mai lout of draft test method approach document to
industry and environmental groups.

Public hearing for accelerated rulemaking for
selected sources at hazardous waste TSDF held in
Durham, North Carolina.

Mailout of draft report on organic air emission models
to industry and environmental groups.

Meeting of National Air Pollution Control Techniques
Advisory Committee to review project status and test
method development program (52 FR 15762).

Meeting with Chevron Chemical Corporation to discuss
land treatment data.

Mailout of final report on organic air emission
models to industry and environmental groups.

Meeting with Chemical Manufacturers Association to
discuss project status.

Mailout of preliminary draft BID to National
Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee,
TSDF operators, trade associations, environmental
groups, and other public groups.

Meeting of National Air Pollution Control Techniques
Advisory Committee to review preliminary draft BID.
TSDF  = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
OAQPS = Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
ORD   = Office of Research and Development.
OSW   = Office of Solid Waste.
BID   = Background Information Document.

aThis table presents those major events that have occurred to date  in the
 development of background information for the TSDF air standard.
                                    A-7

-------
                 APPENDIX B



INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS

-------
                                APPENDIX B
                   INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
     This appendix consists of a reference system that is cross-indexed
with the October 21, 1974, Federal Register (39 FR 37419) containing EPA
guidelines for the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements.  This
index can be used to identify sections of the document that contain data
and information germane to any portion of the Federal Register guidelines,
                                     B-3

-------
                                 APPENDIX B
                INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
Agency guidelines for preparing
regulatory action environmental
impact statements (39 FR 37419)
Location within the Background
Information Document  (BID)
1. Background and description

   a.  Summary of control
       strategies

   b.  Industry affected by the
       control strategies
       Relationship to other
       regulatory Agency actions
       Specific processes  affected
       by the control  strategies
A description of example control
strategies is provided in Chapter 5.0.

A discussion of the industry affected
by the control strategies is presented
in Chapter 3.0.

The relationship to other regulatory
Agency actions is discussed in Chapter
5.0.

The specific processes affected by the
control strategies are summarized in
Chapter 3.0.
2.  Impacts of the alternatives

   a.   Air pollution
   b.   Water  pollution
   c.   Solid waste disposal
  d.   Energy  impact
The air pollution impacts are dis-
cussed in Chapters 4.0 and 6.0.
Supplementary information on the
emission models and emission estimates
is included in Appendix C; Appendix D
describes the Source Assessment Model
used to estimate nationwide emissions
and their correlations to test
methods.  Test data are presented in
Appendix F.

The water pollution impacts are
described in Chapters 4.0 and 6.0.

The solid waste disposal impacts are
discussed in Chapters 4.0 and 6.0.

The energy impacts are discussed in
Chapter 6.0.

                             (continued)
                                   B-4

-------
          INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS (continued)
Agency guidelines for preparing
regulatory action environmental
impact statements (39 FR 37419)
Location within the Background
Information Document (BID)
   e.  Economic impact
   f. Health impact
The cost impacts of example control
strategies are presented in Chapter
7.0;  supplementary information on the
costing of add-on controls and on the
costing of volatile organic removal
processes and hazardous waste inciner-
ation are included in Appendixes H and
I.

Incidence and risk impacts are
presented in Chapter 6.0.   The health
risk  analysis is discussed further in
Appendix E;  the approach used in
estimating health risk is  dis-
cussed in Appendixes D and J.
                                    B-5

-------
              APPENDIX C



EMISSION MODELS AND EMISSION ESTIMATES

-------
                                APPENDIX C
                  EMISSION MODELS AND EMISSION ESTIMATES

     The objective of Appendix C is to provide a link between
     •    Emission models used to estimate organic air emissions from
          treatment, storage, and disposal facility  (TSDF) waste
          management units
     •    Model TSDF waste management unit analyses  used to develop
          estimates of emission reductions and costs of applying emis-
          sion control technologies
     •    The Source Assessment Model (SAM), which uses both the
          aforementioned to generate an estimate of  nationwide TSDF
          organic air emissions and control costs.
     This appendix provides a discussion of the mathematical models used to
estimate nationwide air emissions from hazardous waste TSDF.  These models
represent most of the TSDF emission sources introduced in Chapter 3.0,
Section 3.1.  Some emission sources, such as drum crushing, are undergoing
analysis at this time.  The discussion of the emission models in Sec-
tion C.I includes a description of the models, a comparison of emission
model estimates with results from specific field tests of TSDF waste man-
agement units, and a sensitivity analysis.
   -  To estimate emissions with these emission models, inputs such as waste
management unit surface area, waste retention time,  and depth of unit are
essential.  Physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the
unit — such as the specific organic compounds present and their concentra-
tions and knowledge of the presence or absence of multiple phases (e.g.,
separate aqueous and organic layers)--are also needed.
     Use of these emission models to develop estimates of nationwide emis-
sions requires some knowledge of the waste management unit characteristics
that could affect emissions for each TSDF in the country.  Given that only
                                    C-3

-------
 general  information  such as annual waste throughput  is available for  the
 thousands  of  TSDF, a model waste management unit approach was developed to
 facilitate emission  estimates, as well as control emission reductions  and
 control  costs.   Descriptions of the model units and  the basis for  develop-
 ing  the  range of model units characteristics are given in Section  C.2.1.
      As  explained  above, knowledge of waste physical and chemical  charac-
 teristics  is  essential to emission estimates.  Emission reductions  and
 control  costs likewise are sensitive to waste properties, so a model  unit
 analysis to derive emission reduction and control costs also requires  a
 definition of wastes being managed in the model waste management units.
 Model wastes  were  defined for this purpose.  Section C.2.2 provides a  dis-
 cussion  of the  selection of model wastes and defines those wastes.
      Lastly,  in  Section C.2.3, control costs and control emission  reduc-
 tions for  a selected set of model waste management units are given  in  tabu-
 lar  form.   The  data contained in the table demonstrate the variations  in
 costs and  emission reductions that occur along with  variations in  model
 waste compositions and degree of emission control provided by different
 control  technologies.  These model waste management  unit control costs and
 control  emission reductions are the bases for extrapolating costs  and  emis-
 sion  reductions  to nationwide estimates.  Appendix D contains a discussion
 of the procedure for relating costs to waste throughput in each model  waste
 management unit  and then extrapolating for nationwide cost estimates  via
 the  SAM.   The emission reductions expressed as a percentage of uncontrolled
 emissions  are discussed in Chapter 4.0 and Appendix  D.
 C.I  EMISSION MODELS
 C.I.I  Description of Models
     The emission models that are used to estimate air emissions from  TSDF
 processes  are drawn from several  different sources.  These models  are
 presented  in a TSDF air emission  models report that  provides the basis and
description of each model,  along  with sample calculations and comparisons
of modeled emissions  to measured  emissions using field test data.
     The emission models discussed in Chapter 3.0 are those presented  in
the March  1987 draft  of the TSDF  air emission models report.1  Certain TSDF
                                    C-4

-------
emission models have been revised since that time, and a final version of
the report has been released  (December 1987).2  The principal changes to
the models involved refining  the biodegradation component of the models to
more accuractely reflect biologically active systems handling low organic
concentration waste streams.  With regard to emission model outputs, the
changes, by and large, did not result in appreciable differences in the
emission estimates.  (Refer to Appendix D, Section D.2.4, for a more
detailed discussion.)
     In the emission models report, models are presented for the following
TSDF management processes:  surface impoundments and uncovered storage and
treatment tanks; land treatment; landfills and wastepiles; and transfer,
storage, and handling operations.  In general, the report describes the
chemical and physical pathways for organics released from hazardous wastes
to the  atmosphere, and it discusses their relevance to the different types
of TSDF management processes  and the sets of conditions that are important
in emission estimation.
     In the following paragraphs, the models are presented in simplified
forms or in qualitative terms.  For a full discussion, refer to the TSDF
air emission models report.
     C.I.1.1  Surface Impoundments and Uncovered Tanks.
     This section presents emiss.ion models for quiescent and
aerated/agitated surface impoundments and uncovered tanks.  Quiescent
surface impoundments where wastes flow through to other processes (i.e.,
storage and treatment) are addressed initially with uncovered tanks
(C.I.1.1.1).  Quiescent impoundments without waste flowthrough,  such as
disposal impoundments, are discussed in the next section (C.I.1.1.2).
Aerated treatment impoundments and uncovered tanks are discussed in
Section C.I.1.1.3.
     C.I.1.1.1  Quiescent surface with flow.  Emission characteristics from
quiescent uncovered storage and treatment processes are similar; therefore,
the same basic model was used to estimate emissions from all such
processes.   These waste management processes for flowthrough emission
modeling include uncovered tank storage, storage surface impoundments,
uncovered quiescent treatment tanks,  and quiescent treatment impoundments.
The modeling approach used to estimate emissions from these types of TSDF
management  units is based on  the work of Springer et al.3 and Mackay and

                                    C-5

-------
 Yeun4  for  the  liquid-phase mass transfer and MacKay and Matasugu5 for the
 gas-phase  mass  transfer.  The emission equation used is a form of the basic
 relationship describing the mass transfer of a volatile constituent from
 the  opened liquid surface to the air.  The model for flowthrough impound-
 ments  and  tanks assumes that the system is well-mixed and that the bulk
 concentration  is equal to the effluent concentration.  A material balance
 for  this yields:

                              QCQ = KACL + QCL                        (C-l)
 where
     QC0   =  emission rate, g/s
       Q   =  volumetric flow rate, m-Vs
       C0   =  influent concentration of organics in the waste, g/m^
       K   =  overall mass transfer coefficient, m/s
       A   =  liquid surface area, m2
       C[_   =  bulk (effluent) concentration of organics, g/m3.
 The  overall mass transfer coefficient is based on:
                         1     _    1      ,1                     (c_2)
                         K          KL        KG Keq

where
      K  =  overall mass transfer coefficient, m/s
     KL  =  liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient, m/s
     KQ  =  gas-phase mass transfer coefficient, m/s
     Keq =  equilibrium constant or partition coefficient, unitless.
     C.I.1.1.2  Quiescent surface with no outlet flow.  A disposal
impoundment is defined as a unit that receives waste for ultimate disposal
rather than for storage or treatment.  This type of impoundment differs
from the storage and treatment impoundments in that there is no liquid flow
out of the impoundment.  The calculation of the overall mass transfer coef-
ficient  is the same as that presented for quiescent surfaces with flow.

                                    C-6

-------
However, the assumption that the bulk concentration is equal to the efflu-
ent concentration  is not applicable here.  The emission-estimating proced-
ure differs in the calculation of the liquid-phase concentration that is
the driving force  for mass transfer to the air.  The emission rate can be
calculated as follows:

                          E = ^  [1-exp  (-KAt/V)]                    (C-3)

where
     E  = Emission  rate, g/s
     V  = Volume of the impoundment, m^
     t  = Time after disposal, s
and with the other symbols as previously defined.  Reference 2 gives a
detailed derivation of the above equation.
     C.I.1.1.3  Aerated systems.  Aeration or agitation in an aqueous system
transfers air (oxygen) to the liquid to  improve mixing or to increase biode-
gradation.  Aerated hazardous waste management processes include uncovered,
aerated treatment  tanks and aerated treatment impoundments.  A turbulent
liquid  surface in  uncovered tanks and impoundments enhances mass transfer to
the air.  Thus, there are two significant differences between the quiescent
emission model and the aerated emission model:   (1) the modified mass transfer
coefficient and (2) the incorporation of a biodegradation term.  The calcula-
tion of the overall mass transfer coefficient for mechanically aerated, systems
is based on the correlations of Thibodeaux and Reinhart for the liquid and gas
phases, respectively.6-7  The rate of biodegradation was assumed to be first
order with respect to concentration based on experimental data in the form of
a decay model; this is similar to the Monod model at low loadings.
     A material  balance around the well-mixed system yields:

                        QCQ = QCL + KbCLV + KCLA                      (C-4)

where
     QC0  =  emission rate,  g/s
       Q  =  volumetric flow rate,  m-Vs
                                    C-7

-------
      C0  -  influent concentration of organics in the waste, g/m3
      CL  =  bulk (effluent) concentration of organics in the waste, g/m3
      Kb  =  pseudo first-order rate constant for biodegradation, 1/s
       V  =  system volume, m3
       K  =  overall mass transfer coefficient, m/s
       A  =  surface area, m^.
     C.I.1.2  Land Treatment.  Emissions from land treatment operations may
occur in three distinct ways:  from application of waste to the soil sur-
face, from the waste on the soil surface before tilling,  and from the soil
surface after the waste has been tilled into the soil.
     Short-term emissions of organics from hazardous waste lying on the
soil surface prior to tilling, a result of surface application land treat-
ment, are estimated by calculating an overall mass transfer coefficient
similar to that for an oil film on a surface impoundment.  The basic
assumption is that mass transfer is controlled by the gas-phase resistance.
The gas-phase mass transfer coefficient and the equilibrium constant are
calculated from the correlation of MacKay and Matasugu^ and from Raoult's
law, respectively.
     The RTI land treatment model  is used to calculate long-term emissions
from waste that is mixed with the soil.  This condition may exist when
waste has been applied to the soil surface and has seeped into the soil,
when waste has been injected beneath the soil surface, or when the waste
has been tilled into the soil.  In land treatment, soil tilling typically
occurs regardless of the method of waste application.
     The RTI land treatment emission model for long-term emissions from a
land treatment unit incorporates terms that consider the major competing
pathways for loss of organics from the soil; the model combines a diffusion
equation for the waste vapors in the soil and a biological decay rate equa-
tion.   The RTI  model is based on Pick's second law of diffusion applied to
a flat slab as  described by Crank^ and includes a term to estimate biologi-
cal  decay assuming a decay rate that is first order with respect to waste
loading  in the  soil.  No equations are presented here because they are not
easily condensed.   However, these equations are described in the TSDF air
emission models  report.

                                    C-8

-------
     C.I.1.3  Haste Fixation, Wastepiles, and Landfills.  Two major
emission models are used in estimating emissions from landfills.  Both
assume that all wastes are fixed wastes and that no biological degradation
takes place to reduce organic content.
     One model estimates emissions from closed landfills.!0  The Closed
Landfill Model is used to estimate emissions from waste placed in a closed
(or capped) landfill that is vented to the atmosphere and, as a special
case, emissions from active landfills receiving daily earth covers.  This
model accounts for the escape of organics resulting from diffusion through
the cap and convective loss from landfill vents resulting from barometric
pumping.  The closed landfill model is based primarily on the work of
Farmer et al.,H who applied Pick's first law for steady-state diffusion.
Farmer's equation utilizes an effective diffusion coefficient for the soil
cap based on the work of Millington and Quirk.12  The model also includes a
step to estimate convective losses from the landfill.  The TSDF air emis-
sion models report describes the model in detail.
     The RTI land treatment model is used to estimate the air emissions
from active landfills (landfills still receiving wastes) and wastepiles.13
As previously stated, this model is based on Fick's second law of diffusion
applied to a flat slab as described by Crank, and it includes a term to
estimate biological decay assuming a decay rate that is first order with
respect to waste loading in the soil.  A land-treatment-type model was
selected for estimating emissions from open landfills and wastepiles
because (1) there are a number of similarities in physical characteristics
of open landfills, wastepiles, and land treatment operations, and (2) the
input parameters required for the land treatment model are generally
available for open landfills and wastepiles, which is not the case for some
of the more theoretical  models for these sources.
     The emission model  developed to characterize organic air emissions
from uncovered wastes described in the air emissions model report was not
considered appropriate for estimating emissions from waste fixation
processes.  However, a number of field tests have been conducted,14 and
these data were used to develop an emission factor for this process.
     C.I.1.4  Transfer,  Storage, and Handling.  This subsection discusses
organic emission models for container loading and spills, fixed-roof tank
loading and storage, dumpster storage, and equipment leaks.

                                    C-9

-------
      C.I. 1.4.1  Container  loading and spills.  Containers can  include
 drums, tank trucks, railroad tank cars, and dumpsters.  To calculate organ-
 ic  emissions  from  loading  liquid wastes into all of these containers except
 dumpsters, the AP-42 equation for loading petroleum liquids  is  applied.15
 This  equation was  derived  for tank cars and marine vessels.   It  is  also
 applied  to tank trucks and 0.21-m3 (55-gal) drums in this case  because the
 loading  principles are similar.  (No equation has been developed
 exclusively for small containers such as drums.)  Covered container loading
 emissions are based on the AP-42 equation:

                             LL = ^^ SMP                            (C-5)
 where
      L|_   =  loading loss,  lb/1,000 gal of liquid loaded
      T   =  bulk temperature of liquid, K
      S   =  saturation factor, dimensionless
      M   =  molecular weight of vapor, Ib/lb mol
      P   =  true vapor pressure of liquid, psia.
      Spillage is the only other significant emission source  from covered
 containers.  An EPA study of truck transport to and from TSDF and truck
 emissions at TSDF terminals provided the background information necessary
 to  estimate spillage losses during TSDF trucking, handling,  and storage
 operations.  The emission estimate for losses at a storage facility applies
 the same spill fraction used for d-rum handling,  1 x 10~4, developed by
 EPA. 16  The following equation estimates drum handling and storage emis-
sions:
                          "S
where
     Ls  =  emissions from drum storage, Mg/yr
      T  =  throughput,  Mg/yr
     Wj  =  organic weight fraction
     V-j  =  volatilization fraction.


                                   C-10
                          L  = 10"4 x T x W  x V                       (C-6)

-------
     Spillage emissions from tank trucks and railroad tank cars are esti
mated using the same equation except that the spill fraction of 10~5 for
other types of waste movement is applied instead of the 10"^ spill fraction
for drum handling.^   (See the TSDF air emission models report, Section
7.7.)
     C.I.1.4.2  Dumpster storage.  Emissions from open dumpster storage are
estimated using a model based originally upon the work of Arnold, which was
subsequently modified  by Shen^S and EPA/GCA^ Corporation to characterize
organic air emissions  from uncovered wastes.  The equation in  its final
form is thus presented as:

                              2 P  MW. y.*
                         r-  _    0   1 'I W
DiUJ                    (c_7)
                          "i         RT
where:
      E-j = emission  rate of constituent of interest from the emitting
           surface,  g/s
      P0 = total system pressure  (ambient pressure), mmHg
     MW-j = molecular weight of constituent i, g/g mol
     y-j* = equilibrium mole fraction of the  i-th constitutent in the gas
           phase
       w   width of  the volatilizing surface perpendicular to the wind
           direction, cm
       R = ideal gas constant, 62,300 mmHg«cm3/g mol«K
       T = ambient temperature, K
      D-j = diffusivity of volatilizing constituent  in air, cm2/s
       1 = length of volatilizing surface parallel  to the wind direction,
           cm
       U = windspeed, cm/s
      Fv = correction factor for  Pick's law
       TT = 3.1416.
     C.I.1.4.3  Tank storage.  Stationary, fixed-roof tank working  losses
are those created by loading and  unloading wastes and are estimated using
AP-42,  "Storage of Organic Liquids":20
                                   C-ll

-------
                  Lw = 1.09 x 10"8 x My x P x V x Kn x Kc             (C-8)

where

     Lw  =  working losses, Mg/yr (the AP-42 constant of 2.4 x lO"2 is
            converted to 1.09 x 10'8 to convert Ib/gal throughput to Mg/yr)

     Mv  =  molecular weight of vapor in tank,  Ib/lb mol

      P  =  true vapor pressure at bulk liquid  conditions, psia

      V  =  throughput, gal/yr

     Kn  =  turnover factor, dimensionless

     Kc  =  product factor, dimensionless.

     There are also "breathing" losses for a fixed-roof tank caused by

temperature and pressure changes.  An existing  AP-422! equation is used to

estimate these emissions:

        Lb B LOJ, x 10-5 ^ [ _P_ ] 0.68 x ,1.73 x ,0.51 x AJ0.5   (c_g)
             x F  x C x KC
where
     15  =  fixed-roof breathing loss, Mg/yr (the AP-42 constant of 2.26 x
            10"2 is converted to 1.02 x 10~5 to convert Ib/gal thoughput to
            Mg/yr)

     Mv  =  molecular weight, Ib/lb mol

      P  =  true vapor pressure, psia

      D  =  tank diameter,  ft

      H  =  average vapor space height, ft

     AT  =  average ambient diurnal temperature change, °F

     Fp  =  paint factor, dimensionless

      C  =  adjustment factor for small diameter tanks, dimensionless

     Kc  =  product factor, dimensionless.

These equations originally  were developed for handling organic liquids  in

industries producing or consuming organic liquids, but are used here for
TSDF tank storage.
                                   C-12

-------
     C.I.1.4.4   Equipment  leaks.   Emissions from equipment  leaks are those
resulting  from  leaks  in  equipment  that  is  used to control pressure, provide
samples,  or  transfer  pumpable  organic hazardous waste.  The emissions from
equipment  leaks  in  hazardous waste management are dependent on the number
of pump  seals,  valves, pressure  relief  devices, sampling connections, open-
ended  lines, and  the  volatility  of the  wastes handled.  The emission-
estimating model  used for  TSDF equipment  leaks is independent of the
throughput,  type, or  size  of the process  unit.  The TSDF equipment leak
emission  model  is based  on the Synthetic  Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industries  (SOCMI)  emission factors  developed to support standard SOCMI
equipment  leak  emission  standards.22  jhe  input parameters required for the
equipment  leak  emission  model  begin  with  the emission factor for the equip-
ment pieces  such  as pump seals,  the  number of sources, and the residence
time of  the  waste in  the equipment.  It was assumed that with no purge of
waste  from the  equipment when  the  equipment is not in use, organics are
continuously being  leaked  to the atmosphere.  Section C.2, "Model Unit
Description," explains the selection process for the number of emission
sources  used to  develop  the equipment model units.
C.I.2  Comparison of  Emission  Estimates with Test Results
     Predictions  from TSDF emission  models have been compared with field
test data.   The  following  sections summarize qualitatively the comparative
results  that are  discussed in  detail in Chapter 8.0 of the TSDF air emis-
sion models  report.   Actual field  test  data are presented in Appendix F.
This comparison was made with  the  knowledge that some uncertainty in field
test precision  and  accuracy and  the  empirical nature of emission models
must be  considered.
     C.I.2.1  Surface  Impoundments and  Uncovered Tanks Comparison.  Emis-
sion test data were available  for  five  quiescent surface impoundments.  The
overall mass transfer coefficients determined in these tests agreed within
an order of  magnitude with the overall  coefficient predicted by the mass
transfer correlations.   Predicted  emissions for these impoundments using
the March 1987 version of the  air  emission models were higher than the
measured emissions  in some cases and lower in others.
     When predicted emission estimates were compared to uncovered tank
measured emissions,  the  results  were mixed.  For quiescent tanks, the
                                   C-13

-------
predicted emissions were generally lower than measured emissions but agreed
within an order of magnitude.  For the aerated systems, the model predic-
tions agreed well with material balance and ambient air measurements for an
open aerated system.
     C.I.2.2  Land Treatment.  Field test data from four sites and one
laboratory simulation were used as a basis of comparison with estimates
from the land treatment emission model (see Section C.I.1.2).  Estimated
and measured emissions were within an order of magnitude.   Estimates of
both emission flux rates and cumulative emissions show results above and
below measured values.  Considering the potential for error in measuring or
estimating values for input parameters, differences in the range of an
order of magnitude are not unexpected.  The emission test  reports did not
provide complete sets of model input data; therefore,  field data averages,
averages from the TSDF data base,  or values identified elsewhere as repre-
sentative were used as model inputs.
     C.I.2.3  Landfills and Wastepiles.  Comparisons between predicted and
measured emissions from a landfill are of limited value because of lack of
detailed, site-specific soil, waste, and landfill operating parameters.
Typically, the composition of the landfilled waste and other required
inputs to the emission models, such as the porosity of the landfill cap and
the barometric pumping rate, were not included in the field test data.
Comparisons of model emissions were made to measured emissions from two
active landfills.  The modeled emissions were found to be  higher than field
test measurements, in general, by factors ranging from 1 to 2 orders of
magnitude.  No test data were available for wastepiles.
     C.I.2.4  Transfer,  Storage,  and Handling Comparison.   Emission models
for transfer,  storage, and handling operations are based on extensive
testing that led to AP-42^3 emission models and to models  developed for the
petroleum industry and SOCMI.  The following models were developed in the
petroleum industry and are applied to TSDF:
     •     Container loading (AP-42, Section 4.4)
     •     Stationary covered tank loading (AP-42, Section  4.3)
     •     Stationary covered tank storage (AP-42, Section  4.3).
                                   C-14

-------
     Equipment leak emission factors are drawn from the study of organics
leak control at SOCMI facilities.  Test data supporting the SOCMI equipment
leak emission standard24 Were collected to develop these factors.  An EPA
study25 of truck transport to and from TSDF and truck emissions at TSDF
terminals provided information for spillage loss estimates.  No test data
were available for comparison in this TSDF effort.
C.I.3  Sensitivity Analysis
     The emission models have been evaluated to determine which parameters
have the greatest impacts on emissions.  A brief discussion follows on the
important model parameters for the four major types of TSDF processes:  (1)
surface impoundments and uncovered tanks, (2)  land treatment, (3) landfills
and wastepiles, and (4) transfer, storage, and handling operations.  Input
parameters were varied individually over the entire range of reasonable
values in order to generate emission estimates.  A full discussion of the
emission model sensitivity analysis is presented in the TSDF air emission
models report.
     C.I.3.1  Surface Impoundments and Uncovered Tanks.  Parameters to
which emission estimates are most sensitive include waste concentration,
retention time, windspeed for quiescent systems, fetch to depth, and
biodegradation.
     The emission estimates for highly volatile constituents (as defined  in
Appendix D, Section D.2.3.3.1) are sensitive to short retention times.  For
retention times on the order of several days,  essentially all high vola-
tiles are emitted.  In impoundments, significant emissions of medium vola-
tiles (as defined in Appendix D, Section D.2.3.3.1) may occur over long
retention times.  Henry's law constant has a direct effect on emissions of
medium volatiles and a greater effect on relatively low volatile organics
for which mass transfer is controlled by the gas-phase resistance.
     Temperature did not affect emission estimates of the highly volatile
constituents, although mass transfer for low volatile constituents was
affected because of the temperature dependence of Henry's law constant.
Diffusivity in air and water did not affect emission estimates.
     Physical parameters of aerated systems, such as kilowatts  (horsepower)
and turbulent area,  did affect emission estimates of medium volatiles,
                                   C-15

-------
although highly volatile constituents were unaffected.  High volatiles are
stripped out almost completely under any aerated condition.
     C.I.3.2  Land Treatment.  Air emissions from land treatment units are
dependent on the chemical/physical properties of the organic constituents,
such as vapor pressure, diffusivity, and biodegradation rate.
     Operating and field parameters affect the emission rate, although
their impact is not as great as that of constituent properties.  Tilling
depth, for example, plays a role; the deeper the tilling depth, the greater
the time required for diffusion to the surface and therefore the greater is
the potential for organics to be biodegraded.  Waste concentration and
waste loading (the amount of material applied to the soil  per unit area)
affect the emission rate on a unit area basis (emissions per unit area),
but not in terms of the mass of organics disposed of (emissions per unit
mass of waste).
     C.I.3.3  Landfills and Wastepiles.  Emissions from active (open)
landfills, those still receiving wastes, are estimated by  applying the RTI
land treatment model.  The sensitivity of the land treatment model to some
parameters differs in its application to open landfills and wastepiles from
that in land treatment operations.  For application to open landfills and
wastepiles, the model is sensitive to the air porosity of  the solid waste,
the liquid loading in the solid waste, the waste depth, the concentration
of the constituent in the waste,  and the volatility of the constituent
under consideration.   In contrast, the model is less sensitive to the
diffusion coefficient of the constituent in air.
     Emissions from closed landfills, those filled to design capacity and
with a cap (final  cover) installed, are estimated using the closed landfill
model.  The model  is  highly sensitive to the air porosity  of the clay cap,
which largely determines the diffusion rate through the cap.  The model is
also sensitive to the properties of the constituent of interest, particu-
larly vapor pressure, Henry's law constant, and concentration.  In con-
trast,  the model  exhibits relatively low sensitivity to the diffusiveness
of the constituent in air, the cap thickness, and the total mass of
constituent in the landfill.
     C.I.3.4  Transfer,  Storage,  and Handling Operations.   Equipment  leak
emission estimates are a function of the number of pump seals, valves,
                                   C-16

-------
pressure-relief valves, open-ended lines, and sampling connections selected
for given process rather than throughput rate.  However, equipment leak
frequencies and leak rates have been shown to vary with stream volatility;
emissions for high-volatility streams are greater than those for streams of
low volatility.
     Loading emission estimates are also sensitive to the volatility of the
constituents.  Both loading and spill emissions are directly proportional
to throughput.  The loading emission estimates for open aqueous systems,
such as impoundments and uncovered tanks, are highly sensitive to the type
of loading, which is either submerged or splash loading.
     The fraction of waste spilled and waste throughput are used to
estimate emissions resulting from spills.
C.2  MODEL TSDF WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT ANALYSES
     To evaluate the effectiveness (emission reductions) and costs of
applying various types of control technologies (discussed in Chapter 4.0)
to reduce emissions from waste management process units, a model unit anal-
ysis was performed.  Hazardous waste management model units and model waste
compositions were input to the emission models discussed above to generate
uncontrolled emissions estimates from which emission reductions were com-
puted.  The model units and model waste compositions also served as the
bases for estimating add-on and suppression-type control costs for each
applicable control technology.  Appendix H presents a discussion of the
costing of add-on and suppression-type controls.  The model waste composi-
tions also provided a uniform basis for estimating the cost of treatment
processes that remove organics from waste prior to land disposal.  Appen-
dix I presents a discussion of the costing of organic removal processes and
hazardous waste incineration.
     The development of model units,  selection of model waste compositions
and the results of the analyses of emission reductions and control costs
are discussed in the following sections.
C.2.1  Model Unit Descriptions
     Sets of model units were developed to represent the range of sizes and
throughputs of hazardous waste management processes.  For each model unit,
parameters needed as input to the emission models were specified.  The
                                   C-17

-------
 following  paragraphs provide the sources of information and rationale  used
 in  developing  the model units.  Discussions are presented as four categor-
 ies,  each  containing waste management processes with similar emission  char-
 acteristics.
      Multiple  model units were developed for each waste management process
 to  describe the nationwide range of characteristics (surface area, waste
 throughputs, retention time, etc.).  This was determined using the fre-
 quency  distributions of quantity processed, unit size, or unit area of each
 waste management process that were results of the Westat Survey.  The  dis-
 tributions  (expressed as weighting factors for the SAM) are presented  with
 the tabular listing of model units in this section.  The distributions were
 used  to develop a "national average model unit" to represent each waste
 management process when using the Source Assessment Model.  Each frequency
 serves  as  a weighting factor to approximate a national distribution of the
 model units defined for a particular TSDF waste management process.  Appen-
 dix D,  Section D.2.4.3, describes these weights and the approach to esti-
 mating  nationwide organic air emissions in greater detail.
      C.2.1.1   Surface Impoundments and Uncovered Tanks.  Hazardous waste
 surface impoundment storage, treatment, and disposal model units are dis-
 played  in  Table C-l.  The ranges of surface areas and depths were based on
 results of the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment,
 Storage, and Disposal  Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in 1981 (Westat
 Survey).26  The median surface area for storage and treatment impoundments
 in  the Westat  Survey was 1,500 m2 and the median depth was 1.8 m.  Three
model unit surface areas and depths were chosen for storage and treatment
 impoundments,   representing the medians and spanning the representative
 ranges of sizes for each parameter.  The Westat Survey data summary for
 impoundments indicated that disposal  impoundments generally have higher
surface areas  and shallower depths than storage and treatment impoundments.
The model  disposal  impoundment was designed with the Westat Survey median
surface area of 9,000  m2 and the median depth of approximately 1.8 m.
     Retention  times in the Westat Survey ranged from 1 to 550 days, with
over half of the values at 46 days or less.  The storage impoundment model
unit retention  times,  ranging from 1  to 180 days, were chosen to span  the
                                   C 18

-------
            TABLE C-l.  HAZARDOUS
                        UNCOVERED
WASTE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT AND
TANK MODEL UNITS9
   Model  unit (weights,b %)
              Parameters0
Surface impoundment storage

   S04A   Quiescent impoundment
   S04B   Quiescent impoundment
   (S04A and B = 38.3)

   S04C   Quiescent impoundment
   S04D   Quiescent impoundment
   (S04C and D = 35.9)
       Throughput - 99,000 Mg/yr
       Surface area - 300 m^
       Depth - 0.9 m
       Volume - 270 m3
       Retention time - 1 d
       Flow rate - 3.1 L/s
       Temperature - 25 °C
       Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

       Throughput - 9,800 Mg/yr
       Surface area - 300 m^
       Depth - 0.9 m
       Volume - 270 m3
       Retention time - 10 d
       Flow rate - 0.31 L/s
       Temperature - 25 °C
       Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
       Throughput - 49,000 Mg/yr
       Surface area - 1,500 m^
       Depth - 1.8 m
       Volume - 2,700 m3
       Retention time - 20 d
       Flow rate - 1.6 L/s
       Temperature - 25 °C
       Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

       Throughput - 25,000 Mg/yr
       Surface area - 1,500 m^
       Depth - 1.8 m
       Volume - 2,700 m3
       Retention time - 40 d
       Flow rate - 0.78 L/s
       Temperature - 25 °C
       Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
See notes at end of table.
                             (continued)
                                    C-19

-------
             TABLE  C-l.  HAZARDOUS WASTE SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENT AND
                   UNCOVERED TANK MODEL UNITS3  (continued)
    Model  unit  (weights,b %)
       Parameters0
 Surface  impoundment storage  (con.)
    S04E   Quiescent impoundment
    S04F   Quiescent impoundment
    (S04E and F = 25.9)

Surface impoundment treatment

    T02A   Quiescent impoundment with
          no biodegradation
   T02B   Quiescent impoundment with
          no biodegradation
   (T02A and B = 31.2)
Throughput - 120,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 9,000 m2
Depth - 3.7 m
Volume 33,000 m3
Retention time - 100 d
Flow rate - 3.8 L/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

Throughput - 67,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 9,000 m2
Depth - 3.7 m
Volume - 33,000 m3
Retention time - 180 d
Flow rate - 2.1 L/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
Throughput - 200,000
Surface area - 300 m2
Depth - 0.9 m
Volume - 270 m3
Retention time - 0.5
Flow rate - 6.3 L/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
Throughput - 20,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 300 m2
Depth - 0.9 m
Volume - 270 m3
Retention time - 5 d
Flow rate - 0.63 L/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                   C-20

-------
            TABLE C-l.  HAZARDOUS WASTE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT AND
                  UNCOVERED TANK MODEL UNITS9 (continued)
   Model unit (weights,b %)
       Parameters0
Surface impoundment treatment (con.)

   T02C   Quiescent impoundment with
          no biodegradation
   T02D   Quiescent impoundment with
          no biodegradation
   (T02C and D = 35.6)

   T02E   Quiescent impoundment with
          no biodegradation
   T02F   Quiescent impoundment with
          no biodegradation
   (T02E and F = 33.3)
Throughput - 990,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 1,500 m2
Depth - 1.8 m
Volume - 2,700 m3
Retention time -Id
Flow rate - 31 L/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

Throughput - 99,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 1,500 m2
Depth - 1.8 m
Volume - 2,700 m3
Retention time - 10 d
Flow rate - 3.1 L/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
Throughput - 608,000 Mg/yr

Surface area - 9,000 m2
Depth - 3.7 m
Volume - 33,000 m3
Retention time - 20 d
Flow rate - 19 L/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

Throughput - 302,000 Mg/yr

Surface area - 9,000 m2
Depth - 3.7 m
Volume - 33,000 m3
Retention time - 40 d
Flow rate - 9.6 L/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                   C-21

-------
            TABLE C-l.  HAZARDOUS WASTE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT AND
                  UNCOVERED TANK MODEL UNITS3 (continued)
   Model unit  (weights,b %)
       Parameters0
 Surface  impoundment treatment (con.)

   T02G   Aerated/agitated impoundment
          with biodegradation
   T02H   Aerated/agitated impoundment
          with biodegradation
   (T02G and H = 31.2)
                                                          63 m2
                                                           kW (7,
Throughput - 200,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 300 m2
Depth - 0.9 m
Volume - 270 m3
Retention time - 0.5 d
Flow rate - 6.3
Turbulent area
Total power - 5.6
Impeller power
Impeller speed
Impeller diameter - 61 cm
02 transfer - 1.83 kg/kW/h
 (3 Ib/hp/h)
02 correction factor
Biomass concentration
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
                        5 hp)
                                                          4.8 kW (6.4 hp)
                                                          130 rad/s
                                                                0.83
                                                                 0.5 g/L
Throughput - 20,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 300 m2
Depth - 0.9 m
Volume - 270 m3
Retention time - 5 d
Flow rate - 0.63 L/s
Turbulent area - 63 m2
Total power - 5.6 kW (7.5 hp)
Impeller power - 4.8 kW (6.4 hp)
Impeller speed - 130 rad/s
Impeller diameter - 61 cm
02 transfer - 1.83 kg/kW/h
 (3 Ib/hp/h)
02 correction factor - 0.83
Biomass concentration - 0.5 g/L
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                   C-22

-------
            TABLE C-l.  HAZARDOUS WASTE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT AND
                  UNCOVERED TANK MODEL UNITS3 (continued)
   Model unit (weights,b %)
                                      Parameters0
Surface impoundment treatment (con.)
   T02I
Aerated/agitated impoundment
with biodegradation
   T02J
Aerated/agitated impoundment
with biodegradation
Throughput - 990,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 1,500 m^
Depth - 1.8 m
Volume - 2,700 m3
Retention time -Id
Flow rate - 31 L/s
Turbulent area - 370 m^
Total power - 56 kW (75 hp)
Impeller power - 48 kW (64 hp)
Impeller speed - 130 rad/s
Impeller diameter - 61 cm
02 transfer - 1.83 kg/kW/h
 (3 Ib/hp/h)
02 correction factor - 0.83
Biomass concentration - 0.5  g/L
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

Throughput - 99,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 1,500 m^
Depth - 1.8 m
Volume - 2,700 m3
Retention time - 10 d
Flow,, rate - 3.1 L/s
Turbulent area - 370 m2
Total power - 56 kW (75 hp)
Impeller power - 48 kW (64 hp)
Impeller speed - 130 rad/s
Impeller diameter - 61 cm
0? transfer - 1.83 kg/kW/h
 (3 Ib/hp/h)
02 correction factor - 0.83
Biomass concentration - 0.5  g/L
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
   (T02I and J = 35.6)
See notes at end of table.
                                                     (continued)
                                    C-23

-------
             TABLE C-l.   HAZARDOUS WASTE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT AND
                   UNCOVERED TANK MODEL UNITS9 (continued)
    Model  unit (weights,b %)
        Parameters0
 Surface impoundment treatment  (con.)

    T02K   Aerated/agitated  impoundment
           with biodegradation
    T02L    Aerated/agitated  impoundment
           with  biodegradation
    (T02K and L = 33.3)

Surface impoundment disposal

   D83A   Quiescent impoundment with
          no biodegradation (100)
 Throughput  - 608,000  Mq/yr
 Surface  area -  9,000  m2
 Depth  -  3.7 m
 Volume - 33,000 m3
 Retention time  - 20 d
 Flow rate - 19  L/s
 Turbulent area  - 2,700 m2
 Total  power - 671 kW  (900 hp)
 Impeller power  - 574  kW  (770  hp)
 Impeller speed  - 130  rad/s
 Impeller diameter - 61 cm
 0? transfer - 1.83 kg/kW/h
  (3 Ib/hp/h)
 02 correction factor  - 0.83
 Biomass concentration - 0.5 g/L
 Temperature - 25 °C
 Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

 Throughput - 302,000 Mq/yr
 Surface area - 9,000 m^
 Depth  - 3.7 m
 Volume - 33,000 m3
 Retention time - 40 d
 Flow rate - 9.6 L/s
 Turbulent area - 2,700 m2
 Total  power - 671 kW  (900 hp)
 Impeller power - 574  kW  (770  hp)
 Impeller speed - 130  rad/s
 Impeller diameter - 61 cm
0? transfer - 1.83 kg/kW/h
  (3 Ib/hp/h)
02 correction factor  - 0.83
 Biomass concentration - 0.5 g/L
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
Throughput - 32,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 9,000 m2
Depth - 1.8 m
Volume - 16,000 m3
Retention time - 183 d
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
See notes at end of table.
                                   C-24
                      (continued)

-------
            TABLE C-l.  HAZARDOUS WASTE SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENT AND
                  UNCOVERED TANK MODEL UNITS3  (continued)
   Model unit  (weights,*3 %)
       Parameters0
Storage tanks

   S02F   Uncovered tank  (37.7)
   S02G   Uncovered tank  (Od)
   S02H   Uncovered tank  (32.3)
   S02I   Uncovered tank  (17.8)
   S02J   Uncovered tank  (12.2)
Throughput - 110 m3/yr
Surface area - 2.3 m^
Depth - 2.4 m
Volume - 5.7 m3
Retention time - 18.3 d
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

Throughput - 60.4 m3/yr
Surface area - 13 m^,
Depth - 2.4 m
Volume - 30.2 m3
Retention time - 183 d
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

Throughput - 1,100 m3/yr
Surface area - 13 m2
Depth - 2.4 m
Volume - 30.2 m3
Retention time - 9.9 d
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

Throughput - 3,300 m3/yr
Surface area - 26 m2
Depth - 2.7 m
Volume - 76 m3
Retention time - 8.3 d
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

Throughput - 17,000 m3/yr
Surface area - 65 m2
Depth - 12 m
Volume - 790 m3
Retention time - 17.4 d
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                    C-25

-------
            TABLE C-l.   HAZARDOUS  WASTE  SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENT AND
                  UNCOVERED TANK MODEL UNITS3  (continued)
   Model  unit (weights,b %)
                                      Parameters0
Treatment tanks
   T01A
Uncovered quiescent tank
(28.3)
   T01B
Uncovered quiescent tank
(21.8)
   T01C
Uncovered quiescent tank
(50.0)
   T01G
Uncovered aerated/agitated
tank (78.3)
Throughput -  11,000 Mg/yr
Surface area  -  13 m2
Depth - 2.4 m
Volume - 30.2 m3
Retention time  - 24 h
Flow rate - 0.35 L/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

Throughput - 28,000 Mg/yr
Surface area -  26 m2
Depth - 2.7 m
Volume - 76 m3
Retention time  - 24 h
Flow rate - 0.88 L/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

Throughput - 290,000 Mg/yr
Surface area -  65 m2
Depth - 12 m
Volume - 800 m3
Retention time  - 24 h
Flow rate - 9.2 L/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s

Throughput - 240,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 27 m2
Depth -4m
Volume - 108 m3
Retention time  - 4 h
Flow rate - 7.5 L/s
Turbulent area  - 14 m2
Total power - 5.6 kW (7.5 hp)
Impeller power
Impeller speed
Impeller diameter - 61 cm
0? transfer - 1.83 kg/kW/h
 (3 Ib/hp/h)
02 correction factor
Biomass concentration
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
                                                         4.8  kW  (6.4  hp)
                                                         130  rad/s
                                                               0.83
                                                               • 4.0 g/L
                                                               (continued)
                                   C-26

-------
            TABLE C-l.  HAZARDOUS WASTE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT AND
                  UNCOVERED TANK MODEL UNITS9 (continued)
   Model  unit (weights,b %)
                                                Parameters0
   T01H   Uncovered aerated/agitated
          tank (21.8)
                                                       ,800,000 Mg/yr
                                                        430 m2
                                                          250 m2
                                                            kW
Throughput - 2
Surface area -
Depth - 3.7 m
Volume - 1,600 m3
Retention time - 5
Flow rate - 88 L/s
Turbulent area
Total power - 89.5
 (120 hp)
Impeller power - 38 kW (51 hp)
Impeller speed - 130 rad/s
Impeller diameter - 61 cm
0? transfer - 1.83 kg/kW/h
 (3 Ib/hp/h)
02 correction factor
Biomass concentration
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
                                                                0.83
                                                                 4.0 g/L
Hazardous waste surface impoundment and uncovered tank model units repre-
 sent the ranges of uncovered, quiescent, and aerated surface storage,
 treatment,  and disposal surface impoundments and storage and treatment
 tanks in the hazardous waste management industry.

^Because design characteristics and operating parameters (surface area,
 waste throughputs, detention times, and so on) were generally not avail-
 able for all treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF) ,
 weighting factors were developed to approximate the nationwide distri-
 bution of model units defined for a particular TSDF waste management
 process.  The weighting factors are based on the considerable statistical
 data available in the 1981 EPA survey of hazardous waste generators and
 TSDF conducted by Westat,  Inc. (Westat Survey).  For example, results of
 this survey were used to determine the national distribution of sizes of
 storage tanks (storage volume), surface impoundments (surface area), and
 landfills (surface area and depth).  For further information on weighting
 factors, refer to Appendix D, Sections D.2.4.3 and D.2.5.
cModel  unit parameters may not be equal (e.g., Throughput
 Turnovers) because of rounding.
                                                            Volume x
dThis model  unit was weighted 0% because S02H also has the same surface
 area.  This avoids double weighting of a unit size.
                                   C-27

-------
 reasonable range of values,  based  on  knowledge  of  the  operation  of impound-
 ments  that are  representative  of the  industry.   Retention  times  greater
 than  180 days were  not  used  to estimate  emissions  because  organics are
 emitted  from a  surface  impoundment within  180 days.  The retention time in
 treatment impoundments  was expected to be  less  than  the retention  times in
 storage  impoundments.   Two design manuals  listed typical retention times
 for aerated  impoundments  as  7  to 20 days2?  and  3 to  10 days.28   Retention
 times  bounding  these  ranges  were chosen  for the quiescent  and aerated/
 agitated impoundments.  No data were  available  concerning  disposal  surface
 impoundment  retention times; therefore,  the disposal surface  impoundment
 was selected with a 6-month  retention time  or the  time within which  the
 organics would  be emitted.   Volume for each  surface  impoundment  model unit
 was calculated  from area  and depth; the  retention  time yielded the flow
 rate.
     Two meteorological parameters required  for the  emission models  were
 temperature  and  windspeed.   The parameters  chosen  were a standard  tempera-
 ture of  25 °C and a windspeed  of 4.5 m/s.   These standard  values were eval-
 uated  by estimating emissions  from surface  impoundments for windspeed/
 temperature  combinations  at  actual  sites based  on  their frequency  of
 occurrence.  Over a l^yr  period, the  results from  site-specific  data on
 windspeed  and temperature were not significantly different from  the  results
 using  the  standard  values.   Consequently, the standard values were judged
 adequate for the model  units.
     With  regard to the aerated/agitated treatment impoundments, one
 source,  Metcalf  and Eddy,29  suggests a range of 0.37 to 0.75 kW/28.3 m3
 (0.5 to  1.0  hp/1,000 ft3)  for mixing.   However,  more power may be  needed to
 supply additional oxygen or  to mix certain  treatment solutions.  Informa-
 tion obtained through site visits to  impoundments  indicates power  usage as
 high as  2.6  kW/28.3 m3  (3.5  hp/1,000 ft3) at a  specific TSDF impoundment.30
 For this analysis,  a midrange value of 0.56  kW/28.3 m3 (0.75 hp/1,000 ft3)
 from Metcalf and Eddy was  used to generate  estimates of the power  required
 for mixing in each  model unit.
     Data  from Reference 31  indicate that an aerator with  a 56-kW  (75-hp)
motor and  a 61-cm-diameter propeller turning at  126  rad/s would  agitate a
volume of  660 m3.   Agitated volumes were estimated by holding propeller
                                   C-28

-------
diameter and rotation constant and treating agitated volume as being pro-
portional to power.  The agitated volume divided by depth yielded the agi-
tated surface area, which was modeled as turbulent area.  Typical values
were chosen for the oxygen transfer rating of the aerator and the oxygen
transfer correction factor.  A value of 1.83 kg 02/kW/h  (3.0 Ib 02/hp/h)
was chosen for the oxygen transfer rating from a range of 1.76 to 1.83  (2.9
to 3.0).32  A value of 0.83 was used for the correction  factor from a typi-
cal range of 0.80 to 0.85.33  por estimating the impeller power, an
85-percent efficient transfer of power to the impeller was used.34  A
midrange biomass concentration for continuous stirred tank reactors was
chosen from Reference 35.  A biomass concentration of 0.5 g/L was chosen as
an estimate, representing an upper bound on the design guidelines in
References 36 and 37.
     Table C-l also presents uncovered, quiescent and aerated/agitated
hazardous waste treatment tank model units.  According to responses to the
1981 EPA survey of hazardous waste generators and TSDF conducted by Westat,
Inc. (Westat Survey), which were examined by the GCA Corporation,38 there
are four sizes of tanks that best represent the waste management industry:
5.3 m3, 30 m3, 76 m3, and 800 m3.  The quiescent storage and treatment tank
model units were sized accordingly.
     Retention times were chosen to span the retention times commonly used
by wastewater treatment tank units.39  The retention times and tank capaci-
ties were used to arrive at flow rates for the model units.  These flow
rates are comparable to those found in the EPA survey conducted by Westat
for medium and large wastewater treatment tanks.  The remaining physical
parameters for quiescent treatment tanks were chosen on  the basis of
engineering judgment.  Meteorological conditions cited for quiescent and
aerated tanks represent standard annual (temperature and windspeed) and
daily (temperature change) values.
     For aerated/agitated treatment tanks, the agitation parameters for the
aerated,  biologically active tanks were derived as described previously for
aerated/agitated surface impoundments.
     C.2.1.2  Land Treatment.  Table C-2 displays hazardous waste land
treatment model  units.   Model unit parameters were based primarily on a
data base developed by EPA^O from site visits and contacts with State,
                                   C-29

-------
                TABLE C-2.  HAZARDOUS WASTE LAND TREATMENT
                               MODEL UNITS3
   Model unit (weights,b %)                      Parameters

   D81A   (NA)                           Throughput - 360 Mg/yr
                                         Land areac - 1  ha
                                         Oil  content of  waste - 10%
                                         Soi1 air porosity - 0.5
                                         Soil total porosity - 0.61
                                         Tilling depth - 20 cm
                                         Temperature - 25 °C

   D81B   (NA)                           Throughput - 1,800 Mg/yr
                                         Land area0 - 5  ha
                                         Oil  content of  waste - 10%
                                         Soil air porosity - 0.5
                                         Soil total porosity - 0.61
                                         Tilling depth - 20 cm
                                         Temperature - 25 °C

   D81C   (NA)                           Throughput - 5,400 Mg/yr
                                         Land areac - 15 ha
                                         Oil  content of  waste - 10%
                                         Soil air porosity - 0.5
                                         Soil total porosity - 0.61
                                         Tilling depth - 20 cm
                                         Temperature   25 °C

   D81D   (NA)                           Throughput - 27,000 Mg/yr
                                         Land area0 - 75 ha
                                         Oil  content of  waste - 10fe
                                         Soil air porosity - 0.5
                                         Soil total porosity - 0.61
                                         Tilling depth - 20 cm
                                         Temperature - 25 °C

NA = Not applicable.

Hazardous waste land treatment model  units represent the range of land
 treatment processes  in  the  hazardous  waste management industry.

^Weighting factors were  developed for  each unit to represent each waste
 management  process when estimating nationwide emissions.  These factors
 are based on frequency  distributions  of quantity processed, unit size, or
 unit area that  were  results of the Westat Survey, approximately a national
 distribution of model  units.

°Waste is applied only to one-half of, the land area based on knowledge of
 industry practice, allowing the undisturbed area to stabilize.
                                   C-30

-------
regional, and  industry sources and supplemented by information from recent
literature.  These values were chosen as reasonably representative of aver-
age or typical practices currently used at  land treatment operations.  The
data base showed annual throughput varying  from about 2 Mg/yr to about
400,000 Mg/yr  with a median value of 1,800  Mg/yr.  The area of land treat-
ment sites ranged from less than 1 ha to about 250 ha with a median value
of 5 ha.  These two median values were selected to develop the model units.
The data base  showed tilling depth varying  from 15 cm to one case of 65 cm,
with most being in the range of 15 to 30 cm.  The single most frequently
reported tilling depth was 20 cm, which was selected as a typical value.
This value is  in line with values of 15 to  30 cm reported in another
study.^l  The  data base showed oil content  of the waste streams varying
from about 2 to 50 percent, with a median value of about 12 percent and
model value of 10 percent.  The 10-percent  figure was selected as typical.
     Very little soil porosity information  has been identified.  One study
reported measured values of soil porosity in a land treatment plot as rang-
ing from 43.3  to 65.1 percent^2 with an average value of about 50 percent.
The literature did not specify whether this soil porosity represented total
soil porosity  or soil air porosity.  Therefore, these literature values
were chosen to represent soil air porosity.  Total soil porosity included
the air porosity and the space occupied by  oil and water within soil.  One
field study reported measured values of both total porosity and air-filled
porosity.43  Measured values of total soil  porosity ranged from 54.7 to
64.8 percent, with an average value of 60.7 percent.  Measured values of
air-filled porosity ranged from 27.4 to 46.9 percent, with an average of
37.2 percent.  Thus, the value of 61 percent for total soil porosity was
chosen to be a representative value based on the median measured total soil
porosity of 60.7 percent.  A value of 50 percent was used as a default for
air porosity.
     C.2.1.3  Waste Fixation, Wastepiles,  and Landfills.  As part of the
landfill operation,  fixation model units were developed.  Table C-3 shows
hazardous waste fixation pit model units.    The fixation pit has a length of
6  m,  with a width of 3 m and a depth of 3 m.  These dimensions represent
reasonable estimates of industry practice based on observations at actual
sites.   The duration of the fixation operation was taken to be a maximum of
                                   C-31

-------
       TABLE C-3.  HAZARDOUS WASTE FIXATION PIT, WASTEPILE  STORAGE,
                    AND LANDFILL DISPOSAL MODEL UNITS3
Model unit  (weights,'3 %)
Parameters
Fixation pit

   Fixation pit A (46.0)
   Fixation pit B (14.9)
         Mg/yr
                                                                 liquid +
                                                                 waste
                                                                 8 g/cm3
Throughput - 17,000
 fixed waste
Liquid/fixative - 1 cm3
 fixative = 1 cm3 fixed
Fixed waste density - 1
Number of pits - 1
Pit surface dimensions - 3x6 m
Pit depth -3m
Number of batches - 160/yr
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
Wind direction - along length
 pit
Temperature - 25 °C
Duration of fixation - 2 h
                                                                       of
          Mg/yr
                                                                 liquid -
                                                                 waste
                                                                 8 g/cm3
Throughput - 120,000
 fixed waste
Liquid/fixative - 1 cm3
 fixative = 1 cm3 fixed
Fixed waste density - 1
Number of pits - 2
Pit surface dimensions - 3x6 m
Pit depth -3m
Number of batches - 1,200/yr
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
Wind direction - along length
 pit
Temperature - 25 °C
Duration of fixation - 2 h
                                                                       of
See notes at end of table,
           (continued)
                                   C-32

-------
       TABLE C-3.  HAZARDOUS WASTE FIXATION PIT, WASTEPILE  STORAGE,
              AND LANDFILL DISPOSAL MODEL UNITS9 (continued)
Model unit (weights,b %)
           Parameters
Fixation pit (con.)

   Fixation pit C  (39.2)
Wastepile

   S03D   Wastepile (41.5)
Mg/yr
                                                                 liquid +
                                                                 waste
                                                                 8  /cm^
                                                                       of
Throughput - 170,000
 fixed waste
Liquid/fixative - 1 cm^
 fixative - 1 cm^ fixed
Fixed waste density - 1
Number of pits - 4
Pit surface dimensions - 3x6 m
Pit depth -3m
Number of batches - 1,600/yr
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
Wind direction - along length
 pit
Temperature - 25 °C
Duration of fixation - 2 h
Throughput - 17,000 Mg/yr
Surface area - 46 m^
Average height - 0.77 m
Volume - 36 m^
Waste density - 1.8 g/cm^
Turnovers - 300/yr
Retention time - 1.2 days
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
Liquid/fixative - 1 cm^ liquid +
 fixative = 1 cm^ fixed waste
Total porosity fixed waste - 0.50
Air porosity fixed waste - 0.25
Biomass concentration - 0
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                   C-33

-------
       TABLE C-3.  HAZARDOUS WASTE FIXATION PIT, WASTEPILE  STORAGE,
              AND LANDFILL DISPOSAL MODEL UNITS3 (continued)
Model unit  (weights,'3 %)
            Parameters
Wastepile  (con.)

   S03E   Wastepile  (36.0)
   S03F   Wastepile (22.5)
Throughput  -  120,000 Mg/yr
Surface area  - 470 m2
Average height -1m
Volume - 460  m3
Waste density -  1.8 g/cm3
Turnovers - 140/yr
Retention time - 2.6 days
Temperature - 25 °C
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
Liquid/fixative - 1 cm3  liquid +
 fixative = 1 cm3 fixed  waste
Total porosity fixed waste - 0.50
Air porosity  fixed waste - 0.25
Biomass concentration -  0 g/cm3

Throughput -  170,000 Mg/yr
Surface area  - 14,000 m2
Average height -4m
Volume - 57,000 m3
Waste density - 1.8 g/cm3
Turnovers - 1.6/yr
Retention time - 220 days
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Liquid/fixative - 1 cm3  liquid +
 fixative = 1 cm3 fixed waste
Total porosity fixed waste - 0.50
Air porosity  fixed waste - 0.25
Biomass concentration - 0 g/cm3
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                   C-34

-------
       TABLE C-3.  HAZARDOUS WASTE FIXATION PIT, WASTEPILE  STORAGE,
              AND LANDFILL DISPOSAL MODEL UNITS3 (continued)
Model unit (weights.^ %)
           Parameters
Landfill disposal

   D80D   Active landfill (46.0)
   D80E   Active landfill (14.9)
   D80F   Active landfill (39.2)
Surface area - 0.4 ha
Depth of waste -l.lm
Degree of filling - half
Ambient temperature - 25
                                                           1 cm3
                                                           fixed
                                                           fixed
 full
 °C
1iquid +
waste
Liquid/fixative -
 fixative = 1 cm3
Total porosity of
 waste - 0.50
Air porosity of fixed
 waste - 0.25
Biomass cone. - 0 g/cm3
Surface area - 1.4 ha
Depth of waste - 2.3 m
Degree of filling - half full
Ambient temperature   25 °C
                                                                 liquid +
                                                                 waste
Liquid/fixative - 1 cm0
 fixative = 1 cm3 fixed
Total porosity of fixed
 waste - 0.50
Air porosity of fixed
 waste - 0.25
Biomass cone. - 0 g/cm3
Surface area - 2 ha
Depth of waste - 2.3 m
Degree of filling - half full
Ambient temperature - 25 °C
Liquid/fixative - 1 cm3 liquid +
 fixative = 1 cm3 fixed waste
Total porosity of fixed
 waste - 0.50
Air porosity of fixed waste - 0.25
Biomass cone. - 0 g/cm3
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                   C-35

-------
       TABLE C-3.  HAZARDOUS WASTE FIXATION PIT, WASTEPILE  STORAGE,
              AND LANDFILL DISPOSAL MODEL UNITS3 (continued)
Model unit  (weights,b %)
           Parameters
 Landfill disposal (con.)

   D80G   Closed landfill (46.0)
   D80H   Closed landfill (14.9)
                                                                .3 m

                                                                 0.41
                                                                .08
                                                                   15 °C
Surface area - 0.4 ha
Waste bed thickness - 2.
Cap thickness - 110 cm
Total porosity of cap -
Air porosity of cap - 0
Temperature beneath cap
Typical barometric pressure -
 1.01 x 10-5 Pa (1,013 mbar)
Daily barometric pressure drop -
 4.0 x ID'8 Pa (4 mbar)
Liquid/fixative - 1 CITH liquid +
 fixative = 1 cm3 fixed waste
Air porosity of fixed waste -
 0.25
Biomass cone. - 0 g/cm3

Surface area - 1.4 ha
Waste bed thickness - 4.6 m
Cap thickness - 110 cm
Total porosity of cap - 0.41
Air porosity of cap - 0.08
Temperature beneath cap - 15 °C
Typical barometric pressure -
 1.01 x ID'5 Pa (1,013 mbar)
Daily barometric pressure drop -
 4.0 x 10-8 Pa (4 mbar)
Liquid/fixative - 1 cm3 liquid +
 fixative = 1 cm3 fixed waste
Air porosity of fixed waste -
 0.25
Biomass cone. - 0 g/cm3
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                   C-36

-------
       TABLE C-3.   HAZARDOUS WASTE FIXATION PIT, WASTEPILE  STORAGE,
              AND  LANDFILL DISPOSAL MODEL UNITSa (continued)
Model unit (weights, b %)
                                                    Parameters
Landfill disposal (con.)

   D80I   Closed landfill (39.2)
                                         Surface area - 2 ha
                                         Waste bed thickness - 4.6 m
                                         Cap thickness - 110 cm
                                         Total porosity of cap - 0.41
                                         Air porosity- of cap - 0.08
                                         Temperature beneath cap - 15 °
                                         Typical barometric pressure -
                                          1.01 x ID'5 Pa (1,013 mbar)
                                         Daily barometric pressure drop
                                          4.0 x ID'8 Pa (4 mbar)
                                         Liquid/fixative - 1 cnn liquid
                                          fixative = 1 cm^ fixed waste
                                         Air porosity of fixed waste -
                                          0.25
                                         Biomass cone. - 0 g/cm^
Hazardous waste fixation pit,  wastepile storage,  and landfill disposal
 model  units represent the ranges of these processes in the hazardous waste
 management industry.

^Because design characteristics and operating parameters (surface area,
 waste  throughputs,  detention times, and so on)  were generally not avail-
 able for all  treatment,  storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF) ,  weighting
 factors were  developed to approximate the nationwide distribution of model
 units  defined for a particular TSDF waste management process.  The
 weighting factors are based on the considerable statistical data available
 in the 1981 EPA survey of hazardous waste generators and TSDF conducted by
 Westat, Inc.  (Westat Survey).   For example,  results of this survey were
 used to determine the national distribution  of sizes of storage tanks
 (storage volume), surface impoundments (surface area), and landfills
 (surface area and depth).  For further information on weighting factors,
 refer  to Appendix D, Sections  D.2.4.3 and D.2.5.
                                   C-37

-------
 2  h,  based on operating practice at one site.44  The wind direction was
 assumed to be along the length of the pit, and a standard temperature  of
 25  °C  and windspeed of 4.5 m/s were used.
      Hazardous waste wastepile storage model units are presented  in
 Table  C-3 as part of landfill operations.  The wastepile surface  areas were
 designed to represent the range of basal areas reported in the Westat
 Survey, with 470 m2 being an approximately midrange value.  For modeling
 purposes, the pile was assumed to be flat.  The heights were based on
 Westat information and engineering judgment.  The wastepile retention  times
 were  derived from the landfill volumes,  the wastepile volumes, and the
 landfill filling time (to capacity) of 1 yr.  With regard to.the  waste
 characteristics, the waste density represents a fixed two-phase aqueous/
 organic waste.  The fixation industry indicated that waste liquid, when
 combined with fixative,  may increase in volume by up to 50 percent,45,46,47
 depending on the specific combination of waste fixative.  However, because
 of  the inherent variability in the fixation process and the lack  of real
 data on volume changes,  this analysis did not incorporate a waste  volume
 change during fixation.   Measurements4^ performed on various types of  fixed
 waste yielded a broad range of total porosities;  therefore, 50 percent was
 chosen as a reasonable estimate of total porosity.  A 25-percent  air poros-
 ity value was inferred from measurements of total porosity and moisture
 content.49  The toxic property of the waste can inhibit the biological
 processes and prevent biogas generation.50  Therefore,  the waste  biomass
 concentration is 0 g/cm^.
     Table C-3 also provides hazardous waste landfill disposal model units.
 The active landfill  surface areas represent the range of surface  areas
 reported in the Westat Survey.  A standard temperature of 25 °C was chosen
 for the model.
     As with active landfills, the closed landfill surface areas  and depths
were based on  Westat Survey data.  The landfill cap was considered to  be
composed of compacted clay.   The cap thickness of 110 cm represents the
average of extremes in thickness of clay caps (61 cm to 180 cm) reported  in
site studies.51   The value used for air porosity of the clay cap  is 8  per-
cent,  while the total  porosity is 41 percent.  These values were  computed
based  on  reasonable physica.l  properties and level of compaction for
                                   C-38

-------
compacted clay.52  jhe temperature beneath the landfill cap was estimated
at 15 °C, which represents the temperature of shallow ground water at a
mid-latitude U.S. location.53  /\ constant temperature was used.  The
landfill is exposed to a nominal barometric pressure of 1.01 x 10~5 Pa
(1,013 mbar), which represents an estimate of the annual average atmos-
pheric pressure in the United States.54  Barometric pumping was estimated
for the  landfill using a daily pressure drop from the nominal value of 4.0
x 10~8 Pa (4 mbar).  The 4.0 x 10~8 Pa (4 mbar) value represents an esti-
mate of  the annual average diurnal pressure drop.55  The closed landfill
model units were designed to contain fixed or solid wastes.  As explained
previously for hazardous waste wastepile model units, biomass concentration
was taken to be 0 g/cm3 for active and closed landfills.
     C.2.1.4  Transfer, Storage, and Handling.  Table C-4 presents model
units for loading and storing hazardous waste in containers and covered
tanks and for sources of equipment leaks during waste transfer.  The EPA's
Hazardous Waste Data Management System was reviewed56 to select the most
representative volumetric capacities of container storage (drums and dump-
sters) facilities.  Based on this review, two model drum storage facilities
were developed:  an onsite or private TSDF with a 21-m3 capacity processing
42 m3 annually, and a commercial TSDF with a 40-m3 capacity processing
460 m3 annually.  The Westat Survey indicated that waste containers are
typically in the form of 0.21-m3 (55-gal) drums.57  Therefore, these model
capacities would hold 100 and 180 drums,  respectively, at any one time.  A
telephone conversation with a dumpster vendor58 identified two basic capa-
cities of small roll-off containers:  3.1 m3 and 4.6 m3.  The 3.1-m3 roll-
off,  which turns over 6.1 m3 annually, was selected as a model.  It has a
length of 1.9 m, width of 1.5 m, and height of 1.2 m.  In addition, an
average  annual  ambient temperature of 25 °C and an average windspeed of
4.5 m/s were used.
     Containers (drums, tank trucks, and rail tank cars) were considered to
be splash-loaded for emission-estimating purposes because data were not
available to determine whether one loading method predominates.  This  load-
ing method creates larger quantities of organic vapors and increases the
saturation factor of each volatile compound within the container.  A satu-
ration factor is a dimensionless quantity that represents the expelled
                                   C-39

-------
            TABLE C-4.  HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSFER, STORAGE, AND
                      HANDLING OPERATION MODEL UNITS3
 Model  unit  (weights,13 %)
         Parameters
 Container  storage

    S01A    Drum storage  (66.1)
    S01B   Drum storage  (33.9)
   S01C   Dumpster storage (0)
 Container loading

   Drum loading (NA)
   Drum loading (NA)
   Tank truck loading (NA)
Throughput - 42 m3/yr
Volume - 0.21 m3/drum
Capacity - 100 drums
Turnovers - 2/yr
Spill fraction - 10'4
Volatilization fraction - 0.5

Throughput - 460 m3/yr
Volume - 0.21 m3/drum
Capacity - 180 drums
Turnovers - 12/yr
Spill fraction - 10'4
Volatilization fraction - 0.5

Throughput - 6 m3/yr
Windspeed - 4.5 m/s
Temperature - 25 °C
Length - 1.9 m
Width - 1.5 m
Height - 1.2 m
Turnovers - 2/yr
Throughput - 42 nvVyr
Volume - 0.21 m^/drum
Bulk temperature - 25 °C
Saturation factor
 (dimensionless) - 1.45
Number of loadings - 200/yr

Throughput - 460 m^/yr
Volume - 0.21 mVdrum
Bulk temperature - 25 °C
Saturation factor
 (dimensionless) - 1.45
Number of loadings - 2,200/yr

Throughput - 105 nvVyr
Volume - 27 m^
Bulk temperature - 25 °C
Saturation factor
 (dimensionless) - 1.45
Number of loadings - 4/yr
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                   C-40

-------
            TABLE C-4.  HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSFER, STORAGE, AND
                HANDLING OPERATION MODEL UNITS3  (continued)
Model unit (weights,b %)
         Parameters
Container loading (con.)

   Tank truck loading (NA)
   Rail tank car loading (NA)
   Rail tank car loading (NA)
Storage tanks

   S02A   Covered tank (37.7)
Throughput - 420 m^/yr
Volume - 27 m3
Bulk temperature - 25 °C
Saturation factor
 (dimensionless) - 1.45
Number of loadings - 16/yr

Throughput - 450 m3/yr
Volume - 110 m3
Bulk temperature - 25 °C
Saturation factor
 (dimensionless) - 1.45
Number of loadings - 4/yr

Throughput - 1 800 m3/yr
Volume - 110 m3
Bulk temperature - 25 °C
Saturation factor
 (dimensionless) - 1.45
Number of loadings - 16/yr
Throughput - 110 m3/yr (30,000
  gal/yr)
Volume - 5.7 m3 (1,500 gal)
Diameter - 1.7 m (5.6 ft)
Adjustment for small diameter
 (dimensionless) - 0.26
Height - 2.4 m (8 ft)
Average vapor space height - 1.2
  (4 ft)
Average diurnal temperature
 change - 11 °C
Paint factor (dimensionless) - 1
Turnovers - 20/yr
                                                                          m
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                    C-41

-------
             TABLE C-4.   HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSFER, STORAGE, AND
                 HANDLING OPERATION MODEL UNITS9  (continued)
 Model  unit  (weights,b %)
         Parameters
 Storage  tanks  (con.)

    S02B    Covered tank  (Oc)
    S02C   Covered tank  (32.3)
   S02D   Covered tank (17.8)
Throughput - 60.4 m3/yr  (16,000
  gal/yr)
Volume - 30.2 m3 (8,000  gal)
Diameter - 4 m  (13 ft)
Adjustment for  small diameter
 (dimensionless) - 0.65
Height - 2.4 m  (8 ft)
Average vapor space height - 1.2 m
  (4 ft)
Average diurnal temperature
 change - 11 °C
Paint factor (dimensionless) - 1
Turnovers - 2/yr
                                                        3 (8,000 gal)
                                                        (13 ft)
                                                        small diameter
Throughput - 1,100 m3/yr  (290,000
  gal/yr)
Volume - 30.2
Diameter - 4 m
Adjustment for
 (dimensionless) - 0.65
Height - 2.4 m  (8 ft)
Average vapor space height - 1.2 m
  (4 ft)
Average diurnal temperature
 change - 11 °C
Paint factor (dimensionless) - 1
Turnovers - 37/yr
Throughput - 3,300 m3/yr (870,000
  gal/yr)
Volume - 76 m3
Diameter - 5.8
                                                        (20,000 gal)
                                                        m (19 ft)
                                         Adjustment for small diameter
                                          (dimensionless)  - 0.86
                                         Height - 2.7 m (9 ft)
                                         Average vapor space height - 1.4 m
                                           (4.6 ft)
                                         Average diurnal temperature
                                          change - 11 °C
                                         Paint factor (dimensionless)
                                         Turnovers - 44/yr
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                   C-42

-------
            TABLE C-4.  HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSFER, STORAGE, AND
                HANDLING OPERATION MODEL UNITS3  (continued)
Model  unit (weights,b %)
         Parameters
Storage tanks (con.)

   S02E   Covered tank (12.2)
Treatment tanks^

   T01D   Covered quiescent tank (28.3)
   T01E   Covered quiescent tank (21.8)
Throughput - 17,000 m^/yr
  (4,500,000 gal/yr)
Volume - 790 m3 (210,000 gal)
Diameter - 9.1 m (30 ft)
Adjustment for small diameter
 (dimensionless) - 1
Height - 12 m (39 ft)
Average vapor space height -6m
  (20 ft)
Average diurnal temperature
 change - 11 °C
Paint factor (dimensionless)  - 1
Turnovers - 21/yr
Throughput - 11 000 Mg/yr
Volume - 30.2 m3
Diameter -4m
Adjustment for small diameter
 (dimensionless) - 0.65
Height - 2.4 m
Average vapor space height - 1.2 m
Average diurnal temperature-
 change - 11 °C
Paint factor (dimensionless) - 1
Retention time - 24 h

Throughput - 28,000 Mg/yr
Volume - 76 m3
Diameter - 5.8 m
Adjustment for small diameter
 (dimensionless) - 0.86
Height - 2.7 m
Average vapor space height - 1.4 m
Average diurnal temperature
 change - 11 °C
Paint factor (dimensionless) - 1
Turnovers - 365/yr
See notes at end of table.
                      (continued)
                                   C-43

-------
            TABLE C-4.   HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSFER,  STORAGE,  AND
                HANDLING OPERATION MODEL UNITS3 (continued)
Model unit (weights,b %)
                                                  Parameters
Treatment tanks (con.)

   T01F   Covered quiescent tank (50.0)
Equipment leaks

Equipment leak model  unit Ae (NA)
                                         Throughput - 290,000 Mg/yr
                                         Volume - 790 m3
                                         Diameter - 9.1 m
                                         Adjustment for small diameter
                                          (dimensionless) - 1
                                         Height - 12 m
                                         Average vapor space height -6m
                                         Average diurnal temperature
                                          change - 11 °C
                                         Paint factor (dimensionless)  - 1
                                         Turnovers - 365/yr
                                         Pump seals - 5
                                         Valves - 165
                                         Sampling connections - 9
                                         Open-ended lines - 44
                                         Pressure relief valves - 3
NA = Not applicable.
Hazardous waste transfer,  storage,  and handling operation model  units
 represent the ranges of these operations  in the hazardous waste  management
 industry.

^Because design characteristics and  operating parameters (surface area,
 waste throughputs,  detention times,  and so on)  were generally not avail-
 able for all  treatment, storage,  and disposal  facilities (TSDF),  weighting
 factors were  developed to  approximate the nationwide distribution of model
 units defined for a particular TSDF waste management process.  The
 weighting factors are based on the  considerable statistical  data available
 in the 1981 EPA survey of  hazardous waste generators and TSDF conducted by
 Westat, Inc.  (Westat Survey).  For  example, results of this  survey were
 used to determine the national distribution of sizes of storage  tanks
 (storage volume), surface  impoundments (surface area), and landfills
 (surface area and depth).   For further information on weighting  factors,
 refer to Appendix D, Sections D.2.4.3 and D.2.5.
           unit was weighted 0% because S02C also has the same volumetric
            This avoids double-weighting of a unit size.
cThe model
 capacity.

^Loading emissions from covered quiescent treatment tanks are estimated in
 the same manner as loading emissions from covered storage tanks.

Equipment  leak model  units B and C were not specified in terms of equip-
 ment counts.   Emission estimates and control  costs were calculated on the
 basis of model unit A equipment counts, and emission and control costs
 for model  units B and C were factored from these estimates.
                                   C-44

-------
vapors fractional approach to saturation and accounts for the variations
observed in emission rates from the different unloading and loading
methods.59  /\ saturation factor of 1.45 was selected for the emission
estimates, based on previous documentation of splash-loading petroleum
liquids.60/61  Typical capacities for containers were selected, and 25 °C
was considered the annual average ambient operating temperature.
     Table C-4 presents covered, hazardous waste tank storage and quiescent
treatment model units.  The tank sizes were based on Westat Survey informa-
tion, as has been explained previously for open hazardous waste quiescent
treatment tank model units in Section C.2.1.1.  (The Westat Survey did not
distinguish between storage and treatment tanks.)  Turnovers per year were
selected based on volumes of waste processed as reported in Westat62 and
the Hazardous Waste Data Management System.63  The remaining parameters
were chosen, based on documented information and engineering judgment, to
represent hazardous waste tank storage processes.  Meteorological condi-
tions used represent standard temperature (25 °C) and daily average temper-
ature change (11 °C).
     Table C-4 also provides hazardous waste transfer, handling, and load-
ing  (THL) operation model units to estimate emissions from equipment leaks.
The equipment leak model unit A was obtained from the benzene fugitives
emissions promulgation background information document64 and was used as
the baseline to develop equipment leak model units B and C.  Equipment leak
model units B and C were not specified in terms of equipment counts and,
therefore, are not presented in Table C-4.  Emission estimates and control
costs were calculated on the basis of model unit A equipment counts, and
emissions and control costs for model units B and C were factored from
these estimates.  Although the emission estimating model for equipment
leaks (essentially the emission factor) is independent of throughput, it
was necessary to account for throughput when applying the model units to a
TSDF to estimate emissions.  TSDF may treat, store, or dispose of large
volumes of waste by one management process.  Rather than assume that only
one very large process unit (and,  in turn, one fugitive model unit) is
operated,  the throughput of the process is divided by the throughput of its
average model  process unit, thus simulating the presence of multiple
smaller process units.  This estimates the number of average model process
                                   C-45

-------
 units  operating  at the  TSDF,  and one equipment  leak model  unit  is  then
 applied  to  each  average model process unit to estimate emissions from
 equipment  leaks.
 C.2.2  Model Wastes
     A set  of model waste compositions was developed to provide a  uniform
 basis  for  emission control, emission reductions, and cost  estimation for
 the  model waste  management units.  The model wastes were used as a neces-
 sary step  preliminary to generating process designs, mass  balances, and
 cost estimates for removal of organics and incineration devices.   Table C-5
 lists  the model  waste compositions.  These model wastes also were  used to
 develop  control  costs and control efficiencies by waste form for add-on and
 suppression-type controls, as well as organic removal devices.  However,  it
 should be pointed out that, to the extent possible, the compositions and
 quantities  of actual waste streams processed at the existing facilities
 were used to estimate nationwide TSDF emissions and the emission reductions
 resulting from the control strategies.
     The waste stream compositions in Table C-5 were selected to be repre-
 sentative of the major hazardous waste types containing organics.66  One
 EPA  study using  the Waste Environmental Treatment (WET) data base67 cate-
 gorized  organic-containing waste streams into major classes and evaluated
 pretreatment options for these wastes.  That study categorized organic-
 containing  wastes according to the following waste classes:68
     •    Organic liquids
     •    Aqueous organics (up to 20 percent organics)
     •    Dilute aqueous wastes (less than 2 percent organics)
     •    Organic sludges
     •    Aqueous/organic sludges.
     Other data bases  are available for specific industries,69 but  compre-
hensive waste stream listings for all domestic wastes are  not available.
Based on  the known physical  and chemical  forms of organic-containing
wastes, the following  six generic waste stream types were  selected  for
evaluation of organic  removal  processes,  incinerators, and  add-on  and sup-
pression-type controls:
                                    C-46

-------
                Waste  form
                                            TABLE C-5.   MODEL  WASTE  COMPOSITIONS3
                                                Organic  content
                                                                     Water content,
                                                                          wt %
                                                                                                     So I i d content,
                                                                                                          wt %
O
I
        Dilute  aqueous-1


        Dilute  aqueous-2
         Dilute  aqueous-3
         Two-phase  aqueous/organic
Organ i c Ii qu id
         Organic  sludge/slurry
         Aqueous  sludge/slurry
         Organic-containing solid
0.25% ethyl chloride
0.15% benzene

0.007% vinyl chloride
0.007% methylene chloride
0.007% pyridine
0.007% aery Ionitrile
0.007% phenol
0.007% o-cresol

0.007% benzene
0.007% cumene
0.007% acetone
0.007% ethyl acetate
0.007% 1-butanol
0.007% o-cresol

20% chloroform
20% 1.2 dich lorobenzene

30% benzene
30% naphthalene
39% phenol

25% benzene
25% dichIorobenzene
25% naphthalene
25% hexachlorobenzene

10% dibutyIphthalate
2.5% 1-hexanol
2.5% chloroform

1% aceton itri le
                                                                         99.6


                                                                         99.96
                                                                         99.96
59


 0
                                                                                 65
                                                                                  15
                                                                                                   20
                                                                                               (Inorgan i c)
                                                                                                   84
                                                                                               (Inorgan i c)
         aThe waste compositions were defined to provide bases  for  estimating  the  effectiveness  and  associated  costs
          of  controlling organic emissions from hazardous waste management  units and  of  removing organics  from  waste
          streams.   These waste compositions are defined as  models  only  and do not necessari ly represent  real waste
          streams.   Specific chemical properties were used in the cost exercise.   These  properties are  listed for
          the majority  of chemicals in Appendix D,  Table D-10.   Properties  of  the  remaining  chemicals are  provided
          in  Reference  65.

-------
     •    Dilute aqueous wastes

     •    Organic liquids

     •    Organic sludge/slurry

          Aqueous sludge/slurry

     •    Two-phase aqueous/organic

     •    Organic-containing solids.

     For each generic waste type, specific chemical compositions were next

defined so that material/energy balances and costs could be calculated.

Chemical compositions were chosen that represent the properties of hazard-

ous waste, but they may not represent specific constituents.  In general,

compositions were specified that are:

     •    Representative of the generic waste stream type,  i.e., that
          include the major organic chemical classes of environmental
          importance (e.g., chlorinated organics, aromatics)

     •    Composed of chemicals representing a range of physical and
          chemical properties,  based on Henry's law, biodegradabi1ity,
          and vapor pressure

     •    Physically and chemically realistic (e.g., a two-phase aque-
          ous/organic waste that in fact forms two phases at the pro-
          posed composition)

     •    Readily characterized by available physical and chemical
          property data required for the treatment or control system
          process designs  (e.g., vapor-liquid equilibrium composi-
          tions) .

     Three different waste compositions were selected to represent dilute

aqueous wastes.  The goal in developing alternative dilute  aqueous composi-

tions (specifically dilute aqueous-2 and dilute aqueous-3)  was to define

waste streams that would tend to produce a broad range of costs to treat by
steam stripping.70  jne choice of compounds was based on an engineering

judgment that the overall cost of .steam stripping a dilute  aqueous waste

(including residual  treatment costs) is affected by the halogen content of
the waste.

     To validate the criterion of being physically and chemically realis-

tic,  small  samples of most of the selected generic waste streams were
                                    C-48

-------
prepared.  However, the physical and chemical properties  (e.g., vapor-
liquid equilibrium compositions) needed for the material  and energy
balances have not been verified experimentally.  Many organic-containing
wastes are complex multicomponent mixtures.  Trace levels of certain
compounds (not examined in this study) could significantly affect the
properties of a particular waste stream.  However, the chosen waste
compositions are generally suitable for developing design and cost
information for treatment and control processes.
C.2.3  Summary of Model Unit Analysis of Emission Reductions and Control
       Costs
     The model unit analysis was conducted to provide a basis for estimat-
ing the effectiveness  (achievable emission reductions) and associated costs
of controlling organic air emissions from TSDF hazardous  waste management
units.  In the model unit analysis, control costs (both capital and
annualized) and achievable emission reductions were determined for a matrix
of (1) TSDF model units (e.g., covered storage tanks, quiescent uncovered
treatment tanks, waste fixation operations, and open  landfills), (2) waste
forms (e.g., aqueous sludges, organic liquids, and dilute aqueous wastes),
and (3) control technologies  (e.g., suppression controls  such as tank
covers, add-on controls such as thin-film evaporators or  steam strippers).
The cost and emission  reduction data generated in the analysis were then
used to develop the control technology and cost file  used for estimating
nationwide impacts for alternative TSDF control strategies.  This file
provides control device efficiencies, emission reductions, and control
costs according to waste form for each emission control technology that is
applicable to a waste management process.
     Table C-6 presents a summary of the results of the model unit analysis
in terms of uncontrolled emission estimates, emission reductions, and
control costs for the various model hazardous waste management units and
organic removal processes.  This model unit analysis  includes only
compatible combinations of model waste forms and model unit  (or organic
removal  process).  Incompatible combinations of waste form and model unit
(or organic removal process) were not analyzed; e.g., an  organic-containing
solid waste would not be treated in a tank or treated by  steam stripping.
                                   C-49

-------
           TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
	 __. =__— -------- -B-SSSSSSS— ssssas— ssss— =— ssssssssssssr=a._ssss 	 s
b c d
EMISSION MODEL ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL
CONTROL HASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION f CAPITAL
(Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) INVESTMENT
MHT A TUPfi CTflOftCC T-T ,-, 	
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
— — — — CUNIftlNtK blUKnbL •* — • —
~ DRUM STORAGE (S01A) - 200 Drms/yr --
Fixed Bed
Carbon
Adsorber


— DRUM
Fixed Bed
Carbon
Adsorber



Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous- 1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
STORAGE (S01B) - 2200
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous- 1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
T no-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
~- DUMPSTER STORAGE IS01C) -
Duipster
Cover

Aqueous
Sludge
Organic
Solid
50 0.00033 0.00031 $43,460
40 0.0000083 0.0000079 $43,460
40 0.0022 0.0021 $43,460
60 0.0027 0.0026 $43,460
40 0.000017 0.000016 $43,460
Druis/yr —
560 0.0036 0.0034 $43,460
450 0.000091 0.000086 $43,460
440 0.024 0.022 $43,460
610 0.030 0.028 $43,460
440 0.00018 0.00017 $43,460
3.4 iA3 (120 ftA3) Duipster volute —
16 0.72 0.71 $150
24 0.049 0.0485 $150
$18,300
$18,300
$18,300
$18,300
$16,300

$18,300
$18,300
$18,300
$18,300
$18,300

$64
$72
See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                        C-50

-------
       TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
b
EMISSION
CONTROL

— COVERED
Internal
Floating
Roof



Vent to
Existing
Control
Device



Vent to
Carbon
Canisters



MODEL
HASTE TYPE

c d
ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION
THROUBHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION
(Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr)
	 TANK STO
IABE 	
—
TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT

TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS

STORAGE TANK IS02A) - 1,500 gal tank —
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Orqanic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
140
110
110
130
131
140
110
110
130
131
p
140
110
110
130
131
0.0045
0.083
0.017
0.043
0.035
0.0045
0.083
0.017
0.043
0.035
0.0045
0.083
0.017
0.043
0.035
0.004
0.061
0.014
0.035
0.027
0.004
0.079
0.016
0.041
0.033
0.004
0.079
0.016
0.041
0.033
1
S5SSSSSSSSSS—
$4,820
$4,820
$4,820
$4,820
$4,820
$1,600
" $1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,050
$1,050
*1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$1,520
$1,520
$1,520
$1,520
$1,520
$320
$320
$320
$320
$320
$2,220
$5,330
$2,800
$3,520
$3,500
See  notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                          C-51

-------
           TABLE  C-6.   SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULT*
b c
EMISSION MODEL ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED
CONTROL HASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS
(»g/yr) (Hg/yr)
— COVERED STORAGE TANK (S02B)
Internal
Floating
Roof



Vent to
Existing
Control
Device



Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Vent to Aqueous
Carbon Sludge
Canisters
Dilute
Aqueous- 1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
........ TAUV CTfl
........ IHNF, 3iu
- 8,000 gal tan
70
60
60
70
70
70
60
60
70
70
70
60
60
70
70
RASE 	
U_M
0.013
0.180
0.0465
0.114
0.075
0.013
0.180
0.0465
0.114
0.075
0.013
0.180
0.0465
0.114
0.075
d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
<«g/yr)

0.011
0.133
0.038
0.093
0.05B
0.012
0.171
0.044
0.108
0.071
0.012
0.171
0.044
0.108
0.071
TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT

18,400
$8,400
$8,400
$8,400
$8,400
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS

$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$320
$320
$320
$320
$320
$2,220
$8,720
$3,520
$6,iOO
$4,810
See notes at end of table,
(continued)
                                       C-52

-------
         TABLE  C-6.   SUMMARY  OF  TSDF  MODEL  UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULT3
   :ZSSSZZSSSZS±S~SZ—ZSZSSSSSZZZSSS5SSZSSSS±SSS3SSSSSSSS±SSS£55SSS5SSZSZSSSS±SSSSS~±SSS3SSSZ£2ZS5SSS
b
EMISSION
CONTROL
MODEL ANNUAL
HASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT
(Mg/yr)
c d
UNCONTROLLED EMISSION
EMISSIONS REDUCTION
(Mg/yr) (Mq/yr)
TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
.,„ 	 TAUV CTnOACC 	 -
1 nUK 9 1 ImHDC
™ COVERED
Internal
Floating
Roof



Vent to
Existing
Control
Device



Vent to
Carbon
Canisters



STORA6E TANK (S02C) -
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
8,000 gal tank —
1,380
1,120
1,090
1,320
1,300
1,380
1,120
1,090
1,320
1,300
1,380
1,120
1,090
1,320
1,300
0.045
0.813
0.167
0.424
0.342
0.045
0.813
0.167
0.424
0.342
0.045
0.813
0.167
0.424
0.342
:=======
0.037
0.602
0.137
0.348
0.267
0.043
0.772
0.159
0.403
0.325
0.043
0.772
0.159
0.403
0.325
=========
$8,400
$8,400
$8,400
$8,400
$8,400
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$320
$320
$320
$320
$320
$3,530
$34,130
$8,730
$18,500
$15,220
See notes  at  end  of table.
(continued)
                                       C-53

-------
        TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULTa
b
EMISSION
CONTROL
— COVERED
Internal
Floating
Roof



Vent to
Existing
Control
Device



Vent to
Carbon
Canisters



c d
MODEL ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION
HASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION
(Hg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr)
TAUV
STORAGE TANK (S02D) - 20,000 gal
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-rPhase
Aqueous/Organic
4,100
3,300
3,200
3,900
3,900
4,100
3,300
3,200
3,900
3,900
4,100
3,300
3,200
3,900
3,900
CTHDACC ____••
alUKHbb -— —
tank —
0.117
2.12
0.437
1.11
0.891
0.117
2.12
0.437
1.11
0.891
0.117
2.12
0.437
1.11
0.891


0.096
1.569
0.358
0.910
0.695
0.111
2.014
0.415
1.055
0.846
0.111
2.014
0.415
1.055
0.846
TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
$11,380
$11,380
$11,380
$11,380
$11,380
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$320
$320
$320
$320
$320
$8,110
$87,600
$20,480
$47,240
$38,750
SSSS^SST— —
See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                      C-54

-------
          TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
t
EMISSION
CONTROL

--- COVERE
Internal
Floatinq
Roof



Vent to
Existing
Control
Device



Vent to
Fixed Bed
Carbon
Adsorber



MODEL
HASTE TYPE

] STORAGE TANK (S02E
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/ Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
========"====:
ANNUAL 1
THROUGHPUT
(Mg/yr)
	 TANK
) - 210,000
20,520
16,660
16,260
19,640
19,300
20,520
16,660
16,260
19,640
19,300
20,520
16,660
16,260
19,640
19,300
JNCONTROLLED E
EMISSIONS R
(Mg/yr) (
STORAGE 	
gal tank —
0.678
12.35
2.53
6.43
5.19
0.678
12.35
2.53
6.43
5.19
0.678
12.35
2.53
6.43
5.19
===========:
d
MISSION
EDUCTION
Mg/yr)


0.556
9.139
2.075
5.273
4.048
0.644
11.733
2.403
6.108
4.931
0.644
11.733
2.403
6.108
4.931
TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT


$19,660
$19,660
$19,660
$19,660
$19,660
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$72,300
$72,300
$72,300
$72,300
$72,300
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS


$6,100
$6,100
$6,100
$6,100
$6,100
$11,080
$15,660
$13,170
$13,160
$13,700
$40,000
$50,480
$40,000
$40,260
$40,140
See notes  at  end  of  table.
(continued)
                                       C-55

-------
         TABLE  C-6.   SUMMARY  OF  TSDF  MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
         b
  EMISSION
  CONTROL
  HODEL
HASTE TYPE
  ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
 (Mg/yr)
UNCONTROLLED
 EMISSIONS
  (Hg/yr)
EMISSION
REDUCTION
 (Hg/yr)
   TOTAL
  CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
                         	 TANK STORASE 	

— BUIESCENT UNCOVERED STORASE TANK IS02F) - 1,500 91!  tink —
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
Fixed Roof









Internal
Floating
Roof
( + fixed
roof)






Vent to
Existing
Control
Device
( + fixed
roof)






Vent to
Carbon
Canister
( + fixed
roof)





Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous -1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Tw-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge

Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge

Dilute
Aqueous-1

Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge

Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Qroanic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
MO

110

110

130

130

140


110

110

130

130

140


110


110

130

130

140


110

no

130
130

1.5 '

0.34

26

31

0.39

1.5


0.34

24

31

0.39

1.5


0.34


24

31

0.39

1.5


0.34

24

31
0.39

1.496

0.28

25.98

30.94

0.36

1.499


0.34

25.996

30.99

0.383

1.4998


0.3S6


25.999

30.998

0.389

1.4998


0.356

25.999

30.998
0.389

13,790

$3,790

$3,790

$3,790

13,790

17,330


$7,330

$7,330

$7,330

$7,330

$5,370


$5,370


$5,370

$5,370

$5,370

$4,840


$4,840

$4,840

$4,840
$4,840

$760

$760

$760

$760

$760

$1,870


$1,870

$1,870

$1,870

$1,870

$1,080


$1,080


$1,080

$1,080

$1,080

$2,980


$6,090

$3,560

$4,280
$4,260

  See notes  at  end of table.
                                                                      (continued)
                                             C-56

-------
          TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL  UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULT3
b
EMISSION
CONTROL
MODEL
HASTE TYPE
ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
(Mg/yr)
c
UNCONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
(Mg/vr)
d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
(Mg/yr)
TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
                          	 TANK STORAGE 	
   — QUIESCENT UNCOVERED STORAGE TANK (S026) - 8,000 gal tank
    Roof
    Device
    Carbon
Roof




nal
ing
ixed
i)



to
ing
ni
Ui
e
ixed
L \
T )


to
n
for
I fir
ixed
f)



Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Orqanic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Orqanic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Qrqanic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Orqanic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
70
40
60
70
70
70
60
60
70
70
70
60
60
70
70
70
60
60
70
70
1.4
0.24
24
29
0.23
1.4
0.24
24
29
0.23
1.4
0.24
24
29
0.23
1.4
0.24
24
29
0.23
1.39
0.06
23.95
28.89
0.16
1.398
0.19
23.99
28.98
0.21
1.3995
0.23
23.998
28.99
0.227
1.3995
0.23
23.998
28.99
0.227
$9,500
$9,500
19,500
$9,500
$9,500
$16,450
$16,450
$16,450
$16,450
$16,450
$11,080
$11,080
$11,080
$11,080
$11,080
$10,550
$10,550
$10,550
$10,550
$10,550
$1,880
$1,880
$1,880
$1,880
$1,880
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$2,200
$2,200
$2,200
$2,200
$2,200
$4,100
$10,600
$5,460
$7,980
$6,690
See  notes at  end of  table.
(continued)
                                         C-57

-------
          TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
EMISSION MODEL ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL TOTAL
CONTROL WASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPITAL ANNUAL
(Hg/yr) (Mg/yr) (hg/yr) INVESTMENT COSTS
	 TANK STORAGE 	
— QUIESCENT UNCOVERED STORAGE TANK (S02H) - 8,000 gal tank —
Fixed Roof




Internal
Floating
Roof
i + fixed
roof)



Vent to
Existing
Control
Device
( + fixed
roof)


Vent to
Carbon
Canister
( + fixed
roof)



Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous -1
Organic
Liquid
Oroanic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Oroanic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Ttto-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
•^•^TT ^ •' Z 5 5 g SSST r •
1,380
1,120
1,090
1,320
1,300
1,380
1,120
1,090
1,320
1,300
1,380
1,120
1.090
1,320
1,300
1,380
1,120
1,090
1,320
1,300
11
3.2
217
243
3.6
11
3.2
217
243
3.6
11
3.2
217
243
3.6
11
3.2
217
243
3.6
10.96
2.4
216.8
242.6
3.3
10.99
3.0
216.96
242.9
3.53
10.998
3.16
216.99
242.98
3.59
10.998
3.16
216.99
242.98
3.59
$9,500
$9.500
$9,500
$9,500
$9,500
$16,450
$16,450
$16,450
$16,450
$16,450
$11,080
$11,080
$11,080
$11,080
$11,080
$10,550
$10,550
$10,550
$10,550
$10,550
$l,Bi
$1,8
$1,81
$1,8
$1,8!
$4,0(
$4,01
$4,0<
$4,0
$4,0(
$2,2<
$2,2(
$2,2
$2,21
$2,2
$5,4
$36,0
$10,6
$20,3
$17,1
See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                   C-58

-------
              TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULT3
         EMISSION
         CONTROL
   MODEL
HASTE TYPE
  ANNUAL
THROU6HPUT
 (Hg/yr)
UNCONTROLLED
 EMISSIONS
  (Hg/yr)
EMISSION
REDUCTION
 (Hg/yr)
   TOTAL
  CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
                                 	 TANK STORAGE 	

       —  QUIESCENT UNCOVERED STORAGE TANK (S02I) - 20,000 gal  --
       Roof





ernal
ating
fixed
oof)



t to
sting
trnl
Lr Ul
ice
fixed
nnt \
DOT I


t to
bon
i ster
fixed
oof)



Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Tuo-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous- 1
Organic
Liquid
Orqanic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Orqanic
Sludge/Slurry
Tno-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
4,100
3,300
3,200
3,900
3,900
4,100
3,300
3,200
3,900
3,900
4,100
3,300
3,200
3,900
3,900
4,100
3,300
3,200
3,900
3,900
24
8.1
514
586
9.7
24
8.1
514
586
9.7
24
8.1
514
586
9.7
24
8.1
514
586
9.7
23.9
6.0
513.6
584.9
8.8
23.98
7.6
513.9
585.8
9.5
23.995
8.0
513.98
585.9
9.66
23.995
8.0
513.98
585.9
9.66
$14,800
$14,800
$14,800
$14,800
$14,800
$24,420
$24,420
$24,420
$24,420
$24,420
$16,380
$16,380
$16,380
$16,380
$16,380
$15,850
$15,850
$15,850
$15,850
$15,850




















TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
                                                                   $2,930


                                                                   $2,930


                                                                   12,930


                                                                   $2,930


                                                                   $2,930




                                                                   $5,860


                                                                   $5,860


                                                                   $5,860


                                                                   $5,860


                                                                   $5,860



                                                                   $3,250


                                                                   $3,250


                                                                   $3,250


                                                                   $3,250


                                                                   $3,250
See  notes  at  end  of  table.
                                                                   $11,040


                                                                   $90,530


                                                                   $23,410


                                                                   $50,170


                                                                   $41,680




                                                                (continued)
                                                 C-59

-------
            TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL  UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT*
    ================================s—===«a====~«~==""™=s~—=s====™==========™=s=="=====
b c d
EMISSION MODEL ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL TOTAL
CONTROL HASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPITAL ANNUAL
IMg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) INVESTMENT COSTS
	 TANK STORAGE 	
— QUIESCENT UNCOVERED STORAGE TANK IS02J) - 210,000 gal tank —
Fixed Roof




Internal
Floating
Roof
( + fixed
roof)



Vent to
Existing
Control
Device
( + fixed
roof)


Vent to
Fixed Bed
Carbon
Adsorber
( + fixed
roof)


Aqueous
Sludqe
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Orqanic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
20,520
14,660
16,260
19,640
19,300
20,520
16,660
16,260
19,640
19,300
20,520
16,660
16,260
19,640
19,300
20,520
16,660
16,260
19,640
19,300
70
30
1,730
1,960
41
70
30
1,730
1,960
41
70
30
1,730
1,960
41
70
30
1,730
1,960
41
r=== ==========
69.3
17.7
1,727
1,954
35.6
69.9
26.8
1,729.5
1958.9
39.9
69.97
29.4
1,729.9
1959.7
40.7
69.97
29.4
1,729.9
1959.7
40.7
$26,040
$26,040
$26,040
$26,040
$26,040
$40,560
$40,560
$40,560
$40,560
$40,560
$27,620
$27,620
$27,620
$27,620
$27,620
$98,340
$98,340
$98,340
$98,340
$98,340
$5,200
$5,200
$5,200
$5,200
$5,200
$9,500
$9,500
$9,500
$9,500
$9,500
$5,600
$5,600
$5,600
$5,600
$5,600
$45,200
$55,680
$45,200
$45,460
$45,340
See  notes at  end of  table.
(continued)
                                      C-60

-------
           TABLE  C-6.   SUMMARY OF  TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULT*
b c d
EMISSION MODEL ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL TOTAL
CONTROL WASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPITAL ANNUAL
(Hg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) INVESTMENT COSTS
UACTCDTl C CTODfiCC —___—__
	 WHoltrlLt alUKnbc 	
— WASTEPILE COVER (S03D) - 1300 ftA3 waste voluae —
Hastepile Aqueous 17,000 16.0
Cover-30 ail Sludge
HOPE
Two-Phase 17,000 10.0
Aqueous/Organic
Thin-Pi Is Aqueous 17,000 16.0
Evaporator Sludge
Steal Two-Phase 17,000 10.0
Stripping Aqueous/Organic
— HASTEPILE COVER (S03E) - 16,000 ftA3 waste voluse —
Wastepile Aqueous 120,000 139.7
Cover-30 nil Sludge
HOPE
Two-Phase 120,000 100.0
Aqueous/Organic
Thin-Fila Aqueous 120,000 139.7
Evaporator Sludge
Stean Two-Phase 120,000 100.0
Stripping Aqueous/Organic
— WASTEPILE COVER (S03F) - 2,010,000 HA3 waste voluie --
Hastepile Aqueous 170,000 457.0
Cover-30 ail Sludge
HOPE
Two-Phase 170,000 390.0
Aqueous/Organic
Thin-Fils Aqueous 170,000 457.0
Evaporator Sludge
Steas Two-Phase 170,000 390.0
Stripping Aqueous/Organic
15.95 $650 $2,500
4.9 $650 f2,500
15.7 $1,400,000 $460,000
4.7 $86,000 $76,000

139.3 $6,480 $4,700
49.3 $6,480 $4,700
137.3 $10,200,000 $3,290,000
62.7 $609,000 $536,000
_
455.6 $197,300 $62,000
192.3 $197,300 $62,000
453.6 $14,400,000 $4,690,000
336.7 $863,000 $766,000
See notes  at  end  of  table.
(continued)
                                         C-61

-------
            TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY OF TSDF  MODEL  UNIT  ANALYSIS  RESULT3
       EMISSION
       CONTROL
     MODEL
  WASTE  TYPE
  ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
 !Mg/yr>
UNCONTROLLED
 EMISSIONS
  (Mg/yr)
         d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
 
-------
           TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
b c d
EMISSION MODEL ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL TOTAL
CONTROL WASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPITAL ANNUAL
(Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) INVESTMENT COSTS
ciiorAnr 7
ynmihinurhiT prnnApr
	 bUKrflLt Inruuiiuncni aiunnoc - - —
— QUIESCENT STORAGE IMPOUNDMENT (S04B) - 71,300 gal inpoundnent —
ASP+FBCA Aqueous 9,800
Sludge
Dilute 9,800
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase 9,800
Aqueous/Organic
MEMBRANE Aqueous 9,800
Sludge
Dilute 9,800
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase 9,800
Aqueous/Organic
Thin-Filn Aqueous 9,800
Evaporator Sludge
Steas Dilute 9,800
Stripping Aqueous-1
Two-Phase 9,800
Aqueous/Organic
140 133 $180,000 $78,000
32 30 $179,000 $74,000
36 34 $179,000 $74,000
140 119 $15,000 $8,000
32 27 $15,000 $8,000
36 31 $15,000 $8,000
140 139.8 $830,000 $276,000
32 31.97 $50,000 $46,000
36 32.9 $50,000 $46,000
See notes  at  end  of  table.
(continued)
                                       C-63

-------
              TABLE  C-6.   SUMMARY  OF  TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULTa

        EMISSION
        CDNTROL
     MODEL
  WASTE TYPE
  ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
 (Mg/yr)
UNCONTROLLED
 EMISSIONS
  (Mq/yr)
         d
EHISSION
REDUCTION
 (Mg/yr)
  TOTAL
 CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
   TOTfiL
  ANNUAL
   COSTS
                                           SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE 	
      — QUIESCENT STORAGE  IMPOUNDMENT (S04C) - 713,000 gal  iapoundaent —
        ASP+FBCfl
    Aqueous
    Sludge

    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
    49,000


    49,000


    49,000
        686


        159


        183
      652
                                                                   151
                                                                   174
  $311,000


  $249,000


  $249,000
   $42,000


   $42,000


   $42,000
        MEMBRANE
    Aqueous
    Sludge

    Dilute
   Aqueous-!

   THO-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
    49,000


    49,000


    49,000
        686


        159


        183
      583


      135


      156
   $57,000


   $57,000


   $57,000
   $16,200


   $16,200


   $16,200
       Thin-Filfl
       Evaporator
    Aqueous
    Sludge
    49,000
        686
    685.0
$4,150,000
$1,382,000
         Steaa
       Stripping
    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
    49,000


    49,000
See notes  at  end  of table.
         159


         183
    158.8


    167.3
  $249,000
                                                                            $249,000
  $226,000
              $226,000
                                                                        (continued)
                                                      C-64

-------
          TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
ta
EMISSION MODEL A
CONTROL HASTE TYPE THR
(»

— QUIESCENT STORAGE IMPOUNDMENT
ASP+FBCA Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-i
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
MEMBRANE Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Thin-Fila Aqueous
Evaporator Sludge
Steas Dilute
Stripping Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
c d
NNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL TOTAL
OUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPITAL ANNUAL
g/yr) IMg/yr) (Mg/yr) INVESTMENT COSTS
CMDC/*rc TMonnunMCUT CTHDACC - 	
	 bUKrfiLh InrUUfll/ntNl alunftbt 	
(S04D) - 713,000 gal iapoundaent —
25,000 442 420 1310,000 1127,000
25,000 157 149 $310,000 $114,000
25,000 93 B8 $310,000 $114,000
25,000 442 376 $57,000 $ 17,000
25,000 157 133 $57,000 $17,000
25,000 93 79 $57,000 $17,000
25,000 442 441.5 $2,120,000 $706,000
25,000 157 156.9 $127,000 $115,000
25,000 93 85.0 $127,000 $115,000
See notes  at  end  of table.
(continued)
                                       C-65

-------
            TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY  OF  TSDF MODEL  UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULT3
b
EMISSION MODEL
CONTROL HASTE TYPE

c d
ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL TOTAL
THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPITAL ANNUAL
(Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) INVESTMENT COSTS
fitnrnnr Tunnt ihinyrvtr oTnoftrr _ _
	 — sunrtiLL jiiruuni/ricm Jiunnot
— 8UIESCENT STORAGE IMPOUNDMENT (S04E) - 8,720,000 gal iapoundaent —
ASP+FBCA Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
MEMBRANE Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Thin-Filii Aqueous
Evaporator Sludge
Steal Dilute
Stripping Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
120,000 2,200 2,090 $1,160,000 $488,000
120,000 446 424 $804,000 $284,000
120,000 464 441 $804,000 $284,000
120,000 2,200 1,870 $300,000 $65,000
120,000 446 379 $300,000 $65,000
120,000 464 394 $300,000 $65,000
120,000 2,200 2197.5 $10,170,000 $3,413,000
120,000 446 445.6 $609,000 $557,000
120,000 464 425.3 $609,000 $557,000
See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                        C-66

-------
             TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3

      EMISSION
      CONTROL
     MODEL
  WASTE TYPE
  ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
 (Hg/yr)
UNCONTROLLED
 EMISSIONS
  (Hg/yr)
        EMISSION
        REDUCTION
                                                             (Mg/yr)


                                         SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENT STORAGE  -
          TOTAL
         CAPITAL
         INVESTMENT
               TOTAL
              ANNUAL
               COSTS
    — QUIESCENT STORAGE IMPOUNDMENT  (S04F) - 8,720,000 gal iapoundaent  —
      ASP+FBCA
    Aqueous
    Sludge

    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
    67,000


    67,000


    67,000
1,420


  253


  262
1,349


  240


  249
$1,170,000


  $806,000


  $806,000
                                          $450,000


                                          $276,000


                                          $276,000
      MEMBRANE
    Aqueous
    Sludge

    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
    67,000


    67,000


    67,000
       1,420
                                                     253
                                                     262
            1,207
                     215
                     223
          $300,000
                       $300,000
                       $300,000
               $65,000
                        $65,000
                        $65,000
      Thin-Fill
      Evaporator
    Aqueous
    Sludge
    67,000
       1,420
           1418.6
        $5,680,000
            $1,890,000
       Steai
      Stripping
    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
    67,000


    67,000
See notes  at end  of  table.
         253


         262
            252.8
                                                                240.6
          $340,000
                       $340,000
              $308,000
                       $308,000
                                                                         (continued)
                                                     C-67

-------
              TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY  OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULTa
    ==========s=s===s==-====rss===s===s==s========s========~——======="==
b
EMISSION
CONTROL
MODEL
HASTE TYPE
ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
(Hg/yr)
UNCONTROLLED
[MISSIONS
IMg/yr)
d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
(Hg/yr)
TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
                              	 TflNK TREATMENT	
    — QUIESCENT UNCOVERED TREATMENT TANK IT01A) - 8,000 gal tank —
Fixed Roof




Internal
Floating
Roof "
< + fixed
roof)


Vent to
Existing
Control
Device
< * fixed
roof)

Vent to
Carbon
Canister
( + fixed
roof)


Thin-Fill
Evaporator
Steal
Stripping

Batch
Distillation
Rotary Kiln
Incinerator
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous- 1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
16
8.6
467
523
14
16
0« 0
467
523
14
16
3.6
467
523
14
16
8.6
467
523
14
16
8.6
14
467
523
15.9
6.8
466.5
522.4
13.2
15.98
8.12
466.91
522.90
13.83
15.995
8.51
466.98
522.97
13.96
15.995
8.5
466.98
522.97
13.96
15.4
8.5
5.0
460.3
520.2
$9,500
19,500
$9,500
$9,500
$9,500
$16,450
$16,450
$16,450
$16,450
$16,450
$11,080
$11,080
$11,080
$11,080
$11,080
$10,550
$10,550
$10,550
$10,550
$10,550
$930,000
$56,000
$56,000
$206,000
$5,300,000
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$2
$2
$2
$2
$2
$7
$7
$7
$7
$7
$313
$51
$51
($223
$1,650
See  notes  at end of  table.
(continued)
                                               C-68

-------
          TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
b
EMISSION
CONTROL
MODEL
WASTE TYPE
ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
(Hg/yr)
UNCONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
(Hg/yr)
d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
(Mg/yr)
TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
	 TANK TREATMENT 	
— QUIESCENT UNCOVERED TREATMENT TANK (T01B) - 20,000 gal tank —
Fixed Roof




Internal
Floating
Roof
( + fixed
roof)


Vent to
Existing
Control
Device
( * fixed
roof)

Vent to
Carbon
Canister
( + fixed
roof)


Thin-Fill
Evaporator
Steal
Stripping

Batch
Distillation
Rotary Kiln
Incinerator
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Ttio-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Orq
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Tito-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Tito-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
=========
34
19
954
1,026
31
34
19
954
1,024
31
34
19
954
1,024
31
34
19
954
1,026
31
34
19
31
954
1,026
==========_
33.8
14.4
952.8
1,024.6
29.1
33.96
17.80
953.79
1025.75
30.57
33.99
18.8
953.9
1025.9
30.9
33.99
18.8
953.9
1025.9
30.9
33.4
18.9
22.0
947.3
1023.2
=========:
$14,800
$14,800
$14,800
$14,800
$14,800
$24,420
$24,420
$24,420
$24,420
$24,420
$16,380
$16,380
$16,380
$16,380
$16,380
$15,850
$15,850
$15,850
$15,850
$15,850
$2,370,000
$142,000
$142,000
$524,000
$13,400,000
$3,050
$3,050
$3,050
$3,050
$3,050
$6,100
$6,100
$6,100
$6,100
$6,100
$3,350
$3,350
$3,350
$3,350
$3.350
$15,790
$188,920
$53,460
$20,220
$82,830
$790,000
$129,000
$129,000
($564,000)
$4,180,000
:========
See notes  at  end  of table.
(continued)
                                       C-69

-------
        TABLE  C-6.  SUMMARY OF  TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULT3
====================
                                   r==========================—============
b c d
EMISSION MODEL ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL TOTAL
CONTROL HASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPITAL ANNUAL
(Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) INVESTMENT COSTS
	 TANK TREATMENT 	
— QUIESCENT UNCOVERED TREATMENT TANK (T01C) - 210,000 gal tank —
Fixed Roof




Internal
Floating
Roof
( * fixed
roof)

Vent to
Existing
Control
Device
( + fixed
roof)
Vent to
Fixed Bed
Carbon
Adsorber
( + fixed
roof)
Thin-Fili
Evaporator
Steal
Stripping
Batch
Distillation
Rotary Kiln
Incinerator
=========
notes at
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous- 1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
83
53
4,770
5,320
98
83
53
4,770
5,320
98
83
53
4,770
5,320
98
83
53
4,770
5,320
98
34
19
31
954
1,026
80.6
5.8
4,759
5,306
78.1
68.06
60.16
3912.44
5219.01
1243.69
82.88
50.64
4769.45
5319.28
97.01
0") 00
Ol.DB
50.64
4769.45
5319.28
97.01
28.1
18.1
30.9
884.2
996.9
$26,040
$26,040
$26,040
$26,040
$26,040
$40,560
$40,560
$40,560
$40,560
$40,560
$42,460
$42,460
$42,460
$42,460
$42,460
$100,220
$100,220
$100,220
$100,220
$100,220
$24,630,000
$1,473,000
$1,476,000
$5,432,000
$139,000,000
end of table.
$5,810
$5,810
$5,810
$5,810
$5,810
$11,620
$11,620
$11,620
$11,620
$11,620
$8,720
$8,720
$8,720
$8,720
$8,720
$58,120
$58,120
$58,120
$58,120
$58,120
$8,196,000
$1,336,000
$1,336,000
($5,850,000)
$43,400,000
============
(continued)
                                         C-70

-------
         TABLE  C-6.   SUMMARY OF  TSDF MODEL  UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULTa
b
EMISSION
CONTROL


MODEL
HASTE TYPE


ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
(Nq/yr)
c
UNCONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
IMg/yr)
d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
(«g/yr)
":
TOTAL -
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
-
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS

— COVERED t
Internal
Floatinq
Roof



Vent to
Existing
Control
Device


Vent to
Carbon
Canister



Thin-Filffl
Evaporator
Steas
Stripping

Batch
Distillation
Rotary Kiln
Incinerator

1UIESCENT TREATHEN1
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Qrg
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous- 1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludqe/Slurry
_________ Tflfc
1 ff|
TANK (T01D)
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11.000
11,000
11,000
11,000
K TREATMENT —
- 8,000 gal tar
0.0953
1.83
0.473
0.56
0.769
0.0953
1.83
0.473
0.56
0.769
0.0953
1.83
0.473
0.56
0.769
0.0953
1.83
0.769
0.473
0.56

k —
o.oe
1.35
0.39
0.46
0.60
0.09
1.74
0.45
0.53
0.73
0.09
1.74
0.45
0.53
0.73
0.1
1.8
0.8
0.5
0.6


$8,400
$8,400
$8,400
$8,400
$8,400
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$4,900
$930,000
$56,000
$56,000
$206,000
$5,300,000


$2,660
$2,660
$2,660
$2,660
$2,660
$330
$330
$330
$330
$330
$5,420
$74,500
$20,480
$23,690
$32,210
$313,000
$51,000
' $51,000
($223,000)
$1,650,000



See notes  at  end  of  table.
(continued)
                                     C-71

-------
        TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
b
EMISSION
CONTROL


MODEL
HASTE TYPE


ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
INg/yr)
	 Tfi>
:=r=====:======:
C
UNCONTROLLED
EHISSIONS
<«g/yr)
HI TPPfiTMCMT —
:============:
d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
(Hg/yr)


TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT


TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS

— COVERED (
Internal
Floating
Roof



Vent to
Existing
Control
Device


Vent to
Carbon
Canister



Thin-Fili
Evaporator
Steal
Stripping

Batch
Distillation
Rotary Kiln
Incinerator
1UIESCENT JREATHEN1
Aq Sludge
'
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase fiq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Two-Phase
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
F TANK (T01E)
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
- 20,000 gal t,
0.24
4.60
1.19
1.40
1.94
0.24
4.60
1.19
1.40
1.94
0.24
4.60
1.19
1.40
1.94
0.24
4.60
1.94
i.li
1.35
ink —
0.20
3.40
0.98
1.15
1.51
0.23
4.37
1.13
1.33
1.84
0.23
4.37
1.13
1.33
1.84
0.2
4.5
1.9
1.1
1.4

$11,380
$11,380
$11,380
$11,380
$11,380
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$1,050
$2,370,000
$142,000
$142,000
$524,000
$13,400,000

$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
. $12,740
$165,870
$50,410
$5,900
$79,780
$790,000
$129,000
$129,000
($564,000)
$4,180,000
See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                      C-72

-------
     TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
b
EMISSION
CONTROL

MODEL
HASTE TYPE

:r===r====r==;
ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
(Hg/yr>
	 Tfl»
C
UNCONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
(Mg/yr)
IV T&CiTNCUT
d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
(«g/yr)

TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT

TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS

— COVERED I
Internal
Floating
Roof



Vent to
Existing
Control
Device


Vent to
Fixed Bed
Carbon
Adsorber


Thin-Fill
Evaporator
Steaa
Stripping

Batch
Distillation
Rotary Kiln
Incinerator
JUIESCEMT TREATMEN1
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
TMO-Phase Aq/Org
Aq' Sludge
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sludge/Slurry
THO-Phase Aq/Org
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
r TANK (T01F)
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
290,000
- 210,000 gal 1
2.45
47.23
11.05
14.32
19.89
2.45
47.23
11.05
14.32
19.89
2.45
47.23
11.05
14.32
19.89
2.45
47.23
19.89
11.05
14.32
:ank —
2.01
34.95
9.06
11.74
15.52
2.32
44.87
10.49
13.60
18.90
2.32
44.87
10.49
13.60
18.90
2.4
46.3
19.9
11.0
14.3

$19,660
$19,660
$19,660
$19,660
$19,660
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$74,180
$74,180
$74,180
$74,180
$74,180
$24,580,000
$1,473,000
$1,476,000
$5,432,000
$139,000,000

$5,810
$5,810
$5,810
$5,810
$5,810
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$52,310
$52,310
$52,310
$52,310
$52,310
$8,196,000
$1,336,000
$1,336,000
($5,850,000)
$43,400,000
See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                    C-73

-------
           TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
b
EMISSION
CONTROL
— UNCOVERED
ASP+FBCA

Tnin-Fila
Evaporator
Steaa
Stripping
— UNCOVERED
ASP+FBCA

Thin-Fill
Evaporator
Steal
Stripping
c d
MODEL ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL
WASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPITAL
(Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) INVESTMENT
AERATED/AGITATED
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
AERATED/fiBITATED
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
	 TANK TF
TREATMENT TANK
240,000
240,000
240,000
240,000
TREATMENT TANK
2,800,000
2,800,000
2,800,000
2,800,000

(Cn \ FJtN 1
(T01S) - 28,500 gal tank —
970 827 $124,000
130 124 $125,000
870 865.1 $20,300,000
130 129.2 $1,220,000
(T01H) - 423,000 gal tank —
10,600 10,070 $732,000
4,600 4,370 $732,000
10,600 10543.7 $237,300,000
4,600 4591.2 $14,220,000
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS

$66,600
$94,800
$6,760,000
$1,100,000

$607,000
$607,000
$77,840,000
$12,690,000

See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                       C-74

-------
          TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
b
EMISSION MODEL ANNU
CONTROL WASTE TYPE THROUB
(Mg/y

— QUIESCENT TREATMENT IMPOUNDMENT
ASP+FBCA Aqueous 200
Sludge
Dilute 200
Aqueous-i
Two-Phase 200
Aqueous/Organic
MEMBRANE Aqueous 200
Sludge
Dilute 200
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase 200
Aqueous/Organic
Thin-Fils Aqueous 200
Evaporator Sludge
Steal Dilute 200
Stripping Aqueous-1
Two-Phase 200
Aqueous/Organic
c d
RL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL TOTAL
HPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPITAL ANNUAL
r) (Mg/yr) (Hg/yr) INVESTMENT COSTS
CIIDCAPC TMDnilUAUCUT TDCATMCMT —
— auKrtil/t InrUUnUntNi IKtnlntm 	
(T02A) 71,300 gal iupounduent —
,000 301 286 1181,200 185,300
,000 135 128 ' $179,800 $83,300
,000 265 252 $179,800 $83,300
,000 301 256 $14,740 $8,000
,000 135 115 $14,760 $8,000
,000 265 225 $14,760 $8,000
,000 301 297.0 $16,950,000 $5,590,000
,000 135 134.4 $1,016,000 $910,000
,000 265 201.6 $1,016,000 $910,000
See notes  at  end  of table.
(continued)
                                      C-75

-------
            TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
b
EMISSION MODEL
CONTROL WASTE TYPE
c d
ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL
THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPITAL
(Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) IMg/yr) INVESTMENT
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
	 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT 	
— QUIESCENT TREATMENT IMPOUNDMENT a02B)
ASP+FBCA Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-i
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
MEMBRANE Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Thin-Fila Aqueous
Evaporator Sludge
Steas - Dilute
Stripping Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
- 71,300 gal
191
53
65
191
53
65
191
53
65
ispounduent —
181
50
62
162
45
55
190.6
52.9
5S.6

$176,900
$171,800
•1171,800
$14,760
$14,760
$14,760
$1,700,000
$102,000
$102,000

$79,200
$72,600
$72,600
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
$560,000
$91,000
$91,000
See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                         C-76

-------
          TABLE  C-6.   SUMMARY  OF TSDF  MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULTa
b
EMISSION
CONTROL


MODEL
HASTE TYPE


ANNUAL
THROU6HPUT
(Ng/yr)
c
UNCONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
(Ng/yr)
d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
(Hg/yr)

TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT

TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
                            	 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT 	

    -- QUIESCENT TREATMENT IMPOUNDMENT !T02C) - 713,000 gal lapoundaent —
ASP+FBCA


MEMBRANE


Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
790,000
990,000
990,000
990,000
990,000
990,000
1,400
700
1,320
191
53
65
1,330
665
1,254
162
45
55
1280,600
1277,500
$277,500
$57,000
157,000
$57,000
$147,900
$147,900
$147,900
$19,700
$19,700
$19,700
    Thin-Fils  !    Aqueous   1    990,000 !
    Evaporator  !    Sludge    !           1
1,400 !     1,379.9 !  $33,910,000 !$27,aiO,000
Steaa
Stripping

Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
990,000
990,000
700
1,320
696.3
1,004.5
$5,028,000
$5,028,000
$4,534,000
$4,534,000
See  notes  at  end of table.
                                   (continued)
                                                C-77

-------
           TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
b
EMISSION MODEL
CONTROL WASTE TYPE
— QUIESCENT TREATMENT IHPOU
ASP+FBCA Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous- 1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
MEMBRANE Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Thin-Fils ! Aqueous !
Evaporator ! Sludge !
Steal Dilute
Stripping Aqueous-1
ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
(Mg/yr)
c
UNCONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
" (Mg/yr)
	 SURFACE IMPOUNDME
NDMENT (T02D) - 713,000 gal
99,000
99,000
99,000
99,000
99,000
99,000
99,000 !
1
1
99,000
Two-Phase 99,000
Aqueous/Organic
946
269
326
191
53
65
946
269
326
d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
IMg/yr)

HI Intnmtnl 	
iipaundient —
399
256
310
162
45
55
! 944.0 !
I i
I I
268.7
294.5
TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT


$262,800
$237,500
$237,500
$57,000
$57,000
$57,000
$8,390,000 !
}
$503,000
$503,000
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS

$128,200
$97,600
$97,600
$15,800
$15,300
$15,800
$2,780,000
$454,000
$454,000
See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                      C-78

-------
        TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULTa
b
EMISSION MODEL
CONTROL WASTE TYPE
==============
ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
(Mg/yr>
================
c
UNCONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
(Mg/yr)
	 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
— QUIESCENT TREATMENT IMPOUNDMENT (T02E)
ASP+FBCA Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
MEMBRANE Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Thin-Fili Aqueous
Evaporator Sludge
Steaa Dilute
Stripping Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
608,000
608,000
608,000
608,000
608,000
608,000
608,000
608,000
608,000
8,720,000 gal
5,530
1,710
2,040
191
53
65
5,530
1,710
2,040
===============
d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
(Mg/yr)
TREATMENT 	
iispoundient --
5,254
1,625
1,938
162
45
55
5,517.6
1,708.1
1,345.5
TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
	
-
1636,600
1500,000
1500,000
$300,070
1300,070
1300,070
1
151,530,000 j
1
13,088,000
13,088,000
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS


1395,200
1224,900
1224,900
110,800
110,800
110,300
117,140,000
12,796,000
12,796,000
See notes  at  end  of  table.
(continued)
                                      C-79

-------
              TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY  OF TSDF  MODEL  UNIT  ANALYSTS RESULT3
         EMISSION
         CONTROL
     MODEL
  HASTE TYPE
  ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
 (Mg/yr)
UNCONTROLLED
 EMISSIONS
  IMg/yr)
EMISSION
REDUCTION
  (flg/yr)
   TOTAL
  CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
  TOTAL
  ANNUAL
  COSTS
                                  	 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT 	

        -- QUIESCENT TREATMENT IMPOUNDMENT  (T02F)   8,720,000 gal iapoundaent  —

        ASP+FBCA
    Aqueous
    Sludge

    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
   302,400


   302,400


   302,400
       4,030


         990


       1,120
     3,829


       941


     1,064
   $577,900


   $461,500


   $461,500
  $321,000


  $169,300


  $169,300
        MEMBRANE
    Aqueous
    Sludge

    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
   302,400


   302,400


   302,400
         191


         53


         65
       162


        45


        55
   $300,070
                                                                              $300,070
                                                                              $300,070
   $66,500


   $66,500


   $66,500
       Thin-Fila  !     Aqueous    !     302,400 !
       Evaporator i     Sludge     !            !
                                   4,030 !     4,023.8 !   $25,630,000  ! $8,530,000
         Steal
       Stripping
    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
   302,400


   302,400
See notes  at  end  of table.
        990


       1,120
     989.0
                                                                 1,023.2
 $1,536,000


 $1,536,000
$1,391,000


$1,391,000
                                                                       (continued)
                                                      C-80

-------
       TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
b
EMISSION
CONTROL

c d
MODEL ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TOTAL
WASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPITAL
(Mg/yr) (Ng/yr) (Mg/yr) INVESTMENT
rime Arc TMBnuunurMT TorATurwT
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS

~ 	 ounrnut inruununcni men mem 	 	
— AERATED/AGITATED TREATMENT IMPOUNDMENT (T02G) - 71,300 gal iipoundient —
ASP+FBCA


Thin-Fili
Evaporator
Steai
Stripping

Aqueous 200,000 683 649 $196,200
Sludge
Dilute 200,000 760 722 $199,200
Aqueous- 1
Two-Phase 200,000 763 725 $199,200
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous 200,000 683 679.0 $16,950,000
Sludge
Dilute 200,000 760 759.4 $1,016,000
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase 200,000 763 699.6 $1,016,000
Aqueous/Organic
$103,000
$107,000
$107,000
$5,590,000
$910,000
$910,000
— AERATED/AGITATED TREATMENT IMPOUNDMENT IT02H) 71,300 gal iapoundient —
ASP+FBCA


Thin-Fils
Evaporator
Steam
Stripping

Aqueous 20,000 302 287 $181,300
Sludge
Dilute 20,000 78 74 $179,000
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase 20,000 77 73 $179,000
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous 20,000 302 301.6 $1,700,000
Sludge
Dilute 20,000 78 77.9 $102,000
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase 20,000 77 70.6 $102,000
Aqueous/Organic
$9,000
$8,000
$8,000
$560,000
$91,000
$91,000
See notes  at  end  of  table.
(continued)
                                         C-81

-------
         TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULT3
b
EMISSION
CONTROL

MODEL
WASTE TYPE

— AERATED/A6ITATED TREATMENT
ASP+FBCA


Thin-Fila
Evaporator
Steam
Stripping

Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
— AERATED/ABITATED TREATMENT
A3P+FBCA


Thin-Fila
Evaporator
Steai
Stripping

Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous-1
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
(Hg/yr >

	 SURF
IMPOUNDMENT
990,000
990,000
990,000
990,000
990,000
990,000
IMPOUNDMENT
99,000
99,000
99,000
99,000
99,000
99,000
c
UNCONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
(Hg/yr)
ACE IMPOUNDMENT
(T02I) - 713,000
4,530
3,800
3,860
6,530
3,800
3,360
(T02J) - 713,000
1,920
390
380
1,920
390
380
d
EMISSION TOTAL
REDUCTION CAPITAL
(Mg/yr) INVESTMENT
TBCflTHCHT 	 	 ____
gal iipound*ent — •
6,204 $481,000
3,610 $376,000
3,667 $376,000
6,510 $83,910,000
3,797 $5,028,000
3,545 $5,028,000
gal itpoundaent —
1,824 $305,000
371 $298,000
361 $298,000
1,913 $8,390,000
389.7 $503,000
348 $503,000
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS

$404,000
$266,000
$266,000
$27,810,000
$4,534,000
$4,534,000
$177,000
$122,000
$122,000
$2,790,000
$455,000
$455,000
See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                        C-82

-------
               TABLE  C-6.   SUMMARY  OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULT4

       EMISSION
       CONTROL
    MODEL
  HASTE TYPE
  ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
 (Hg/yr)
UNCONTROLLED
 EMISSIONS
  (Mg/yr)
         d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
 (Mg/yr)
   TOTAL
  CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
   TOTAL
   ANNUAL
   COSTS
                                   	 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TREATMENT 	
      —  AERATED/AGITATED TREATMENT  IMPOUNDMENT IT02K)  - 8,720,000 gal iapoundient —
        ASP+FBCA
    Aqueous
    Sludge

    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
   608,000


   608,000


   608,000
      12,160


       2,300


       2,400
   11,552


    2,185


    2,280
   $777,000


   $512,000


   $512,000
   $693,000


   $237,000


   $237,000
       Thin-Filii
       Evaporator
    Aqueous
    Sludge
   608,000
      12,160
   12,148
$51,530,000
$17,140,000
         Stead
       Stripping
    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
   608,000
                                      608,000
       2,300
                    2,400
    2,298
                   2,205
 $3,088,000
              $3,088,000
 $2,796,000
              $2,796,000
      --- AERATED/AGITATED TREATMENT  IMPOUNDMENT (T02L)  - 8,720,000 gal iapoundsent —
        ASP+FBCA
    Aqueous
    Sludge

    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
   302,000


   302,000


   302,000
       6,520


         810


       1,200
    6,194


      770


    1,140
   $675,000


   $460,000


   $460,000
   $445,000


   $169,000


   $169,000
       Thin-Fila
       Evaporator
    Aqueous
    Sludge
   302,000
       6,520
    6,514
$25,600,000
 $8,520,000
         Steaa
       Stripping
    Dilute
   Aqueous-1

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
   302,000


   302,000
         810
                                                      1,200
      809
                    1,103
ee  notes  at  end of  table.
 $1,534,000
              $1,534,000
 $1,389,000
              $1,389,000
                                                                       (continued)
                                                        C-83

-------
       TABLE  C-6.   SUMMARY OF TSDF  MODEL UNIT  ANALYSIS  RESULT3
  EMISSION
  CONTROL
   MODEL
WASTE TYPE
  ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
 (Mg/yr)
UNCONTROLLED
 EMISSIONS
  (Mg/yr)
        d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
 (Mg/yr)
   TOTAL
  CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
                                   WASTE FIXATION
— WASTE FIXATION  (Fixation Fit A)  —
Miser
Baqhouse,
S/FBCA '
Ttiin-Fils!
Evaporator
Steam
Stripping
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
51.0
51.0
51.0
51.0
46.0
50.0
50.7
45.6
$464,000
$464,000
$1,400,000
$86,000
$228,000
$228,000
$470,000
$78,000
— HASTE FIXATION  (Fixation Pit B)  —
Mixer
Baqhouse,

Thin-Fil«
Evaporator
Steaa
Stripping
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
117,000
117.000
117,000
117,000
351.0
351.0
351.0
351.0
330
300
348.6
313.6
$572,000
$572,000
$9,900,000
$594,000
$213,000
$213,000
$3,300,000
$538,000
—  HASTE FIXATION (Fixation Pit C)  —
Mijier
Baghouse,
fc FBDA
Thin-File
Evaporator
Steaffi
Stripping
See notes at e
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
nd of table
167,000
167,000
167,000
167,000

501.0
501.0
501.0
501.0

480
500
497.6
447.6

$616,000
$616,000
$14,200,000
$348,000

$277,000
$277,000
$4,720,000
$767,000
(contin
                                          C-84

-------
               TABLE  C-6.   SUMMARY  OF  TSDF  MODEL  UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULTa
       EMISSION
       CONTROL
                 MODEL
              HASTE TYPE
                  ANNUAL
                THROUGHPUT
                 IMg/yr)
UNCONTROLLED
  EMISSIONS
   (Mg/yr)
d
EMISSION
REDUCTION
(Mg/yr)

TOTAL
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT

TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
                                     	 LANDFILL DISPOSAL
     — ACTIVE LANDFILL (D80D)  -  1 acre —

                                    16,650
Daily Earth
Cover
      Thin-Fili
      Evaporator
        Steal
      Stripping
    Aqueous
    Sludge

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic

    Aqueous
    Sludge
               Two-Phase
             Aqueous/Organic
                               16,650


                               16,650
                   16,650
        100.6


         86.1


        100.6


         86.1
11.1
9.5
100.29
80.8
$0
$0
$1,400,000
$85,000
$44,800
$44,800
$460,000
$76,000
     — ACTIVE LANDFILL (D80E)  - 3.5  acres •

                                   116,500
Daily Earth
Cover
      Thin-Fili
      Evaporator

        Steal
      Stripping
    Aqueous
    Sludge

   Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
                Aqueous
                Sludge
               Two-Phase
             Aqueous/Organic
                                    116,500
                  116,500
                  116,500
        358.1
                                                  299
        358.1
          299
  39.4


  32.9


355.72
 261.7
        $0
                                     $0
$9,900,000
  $592,000
  $313,400
              $313,400
$3,290,000
  $536,000
      -- ACTIVE LANDFILL  (D80F) - 5 acres
      Daily Earth
      Cover
      Thin-Fili
      Evaporator
                Aqueous
                Sludge

                Two-Phase
             Aqueous/Organic

                Aqueous
                Sludge

                Two-Phase
             Aqueous/Organic
        Steal
      Stripping
See  notes  at  end  of table.
00
00
00
00
510.9
427
510.9
427
56.2
47
507.51
373.7
$0
$0
$14,100,000
$846,000
$447,9
$447,9
$4,690,0
$766,0
                                                                                   (continued)
                                                       C-85

-------
              b
       EMISSION
       CONTROL
               TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY  OF TSDF  MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULT3

                                                                   d
   MODEL
HASTE TYPE
  ANNUAL
THROUGHPUT
 (Hg/yr)
UNCONTROLLED
  EMISSIONS
   (Hg/yr)
EMISSION
REDUCTION
 (Ng/yr)
   TOTAL
  CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
                               	 LANDFILL DISPOSAL 	

     — CLOSING LANDFILL (D806) - 1  acre —
C.Landfill
30 iil -HOPE

C.Landfill
100 iil -HOPE

Thin-Fili
Evaporator
Steal
Stripping
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
16,650
16,650
16,650
16,650
16,650-
16,650
0.020
0.6
0.020
0.6
0.020
0.6
0.019
0.29
0.019
0.51
0.02
0.6
$17,260
$17,260
$44,490
$44,490
$1,400,000
$85,000
$2,001
$2,00<
$6,0*
$6,001
$460,00
$76,00
         CLOSING LANDFILL (D80H) - 3.5 acres —
C. Landfill
30 lil-HDPE

C. Landfill
100 lil-HDPE

Thin-Fili
Evaporator
Steal
Stripping
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
116,500
116,500
116,500
116,500
116,500
116,500
0.068
2.09
0.068
2.09
0.068
2.09
0.0678
1.03
0.0679
1.77
0.07
2.1
$60,370
$60,370
$155,720
$155,720
$9,900,000
$592,000


$
$
$3,2
$5
                                                                                      $9,000


                                                                                      $9,000


                                                                                     $23,000


                                                                                     $23,000
         CLOSING LANDFILL (D801) - 5 acres —
C. Landfill
30 lil-HDPE
C. Landfill
100 ill -HOPE
Thin-Fili
Evaporator
Steal
Stripping
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
Aqueous
Sludge
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
166,500
166,500
166,500
166,500
166,500
166,500
0.0973
2.89
0.0973
2.89
0.097
2.89
0.0970
1.42
0.0972
2.45
0.10
2.9
$86,250
$86,250
$222,450
$222,450
$14,100,000
$846,000
$13,000
$13,000
$33,000
$33,000
$4,690,000
$766,000
See  notes  at end of table.
                                                                 (continued)
                                               C-86

-------
        TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF  TSDF MODEL  UNIT ANALYSIS  RESULT3
b c! . d
EMISSION HODEL ANNUAL UNCONTROLLED ! EMISSION TOTAL TOTAL
CONTROL HASTE TYPE THROUGHPUT EMISSIONS ! REDUCTION CAPITAL ANNUAL
IHg/yr) (Hg/yr) ! (Mg/yr) INVESTMENT COSTS
— Tank Truck Loading —
Subierged
Fill Pipe




Aqueous
Sludge
Dilute
Aqueous- 1
Organic
Liquid
Organic
Sludge/Slurry
Two-Phase
Aqueous/Organic
_._--__._ rnv

521
423
413
499
490
IT A I HER LOADING •
0.0045
0.090B
0.0169
0.0446
0.0385
i

0.003
0.059
0.011
0.029
0.025

$390
$390
$390
$390
$390
$]
$;
$;
$'
$•
See  notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                         C-87

-------
    TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULTS3 (continued)

aThis table summarizes the control  costs and emission reductions by process
-unit for controlling organic air emissions from hazardous waste treatment,
 storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF).  The control costs and achievable
 emission reductions were estimated through a model unit analysis utilizing a
 variety of diverse yet representative TSDF process model units, model waste
 compositions or forms, and applicable control technologies.  The costs (in
 terms of $/Mg of waste throughput)  were then used to develop the control
 technology and cost file (Appendix D, Section D.2.5) that is used in
 combination with the TSDF Industry Profile (Appendix D, Section D.I.3) and
 the waste characterization data base (Appendix D, Section D.I.4) to estimate
 nationwide cost impacts for alternative control strategies.

 The model wastes used in the determination of control costs and emission
 reduction in the model unit analysis may not necessarily be representative of
 all actual waste streams processed at existing facilities.   However, to the
 extent possible, the composition and quantities of the actual  waste streams
 processed at existing facilities were used in estimating nationwide emissions
 and emission reductions resulting  from the alternative control strategies.

 Please note that all costs presented in this table are in January 1986
 dollars.

^1.   Carbon Adsorption—Two different carbon adsorption systems were examined
     for application as control  devices.  One system involves the use of
     fixed-bed,  regenerable carbon  adsorption units (FBCA);  the other involves
     use of disposable carbon canisters.  Both carbon canisters and fixed bed
     regenerable carbon systems  were costed for each of the  model unit/waste
     form cases; the less expensive system was selected for  application.  The
     fixed-bed carbon system's operating costs include the regeneration and
     eventual replacement and disposal of spent carbon; carbon  canister's
     operating costs include carbon  canister replacement and disposal.  Carbon
     adsorption  can reasonably be expected to achieve a 95-percent control
     efficiency  for most organics under a wide variety of stream conditions
     provided (1) the adsorber is supplied with an adequate  quantity of high
     quality activated carbon,  (2)  the gas stream receives appropriate
     conditioning (e.g.,  cooling,  filtering)  before entering the carbon bed,
     and (3)  the carbon beds are regenerated or replaced before breakthrough.

 2.   Internal  Floating Roofs — Emission reductions for internal  floating roofs
     relative to a  fixed-roof tank  were estimated by using the  emission models
     described in Appendix C,  Section C.I.1.4.3 (fixed roof  tank emissions)
     and EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).
     Estimated emission reductions  ranged from 74 to 82 percent.  The varia-
     tion in  emission reductions is  attributable to differences in composition
     and concentrations of model'wastes.

     Internal  floating roofs are applied to uncovered vertical  tanks in
     conjunction with a fixed roof  to suppress the uncovered tank organic
     emissions.   For this  combination, the emission reductions  achievable are
     a  combination  of the  reduction  from application of the  fixed roof to the

                                                                   (continued)

                                    C-88

-------
    TABLE C-6.   SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULTS9 (continued)

     uncovered  tank,  plus application of an internal  floating roof to a fixed-
     roof tank.  The  range of emission reductions achievable based on
     combination of the fixed roof with the internal  floating roof is 96  to
     99.

 3.   Existing Control  Device—Venting organic emissions to an existing control
     device is  assumed to achieve an overall  emission reduction of 95 percent;
     this includes both capture and control efficiencies.

 4.   Fixed Roof—Emission reductions for application  of fixed roofs to
     uncovered  tanks  ranged from 25 to greater than 99 percent depending  on
     waste form for both storage and treatment tanks.

 5.   Membrane—Floating synthetic membranes are applicable to quiescent
     impoundments and uncovered storage tanks.  Emission reductions are
     determined by the fraction of surface area covered and by the perme-
     ability of the membrane.  An emission reduction  of 85 percent was used
     for floating synthetic membranes for purposes of estimating emission
     reductions from membrane-covered impoundments.

 6.   ASP—This  control alternative involves installing  an air-supported
     structure  (ASP)  and venting emissions to a carbon adsorption system.  The
     efficiency of air-supported structures in reducing or suppressing emis-
     sions is determined by the combined effects of the capture efficiency of
     the structure and the removal efficiency of the  control device.   An  over-
     all  control efficiency of 95 percent is  used for air-supported structures
     vented to  carbon adsorber.

 7.   HOPE—In this control technique, flexible covers are  used to suppress or
     limit organic emissions from area sources.  A typical cover material is
     30-mil high-density polyethylene (HOPE).  For the purposes of estimating
     emission reductions, control efficiencies of 0,  49.3, and 99.7 percent
     were used  for 30-mil HOPE covers, depending on characteristics of the
     waste (i.e., permeability).  Emission reductions of 0, 84.8, and 99.9
     percent were selected for the model wastes with  a 100-mil HOPE cover.
     The variations in emission reductions are attributable to differences in
     composition and  concentrations of the model wastes.

cUncontrolled emissions were estimated for each model unit and waste type
 using the appropriate TSDF air emission models as described in Section C.I;
 the model unit design and operating parameters described  in Section C.2.1;
 and the waste  compositions listed in Appendix C, Table C-5.

^Emission reductions  achievable through application of the emission control
 technologies are calculated on the basis of  the control efficiencies
 presented in Chapter 4.0.  These emission reductions can  be grouped into
 three broad categories based on the technologies involved:

     (1)   Suppression Controls-- Emission reduction are achieved by controls
          that  contain the organics within a  confined area and prevent or
          limit volatilization of the organics.  Unless used in combination
          with  add-on control devices, the organics may be emitted from a

                                                                   (continued)
                                    C-33

-------
    TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF MODEL UNIT ANALYSIS RESULTS9 (continued)

          downstream TSDF waste management process.  Suppression devices
          include internal floating roofs for covered or closed tanks and
          floating synthetic membranes for impoundments.

     (2)  Add-on Controls — Emission reductions are achieved by add-on controls
          that adsorb,  condense,  or combust the volatile organics and as a
          result prevent their release to the atmosphere.  Examples include
          fixed-bed carbon adsorbers,  condensers,  thermal or catalytic
          incinerators.

     (3)  Removal  Processes — Emission  reductions are achieved by pretreatment
          of wastes to  remove organics prior to processing at TSDF waste
          management unit.  Organics removal  technologies include thin-film
          evaporators and steam strippers,  batch distillation,  and rotary kiln
          incinerators.

eThe total  capital  investment and  total  annual  costs for the Container
 Loading Model  Units are the same  for  drum loading,  tank truck  loading,  and
 rail  tank  car loading.
                                   C-90

-------
     In Table C-6, the emission control refers to the control technologies
described in Chapter 4.0.  Model units and their annual throughputs are
those described in Section C.2.1.  Model wastes are as defined in Section
C.2.2.  Uncontrolled emissions are estimates generated by the applicable
emission model described in Section C.I.I.  The emission reduction is
calculated on the basis of efficiencies presented in Chapter 4.0 for each
control technology.  The costs of add-on and suppression-type controls are
calculated as described in Appendix H and the accompanying control cost
document.71  Appendix I presents information regarding the costing of
organic removal processes and hazardous waste incineration.
     The emission estimates in Table C-6 show the wide range of emission
levels possible from a given model waste management model unit when wastes
of different compositions and forms are managed in that unit.  The table
also shows that control costs for certain controls are independent of waste
composition, e.g., fixed roof for storage tanks and floating synthetic
membranes.  At the opposite extreme, the costs for fixed-bed carbon
adsorption controls  (e.g., those applied to uncovered, aerated treatment
tanks model unit T01G) are highly sensitive to composition; i.e., bed size
is a function of the level or quantity of uncontrolled emissions.
     The emission reductions reported in Table C-6 are achieved through
application of control technologies that can be classified into three broad
categories based on the control mechanisms.  Suppression controls contain
the organics within a confined area and prevent or limit volatilization.
Add-on controls are typically conventional air pollution control  devices
that adsorb, condense, or thermally destroy the volatile organics to
prevent release to the atmosphere.  Removal technologies involve pretreat-
ment of wastes to remove organics prior to processing in TSDF waste manage-
ment units.
     The footnotes to Table C-6 explain an important point about the
reported emission reductions.  Controls, such as a fixed roof applied to a
storage tank, suppress organic emissions from that tank by the amount
indicated in the table.  The emissions prevented by installation of a fixed
roof may escape from the waste at some downstream waste processing step
unless emissions from that downstream process are also controlled.  The
emission reductions achieved through suppression controls are truly
                                   C-91

-------
emission reductions only if the suppressed emissions are prevented  from

escaping the waste processes at other downstream processing steps.   Add-on

controls such as carbon adsorption and incineration, biological decay  to

less volatile compounds, and/or organic removal from the waste stream  are

the principal approaches to avoid ultimate discharge to the atmosphere.

C.3  REFERENCES
1.   Research Triangle Institute.  Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage,  and
     Disposal Facilities:  Air Emission Models, Draft Report.  Prepared for
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Air Quality Planning
     and Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  March 1987.

2.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Hazardous Waste Treatment,
     Storage, and Disposal  Facilities (TSDF)--Air Emission Models.
     Publication No. EPA-450/3-87-026.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  Office
     of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  December 1987.  p. 4-41 to
     4-49.

3.   Springer,  C.,  P.  D. Lunney, and K.  T. Valsaraj.  Emission of Hazardous
     Chemicals  from Surface and Near Surface Impoundments to Air.   U.S.
     Environmental  Protection Agency, Solid and Hazardous Waste Research
     Division.   Cincinnati, OH.  Project Number 808161-02.  December 1984.
     p. 3-4 to  3-16.

4.   Mackay, D.,~and A. Yeun.  Mass Transfer Coefficient Correlations for
     Volatilization of Organic Solutes from Water.   Environmental Science
     and Technology.  17:211-217.  1983.

5.   Thibodeaux, L. J., and S. T. Hwang.  Toxic Emissions from Land Dispo-
     sal Facilities.  Environmental Progress.  j.:46-52.  February 1982.

6.   Reference  5,  p. 46.

7.   Reinhardt,  J.  R.   Gas-Side Mass-Transfer Coefficient and Interfacial
     Phenomena  of Flat-Bladed Surface Agitators.  Ph.D. dissertation,
     University  of  Arkansas,  Fayettevi1le, AR.   1977.  96 p.

8.   Reference  5.

9.   Crank,  J.   The Mathematics of Diffusion.  London,  Oxford University
     Press.   1970.   p.  45-47.

10.   Reference  1,  p. 6-1.

11.   Farmer, W.  J., M.  S. Yang, J. Letey,  W. F. Spencer, and M. H.  Roulier.
     Land Disposal  of  Hexachlorobenzene Wastes:  Controlling Vapor  Movement
     in Soils.   Fourth  Annual Research Symposium.   U.S. Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency.  Publication No. EPA-600/9-78-016.  August 1978.-
                                   C-92

-------
12.   Millington,  R. J., and J. P. Quirk.  Permeability of Porous Solids.
     Trans. Faraday Society.  57:1200-1207.  1961.

13.   Reference 1,  p. 6-40.

14.   Acurex Corporation.  Volatile Emissions from Stabilized Waste in
     Hazardous Waste Landfills.  Draft.  Prepared for US EPA/AEERL.
     Research Triangle Park, NC.  Contract No. 68-02-3993.  January 23,
     1987.

15.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Transportation and Marketing of
     Petroleum Liquids.  In:  AP-42.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
     Factors.  Fourth Edition, Section 4.4.  Research Triangle Park,  NC.
     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  September 1985.  13 pp.

16.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Assessing the Release and Costs
     Associated with Truck Transport of Hazardous Wastes.  PB 84-224-468
     (Contract No. 68-01-0021).  Washington, DC.  January 1984.  p. 8.

17.   Reference 16.

18.   Shen, T. T.   Estimating Hazardous Air Emissions from Disposal Sites.
     Pollution Engineering.  31-34.  August 1981.

19.   GCA Corporation.  Air Emissions of VOC from Waste Piles at Hazardous
     Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.  Prepared for U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 'Planning and
     Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  Contract No. 68-01-6871.

20.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Storage of Organic Liquids.
     In:  AP-42.   Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  Fourth
     Edition, Section 4.3.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  Office of Air
     Quality Planning and Standards.  September 1985.  p. 4.3-8.

21.   Reference 20, p. 4.3-5.

22.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Control of Volatile Organic
     Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufactur-
     ing Equipment.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  Publication No. EPA-
     450/3-83-006.  March 1984.  p. 2-21.

23.   Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  Compilation of Air
     Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, 4th ed.  U.S. Environmental Protec-
     tion Agency.   Research Triangle Park, NC.  September 1985.  817 p.

24.   Reference 22, p. 2-20.

25.   Reference 16, p. 8.

26.   Memorandum from Branscome, M. R.,  RTI, to Docket.  November 13,  1987.
     Westat data  used to develop model  units for surface impoundments and
    'tanks.
                                   C-93

-------
27.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Design Manual:  Municipal
     Wastewater Stabilization Ponds.  Publication No. EPA-625/1-83-015.
     October 1983.  p. 3.

28.  Metcalf and Eddy. Inc.  Wastewater Engineering.  New York, McGraw-
     Hill.  1972.  p.'557.

29.  Reference 28, p. 519.

30.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Hazardous Waste TSDF Waste
     Process Sampling.  Report No. EMB/85-HWS-3.  October 1985.  p. 1-11.

31.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Evaluation and Selection of
     Models for Estimating Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste Treatment,
     Storage, and Disposal Facilities.  Publication No. EPA-450/3-84-020.
     December 1984.  p. 69.

32.  Reference 31, p. 67-

33.  Reference 31, p. 67.

34.  Reference 31, p. 67.

35.  Eckenfeld,  W., M. Goronszy,  and T. Quirk.  The Activated Sludge
     Process:  State of the Art.   CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental
     Control.  15(2) :148.  1984.

36.  Reference 2, p. 419.

37.  Reference 28.

38.  Addendum to Memorandum dated September 6, 1985, from Eichinger,
     Jeanne, GCA Corporation, to Hustvedt, K.  C.,  EPA/OAQPS.  September 12,
     1985.  TSDF model source parameters and operating practices data base.

39.  Reference 29.

40.  Memorandum from Thorneloe,  S.,  EPA/OAQPS, to Durham, J., EPA/OAQPS.
     January 31,  1986.  Land treatment data base.

41.  Environmental Research and  Technology.  Land Treatment Practices in
     the Petroleum Industry.  Prepared for American Petroleum Institute.
     Washington,  DC.  June 1983.   p. 1-2.

42.  Radian Corporation.   Field  Assessment of Air Emissions and Their Con-
     trol at a Refinery Land Treatment Facility.  Volume I.  Prepared for
     U.S. EPA/ORD/HWERL.   Cincinnati, OH.   EPA Contract No. 68-02-3850.
     September 1986.  p.  43.

43.  U.S. EPA/ORD/RSKERL.  Evaluation of Volatilization of Hazardous Con-
     stituents at Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Sites.  Ada, OK.  Publica-
     tion No.  EPA/600/2-86/061,  NTIS #PB86-233 939, August 1986.  p. 55.
                                   C-94

-------
44.  Trip Report.  Goldman, Leonard, RTI, with Chemical Waste Management,
     Sulphur, LA.  September 12, 1986.

45.  Telecon.  Goldman, Leonard, RTI, with Boyenga, Dave, MBI Corporation,
     Dayton, OH.  November 20, 1985.

46.  Telecon.  Goldman, Leonard, RTI, with Webber, Emlyn, VFL Technology
     Corporation, Malvern, PA.  November 12, 1985.

47.  Telecon.  Massoglia, Martin, RTI, with Webber, Emlyn, VFL Technology
     Corporation, Malvern, PA.  January 13, 1987.

48.  Telecon.  Goldman, Leonard, RTI, with Hannak, Peter, Alberta Environ-
     mental Center.  April 4, 1986.

49.  Reference 48.

50.  Shen, T. T.  Estimating Hazardous Air Emissions from Disposal Sites.
     Pollution Engineering.  31-34.  August 1981.

51.  Ely, R. L., G. L. Kingsbury, M. R. Branscome, L. J. Goldman, C. M.
     Northeim, J. H. Turner, and F. 0. Mixon, Jr.  (Research Triangle Insti-
     tute, Research Triangle Park, NC).  Performance of Clay Caps and
     Liners for Disposal Facilities.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency.  Cincinnati, OH.  EPA Contract No. 68-03-3149.  March
     1983.

52.  Telecon.  Goldman, Leonard, RTI, with Borden, Roy, Department of Civil
     Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.  August 13,
     1986.

53.  Geraghty, J. J., D. W. Miller, F. Vander Leeden, and F. L. Troise.
     Water Atlas of the United States.  Port Washington, NY, Water Informa-
     tion Center, 1973.  Plate 30.

54.  Telecon.  Goldman, Leonard, RTI, with Hughes, John, National Climatic
     Center, Asheville, NC.  May 15, 1986.

55.  Reference 54.

56.  Memorandum from Eichinger,  Jeanne, GCA, to Hustvedt, K. C., EPA.  TSDF
     Model Source Parameters and Operating Practices Database.
     September 6, 1985.  7 p.

57.  Engineering Science.  National Air Emissions  from Storage and Handling
     Operations at Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal  Facili-
     ties.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
     Air Quality Planning and Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC.
     Contract No. 68-03-2171, Task, SBE06.  January 1985.

58.  Telecon.  Yang,  S.,  RTI, to Accurate Industries, Inc., Wi11iamstown,
     NJ.  November 1985.
                                   C-95

-------
59.  GCA Corporation.  Air Emission Estimation Methods for Transfer,  Stor-
     age, and Handling Operations.  Draft Technical Note.  Prepared  for
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality  Planning
     and Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  Contract No. 68-01-6871.
     August 1985.

60.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Transportation and Marketing of
     Petroleum Liquids.  In:  AP-42.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
     Factors.  Fourth Edition, Section 4.4.  Research Triangle Park,  NC.
     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  September 1985.   13 pp.

61.  Reference 33.

62.  Reference 56.

63.  Memorandum from Deerhake, M. E.,  RTI, to Docket.  November 5, 1987.
     Use of the hazardous waste data management system to select model drum
     storage units.

64.  United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Benzene Fugitive Emis-
     sions—Background Information for Promulgated Standards.  EPA-450/3-
     80-032b.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  June 1982.  p. 2-94.

65.  Radian Corporation.  Characterization of Transfer, Storage, and  "
     Handling of Waste with High Emissic  .s Potential, Phase I.  Draft
     Report.  Prepared for U.S. EPA/ORD/HWERL.   Cincinnati, OH.  July 1985.
     Appendix B.

66.  Spivey, J. J., et al.   Preliminary Assessment of Hazardous Waste Pre-
     treatment as an Air Pollution Control Technique, Final Report.   Pre-
     pared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Publication No. EPA
     600/2-86-028.  March 1986.  p. 333.

67.  SCS Engineers.  W-E-T Model Hazardous Waste Data Base.  Prepared for
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  Office of Solid Waste.  July
     1984.

68.  Reference 67, p. 9.

69.  SCS Engineers.  Waste Characterization Data in Support of RCRA  W-E-T
     Model and Regulatory Impact Analysis.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.   July 1984.

70.  Memorandum from Spivey,  J., RTI,  to Thome!oe, S., OAQPS.  June  3,
     1987.  Selection of chemicals for sensitivity analysis; throughput
     selection for VO removal  processes.

71.  Research Triangle Institute.  Cost of Volatile Organic Removal  and
     Model  Unit Air Emission Controls  for Hazardous Waste Treatment,
     Storage,  and Disposal  Facilities.  Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
     Research Triangle Park,  NC.  March 1988.
                                   C-96

-------
      APPENDIX D



SOURCE ASSESSMENT MODEL

-------
                                APPENDIX D
                          SOURCE ASSESSMENT MODEL

D.I  DESCRIPTION OF MODEL
D.1.1  Overview
     The standard-setting process for hazardous waste transfer, storage,
and disposal facilities (TSDF) involves identifying the sources of air
pollutants within the industry and evaluating the options available for
controlling them.  The control options (strategies) are based on different
combinations of technologies and degrees of control efficiency, and they
are typically investigated in terms of their nationwide environmental,
health, economic, and energy impacts. "Therefore, information and data
concerning TSDF processes, emissions, emission controls, and health risks
associated with TSDF pollutant exposure are being made available for input
to the review and decisionmaking process.
     The Source Assessment Model (SAM) is a tool that was developed to
generate the data sets necessary for comparison of the various TSDF con-
trol options (strategies).  The SAM is a complex computer program that
uses a wide variety of information and data concerning the TSDF industry
to calculate nationwide impacts (environmental, cost, health, etc.)
through summation of approximate individual facility results.  It should
be pointed out that the primary objective and intended use of the SAM is
to provide reasonable estimates of TSDF impacts on a national level.
Because of the complexity of the hazardous waste management industry and
the current lack of detailed information for individual TSDF, the SAM was
developed to utilize national average data where site-specific data are
not available.   As a result,  the SAM impact estimates are not considered
accurate for an individual facility.  However, on a nationwide basis, the
SAM impact estimates are a reasonable approximation and provide the best
available basis for analysis of options for controlling TSDF air
emissions.
                                    D-3

-------
D.I.2  Facility Processor
     Information processed by the SAM includes results from recent  TSDF
industry surveys, characterizations of the TSDF processes and wastes,  as
well as engineering simulations of the relationships among:   (1) waste
management unit type, waste, and emission potential  (emission models); (2)
pollution control technology, equipment efficiencies, and associated
capital and operating costs; and (3) exposure and health impacts for TSDF
pollutants (carcinogen potency factors).
     Inputs to the SAM calculations have been assembled into specific  data
files.  Figure D-l outlines the functions and processing sequence of the
SAM and shows the data files used as input to the model and the output
files generated by the SAM.
     The facility processor is a segment of the program that accesses  the
SAM input files and retrieves the information/data required for a particu-
lar determination or calculation.  The facility processor contains, in a
series of subroutines, all the program logic and decision criteria  that
are involved in identifying TSDF facilities, their waste management proc-
esses, waste compositions, and volumes;  assigning chemical  properties  to
waste constituents and control devices to process units; and calculating
uncontrolled emissions,  emissions reductions, control costs, and health
impacts.  The facility processor also performs all the required calcula-
tions associated with estimating emissions,  control costs,  and incidence.
Other functions of the SAM facility processor include performing a  waste
stream mass balance calculation for each process unit to account for
organics lost to the atmosphere, removed by a control device, or biode-
graded; testing each waste stream for volatile organic (VO) content and
vapor pressure based on  models of the laboratory tests; determining total
organics by volatility class for each waste stream; and checking for waste
form,  waste code,  and management process incompatabi1ity.
D.I.3  Industry Profile
     Waste management processes, waste types, and waste volumes for each
facility are included in the SAM Industry Profile.  This file contains
each TSDF name,  location,  primary standard industrial classification (SIC)
code,  and the waste volume and management process reported for that par-
ticular facility for each  waste type (Resource Conservation and Recovery
                                    D-4

-------
             Input Files'
                                     / Datermine:
                                     /  Uncontrolled
                                    /Emission Factors for\
                                    A Each Management
                                     \ Process & Surro-
                                     gate Combination/
  Surrogate,
Emission Source,
  Process, &
   Facility;
  Calculate
  Incidence
   &ME1
                                                      Facility Processor
1
i
' 1
Uncontrolled
Emissions

F 1
asr

f 1
, Output Files (D.3)
r
Capital Annual
1 nvextment 0 per ati ng
Costs Costs
i
' 1
Annualtzed
Costs for
Controls

' 1
Annual
Incidence

F
MLR
           Figure  D-1.  Source Assessment Model flow diagram.


*The parentheses refer to the appropriate sections of Appendix D
 that describe in detail the SAM input files.
                                          D-5

-------
Act  [RCRA] waste code).  Where the level of detail contained  in  the-SAM
Industry  Profile is not adequate for facility-specific determinations, the
SAM  uses  estimates based on national average data.  The  Industry Profile
contains  information on the management processes that are  in  operation and
the  waste quantities that are processed at a particular  facility.  What is
not  known are the details on process subcategories within  the general
management process category.  For example, a given quantity of waste  is
reported  as processed by treatment tanks; because no further  information
is available, the SAM uses data on national averages for the  distribution
and  use of treatment tanks to identify and assign process  subcategories
(i.e., covered quiescent tanks, uncovered quiescent tanks, and uncovered
aerated tanks) and to distribute waste quantities treated  within  these
subcategories for each particular facility.  This nationwide  averaging
results in impacts that may not be accurate for an individual facility but
when summed yields reasonable nationwide estimates.
     The  SAM facility-specific information was obtained  from  three
principal sources.  Waste quantity data were taken from  the 1986  National
Screening Survey of Hazardous Waste,  Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and
Recycling Facilities (1986 Screener).1-2  Waste management scenarios  (or
processing schemes) in the SAM were based on the Hazardous Waste  Data
Management System's (HWDMS) RCRA Part-A applications,3 the National Survey
of Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment, Storage, and  Disposal
Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in 1981 (Westat Survey),4  and the 1986
Screener.  Waste types managed in each facility were obtained from all
three sources.  For a more detailed discussion of the TSDF Industry
Profile,  refer to Section D.2.1 of this appendix.
D.I.4  Waste Characterization File
     The Waste Characterization Data Base (WCDB) is a SAM  file that con-
tains waste data representative of typical wastes for each industrial
classification (SIC code).   The SAM links waste data to  specific  facili-
ties  by the primary SIC code and the RCRA waste codes (waste  type) identi-
fied  for that facility in the Industry Profile.  For those SIC codes  for
which no  waste data were available,  waste compositions were estimated
using the available data bases.  Waste data reported for facilities with
similar processes were reviewed,  and waste stream characteristics typical
                                    D-6

-------
of .the particular process were identified.  Thus, each SIC code is
assigned applicable RCRA waste codes.
     A RCRA waste may be generated in one of several physical/chemical
forms (e.g., an organic liquid or an aqueous sludge); therefore, the RCRA
waste codes were categorized in the waste characterization file according
to general physical and chemical form.  Each physical/chemical form of a
waste code contains the composition of chemical constituents and their
respective concentrations.  The SAM uses this aspect of the WCDB to
distribute waste forms within a RCRA waste code and to provide a repre-
sentative chemical composition for each form of waste.  For each waste
code, the WCDB provides the quantities reported in the Westat Survey data
base by the physical and chemical form of the waste code.  This quantita-
tive distribution of physical/chemical forms within a waste code is then
used to subdivide the TSDF's waste code quantity from the Industry Pro-
file.  Waste composition is used to estimate emissions on the basis of
concentration and volatility.  Once waste form distributions are estab-
lished, the SAM facility processor searches for chemical compositions to
assess the volatility and emission potential of each waste code/form
combination for use in emission calculations.  Waste characteristics and
compositions used in the SAM are derived from five existing data bases,
recent field data, and.RCRA waste listing background documents.  Section
D.2.2 of this appendix contains information on the development and use of
the WCDB.
D.I.5  Chemical Properties File
     Emission estimation on a chemical constituent basis for each of the
more than 4,000 TSDF waste constituents identified in the data bases was
not possible because of a lack of constituent-specific physical and chemi-
cal property data and because of the sheer number of chemicals involved.
Therefore, to provide the emission models with the relevant constituent
physical, chemical, and biological properties that influence emissions and
still maintain a workable and efficient method of estimating emissions, '
waste constituent categorization was required.  As a result, TSDF waste
constituents were grouped into classes by volatility (based either on
vapor pressure or Henry's law constant, depending on the waste management
unit process and emission characteristics) and by biodegradabi1ity.
                                    D-7

-------
Surrogate categories were then defined to represent the actual organic
compounds that occur in hazardous waste streams based on the various
combinations of vapor pressure (four classes),  Henry's law constant (three
classes), and biodegradability (three classes).  The surrogates substitute
for the particular waste constituents (in terms of physical, chemical, and
biological properties) in the emission calculations carried out by the
SAM.
D.I.6  Emission Factors File
     For each waste management process (e.g.,  an aerated surface impound-
ment),  a range of model unit sizes was developed in order to estimate
emissions.  However, because specific characteristics of these model units
were unknown, a "national average model unit"  was developed to represent
each waste management process.  Each national  unit is a weighted average
of the nationwide distribution of process design parameters (e.g., unit
capacity), using the nationwide frequency distribution of each model unit
size as the basis for weighting.   For each model unit, its emission factor
(emissions per megagram of waste  throughput)  is multiplied by the appro-
priate weighting factor.  The sum of these products results in a weighted
emission factor for each national average model unit.  The weighted emis-
sion factors were then compiled into an emission factor file for use in
the SAM emission estimates.  The  SAM multiplies the annual quantity of
organic compound processed (or passed) through the unit by the appropriate
weighted emission factor for the  surrogate (constituent) and management
process, identified in the Industry Profile,  to calculate the amount of
organic compound that is emitted  to the air or that is biodegraded!
Because wastes may flow through a series of process units, a mass balance
is performed for each waste management process unit to account for
organics lost to volatilization and biodegradation in the unit; the
revised organic content is then used to estimate the emissions for the
next downstream unit.
D.I.7  Control Strategies and Test Method Conversion Factors •
     As a tool for evaluating control strategies or regulatory options,
the SAM was designed to calculate environmental impacts of any number of
combinations of control technologies and control efficiencies which are
part of an externally generated control strategy.  For example, controls
                                    D-8

-------
can be applied based on the emission potential of the incoming waste
stream;  in this case,  emission potential is defined as the VO content of
the waste stream.  The SAM can test the stream for VO content and apply,
from an  established file,  VO test method conversion factors to the stream
to estimate the VO concentration a particular test method would detect.
The waste stream VO content can then be compared to a preselected VO
cutoff value to determine if controls are to be applied to the waste
stream.   If the waste stream exceeds the VO cutoff, it is controlled as
part of  the TSDF control strategy.  The SAM then estimates emissions from
each controlled management process with the appropriate technology in
place.  The SAM can calculate emissions in a variety of formats.  Emission
estimates can be presented by waste management process, waste code,  waste
form, volatility class, and identified facility as well as on a nationwide
level.
D.I.8  Cost and Other Environmental Impact Files
     Data files have also been-assembled for calculating controlled
emissions, control costs,  and other environmental impacts.  Files were
developed for the SAM that provide control efficiencies, capital invest-
ment, and annual operating costs for each control option that is appli-
cable to a particular waste management process.  Cross-media and secondary
impacts  for the control options are also calculated.  These are the
environmental impacts that result from implementation of the air pollution
control  strategy (e.g., solid wastes generated through use of control
techniques such as carbon adsorption and incineration).  For cost, cross-
media, and secondary impacts, the SAM calculates control option impacts as
a function of the waste quantities identified in the Industry Profile.
Impact estimates were developed for a national average model unit that
reflects the general frequency of national unit size characteristics for
each waste management process.  The impact estimates are divided by the
model unit throughput to obtain a factor from which nationwide impacts are
computed.  Multiplying national throughput for the management unit by the
appropriate impact factor results in an estimate of the impact for the
particular unit.
                                    D-9

-------
 D.I.9   Incidence  and  Risk .File
     The  SAM  incidence  and  risk  file  contains  exposure  level  coefficients
 to  estimate annual  cancer  incidence and maximum  lifetime  risk (MLR)  for
 the population within 50 km  of each TSDF.  The coefficients  were developed
 using  the Human Exposure Model (HEM)  with  1980 census population distribu-
 tions,  local  meteorological/climatological STAR  data  summaries,  and  an
 assumed emission  rate (10 Mg/yr) and  unit  risk factor  (1  case///g/m3/per-
 son).   The SAM facility-specific indidence and risk coefficients can be
-scaled  by actual  annual facility emissions and the appropriate  unit  risk
 factor  to give facility-specific health impact estimates  that reflect the
 level  of  emissions  resulting from a particular emission scenario or  con-
 trol strategy.  For a more detailed examination  of incidence  and risk
 determinations, see Appendix E.
 D.2 INPUT FILES
 D.2.1   Industry Profile Data Base
     D.2.1.1  Introduction.  As  an initial input to the estimation of air
 emissions, an Industry  Profile was developed to  characterize  TSDF waste
 management practices.   The Industry Profile is based on data  from the
 Westat Survey and from  EPA's HWDMS.   Data from the Office of  Solid Waste's
 (OSW)  1986 Screener, which reflect 1985 TSDF activities,  are  also used
 heavily.
     The  following  sections describe  the Industry Profile contents and
 outline the data base sources.  Discussion centers on the current Industry
 Profile of 2,336 TSDF.  Section D.2.1.2 describes the data base  structure
 and contents,  Section D.2.1.3 documents selection of the  SAM  TSDF uni-
 verse,  and Section  D.2.1.4 reviews data sources.
     D.2.1.2  Data  Base Contents.  Table D-l lists the variables  in  the
current Industry Profile.   Each record in the  Industry Profile constitutes
a single waste stream.  A facility may have several different waste
streams.   The variables  following the waste code indicate quantities and
management methods  for TSDF operations.  All quantities are expressed in
megagrams   per year  (Mg/yr).
     Table D-2 gives an  example record of an Ohio TSDF with EPA  identifi-
cation  number OHDOOOOOOOOO  (variable  FCID).  Its primary  SIC  code is
designated as  2879  (SIC1,  Pesticides  and Agricultural Chemicals).
                                   D-10

-------
            TABLE D-l.  INDUSTRY PROFILE DATA BASE CONTENTS3
Variable
Description
FCID           EPA 12-digit facility identification number
SIC1           Primary 4-digit standard industrial classification  (SIC)
                 code
WSTCDE         EPA hazardous waste number (RCRA waste code)
WAMT           Amount of waste for WSTCDE (Mg/yr)
QTYSTR         Amount of waste stored (Mg/yr)
TYPSTR         Storage process(es) - one of 20 potential process combina-
                 tions'3
QTYTX          Amount of waste treated (Mg/yr)
TYPTX          Treatment process(es) - one of 19 potential process
                 combinations^
QTYDIS         Amount of waste disposed (Mg/yr)
TYPDIS         Disposal process(es) - one of 11 potential process combi-
                 nations'3
SOURCE         Source of data for waste quantities, RCRA codes, and
                 management methods
ELIGSTAT       Facility status
LATT           Latitude (expressed in degrees, minutes, seconds, and
                 tenths of seconds)
LONG           Longitude (expressed in degrees, minutes, seconds, and
                 tenths of seconds)

RCRA  = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
  Mg  = Megagrams.

aThis table identifies and describes those variables of the Industry
 Profile data base used to characterize treatment, storage, and disposal
 facilities in nationwide impacts modeling.

^Hazardous waste management process combinations are presented  in
 Table D-3.
                                  D-ll

-------
        TABLE D-2.  INDUSTRY PROFILE DATA BASE - EXAMPLE RECORD3
               Variable
Contents
FCID
SICC1
WSTCDE
WAMT
QTYSTR
TYPSTR
QTYTX
TYPTX
QTYDIS
TYPDIS
SOURCE
ELIGSTAT
LATT
LONG
OHDOOOOOOOOO
3879
D001b
1056954
1056954
1
1056954
10
0
0
2
7
3115000
08758000
aAn example record  of how one facility waste stream would appear in the
 Industry Profile data base.

bD001 = ignitible waste.   Source:   40  CFR 261.21,  Characteristic of
 ignitibility.5
                                 D-12

-------
Ignitible wastes identified as D001 (WSTCDE) are managed at this facility.
This TSDF manages (WAMT) and stores (QTYSTR) 1,056,954 Mg of waste D001 in
a tank (TYPSTR = l--see Table D-3), but it also treats the same amount
(QTYTX = 1,056,954 Mg) in a tank  (TYPTX = 10—see Table D-3).  No quantity
of this waste is disposed of (QTYDIS and TYPDIS, respectively).  The data
source for the RCRA waste code, its fraction of the total TSDF waste quan-
tity, and its management processes may have come from EPA's HWDMS (SOURCE
= 2, 3, or 4).  Another source of  such data may include the Westat Survey
(SOURCE = 1).  OSW's 1986 Screener (SOURCE - 5 or 6) provided the total
waste quantity managed in 1985--from which the waste code quantity was
derived — along with verification of waste management processes active in
1985.  The facility operating status code (ELIGSTAT) indicates the TSDF is
an active TSDF,  ELIGSTAT = 7 (former TSDF, ELIGSTAT = 1; or closing TSDF,
ELIGSTAT = 3).  Latitude (LATT) of the site is 31 degrees, 15 minutes, and
no seconds, and the longitude (LONG)  is 8 degrees,  75 minutes, and no
seconds.
     The Industry Profile contains the following waste management proc-
esses found under variables TYPSTR (storage), TYPTX (treatment), and
TYPDIS (disposal):
     •    Storage in a container  (SOI), tank (S02), wastepile (S03),
          or surface impoundment  (S04)
     •    Treatment in a tank (T01),  surface impoundment (T02), in-
          cinerator (T03),  or other process (T04)
     •    Disposal by injection well  (D79),  landfill (D80),  land ap-
          plication (D81),  or surface impoundment (D83).
A variety of management process combinations may occur at facilities, some
of which one would expect to find  in parallel or in series.   Where a series
representation in the Industry Profile is not appropriate, the SAM is
programmed to divide streams evenly between or among the listed processes.
All  potential process combinations found in the Industry Profile are listed
in Table D-3 with the assigned divisions.  The processes in column 2 become
the  parallel or series-parallel processes in column 3.  Note that T04
("other treatment")  is listed separately, but its emissions are calculated
on the basis of  T01  (treatment tanks)  operation.  T03 (incineration) and
D79  (injection well)  are listed,  but  the SAM only calculates their transfer
                                   D-13

-------
             TABLE  D-3.   INDUSTRY  PROFILE  REFERENCE KEY FOR WASTE
                      MANAGEMENT  PROCESS  COMBINATIONS3
Combination
number
Storage Processes
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lib
12b
13b
14b
15
16
17b
Process code
description0
(variable TYPSTR in Table D-l)
No storage
S02 only
SOI only
S04 only
SOS only
Other storage
SOI, S02
SOI, S04
SOI, S02, SOS
SOI, SOS
SOI, S02, S04
SOI, S04
SOI, SOS, S04
S04, sump
S02, other
SOS, S04
S02, SOS
S02, SOS, S04
Waste flow used
in modeling simulation

No Storage
•> S02
-> SOI
-> S04
+ SOS
-> SOI
-> SOI -> S02
•> SOI -»• S04
r+ SOI + S02
^U SOS
•»• SOI -> SOS
•> SOI -> S02 -»
*r S01
U S04
!-»• SOI •»• S04
U SOS
•> S04
* S02 -> SOI
.r S03
U S04
.r S02
U sos
r» S02
*h sos
U S04











S04







See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                    D-14

-------
TABLE D-3 (continued)
Combination
number
Storage Processes (con.)
18
igb
20
Treatment Processes (vari
0
1
2
3
4
5
6b
7b
8
gb
10
lib
12
13
See notes at end of table
Process code
description0

S02, S04
SOI, S02, S03, S04
SOI, S02
able TYPTX in Table D-l)
No treatment
T01 only
T02 only
T03 only
T04 only
T01, T02
T01, other
T01, other
T01, T03
T03, other
T01, T02, T03
T01, T03, other
T02, T03
T02, T04
.
Waste flow used
in modeling simulation

r-> S02
*U S04
r+ SOI + S02
+ k S03
U S04
r> SOI
U S02

No treatment
-> T01
-> T02
+ T03
+ T04
+ T01 + T02
t T01 - T04
+ T01 + T04
r+ T01
""U T03
r^ T03
^U T04
.-»• T01 -» T02
"U T03
•-> T01 -»• T04
U T03
r* T02
U T03
+ T02 * T04
(continued)
        D-15

-------
                             TABLE  D-3  (continued)
 Combination
   number
                           Process  code
                           description0
    Waste flow used
in modeling simulation
 Treatment Processes (con.)


     14b                   T01, T02, T03,  T04
     15


     16


     17


     18


     19
                          T01, T04


                          T03, T04


                          T01, T02,  T04


                          T01, T03,  T04


                          T02, T03,  T04
Disposal Processes (variable TYPDIS in Table  0-1)

     0                    No disposal
  .r> T01 •» T02 -> T04
   U T03

  «•  T01 •»• T04
      T03
      T04
    T01  -» T02 + T04
      T01  -> T03
      T04

      T02  -> T04
      T03
                                                             No  disposal
j. u/ y UN ly
2 080 only
3 083 only
4 081 only
5 Other
6 081, 083
7 080, 083
8b 079, 083
9b 079, 081
10 D80, 081
-»• u/y
-^ 080
-»• 083
-» 081
•» 080
*r D81
U 083
.r» 080
U D83
.r» 079
L* 083
r^ 079
^ 081
^r 080
U 081
See notes at end of table.
                                                                  (conti
                                     0-16

-------
                            TABLE D-3 (continued)
Combination               Process code                     Waste flow used
  number                  description0                 in modeling simulation

Disposal Processes (con.)

                                                             D79
    11                    D79, D80                       ^ D8Q


aThis table presents the various combinations of processes a waste code may
 pass through at a facility.  Column 3 depicts how waste code combinations are
 interpreted to simulate actual facility processing steps in the Source
 Assessment Model.  In many cases, it is unlikely that processes occur in
 series due to the physical form of the waste or the type of process; there-
 fore, many management trains are interpreted in the model as having one
 waste pass through processes in parallel.

^Sources currently are not found in the Industry Profile data base but could
 potentially occur.
cProcess code descriptions:^

 Storage                  Treatment                 Disposal

 SOI  Container           T01  Tank                 D79  Injection well
 S02  Tank                T02  Surface impoundment  D80  Landfill
 S03  Wastepile           T03  Incinerator          D81  Land treatment
 S04  Surface impoundment T04  Other                D83  Surface impoundment
                                    D-17

-------
 and  handling  emissions.  This  is because  a  separate  Agency  program is  under
 way  to  regulate  air emissions  from hazardous waste incineration  and  because
 there are  no  process  air emissions from injection wells.
     The  Industry  Profile also contains RCRA waste codes  as  defined  in
 Title 40,  Part 261, of the Code of Federal  Regulations  (CFR).7   The  data
 base contains over 450 waste codes and includes  "D,"  "F," "K,"  "P,"  and  "U"
 RCRA codes.   Hazardous waste codes are described in  more  detail  in Chapter
 3.0.
     D.2.1.3  Establishing the SAM Universe of TSDF.  The 1986 Screener
 surveyed over 5,000 potential  TSDF.  The  Screener identifies 2,221 "active"
 TSDF to be characterized in the SAM.  An  active  facility  treated,  stored,
 disposed of,  or  recycled waste during 1985  that  was  considered hazardous
 under Federal RCRA regulations.  Active facilities include TSDF  filing for
 closure if the facility managed some waste  in 1985.   The  Screener  desig-
 nates as  "inactive" those facilities that fall into  any of three other
 categories:
     •     Former TSDF that have ceased all  hazardous  waste management
           operations
     •     TSDF that are closing and did not manage waste  in  1985
     •     Facilities that do not treat,  store, dispose of, or recycle
           hazardous waste.
     Active Screener TSDF that are not currently addressed in the  SAM were
 excluded.  Excluded TSDF represent:
     •    TSDF that manage polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCB)--a waste
          that is  currently not RCRA hazardous
     •    TSDF whose waste is hazardous under State  RCRA  regulations
          but not  under Federal RCRA rules
     •    TSDF that treat waste in units exempt  from  RCRA or store it
          under the 90-day rule (40 CFR 262.34(a))8  and,  therefore,  do
          not require RCRA permits
TSDF whose total  waste amount managed (including storage, treatment, and
disposal)  is less than 0.01 Mg/yr (about 340 TSDF)  were considered small
potential  emitters and were also excluded from the SAM to improve  data base
manageability.  A total  of about 340 TSDF were excluded due  to either
                                   D-18

-------
0.01-Mg/yr cutoff or because they only managed State-designated hazardous
waste.  Another nine active TSDF were excluded from the Industry Profile
because all available data are classified as Confidential Business
Information (CBI).  The impact on nationwide waste volume from these nine
TSDF is considered small due to their low volumes (less than 0.5 percent of
the waste volume managed nationwide).
     In addition to currently active TSDF, former or closing TSDF that had
land disposal  operations were also profiled.  This is because of the poten-
tial source for air emissions from TSDF closed with waste left in place.
The Westat Survey, HWDMS, and 1986 Screener identified 115 TSDF with former
or closing land disposal operations.  Therefore, the total universe for the
SAM was set at 2,336 TSDF (2,221 active TSDF plus 115 closing or former
TSDF).
     D.2.1.4  Data Sources.  The Industry Profile represents a composite of
waste-stream-specific information collected from the 1986 Screener, the
Westat Survey, and HWDMS.  This section describes each of these sources.
Waste stream data for each facility were derived from these sources as
shown in Table D-4.
   TABLE D-4.   INDUSTRY PROFILE DATA BASE:  DISTRIBUTION OF FACILITIES
                           AMONG DATA SOURCES3




Data source
Westat Survey
HWDMS
1986 Screener
Total



Number of
active TSDF
438
1,361
422
2,221
Number of
closed or
former TSDF
with land
+ disposal units
27
85
3
115




Total TSDF
465
1,446
425
2,336
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility
HWDMS = Hazardous Waste Data Management System.
aThis table shows the number of facilities for which each Industry Profile
 data source provides waste stream information.
                                   D-19

-------
     The 1986 Screener was used to identify the universe of regulated  TSDF
and their waste quantities managed annually.  The Screener data base con-
tains the most current data on TSDF operations—data from the year  1985.
However, specific waste codes and the processes by which they are managed
at each facility are not contained in the data base.  Therefore, two other
sources of waste code data were used.  The Westat Survey was the preferred
data source for assigning RCRA waste codes and management processes and
distributing waste quantities by process.  But due to the Westat Survey's
limited sample of 831 TSDF, it was necessary to access the HWDMS RCRA  Part
A permit application data.  The 1986 Screener was also used to verify  man-
agement processes in operation and describe a TSDF's waste streams  and
management processes if the Westat Survey or the HWDMS data did not contain
the information needed.
     The Westat Survey and the HWDMS were used as initial inputs to assign-
ing an SIC code to each facility.  Section D.2.1.4.4 outlines additional
sources used to determine a facility's principal business activity.
     D.2.1.4.1  1986 Screener data.  The goals of using the 1986 Screener
data were threefold:  (1) to identify which TSDF should be included in the
SAM, (2) to profile 422 active TSDF identified by the Screener but  not
included in the HWDMS or the Westat Survey, and (3) to update the total
waste quantity by TSDF to reflect 1985 data.
     As a first goal, the Screener data on TSDF operating status were  com-
pared to the Industry Profile list of active and closed facilities.  Any
inconsistencies in the profile were revised, using the 1986 Screener infor-
mation as the most current source of data.
     The second goal—to profile the additional Screener TSDF—entai led
adapting the Screener data to make them compatible with the HWDMS and  the
Westat Survey.  The 1986 Screener does not refer to individual RCRA waste
codes but rather to general waste types:  acidic corrosives,  metals, cya-
nides,  solvents,  dioxins, other halogenated organics, and other hazardous
waste.   Also,  management processes listed in the Screener differ slightly
from the processes cited in the HWDMS and the Westat Survey.   For instance,
the 1986 Screener does not list storage in tanks or containers, specifi-
cally.   Rather,  these are combined in a category listed as "other storage."
                                   D-20

-------
To adapt these Screener data, default waste categories were developed to
replace RCRA waste codes, and management process descriptions were con-
verted to RCRA process codes.  For example, the 1986 Screener waste type
"acidic corrosives" was assigned to a default RCRA waste code of D002 (cor-
rosive waste).  Cyanides were assigned to D003 (reactive waste).  (Section
D.2.2.10 describes the development of default waste compositions.)  For
waste management processes, most process code assignments were straight-
forward; however, some process descriptions were not.  For example,  the
Screener's wastewater treatment category was assigned the process code T01
(treatment in a tank) when not specified as exempt from RCRA regulation.
Other processes included solidification, which was assigned T04 (other
treatment), and "other storage," which was assigned a combination of SOI
and S02  (storage in a container or tank).
     After assigning management processes and RCRA waste codes to each
facility, the next step used to develop Screener waste streams was to as-
sign specific waste quantities to RCRA waste codes and management proces-
ses.  Question 3 of the Screener indicated the total amount of waste that
was treated, stored, or disposed of onsite in units regulated under RCRA at
each facility.  Quantity distributions were made based on information
obtained from the 1986 Screener, telephone inquiries conducted by the
Screener staff, and best engineering judgment.
     The third goal in using 1986 Screener data was to update waste quan-
tities (derived from the HWDMS or the Westat Survey) for the active TSDF.
Screener Question 2 was used to identify the total quantity of hazardous
waste that was treated, stored, or disposed of onsite in 1985 under Federal
RCRA regulations.  The 1985 total quantity of waste per facility was dis-
tributed among waste streams on a weight basis.  1985 distributions were
made proportionate to the TSDF's distribution of waste code quantities used
previously from either the HWDMS or the Westat Survey.  For example, if a
facility had a waste code quantity of 1,000 Mg and a total waste quantity
for the facility of 2,000 Mg, the distribution of waste code to total waste
quantity is 1,000/2,000 or 0.5.  If Screener data indicate that the facil-
ity has a 1985 total waste quantity of 3,000 Mg, the waste code quantity is
increased from 1,000 to 1,500 Mg to reflect its ratio to the facility's
total  waste quantity (0.5 multiplied by 3,000).
                                   D-21

-------
      D.2.1.4.2  Westat Survey.  Data were  accessed  from  Westat's  general
 questionnaire to  identify facility waste streams.   Question  12  asked for
 the total quantity of hazardous waste that the  facility  treated,  stored,  or
 disposed  of  onsite during 1981.  Question  17 asked  the facility to complete
 a table for  the 10 hazardous wastes handled in  largest volume  in  1981.  The
 table  requested that the waste be listed by EPA waste code and  include  a
 breakdown of waste by specific management  processes  (e.g., tank,  incinera-
 tor, wastepile) and by specific waste quantities for storage, treatment,
 and disposal.  The Westat Survey is preferred to HWDMS as a  data  source
 because data reflect actual annual throughputs  and  waste management  proc-
 esses  for TSDF.   However, the data base covered only 831 TSDF.  Of these,
 only 438  active and 27 closed TSDF were of interest.  Also,  data  represent
 activities in the year 1981 and may no longer be accurate.   Westat Survey
 data  have been reviewed to exclude hazardous wastes that are exempt  or
 excluded  from RCRA regulation.  The Westat Survey specifically  excludes
 waste  streams sent to publicly owned treatment works (POTW), waste from
 small  quantity generators, wastes that are stored in containers or tanks
 for less  than 90  days, wastewater treatment in tanks whose discharges are
 covered under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES) per-
 mits,  and wastes  that have been delisted by EPA even if the  delisting
 occurred  after 1981.9
     D.2.1.4.3  HWDMS.  HWDMS data,  retrieved in October of  1985,  consist
 largely of RCRA Part A permit application  information.  Existing  TSDF were
 required to complete Part A of the permit  application by November 19, 1980,
 in order to receive interim status to operate.  The Part A permit asks  the
 facility to list quantity of waste (by RCRA waste code) that will  be
 handled on an annual  basis and waste management processes that  will  be
 used.
     HWDMS data have several disadvantages compared to Westat Survey data.
 Unlike the Westat Survey data, Part A reflects estimated, not actual, waste
 throughput and processes.  Part A is a record of "intent to  manage"  waste.
 The HWDMS also does not break down the total amount of- waste managed into
 quantities that were treated,  stored,  or disposed of, and the year for
which data are provided is unknown.   A facility may have submitted an
                                   D-22

-------
amended Part A to reflect changes in waste types or quantities since  1980,
but the date of submission cannot be ascertained.  Finally, some waste
streams may reflect processes that are exempt or excluded under RCRA, such
as less than 90-day storage.  These streams cannot be identified.
     D.2.1.4.4  SIC codes development.  Each of the TSDF in the Industry
Profile was examined individually to determine a primary 4-digit SIC.  In
assigning SIC, the HWDMS and Westat Survey were used as initial points of
reference, but because of the number of nonexistent codes and the abundance
of only 2- or 3-digit SIC codes, each SIC was verified using all available
reference sources.
     Several steps were taken to assign an SIC code.  The Standard Indus-
trial Classification Manual10 was used to identify SIC codes for TSDF when
no code was provided in the data sources, and the facility's name, address,
waste codes, and waste amounts were examined for identifying information.
In many instances, this information was enough to assign an SIC.  For exam-
ple, a facility, Wood Preserving Company B, was assigned an SIC of 2491
(wood preserving industries).  A facility with waste codes of K048-K052
would be assigned an SIC relating to the petroleum refining industries.
Additional sources of informational•12,13 provided corporate or plant
descriptions.  Also, the various census reportsl4-18 were used to identify
the number of facilities in each State with a given SIC code.  For example,
in trying to establish an SIC for Oil Service Company C in Arizona, waste
codes were referenced first.  No "K"  waste codes were identified that
related the facility to petroleum refining.  Therefore,  the Census of Manu-
factures^ was consulted.  It indicated zero petroleum refineries in
Arizona.  Oil Service Company C was assigned the SIC of 5172 (petroleum
products not elsewhere classified).
D.2.2  TSDF Waste Characterization Data Base (WCDB)
     D.2.2.1  Background.  To support the development of air emission regu-
lations for hazardous waste TSDF, a data base of waste characteristics was
developed.  Wastes listed in this data base were characterized, primarily
using five existing data bases:  (1)  the Westat Survey,20 (2) the Industry
Studies Data Base (ISDB),21 (3) a data base of 40 CFR 261.32 hazardous
wastes from specific source$22 (i.e., waste codes beginning with the
                                   D-23

-------
letter K),  (4) the WET Model  Hazardous Waste Data Base,23-24 and  (5) a data
base created by the Illinois  EPA.25  An additional source of data, EPA
field reports on hazardous waste facilities, also was used.
     The Westat Survey data base contains the most extensive information on
the physical/chemical  form, quantity,  and management of waste; therefore,
it was selected to serve as the framework for the TSDF WCDB.  This data
base has been organized to present hazardous waste stream* information in
the following series of categories:
     •    Primary SIC code
     •    RCRA waste code
     •    General physical/chemical waste form.
For each SIC code, Westat contains a list of waste codes.  It then divides
each waste code into physical/chemical forms such as inorganic sludges,
organic  liquids, etc.   Westat also designates a waste quantity for each
physical/chemical form of a waste code.
     The remaining four data  bases and EPA field reports were used to pro-
vide chemical composition data in the form of two additional data cate-
gories in the WCDB:  "waste constitutents" and "percent composition of con-
stitutents."  Where information was not available for these two categories,
a list of constitutents and their percent compositions was created (i.e.,
default composition) based on information found in the four data bases,
field reports, RCRA waste listing background documents, and engineering
judgment.
     Table D-5 is an example  of a hazardous waste stream in the WCDB.  This
example states that, in the commercial hazardous waste management industry
(SIC code 4953), RCRA waste code U108 is managed as an organic liquid  (form
4XX).  Its composition is 90  percent 1,4-dioxane and 10 percent water.
     D.2.2.2  Application to  the Source Assessment Model (SAM).  The SAM
uses the WCDB to identify representative compositions for wastes managed at
each TSDF.   SAM uses these compositions to estimate organic emissions  based
on waste constituent concentrations and their volatility.  The procedure is
described in the following paragraphs.
      For discussion,  a hazardous waste stream is a unique combination of
SIC code, RCRA waste code,  and physical/chemical form.
                                   D-24

-------
              TABLE D-5.  WASTE CHARACTERIZATION DATA BASE:
                      EXAMPLE WASTE STREAM RECORD3
SIC code                                         4953
Form codeb                                       4XX
RCRA characteristic codec-d                      T
RCRA waste coded                                 U108
Waste constituent/% composition                  l,4-Dioxane/90%
                                                 Water/10%
SIC = Standard industrial  classification.
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
aThis table presents an example of the information found in the Waste
 Characterization Data Base for one waste stream managed in a given
 industry.
^Physical/chemical waste forms are coded as follows:
 1XX = Inorganic solid            4XX = Organic liquid
 2XX = Aqueous sludge             5XX = Organic sludge
 3XX = Aqueous liquid             6XX = Miscellaneous.
CRCRA characteristic code  reflects the hazard of the waste:
 T = Toxic
 C = Corrosive
 I = Ignitible
 R = Reactive.
dRCRA characteristic and waste codes listed in 40 CFR 261.33(f)-26
                                  D-25

-------
     The SAM initially reads the  Industry Profile  (described  in  Section
D.2.1) for each TSDF's primary SIC code, RCRA waste codes,  and the  annual
quantity of each code.  It then searches the WCDB  for this  SIC and  then  for
the TSDF's RCRA waste codes.  Because the physical and chemical  form  of  a
waste code may vary, the chemical composition and  emission  potential  will
also vary.  Therefore, for each waste code, the WCDB provides quantities
from the Westat Survey data base  by physical/chemical form  of the waste
code.  The quantitative distribution of physical/chemical forms  within a
waste code is then applied to the Industry Profile waste code's  quantity
for that TSDF.  For example, if the TSDF's profile has 150  Mg of D003 and
the WCDB shows that D003 has 1,200 Mg of organic liquid and 600  Mg  of
organic sludge forms present across that SIC (i.e., a two-to-one ratio by
form), the TSDF profile's 150 Mg  is distributed two-to-one  as 100 Mg  of
organic liquid and 50 Mg of organic sludge.  This  approach  allows the most
current waste quantity information to be used in a more detailed fashion,
using distribution data from a more rigorous data  source (Westat Survey).
     Once form distributions are established, the  SAM begins to  search for
chemical compositions to assess volatility and,  in turn, emission potential
of each waste code/form combination.  The search proceeds as depicted in
Figure D-2.  Six discrete sets of waste composition data are identified in
the figure:
          ISDB
     •    Field data
     •    Illinois EPA data base
     •    K Stream data base
          WET Model data base
     •    Data set consisting of default values.
The logic  shown in Figure D-2 ranks these data sets in the  order listed
above to reflect the relative certainty in data representativeness.   Thus,
if a'waste stream had more than one set of compositions to  choose from, the
SAM would  use the highest ranking data base composition.  The logic diagram
does not include the Westat Survey constituents because no  percent  composi-
tions  were available.
                                   D-26

-------
Is there a unique ISOB stream
with numerical percentages?
  Is there a corresponding
     field data stream?
  Is there a corresponding
    Illinois EPA stream?
  Is there a corresponding
   "K" data base stream?
  Is there a corresponding
  "WET" data base stream?
   Is there a default list of
       constituents?
    Print "Not available"
      in the final list.
_^    Print as the
       final list.
                                                       Go to next
                                                     waste stream.
               Figure D-2.  Logic flow chart for selection of final list
                              of waste constituents.
                                D-27

-------
     Sections D.2.2.4 through D.2.2.10 discuss each of the five existing

data bases, EPA's field data base, and the default values established.

     D.2.2.3  Limitations of the WCDB.  The limitations of this WCDB

coincide with those found in all contributing data bases.  Therefore, some

of the same weaknesses were shared:

     •    Compositional data were not available from the existing data
          bases on each SIC code/waste code/waste form combination
          (also referred to as a "waste stream").  Therefore, it was
          necessary to assign compositions (i.e., default composi-
          tions) to waste streams.  This reduces the certainty of
          actual waste compositions the SAM uses for SIC codes.

          The data base consisted of 1981 waste codes (the year the
          Westat Survey was conducted).  It did not reflect additions
          to 40 CFR 2612? since 1981 such as listing of dioxins.
          However, wastes delisted since 1981 have been eliminated
          from the WCDB.  Thus,  the SAM emission estimates reflect
          delisting of wastes but not the role of wastes listed since
          1981.

     •    Certain organic constituents are generic chemical classes,
          e.g., "amino alkane,"  and thus do not have specific physical
          and chemical properties.  Therefore,  volatility and biodeg-
          radation classes were  designated for these generics by
          referencing a common chemical considered representative of
          that generic chemical.  Therefore,  the presence of generic
          classes in the WCDB decreases the SAM's certainty of
          predicting appropriate emissions from that class.

     D.2.2.4  Westat Survey Data Base.  This survey data base compiles data

from a 1981 EPA survey of all hazardous waste generators and TSDF.  Use of

the data base for this project focused on TSDF only.

     The Westat Survey data base contains information on TSDF from approxi-

mately 230 SIC codes,  covering active and closed TSDF.  A subset of the

data base was used to develop the TSDF WCDB.   This subset represents only

the active facilities in the Westat data base (covering 182 SIC codes).

The active facilities constitute about 70 percent of the complete Westat

data base,  and closed facilities make up the remaining 30 percent.

     D.2.2.4.1  Use of the Westat data base.   As stated in Section D.2.2.1,

the Westat  data base provides the SAM (1) quantitative distributions of

physical/chemical  forms of waste codes, and (2) the framework for the SAM

to track  a  waste code to an appropriate chemical composition in the WCDB.
                                   D-28

-------
(Compositions are selected from the data bases described in Sections

D.2.2.5 through D.2.2.10.)

     The WCDB uses Westat waste stream information such as facility SIC

code, RCRA waste codes managed, and physical/chemical forms of waste codes

(i.e., waste streams).  This information is organized by SIC so that data

can be applied to any TSDF in the Industry Profile with that SIC code.

     The WCDB and the SAM use the following Westat data base categories:

     •    SIC code—Primary SIC code of the survey respondent.  If the
          respondent's primary SIC code was 2-digit, e.g., 2800, the
          more detailed, secondary SIC code listed by the respondent
          was used when available, e.g., 2812.  (For all remaining
          2-digit codes, more descriptive 4-digit codes were assigned
          to the WCDB based on knowledge of the TSDF's industrial
          operations.)

     •    RCRA waste code—Survey respondents were asked to list the
          10 largest waste streams (by RCRA waste code) managed at
          each TSDF.  Thus, for each SIC code, TSDF respondents with a
          matching SIC will have their top 10 waste codes listed.

     •    Physical/chemical waste form—Survey respondents were also
          asked to describe the physical/chemical character of each of
          the 10 waste streams.  Based on these descriptions,  the
          physical/chemical forms were classified as follows:

               1XX  Inorganic solid         4XX  Organic liquid
               2XX  Aqueous sludge          5XX  Organic sludge/solid
               3XX  Aqueous liquid          6XX  Miscellaneous

          Therefore, within a SIC's waste code, one will find as many
          as six forms of that waste code.

     •    Physical/chemical waste form quantity—The quantity of each
          physical/chemical form of a waste code managed within each
          SIC code.   (Note:  These form quantities are mutually exclu-
          sive of each other and may be added.)  If more than one TSDF
          reported the same form of waste code, their quantities were
          added to provide an indication of the volume of that stream
          managed by the TSDF population having a common SIC code.

     D.2.2.4.2  Westat Survey Data Base limitations.  Certain limitations

of the Westat Survey data base that may affect the SAM results are dis-

cussed below:
                                   D-29

-------
Several survey respondents identified wastes by using more
than one waste code.  The EPA entered these streams into the
Westat data base as X---codes.  For the WCDB, the X codes
were translated into their respective D, F, K, P, and U
waste codes, and the first code listed from the multiple
codes was used in the WCDB.  For example, if X002 is a com-
bination of F003 and F005, then F003 was used in the WCDB.
Not knowing which code best represented a waste increased
the uncertainty of waste compositions used in the SAM.

Individual waste streams were not always keyed to their most
descriptive SIC code.  The WCDB identifies waste streams by
the primary SIC code listed by a TSDF.  Consequently,  it is
possible that a waste stream will be identified by the
facility's primary SIC code when another SIC code is more
descriptive.  To correct this limitation, the most descrip-
tive SIC codes were chosen following an Industry Profile
review of facility SIC codes.

Invalid or missing codes were found in the Westat data base.
For example, the Westat data base may have no SIC codes
listed for some TSDF, invalid RCRA waste codes listed  such
as "DOOO,  9995, 9998, 9999,  Y—," and no physical/chemical
form of waste 1isted.

To examine those Westat Survey waste streams with invalid
waste forms and waste codes (9999, etc.), a list of such
codes was generated. Then, it was decided to remove some of
these streams from the WCDB and reassign real  waste codes to
the remaining streams based on an examination of waste con-
stituents and waste form.   The following summarizes steps
taken to resolve invalid waste codes and forms:
     For invalid waste codes:

          --Streams <18.9  Mg (5,000 gal)  were not included
            in the WCDB.

          --Streams <18.9  Mg but containing PCB were reas-
            signed.

          --Streams >18.9  Mg but containing no constituent
            information were not included.

          --Streams >18.9  Mg and having useful  constituent
            information were reassigned.

     For waste streams with  no physical/chemical  form
     listed:

          --Streams <18.9  Mg were not included in the  WCDB.
                         D-30

-------
                    --Streams having no constituents were not
                      included.
                    --Management method(s)  were reviewed for a clue as
                      to the liquid, sludge,  or solid state.  Then,
                      physical/chemical forms were assigned to such
                      streams.
     D.2.2.5  Industry Studies  Data Base.   The ISDB is a compilation of
data from EPA/OSW surveys of designated industries that are major hazardous
waste generators.  The ISDB version used addresses eight SIC codes:
          Industrial inorganic  chemicals -  alkalies and chlorine (SIC
          2812)
     •    Industrial inorganic  chemicals -  not elsewhere classified
          (SIC 2819)
     •    Plastics materials, synthetic resins, and nonvulcanizable
          elastomers (SIC 2821)
          Synthetic rubber (SIC 2822)
     •    Synthetic organic fibers, except  cellulosic (SIC 2824)
     •    Cyclic crudes, and cyclic intermediates, dyes, and organic
          pigments  (SIC 2865)
     •    Industrial organic chemicals, not elsewhere classified (SIC
          2869)
     •    Pesticides and agricultural chemicals,  not elsewhere classi-
          fied (SIC 2879).
Data on other SIC codes are being developed by the EPA/OSW and could be
added in the future.  Information in the ISDB was gathered from detailed
questionnaires completed by industry, engineering analyses, and a waste
sampling/analysis program.  The data base contains detailed information on
specific TSDF sites.  Because of the confidential nature of much of the
data, waste information was provided in a nonconfidential form to allow its
use; e.g., generic chemical constituent names such as "amino alkane" were
used where specific constituents were declared confidential.
     D.2.2.5.1  Use of the ISDB.  The WCDB  contains ISDB waste composition
data.  The WCDB  uses the ISDB SIC code, waste code, and its physical/chemi-
cal  waste form to track and identify waste  stream compositions.  It then
                                   D-31

-------
uses the waste form's  quantity in  the ISDB to normalize constituent concen-

trations across multiple occurrences  of the same waste stream.  The SAM uses

the ISDB composition data via the  WCDB for TSDF with th'ose SIC  codes listed

in the previous subsection.   The SAM  uses  the following ISDB waste composi-

tion data:

          Constituents—The  ISDB provides  chemical  constituents con-
          tained in an SIC code's  waste code/waste  form combination,
          i.e., a waste stream.  The  stream data have been compiled in
          a way that makes all  information nonconfidential.

     •    Normalized constituent concentrations—Weighted  average
          constituent  concentrations  were  calculated for each of the
          constituents to yield  a  normalized waste  stream  composition.
          Normalizing  sets all  total  constituent concentrations to 100
          percent.

     D.2.2.5.2  ISDB limitations.   The ISDB used in the WCDB provided

useful waste composition data not  only for direct use in the SAM but also

to fill  data gaps in the WCDB,  e.g.,  to create default compositions for  SIC

codes where waste compositions were not available.   However,  it is neces-

sary to identify some  limitations  of  the ISDB:

     •    The petroleum refining industry—one of the top  five  indus-
          try generators—was not  available for the ISDB version used.
          The EPA/OSW  surveyed this industry (SIC code 2911), but
          questionnaire responses  were not accessible from the  data
          base at the  time.   However,  some raw field data  were  pro-
          vided for the industry under the ISDB program.   This  is
          discussed in Section D.2.2.6.   For waste  streams with no
          field data,  K stream data and default compositions were
          used.

     •    The ISDB  used a larger number of more specific waste  forms
          than the  WCDB.  To  make the  data  more consistent  with  the
          WCDB, it  was necessary to condense the ISDB list of waste
          forms to  the six WCDB  forms  listed in Section D.2.2.4.1.
          This task was straightforward with most categories.

     •    The ISDB  contains  confidential  business information.   To use
          the ISDB  waste characterization,  its confidential  data had
          to be made nonconfidential  beforehand.  As a result,  the
          printout  frequently did  not  identify RCRA D,  K,  P,  and U
         waste codes.   For  example,  instead of printing "K054," ISDB
          used "KXXX."   It was  possible to determine that  DXXX  repre-
          sented D004  to D017 because  ISDB did list D001,  D002, and
         D003.   However,  the large number of K,  P,  and U  waste codes
                                   D-32

-------
          would not permit use of protected ISDB KXXX, PXXX, and UXXX
          compositional data as used for DXXX.  Thus, this  led to an
          increased use of default compositions by the SAM.

     •    The percent composition of waste stream constituents was
          sometimes listed as "unknown."  In these cases, their con-
          centrations were designated as zero because the other con-
          stituents with known concentrations typically added up to
          nearly 100 percent.  This was considered to have  a minimal
          impact on the SAM results.

     •    The number of participants in the ISDB program was small.
          However,  the ISDB was considered the most thorough and accu-
          rate of the five data base sources and therefore was used in
          many respects such as in the development of D code default
          compositions.

     •    The waste constituents were often nonspecific,  i.e.,  the
          ISDB listed constituents as generic chemicals such as "amino
          alkane."   In these cases, a common chemical considered
          representative of the generic chemical was chosen so that
          the SAM could assign volatility and biodegradation classes
          to the constituent.  Therefore, the presence of the generic
          chemical  classes in the WCDB decreases the SAM's certainty
          of predicting appropriate emissions from that class.

D.2.2.6  New Field Test Data.

     D.2.2.6.1  Data base description.  This data base is a collection of

waste composition data developed from the review of a hazardous waste TSDF

process sampling report^S and petroleum refining test data from the OSW

listing program.  It contains waste data from three industries:

     •    Petroleum refining (SIC 2911)

     •    Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing,  and coloring
          (SIC 3471)

     •    Aircraft  parts and auxiliary equipment, not elsewhere
          classified (SIC 3728).

This data base contains detailed information from specific TSDF
sites.29,30,31  jhe petroleum refining data were collected as part of the

Industry Studies survey;  however,  they were not accessible through the

ISDB.

     D.2.2.6.2  Use of the data base.  The WCDB contains this data file's

waste compositions.   It uses the file's SIC code, waste code, and waste
                                   D-33

-------
form to track and identify compositions.  The data file contains  the  n.ine
waste streams listed in Table D-6.
     D.2.2.6.3  Data base limitations.  The two sampling reports  and  the
petroleum refining test data used to create the field data base did not
always label waste stream information with RCRA waste codes.  Therefore, it
was necessary to assign waste codes and waste forms to stream compositions
based on the reports' descriptions of sampling points and waste composi-
tions.  This may limit the certainty that the SAM uses the most representa-
tive waste compositions for waste codes.
     The specific organic constituents for these nine streams were so
numerous and so small in concentration that it was decided to reduce  the
chemicals to the following categories:
     •    Total paraffins
     •    Total aromatic hydrocarbons
     •    Total halogenated hydrocarbons
     •    Total oxygenated hydrocarbons
     •    Total unidentified hydrocarbons (includes oil)
     •    Total nonmethane hydrocarbons.
Some of these categories were already present in the TSDF chemical uni-
verse.  Unidentified hydrocarbons proved to be the largest concentration
category among waste streams because of their oil  content.
     D.2.2.7  Illinois EPA Data Base.
     D.2.2.7.1  Data base description.  Before an Illinois TSDF can accept
RCRA wastes, they must obtain a permit from the Illinois EPA's Division of
Land/Noise Pollution Control.  For each waste, the applicant must detail
its generation activities and provide analysis of each waste.  The Illinois
EPA has compiled this permit information in a data base.  It contains waste
compositions for RCRA hazardous and special nonhazardous waste streams from
large quantity generators (>1,000 kg generated per month) in the  State of
Illinois and other States that ship wastes to Illinois TSDF for management.
The data base used contained 35,000 permits.
                                   D-34

-------
       TABLE D-6.   WASTE STREAMS BY INDUSTRY IN THE FIELD TEST DATA3
SIC code
3471
3728
2911
2911
2911
2911
2911
2911
2911
Industry
Electroplating
Aircraft Parts
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Refining
Waste code^
D002
D002
D002
D006
D007
K048
K049
K051
K052
Waste formc
3XXd
3XXd
3XXd
2XX
2XX
5XX
5XX
5XX
2XX
 SIC = Standard industrial  classification.
WCDB = Waste Characterization Data Base.

aThis table summarizes those waste streams  compiled in a data base of field
 test results.32,33  n reflects the industry tested and the waste code/form
 combinations tested and notes decisions  made on how to use the data as part
 of the WCDB.

bWaste codes listed in 40 CFR 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous
 Waste, Subpart C,  Characteristics of Hazardous Waste, and Subpart D,  Lists
 of Hazardous Wastes.34

cPhysical/chemical  waste forms are coded  as follows:

 1XX = Inorganic solid                          4XX = Organic liquid
 2XX = Aqueous sludge                            5XX = Organic sludge
 3XX = Aqueous liquid                            6XX = Miscellaneous.

dThe field data contained only a very small percentage of organic
 constituents;  therefore, these organics  were inserted into the existing
 WCDB compositions, normalizing the original organics to maintain the
 original  total organic percent composition.
                                   D-35

-------
     D.2.2.7.2  Use of  the  data  base.    The Illinois  EPA data used for this

program contained the following  information pertinent to the WCDB:

          Generator SIC code (most  of  the codes  on  file were assigned
          by the State)

     •    RCRA waste code(s)

     •    Physical  phase of waste

     •    Waste composition (states whether the  waste was organic or
          inorganic)

     •    Key waste stream  constituents  by name  and percent composi-
          tion.

     A total of about 4,000 SIC  code/waste code  combinations were evaluated

for incorporation into  the  WCDB.  These  4,000  records reflect over 250 SIC

codes.
     D.2.2.7.3  Data base limitations.   The Illinois  EPA data expanded the

volume and quality of information used  in the  WCDB.   However,  certain limi-

tations were noted when the data were  collected  and organized:

     •    Only those permits listing RCRA waste  codes were used in the
          WCDB.  (This  excluded  the special  nonhazardous wastes and
          hazardous waste permits with  incomplete or  no RCRA waste
          codes.)  This ensures  that only the  most  accurate waste data
          are used.

     •    Only Illinois waste permits  listing  just  one RCRA code were
          incorporated  into the  WCDB.   A large number of Illinois EPA
          permits contained more than  one RCRA waste  code.  This deci-
          sion decreased the usage  of  the Illinois  EPA data, but those
          data used were considered higher in  quality.

     •    Only those permits for which  SIC codes could be identified
          were incorporated into the WCDB,  for without SIC codes a
          waste composition cannot  be  properly assigned to its  most
          appropriate generating  industry.   Most of the SIC codes
          found in the  Illinois  EPA data base  were  assigned by  the
          State,  not the waste permit  applicant. All remaining
          records that  were missing SIC  codes  were  identified.   A list
          of these records  was printed  by generator name.  Dun  and
          Bradstreet's  1986 Million Dollar Directory3^ was researched
          to identify as many generators by company name and SIC code
          as possible.   However,  it was  not possible  to identify all
          of the companies'  codes.   Only those permits for which SIC
          codes could be identified were incorporated into the WCDB.
                                   D-36

-------
     D.2.2.8  RCRA K Waste Code Data -Base.
     D.2.2.8.1  Use of the data base.  The original K waste code data base
developed  by Environ^? describes these codes in terms of waste stream
constituents,  constituent concentrations,  and other waste characteristics
such as  specific gravity and reactivity or ignitibility.  The data base was
derived  from a combination of RCRA listing background documents, industry
studies,  and open literature.  Thus, it generally provides a range of con-
centrations  for any given constituent in a waste stream.
     A representative concentration for each constituent in a waste stream
was needed to develop waste stream characteristics and calculate emissions.
Because  the Environ data base reported varying compositions from various
sources,  Radiants selected representative constituent concentrations from
the ranges provided in that data base.  The WCDB uses this file of repre-
sentative constituent concentrations for the SAM.  For example, a mean
would be used for a range of concentrations originating from one data
source.   However, if the waste data came from two or more sources, a more
elaborate procedure was necessary to determine representative constituent
information.  For waste data from two sources, Radian chose the highest
concentration of each constituent found in the two sources and then normal-
ized the waste composition to 1,000,000 parts.  This may have resulted in
above-average concentrations of constituents; however, the approach was
selected to ensure that at least a representative average concentration was
identified.   For waste with three or more data sources, a check was made
for outlying values, and the remaining data were averaged to obtain repre-
sentative constituent concentrations if no mean were provided.
     D.2.2.8.2  K Stream data base limitations.  Although this data base
contained compositional information on each RCRA K stream, it had two limi-
tations:
     •    Some stream compositions totaled less than 100 percent and
          were therefore incomplete.  In such cases, the WCDB con-
          sidered the unidentified components inorganic.
     •    Some waste constituents appeared as generic chemical
          constituents, e.g., "other chlorinated organics."  Volatil-
          ity and biodegradation classes were designated for those
          generic constituents by referencing a common chemical con-
          sidered representative of that generic constituent.
                                   D-37

-------
     D.2.2.9  WET Model Data Base.
     D.2.2.9.1  Data base description.  This data base contains 267 waste
streams.  Data collection for this data base concentrated on industry sec-
tors where the impact of the RCRA land disposal regulations may be most
significant.  Based on the preliminary regulatory impact analysis  (RIA) for
the land disposal regulations,39 those industry sectors potentially
impacted to the greatest degree and included in this data base are:
     •    Wood preserving (SIC 2491)
          Alkalies and chlorine (SIC 2812)
     •    Inorganic pigments (SIC 2816)
          Synthetic organic fibers (SIC 2823, 2824)
     •    Gum and wood chemicals (SIC 2861)
          Organic chemicals (SIC 2865, 2869)
          Agricultural chemicals (SIC 2879)
          Explosives (SIC 2892)
          Petroleum (SIC 2911)
          Iron and steel (SIC 331, 332)
     •    Secondary nonferrous metals (SIC 3341)
     •    Copper drawing and rolling (SIC 3351)
          Plating and polishing (SIC 3471, 3479).
     The WET Model study investigated the appropriate level of control for
various hazardous wastes by characterizing a manageable number of waste
streams, a process requiring a considerable amount of approximation and
simplification.   This process achieved two major objectives.
     The approach to waste characterization was to develop a series of
comprehensive profiles for each hazardous waste stream using available
data.   In many cases,  these profiles were developed from partial informa-
tion using processes of approximation and extrapolation.
     D.2.2.9.2  Use of the data base.  The WCDB uses the following WET
data:
                                   D-38

-------
          SIC code

          RCRA waste code

     •    Phase description, i.e., composition in terms of oil, non-
          aqueous liquids, water, and solids content

     •    Constituent concentrations.

     D.2.2.9.3  WET data base limitations.  The quality of the available

data varied greatly and, in general, was not as adequate for the WCDB as

other data bases for several reasons.  Among the reasons are the following:

     •    Nontoxic hazardous wastes are excluded from the data base
          because the model is capable of assessing only the toxicity
          hazard.  Therefore, waste compositions exclude nontoxic,
          volatile organics.

     •    Waste compositions may total less than 100 percent because
          the data might have been incomplete for particular waste
          streams due to lack of available source material,  either in
          absolute terms or in the time frame of this project.  Thus,
          missing waste constituents were considered inorganic.

     •    Data availability also might have been limited for particu-
          lar industries where there were few generators,  e.g., in  the
          pesticide industry.

          The data might have been imprecise in the recording of
          specific information,  e.g., the reporting of total chromium
          with no quantitative information on the concentration of
          hexavalent chromium,  which is by far the more toxic agent.40

     Because of the variability in the data quality for constituent con-

centration,  this data base was considered of lesser quality  than others

and, therefore,  used less.

     D.2.2.10  WCDB Haste Composition Defaults.  As previously stated, the

ISDB, WET,  K stream,  Illinois EPA, and field data bases were used primarily

to provide waste stream constituents and their percent of the stream's

composition.  Although these data bases were extensive, they did not

address each and every SIC code/waste code/form combination  found in the

Westat Survey data base.  Therefore, default waste compositions were

developed to fill these data gaps.  This section explains how these default

compositions were developed.
                                   D-39

-------
     The existing ISDB D code compositions were used  to  develop  default
compositions for each combination of DOOl/waste form,  D002/waste form,
DQ03/waste form, and DXXX  (i.e., D004-D017)/waste  form.   For  example,  if
the  ISDB had compositions  of D001/4XX from four SIC codes,  the  four sets  of
compositions were composited to create one D001/4XX default composition.
Each time the SAM finds a  TSDF managing D001/4XX whose SIC  code  does  not
contain the waste stream in the existing data sources, the  stream is
assigned the default composition.
     It was also necessary to develop default compositions  for  F code/waste
form combinations not in the existing data bases.   The  distribution  of
constituents for each of the following F streams was  derived  from a back-
ground document41 to the 40 CFR 261 regulations that  provides consumption
data on those chemicals found in RCRA waste codes  F001 to F005.
     For F001, halogenated degreasing solvents, the background document
states that trichloroethylene is the solvent used  most prevalently.42
Unlike F002 to F005, there is no summary of F001 consumption  by  specific
chemical solvent.  Therefore, trichloroethylene serves as the solvent each
time an F001 code appears  in the TSDF data base.
     The consumption data  in the background document  provided a  percentage
solvent distribution for waste codes F002 to F005, as shown in Table  D-7.
     Although a single waste code stream would not contain  all of the
chemicals listed, the distribution shown in Table  D-7 allows  one to address
all chemicals in a manageable way.
     Once the distribution of solvents among waste codes was  completed, it
was necessary to assign compositions by waste form, e.g.:
     Waste form _XX  Waste code F	%  Solvents 	   _% Solvent 1
                                                    	   _% Solvent 2
                                                    	   _% Solvent 3
                                                            % Solvent 4
For waste forms 1XX (inorganic solid) and 2XX (aqueous sludge), general
wastewater engineering principles^ were applied:
                                   D-40

-------
      TABLE D-7.   PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION FOR WASTE CODES F002 TO F005a
Solvent waste codes'3 and
respective chemicals
F002/Tet rach 1 oroethy 1 ene
Methyl ene chloride
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Dichlorobenzene
Tri ch 1 orof 1 uoromethane
F003/Xylene
Methanol
Acetone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Ethyl acetate
Ethanol
Ethyl ether
Butanol
Cyclohexanone
F004/Cresols
Nitrobenzene
F005/Toluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Carbon disulfide
Isobutanol
Pyridine
Quantity of chemical
consumed as solvent annually
(ca 1980),
103 Mg/yr
255.8
213.2
188.2
181.4
77.1
24.04
11.8
9.072
489.9
317.5
86.2
78.0
69.9
54.43
54.43
45.36
9.072
11.8
9.072
317.5
202.3
77.1
18.6
0.907
Percent
consumption
26.6
22.2
19.6
18.9
8.0
2.5
1.2
0.9
40.7
26.3
7.2
6.5
5.8
4.5
4.5
3.8
0.8
56.5
43.5
51.5
32.8
12.5
3.0
0.2
aThis table presents the annual  usage of solvents in 1980.43  The percent
 usage of each solvent with a waste code is estimated based on the 1980 data.
       codes listed in 40 CFR 261.31,  Hazardous wastes from non-specific
 sources. 44
                                    D-41

-------
          Raw domestic wastewater is 0.07 percent solids.
     •    Digested domestic sludge is 10 percent solids.
          Vacuum-filtered sludge is 20 to 30 percent solids.
These principles were used, along with data from a RCRA  land disposal
restrictions background document,46 which show that as much as 20 percent
of the F codes in aqueous liquid (3XX) form are solvents.  The same docu-
ment was used to determine waste compositions for waste  forms 4XX (organic
liquid) and 5XX (organic sludge/solid).  This document contains generic WET
Model streams and their compositions for each of the three waste forms.
     Table D-8 provides the default compositions developed for waste
streams F001 to F005.  In Table D-8, the waste stream constituent "water"
may potentially contain oil.
     Default compositions for all P and U code waste streams are designated
90-percent pure with 10 percent water when present in the natural physical/
chemical form of the P and U chemical.  A 90-percent purity is assumed
given the nature of the regulatory listing,  i.e.,  any commercial chemical
product, manufacturing chemical intermediate,  off-specification product, or
intermediate (40 CFR 261.33).49  This manner of listing  implies how close
to purity the waste chemical is.50
     D.2.2.11  Organic Concentration Limits.  During the development of the
WCDB, it was found that respondents to the Westat Survey often listed RCRA
waste codes as aqueous liquids and sludges when the codes themselves were
described in 40 CFR 261 as organic by nature,  e.g.,  F001--spent halogenated
solvents and organic K, P, and U waste codes.   These occurrences of aqueous
listings indicated that the concentrated organic compositions commonly
found in the WCDB were not representative of the waste code in a dilute
aqueous form and could cause an overestimation of emissions.  Also, in
reviewing ISDB data for D waste codes, it was noted that the organic con-
tent of aqueous liquids and sludges was related to the type of management
process (e.g.,  total  organic concentrations for wastewaters managed in
uncovered tanks and impoundments were typically lower than those managed in
enclosed units  such as underground injection wells).  These issues  led  to
the derivation  of organic concentration limits for those wastes described
above.   These limits  are presented in Table D-9.
                                   D-42

-------
  TABLE D-8.  DEFAULT STREAM COMPOSITIONS FOR WASTE CODES F001 TO F005a
Waste codeb
Waste formc
  Composition, % constituent
   F001
    1XX



    2XX



    3XX


    4XX


    5XX


    6XX
15.00% Trichloroethylene
60.00% Water
25.00% Solids

18.00% Trichloroethylene
72.00% Water
10.00% Sol-ids

20.00% Trichloroethylene
80.00% Water

60.00% Trichloroethylene
40.00% Water

20.00% Trichloroethylene
80.00% Solids

NA
   F002
    1XX
60.00% Water
25.00% Solids
 3.99% Tetrachloroethylene
 3.33% Methylene chloride
 2.94% Trichloroethylene
 2.84% Trichloroethane
 1.20% Chlorobenzene
 0.38% Trichlorotrifluoroethane
 0.18% Dichlorobenzene
 0.14% Trichlorofluoromethane
2XX
72.00%
10.00%
4.79%
4.00%
3.53%
3.40%
1.44%
0.45%
0.22%
0.16%
Water
Solids
Tetrachloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Trichlorotrif luoroethane
Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorof 1 uoromethane
See notes at end of table.
                                        (continued)
                                  D-43

-------
                          TABLE D-8 (continued)
Waste code^
Waste formc
  Composition, % constituent
    F002  (con.)
                         3XX
                         4XX
                         5XX
   F003
    6XX

    1XX
80.00% Water
 5.32% Tetrachloroethylene
 4.44% Methylene chloride
 3.92% Trichloroethylene
 3.78% Trichloroethane
 1.60% Chlorobenzene
 0.50% Trichlorotrifluoromethane
 0.24% Dichlorobenzene
 0.18% Trichlorofluoromethane

40.00% Water
16.00% Tetrachloroethylene
13.30% Methylene chloride
11.80% Trichloroethylene
11.30% Trichloroethane
 4.80% Chlorobenzene
 1.50% Trichlorotrifluoromethane
 0.72% Dichlorobenzene
 0.54% Trichlorofluoromethane

80.00% Solids
 5.32% Tetrachloroethylene
 4.44% Methylene chloride
 3.92% Trichloroethylene
 3.78% Trichloroethane
 1.60% Chlorobenzene
 0.50% Trichlorotrifluoromethane
 0.24% Dichlorobenzene
 0.18% Trichlorofluoromethane

NA

60.00% Water
25.00% Solids
 6.10% Xylene
 3.94% Methanol
 1.08% Acetone
 0.98% Methyl isobutyl ketone
 0.87% Ethyl acetate
 0.68% Ethyl benzene
 0.68% Ethyl ether
 0.57% Butanol
 0.12% Cyclohexanone
See notes at end of table.
                                        (continued)
                                  D-44

-------
                          TABLE D-8  (continued)
Waste codeb Waste formc
F003 (con.)
2XX 72
10
7
4
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
3XX 80
8
5
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
4XX 20
32
21
5
5
4
3
3
3
0
5XX 80
8
5
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
6XX NA
Composition, % consti
.00%
.00%
.33%
.73%
.30%
.17%
.04%
.81%
.81%
.68%
.14%
.00%
.14%
.26%
.44%
.30%
.16%
.90%
.90%
.76%
.16%
.00%
.60%
.04%
.76%
.20%
.64%
.60%
.60%
.04%
.64%
.00%
.14%
.26%
.44%
.30%
.16%
.90%
.90%
.76%
.16%
Water
Solids
Xylene
Methanol
Acetone
Methyl isobutyl
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether
Butanol
Cyclohexanone
Water
Xylene
Methanol
Acetone
Methyl isobutyl
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether
Butanol
Cyclohexanone
Water
Xylene
Methanol
Acetone
Methyl isobutyl
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether
Butanol
Cyclohexanone
Solids
Xylene
Methanol
Acetone
Methyl isobutyl
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether
Butanol
Cyclohexanone
tuent
ketone
ketone
ketone
ketone
See notes at end of table.
(continued)
                                  D-45

-------
                          TABLE D-8 (continued)
Waste codeb
Waste form0
  Composition, % constituent
   F004
    1XX
                         2XX
                         3XX
                         4XX
                         5XX
                         6XX
60.00% Water
25.00% Solids
 8.48% Cresols
 6.52% Nitrobenzene

72.00% Water
10.00% Solids
10.17% Cresols
 7.83% Nitrobenzene

80.00% Water
11.30% Cresols
 8.70% Nitrobenzene

20.00% Water
45.20% Cresols
34.80% Nitrobenzene

80.00% Solids
11.30% Cresols
 8.70% Nitrobenzene

NA
   F005
    1XX
                         2XX
                         3XX
60.00% Water
25.00% Solids
 7.72% Toluene
 4.88% Methyl ethyl ketone
 1.88% Carbon disulfide
 0.45% Isobutanol
 0.03% Pyridine

       Water
       Solids
       Toluene
       Methyl ethyl ketone
       Carbon disulfide
       Isobutanol
       Pyridine
                     72
                     10
                      9
                      5
                      2
                      0
   00%
   00%
   27%
   90%
   25%
   54%
                                           0.042
                     80.00% Water
                     10.30% Toluene
                      6.56% Methyl ethyl ketone
                      2.50% Carbon disulfide
                      0.60% Isobutanol
                      0.16% Pyridine
See notes at end of table.
                                        (continued)
                                  D-46

-------
                          TABLE D-8 (continued)
Waste codeb          Waste formc            Composition, % constituent
   F005 (con.)
                         4XX              20.00% Water
                                          41.20% Toluene
                                          26.20% Methyl ethyl ketone
                                          10.00% Carbon disulfide
                                           2.40% Isobutanol
                                           0.16% Pyridine

                         5XX              80.00% Solids
                                          10.30% Toluene
                                           6.56% Methyl ethyl ketone
                                           2.50% Carbon disulfide
                                           0.60% Isobutanol
                                           0.16% Pyridine

                         6XX              NA
NA = Not applicable.

aThis table presents default waste stream compositions derived from WET
 model waste stream data^7 for wastewaters containing solvents and for
 organic liquids containing solvents.  These defaults are used by the
 Source Assessment Model when Standard Industrial Classification code/
 waste code/waste form combinations are not found elsewhere in the Waste
 Characterizaton Data Base.
       codes listed in 40 CFR 261.31, Hazardous wastes from non-specific
 sources. 48

cPhysical/chemical waste forms are coded as follows:

 1XX = Inorganic solid                    4XX = Organic liquid
 2XX = Aqueous sludge                     5XX = Organic sludge
 3XX = Aqueous liquid                     6XX = Miscellaneous.
                                  D-47

-------
             TABLE D-9.  CONCENTRATION LIMITS ASSUMED  IN SOURCE
      ASSESSMENT MODEL (SAM) FOR ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTEWATERS
                            AND AQUEOUS SLUDGES3
                                       Organic concentration  limit,
                                 Wastewaters                 Aqueous  sludges
Waste codeb
P 	 c
U 	 c
F001-F005
K 	 c . e
D001c.f
D002f
D003f
D004 and greater0. f
(waste form 3XX)
1%
1%
l%d
1%
5%
0.4%9
6%c
0.1%
(waste form 2XX)
1%
1%
l%c
1%
5%
0.4%c
6%9
0.1%
aThis table shows the maximum concentration the SAM assumes for organics
 when estimating emissions from wastewaters and aqueous sludges.  These
 assumptions are conditional as described in the footnotes below and in
 Section D.2.2.11.

bWaste codes listed in 40 CFR 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous
 Waste, Subpart C, Characteristics of Hazardous Waste, and Subpart D,.Lists
 of Hazardous Wastes.51

cSource:  Best engineering judgment based on review of waste code descrip-
 tions.  (Nonconfidential Industry Studies Data Base data are inadequate or
 do not exist.)

^Source:  Land disposal restrictions regulatory impact analysis.52

eConcentration limits  apply only to K waste codes that are organic by nature
 of their listing, e.g, organic still bottoms and organic liquids.  These
 limits do not apply to K waste codes that are listed as inorganic solids or
 aqueous sludges or liquids in 40 CFR 261.32.53

^Concentration limits  apply only to aqueous liquids and sludges of RCRA D
 waste codes managed in open units, i.e., storage, treatment, and disposal
 impoundments and open treatment tanks.

9Source:  EPA data analysis of nonconfidential Industry Studies Data Base
 data.
                                    D-48

-------
     Sections D.2.2.11.1 through D.2.2.11.4 discuss these limits on organic
content.
     D.2.2.11.1  F001 to F005 (spent solvent).  During the development of
the proposed land disposal restriction rules for solvents and dioxins,^4
EPA/OSW analyzed waste composition data from a number of sources including
the ISDB.  The results of this analysis showed a median solvent concentra-
tion in wastewater  (an aqueous liquid) of 0.05 percent and a mean of 0.3
percent.
     The 1981 Westat Survey55 identified greater than 99 percent of the
solvent waste treated in surface impoundments as a wastewater form of the
solvent.  The land disposal restriction Regulatory Impact Analysis did not
provide a typical waste composition of solvents in these wastewaters;
however, it did state that solvent constituent concentrations in F001 to
F005 wastes may be  "as little as one percent or less (if present at
all)."56  For these reasons,  a limit of 1 percent was set on solvents found
in wastewater.   The 1-percent limit was also assigned to aqueous sludges.
     D.2.2.11.2  Organic P, U, and K wastes.  It was also decided to assign
1-percent organic concentration limits to aqueous liquids and sludges of
organic P,  U, and K wastes because of the decisionmaking used for solvents
F001 to F005.  Given that these P, U, and concentrated organic K wastes are
just as concentrated as solvent wastes (based on their normal l.isting as
organic liquids or sludges),  their dilution to 1 percent or less in waste-
water or aqueous sludges should be comparable to the solvents in F001 to
F005.  Many of these organics also may be insoluble in water and are
decanted from the wastewater before it enters the open management unit.
Therefore,  a 1-percent organic concentration limit was assigned to these
waste codes when they occur as wastewaters or aqueous sludges.
     D.2.2.11.3  D001.  This  limit reflects the minimum concentration of an
ignitible organic in water that causes the water to exhibit an ignitible
characteristic.   Based on engineering judgment,  the organic concentration
limit designated for D001 is  5 percent.  For example, an ignitible organic
liquid (about 100 percent organic) has a heat value of about 30,000 J/g; an
aqueous liquid  containing 10  percent ignitible organic may have a heat
                                   D-49

-------
value of 3,000 J/g and thus still be burnable; however, an aqueous  liquid
with 1 percent ignitible organic will not be ignitible because the  heat
value is 300 J/g.  As another example, ignitible methanol can have  a
concentration in water between 2 and 10 percent and the water remains
ignitible.  Less than 1 percent would not be ignitible.  This range of 1 to
10 percent was used to arrive at an average minimum concentration of an
ignitible organic in wastewater that yields an ignitible aqueous liquid,
i.e., 5 percent.
     D.2.2.11.4  D002, D003, and D004 to D017 (DXXX).  Concentration limits
were established for these waste codes using the ISDB.  The  ISDB was
searched to identify D002, D003,  and D004 to D017 waste codes that  were
either aqueous liquids (wastewaters) or sludges and were managed in storage
surface impoundments, onsite wastewater impoundments, or onsite wastewater
tanks.  Each of these management devices was considered open to the atmos-
phere.  Once these .waste compositions were found, a weighted average was
taken for each waste code managed in these open units based  on quantity
managed for each waste code/waste form combination.  These weighted aver-
ages serve as organic concentration limits for the open waste management
units.
D.2.3  Chemical Properties
     D.2.3.1  Introduction.  Emission estimation on a., constituent basis for
each of the more than 4,000 TSDF waste constituents identified in the data
bases was not possible because of a lack of constituent-specific data and
because of the large number of chemicals involved.  Therefore, to provide
the emission models with relevant physical, chemical, and biological
properties that influence emissions and still maintain a workable and
efficient method of estimating emissions,  waste constituent  categorization
was required.  Waste constituent categorization allows the SAM to make
emission estimates for all constituents by making emission estimates for a
set of chemicals (surrogates)  that represent the universe of organic
chemicals that occur in hazardous waste streams.
     D.2.3.2  Haste Characteristics Affecting Emissions.  In the develop-
ment of air emission models for hazardous waste TSDF, the means by  which
organic compounds escape to the environment from TSDF was determined.  It
                                   D-50

-------
was found that the. fate of organic compounds in surface impoundments, land
treatment facilities, landfills, wastepiles, or wastewater treatment (WWT)
plant effluents can be affected by a variety of pathway mechanisms, includ-
ing volatilization, biological decomposition, adsorption,  photochemical
reaction, and hydrolysis.  The relative importance of these pathways for
TSDF waste management processes was evaluated based on theoretical  consid-
erations, data appearing in the literature, and engineering judgment.  The
predominant removal pathways for organic compounds at TSDF sites were found
to be volatilization and biodegradation.  For this reason, the emission
models used for TSDF in the air emission models report^? are all based on
volatilization and/or biodegradation as the principal pathways included  in
the models.  Volatilization occurs when molecules of a liquid or solid
substance escape to an adjacent gas phase.  Biodegradation takes place when
microbes break down organic compounds for metabolic processes.
     Several waste characteristics contribute to the potential for a waste
constituent -to be volatilized or released to the atmosphere.  Major factors
include the types and number of hazardous constituents present,  the concen-
trations of these constituents in the waste, and the chemical and physical
characteristics of the waste and its constituents.  In conjunction with  the
type of management unit, the physical and chemical properties of the waste
constituents will affect whether there will be pollutants  released and what
form the release will take (i.e., vapor, particulate, or particulate-
associated).  Important physical/chemical factors to consider when assess-
ing the volatilization of a waste constituent include:
     •    Water solubility.  The solubility in water indicates the maxi-
          mum concentration at which a constituent can dissolve in water
          at a given temperature.  This value can be used  to estimate the
          distribution of a constituent between the dissolved aqueous
          phase in the unit and the uhdissolved solid or immiscible
          liquid phase.   Considered in combination with the constituent's
          vapor pressure, solubility can provide a relative assessment of
          the potential  for volatilization of a constituent from an aque-
          ous environment.
     •    Vapor pressure.  This property is a measure of the pressure of
          vapor in equilibrium with a pure liquid.  It is  best used in a
          relative sense as a broad indicator of volatility; constituents
          with high vapor pressures are more likely to be  released than
          are those with low vapor pressures, depending on other factors
                                   D-51

-------
           such  as  relative solubility and concentration  (e.g.,  at  high
           concentrations, release can occur even though  a constituent's
           vapor pressure is relatively  low).

      e     Qctanol/water partition coefficient.  The octanol/water
           partition coefficient indicates the tendency of an organic
           constituent to absorb to organic components of soil or waste
           matrices.  Constituents with  high octanol/water partition coef-
           ficients tend to adsorb readily to organic carbon, rather than
           volatilize to the atmosphere.  This is particularly important
           in  landfills and land treatment units, where high organic car-
           bon content in soils or cover material can significantly reduce
           the release potential of volatile constituents.

      •     Partial  pressure.  A partial  pressure measures the pressure
           that  each component of a mixture of liquid or solid substances
           will  exert to enter the gaseous phase.  The rate of volatiliza-
           tion  of  an organic chemical when either dissolved in water or
           present  in a solid mixture is characterized by the partial
           pressure of that chemical.  In general, the greater the partial
           pressure, the greater the potential for release.  Partial
           pressure values are unique for any given chemical in any given
           mixture  and may be difficult  to obtain.

      •     Henry's  law constant.  Henry's law constant is the ratio of the
           vapor pressure of a constituent to its aqueous solubility (at
           equilibrium).  This constant  can be used to assess the relative
           ease  with which the compound may vaporize from the aqueous
           phase.   It is applicable for  low concentration (i.e.,  less than
           10 percent) wastes in aqueous solution and will be most useful
           when  the unit being assessed  is a surface impoundment or tank
           containing dilute wastewaters.  The potential for significant
           vaporization increases as the value for Henry's law constant
           increases.

      •     Raoult's law.  Raoult's law accurately predicts the behavior of
          most  concentrated mixtures of water and organic solvents (i.e.,
           solutions over 10 percent solute).  According to Raoult's law,
           the rate of volatilization of each chemical in a mixture is
          proportional to the product of its concentration in the mixture
           and its vapor pressure.  Therefore, Raoult's law can also be
           used  to characterize volatilization potential.

     The air emission models report provides the most up-to-date guidance

on assessing the volatilization of waste constituents and contains a com-

pilation of chemical/physical  properties for several hundred constituents.

     Through review of available literature relating to TSDF emission

modeling, it was judged that volatility, which is an index of emission

potential,  can best be characterized across the entire waste population by
                                   D-52

-------
either vapor pressure or Henry's law constant depending on the waste
matrix.  One case accounts for chemical compounds in situations in which
Henry's law governs mass transfer from the waste (i.e., low organic concen-
tration in aqueous solution), and the other case accounts for chemical
compounds in those situations in which mass transfer is governed by vapor
pressure (i.e., concentrated mixtures of organics).
     Three chemical and biological properties are therefore critical in
estimating TSDF emissions:  vapor pressure, Henry's law constant, and bio-
degradation rate.  These were selected as the basis for designating waste
constituent and surrogate categories.
     D.2.3.3  Haste and Surrogate Categorization.
     D.2.3.3.1  Haste properties—physical and chemical.  Efforts to
categorize the universe of chemical compounds found at hazardous waste
sites were based on information contained in the CHEMDAT3 data base.58 The
60 chemicals and their properties available from this data base, originally
used in predicting organic emissions, formed the basis for both waste con-
stituent categorization and surrogate properties selection.  Table D-10
provides the primary data for the 60 chemicals used in developing surrogate
categories and properties.
     D.2.3.3.1.1  Vapor pressure categories.  In 1985,  EPA published a
comprehensive catalog,,of physical and chemical properties of hazardous
waste in relation to potential air emissions of wastes from TSDF.  The
waste volatility categorization scheme presented in the document^ divided
vapor pressures into three useful categories:  high (>1.33 kilopascals
[kPa]), moderate (1.33 x 10'4 to 1.33 kPa), and low (<1.33 x 10'4 kPa).
Sensitivity analysis on the impact of vapor pressure on emissions pointed
out that organics that are gases at standard temperature and pressure
skewed the average emission rates for the high vapor pressure chemicals.
Emission estimates for high vapor pressure chemicals were dominated by the
gases;  an average figure would overestimate emissions for most high vapor
pressure chemicals because gases are relatively few in number among the
high category chemicals.  Therefore,  compounds with vapor pressures greater
than  101.06 kPa were segregated into their own "very high" category.
creating four categories of vapor pressure chemicals.  Vapor pressures for
                                   D-53

-------
                                            TABLE 0-10.
                                                         DATA USED FOR WASTE CONSTITUENT CATEGORIZATION AND SURROGATE PROPERTY

                                                                SELECTION IN THE SOURCE ASSESSMENT MODEL9. b
O
 I
cn
Compound name
Aceta 1 dehyde
Methyl ethyl ketone
To 1 uene
Aery Ion itri le
Py r i d i ne
Phenol
Butanol-1
Dichloroethane (1,2)
Forma 1 dehyde
Creso 1 (-m)
Cresol (-p)
Creso Is
Cresol (-0)
Methyl ene chloride
Isobuty 1 alcohol
Methyl acetate
Benzene
Benzyl chloride
Ethy 1 acetate
Cresy lie acid
See notes at end of table.
Vapor
pressure,
kPa
122
13.3
3.99
15.2
2.02
0.045
0.864
10.6
465
0.01
0.015
0.019
0.032
68.2
1.33
31.2
12.7
0.0093
11.3
0.04

Henry's law
constant,
'-3 3
10 kPa'm /g
mo 1
9.6
4.4
675
8.9
2.4
0.0459
0.9
6.4
6.8
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
322
0.2
NA
556
62.7
12.9
0.2

Surrogate
cateaoryc
Biorate,
mg VO/g/h
82.4
73.8
73.5
44.30
35.03
33.6
32.4
0.302
20.91
23.2
23.2
23.2
22.8
22.00
21.2
19.9
19.00
17.8
17.6
16.00

Biodegradabi 1 ity
category
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High

Vapor
pressure
10
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
10
4
4
4
4
1
4
1
1
4
1
4

Henry's
law
constant
4
4
1
4
4
7
7
3
4
7
7
7
7
1
7
1
1
4
4
7
(cont i nued)

-------
                                                                        TABLE D-10  (continued)
a
I
cn
en
Compound name
Acetone
Methano 1
Cyc 1 ohexanone
Dich lorobenzene (1,2) (-0)
Aero 1 e i n
Ni trobenzene
Maleic anhydride
Ch 1 orof orm
Ch lorobenzene
Ethyl ether
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Al lyl alcohol
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrach lor i de
Ch 1 oroprene
Cumene (i sopropy 1 benzene)
Dich lorobenzene (1,4) (-p)
Dimethyl nitrosamine
Dioxi n
Ep i ch 1 orohydr i n
Ethy | benzene
Vapor
pressure,
kPa
36.
IB,
0
0
32
0
1
27
1
69
0
3
48
1€
36
0
0
NA
NA
2
1
.4
.2
.64
.2
.5
.04
.33xl0-B
.7
.57
.1
.997
.098
.7
.03
.3
.612
.16


.26
.33
Henry's law
constant,
-3 3
10 kPa'm /g
mo 1
2.
0,
0
196
5
1
0
3
397
68
4
NA
1,212
3,030
NA
1,480
162
NA
NA
3
660
.6
,3
.4

.7
.3
.004
.42

.7
.4








.3

Surrogate
cateqoryc
Biorate,
mg VO/g/h
14
12
11
10
7
0
4
0
1
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.6
.00
.5
.00
.80
.302
.08
.302
.46
.77
.74










Biodegradabi 1 i ty
category
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
High
Vapor
pressure
2
1
4
4
2
6
8
3
2
3
6
2
2
3
3
6
5
NA
NA
3
4
Henry's
law
constant
6
7
7
1
6
6
8
3
2
6
6
8
2
3
NA
2
2
NA
NA
6
1
                         See notes at end of table.
                                                                                                                                           (cent i nued)

-------
                                                                        TABLE D-10  (continued)
cn
cn
Compound name
Ethyl ene oxide
Freons
Hexach 1 orobutad i ene
Naphtha lene
N i trosomorpho 1 i ne
Phosgene
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Proplyene oxide
Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2)
Tetrach 1 oroethy 1 ene
Vapor
pressure,
kPa
166
NA
0.02
0.0108
0.031
NA
185
0.0002
NA
•59.2
0.864
2.53
Trichloro (1,1,2) tr i f 1 uoroethane
Trichloroethane (1,1,1)
Trich loroethy lene
Tr i ch 1 orof 1 uoromethane
Vi ny 1 ch 1 or i de
Vinylidene chloride
Xylene (-0)
16.4
9.97
105.8
354
78.6
0.931
Henry's law
constant,
-3 3
10 l
-------
the 60 reference chemicals were obtained from or estimated using methods
commonly found in engineering and environmental science handbooks.61,62,63
     D.2.3.3.1.2  Henry's law categories.  The Henry's law constant  is a
measure of the diffusion of organics into air relative to diffusion  through
liquids.  Henry's law constants are generated using vapor pressure, molecu-
lar weight, and solubility.   Henry's law is used in predicting emissions
for aqueous systems.  An analysis to determine the effects of Henry's law
constant on the organic fraction emitted to air, using the TSDF air
emission models, was used in establishing Henry's law constant categories.
Results showed discernible patterns in the relationship between the organic
fraction emitted and Henry's law constant.  The fraction emitted begins to
drop sharply for low values  of Henry's law constant (<10~3 kPa m^/g mol) as
the mass transfer becomes affected by both gas and liquid phase control.
When Henry's law constant is greater than 10~1 kPa m^/g mol,  rapid vola-
tilization will generally occur.  A number of citations found in the
literature support the Henry's law constant volatilization categories
selected.64,65  Henry's law constants were grouped as follows:
       •  High       >10-1, kPa m3/g mol
       •  Moderate   10'1 to  10'3, kPa m3/g mol
       •  Low        <10~3, kPa m3/g mol.
     D.2.3.3.1.3  Biodegradation categories.   Quantitative biodegradation
values for the 60 chemicals  were grouped as follows:   high = >10 mg
organics/g of biomass/h, moderate = 1 to 10 mg organics/g/h,  and low =
<1 mg organics/g/h.   This classification follows the biorate designation
provided with the data base  on the 60 chemicals.66  in some cases, the
biodegradation rate  was inconsistent with values reported elsewhere for
measures such as 6005,  soil  half-life,  and ground-water degradation.  It is
understood that biodegradability is variable and depends on the matrix,  the
concentration of organics and microorganisms,  and temperature.  However, to
provide an "average" biorate that represents all TSDF management processes,
biodegradation rates provided for many of the 60 chemicals were compared to
other measures of biodegradation and adjusted if appropriate.
                                   D-57

-------
      D.2.3.3.2  Surrogate categories.   With  4 categories of vapor pressure,
 3 of Henry's law constant,  and 3  of biodegradation,  a chemical  could fall
 into one of 12 possible categories  of  vapor  pressure and biodegradation
 (4 x 3)  and into one  of 9 categories of Henry's  law constant and biodegra-
 dation.   These two  surrogate  groups (i.e., vapor pressure surrogates and
 Henry's  law surrogates)  represent two  volatility situations: where vapor
 pressure is the mass  transfer driving  force  in one  case and where Henry's
 law constant best represents  or governs mass  transfer in the other.   Table
 D-ll provides the definition  of surrogate categories.
      D.2.3.3.3  Surrogate properties—physical and  chemical. The chemical
 and biological  properties selected  to  represent  each  surrogate  are,  gen-
 erally,  averages for  groupings  of the  60 chemicals  categorized  by vapor
 pressure/biodegradation  and Henry's  law constant/biodegradation.   It should
 be noted that not all of  the  possible  categories  of  vapor pressure/bio-
 degradation and  Henry's  law constant/biodegradation were unique.   The low
 vapor pressure categories were  judged  to be relatively  equivalent;  there-
 fore,  the low vapor pressure/moderate  biorate (LVMB)  properties  were used
 for all  low vapor pressure compounds.   The low Henry's  law constant/low
 biorate  (LHLB)  category was judged  to  be very similar to the low Henry's
 law constant/moderate biorate  (LHMB) category.   The high vapor pressure/
 moderate biorate (HVMB) and the high vapor pressure/low  biorate  (HVLB)  were
 also found  to  be similar  in predicting  emissions.  Property  values  for  all
 surrogate categories are  therefore not  presented.  Tables  D-12 and  D-13
 summarize the  surrogate properties for  the vapor  pressure  and the  Henry's
 law  constant groupings,  respectively.67
      Emissions for waste management processes that are modeled using  vapor
 pressure draw their surrogate properties from vapor pressure and  biodegra-
 dation group averages.  Similarly,  processes  best modeled  by Henry's  law
 constant draw surrogate properties from the groupings of  Henry's  law  con-
 stant and biodegradation.  This is because the SAM,  as designed,  handles
only a single set of emission  factors for each waste management  unit; for
example,  only Henry's  law constant surrogates are used to  calculate  emis-
sions for surface impoundment  operations because emissions from  surface
impoundment wastes  are predominantly Henry's  law controlled  and because
                                   D-58

-------
  TABLE D-ll.   DEFINITION OF WASTE CONSTITUENT CATEGORIES (SURROGATES)
                 APPLIED IN THE SOURCE ASSESSMENT MODEL9
Surrogate
category
Vapor Pressure
Surrogates










Henry's Law
Constant Surrogates







1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Constituent properties
vpb
H
H
H
M
M
M
L
L
L
VH
VH
VH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HLCC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
H
H
H
M
M
M
L
L
L
Biod
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
NA = Not applicable.

aThis table describes the volatility and biodegradation properties of each
 waste constituent (surrogate)  category developed for use in the Source
 Assessment Model .
    = Vapor pressure categories:      ^Bio - Biodegradation rates:

  VH = Very high (>101.06 kPa) .          H = High (>10 mg VO/g biomass/h)
  H  = High (1.33-101.06 kPa) .           M = Moderate (1-10 mg VO/g
  M  = Moderate (1.33x10-4-1.33  kPa) .        biomass/h).
  L  - Low (<1. 33xlO-4 kPa) .             L = Low (<1 mg VO/g biomass/h).

CHLC  = Henry's law constants.

  H  = High (MO"1  kPa m3/g  mol).
  M  = Moderate (KH-IO-S kPa m3/g mol).
  L.  = Low (<10-3  kPa m3/g mol).
                                  D-59

-------
,1
cr>
o
                                              TABLE D-12.   PROPERTIES FOR VAPOR PRESSURE  AND  BIODEGRADATION GROUPINGS8
                                              AT 25 °C OF  WASTE CONSTITUENT CATEGORIES  (SURROGATES) SHOWN IN TABLE D-ll
Surrogate Vapor pressure at 25 °C
categoryb M.W. kPa (10-3)
HVHB (1) 73.6 27.4
HVMB (2) 72.6 24.2
HVLB (3) 117.0 34
MVHB (4) 111.0 0.346
MVMB (5) 132.0 0.266
MVLB (6) 186.0 0.386
LVMB (8) 98.0 1.33 x 10-5
VHVHB (10) 39.3 251
VHVLB (12) 80.7 270
M.W. = Molecular weight.
VO = Volatile organics.
HVHB = High vapor pressure, high biorate.
HVMB = High vapor pressure, moderate biorate.
HVLB = High vapor pressure, low biorate.
MVHB = Moderate vapor pressure, high biorate.
MVMB = Moderate vapor pressure, moderate biorate.
MVLB = Moderate vapor pressure, low biorate.
Diffusivity in water.
cm2/s (10~6)
10.6
10.7
9.63
9.02
7.50
7.32
11.1
14.6
11.8








Diffusivity in air,
cnfl/s (10~3)
98.9
134
89.9
76.8
64.3
66.9
96
101
107








Biorate,
mg VO/g/h
34.30
5.97
0.30
22.60
3.02
0.39
4.08
47.50
0.30








 MVLB = Moderate vapor pressure, low biorate.
 LVMB = Low vapor pressure, moderate biorate.
VHVHB = Very high vapor pressure, high biorate.
VHVLB = Very high vapor pressure, low biorate.

Properties presented in this table are average
                    Properties presented in this table are averages for compounds found within  a  given  category.
                     development of  this table can be found in a memorandum to the docket. ^8
A detailed discussion on the
                         all  of  the 12 possible categories were unique.   The low vapor pressure categories  (LVHB,  LVMB,  and  LVLB)  were judged to
                     be relatively  equivalent.   Therefore, the LVMB group properties were used  for  all  low  vapor pressure compounds.   The
                     moderate and  low biorate categories for the very  high vapor pressure group were also shown to result in similar  emissions;
                     therefore,  the VHVLB group properties were used for both categories.

-------
                    TABLE D-13.  PROPERTIES FOR HENRY'S LAW CONSTANT AND BIODEGRADATION GROUPINGS OF WASTE CONSTITUENT
                                               CATEGORIES (SURROGATES) SHOWN IN TABLE D-ll"
Surrogate
category
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMB
LHHB
MHHB
HHHB
0 X =
cr, VO =
(6)
(3)
(8)
(5)
(2)
(7)
(4)
(1)
M.
112
144
78
57
117
97
69
98
Diff. water, Diff. air,
W. cm2/s (10-6) cm2/s (10~3)
.0
.0
.4
.0
.0
.3
.9
.4
Mole fraction of vo
Volatile organics.
8.60
9.39
11.3
11.8
8.24
9.64
11.6
9.40
lati le
76.4
87.6
180
115
74
82.7
95.6
87.3
organic compounds (VOC) .
Biorate,
mg VO/g/h
0.39
0.302
3.55
11.2
2.71
23.2
40.1
29.2

XVQC
(10-3)
3.27
2. 54
4.66
6.40
3.13
3.76
5.23
3.72

Temperature adjustment equation'*
H =
H =
H =
H =
H =
H =
H =
H =

e[(-4879.12/T) -
e[(-2275.36/T) •
e[(-11562.27/T)
e[(-4090.16/T) -
e[(-5462.87/T) •
e[(-11562.27/T)
e[(-3256.36/T) -
e[(-3180.14/T) -

* 17.1726]/1*10S
f 15.6418]/1*105
+ 23.14]
f 1B.13143]/1*10B
* 23.10247]/1*105
+ 23.14]
t 12.84471]/1*106
.• 16.9E871]/1*105

H-law const.
298 K<= (10~6)
22.2
30,000
0.158
40.8
1,180
0.158
0.68
5,380

Diff. =  Diffusivity.
M.W.  =  Molecular weight.
MHLB  =  Moderate Henry's law constant, low biorate.
HHLB  =  High Henry's law constant, low biorate.
LHMB  =  Low Henry's law constant, moderate biorate.
MHMB  =  Moderate Henry's law constant, moderate biorate.
HHMB  =  High Henry's law constant, moderate biorate.
LHHB  =  Low Henry's law constant, high biorate.
MHHB  =  Moderate Henry's law constant, high biorate.
HHHB  =  High Henry's law constant, high biorate.

Note:  (1)  The low Henry's law constant—low biorate category is not provided because it was judged to be very similar to the LHMB category
            in predicting emissions.
       (2)  The weight fraction of the surrogate (g surrogate/g waste), Wi/W, was assumed to be 2.00 x 10~2 for 8||  surrogate categories.

BThis table presents average properties for compounds found in a given surrogate category.  A detailed discussion on the development of this
 table can be found in a memorandum to the docket."9

b                       .3
 Henry's  law constant units are Kpa * m /g mo I.   The equation predicts Henry's law constant for a range of temperatures for each
 category.
 Henry's law constants at 25  C (298 K) are those used in emission models; see Appendix C.

-------
dilute aqueous wastes are typically stored there.   In the case of  Henry's
law constants, surrogate values were not based on group averages.   For the
surrogate's Henry's law constant, a single constituent was selected  to
represent the surrogate group; all other surrogate  properties are  averages
of the group of constituents that fall into the particular surrogate cate-
gory.  This approach was selected in order to generate the temperature-
dependent Henry's law constant equations needed for each surrogate
category.
     D.2.3.4  Assigning Surrogates.  The TSDF Waste Characterization Data
Base (see Section D.2.2) data sources often provided only generic descrip-
tions of waste constituents, e.g., "amino alkane."  Therefore, the first
requirement in assigning a surrogate to the more than 4,000 constituent
chemicals found in the WCDB was the assignment of specific common chemicals
to represent the generic compounds.  Next,  all specific chemicals were
assigned physical, chemical, and biodegradation values.  Vapor pressures
and Henry's law constants were estimated for 25 °C, if possible.  Vapor
pressure values were not available for a large fraction of the chemicals.
Vapor pressure assignments were completed by relating molecular structure
and molecular weight to similar chemicals with known vapor pressures.
Specific solubility values,  used to estimate Henry's law constants, were
assigned as follows when qualitative descriptions were found in the  litera-
ture:70.71 insoluble--2 mg/L, practically insoluble--10 mg/L, slightly
soluble--100 mg/L, soluble--2,000 mg/L,  very soluble--10,000 mg/L, and
miscible--100,000 mg/L.  If no information  was found in the references,
solubility values were estimated based on molecular structure.  The molecu-
lar weight of chemicals was readily available or determinable, although
there was some judgment required in assigning molecular weight for poly-
mers.   Biodegradation assignments were based on quantitative measures,
although largely unavailable, or on a comparison of molecular structure
with chemicals well  characterized by biodegradation.72  The approximate
breakdown of biodegradation information  is  shown in Table D-14.
     The biorate values used for predicting emissions were based on the
biodegradation rates for the "high" class of 60 chemicals.  The average
biodegradation for the high category is  approximately 30 mg VO/g biomass/h.
                                   D-62

-------
            TABLE D-14.  CLASSIFICATION OF BIODEGRADATION DATA3

Parameter
BOD5
Soil half-life

High
>1.0
<3 days
Classification
Moderate
1.0 to 0.25
3 days to 30 days

Low
<0.25
>30 days
BOD5 = 5-day biochemical oxygen demand.
aThis table provides classification of biodegradation data so that waste
 constituents may be categorized for the Source Assessment Model based on
 biodegradability.
A value of l/10th the average of the "high" biorates was applied for those
compounds judged to display "moderate" degradation, and a value equal to
l/100th of the average of the "high" biorates was applied for those com-
pounds judged to display "low" biodegradation.  The low and moderate bio-
degradation values  (1/100 and 1/10 of "high," respectively) were consistent
with group averages for the 60 chemicals.
     Once the complement of properties for all chemicals was completed,
then all  chemicals  were grouped into appropriate surrogate categories based
on their vapor pressure, Henry's law constant, and biodegradation values.
D.2.4  Emission Factors
     D.2.4.1  Introduction.  A major objective of the SAM was to develop
                   I
nationwide estimates of organic compound emissions to the atmosphere for
the range of organic chemicals found at hazardous waste sites.  Therefore,
for each  of the TSDF chemical surrogate categories selected to represent
the organic chemicals that occur in hazardous waste streams, the emission
models discussed in Appendix C and the air emission models report^ were
used to estimate organic losses to the atmosphere.  Emissions were esti-
mated for process losses and transfer and handling losses (i.e., spills,
loading losses,  and equipment leaks) for each type of TSDF management proc-
ess.   Loss of organics from the waste stream through biodegradation was
also estimated for  those management processes having associated biological
activity.
     An important point concerning the emission factors is that they are a
function  of chemical  surrogate properties,  air emission models, and TSDF
                                   D-63

-------
 model  unit  parameters.   For  each  chemical  constituent,  the  assigned surro-
 gate's  chemical,  physical, and  biological  properties  are  used  in  determin-
 ing  the fraction  of  incoming  organics that are  emitted  or biodegraded.
 Other  input parameters  to the emission models are  provided  by  the TSDF
 model  units discussed  in Appendix C.  Once a surrogate  is chosen,  the TSDF
 model  unit  selected, and the  emission model determined, values  for emission
 factors can be  estimated.
     D.2.4.2 Emissi-on  Models.  The emission factors  used for  estimating
 TSDF emissions  in this  document were calculated using the TSDF  air emission
 models  as presented  in  the March  1987 draft of  the  Hazardous Haste Treat-
 ment,  Storage,  and Disposal  Facilities:  Air Emission Models,  Draft Report.
 Since  that  time,  certain TSDF emission models have  been revised and a new,
 final  edition of  the air emission models report has been  released  (December
 1987).   The principal changes to the emission models  involved  refining the
 biodegradation  component of the models to  more  accurately reflect  biologi-
 cally  active systems handling low organic  concentration waste-  streams.
 With regard to  emission model outputs, the changes  from the March  draft to
 the  December final version affect, for the most part, only  aerated surface
 impoundments and  result in a  minor increase in  the  fraction emitted for the
 chemical surrogates  in  the high biodegradation  categories.  For the other
 air  emission models, such as  the land-treatment model, which were  also
 revised  to  incorporate  new biodegradation  rate  data, the  changes  did  not
 result  in appreciable differences in the emission estimates.
     These  models represent long-term steady-state  emissions for  land
 treatment,   first-year emissions for landfills,   and  emissions consistent
 with residence  times identified for the model  units in Appendix C  for
 wastepiles,   surface impoundments,  containers,  and tanks.  Inputs  to the
 models  are  those that are determined to best predict average,  long-term
 emission characteristics rather than short-term peak concentrations.  Long-
 term emissions  are judged to be more representative of actual TSDF emission
 patterns and best characterize those management process emissions  that are
potentially controlled.  Long-term emission estimates (i.e., annual  aver-
ages) are also  required for impacts analysis;  costs, cancer incidence, and
ozone effects all  are based on long-term emissions.  Short-term emissions
such as those resulting from application of waste to the  soil  surface in
                                   D-64

-------
land treatment, as opposed to postapplication emissions,  and therefore are
not included in the emission estimates.
     Input parameters differ for each  emission model and  include such
variables as unit size, throughput, and retention time, all of which were
selected to be as consistent and representative as possible across the
management processes.  A detailed breakdown of the model  unit input param-
eters by management process is presented  in Appendix C, Section C.2.
     D.2.4.3  Emission Factor Files.   To  determine TSDF emission factors
for use in the SAM, an emission estimate  was generated for each chemical
surrogate category for each management process.  Process  parameters and
surrogate properties used to estimate  emission factors are presented in
Table D-15.  Emission estimates generally were calculated on a mass-per-
unit-time basis (i.e., grams per second)  and scaled by the appropriate
operating times to get emissions in megagrams per year.   The emission
values then were divided by the annual organic input quantity for the
respective model unit in megagrams per year.  Multiple model units
(described in Appendix C) were developed  for each waste management process
to span the range of nationwide design characteristics and operating param-
eters (surface area, waste throughputs, detention time, etc.).  Because
these particular characteristics were  generally not available for site-
specific estimates, it was necessary to develop a "national average model
unit" to represent each waste management  process.  This was accomplished by
generating a set of weighting factors  for each TSDF waste management proc-
ess based on frequency distributions of quantity processed, unit size, or
unit area that were results of the Westat Survey.  Each set of weighting
factors (presented in Appendix C, Section C.2) approximates a national
distribution of the model units defined for a particular  TSDF waste
management process.  The emission factors for each model  unit, emissions
per megagram of throughput, were then multiplied by the appropriate
weighting factor,  and those products were summed to get the weighted
emission factor for each waste management process.
     A set of weighted emission factors was generated for all surrogate
classes  and all the SAM management processes.  In addition to emission
factors  for process-related emissions, emission factors were developed for
transfer and handling related emissions.  Also calculated were factors used
                                   D-65

-------
    TABLE D-15.  HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROCESS PARAMETERS AND WASTE
        CONSTITUENT PROPERTIES USED TO ESTIMATE EMISSION FACTORS  FOR
                          SOURCE ASSESSMENT MODEL3
 Waste management
      process
                        Physical/chemical
                           waste form
    Surrogate
      group
 Waste organic
 concentration
                        Organic liquid


                        Aqueous liquid


                        Aqueous liquid


                        Aqueous liquid


                        Aqueous liquid


                        Aqueous liquid


                        Aqueous liquid


                        Aqueous liquid


                        Aqueous liquid


                        Aqueous liquid



                        Organic liquid


                        Organic/aqueous
                        liquid (2 phase)

                        Organic/aqueous
                        liquid (2 phase)
Land treatment (D81)     Organic liquid
Covered tank storage
(S02)
Uncovered tank
storage (S02)
Storage impoundments
(S04)
Covered quiescent
treatment tanks (T01)
Uncovered quiescent
treatment tanks (T01)
Uncovered aerated
treatment tanks (T01)

Quiescent treatment
impoundments (T02)

Aerated treatment
impoundments (T02)

Disposal impoundments
(D83)
Terminal loading
impoundments and
tanks (L01)
Terminal loading
storage tanks (LOS)
Wastepiles (SOB)


Landfills (D80)
Vapor pressure


Henry's law


Henry's law


Henry's law


Henry's law


Henry's law


Henry's law


Henry's law


Henry's law


Henry's law



Vapor pressure


Vapor pressure


Vapor pressure


Vapor pressure
Pure component


1,000 ppm


1,000 ppm


1,000 ppm


1,000 ppm


1,000 ppm


1,000 ppm


1,000 ppm


1,000 ppm


1,000 ppm



Pure component


5%


5%
aThis table presents,  for those air emission models that require a waste
 concentration as input,  necessary information to estimate organic emission
 factors from hazardous waste management facilities used in the Source
 Assessment Model.   Additional information and data are presented in
 Appendix C,  Section C.2, which discusses model treatment, storage, and
 disposal facility  (TSDF) waste management units.
                                    D-66

-------
to predict biodegradation quantities; equations for biodegradation rate are
presented in Appendix C.  These TSDF emission factors were developed to
present emissions and biodegradation fractions for all waste types, waste
concentrations, and waste forms as well as management process combinations
and process unit sizes on a nationwide basis.  As such, these emission
factors were incorporated into the SAM program file that is used to gener-
ate the SAM nationwide emission estimates.  A listing of the TSDF emission
factor files is included in Table D-16.  A separate block of numbers is
presented for each management process with rows denoting surrogate category
and columns denoting:  (1) surrogates, (2) annual fraction of surrogate
emitted to air as a process emission, (3) annual fraction biodegraded,
(4) annual fraction emitted from handling and loading, (5) annual fraction
emitted from spills, and (6) upper limit annual loss from pipeline
transfer.
D.2.5  Control Technology and Cost File
     A file was developed for .the SAM that provides control device effi-
ciencies for each emission control alternative (see Chapter 4.0) that is
applicable to each waste management process.  Certain control options are
specific to waste form.  The control technology file provides control
efficiencies for organic removal, land treatment alternatives, and add-on
contro] alternatives among others.  The control file is a combined file
that includes control costs (see Appendixes H and I) as well as control
efficiencies.
     Tables D-17, D-18, and D-19 present the control cost file broken down
by emission source and control option.  A key is provided at the bottom of
the table that explains the columns and how they are used in the SAM.
     One important note is that the control cost profile requires that
controls and costs be developed for all physical/chemical waste forms even
though certain forms and management processes are incompatible or improb-
able (e.g.,  storage of a solid hazardous waste in a closed storage tank or
storage of an organic liquid waste in an open impoundment).  The SAM
dilutes incompatible waste forms, when necessary, but cannot redefine the
waste form.   Therefore, the cost/control  file was modified to estimate
emission reductions and costs for all waste forms.  The SAM will substitute
the control  costs for a similar waste form if there are no cost factors for
                                   D-67

-------
                                                                     TABLE D-16.  EMISSION FACTOR FILES* ••>
 I
CTl
oo
Weighted emission factors
for container and drum storage
(S01) using vapor pressure surrogates
Surrogate f(air) f(sp)
1 — 0.0001
2 — 0.0001
3 — 0.0001
4 — 0.0001
5 — 0.0001
6 — 0.0001
7 — 0.0001
8 — 0.0001
9 — 0.0001
10 — 0.0001
11 — 0.0001
12 — 0.0001
f (load)
0.0013
0.0011
0.0018
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0069
0.0140
0.0140
k(fug)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.6771
.6771
.6771
.6771
.2514
.2514
.2514
.2514
.2614
.6771
.6771
.6771
Weighted emission factors
for dumpster storage
(S01) using vapor pressure surrogates
f(air)
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.4786
0.4014
0.8269
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
1 . 0000
1.0000
1.0000
f(sp) f(load)
0.
0
9.
0.
0.
e,
0,
0.
0,
0
0,
0,
.0001
.0001 '
, 0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
Weighted emission factors
for covered tank storage
(S02) using vapor pressure surrogates
k(fug) f(air)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0
0
0
0012
0011
0017
0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
f(sp)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
f (load)c
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
k(fug)
0.6771
0.6771
0.6771
0.6771
0.2514
0.2514
0.2514
0.2514
0.2514
0.6771
0.6771
0.6771
          See  notes at end of table.
                                                                                                                                                        (continued)

-------
                                                                          TABLE D-16 (continued)
O
I
cn
Weighted emission factors for uncovered
tank storage (S02B)
usinq Henry's law constant surrogates
Surrogate f(apr)
1 0,
2 0,
3 0,
4 0,
6 0,
6 0,
7 0,
8 0,
9 0,
10
11
12
,6610
.6450
.1180
.5480
.5410
.1680
.5510
.6460
.1680


f(sp)
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000


f(load) k(fug)
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,


,6771
,6771
,6771
,2514
.2614
.2614
.2514
.2514
.2514


Weighted emission factors Weighted emission factors
for wastepiles for storage impoundments
(S031 using vapor pressure surrogates (S04) usinq Henry's law surrogates
f(air)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0125
.0116
.0176
.0020
.0020
.0020
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0276
.0276
0.0276
f(sp) f(load)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0
0
0
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
. 0000
. 0000
. 0000
k(fug) f(air)
0.7460
0.7390
0.0690
0.7330
0.7280
0.0930
0.7470
0.6630
0.0930
—
—
—
f(sp) f(load)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000



k(fug)
3.6240
3.8240
1.0285
3.6240
1.0285
3.6240
3.6240
1.0285
3.6240



         See notes at end of table.
                                                                                                                                                    (continued)

-------
                                                                TABLE 0-16 (continued)
Weighted emission factors for covered
quiescent treatment tanks (T01)
using Henry's law constant surrogates
Surrogate f (a i r)
1 0.0113
2 0 . 0002
3 0.0000
4 0 . 0022
6 0.0002
6 0 . 0000
7 0.0422
8 0.0001
9 0.0000
f(sp)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
f (load)c
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
k(fug)
0.6771
0.6771
0.2514
0.6771
0.2514
0.2514
0.6771
0.2514
0.2514
Weighted emission factors for uncovered
quiescent treatment tanks (T01)
using Henry's law constant surrogates
f(air)
0.1120
0 . 0990
0.0010
0.1060
0.0910
0.0030
0.1120
0.0640
0.0030
f(sp) f(load)
0
0,
<«•
0
0
0,
0.
0,
0
.0000
. 0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
k(fug)
0.6771
0.6771
0.2614
0.6771
0.2514
0.2614
0.6771
0.2514
0.2614
Weighted emission factors for uncovered
aerated treatment tanks (T01)
using Henry's law constant surrogates
f(air)
0.8780
0.1460
0.0005
0.7790
0.1810
0 . 0020
0.9550
0.0940
0.0020
f (bio)
0.0510
0.4200
0.3100
0.0110
0.0020
0.0550
0.0000
0.0060
0.0550
f(sp)
0.0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
f(load) k(fug)
0.6771
0.6771
0.2614
0.6771
0.2614
0.2514
0.6771
0.2614
0.2614
See notes at end of table.
(continued)

-------
                                                                            TABLE D-16  (continued)
O
 I
Weighted emission factors for quiescent
treatment impoundments (T02)
using Henry's law constant surrogates
Surrogate
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
f(air)
0.5180
0 . 5060
0.0170
0 . 5000
0.4910
0.0260
0.5190
0 . 4090
0.0260



f(sp) f(load)
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000



Mfua)
3.6240
3.6240
1.0280
3.6240
1.0280
1.0280
3.6240
1.0280
1.0280



Weighted emission factors for aerated
impoundments (T02) using Henry's
law constant surrogates
f(air)
0.7120
0.3290
0.0040
0.9780
0.8330
0.0480
0.9900
0.7470
0.0480



f (bio)
0.0630
0.7700
0.9160
0.0010
0 . 0060
0.3180
0 . 0000
0 . 0040
0.3180



f(sp) f(load)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
. 0000



k(fug)
3.6240
3.6240
1.0280
3.6240
1.0280
1.0280
3.6240
1.0280
1.0280
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
Weighted emission factors
for incineration
(T03) using vapor pressure surrogates
f(air) f (sp) f(load) k (f ug)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0
0
0
0
0.
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
. 0000
.0000
. 0000
.0000
.0000
. 0000
1.8430
1.8430
1.8430
1.8430
0.5140
0.5140
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
1.8430
1.8430
1.8430
            See notes at end of table.
                                                                                                                                                       (conti nued)

-------
                                                                            TABLE 0-16 (continued)
I
^1
ro
Weighted emissions factors
for injection wells
(D79) using vapor pressure surrogates
Surrogate
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
f(air) f(sp)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
f(load) k(fug)
1.8430
1.8430
1.8430
1.8430
0.6140
0.5140
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.8430
1.8430
1.8430
Weighted emission factors for onsite
active landf i 1 Is (D80)
using vapor pressure surrogates
f(air)
0.2230
0 . 2070
0.3110
0.0300
0.0300
0.0410
0 . 0002
0 . 0002
0.0002
0.4870
0.7000
0.7000
f(sp) f(load) k(fug)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Emission factors for onsite
closed landf i 1 Is (D80)
using vapor pressure surrogates
f(air)
0.0091
0.0087
0.0171
0.0002
0.0001
0.0003
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0436
0.0951
0.0951
f(sp) f(load) k(fug)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
           See notes at end of table.
                                                                                                                                                       (continued)

-------
                                                                            TABLE D-16  (continued)
o




CO
Weighted emission factors for commercial
active landf i 1 Is (080)
using vapor pressure surrogates
Surrogate
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
f(air)
0.1110
0.1030
0.1550
0.0160
0.0150
0.0210
0 . 0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.2420
0.3560
0.3560
f(sp) f(load) k(fug)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Weighted emission factors for closed
commercial landfills (080) using vapor
pressure surrogates
f(air)
0.0076
0.0070
0.0146
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0367
0.0798
0.0798
f(sp) f(load) k(fug)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000 :
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Weighted emission factors for land
treatment surface application (081)
usinq vapor pressure surrogates
f(air)
1.0000
1 . 0000
1 . 0000
0.2663
0.3943
0.8551
0.0020
0.0020
0 . 0020
1.0000
1.0000
1 . 0000
f(sp) f(load) k(fug)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
            See notes at end of table.
                                                                                                                                                       (cont i nued)

-------
                                                TABLE D-16  (continued)
Weighted emission factors
for land treatment
subsurface injection (081)
using vapor pressure surrogates
Surrogate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
f(air)
0.8480
0 . 9640
0 . 9960
0.1610
0.3310
0.8320
0.0020
0 . 0020
0 . 0020
0.9550
0 . 9990
0 . 9990
f(sp) f(load) k(fug)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Weighted emission factors for
disposal impoundments (D83)
using Henry's law surrogates
f(air)
1.0000
1.0000
0.4700
1.0000
1 . 0000
0.6300
1 . 0000
1.0000
0.6300



f(sp) f(load)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000



k(fug)
3.6240
3.6240
1.0280
3.6240
1.0280
1.0280
3.6240
1.0280
1.0280



We i ghted
emission factors
for terminal loading
of containers (L01)
f(sp) f(load)
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
k(fug)
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
See notes at end of table.
(continued)

-------
                                                         TABLE 0-16 (continued)
a
i
Weighted emission factors
for terminal loading from
impoundments and tanks
(L02) using Henry's law
surrogates
Surrogate f(sp) f(load)
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Note:
BSome
no b
they
0.0001 0.0013
0.0001 0.0000
0.0001 0.0000
0.0001 0.0011
0.0001 0.0000
0.0001 0.0000
0.0001 0.0018
0.0001 0.0000
0.0001 0.0000



k(fug)
0 . 0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0 . 0080




0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dash indicates emission factors not app 1
waste management processes,
i odegradat i on component, or b
are read in SAM as zeros.
such as S01
i odegradat i
''The f ( ) in the column headings represent
a constant emission rate or the upper limit
i
on
Weighted emission factors
for terminal loading from
storage tanks (L03) using
vapor pressure surrogates
f(sp)
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
icabl
S02,
has
f (load)
0.0013
0.0013
0.0018
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0069
0.0140
0.0140
e .
and S03, lack a
been considered
k(fug)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


.0080
.0080
.0080
.0080
.0080
.0080
.0080
.0080
.0080
.0080
.0080
.0080

co 1 umn
i n the
fractions emitted or degraded
emission rate in Mg/yr due to
Weighted emission factors for
waste fixation using vapor
pressure surrogates"
f(air)
0.6800
0.6800
0.6800
0.6800
0.6800
0.6800
0.6800
0.6800
0.6800
0.6800
0.6800
0.6800


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

f(sp) f(load) k(fug)
.0000
.0000
.0000
. 0000
. 0000
. 0000
. 0000
. 0000
.0000
.0000
. 0000
.0000

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

for biodegradation fraction. They have
air emission factor determination, and
The k (f ) in the last column
fugitive emissions:
represents
f(air) = process emissions fraction
f (bio) = biodegradation fraction
f(sp) = spills fraction
k(f) = fugitives constant or limit.
           cLoading emissions  included  in f(air).

           ^Emission factors for waste  fixation are based on the information and data contained in a report prepared by Acurex
            Corp. for the U.S. EPA titled "Volatile Emissions from Stabilized Waste in Hazardous Waste Landfills," Project
            8186, Contract 68-02-3993,  January 23, 1987.

-------
                                                          TABLE D-17.   SUPPRESSION AND ADD-ON  CONTROL COST FILE USED BY THE SOURCE ASSESSMENT HODEL"-b
o

\J
CTl
TSDF
process
code
CD
SOI
SOI
SOI
SOI
sen
SOI
SOI
SOI
SOI
SOI
SOI
SOI
SOI
SOI
SOI
501
SOI
B01
SOI
501
SOI
SOI
SOI
S02
S02
502
SOS
so?
SOS
SOS
SOS
S02
502
502
TSDF
omission source
(2)
Druw Storage
Driiii) Storage
Drun Storage
DriiB Storage
Drum Storage
Drum Storage
Duwpster
Dumpster
Dunpster
Dumpster
Dunpster
Dumpster
Fugitives- Dru» Load
Fugitives- Drim Load
Fugitives- Dru» Load
Fugitives- Drun Lc
-------
TABLE D-17 (continued)
TSDF
(i)
SOS
S03
503
SOS
SOS
SOS
SOS
SOS
SOS
502
SOS
SOS
303
S03
503
S03
503
S03
504
504
504
SO*
S04
504
504
504
S04
S04
S04
504
504
504
504
TSDF
(2)
Tank Storage
Tank Storage
Tank Storage
Tank Storage
Tank Storage
Tank Storage
Tank Storage
Fugitives- Tank Load
Fugitives- Tank Load
Fugitives- Tank Load
Fugitives- Tank Load
Fugitives- Tank Load
Haste Pi le
Haste Pile
Haste Pile
Waste Pile
Waste Pile
Haste Pile
Stor I.pd Surface
Slor Impd Surface
Stor Iiopd Surface
Stor lupd Surface
Stor Inpd Surface
Stor lupd Surface
Stor Inpd Surface
Stor Inpd Surface
Stor I>pd Surface
Stor Inpd Surface
Stor liipd Surface
Stor Inpd Surface
Fugitives- Imp Load
Fugitives- lap Load
Fugitives- lnp Load

(3)
S-Phase Aq/Drg
Sub 2xx for In
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
S-Phase Aq/Drg
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilut Aq
S-Phase Aq/Org
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Sub 2xx for 3xx
Sub 7xx for 4xi
Sub 7lx for 5xx
S-Phase ftq/Org
VOC-cont Solid
Sub Six for Ixx
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute Aq
Sub Six for 4xx
Sub Sxx for Sxx
S-Phase Aq/Org
Sub Sxi for Ixi
Aq Sldg/Slurry
'Dilute Aq
Sub Sxx for 4xx
Sub SIN for 5ll
S-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilut Aq
2-Phase flq/Org
Vol.-
t i 1 ity
(*)
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
High
High
High
High
High
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
High
High
High
Con-
(6)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
s
2
i
2
2
3
3
3

(6)
Fixed Roof
Roof ,IFR,CAd5, Vent
Roof, IFR,CAds, Vent
Roof ,IFR,CAds, Vent
Roof, !FR,CAds, Vent
Roof, IFR.CAds, Vent
Roof, IFR, Cads, Vent





HD Cover 30 lil
HD Cover 30 «il
HD Cover 30 ill
HD Cover 30 nil
HD Cover 30 .il
HD Cover 30 .il
Syn Meebrane
Syn Menbrane
Syn Henbrane
Syn Menbrane
Syn Mewbrane
Syn Me»brare
Struct H Car Adsorp
Struct H Car Adsorp
Struct H Car Adsorp
Struct H Car Adsorp
Struct H Car Adsorp
Struct H Car Adsorp



Control efficiency
Trans-
(7)
90.00
97.9
99.85
97.90
99.99
99.99
98.70





99.70
99.70
49.30
49.30
49.30
49.30
85.00
B5.00
85.00
85.00
85.00
85.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00



(8) (9) (10)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D






1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
Ser-
ing life
(11) (12)
20
10
10
10
10
10
10





5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10




function
(13)
Linear
Linear
Linear
Li rear
Linear
Linear
Linear





Linear
Linear
Li rear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Li rear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear



Total

-------
                                                                                               TABLE D-17  (continued)
o



oo
TSOF
process
(1)
SO*
504
TO I
TO I
TOI
T01
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TOI
TSDF
(2)
Fugitives- Inp Load
Fugitives- lap Load
Tank Surface
Tarik Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Fugitives- 0 Tank Ld
Fugitives- Q Tank Ld
Fugitives- 0 Tank Ld
Fugitives- D Tank Ld
Fugitives- Q Tank Ld
Fugitives- A Tank Ld
Fugitives- ft Tank Ld
Fugitives- ft Tank Ld

(3)
Drg Liquid
Drg Sldg/Slurry
Sub 2xx for l»x
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Drg Bldg/Slurry
S-Phase Aq/Org
Sub £xx for Ixx
flq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute fiq
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
8-Phase Aq/Org
Sub 2xx for Ixx
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Bldg/Slurry
S-Phase Aq/Org
Sub 2xx for Ixx
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute Aq
Sub 2xx for 4xx
Sub 2xx for 5xx
Sub 2xx for 7xx
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilut Aq
Org Sldg/Slurry
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilut Aq
a-Phase Aq/Org
Vola-
t i 1 i ty
(<)
High
High
All
All
All
All
mi
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Con-
trol
(6)
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6

(6)


Fixed Hoof
Fixed Roof
Fixed Roof
Fixed Roof
Fixed Roof
Fixed Roof
Roof, IFR, CAds, Vent
Roof, IFR, CAds, Vent
Roof, IFR, CAds, Vent
Roof, IFR.CAds, Vent
Roof, IFR, CAds, Vent
Roof, IFR, Cads, Vent
IFR,CAds,Vent to CD
IFR.CAds, Vent to CD
IFR.CAds, Vent to CD
IFR, CMs, Vent to CD
IFR, Cads, Vent to CD
IFR, Cads, Vent to CD
Roof, Vent to CAds
Roof, Vent to CAds
Roof, Vent to CAds
Roof, Vent to CAds
Roof, Vent to CADs
Roof, Vent to CAds








Control efficiency
Trans-
(7) (8)


S7.50
98.20
67.50
99.22
98.99
93.50
95.40
99.70
95.40
99.96
99.95
97.10
84.50
B8.50
64.50
91.75
91.50
86.50
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00








Removal code
(9) (IB)
I
I
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
G
G
6
G
G
G
H
H
H
H
H
G
6
6
Ser-
ing life
(11) (12)


20
30
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10









function
(13)


Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear








Total
cap! ta 1
<">


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00








b x q
(IB)


0.380
0.380
0.380
0.380
0.380
0.380
0.570
0.570
1.160
0.710
0.600
O.flOO
0.220
0.220
0.820
0.360
0.360
0.800
0.410
0.410
0.420
0.410
0.410
0.410









tion
(18)


Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
L i near
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear








Annua 1
a
(17)


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
fr.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00








b x q
(18)


0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0. 030
0.030
0.130
0.130
0.390
0.280
0. 300
0.360
0.10
0.10
0.37
0.25
0.27
0.36
0.19
0.19
0.30
0.19
0.19
0.19








                                                                                                                                                                                         (continued)

-------
                                                                                                TABLE D-17 (continued)
O
 I
TSDF
process
(1)
T01
T01
roa
T02
TOa
TOa
T02
TOa
T02
Toa
TOS
T02
T02
T02
TO
T02
T02
TO
TOa
T02
T02
T02
TOa
TO
TOa
T03
T03
T03
T03
T03
T03
T03
TOA
TOA
TSDF
(2)
Fugitives- A Tank Ld
Fugitives- A Tank Ld
Treat Inpd Surface
Treat lipd Surface
Treat l«pd Surface
Treat liipd Surface
Treat I«pd Surface
Treat Inpd Surface
Treat Inpd Surface
Treat Inpd Surface
Treat Inpd Surface
Treat !»pd Surface
Treat I>pd Surface
Treat Iinpd Surface
Fugitives- I»p Load
Fugitives- Iiip Load
Fugitives- lip Load
Fugitives- lip Load
Fugitives- I»p Load
Trt I»pd Surface
Trt Inpd Surface
Trt Inpd Surface
Trt Inpd Surface
Trt I«pd Surface
!Trt I»pd Surface







Tank Surface
Tank Surface

(3)
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
Sub axx for Ixx
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute Aq
Sub ax* for Axx
Sub 2xx for 5xx
2-Phase Aq/Org
Sub 2xx for Ixx
flq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute Aq
Sub 2xx for 4xx
Sub 2xx for Sxx
2-Phase flq/Org
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilut Aq
2-Phase Aq/Org
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
Sub 2xx for Ixx
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute Aq
Sub 2xx for Axx
Sub 2xx for 5xx
2-Phase Aq/Org
VOC-cont Solid
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute Aq
Drg Liquid
Org Sldj/Slurry

2-Phase flq/Org
Sub axx for Ixx
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Vol»-
ti lity
(<)
High
High
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
flll
All
All
High
High
High
High
High
All
All
All
All
All
flll







All
All
Con-
trol
(6)
6
S
1
1
1
1
I
1
2
2
2
2
S
i
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5







3
3
Em



Stuct
Stuct
Stuct
Stuct
Stuct
Stuct
Stuct
Stuct
Stuct
Stuct
Stuct
Stuct





Control efficiency
Tr«ns-
sslon SuDDres- Emission fer
(8)


Car fldsorp
Car Adsorp
Car Adsorp
Car ftdsorp
Car Adsorp
.Car Adsorp
Car Adsorp
Car Adsorp
Car Adsorp
Car Adsorp
Car Adsorp
Car Adsorp





Syn Meubrane
Syn Heibrane
Syn Membrane
Syn Menbrane
Syn Meubrane
Syn Ne







•brane







IFR,CAd5,Vent to CD
IFR,Cfld5,vent to CD
(7)


95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00





B5.00
65.00
S5.00
85.00
B5.00
85.00







8A.50
B8.50
(8) (9) (IB)
G
G
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
S
3
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
H
H
Ser-
ai) (12)


10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10





10
10
, Id
10
10
10







10
10

(13)


Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Li war
Linear





Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear







Linear
Linear
Total
(H)


0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00





0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00







0.00
0.00
b x q
(IB)


2.600
2.600
a. 300
a. 600
a. 600
a. 300
a. 900
2.900
2.500
2.900
2.900
2.500





O.A60
O.A60
O.A60
O.A60
O.A60
O.A60







0.220
0.280

(16)


Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear





Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear







Linear
L i near
Annua 1
<">


0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00





0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00







0.00
0.00
b > g
(18)


0.800
0.800
0.500
0.800
0.800
0.500
i.aoo
i.aoo
0.700
i.aoo
i.aoo
0.700





0.060
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.060







0.10
0.10
                                                                                                                                                                                          (cent!nued)

-------
                                                                                                 TABLE D-17 (continued)
00
o
TSOF
process
(1)
T04
T04
T04
T04
T04
TM
TO*
T04
T04
D79
D79
D79
D79
D79
D79
D79
DBO
D80
DBO
DflO
DBO
DflO
D80
D60
D80
DBO
DBO
DflO
DBO
DBO
DBO
D80
DflO
DflO
TSDF
(2)
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Tank Surface
Fugitives- 0 Tank Ld
Fugitives- 0 Tank Ld
Fugitives- 0 Tank Ld
Fugitives- 0 Tank Ld
Fugitives- Q Tank Ld







Landfill (Open)
Landfill (Open)
Landfill (Open)
Landfill (Open)
Landfill (Open)
Landfill (Open)
Landfill (Closed)
Landfill (Closed)
Landfill (Closed)
Landfill (Closed)
Landfill (Closed)
Landfill (Closed)
Landfill (Closed)
Landfill (Closed)
Landfill (Closed)
Landfill (Closed)
Landfill (Closed)
Landfill (Closed)

(3)
Dilute Aq
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
2-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilut Aq
Org Sldg/Slurry
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
VX-cont Solid
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute flq
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry

2-Phase Aq/Drg
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Sub 7xx for 3«x
Sub 7xx for 4xx
Sub 7xx for 5xx
2-Phase Aq/Org
VOC-cont Solid
VOC-cont Solid
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Sub 7xx for 3xx
Sub 7xx for 4xx
Sub 7xx for 5xx
2-Phase Aq/Org
VOC-cont Solid
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Sub 7xx for 3xx
Sub 7xx for 4xx
Sub 7xx for 5xx
2-Phase Aq/Org
Vol.-
tility
(«>
All
All
All
All
High
Nigh
High
High
High







All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Con-
trol
(6)
3
3
3
3
5
5
S
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
4





Emission
(8)
IFR,CAds,Ver,t to CD
IFR,Cftd5,VEnt to CD
IFR, Cads, Vent to CD
IFH,Cads,Vent to CD












Earth Cover
Earth Cover
Earth Cover
Earth Cover
Earth Cover
Earth Cover
HD Cover 30 nil
HD Cover 30 mil
HD Cover 30 ail
HD Cover 30 >il
HD Cover 30 mi 1
HD Cover 30 nil
HD Cover 100 nil
HD Cover 100 nil
HD Cover 100 >il
HD Cover 100 nil
,HD Cover 100 nil
HD Cover 100 nil
Control efficiency
Suppres- Emission
m w o)
84.50
91.75
91.50
86.50












11.00
11.00
11.00
11.00
11.00
11.00
0.00
99.70
49.30
49.30
49.30
49.30
0.00
99.90
84.60
84.80
84. 80
84. BO
Tr«ns-
(10) (11)
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
F
F
F
F
F
F
F


















Ser-
life
(12)
10
10
10
10












SO
20
20
20
20
0
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30

function
(13)
Li rear
Linear
Li rear
Linear












Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Totil
Cipit.l
•
(H)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00












0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
b x q
(IS)
O.B20
0.360
0.360
O.BOO












0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.760
0.760
0.760
0.760
0.760
0.760
1.960
1.960
1.960
1.960
1.960
1.960
Cost
tion
(16)
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear












Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Li rear
Li rear
Linear
Linear
Linear
L i near
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Annu* 1
operating
•
(17)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00












0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
b x q
(18)
0.37
0.25
0.57
0.36












2.690
2.690
2.690
2.690
2.690
2.690
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.080
0.080
O.OBO
0.080
O.OBO
0.080
                                                                                                                                                                                            (continued)

-------
o
CO
                                                                                             TABLE D-17 (continued)
Tot.l
TSDF


(1)
DB3
DB3
DB3
DB3
DB3
FXP
FXP
FXP
FXP
FXP
FXP
(2)
Fugitives- lip Load
Fugitives- tap Load
Fugitives- lap Load
Fugitives- Inp Load
Fugitives- Iiip Load
Fixation Pit
Fixation Pit
Fixation Pit
Fixation Pit
Final ion Pit
Fixation Pit
Vol.- Con-

CS)
flq Sldg/Slurry
Sub 2xx for *K«
2-Phase Aq/Org
Sub 2x» for 4xx
Sub 2xx for Sxx
flq Sldg/Slurry
Sub 7xx for 3xx
Sub 7xx for 4xx
Sub 7xx for Sxx
2-Phase flq/Org
VOC-cont Solid







All
All
nil
All
mi
All
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Control efficiency
Trens-

(8) (7) (8)





95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00

(9) (10)
K
K
K
K
K






Ser-

(11) (12)





20
20
20
20
20
20


(13)





Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
capital







0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

(IB)





12.030
12.030
12.030
12.030
12.030
18.030
Cost

(16)





Linear
Linear
L i near
Linear
Linear
Linear
Annua 1
operating

(17)





0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

(IB)





3.720
3.720
3.720
3.720
3.720
3.720
               •This table contains all cost-related data necessary to estimate control cost Impacts with the Source Assessment Model.
               *>The definitions of columns for the TSDF Process Control Fil
                  1  =  Management process code.
                  2  =  Management process definition.
                  3  =  Waste form definition.
                  4  =  Volatility definition.
                  5  =  Emi ss ion contro I numeric  indicator.
                  6  =  Emi ss ion contro I def in i tion .
                  7  =  Suppress ion contro I ef f iciency .
                  6  =  Contro I ef f 1 c i ency .
                  9  =  VO removal efficiency.
                 10  =  Letter  indicator for engaging  fugitive controls; refers to Table D-19, column 1,  THL process indicator.
                 11  ~  Letter  i nd icator for engagi ng  load i ng contro I s; refers to Tab le D-19, column 1 ,  THL process Indicator .
                 12  =  Service  life of control equipment  (yr) .
                 13  =  Cost  function descr ipti on, for cap I te I investment.
                 14  =  Fixed control cost for capital investment.
                 15  =  Throughput mu 1 1 !p I ier  for cap! ta I  i n vestment.
                 18  =  Cost  function description for  annual operating cost.
                 17  =  Fi xed annua I operating cost.
                 18  =  Throughput multiplier  for annual operating cost.

-------
                                                   TABLE 0-18.  ORGANIC REMOVAL AND INCINERATION CONTROL COST FILE USED BY THE SOURCE ASSESSMENT MODEL".b
00
ro
TSDF
process
cod0
(1)
LTfl
LTfl
LTf)
LTD
INC
INC
INC
INC
INC
INC
VDC
VDC
VOC
VK
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VDC
VDC
VOC
VDC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VDC
VOC
VDC
VOC
VDC
VOC
VDC
VK
VOC
Treatment
dev ice
(2)
Liq Inject Incin
Fluid Bed Incin
Rotary Kiln Jncin
Fluid Bed Incin
Liq Inject Incin
Liq Inject Incin
Rotary Kiln Incin
Rotary Kiln Incin
Rotary Kiln Incin
Rotary Kiln Incin
Air Stripper (99*1
Air Stripper 139*1
Mr Stripper I39<)
flir Stripper (93*)
flir Stripper 199*)
Steal Stripper (99*1
Stea. Stripper (93*1
Steal Stripper 199*1
Steal Stripper 199*)
Stean Stripper (39O
Batch Distill (93*1
Batch Distill (99*)
Batch Distill (99*)
Batch Distill (99*)
Batch Distill (99*1
Rot Kiln Inc(93.39»)
Rot Kiln Inc(99.99*)
Rot Kiln Inc(99.99*>
Hot Kiln Inc(99.99*)
Rot Kiln lnc(99.93»
Thin File Evap 199*)
Thin Fill Evap (99t)
Thin Fill Evap (99*)
Thin Fill Evap 193*)
Thin Fill Evap (99*)

(3)
Organic Liquid
Aq Slda/Slur
VD Cont Solids
Org Sldg/Slur
Organic Liquid
Organic Liquid
Org Sldg/Slur
Org Sldg/Slur
VO Cont Solids
VTJ Cont Solids
Dilute Aqueous
Dilute Aqueous
Dilute Aqueous
Dilute flqueous
Dilute flqueous
Dilute Aqueous
Dilute Aqueous
Dilute Aqueous
Dilute Aqueous
Dilute Aqueous
Organic Liquid
Organic Liquid
Organic Liquid
Organic Liquid
Organic Liquid
Org Sldg/Slur
Org Sldg/Slur
Org Sldg/Slur
Drg Sldg/Slur
Org Sldg/Slur
Aq Sldg/Slur
Aq Sldg/Slur
Aq Sldg/Slur
Aq Sldg/Slur
Aq Sldg/Slur
Vola-
tility
<«)
nn
All
nn
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
High
Hediui
Lou
All
All
High
KediuM
Lou
All
All
High
Hediun
Low
All
All
High
Hediui
Lou
All
All
High
Hediui
Lou
All
All
Con-
trol
(6)
1
2
3
4
1
1
1








I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Control efficlc
Emission Suppres- Emission
(6) (7)
Liq Inject Incin
Fluid Bed I rein
Rotary Kiln Incin
Hearth Incin
Liq Inject Incin
Liq Inject Incin
Rotary Kiln Incin
Rotary Kiln Ircin
Rotary Kiln Incin
Rotary Kiln Incin
Air Stripper (39*1
Air Stripper (39*1
Air Stripper (93*)
Catalytic Incin
No Control
Stean Stripper (93*1
Stean Stripper (99«)
Steai. Stripper (99*1
Vent to CD
No Control
Batch Distill (99*)
Batch Distill 133*)
Batch Distill 133*)
Vent to CD
No Control
Rotary Kiln Incin
Rotary Kiln Incin
Rotary Kiln Incin
Combustion
No Control
Thin Filn Evap (39*1
Thin Fill Evap (33*)
Thin Filn Evap (33*)
Vent to CD
No Control
(8)















99.40
99.96
99.99


93.40
99.%
99.99


100.00
100.00
100.00


38.40
99.96
99.99


ncv
(9)
99.99
99.99
99.99
93.99
99.99
93.99
99.99
99.39
93.99
39.39
39.00
13.70
1.10
98.00
0.00
99.93
94.50
16.45
95.00
0.00
99.00
18.00
6.00
35.00
0.00
39.99
99.99
99.99
0.00
0.00
99.78
65.90
20.69
95.00
0.00
Trans-
(10)
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
L
L
L
L
L
I
L
1
L
1
L
L
L
;L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
I
Ser-
(11)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15

15
15
IS
15

15
15
15
15

10
10
10
10

15
15
15
15

Total
capital
(12)
L i near
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear

Linear
Linear
Linear
Li rear

Linear
Linear
Linear


Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear

Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear

(13)
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

b X U

-------
                                                                                         TABLE D-1B (continued)
TSDF
process Treatment
(1) (2) (3)


Vola- Con-
til i ty tro 1
<«) (S)


Total
(6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (IE)


Annu* 1
operating
cost
a b x Q
(18) (17)


              "The definitions of columns for the TSDF Process Control  Flla »re:
               1 = Management process code.
               2 = Management process defin i tlon.
               3 = Waste form definition
               4 = Volatility definition
               5 = Emi ssI on controI numeri c indicator.
               6 = Emissi on controI defi nit ion.
               7 = Suppression controI eff ic iency.
O             8 = Control efficiency.
 I              9 = VO removal efficiency.
OQ            10 = Letter indicator for engaging fugitive control; refers to Table D-19,  Column  1,  THL  process  Indicator.
CO            11 = Service Iife of control  equipment (yr).
              12 = Cost function descr i ptlon, for cap!taI i nvestment.
              13 = Fixed control cost for capital investment.
              14 =. Throughput multiplier for capital investment.
              16 = Cost function description for annual operating cost.
              16 = Fixed annual operating cost.
              17 ~ Throughput mu ItipMer for annual opera t ing cost.

-------
                                                         TABLE 0-19.  TRANSFER, HANDLING, AND LOAD CONTROL COST FILE USED BY THE SOURCE ASSESSMENT MODEL'.b
THL
process
indi cator Emi ss'ion source
(D (2)
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
r
B
6
G
Druu Loading
Druu Loading
Druu Loading
Drum Loading
Druu Loading
Drum Loading
Truck Loading
Truck Loading
Truck Loading
Truck Loading
Truck Loading
Fugitives- Drun Loading
Fugitives- Dru» Loading
Fugitives- Drun Loading
Fugitives- DruH Loading
Fugitives- Driuo Loading
Fugitives- Sto Tank Loading
Fugitives- Sto Tank Loading
Fugitives- Sto Tank Loading
Fugitives- Sto Tank Loading
Fugitives- Sto Tank Loading
Fugitives- Incin Load(TDS)
Fugitives- Incin LoadIHE)
Fugitives- Incin Load(T02)
Fugitives- Incin Load (702)
Fugitives- Incin Load (70S)
Fugitives-Inj Hell Load (TIB >
Fugitives-Inj Well Load (TOE)
Fugitives-Inj Hell LoadlT02)
Fugitives-Inj Hell Load(T02)
Fugitives-Inj Well LoadlTDS)
Fugitives- Aertd Treat Tank Loading
Fugitives- Bertd Treat Tank Loading
Fugitives- Aertd Treat Tank Loading
Waste form
(3)
VOC-Lont Solid
Aq Sldg/Slur
Dil Aqueous
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
2-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sldg/Slur
Di) Aqueous
Drg Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
2-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dil Aqueous
Org liquid
Org Slds/Slurry
2-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sldg/Slur
Dil Aqueous
Drg Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
2-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sldg/Slur
Dil Aqueous
'Drg Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
2-Phase Aq/Org
Aq Sldg/Slur
Dil Aqueous
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
2-Phase Aq/Drg
Aq Sldg/Slur
Dil Aqueous
2-Phase Aq/Org
Vola-
tility
c 1 ass
(4)
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Con-
trol
I ndex
(G)
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
|
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Control
Emission control efficiency
option (suppression)
(8) (7)
Submerged Loading
Submerged Loading
Submerged Loading
Submerged Loading
Submerged Loading
Submerged Loading
Submerged Loading
• Subnerged Loading
Submerged Loading
Submerged Loading
Subnerged Loading
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
'Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/flepair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
65.00
65.00
65.00
65.00
65.00
65.00
65.00
65.00
65.00
65.00
65.00
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
Ser-
vice
life
(8)
15
15
IS
15
15
15
15
IS
15
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Cost
function
(9)
Linear
Linear
Li rear
Li rear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Total capital
investment. S
a
(IB)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318. 00
6318.00
b x q
(11)
0. 49000
0.70000
0. 87000
0.89000
0.64000
0.89000
0.75000
0.92000
0.94000
0. 78000
0.79000
19.56250
19.56250
19.56250
19.56250
19.56250
3. 86580
3.86580
3.86580
3.86580
3.86580
0.56580
0.56580
0.56580
0.56580
0.56580
0.1IMO
0.11410
0.11410
0.11410
0.11410
0.01650
0.01650
0.01650
Cost
function
(12)
L i near
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Li rear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Li rear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Annua 1
operating cost
(*3>
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
916.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
b x Q
(14)
0.03000
0.04000
0. 04000
0.05000
0.03000
0.05000
0.04000
0.05000
0.05000
0.04000
0.04000
6.32690
6.23690
6.32690
6.22690
6.23690
1.33050
1.23050
1.23050
1.23050
1.33050
0. 18100
0.18100
0.18100
0.18100
0.18100
0.03630
0.03630
0.03630
0.03630
0.03630
0.00520
0.00520
0.00520
o
 I
oo
                                                                                                                                                                                          (continued)

-------
                                                                                                 TABLE D-19 (continued)
o
 I
oo
en
THL
process
Indi cator
(i)
6
G
H
H
H
H
H
I
I
I
I
!
J
J
J
J
J
K
K
K
K
K
L
L
L
L
I
L

(2)
Fugitives- Aertd Treat Tank Loading
Fugitives- flertd Treat Tank Loading
Fugitives- Osct Treat Tank Loading
Fugitives- Qsct Treat Tank Loading
Fugitives- Qsct Treat Tank Loading
Fugitives- Qsct Treat Tank Loading
Fugitives- Q&ct Treat Tank Loading
Fugitives- Storage lip Loading
Fugitives- Storage tap Loading
Fugitives- Storage lap Loading
Fugitives- Storage lup Loading
Fugitives- Storage IMP Loading
Fugitives- Treat tap Loading
Fugitives- Treat Imp Loading
Fugitives- Treat tap Loading
Fugitives- Treat lip Loading
Fugitives- Treat Inp Loading
Fugitives- Disp .tap Loading
Fugitives- Disp Imp Loading
Fugitives- Disp Inp Loading
Fugitives- Disp tap Loading
Fugitives- Disp lip Loading
Fugitives- Incinerator
Fugitives- TFE
Fugitives- Sir Stripper
Fugitives- Batch distillation
Fugitives- Incinerator
Fugitives- Strean stripper

(3)
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
Aq Sldg/Slur
Dil Aqueous
2-Phase Bq/Org
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
Aq Sldg/Slur
Dil Aqueous
2-Phase Aq/Org
Org Liquid
Drg Sldg/Slurry
flq Sldg/Slur
Dil flqueous
2-Phase ftq/Org
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
Aq Sldg/Slur
Dil Aqueous
2-Phase Aq/Drg
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
VOC-Cont Solid
Aq Sldg/Slurry
Dilute flqueous
Org Liquid
Org Sldg/Slurry
2-Phase flq/Org
Vola-
tility
(•*)
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
- High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Con-
trol
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|
1
1
1
I

option
(8)
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/flepair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Monthly Inspt/Repair
Control
(suppression)
(7)
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
70.29
Ser-
1 if.
(8)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

function
(9)
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Li rear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Total capital
investment. $
•
(IB)
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6316.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318,00
6318.00
6316.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
6318.00
b x q
(11)
0.01650
0.01650
0. 08380
0.08380
0.08380
0.08380
0.08380
0. 74040
0.74040
0.74040
0. 74040
0.74040
0.01140
0.01140
0.01140
0.01140
0.01140
0.13700
0.13700
0. 13700
0.13700
0. 13700
0.29160
0.73410
0.03970
1.24770
0.80180
0. 17700
Cost
function
(12)
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
L i near
Linear
Linear
Linear
L i near
Linear
Linear
Annua 1
operating cos t.
a b x q
(13) (14)
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
918.00
916.00
918.00
0. 00520
0.00520
0. 02670
0. 02670
0. 02670
0.02670
0.02670
0.23570
0.23570
0.23570
0.23570
0.23570
0.00360
0.00360
0.00360
0.00360
0.00360
0.04360
0. 04360
0.04360
0. 04360
0. 04360
0.09280
0.23370
0.01260
0.39720
0. 25520
0. 05630
                                                                                                                                                                                           (continued)

-------
                                                                                               TABLE D-19 (continued)
THL
i nd i cator
to

Emi ss i on source
(2)

Waste form
(3)
Vol.- Con-
class Index
(4) (B)

option
(6)
Control
(suppression)
(7)
Ser-
life
(8)

function
(9)
Tota 1 capita 1
investment. 9
a
(IB)
b * q
(ii)
Annua t
function a
(12) (13)
b « Q
(14)
              8This table contains all cost-related data necessary to estimate control cost impacts with the Source Assessment  Model.

              ^The definitions of columns for the TSDF Process Control File are:

                 1  -  Transfer, hand I ing, and  load ing (THL) process  indicator.
                 2  =  Emi ssion source.
                 3  =  Waste form definition.
                 4  =  Volatility definition.
                 B  =  Emission control numeric  indicator.
                 6  =  Emi ssi on controI defini tion.
                 7  =  Suppression control efficiency.
                 B  =  Service life of control equipment (yr) .
^—>               9  =  Cost function description, for capital investment.
'               10  =  Fixed control cost for cap itaI  investment.
CO              11  -  Throughput multiplier for capital  investment.
C7"l              12  =  Cost function description for annual operating cost.
                13  =  Fixed annual operating cost.
                14  =  Throughput multiplier for annual operating cost.

-------
a particular (incompatible) form.  For example, cost factors for control of
dilute aqueous wastes will be used for estimating control costs of a
(diluted) aqueous sludge slurry because this waste form did not have
control costs developed specifically.  It should be noted that, in esti-
mating nationwide costs, a cost for waste storage for organics removal and
incineration processes is included only for those TSDF that do not have
existing drum or tank storage capable of holding the waste.
     Costs were developed in a way that allows one to estimate capital and
annual costs based on total volume waste throughput.  Within each manage-
ment process, total capital investment and annual operating costs were
determined for a range of model units and the appropriate add-on control
technologies applicable to these processes.  The same waste management
process weighting factors used to develop emission factors were used to
develop weighted cost factors.  Estimation of the costs for applying
emission controls to TSDF waste management units would ideally be done
using specific information about the characteristics of the waste
management unit,  such as the surface area and waste retention time for
surface impoundments.  In general, information at that level of detail is
not available for all the TSDF.  For most TSDF, only the total throughput
of the waste management units is known.  Therefore, to estimate costs of
emission control, it was necessary to derive cost functions that estimate
control costs as a function of the waste management unit throughput as was
done for the TSDF emission factors.  The throughput data available for the
TSDF waste management units are total values.  For instance, for treatment
surface impoundments, a particular facility may have a million gallons per
day throughput;  however, that could be in one large impoundment or three
smaller impoundments.  This lack of unit-specific information prevents
rigorous determination of facility-specific emission and control cost
estimates.
     Although the information about the characteristics of specific waste
management units  is limited,  there are statistical data available with
which it is  possible to describe certain characteristics of the units on a
national  basis.   The Westat Survey conducted in 1981,  for instance,
provides  considerable statistical  data useful for determining the national
                                   D-87

-------
distribution of sizes of storage tanks  (storage volume),  surface  impound-
ments  (surface area), and landfills  (surface areas and  depth).  With  these
statistical data it  is possible to generate cumulative  frequency  distribu-
tions  of unit size characteristics.  Much of these data,  in  fact,  were  the
bases  for the selection of the model unit sizes described  in  Appendix C.
Each model unit has  a certain waste throughput and other  design and oper-
ating  characteristics; multiple model units were selected  for each waste
management process to represent the range of sizes nationally.  These model
units  served as the  basis for the development of emission  estimates as  well
as control costs.
     The costs for controls applied to the model units  were  developed and
the relationship of  control cost to throughput was computed  for each  of the
model  units.  Because there are no data to determine which of the  model
unit sizes most closely matches a management process in a  particular
facility, a method of assigning the model unit costs (and  emissions)  to
each waste management unit in each TSDF, nationally, was  needed.   To  this
end, a national average model unit was defined from the statistical infor-
mation on TSDF management units.  Each model unit size was assumed to
represent a certain  portion of the nationwide cumulative  frequency distri-
bution curve for that particular management process.  The  weighting factor
for each management  process model unit is the percentage  of  the cumulative
frequency for that model  unit.  The weighted costs per megagram of waste
throughput were then determined by multiplying the weighting  factor by  the
total capital  investment and annual operating cost for  the corresponding
model unit.  These weighted costs were compiled for each management process
to constitute the control  cost file used as input to the  SAM.  This
methodology for developing weighted control cost factors  is  the same  as
that used for emission factor determinations and is an  approximation  of the
effects of economy-of-scale on nationwide control cost  estimates.
D.2.6  Test Method Conversion Factor File
     An important aspect of any pollution control strategy applied to TSDF
involves identifying those hazardous waste streams that require control.
One means of accomplishing this is to establish control levels based  on the
emission potential  of the waste entering a particular management  process.
                                   D-88

-------
Several test methods have been evaluated to quantify emission potential;
these are discussed in Appendix G.  The test method selected to measure the
waste stream emission potential,  which has been defined as the VO content
of the waste, is steam distillation with 20 percent (by volume) of the
waste distilled for analysis.  In general, the VO test method results are a
function of the volatility of individual compounds because the amount of a
particular waste constituent removed from the waste sample and recovered
for analysis depends largely on volatility".  The test method results in
essentially 100 percent removal and a high distillate recovery for the most
volatile compounds in the waste;  the removal and recovery of less volatile
and more water soluble compounds  are less than 100 percent.  With a VO test
method established, the VO content of a hazardous waste can be measured and
then compared to the limits on VO content, established as part of a control
strategy, to determine if emission controls are required for the specific
waste stream.
     Test method conversion factors were developed, based on laboratory
test data, to allow the SAM to simulate the VO test method numerically to
obtain VO measurements similar to those found in the laboratory.  In this
way the SAM can determine what waste streams in the data base would be
controlled for different VO levels (VO concentration cutoffs) and, as a
result, define the affected population of wastes for a given control
strategy.  For example, the waste data base used in the SAM contains
concentrations of specific compounds in specific waste streams.  These
compounds are assigned a surrogate designation on the basis of their vola-
tility.  The test method conversion factors are applied to each type of
surrogate to estimate how much of the surrogate would be removed by the
test method and contribute to the total measured VO.  The contribution of
each surrogate is then summed for the waste to estimate the VO content that
the test method would measure.  The only use of the test method conversion
factors is to estimate (from the  data base on waste compositions) what the
test method would measure as the  VO content of a waste stream.  This
estimated VO content is compared  to the VO concentration limits to deter-
mine whether a specific waste stream would be controlled under a given VO
cutoff.   The regulated wastes that are identified for control are used in
                                   D-89

-------
the SAM to determine the nationwide  impacts  of  the  given  VO  cutoff within  a
control strategy.
      In the development of the conversion factors,  several synthetic  wastes
containing nine select compounds, which represent a wide  range  of  volatili-
ties, were evaluated for percent recovery using the test  method.   The com-
pounds were present in different types of waste matrices  that included
aqueous, organic, solids, and combinations of the three.   The recovery  of
these different compounds in different synthetic waste matrices  forms the
basis for the test method conversion factors.  Appendix G contains  the
details regarding test method development.
     The approach was to assign each of the  nine synthetic waste compounds
to its corresponding SAM volatility class based on  vapor  pressure  and
Henry's law constant.  The normalized percent recovery was used  to  adjust
for recoveries that were either greater than or less than 100 percent.  The
normalized recovery for each compound in a given volatility  class  was aver-
aged to provide a single conversion factor for each class.   The  results are
summarized in Table D-20 for each volatility class  and type  of waste
matrix.  The results indicate that the method should remove  all  of  the
highly volatile compounds from the waste.  All of the moderately volatile
compounds in an aqueous matrix are expected  to be removed; however, only 30
to 50 percent of the moderately volatile compounds  (conversion factors  of
0.3 to 0.5) in an organic or solid matrix are expected to be recovered  by
the method.
     A headspace analysis was also investigated as  an alternative  procedure
for covered tanks because emissions from this source are  more directly
related to the vapor phase concentration than.to the total VO content
measured by steam distillation.  For the headspace  analysis, a conversion
factor was also necessary to estimate the vapor phase concentration that
the headspace method would measure from a known waste composition.  The
vapor phase concentration is to be expressed in kilopascals  for  comparison
with existing regulations for storage tanks.
     The conversion factors for the headspace method are  given  in
Table D-21.  When these factors are multiplied by the concentration in  the
waste (expressed as weight fraction) for each volatility  class,  the sum of
                                   D-90

-------
     TABLE D-20.   SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD CONVERSION FACTORS9
Volatility class
Very high
High
Moderate
Low

Aqueous
NA
1.0
1.0
0.2
Waste matrix
Organic
1.0b
1.0
0.3
QC

Solid
1.0b
1.0
0.5
QC
NA = Not applicable.

aThis table presents factors that,  when multiplied by the con-
 centration of a specific volatility class in the waste,  provide
 an estimate of the volatile organic content that the test method
 would measure for the waste.

^Assumes that  the test method will  remove all of the highly
 volatile gases from the waste.

cAssumes that  because of the very low vapor pressure for this
 category (<1.33 x 10~4 kPa) the test method will remove very
 little from the waste.
                              D-91

-------
      TABLE D-21.  SUMMARY OF HEADSPACE CONVERSION FACTORS
                  TO OBTAIN KILOPASCALS (kPa)a

                                        Waste matrix
Volatility class          Aqueous^         Organic          Solid
High
Medium
441
26.2
24.8
5.10
3.93
0.09
       Low                  3.520           0               0

aThis table presents conversion factors that are multiplied by the
 concentration (as  weight fraction)  of the volatility class in a
 waste to estimate  what the headspace method would measure for
 that class.   For example,  with an organic waste containing only
 medium volatiles at a level  of 0.1  weight fraction (10 percent),
 the headspace method results are estimated as 0.1 x 5.1 = 0.51
 kPa.
     results  for aqueous  wastes  are capped by the vapor pressure
 of the waste constituent surrogate compound (i.e.,  if the
 predicted  method results exceed the surrogates'  vapor pressure,
 then the vapor pressure  should  be used  as the method
 measurement) .
                             D-92

-------
the results for each class is an estimate of what the headspace methods
would measure.   These factors were derived from the synthetic waste stud-
ies,  and each factor is the average from all compounds that are grouped in
a given volatility class and waste matrix.
     The headspace conversion factors are used with the waste compositions
in the SAM's data base to estimate what the headspace method would measure
for a given waste stream.  The predicted method results are then compared
to VO concentration limits for storage tanks to determine whether controls
are required.  This approach defines the population of controlled wastes,
which is used in the SAM to determine the nationwide impacts for control-
ling covered tanks.
D.2.7  Incidence and Risk File
     Health risks posed by exposure to TSDF air emissions typically are
presented in two forms:  annual cancer incidence (incidents per year
nationwide resulting from exposure to TSDF air emissions) and maximum
lifetime risk (the highest risk of contracting cancer that any individual
could have from exposure to TSDF emissions over a 70-year lifetime).  These
two health risk forms are used as an index to quantify health impacts
related to TSDF emission controls.  Detailed discussions on the development
of health impacts data are found in Appendixes E and J.
     The Human  Exposure Model (HEM) provided the basis in the SAM for
estimating annual cancer incidence and risk to the maximum exposed indi-
vidual due to TSDF-generated airborne hazardous wastes.  The HEM is a
computer model  that calculates exposure levels for a population within
50 km of a facility using 1980 census population distributions and local
(site-specific-)  meteorological data.  The HEM was run for each TSDF using a
unit risk factor of 1 and a facility emission rate of 10,000 kg/yr.  The
HEM results were then compiled into risk and incidence files that can be
adjusted to reflect the level of actual emissions resulting from imple-
mentation of a  particular control strategy.  The site-specific HEM
incidence and risk values are adjusted within the SAM by the ratio of
annual facility emissions to 10,000 kg and by the TSDF unit risk factor to
give facility-specific estimates for the control strategy under considera-
tion.   Individual facility incidences are summed to give the nationwide
TSDF  incidence  value.
                                   D-93

-------
D.3  OUTPUT FILES
     The SAM was developed to generate data necessary for comparison of
various TSDF control options in terms of their nationwide environmental,
health, economic, and energy impacts.  Therefore, emissions (controlled and
uncontrolled),  costs (capital,  annual operating,  and annualized), and
health impacts  (annual  cancer incidence and maximum risk) that represent
impacts on a national scale are the primary outputs of interest.  In
addition,  the SAM was designed  to provide data that could be stored and
summarized in a number of ways.
     Through manipulation of the SAM post-processor, emissions can be
summed and presented by facility (e.g., total  annual emissions for each
TSDF), by management process (e.g., nationwide emissions for all open
storage impoundments),  and by source (e.g., nationwide or facility emis-
sions from process losses, spills,  or transfer and handling).   For each
facility,  the emission and cost data are available for each waste stream,
for each waste  form, and for each constituent  within a waste.   Emission and
cost data are required at this  level of detail for comparison  and evalua-
tion of the various control strategies being examined.  Health impacts,
however, are better expressed in terms of overall facility risk or cancer
incidences.  In this document,  the SAM outputs are presented in Chapters
3.0 (uncontrolled emissions by  source category),  6.0 (emission, incidence,
and risk reductions for the example control strategies), and 7.0 (capital
and annual costs associated with the control strategies).
D.4  REFERENCES
 1.    Memorandum from Maclntyre, Lisa, RTI, to Docket.   November 4, 1987.
       Data from the 1986 National  Screening Survey of Hazardous Waste
       Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities  used to
       develop  the Industry Profile.
 2.    Office of Solid  Waste.  National Screening Survey of Hazardous
       Waste Treatment,  Storage, Disposal,  and Recycling Facilities.  U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington, DC.  June 1987.
 3.    Memorandum from Maclntyre, Lisa, RTI, to Docket.   November 4, 1987.
       Data from the National Hazardous Waste  Data Management  System used
       to  develop the Industry  Profile.
 4.    Westat,  Incorporated.  National Survey  of Hazardous Waste
       Generators and Treatment, Storage and Disposal  Facilities Regulated
       Under RCRA in 1981.  Prepared for U.S.  Environmental Protection
       Agency.   Office  of Solid Waste.  September 25,  1985.
                                   D-94

-------
 5.     U.S!  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Code of Federal  Regulations.
       Title 40,  Part  261.21.   Office of the  Federal  Register.
       Washington,  DC.   July 1,  1986.

 6.     Office of  Water and Hazardous  Waste.   Application for Hazardous
       Waste Permit-Consolidated Permits Program.   U.S.  Environmental
       Protection Agency.   Washington,  DC.   June 1980.

 7.     U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Code of Federal  Regulations.
       Title 40,  Part  261.  Washington,  DC.   Office of  the Federal
       Register.   July 1,  1986.

 8.     U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Code of Federal  Regulations,
       Title 40,  Part  262.34(a).  Washington,  DC.   Office of the Federal
       Register.   July 1,  1986.

 9.     Reference  4,  p.  17.

10.     U.S.  Office of  Management and  Budget.   Standard  Industrial
       Classification  Manual.   Executive Office of the  President.
       Washington,  DC.  1987.

11.     Moody's Investors Service,  Inc.   Moody's Industrial Manual.   New
       York.  1982.

12.     North Carolina  Department of Commerce.   Directory of North  Carolina
       Manufacturing Firms.   Industrial  Development Division.   Raleigh,
       NC.   1984.  1985-1986.

13.     Environmental Information Ltd.  Industrial  and Hazardous Waste  Man-
       agement Firms.   Minneapolis,  MN.   1986.

14.     U.S.  Department of  Commerce.   Census  of Manufactures.  Bureau of
       the  Census.   Washington,  DC.   1982.

15.     U.S.  Department of  Commerce.   Census  of Mineral  Industries.   Bureau
       of the Census.   Washington,  DC.   1982.

16.     U.S.  Department of  Commerce.   Census  of Retail Trade.  Bureau of
       the  Census.   Washington,  DC.   1982.

17.     U.S.  Department of  Commerce.   Census  of Service  Industries.   Bureau
       of the Census.   Washington,  DC.   1982.

18.     U.S.  Department of  Commerce.   Census  of Wholesale Trade.  Bureau of
       the  Census.   Washington,  DC.   1982.

19.     Reference  14.
                                   D-95

-------
20.    Memorandum from Deerhake, M.E., RTI, to Docket.   RTI  use  of  the
       1981 National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators  and  Treatment,
       Storage, and Disposal Facilities Data Base  (Westat  Survey).

21.    Memorandum from Deerhake, M.E., RTI, to Docket.   November 20,  1987.
       SAIC nonconfidential printouts of the Industry Studies  Data  Base.

22.    Memorandum from Deerhake, M.E., RTI to Docket.  November  20,  1987.
       Printout of RCRA K waste code data base.

23.    ICF, Incorporated.  The RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model.  Phase  III
       Report.  Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
       Office of Solid Waste.  Washington, DC.  March 1984.

24.    Memorandum from Deerhake, M.E., RTI, to Docket.   November 20,  1987.
       RTI use of the WET Model Hazardous Waste data base.

25.    Computer tapes from the Illinois Environmental Protection  Agency.
       Data Base of Special Waste Streams.  Division of  Land Pollution
       Control.  Tapes received August 1986.

26.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Code of Federal  Regulations.
       Title 40, Part 261.33(f).  Washington, DC.  Office  of the  Federal
       Register.  July 1, 1986.

27.    Reference 7.

28.    Hazardous Waste TSDF Waste Process Sampling.  Volumes I-IV.
       Prepared by GCA Corporation for U.S. Environmental  Protection
       Agency/Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards  RTP,  NC.
       October 1985.

29.    Memorandum from Deerhake, M. E.,  RTI, to Docket.  December 30,
       1987.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Petroleum Refining
       Test Data from the OSW Listing Program.

30.    Reference 27, Volume I,  p. 4-1 through 4-22.

31.    Reference 27, Volume III, p.7-1 through 7-12.

32.    Letter from Deerhake, M.E., RTI,  to McDonald, R., EPA/OAQPS.
       August 15,  1986.   Review of Volumes I-IV of "Hazardous  Waste
       Process Sampling"  for test data and OSW data on the petroleum
       refining industry.

33.    Letter from Deerhake, M.E., RTI,  to McDonald, R., EPA/OAQPS.
       September 19, 1986.   Waste compositions found in  review of field
       test results.
                                   D-96

-------
34.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Code of Federal Regulations.
       Title 40, Part 261, Subparts C and D.  Washington, DC.  Office of
       the Federal  Register.  July 1, 1986.

35.    Letter from Deerhake, M.E., RTI to McDonald, R., EPA/OAQPS.
       October 1, 1986.  Approach for incorporating field test data into
       the Waste Characterization Data Base.

36.    Dun and Bradstreet.  Million Dollar Directory.  Parsippany, NJ.
       1986.

37.    Environ Corporation.  Characterization of Waste Streams Listed in
       40 CFR 261 Waste Profiles, Volumes 1 and 2.  Prepared for U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Solid Waste
       Characterization and Assessment Division.  Washington, DC.  August
       1985.

38.    Radian Corporation.  Characterization of Transfer, Storage, and
       Handling of Waste with High Emissions Potential, Phase 1.  Final
       Report.  Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
       Thermal Destruction Branch.  Cincinnati, OH.  July 1985.

39.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Supporting Documents for the
       Regulatory Analysis of the Part 264 Land Disposal Regulations.
       Volumes I-III.  Docket Report.  Washington, DC.  August 24, 1982.
       Volume I, p. VIII-3.

40.    Reference 22, p. 2-17.

41.    Office of Solid Waste.  Identification and Listing of Hazardous
       Waste Under RCRA, Subtitle C, Section 3001; Listing of Hazardous
       Waste (40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32).  U.S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Washington, DC.  July 1, 1986.  Table II-l, p. 35.

42.    Reference 34, p. 7.

43.    Reference 34, p. 35.

44.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Code of Federal Regulations.
       Title 40, Part 261.31.  Washington, DC.  Office of the Federal
       Register.  July 1, 1986.

45.    Metcalf and  Eddy, Inc.  Wastewater Engineering.  McGraw-Hill Book
       Company.   New York, NY.  1972.  pp. 231 and 304.

46.    Office of Solid Waste.  RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions Background
       Document  on  the Comparative Risk Assessment.  Draft.  U.S. Environ-
       mental  Protection Agency.   Washington, DC.  November 1, 1985.
       170 pp.

47.    Reference 46.

48.    Reference 44.
                                   D-97

-------
49.



50.

51.

52.
53.



54.



55.

56.

57.
58.
59.

60.
61.

62.

63.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   Code  of  Federal  Regulations
Title 40, Part 261.33.  Office  of  the  Federal Register.
Washington, DC.  July 1,  1986.

Federal Register, Volume  45, Number  98.   May 19,  1980.   p.  33115.

Reference 34.

Industrial Economics, Inc.  Regulatory  Analysis  of  Proposed
Restrictions on Land Disposal of Certain  Solvent  Wastes.   Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office  of Solid  Waste.
Washington, DC.  September 30,  1986.   p.  3-15.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Code  of  Federal
Title 40, Part 261.32.  Washington, DC.  Office  of  the
Register.  July 1, 1986.
          Regulations,
          Federal
Federal Register.  Land Disposal Restriction Rules  for  Solvents and
Dioxins:  Final Rule.  Volume 51.  November 7,  1986.  pp.  40572-
40654.

Reference 2, Exhibit A-9.

Reference 52, p. 3-15.

Research Triangle Institute.  Hazardous Waste Treatment,  Storage,
and Disposal Facilities:  Air Emission Models,  Draft  Report.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.  Research Triangle  Park,  NC.  March
1987.

Research Triangle Institute.  CHEMDATA Database for Predicting VO
Emissions from Hazardous Waste Facilities.  Prepared  for  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Research  and
Development.   Cincinnati, OH.  1986.
Reference 58.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS.
Properties and Categorization of RCRA Wastes
ity.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Park, NC.  Publication No. EPA-450/3-85-007.
15.
 Physical-Chemical
According to Volatil
Research Triangle
 February 1985.  p.
Reference 60.

Merck Index.  Ninth Edition.  Merck and Co.,  Inc.  Rahway,  NJ.  1976.

Verschueren, K.  Handbook on Environmental Data and Organic  Chemi-
cals.  New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.   1983.
                                   D-98

-------
64.     Environ Corp.   Characterization of Constituents from Selected
       Hazardous Waste Streams Listed in 40 CFR Section 261,  Draft
       Profiles.  Prepared for U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.
       Washington,  DC.  August 3,  1984.

65.     University of  Arkansas.  Emission of Hazardous Chemicals from
       Surface and  Near-Surface Impoundments to Air.  Draft Final  Report
       EPA Project  No. 808161-02.   December 1984.

66.     Reference 60.

67.     Memorandum from Zerbonia,  R.,  RTI, to Hustvedt, K. C.,  EPA/OAQPS.
       Development  of waste constituent categories'  (surrogates)  proper-
       ties for the Source Assessment Model.  December 30,  1987.

68.     Reference 67.

69.     Reference 67.

70.     Reference 62.

71.     Reference 63.

72.     Reference 63.

73.     Reference 57.
                                   D-99

-------
       APPENDIX E



ESTIMATING HEALTH EFFECTS

-------
                                APPENDIX E
                         ESTIMATING HEALTH EFFECTS

     Many adverse health effects can result from exposure to air emissions
from hazardous waste treatment,  storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF).
The major pathways for human exposure to environmental contaminants are
through inhalation,  ingestion, or dermal contact.  Airborne contaminants
may be toxic to the sites of immediate exposure, such as the skin,  eyes,
and linings of the respiratory tract.  Toxicants may also cause a spectrum
of systemic effects following absorption and distribution to various target
sites such as the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system.
     Exposure to contaminants in air can be acute, subchronic, or chronic.
Acute exposure refers to a very short-term (i.e., <24 h),  usually single-
dose,  exposure to a contaminant.  Health effects often associated with
acute exposure include:  central nervous system effects such as headaches,
drowsiness, anesthesia, tremors, and convulsions; skin, eye, and respira-
tory tract irritation; nausea; and olfactory effects such as awareness of
unpleasant or disagreeable odors.  Many of these effects are reversible and
disappear with cessation of exposure.  Acute exposure to very high concen-
trations or to low levels of highly toxic substances can,  however,  cause
serious and irreversible tissue damage, and even death.  A delayed toxic
response may also occur following acute exposure to certain agents.
     Chronic exposures are those that occur for long periods of time (from
many months to several years).  Subchronic exposure falls between acute and
chronic exposure, and usually involves exposure for a period of weeks or
months.  Generally,  the health effects of greatest concern following inter-
mittent or continuous long-term exposures are those that cause either irre-
versible damage and  serious impairment to the normal functioning of the
individual,  such as  cancer and organ dysfunctions, or death.
                                    E-3

-------
     The risk associated with exposure to a toxic  agent  is  a  function  of
many factors, including the physical and chemical  characteristics  of the
substance, the nature of the toxic response and the dose  required  to
produce the effect, the susceptibility of the exposed  individual,  and  the
exposure situation.  In many cases individuals may be  concurrently or
sequentially exposed to a mixture of compounds, which  may influence the
risk by changing the nature and magnitude of the toxic response.
E.I  ESTIMATION OF CANCER POTENCY
     The unit risk estimate (unit risk factor) is  used by the Environmental
Protection Agency  (EPA) in its analysis of carcinogens.   It is  defined as
the lifetime cancer risk occurring in a hypothetical population  in which
all individuals are exposed throughout their lifetime  (assumed  to  be 70
years) to an average concentration of 1 /jg/m^ of the pollutant  in  the  air
they breathe.  Unit risk estimates can be used for two purposes:   (1)  to
compare the carcinogenic potency of several agents with one another, and
(2) to give a rough indication of the public health risk that might be
associated with estimated air exposure to these agents.1
     In the development of unit risk factors, EPA  assumes that  if  experi-
mental data show that a substance is carcinogenic  in animals,  it may also
be carcinogenic in humans.  The EPA also assumes that  any exposure to  a
carcinogenic substance poses some risk.2  This nonthreshold presumption is
based on the view that as little as one molecule of a  carcinogenic sub-
stance may be sufficient to transform a normal cell into a  cancer  cell.
Exposed individuals are represented by a referent male having a  standard
weight, breathing rate, etc. (no reference is made to  factors such as  race
or state of health).
     The data used for the quantitative estimate can be of  two  types:  (1)
lifetime animal studies, and (2) human studies where excess cancer risk has
been associated with exposure to the agent.  It is assumed, unless evidence
exists to the contrary, that if a carcinogenic response occurs  at  the  dose
levels used in a study, then responses will occur  at all  lower  doses with
an incidence determined by the extrapolation model.
     There is no solid scientific basis for any mathematical  extrapolation.
model  that relates carcinogen exposure to cancer risks at the extremely low
                                    E-4

-------
concentrations  that  must be dealt with in evaluating environmental hazards.
For practical  reasons,  such low levels of risk cannot be measured directly
either by  animal  experiments or by epidemiologic studies.  We must,  there-
fore,  depend on our  current understanding of the mechanisms of carcinogen-
esis for guidance as to which risk model  to use.  At present, the dominant
view of the carcinogenic process is that  most agents that cause cancer also
cause irreversible damage to DNA.  This position is reflected by the fact
that a very large proportion of agents that cause cancer are also muta-
genic.  There is  reason to expect that the quantal  type of biological
response,  which is characteristic of mutagenesis, is associated with a
linear nonthreshold  dose-response relationship.  Indeed, there is substan-
tial evidence from mutagenesis studies with both ionizing radiation  and a
wide variety of chemicals that this type  of dose-response model is the
appropriate one to use.  This is particularly true at the lower end  of the
dose-response curve.  At higher doses, there can be an upward curvature
probably reflecting  the effects of multistage processes on the mutagenic
response.   The  linear nonthreshold dose-response relationship is also
consistent with the  relatively few epidemiologic studies of cancer
responses  to specific agents that contain enough information to make the
evaluation possible  (e.g., radiation-induced leukemia, breast and thyroid
cancer, skin cancer  induced by arsenic in drinking water, liver cancer
induced by aflatoxins in the diet).  There is also some evidence from
animal experiments that is consistent with the linear nonthreshold model
(e.g., liver tumors  induced in mice by 2-acetylaminofluorene in the  large
scale EDQi study  at  the National Center for Toxicological Research and the
initiation stage  of  the two-stage carcinogenesis model in rat liver  and
mouse skin).
     Because of these facts, the linear nonthreshold model is considered to
be a viable model  for any carcinogen, and unless there is direct evidence
to the contrary,  it  is  used as the primary basis for risk extrapolation to
low levels of exposure.3
     The mathematical  formulation chosen  to describe the linear non-
threshold  dose-response relationship at low doses is the linearized  multi-
stage  model.  The linearized multistage model is applied to the original
                                    E-5

-------
unadjusted animal data.  Risk estimates produced  by  this  model  from the
animal data are then scaled to a human equivalent  estimate  of  risk.   This
is done by multiplying the estimates by several factors to  adjust  for
experiment duration, species differences, and,  if  necessary, route conver-
sion.  The conversion factor for species differences  is presently  based on
models for equitoxic dose.4  The unit risk values  estimated  by  this  method
provide a plausible, upperbound limit on public risk  at lower  exposure
levels if the exposure is accurately quantified;  i.e., the  true risk is
unlikely to be higher than the calculated level and could be substantially
lower.
     The method that has been used in most of the  EPA's quantitative risk
assessments assumes dose equivalence in units of mg/body weight2/3 for
equal tumor response in rats and humans.  This method is based  on  adjust-
ment for metabolic differences.  It assumes that metabolic  rate is roughly
proportional to body surface areas and that surface area  is  proportional to
2/3 power of body weight (as would be the case for a  perfect sphere).  The
estimate is also adjusted for lifetime exposure to the carcinogen  consider-
ing duration of experiment and animal lifetime.5,6
     For unit risk estimates for air, animal studies  using exposure  by
inhalation are preferred.  When extrapolating results from the  inhalation
studies to humans, consideration is given to the following factors:
     •    The deposition of the inhaled compound throughout  the
          respiratory tract
     •    Retention half-time of the inhaled particles
     •    Metabolism of the inhaled compound
     •    Differences in sites of tumor induction.
     Unit risk estimation from animal studies is only an approximate indi-
cation of the actual risk in populations exposed to known concentrations of
a carcinogen.   Differences between species (lifespan, body size, metabo-
lism,  immunological  responses,  target site susceptibility),  as  well  as
differences within species (genetic variation, disease state, diet),  can
cause actual  risk to be much different.  In human populations,  variations
occur in  genetic constitution,  diet,  living environment, and activity
                                    E-6

-------
patterns.   Some populations may demonstrate a higher susceptibility due to
certain  metabolic or inherent differences in their response to the effects
of carcinogens.  Also,  unit risk estimates are based on exposure to a
referent adult male.  There may be an increased risk with exposure by
fetuses, children,  or young adults.   Finally, humans are exposed to a vari-
ety of compounds, and the health effects, either synergistic, additive, or
antagonistic,  of exposure to complex mixtures of chemicals are not
known.7,8
E.I.I  EPA Unit Risk Factors
     The EPA has developed unit risk estimates for about 71 compounds that
are either known or suspect carcinogens and that could be present at a
TSDF.  Most of these unit risk estimates have either been verified by the
Agency's Carcinogen Risk Assessment  Verification Enterprise (CRAVE) or are
under review by CRAVE.   As shown in  Table E-l, these factors range in value
from 4.7 x 10"? (/jg/m3)-l for methylene chloride to 3.3 x 10~5 (pg/m3)-l
for dioxin.
     Emissions have been estimated from TSDF for some 70 organic compounds
that are either known or suspected carcinogens.  Risk factors are available
for many,  but not all,  of these species.
E.I.2  Composite Unit Risk Factor
     To estimate the cancer potency  of TSDF air emissions, a .composite unit
risk, factor approach was adopted to  address the problem of dealing with the
large number of toxic chemicals that are present at TSDF.  Using a compos-
ite factor rather than  individual  unit risk factors simplifies the risk
assessment so that calculations do not need to be performed for each chemi-
cal emitted.  The composite risk factor is combined with estimates of
ambient concentrations  of total volatile organics and population exposure
to estimate the additional cancer incidence in the general population and
the maximum individual  risk due to TSDF emissions.
     Because detailed emission estimates are available and because cancer
incidence and  maximum individual risk are proportional to both the unit
risk factors and emissions,  an emission-weighted averaging technique was
used.  In  calculating the emission-weighted average, the emission estimate
for a compound is multiplied by the  unit risk factor for that compound.
The emission-weighted arithmetic average is computed as follows:
                                    E-7

-------
TABLE E-l.   TSDF CARCINOGEN LIST

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Constituent
acetaldehyde
(75-07-0)
aery 1 amide
(79-06-1)
acrylonitrile
(107-13-1)
aldrin
(309-00-2)
aniline
(62-53-3)
arsenic
(7440-38-2)
benz(a)anthracene
(56-55-3)
benzene
(71-43-2)
benzidine
(92-87-5)
benzo(a)pyrene
(50-32-8)
beryl "Mum
(7440-41-7)
bis(chloroethyl)
ether (111-44-4)
bis(chloromethyl)
ether (542-88-1)
1,3-butadiene
(106-99-0)
cadmium
(7440-43-9)
Unit risk
estimate.
(/ig/m3)-1
2.2xlO-6

1.1x10-3

6.8xlO-5

4.9xlO-3

7.4xlO-6

4.3xlO-3

8.9xlO-4

8.3xlO-6

6.7xlO-2

1.7x10-3

2.4xlO-3

3.3xlO-4

2.7x10-3

2.8x10-4

1.8x10-3

Basis3
CRAVE verified
(class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class Bl)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CAG UCR
(class C)
CRAVE verified
(class A)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
(class A)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class A)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CAG UCR
(class A)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class Bl)
                                  (continued)
              E-8

-------
TABLE E-l (continued)

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Constituent
carbon tetra-
chloride (56-23-5)
chlordane
(12789-03-6)
chloroform
(67-66-3)
chloromethane
(74-87-3)
chloromethyl methyl
ether (107-30-2)
chromium VI
(7440-47-3)
DDT
(50-29-3)
dibenz(a.h)
anthracene
(53-70-3)
l,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane
(96-12-8)
1 ,2-dichloroethane
(107-06-2)
1 , 1-dichloro-
ethylene (75-35-4)
dieldrin
(60-57-1)
2,4-dinitrotoluene
(121-14-2)
Unit risk
estimate.
(/*g/m3)-l
1.5xlO-5
3.7xlO-4
2.3xlO-5
3.6x10-6
2'.7xlO-3
1.2xlO-2
3.0xlO-4
1.4xlO-2
6.3xlO-3
2.6xlO-5
5.0x10-5
4.6xlO-3
8.8x10-5
Basis3
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CRAVE verified
(class B2)
ECAO UCR
(class C)
CAG UCR
(class A)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class A)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class C)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
                             (continued)
         E-9

-------
TABLE E-l (continued)

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Constituent
1,4-dioxane
(123-91-1)
1 ,2-diphenylhydrazine
(122-66-7)
epichlorohydrin
(106-89-8)
ethyl ene di bromide
(106-93-4)
ethylene oxide
(75-21-8)
formaldehyde
(50-00-0)
gasol ine
(8006-61-9)
heptachlor
(76-44-8)
heptachlor epoxide
(1024-57-3)
hexachlorobenzene
(118-74-1)
hexachlorobutadiene
(87-68-3)
hexachlorocyclohexane
(no CAS #)
alpha-hexachloro-
cyclohexane
(319-84-6)
beta-hexachloro-
cyclohexane
(319-85-7)
Unit risk
estimate.
(/*9/m3)-l
1.4xlO-6
2.2xlO-4
1.2xlO-5
2.2xlO-4
l.OxlO-4
1.3xlO-5
6.6xlO-7
1.3xlO-3
2.6x10-3
4.9x10-4
2.2x10-5
5.4x10-4
1.8x10-3
5.3x10-4
Basis3
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B1-B2)
CAG UCR
(class Bl)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class C)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
                            (continued)
        E-10

-------
TABLE E-l (continued)

43.


44.



45.

46.

47.

48.


49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.


55.


Constituent
gamma-hexachloro-
cyclohexane
(lindane) (58-89-9)
hexachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin, 1:2 mixture
(57653-85-7 or
19408-74-3)
hexachloroethane
(67-72-1)
hydrazine
(302-01-2)
3-methylchol anthrene
(56-49-5)
4,4' -methyl ene-bis
(2-chloroanil ine)
(101-14-4)
methylene chloride
(75-09-2)
methyl hydrazine
(60-34-4)
nickel refinery
dust (7440-02-0)
nickel subsulfide
(12035-72-2)
2-nitropropane
(79-46-9)
n-nitrosodi-n-
butylamine
(924-16-3)
n-nitroso-
d i ethyl ami ne
(55-18-5)
Unit risk
estimate.
(/ig/m3)-1
3.8x10-4


1.3xlO-6



4.0xlO-6

2.9xlO-3

2.7xlO-3

4.7xlO-5


4.7xlO-7

3.1xlO-4

2.4xlO-4

4.8xlO-4

2.7x10-3

1.6xlO-3


4.3xlO-2


Basis3
CRAVE verified
UCR (class C)

CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)


CRAVE verified
UCR (class C)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B2)

CAG UCR
UCR (class B2)
ECAO UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class A)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)

CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)

                             (continued)
        E-ll

-------
                      TABLE E-l  (continued)
                               Unit risk
                               estimate
     Constituent
    Basis9
56.  n-nitroso-                1.4xlQ-2
     dimethyl amine
     (62-75-9)

57.  n-nitroso-n-              8.6x10"^
     methyl urea
     (684-93-5)

58.  n-nitroso-                e.lxlO'4
     pyrrolidine
     (930-55-2)

59.  pentachloronitro-         7.3x10"^
     benzene
     (82-68-8)

60.  polychlorinated           1.2x10-3
     biphenyls
     (1336-36-3)

61.  pronamide                 4.6xlO"6
     (23950-58-5)

62.  reserpine                 3.0xlO"3
     (50-55-5)

63.  2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-      3.3xlO'5
     dibenzo-p-dioxin
     (1746-01-6)

64.  1,1,2,2-tetra-            S.SxlO'5
     chloroethane
     (79-34-5)
CRAVE verified
UCR  (class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CAG UCR
(class C)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CAG UCR
(class C)

CAG UCR
(class B2>

CAG UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class C)
65.
66.
67.
tetrachloroethylene
(127-18-4)
thiourea
(62-56-6)
toxaphene
(8001-35-2)
5.8xlO-7
5.5xlO-4
3.2x10-3
CAG UCR
UCR (class B2)
CAG UCR
(class B2)
CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
                                                  (continued)
                              E-12

-------
                      TABLE E-l (continued)
                               Unit risk
                               estimate.
     Constituent
                       Basis3
68.   1,1,2-trichloro-
     ethane
     (79-00-5)

69.   trichloroethylene
     (79-01-6)

70.   2,4,6-trichloro-
     phenol
     (88-06-2)

71.   vinyl chloride
     (75-01-4)
1.6xlO-5



1.7xlO-6


5.7xlO-6



4.1x10-6
CRAVE verified
UCR (class C)
CAG UCR
(class B2)

CRAVE verified
UCR (class B2)
CAG UCR
(class A)
      Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Number.

aUnit cancer risk (UCR) estimates were either (1) verified by
 the Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Enterprise (CRAVE)
 work group or (2) established by the Carcinogen Assessment
 Group (CAG), but not yet verified by CRAVE.  The unit risk
 estimates for chloromethane and methyl hydrazine were derived
 by the Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO).

Note:  The constituents on this list and the corresponding unit
       risk estimates and exposure limits are subject to change.
                              E-13

-------
                                 (RFi • ERn.)
where
     RF  = weighted average risk factor
     RF. = risk factor for compound i
     ER. = emission rate.

Using this type of average would give the same result as calculating the
risk for each chemical involved.
     Table E-2 shows the compounds included in the development of the
composite risk factor, total nationwide emissions by compound, the unit
risk factor by compound, and the weighted-average unit risk estimate.  When
dioxin was included in the calculation, a composite unit risk estimate of
8.6 x 1Q-6 (/jg/m3)-! was determined.  Without dioxin a unit risk estimate
of 3.0 x 10~6 (/jg/m3)-! was calculated.
     Some difficulties arise in using an emission-weighted average for the
composite unit risk factor.  As noted earlier, unit risk factors have not
been developed for all of the pollutants of concern, due, in part, to
insufficient data.  Various options for dealing with this problem were
considered.  The EPA selected an approach in which only those carcinogens
for which unit risk estimates were available would be included in the
analysis of cancer risk.  Consideration was also given to adding the
weighted risk estimates for only those compounds having similar EPA classi-
fications;  i.e.,  to present the composite risk factor and associated cancer
risks separately for Class A compounds, Class B compounds, and Class C
compounds.   However, since only about 4 percent of the weighted composite
risk factor is attributed to Class A compounds and about 6 percent for
Class C, EPA elected to present the risk associated with all three classes
combined.
                                   E-14

-------
                                            TABLE E-2.   EMISSIONS-WEIGHTED COMPOSITE UNIT RISK FACTOR  (URF)
c_n
Chemica 1
name (carcinogen)
1, 1-dich loroethy lene
1,2-di phony 1 hydrazine
1 , 2-d ! bromoethane
l,2-dibromo-3-ch loro propane
1,2-dich loroethane
1,4-dioxane
2-n i tropropane
aceta Idehyde
acetoni tri le
aery 1 amide
aery loni tri le
aldrin
ally! ch lor ide
an! 1 ine
benzene
benzotr ich lor ide
benzo(a) pyrene
benzo (b) f 1 uoranthene
benzy Ich lor ide
benz (a) anthracene
b i s (ch 1 oromethy 1 ) ether
b i s (2-ch 1 oroethy 1 ) ether
b i s (2-ethy 1 hexy 1 ) phtha 1 ate
brqmo-2-ch 1 oroethane
butadiene
carbazole
carbon tetrach loride
ch lordane
ch lorof orm
ch 1 oromethy 1 methyl ether
ch 1 oron i trobenzene
chrysene
creosote
DDT
d i benz(a,h) anthracene
dich lorobenzene(l,4) (p)
d i ch 1 oropropene
dimethoxy benzidi ne, (3,3 ')
dimethyl phenol
dimethyl sulfate
di nitroto 1 uene
epich lorohydri n
ethyl aery late
ethyl carbamate
LDRa uncontrol led
emissions, Mg/yr
1,093
1
0
2
23,101
270
8
6,214
469.100
74
17,770
34
248.600
6,380
6164.000
21.653
2
1.219
289.800
0.230
374
0
338.062
10.310
115
46.760
16,920
8
4,586
0
2508.980
0.316
17.110
27
0.053
0.086
30.540
0.000
21.310
0.192
250.000
1,695
28.920
12.180
URF
5.0 x 10-5
2.2 x 10-4
2.2 x 10-4
6.0 x 10-3
2.6 x 10-5
1.0 x 10~6
3.0 x 10-3
2.2 x 10-6

1.0 x 10-3
6.8 x 10~5
4.9 x 10-3

1.0 x 10-S
8.0 x 10-6

1.7 x 10-3


8.9 x 10-4

3.3 x 10-4


2.8 x 10-4

1.5 x 10-s
3.7 x 10~4
2.3 x 10-5
2.7 x 10-3


•'
3.0 x 10-4
1.4 x 10-2





8.8 x 10-5
1.2 x 10~6


URF x emissions for chemical
Total TSDF emissions
3.0 x 10-8
8.8 x 10-H
0
4.6 X' 10~9
3,3 x 10-7
1.5 x 10~10
1.4 x 10-8
7.4 x 10~9

4.0 x 10-8
6.6 x 10-7
8.9 x 10-8

2.9 x 10-8
2.7 x 10-8

1.4 x 10-9


1.1 x 10-10

0


1.8 x 10-8

1.4 x 10~7
1.6 x 10-9
5.7 x 10-8
0



4.5 x 10-9
4.0 x 10-10





1.2 x 10-8
1.0 x 10-9


                                                                                                                        (conti nued)

-------
                                                                  TABLE E-2 (continued)
 I
i—'
en
Chemi ca 1
name (carcinogen)
ethyl one di bromide
ethylene imine (azaridine)
ethyl ene oxide
forma 1 dehyde
gaso 1 i ne
heptach 1 or
hexach 1 orobenzene
hexach 1 orobutad iene
hexach loroethane
hydrazi ne
i ndeno (123-cd) py rene
lead acetate
lead subacetate
1 i ndane
methyl chloride
methyl cholanthrene (3)
methyl hydrazi ne
methyl iodide
methylene chloride
ni trobenzene
n i tro-o-to 1 u i d i ne
n-n i trosopyrro 1 idine
n-n i troso-n-methy 1 urea
parathion
pentach 1 oroethane
pentach 1 oropheno 1
phenylene diamine
po lych lori nated biphenyls
propylene di chloride
styrene
TCDD (tetrach 1 orod i benzo-p-d i o)
tetrach loroethane(l, 1,1,2)
tetrach 1 oroethy 1 ene
thiourea
toluene diamine
toxaphene
trich loroethane(l ,1,2)
tr i ch 1 oroethy 1 ene
trichlorophenol
vinyl chloride
Total nationwide
uncontrolled emissions
LDR uncontrol led
emissions, mg/yr

10
51640.

2
2


0.
,645
,742
1
158
45780.
1




9




16












7
17



18
56



1,839,
,553
238
0.
1.
0.
.5 x
68
5
8
0.
,676
5438.
0.
0.
0.
75.
2458.
27.
1171.
0.
45.
582.
0.
,135
,271
5
21.
56
,458
,353
30
626

267

000
000




000


033
901
000
10-5



000

900
000
000
000
950
000
630
000
061
460
499
310



718







2.

1.
1.
6.
1.
4.
2.
4.
2.



3.

3.


4.


6.
8.







33
5.
5.
5.

3.
1.
1.
5.
4.


2

0
3
6
3
9
2
0
9



8

0


7


1
6








8
8
5

2
6
7
7
1


URF x emi-ssions for chemical
URF
x

x
X
X
X
X
X
X
K



X

X


X


X
X








X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X


10-4

10~4
10-5
10-7
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-3



10-4

10-3


10-7


10-4
10-2








10~5
10-7
10-4

10-3
10~6
10-6
10-6
10-6


Total
1

0
1
9
8
4
5
3
3



2

8


4











5
2
5
1

9
1
5
9
1

8
TSDF emissions
.2

x

10-9

.000
.9
.8
.6
.2
.4
.4
.8



.0

.6

,
.3











.6
.3
.4
.5

.8
.6
.2
.5
.4

.6
x
x
X
X
X
X
X



X

X


X


0
0







X
X
X
X

X
X
K
X
X

X
10-8
10-10
10-10
10-8
10-7
10-9
10-7



10-14

10-9


10-9











10-6
10-7
10-9
10-9

10-8
10-7
10-8
10-11
10-9

10-6
                    al_DR = Land disposal restrictions.

-------
E.2 DETERMINING NONCANCER HEALTH EFFECTS
     Although cancer is of great concern as an adverse health effect
associated with exposure to a chemical or a mixture of chemicals, many
other health effects may be associated with such exposures.  These effects
may range from subtle biochemical, physiological, or pathological effects
to gross effects such as death.  The effects of greatest concern are the
ones that are irreversible and impair the normal functioning of the
individual.  Some of these effects include respiratory toxicity, develop-
mental and reproductive toxicity, central nervous system effects, and other
systemic effects such as liver and kidney toxicity, cardiovascular toxic-
ity, and immunotoxicity.
E.2.1  Health Benchmark Levels
     For chemicals that give rise to toxic endpoints other than cancer and
gene mutations, there appears to be a level of exposure below which adverse
health effects usually do not occur.  This threshold-of-effect concept
maintains that an organism can tolerate a range of exposures from zero to
some finite value without risk of experiencing a toxic effect.  Above this
threshold, toxicity is observed as the organism's homeostatic, compensat-
ing, and adaptive mechanisms are overcome.  To provide protection against
adverse health effects in even the most sensitive individuals in a popula-
tion, regulatory efforts are generally made to prevent exposures-from
exceeding a health "benchmark" level that is below the lowest of the
thresholds of the individuals within a population.
     Benchmark levels, termed reference doses (RfDs),  are operationally
derived from an experimentally obtained no-observed-effect level or a
lowest-observed-effect level  by consistent application of generally order-
of-magnitude uncertainty factors that reflect various types of data used to
estimate RfD.  The RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an
order of magnitude or greater) of daily exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subpopulations) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effect.
     The Agency has developed verified oral RfD for a large number of
chemicals,  but has only recently established an internal work group to
begin the process for establishing inhalation RfDs.  Agency-verified
                                   E-17

-------
inhalation reference doses for acute and chronic  exposures  will  be used  in
this analysis when they become available.  Unverified  inhalation reference
doses that have been developed by the Agency may  be  used  on an  interim
basis after careful review of the supporting data  base.
£.2.2  Noncarcinogenic Chemicals of Concern
     A preliminary list of 179 TSDF chemicals of  concern  for the noncancer
health assessment is shown in Table E-3.  Constituents were drawn  from the
Agency's final rule on the identification and listing of  hazardous waste
(Appendix VIII)9 and from several hazardous waste  data bases.10   To be
selected from these sources,  the chemical must have  had either  an  Agency-
verified oral reference dose (as of September 30,  1987) .^  or a  Reference
Air Concentration (RAC) found in the Agency's proposed rule on  the burning
of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces.12  Additional
chemicals were added to Table E-3 based on knowledge of a high  toxicity
associated with that substance.
E.3  EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
     Three models were used to assess exposure, and  ultimately  risks, for
air emissions from TSDF.  The human exposure model was used  to  calculate
the number of people exposed to predicted ambient  concentrations  of total
volatile organics (VO) at each of about 2,300 TSDF in the United  States.
The results of these analyses were used to quantify  annual  cancer  inci-
dence.  To determine the maximum lifetime cancer  risk, the  Industrial
Source Complex Long-Term (ISCLT)  model  was used to estimate  the  highest
ambient concentrations of VO in the vicinity of two  TSDF.   In addition,
this model  was used in the evaluation of chronic noncancer  health  effects.
Finally,  the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term  (ISCST) model  was used to
estimate ambient concentrations of individual chemicals of  concern  for the
acute noncancer health effects assessment and as a preliminary  screen for
the chronic noncancer health effects assessment.   Each of these  is  briefly
described below.
E.3.1  Human Exposure Model
     In addition to the composite unit risk estimate, a numerical  expres-
sion of public exposure to the pollutant is needed to produce quantitative
expressions of cancer incidence.   The numerical expression  of public
                                   E-18

-------
     TABLE  E-3.   TSDF CHEMICALS - NONCANCER HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
         Chemical
      Chemical
acetone (67-64-1)
acetaldehyde3 (75-07-0)
acetonit'-ile (75-05-8)
acetophenone (98-86-2)
acetyl  chloride (75-36-5)
l-acetyl-2-thiourea (591-08-2)
acrolein3 (107-02-8)
acrylic acid (79-10-7)
acrylonitrilea (107-13-1)
aldicarb (116-06-3)
aldrina (309-00-2)
allyl  alcohol (107-18-6)
allyl  chloride3 (107-05-1)
aluminum phosphide  (20859-73-8)
5-aminomethyl-3-isoxazolol
  (2763-96-4)
4-aminopyridine (504-24-5)
ammonia (7664-41-7)
ammonium vanadate  (7803-55-6)
antimony (7440-36-0)
arsenic3 (7440-38-2)
barium (7440-39-3)
barium cyanide (542-62-1)
benzidine3 (92-87-5)
benzoic acid (65-85-0)
beryllium3 (7440-41-7)
1,1-biphenyl  (92-52-4)
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate3
  (117-81-7)
bromodichloromethane (75-27-4)
bromoform (75-25-2)
butanol (71-36-3)
cadmium3 (7440-43-9)
calcium chromate3  (13765-19-0)
calcium cyanide  (592-01-8)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
carbon oxyfluoride  (353-50-4)
carbon tetrachloride3 (56-23-5)
chlordane3 (12789-03-6)
chlorine (7782-50-5)
chloroacetaldehyde  (107-20-0)
2-chloro-l,3-butadiene
(126-99-8)
chloroform3 (67-66-3)
chloromethane3 (74-87-3)
3-chloropropionitrile (542-76-7)
chromium III (7440-47-3)
chromium VI (7440-47-3)
copper cyanide (544-92-3)
cresols3 (1319-77-3)
crotonaldehyde (4170-30-3)
cumene (98-82-8)
cyanide (57-12-5)
cyanogen (460-19-5)
cyanogen bromide3  (506-68-3)
cyanogen chloride  (506-77-4)
cyclohexanone (108-94-1)
2,4 D  (dichlorophenoxyacetic
  acid) (94-75-7)
DDT3 (50-29-3)
                      (continued)
                                   E-19

-------
                           TABLE  E-3  (continued)
         Chemical
       Chemical
decabromodiphenyl oxide  (1163-19-5)
di-n-butyl phthalate  (84-74-2)
1,2-dichlorobenzene  (95-50-1)
l,4-dichlorobenzenea  (106-46-7)
dichlorodifluoromethane  (75-71-8)
l,l-dichloroethanea  (75-34-3)
l,l-dichloroethylenea  (75-35-4)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
1,3-dichloropropenea  (542-75-6)
dieldrina (60-57-1)
diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
dimethoate (60-51-5)
dimethyl amine  (124-40-3)
dimethyl aniline  (121-69-7)
(alpha, alpha) dimethyl
  phenethylamine  (122-09-8)
dimethylterephthalate  (120-61-6)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
dinoseb (88-85-7)
diphenyl amine  (122-39-4)
disulfoton (298-04-4)
endosulfan (115-29-7)
endothall  (129-67-9)
endrin (72-20-8)
epichlorohydrin3  (chloro-2,3-
  epoxy-propane)  (106-89-8)
ethyl acetate (141-78-6)
ethyl benzene (100-41-4)
ethylene glycol  (107-21-1)
ethylene oxide3  (75-21-8)
ethylene thioureaa  (96-45-7)
fluoracetic acid, sodium salt
   (62-74-8)
fluoride (16984-48-8)
fluorine (7782-41-4)
formaldehyde3  (50-00-0)
formic acid (64-18-6)
freon 113  (76-13-1)
furan (110-00-9)
gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane
   (lindane) (58-89-9)
heptachlor3 (76-44-8)
heptachlor epoxidea  (1024-57-3)
hexachlorobutadienea  (87-68-3)
hexachlorocyclopentadiene  (77-47-4)
hexachloroethane3 (67-72-1)
hydrogen chloride (7647-01-0)
hydrogen cyanide  (74-90-8)
hydrogen sulfide  (7783-06-4)
isobutyl alcohol  (78-83-1)
lead (7439-92-1)
maleic hydrazidea (123-33-1)
malonitrile (109-77-3)
mercury (7439-97-6)
methacrylonitrile (126-98-7)
methomyl (16752-77-5)
methoxyclor (72-43-5)
methyl bromide  (bromomethane)
   (74-83-9)

                       (continued)
                                    E-20

-------
                           TABLE E-3  (continued)
         Chemical
       Chemica'
methyl  chloroform (1,1,1-
  trichloroethane) (71-55-6)
methylene chloride3 (75-09-2)
methyl  ethyl  ketone (78-93-3)
methyl  iodidea (74-88-4)
methyl  iosbutyl ketone  (108-10-1)
methyl  isocyanate (624-83-9)
2-methyl  lactonitrile (75-86-5)
methyl  parathion  (298-00-0)
nickel  carbonyla  (13463-39-3)
nickel  cyanide (557-19-7)
nickel  refinery dust3 (7440-02-2)
nitric  oxide (10102-43-9)
nitrobenzene3  (98-95-3)
4-nitroquinoline-l-oxide (56-57-5)
osmium  tetroxide  (20816-12-0)
pentachlorobenzene3 (608-93-5)
pentachloroethane3 (76-01-7)
pentachloronitrobenzene  (82-68-8)
pentachlorophenol3 (87-86-5)
phenol  (108-95-2)
m-phenylenediamine3 (25265-76-3)
phenylmercuric acetate  (62-38-4)
phosgene  (75-44-5)
phosphine (7803-51-2)
potassium cyanide (151-50-8)
potassium silver cyanide (506-61-6)
pronamide3 (23950-58-5)
propanenitrile (107-12-0)
n-propylamine (107-10-8)
2-prop'yn-l-ol (107-19-7)
pyridine  (110-86-1)
selenious acid (selenium dioxide)
  (7783-00-8)
selenourea (630-10-4)
silver (7440-22-4)
silver cyanide (506-64-9)
silvex (93-72-1)
sodium azide (26628-22-8)
sodium cyanide (143-33-9)
styrene3 (100-42-5)
strychnine (57-24-9)
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
  (95-94-3)
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane3
  (630-20-6)
tetrachloroethylene3 (127-18-4)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
  (58-90-2)
tetraethyl  dithiopyrophosphate
  (3689-24-5)
tetraethyl  lead (78-00-2)
thallic oxide (1314-32-5)
thallium (7440-28-0)
thallium (1)  acetate (563-68-8)
thallium (1)  carbonate (6533-73-9)
thallium (1)  chloride (7791-12-0)
thallium (1)  nitrate (10102-45-1)
thallium (1)  selenite (12039-52-0)
thallium (1)  sulfate (10031-59-1)
thiomethanol  (methyl mercaptan)
  (74-93-1)
thiosemicarbazide  (79-19-6)


                         (continued'
                                    E-21

-------
                           TABLE E-3  (continued)
         Chemica'
       Chemical
thiram (137-26-8)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
l,l,2-trichloroethanea (79-00-5)
tri chloromonof1uoromethane
  (75-69-4)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol3 (95-95-4)
1,2,3-trichloropropane  (96-18-4)
vanadium pentoxide  (1314-62-1)
warfarin (81-81-2)
xylene(s) (1330-20-7)
zinc cyanide (557-21-1)
zinc phosphide (12037-79-5)
zineba (12122-67-7)
( )  = Chemical  Abstracts Service (CAS) Number.
aCarcinogen.
                                 E-22

-------
exposure is based on two estimates:  (1) an estimate of the magnitude and
location of long-term average air concentrations of the pollutant in the
vicinity of emitting sources based on air dispersion modeling; and (2) an
estimate of the number of people living in the vicinity of emitting
sources.
     The EPA uses the Human Exposure Model (HEM) to make these quantitative
estimates of public exposure and risk associated with a pollutant.  The HEM
uses an atmospheric dispersion model that includes meteorological data and
a population distribution estimate based on 1980 Bureau of Census data to
calculate public exposure.13
     The dispersion model in HEM used data for a model plant that was
placed at each TSDF location (initially about 5,000 sites).  The location
of each TSDF was obtained from the TSDF Industry Profile (see Appendix D,
Section D.2.1).  Inputs to the initial  run included a unit cancer potency
factor (1.0) and a unit emission rate (10,000 kg VOC/yr).   In addition,  an
exit velocity and an effluent outgas temperature of 0.1 m/s and 293 °C were
assumed.  These inputs were used to estimate the concentration and distri-
bution of the pollutant at distances of 200 m to 50 km from the source.
The population distribution estimates for people residing  near the source
are based on Bureau of Census data contained in the 1980 Master Area
Reference File (MARF)  data base.14  The data base is broken down into
enumeration district/block group (ED/BG) values.  The MARF contains the
population centroid coordinates (latitude and longitude) and the 1980
population of each ED/BG (approximately 300,000) in the United States.  By
knowing the geographic location of the plant (latitude and longitude), the
model  can identify the ED/BG that fall  within the 50-km radius used by HEM.
     The HEM multiplies the concentration of the pollutant at ground level
at each of the 160 receptors around the plant by the number of people
exposed to that concentration to produce the exposure estimates.  The total
exposure,  as calculated by HEM, is illustrated by the following equation:
                                       N
                     Total  exposure =  E (P-)(C-)  ,                   (E-2)
                                      i = l  ]    q
    E  = summation over all grid points where exposure is calculated
    P-j  - population associated with grid point i
                                   E-23

-------
     Cj =  long-term average pollutant concentration  at  grid  point  i
     N  =  number of grid points.
The HEM assumes that:   (1) people stay at the  same  location  (residence) and
are exposed to the same concentrations of the  pollutant for  70  years;  (2)
the terrain around the  plant  is flat; and (3)  concentrations of the  pollut-
ant are the same inside and outside the residence.
E.3.2  ISCLT Model
     As noted above, the ISCLT model was used  to  estimate  ambient  concen-
trations of VO for estimating maximum lifetime  risk  for the  cancer health
effects assessment and  the chronic noncancer effects  study.   The ISCLT
model is a steady-state, Gaussian plume, atmospheric  dispersion model that
is applicable to multiple point, area, and volume emission sources.  It is
designed specifically to estimate long-term ambient  concentrations of
pollutants in the vicinity of industrial source complexes.   The model was
applied to two TSDF to estimate the highest concentrations of VO and
individual chemicals at the fenceline, or beyond, of  two TSDF.   As
described  later in Section E.4, the highest ambient  VO  concentrations are
used with the composite' unit  risk factor to estimate  maximum lifetime risk.
A detailed discussion of the model and its application  to  the two  TSDF is
contained in Appendix J.
E.3.3  ISCST Model
     The ISCST model was used to estimate ambient concentrations of  indi-
vidual  hazardous waste constituents for purposes of  evaluating  acute,
noncancer health risks.  It was also used'as a  screening tool to identify
which of the chemicals of concern in Table E-3  should be further evaluated
with the ISCLT (see also Appendix J).  The ISCST  is  similar  in  nature to
the ISCLT,  except that it is suitable for estimating  short-term ambient
concentrations (e.g.,  concentrations averaged over 1  hour, 3 hours,  8
hours,  24 hours,  etc.)  as well as long-term averages.   ISCST was applied to
two TSDF to estimate the highest constituent concentrations  for variable
averaging times at  the fencline or beyond.  A detailed  description of this
model  and its  application are also contained in Appendix J.
                                   E-24

-------
E.4   RISK  ASSESSMENT
E.4.1   Cancer Risk  Measurements
     Three pieces  of information are needed to assess the cancer risks of
exposure to TSDF  air emissions:  (1) an estimate of the carcinogenic
potency, or unit  risk estimate, of the pollutants in TSDF air emissions;
(2)  an estimate of  the ambient concentration of the pollutants from a TSDF
that an individual  or group of people breathe; and (3) an estimate of the
number of  people  who are exposed to those concentrations.
     Multiplying  the composite unit risk factor by (1) the numerical
expressions of public exposure obtained from HEM and (2) the maximum
concentration predicted by ISCLT gives two types of cancer risk measures:
(1)  annual incidence, a measure of population or aggregate risk, and (2)
individual risk or maximum lifetime risk.  The definition and calculation
of annual  incidence are discussed in the next section.  Maximum lifetime
risks is discussed  in Section E.4. 1.2.
     E..4.1.1  Annual Cancer Incidence.  One expression of risk is annual
cancer incidence,  a measure of aggregate risk.  Aggregate risk is the
summation  of all  the risks to people estimated to be living within the
vicinity (usually within 50 km) of a source.  It is calculated by multiply-
ing the estimated concentrations of the pollutants by the unit risk value
by the number of  people exposed to different concentrations.  This estimate
reflects the number of excess cancers among the total population after 70
years of exposure.   For statistical convenience, the aggregate risk is
divided by 70 and expressed as cancer incidence per year. 15
     A unit cancer potency factor of 1.0 and a unit emission rate of 10,000
g/yr were  input to  HEM.  Annual incidence attributed to each TSDF, as
calculated by using HEM, is proportional to the cancer potency estimate and
emissions.  Thus,  another model was used to scale the annual incidence for
each TSDF  by the  estimated composite unit risk factor and by the estimated
VO emission that  were attributed to each TSDF:
                                           Composite
                                           unit risk   VO emissions
                                            factor     for TSDF XX
Annual  incidence  =  HEM annual  incidence x  - — - x
                                              — g -   — IQ QQQ kq
                                   E-25

-------
The annual incidences were then summed over all TSDF.  This  scaling  and
final aggregation was performed with the Source Assessment Model  (SAM)  (see
Appendix D).
     E.4.1.2   Maximum Lifetime Risk.  Maximum lifetime risk  or  individual
risk refers to the person or persons estimated to live in the area of
highest ambient air concentrations of the pollutant(s) as determined by the
detailed facility modeling.  The maximum lifetime risk reflects the  proba-
bility of an  individual  developing cancer as a result of continuous
exposure to the estimated maximum ambient air concentration  for 70 years.
The use of the word "maximum" in maximum lifetime risk does  not mean the
greatest possible risk of cancer to the public.  It is based only on the
maximum exposure estimated by the procedure used,16 and it does not
incorporate uncertainties in the exposure estimate or the risk factor.
     Maximum  lifetime risk is calculated by multiplying the  highest  ambient
air concentration by the composite unit risk estimate.  The  product  is the
probability of developing cancer for those individuals assumed to be
exposed to the highest concentration for their lifetimes.  Thus,
                                                    Highest
                                                  ambient air
                                                 .concentration.
(E-4)
Maximum lifetime risk = [Co-nposite unit risk
                        [estimate at 1 pg/m
E.4.2  Noncancer Health Effects
     E.4.2.1  Chronic Exposures.  The assessment of noncancer  health
effects associated with chronic exposures to TSDF chemicals of concern is
based on a comparison of the chemical-specific health benchmark  levels (as
discussed in Section E.2.1) to estimated ambient concentrations  at  various-
receptor locations around a facility.  Inhalation exposure  limits are
compared to the highest annual average ambient concentration for each
chemical at the selected facilities.  These annual concentrations represent
an estimation of the highest average daily ambient concentration experi-
enced over a year.  Ambient concentrations that are less than  the RfD are
not likely to be associated with health risks.  The probability  that
adverse effects may be observed in a human population increases  as  the
frequency of exposures exceeding the RfD increases and as the  size  of the
excess increases.
                                   E-26

-------
     Until  Agency-verified RFDs are available, an interim screening
approach  will  be used.   The likelihood of adverse noncancer health effects
will  be determined by comparing modeled ambient concentrations of individ-
ual  constituents to the available health data.  These health data are
obtained  from  various sources,  including EPA reports and documents, data
used to support occupational  exposure recommendations and standards (e.g.,
American  Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Documentation of
the Threshold  Limit Values),  and other published information.  Assessment
of the potential for adverse noncancer health effects will be made case-by-
case,  considering:  (1) the magnitude of the differences between the
exposure  concentration and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level or the
no-observed-adverse-effect level, and (2) the quality of the health effects
data base.   In general, the likelihood of noncancer health effects will be
considered  to  be low if modeled concentrations are several orders of
magnitude below the health effect levels of concern.  The probability that
such effects will  occur increases with increasing exposure concentrations.
This screening effort will be used only to give a preliminary indication of
the potential  for noncancer health effects, and will be replaced by an
analysis  that  uses inhalation reference doses as they become available.
     E.4.2.2  Acute Exposures.   Assessment of the potential  for noncancer
health effects associated with short-term (acute) exposure to TSDF chemi-
cals of concern at selected facilities is being conducted as a screening
effort to provide additional  qualitative support to the overall noncancer
health effects analysis.   In  addition to the lack of short-term inhalation
health benchmark levels at this time, adequate acute inhalation data are
limited for many of the TSDF  chemicals of concern.  The assessment is
conducted by comparing maximum modeled ambient concentrations for averaging
times  of  15 minutes,  1  hour,  8 hours, and 24 hours to available short-term
health data matched to the appropriate averaging time.   Determination of
the risk  of adverse health effects associated with estimated short-term'
exposures is based on a consideration of the quality of the available
health data and the proximity of the exposure concentration to the health
effect level.
                                   E-27

-------
E.5  ANALYTICAL UNCERTAINTIES APPLICABLE TO CALCULATIONS  OF  PUBLIC  HEALTH
     RISKS IN THIS APPENDIX
E.5.1  Unit Risk Estimate
     The procedure generally used to develop unit  risk  estimates  is  fully
described in Reference 1.  Nickel was selected as  an example.   The model
used and its application to epidemiological and animal  data  have  been the
subjects of substantial comment by health scientists.   The uncertainties
are too complex to be summarized in this appendix.  Readers  who wish to go
beyond the information presented in the reference  should  see the  following
Federal Register notices,:  (1) EPA's "Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment," 51 FR 33972 (September 24, 1986), and  (2)  EPA's "Chemical
Carcinogens; A Review of the Science and its Associated Principles," 50 FR
10372  (March 14, 1985), February 1985.
     Significant uncertainties associated with the  cancer unit  risk  factors
include:  (1) selection of dose/response model, (2) selection of  study used
to estimate the unit risk estimate, and (3) presence or absence of a
threshold.  Uncertainties related to the composite  risk factor  include the
assumption of additivity of carcinogenic risk.  According to the  EPA
"Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Mixtures,"  a number of
factors such as data on similar mixtures and the interactions among  chemi-
cals must be considered before additivity can be assumed.1?  Because of the
sheer number of chemicals emitted from TSDF and the lack  of  specific
information on particular compounds, EPA assumed additivity.
E.5.2  Public Exposure
     E.5.2.1  General.   The basic assumptions implicit  in the methodology
are that all exposure occurs at people's residences, that people  stay at
the same location for 70 years, that the ambient air concentrations  and the
emissions that cause these concentrations persist  for 70 years, and  that
the concentrations are the same inside and outside  the  residences.   From
this it can be seen that public exposure is based  on a  hypothetical  rather
than a realistic premise.  It is not known whether  this results in an
overestimation or an underestimation of public exposure.
     E.5.2.2  The Public.  The following are relevant to  the public  as
dealt with in this analysis:
                                   E-28

-------
     •    Studies  show  that  all  people  are  not  equally  susceptible  to
         cancer.   There  is  no  numerical  recognition  of the  "most
         susceptible"  subset of the  population  exposed.

     •    Studies  indicate that  whether or  not  exposure to a  particu-
         lar  carcinogen  results in cancer  may  be  affected by the
         person's  exposure  to  other  substances.   The public's expo-
         sure to  other substances  is not numerically considered.

     •    Some members  of the public  included  in this analysis are
         likely to be  exposed  to compounds in  the air  in the work-
         place, and  workplace  air  concentrations  of  a  pollutant are
         customarily much higher than  the  concentrations found in  the
         ambient  or  public  air.  Workplace exposures are not numeri-
         cally approximated.

     •    Studies  show  that  there is  normally  a  long  latency  period
         between  exposure and  the  onset  of cancer.   This has not been
         numerically recognized.

     •    The  people  dealt with  in  the  analysis  are not located by
         actual residences.  As explained  previously,  they  are
         "located"  in  the Bureau of  Census data for  1980 by  popula-
         tion centroids  of  census  districts.

     •    Many people dealt  with in this  analysis  are subject to
         exposure  to ambient air concentrations of inorganic arsenic
         where they  travel  and  shop  (as  in downtown  areas and
         suburban  shopping  centers), where they congregate  (as in
         public parks, sports  stadiums,  and school yards),  and where
         they work outside  (as  mailmen,  milkmen,  and construction
         workers).   These types of exposures  are  not dealt with
         numerically.

     E.5.2.3   Ambient Air Concentrations.   The  following are  relevant to

the estimated  ambient air concentrations  us-ed  in this analysis:

     •    Flat terrain  was assumed  in the dispersion  model.   Concen-
         trations  much higher  than those estimated would result if
         emissions  impact on elevated  terrain  or  tall  building near a
         plant.

     •    The  estimated concentrations  do not  account for the additive
         impact of emissions from  plants located  close to one another.

     •    Meteorological  data specific  to plant  sites are not used  in
         the  dispersion  model.   As explained, meteorological data  from
         a National  Weather Service  station nearest  the plant site is
         used.  Site-specific meteorological  data could result in
         significantly different estimates; e.g.,  the  estimates of
         where the higher concentrations occur.
                                   E-29

-------
     •    With few exceptions, the emission rates are based on  assump-
          tions and on limited emission tests.  See the Background
          Information Document for details on each source.

E.6  REFERENCES

 1.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Health Assessment Document for
     Nickel and Nickel Compounds.  Publication No. EPA-600/8-83-012FF.
     Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.   1986.
     p. 8-156.

 2.  Reference 1,  p. 8-156.

 3.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Carcinogen Assessment of  Coke
     Oven Emissions.  Publication No. EPA-600/6-82-003F.  Office of Health
     and Environmental Assessment.  Washington, DC.  1984.  p.  147.

 4.  Reference 1,  p. 8-161.

 5.  Reference 1,  p. 8-179.

 6.  Reference 1,  p. 8-162.

 7.  Reference 1,  p. 8-179.

 8.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Health Assessment Document for
     Carbon Tetrachloride.  Publication No. EPA-600/8-82-001F.  Environ-
     mental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.  1984.
     p. 12-10.

 9.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Hazardous Waste Management
     System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Rule.  51
     FR 28296.  1986.

10.  Memorandum from Coy,  Dave, RTI,  to McDonald,  Randy, EPA/OAQPS.   May 2,
     1986.   Listing of waste constituents prioritized by quantity.

11.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Status Report of the RfD  Work
     Group.  Environmental Criteria and Assessment office, Cincinnati, OH.
     1987.

12.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Burning of Hazardous Waste in
     Boilers and Industrial Furnaces; Preamble Correction.  52  FR 25612.
     1987.

13.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  User's Manual for the Human
     Exposure Model (HEM).  Office of Air Quality Planning and  Standards,
     Research Triangle park, NC.   Publication No.  EPA/450/5-86-001.   1986.

14.  Department of Commerce.  Local Climatological Data.  Annual Summaries
     with Comparative Data.
                                   E-30

-------
15.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Inorganic Arsenic NESHAPs:
     Response  to Public  Comments  on Health,  Risk Assessment,  and Risk
     Management.   Publication  No.  EPA/450-5-85-001.   Office of Air Quality,
     Planning,  and Standards,  Research  Triangle Park, NC.   p. 4-13.

16.   Reference 15, p.  4-18.

17.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Guidelines for the Health Risk
     Assessment of Chemical  Mixtures.   51 FR 34014.   September 24,  1986.
                                   E-31

-------
APPENDIX F



 TEST DATA

-------
                                APPENDIX F
                                 TEST DATA

     An ongoing  test  program is  being conducted to develop an air emission
data base in  support  of standards to control  emissions from hazardous waste
treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facilities (TSDF).
     The purposes  of  the test program are to:
     •     Provide  an  indication  of air emission levels from TSDF
     •     Evaluate effectiveness  of emission  controls
     •     Evaluate measurement techniques for determining air emis-
          sions  from  hazardous waste TSDF
     •     Evaluate modeling techniques for estimating air emissions
          from hazardous waste TSDF.
     Source testing  has been conducted at TSDF covering five categories:
     •     Surface  impoundments
     •     Wastewater  treatment (WWT) systems
     •     Active and  inactive landfills
     •     Land treatment facilities
     •     Transfer,  storage,  and  handling operations.
In addition,  data  are available  from petroleum transfer,  storage, and
handling operations  and from fugitive sources at petroleum refineries and
synthetic organic  chemical  manufacturing industries  (SOCMI) facilities that
are applicable to  TSDF fugitive  emission sources.
     The types of  controls  that  have been tested are add-on controls for
the suppression  of emissions,  capture and containment devices to control
vented  off-gases,  and volatile organic (VO)  removal  processes such as steam
                                    F-3

-------
strippers and thin-film evaporators.   These  sources  have been tested for
their effectiveness as well as any emissions  they  produce.
     The subsequent sections of this  appendix summarize  the available test
data by TSDF emission source category and control  type.   For each  source
category, descriptions of the facility and types of  wastes  managed per
facility are presented, along with air emission sources  tested,  objectives
of tests, sampling locations, sampling and analytical  techniques used,  and
tabular summaries of test results.
     Tables F-l through F-9 present summaries of tests.   There are two
summary tables for surface impoundments, two  for WWT systems,  and  two for
landfills.  The first of each pair of tables  presents  general  information
including test site identification number, test site location,  test
description, test year, test sponsor,  and test duration.  The second table
of each pair presents measured emission data.  Summaries  of testing  and
test results for land treatment; transfer, storage,  and  handling opera-
tions; and controls are each presented  in one table.   Each  table includes
site identification number, test site location, test year,  test  sponsor,
test description, test duration, test  procedure, source  tested  or  control
tested, and summary of test results.
F.I  TEST DATA AT EMISSION SOURCES
F.I.I  Surface Impoundments
     F.I. 1.1  Site I.1  Site 1 is a RCRA-permitted commercial  hazardous
waste TSDF.  The facility includes four general waste  management processes:
surface impoundments (ponds), landfills, wastewater  treatment  unit,  and
solvent recovery.  Ponds 2, 6, and 8  are currently being  used  as surface
impoundments.   Pond 2 acts as the receiving basin.   An oil  film  covers much
of its surface,  and floating solid debris is  visible on  the pond's surface
as well.   Pond 2 has a capacity of approximately 5,700 m3.   Each of  the
surface impoundments is operated with  approximately  1.5  m of freeboard; the
dimensions of each of the surface impoundments are given  in Table  F-10.
     From Pond 2, the aqueous waste is  pumped to Pond  6.  Caustic  is added
to the wastewater at Pond 6 to raise  the pH to approximately 11,  and poly-
mer is added to promote solids settling.  Pond 6 has a capacity  of about
9,500 m3.
                                    F-4

-------
           TABLE  F-l.   SUMMARY OF TSDF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TESTING3
Site
 No.
Test site
location
   Test          Test    Test       Test
description      year   sponsor   duration
      Oklahoma
       commercial  TSDF
      California
       commercial  TSDF
  3   Louisiana
       refinery/lubricating
       oil  plant
      Texas
       chemical  manufacturing
       plant
      Mississippi
       chemical  manufacturing
       plant
  6   California
       commercial  TSDF
  7   New  York
       commercial  TSDF
                   Field test
                   (3 impoundments)
                     • Liquid samples
                     • Biological
                       activity testing

                   Field test
                   (4 impoundments)
                     • Liquid samples
                     • Biological
                       activity testing

                   Field test
                   (1 impoundment)
                     • Liquid samples
                     • Biological
                       activity testing

                   Field test
                   (1 impoundment)
                     • Liquid samples
                     • Biological
                       activity testing

                   Field test
                   (1 impoundment)
                     • Flux chamber
                     • Liquid samples
                     • Sludge samples

                   Field test
                   (1 impoundment)
                     • Flux chamber
                     • Liquid samples

                   Field test
                   (3 impoundments)
                     • Flux chamber
                     • Liquid samples
                 1987  EPA/ORD     1 day
                 1986  EPA/ORD
                 1986  EPA/ORD
                 1983  EPA/ORD
1 day
                 1986  EPA/ORD     1 day
1 day
                 1985  EPA/OAQPS   3 days
                 1984  EPA/OAQPS   2 days
1 week
 TSDF  = Treatment, storage,  and  disposal  facility.
  ORD  = Office of Research  and Development.
OAQPS  = Office of Air Quality Planning  and  Standards.

aThis  table presents a  summary of  the air emission,  liquid concentration, and
 biological activity testing conducted  at TSDF surface impoundments.
                                      F-5

-------
                       TABLE F-2.  SUMMARY OF TSDF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT MEASURED EMISSION RATES AND MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS3
~n
en

tested, NMHC,
Test site m^ Mg/yr
Site 6
Holding 3,780 15
1 agoon
Site 6b
Evaporation 6,300
pond
June 20, 1984C 16
June 22, 1984 61
Site 7
Holding 4,860 1.2
pondd
Reducing 1,120 0.6
1 agoon®
Oxidizing 1,230 7.6
1 agoon®

Toluene Ethyl benzene

9.0 NA




0.2 0.2
2.4 1.0

2.3 2.8

E.0 E.5

0.38 0.037

Mass transfer coefficient. )
Methylene 1,1,1-
chloride Tri ch 1 oroethane

NA NA




0.7 1.2
8.4 2.6

3.1 <0.039

12 7.6

NA 3E

< 106 m/s
Ch 1 orof orm

NA




0.9
12

2.2

5.7

NA


p-D i ch 1 orobenzene Benzene

NA 3.7




0.3 NA
0.4 NA

4.3 2.7

2.6 4.9

NA NA

TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.
NA = Not avallable.

aThts table presents a summary of the NMHC air emission rates measured using the flux chamber technique and calculated mass transfer
 coefficients for speci f i c constituents from TSDF surface impoundment testi ng,

^During flux chamber measurements, an additional 30.6 m (100 ft) of sampling line was required to reach the sampling locations.
 Under normaI conditions, 3.1 m  (10 ft) of samp Ii ng  I!ne wouId be used.

cDuring collection of the canister samples on June 20 at two sampling points, the chamber differential pressure was higher than
 normal.  This abnormality may have affected these canister results on June 20.

^Field test took place several days after draining; consequently, the pond had a nominal 0.3 to 0.5 m (1 to 1,5 ft) of liquid
 waste and severaI meters of s t udge present.

eThe surface of the lagoon was coated with an oil film.

-------
      TABLE F-3.  SUMMARY OF  TSDF  WASTEWATER  TREATMENT  SYSTEM TESTING3
Site
 No.
Test site
location
   Test          Test
description      year
  Test       Test
 sponsor   duration
      East Coast
      synthetic organic
      chemical manufacturer
      East Coast
       synthetic organic
       chemical manufacturer
  10   Florida
       acrylic  fiber
       manufacturer
  11   Connecticut
       specialty chemical
       manufacturer
  12   Louisiana
      organic chemical
      manufacturer
                   Field test
                   (surface aerated)
                     • Liquid samples
                     • Biological
                       activity testing

                   Field test
                   (surface aerated)
                     • Flux chamber
                     • Liquid samples
                     • Biological
                       activity testing

                   Field test
                   (surface aerated)
                     • Liquid samples
                     • Biological
                       activity testing

                   Field test
                   (covered surface
                    aerated)
                     • Liquid samples
                     • Vent samples

                   Field test
                   (wastewater treat-
                    ment plant)
                     • Liquid samples
                     • Ambient air
                       samples
                 1986  EPA/ORD     1 week
                 1986  EPA/ORD     1 week
                 1986
EPA
Region IV
2 days
                 1984  EPA/ORD
            1 week
                 1983
EPA/ORD/
 Union
 Carbide
26 days
TSDF  = Treatment, storage, and disposal  facility.
ORD = Office of Research  and Development.

aThis table presents a summary of the  air  emission,  liquid  concentration,  and
 biological activity testing conducted  at  TSDF  wastewater treatment systems.
                                      F-7

-------
                                    TABLE F-4.   SUMMARY OF TSDF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM MEASURED EMISSION RATES AND MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS3
 I
CXI
Test site
Site 9
Aeration tank
Site 11
Covered
aerati on
has i n
Site 12
Primary
c 1 ar if iers
Aerated
stabi 1 iza-
tion basins

• j L | Mass transfer coefficient, x 10® m/s
tested, NMHC.t 2-Ethy 1 2-Ethy 1 1,2-

320 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 180
5,940 NA NA NA NA NA 4.8 30 89
29E NA 230 43 130 B8 2.2 19 S2
5,180 NA NA NA NA NA 16 8.6 38
29,200 NA NA 0.7 120 NA 62 94 SB0


Ethyl

NA
NA
39
6.4
60

NA = Not avai lable.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.
                          merit  system  testing.   The emission rates used in calculating mass transfer coefficients were obtained from flux chamber measure-
                          ments  (Site  9),  vent  measurements (Site 11),  and ambient measurements and mass balance techniques (Site 12).

                         b~Tota I  NMHC emission  rates were not measured.

-------
                TABLE  F-5.   SUMMARY  OF  TSDF  LANDFILL TESTING9
Site
No.
Test site
location
Test
description
Test
year
Test
sponsor
Test
duration
  13  California
      commercial TSDF
  6    California
      commercial  TSDF
  14   Gulf Coast
       commercial  TSDF
  15   Northeastern
       commercial TSDF
  7    Northeastern
      commercial TSDF
Field test
(1 landfill)
  • Flux chamber
  • Soil samples

Field test
(2 landfills)
  • Flux chamber
  • Soil samples

Field test
(1 landfill)
  • Flux chamber
  • Soil samples

Field test
(2 landfills)
  • Flux chamber
  • Vent samples
  • Soil samples

Field test
(2 landfills)
  • Flux chamber
  • Vent samples
  • Soil samples
1984  EPA/OAQPS   2 days
1984  EPA/OAQPS   2 days
1983  EPA/OSW     3 days
1983  EPA/OSW     2 days
1983  EPA/OSW     1 week
 TSDF  - Treatment, storage,  and  disposal  facility.
OAQPS'  - Office of Air Quality  Planning  and  Standards.
  OSW  = Office of Solid Waste.

aThis  table presents a summary of  the air emission  and  soil  concentration
 testing conducted at TSDF  landfills.
                                      F-9

-------
                                       TABLE  F-6.  SUMMARY OF TSDF LANDFILL MEASURED EMISSION RATES AND EMISSION FLUX RATES3
O
Test s i te
Site 13
Active LF
Site 6
Inactive LF
Active LF
Temporary
storage
area
Act i ve
work i ng
area
Site 14
Active LF
Cel 1 A
Site 15
Active LF-P
Inacti ve
LF-0
Site 7
Inactive LF-A
Vent 2A
Vent 3-2
Active LF-B
Flammab le
eel 1
Organ ic
eel 1
Area
tested,
19,970
2,370
1,470
670
185
7,600
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
2,100
4,200
Total
NMHC,
Mg/yr
54
0.056
0.66
1.4
0.0048
1.9
0.93
0.044
0.0002
0.70
9.6
Emission flux rate, x
Methy lene
Acetaldehyde chloride
NA NA
NA 0.13
NA 0.43
NA 9.B
0.19 NA
NA 1.6
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA 0.089
NA 0.73
To 1 uene
3.5
NA
0.073
NA
<0.063
0.42
NA
NA
NA
0.94
3.7
1,1,1-
Trichloroe thane
2.9
0.071
2.6
32
NA
0.21
NA
NA
NA
1.7
0.45
106 q/m2*s
Tetra-
chloroethylene
5.2
NA
0.65
13
NA
1.0
NA
NA
NA
2.6
0.011

Total
xylene Styrene Ethylbenzene
6.0 NA 1.6
NA NA NA
0.65 NA 0.13
NA NA NA
<0.13 <0.063 <0.063
0.79 NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
0.86 0.20 0.26
32 14 6.7
              TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
              NA = Not avallable.
              NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.
              LF = landfi I I.

              aThis table  presents a summary of measured total NMHC emission rates and calculated emission flux rates for specific constituents
               from TSDF  landfill testing.  Emission  rates were measured  using flux chamber and vent sampling techniques.

-------
TABLE F-7.  SUMMARY OF TSDF LAND TREATMENT TESTING AND TEST RESULTS3
Site
No.
16



17





18






19




















Test s i te Test
location description
West Coast Laboratory
s i mu 1 at i on


Southwest Laboratory
s i mu 1 at i on




Midwestern Flux chamber
refinery sampling of
active land
treatment
area


West Coast Flux chamber
refinery sampling of
active land
treatment
area
















Te-t Teat Test description
year sponsor Waste type Application method
1986- Corporate API separator sludge Subsurface (Run 1)
1987 research API separator sludge Subsurface (Run 2)
facility Centrifuged and dried Subsurface (Run 2)
API separator sludge
1986 EPA/OAQPS API separator sludge Surface (Box #1 and 3)c
(Box #2)d
(Box #4)e
IAF sludge Surface (Box #1 and 3) c
(Box #2)d
(Box #4)«
1985 EPA/ORD API separator Surface
DAF sludge





1984 EPA/ORD DAF/API Surface
Float— 50-75%,
Separator cleanings —
20-30%,
Miscellaneous oily
waste — B%








Subsurface






Test Waste
duration constituent
69 d Oil
22 d Oil
22 d Oil

31 d Oil
Oi 1
Oi 1
31 d Oil
Oi 1
Oi 1
1 wk Benzene
To I uene
Ethy (benzene
p-Xy lene
m-Xy lene
o-Xy lene
Naphtha lene
5 wk n-Heptane
Methy 1 eye 1 ohexane
3-Methy 1 -heptane
n-Nonane
1-Methy 1 eye 1 ohexene
1-Octene
p-P i nene
Limonene
To luene
p- , m-Xy 1 ene
1,3, 5-Tr i methy 1 benzene
o-Ethy 1 -to 1 uene
Total VO
Tota 1 o i 1
5 wk n-Heptane
Methy Icyc 1 ohexane
3-Methy 1 -heptane
n-Nonane
1-Methy 1 eye 1 ohexane
1-Octene
/J-Pinene
Emissions,
wt *b
40
11
1

5.8
NA
7.4
18.5
NA
22
94 f
53
270
29
51
33
1
60
61
52
56
49
50
17
22
37
35
21
32 ,
309
1.2
94
88
77
80
76
74
21
                                                                                                      (conti nued)

-------
TABLE F-7 (continued)
Site Test site Test Test Test
No. location description year sponsor
19 West Coast
ref 1 nery
(con.)




20 Southwest Laboratory 1983 API/EPA/
simulation ORD



















14 Gulf Coast Flux chamber 1983 EPA/ORD
commercial sampling of
TSDF active land
treatment
21 Midwestern Flux chamber 1979 API
refinery sampling of
test p 1 ots



Test description
Waste type Application method







SL-14 (Run No. 18) h Surface
SL-11 (Run No. 21)
SL-14 (Run No. 24)
SL-11 (Run No. 27)
SL-14 (Run No. 28)
SL-11 (Run No. 32)
SL-11 (Run No. 33)
SL-14 (Run No. 34)
SL-12 (Run No. 35)
SL-11 (Run No. 36)
SL-14 (Run No. 37)
SL-12 (Run No. 40)
SL-11 (Run No. 41)
SL-13 (Run No. 44)
SL-13 (Run No. 45)
SL-13 (Run No. 46)
SL-13 (Run No. 47)
SL-13 (Run No. 48)
SL-13 (Run No. 49)
SL-13 (Run No. 50)
SL-13 (Run No. 51)
Aged wasteJ Surface



Sludge from centrif- Surface
uga 1 dewatering of
oily sludges from
refinery operations
and wastewater
treatment
Test Waste Emissions,
duration constituent wt %**
Limonene 26
To 1 uene 56
p-,m-Xylene 48
1 ,3,5-Trimethy Ibenzene 27
o-Ethy 1 -toluene 42
Total VO 369
Total oil 1.4
8 h'1 Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
9.1
4.4
0.02
0.6
0.1
3.0
2.6
0.01
0.9
78.8
9.9
0.7
2.8
4.9
49.9
7.7
6.9
5.0
9.7
1.1
Oi 0.47
69 h Total V0k 0.77

50 h Benzene 3.91

19.9 h Oil 0.11
307 h Oil 2 . 5m




                                                                               (continued)

-------
                                                                                         TABLE F-7 (continued)
                      Site    Test site       Test       Test     Test	Test,description	Test              Waste           Emissions,
                       No.    location     description   year    sponsor         Waste type             AppIicablon method       duration         constituent           wt K**

                      21     Midwestern                                     API separator sludge"   Surface                      619 h      Oil                         13.6°
                             refinery                                                                                            122 h      OiI                          1.1P
                             (con.)                                                                                              520 h      Oil                         13.6^

                      TSDF = Treatment, storage, and di sposaI faci11ty.
                      API = American Petroleum Institute.
                      NA = Not appl icable
                      OAQPS = Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
                      ORD = Office of Research and Development.
                      IAF = Induced air flotation.
                      DAF = Dissolved air flotation.
                      •This table presents a summary of TSOF land treatment testing and air emission test results.  Air emissions were measured In laboratory simulations and by
                       fIux chamber samp Ii ng of acti ve I and treatment areas.
                      "Weight percent is the fraction of the organic waste constituent emitted during the test.
                      cAverage of Boxes ffl and #3.  Sludge was applied to Box #1 and Box |3 as duplicate tests.
                      ^Control—no sludge added.
                      °Mercuric chloride was added  to sludge/soil mixture  in an attempt to eliminate biological activity.
                      *The values for benzene and the other constituents are an average of results from similar tests done on six plots.  The only differences among the tests
                       occurred as a result of uneven sludge application rates.  The 95 percent confidence intervals (using Student's distribution) for the mean weight fractions
~T|                    emitted were calculated for  each constituent and are as follows:
 I                            Benzene 0.68 - 1.30                m-Xylene 0.25 - 0.77
t—i                          Toluene 0.28 - 0.78                o-Xylene 0.20 - 0.46
OJ                          Ethylbenzene 1.63 - 3.85           Naphthalene 0.01 - 0.02
                             p-Xylene 0.12 - 0.46
                       The conf idence intervaIs do  not take Into cons 1 deration i ndi v1duaI varlations that may be assoc i ated wlth all of the measured variables, such as the
                       emi ssi on fIux rates and rates of appI< cat ion.
                      flThe concentration of voI at!le organ 1cs was determlned us i ng the purge and trap technlque.  Analys i s was performed on a Varian 3700 gas chromatograph.
                      nEach run number represents a different combination of experimental conditions including sludge type, soil type, sludge  loading,  soil moisture content, and
                       air relative humidity.  Soil and air temperature were constant.
                         Sludge Type:  SL-11 = Emulsions from wastewater holding pond.
                                       SL-12 = OAF  sludge.
                                       SL-13 = Mixture of API separator bottoms, DAF froth, and biological oxidation sludge.
                                       SL-14 = API  separator sludge.
                       'Each run for which results are  reported was 8 hours.
                      JTest was conducted using wastes  (primer!ly petroleum refinery sludges) reported to have been aged about 1 year.  Consequently, most of the volatllea are
                       expected to have been emitted prior to the test.
                      ^Determined using purge and trap techniques and analyzed using a Varlan Model 3700 gas chromatograph.
                       'Test 6.  Emi ss i ons fo1 lowing appI 1 cat ion  of waste to test plot.
                      mTest 6.  Emissions following rototilllng  at the end of Test 5 on the same test plot.
                      "Waste was  weathered for 14 days  in open 6-ga I buckets In an outdoor open shelter prior to application.
                      °Test 7.  Emissions following application  of waste bo test plot.
                      PTest 8.  EmlssIons foI low!ng app I I cab!on  of waste to test pIot.
                      °
-------
                  TABLE F-8.  SUMMARY  OF TSDF TRANSFER, STORAGE, AND HANDLING OPERATIONS TESTING AND TEST RESULTS^

Total
Site Test site Test Test Test Test hydrocarbons,'
No. location description year sponsor duration Source tested ppm
6 California Ambient 1984 EPA/OAQPS 1 d Vicinity of tank 0.2
commercial monitoring storage
TSDF Drum storage area 0.0
Drum transfer area 0.0
PCB bui Iding 0.1
22 Eastern Ambient 1983 EPA/OAQPS 1 wk Upper drum storage
commercial monitoring area
chemical East side, 0.3 m 60
conversion from drums
and reclaim- East side, 6.1 m 7
ing facility from drums
South side, 2.4 m 5
from drums
West side, 2.4 m 5-7
from drums
North side, 1.5 m 10-20
from drums
Lower drum storage
area
East side, 2.4 m 10-20
from drums
South side, 2.4 m 20-30
from drums
West side, 2.4 m 5
from drums
North side, 2.4 m 7
from drums
7 New York Vent samples 1983 EPA/OAQPS 1 wk Drum storage NA
commercial building
TSDF

Test resu 1 ts
>
Waste constituent x
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA


NA

NA

NA

NA
Total NMHC
Toluene
Total Xylene
Naphtha 1 ene
Methylane chloride
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Carbon tetrach 1 or ide
Tetrach 1 o roe thy 1 ene

Emi ss t on
rate,
106, Mg/yr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA


NA

NA

NA

NA
150,000
2,300
1,000
560
80,000
4,500
3,500
45,000
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
OAQPS = Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
PCB = Po lych I or'mated biphenyls.
NA = Not avai lable.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.
aThis table presents a summary of the air emission testing conducted at TSDF transfer, storage, and handling operations.
bAmbient measurements by organic vapor analyzer.

-------
                                                                TABLE F-g.  SUMMARY3 OF TSDF CONTROLS TESTING



Site
No.



Test site
1 ocat 1 on



Test
descr i pt i on
Test resu 1 ts
Organic Process
remova 1 vent
Test Test Test Test ef f 1 c i ency , emi ss i ons ,
year sponsor duration Control tested i dent if i cat ion Constituent % Mg/yr
Capture and cental nment
11





spec i a 1 ty
chemt ca 1
manufacturer


ield test
* Leak check




used to control emi ss i ons of the a i r-
from an aeration lagoon supported struc-
ture per ! meter w i th
a portable hydro-
carbon analyzer"
Add-on controj dev i ces

 23    Pennsylvania    Field test
       NPL Super-      " Vent samples
       Fund s i te       * L i qu i d samp Ies
                                          1985
                                                    EPA
                                                 Region III
 11
       Northeast
       spec 1 a Ity
       chemi caI
       manufacturer
                      Field test
                       * Vent samp Ies
                       * L i qu id samp Ies
1985    EPA/ORD
                     4 days    Gas-phase activated carbon
                               bed used to controI  over-
                               head effIuent from a i r
                               stripper treating leachate
                     1 week    Gas-phase act!vated carbon
                               bed used to control vent
Vent samp Ii ng of
i nf I uent to and
effluent from gas-
phase activated
carbon bed
Vent samp Ii ng of
!nfIuent to  and
                                                                         emissions from air-supported effluent from gas-
                                                                         structure covering aeration  phase act!vated
                                                                         Iagoon^                      carbon bed  on
                                                                                                      August 18,  1984
                                                                                                      F i rst set of vent
                                                                                                      samp Ii ng of i nf I u-
                                                                                                      ent to and efflu-
                                                                                                      ent from gas-phase
                                                                                                      act!vated carbon
                                                                                                      bed on August 17,
                                                                                                      1984
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
     (o,m)-Xylene
       p-Xylene
        To Iuene
     EthyI benzene
1,2-D!chlorobenzene
       Other VO
       Total  VOC

  Methylene chlor\de
  1,2-Dichloroethane
        Benzene
        To Iuene
     ChIorobenzene
    D i chlorobenzene
      Ch loroform
         NMHCe

  Methylene chloride
  1,2-Dichloroethane
        Benzene
        To I uene
     Ch I orobenzene
    Dichlorobenzene
      Ch I oroform
99.999
99.95
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.97
51.2
47.9
17.0
41.3
2,100.0
91.7
58.3
16.0
-6.0
-0.5
12.3
31.6
-0.8
33.3
5.5
4.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
See notes at end of table.
                                                                                                                                                           (cont i nued)

-------
                                                                                        TABLE F-9  (continued)
 I
I—'
CTl
Site Test site Test Test Test Test Test
No . 1 oca t i on descr iption year sponsor duration Control tested ident i f i cat i on
11 (con.) Second set of vent
samp 1 i ng of \ nf 1 u-
ent to and efflu-
ent from gas-phase
bed on August 17 ,
1984

Vent samp 1 i ng of
i nf t uent to and
ef f t uent from gas-
phase activated
carbon bed on
July 17, 1984
Gas-phase activated carbon Vent sampling of
breath 1 ng and work i ng ef f 1 uent from gas-
losses from neutral i zer phase activated
tanks carbon can i ster on
August 19, 1984
5 Mississippi Field test 1985 EPA/ORD 1 day Liquid-phase carbon Liquid sampling of
chemical "Vent samp les adsorption used to treat the carbon
plant and effluent
24 West Virginia Field test 1986 EPA/ORD 2 days Condenser system (primary Sampling of the
C . 9 P ( ' Pd t fq
plant recover VO steam-str i pped the pr imary con-
from wastewater denser and meas-
uring f 1 ow rates
at these points.
Test
Const i tuent
Methyl ene chloride
1 , 2-D i ch loroe thane
Benzene
To 1 uene
D i ch 1 orobenzene
Ch 1 o reform
NMHCe
1,2-Dich loroethane
Benzene
To 1 uene
Ch lorobenzene
NMHCe

1 ,2-Di ch 1 o roe thane
To 1 uena
Ch lorobenzene
Ch lorof orm
NMHCe
N i trobenzene
2-N'i troto 1 uene
Total VOC
Ch loromethane
eh?"0 f °
Carbon tetrachloride
Total VOC


resu 1 ts
Organ! c
remova 1
ef f iciency ,
%
0.0
-34.3
-236.0
-284.0
60.0
1.8
-42.8
0.0
-8.3
34.3
-45. 8
-8.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
S3. 5
>98.0
>67.0
>9B.0
88.6

89.6
90.9



Process
vent
emi ss i ons ,
Mg/yr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA


             See notes at end of tab Ie.
                                                                                                                                                                           (conti nued)

-------
                                                                           TABLE .F-9  (continued)
Site Test site Test Test Test
No . 1 oca t! on descr i pt i on year sponsor
25 Texas Field test 1986 EPA/ORD
• • i • V nt «!am 1
manuf actur i ng * L i qu i d samp 1 es
p


Volati le organic removal processes
24 West Virginia Field test 1986 EPA/ORD
chemical • Vent samples
manufacturing • Liquid samp les
p


25 Texas Field test 1986 EPA/ORD
manufacturing * Liquid samp 1 es
p 1 ant










Test Test
duration Control tested ident i f icati on
2 days Condenser system (pr i many Samp 1 i ng of the
. - , , i I - • .
glycol cooled) used to condensate from
from wastewater denser and meas-
uring f low rates
at these po i nts

2 days Steam stripper used to Liquid sampling
strip organics from waste- of str i pper feed.
water bottoms, and con-
samp 1 i ng of pr I -
mary and secondary
condenser vents
2 days Steam stripper used to Liquid sampling of
wastewater influent and
effluent and from
ous and organ i c
condensate . Vent
samp 1 i ng of sec-
ondary condenser
vent





Test
Const i tuent
V! ny 1 ch 1 or i de
eh loroethane
1 , 1-Di ch loroethene
1 ,2-Dl ch loroethene
Ch 1 orof orm
1 , 2-Di ch 1 o roe thane

Ch 1 oromethane
Methy 1 ene ch 1 or i de
Ch 1 orof orm
Tr ich loroethy lene
1,1,2-Trichloroe thane

1,2-D ich loroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Ch 1 oroethane
1, 1 -Dich lor oe thane
1 , 1-D i ch 1 oroethene
1 ( 2-D i ch 1 oroethene
Methy lene chloride
Tetrach 1 oroethene
1,1,2-Tr ich loroethane
Tr i ch 1 oroethene
VJ ny 1 ch lor ide
Total VOC
resu 1 ts
Organ i c
remova 1
ef f i ciency ,
%
6
47
15
84
96
99

>99
>99
>99
>99
>99

99,
>95.
>99,
>99
>99,
>99.
>99,
>99.
>99.
>99.
>99,
>99.
>99.
.0
0
.0
.0
.0
.B

.98
.999
.999
.8
.8

.998
.0
,4
.9
.9
.8
.9
,2
.3
.9
.8
.9
8
Process
vent
emi ss i ons ,
Mg/yr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

0.51
39.4
12.1
NA
NA

11
NA
NA
1 .4
0.41
0.98
0.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.6
20
See notes at end of tab Ie.
                                                                                                                                                             (conti nued)

-------
                                                                                      TABLE F-9  (continued)
 I
I—»
oo
Site Test site Test Test Test Test
5 Mississippi Field Test 1985 EPA/ORD 1 day Steam stripper used to
manuf actur i ng * L i qu i d samp 1 es water from product! on pr i -
plant mari ly of nitrated aroma-
tics and aromatic amines




26 Organic Field test 1984 EPA/ORD 3 days Steam stripper used for
• •
p 1 an t organ 1 cs generated by the
ceut i ca 1 , plastics, and
heavy manuf actur i ng i ndus-
tries
















Test
i dent i f icati on
L! qu i d samp 1 i ng
influent and
effluent and from
the overhead aque-
ous and organ! c
condensates .
Vent samp 1 ! ng of
vent
Samp 1 i ng dur i ng

of str t pper i nf 1 u-
mi sci b 1 e so 1 vent
tank , and recov-
ered VO storage
tank . Vent sam-
pling.of condenser
vent. Batch 1:
aqueous xy lene
Batch 2: 1,1,1-
trlchloroethane/
o! 1
Batch 3 : aqueous
1,1, 1-trich loro-
ethane



Batch 4 : aqueous
mi xed so 1 vents

Test
Const i tuent
Ni trobenzene
4-N'i troto 1 uene
Total VOC





Acetone

1 , 1 , 1-Tr i ch 1 oroe thane
Ethy 1 benzene
To 1 uene
Xylene
Total VOC



1 , 1 , 1-Tri ch 1 oroe thane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Total VOC
1,1, 1-Tr ichl oroe thane
Methy 1 ethy 1 ketone
Acetone
Ethy 1 benzene
Isopropano 1
Total VOC
Acetone
1 , 1 , 1-Tri ch 1 oroe thane
Total VOC
resu 1 ts
Organ i c
remova 1
ef f i c iency ,
91.4
90.9
92.0





91.0

87.0
99.1
99.6
99.5
99.4



99.8
100.0
99.8
94.0
99.0
99.0
74.0
<85.0
94.0
99.96
90.0
96.0
	
Process
vent
emi ss i ons ,
<0.0011
<0.0011
<0.0033





NA

0.0042
0.0039
0.016
0.0085
0.058



0.0019
0.077
0.079
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
           See notes at end of  table.
                                                                                                                                                                        (contInued)

-------
                                                                          TABLE F-9   (continued)
Site
 No.
Test site
I ocatt on
   Test
descr t pt i on
Test
year
 Test
sponsor
                                                                              ControI tested
       Chemlca I        Field test
       manufacturing   * Vent samples
       plant           * L1qu i d samples
                                 1984    EPA/ORD
 23
       PennsyI van i a
       NPL Super-
       Fund site
             Field test
              * Vent samples
              * Liqu id samples
                            EPA
                         Region III
                                       2 days    Steam stripper used to
                                                 remove VO, especially
                                                 me thy I one chI or ide, from
                                                 aqueous streams
                     4 days    Air stripper used to treat
                               leachate from closed
                               I agoons
- - -----
Test
L i qu! d samp 1 i ng
of stripper influ-
ent, effluent, and
organic overhead
condensate, . Vent
samp 1 i ng from
product recei ver
tank vent
Test yielding
h i ghest VO remove 1
efficiency.
L i qu i d samp 1 es of
a i r str i pper
influent and
ef f 1 uent






Test under stand-
ard operat i ng
cond i t i ons .9
Li qu id samp les of
a i r str \ pper
i nf 1 uent and
ef f 1 uent







Test
Const! tuent
Me thy lene chloride
Ch 1 orof orm
Carbon tetrachloride
Total VOC




1,2,3-THchloropropane
(o ,m) -Xy 1 enes
p-Xy 1 ene
To 1 uene
An i 1 i ne
Phenol
2-Methyl phenol
4-Me thy 1 phenol
Ethy 1 benzene
1.2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2 , 4-Tr i ch 1 orobenzene
Other VO
Total VOC
1,2,3-Trichl oropropane
(o,m)-Xy lenes
p-Xy lene
To 1 uene
An i 1 i ne
Pheno 1
2-Methyl phenol
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,2-Di ch 1 orobenzene
b i s (2-Ch loroisopropy 1)
ether
2 ,4-Dimethy 1 pheno 1
1,2,4-Trichl orobenzene
Ethy 1 benzene
resu 1 ts
Organic
remova 1
ef f i ciency ,
%
>99.99
91.0
NA
99.8




>98
>96
>88
NA
63
>53
70
>B3
NA
>71
>68
30
>99
6.9
67
46
46
38
52
29
40
51
>62

34
62
89

Process
vent
em! ss i ons ,
Mg/yr
1.4
0.013
0.0047
1.4




<0. 0000013
0.000023
0.00001S
0.000014
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0000038
0.0000012
NA
0.0000051
0.000064
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
See notes at end of table.
                                                                                                                                                            (cont!nued)

-------
                                                                                        TABLE  F-9   (continued)
 I
rv>
o
Site Test site Test Test Test Test Test
23 ("con 1




28 Thin-film Pilot-scale tests 1986 EPA/HWERL 1 week Th i n-f i Im evaporator used Li quid samp 1 ing
evaporator • Vent samples on petroleum refinery of evaporator
manufacturing • Liquid samp les wastes feed, bottoms ,
plant and condensate .
Vent samp 1 es
co 1 lected , but
vent gas f low
rate not measured

















29 Texas solvent Field test 1986 EPA/ORD 4 days Batch thin-film evaporator Liquid samp les of
facility 'Liquid samp les andlacquerthinners stream, bottoms,
and condensate .
Gas samp 1 es co 1 -
lected but vent
ve 1 oci t ies not
measured
Test
Const! tuent

Ethane,l(l-oxybis[2-
ethoxy]
Other VO
Total VOC
Benzene
To 1 uene
Ethy 1 benzene
Styrene
m-Xy 1 ene
o ,p-Xy lene
Phenol
Benzy 1 a 1 coho 1
2-Methyl phenol
4 -Me thy 1 pheno 1
2 , 4-D i me thy 1 pheno 1
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phtha 1 ate
Naphtha lene
2-Methy (naphthalene
Acenaphthy 1 ene
Acenaphthene
F 1 uorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Chrysene
D t -n-oc£y 1 phtha late
Benzo f 1 uoranthene^
Benzo(a)pyrene
Acetone
Ethv 1 acetate
Methy 1 ! sobuty 1 ketone
n-Buty 1 a 1 coho 1
To 1 uene
Methy 1 ethy 1 ketone
Isopropano 1
Total VOC
resu 1 ts
Organ i c
remova 1
ef f i c iency ,
%
67
4.1

45
25
99.76
99.90
99. 78
99.25
99.75
99.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

96.86
87.47
33.33
>90
89 48
86.50
75.21
NA
74.38
74 06
65.14
NA
51.11
71.28
99
\AC.
/^o
80
>7B
82
84
>96
74

Process
vent
ami ss i ons,
Mg/y"
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
INA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
             See notes at end of table.
                                                                                                                                                                          (continued)

-------
                                                                            TABLE  F-9  (continued)
Site Test site Test Test Test Test
30 Organic Field test 1984 EPA/ORO 1 day Thin-film evaporator used

plant the chemical, plastics,
paint, adhesive f i Im,
e 1 ectron 1 cs , and photo-
graph! c industries


22 Organic Field test 1984 EPA/ORO 1 day Thin-film evaporator used
recovery • Liquid samples from the furniture, chemi-
paint industries


recycling • Vent samples distillation unit used to
facility • Liquid samples purify chlorinated solvents


















Test
Liquid sampling of

densate . Vent
samp 1 i ng of con-
denser vent .



Li qu i d samp 1 i ng
i nf 1 uent , bot-
sate. Vent sam-
pling of vacuum
pump vent
two batches .
Li qu i d samp 1 i ng
of waste feed ,
final i njecti on
kett le res 1 due,
and overhead
organic and aque-
ous condense tes.
Gas samp les co 1-
lected but vent
not measured.
Batch 1: methy 1 -
ene ch 1 or i de as
ma j or const i tuent
Batch 2: 1,1,1-
tr i ch 1 oroethane
uent



Test
Const! tuent
Acetone
Xy 1 ene

To 1 uene
Tetrach 1 o roe thy lene
Trich loroethy 1 ene
Freon TF
Ethyl benzene
Total VOC
Methy 1 ene ch lor i de
1 , 1 , 1-Trl ch 1 oroethane
Freon TF


Methy lene ch 1 or 1 de
Carbon tetrachloride
Tr! ch 1 oro-
tr i f 1 uoroethane
Xy lenes
Ethy 1 acetate
Isopropano 1
Total VOC






Tr i ch 1 oroethy lene
Methy lene ch 1 or i de
Tri ch 1 oro-
tr i f 1 uroethane
Isopropano 1
Total VOC
resu 1 ts
Organ ') c
remova 1
ef f iclency ,
76
30

82
S4
93
72
<86
73
99.1
>99.G
80


92
>80
>87

38
82
36
76






>21



>12
91

Process
vent
emi ss i ons,
Mg/yr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA






NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
See notes at end  of  table.
                                                                                                                                                              (cont i nued)

-------
                                                                                    TABLE F-9   (continued)
TO
no
— 	 	 . . _ . 	 _ 	 • • — — 	 	 — — 	 	 	 	 	 	 — —

Site Test site Test Test Test Test
No . 1 oca t i on descr iption year sponsor duration Contro 1 tested
31 Organic Field test 1984 EPA/ORD 2 days Batch distillation used in
chemi ca 1 " Vent samp les rec 1 amation of con tarn i nated
plant from the chemi cal, paint,
i nk , record i ng tape, adhe-
s i v e film, a u tomo t i v e , a i r -
1 i nes, shipping, electronic,
iron and steel, fiberglass,
and pharmaceut i ca t 1 ndus-
tr i es














Test
i dent i f i ca t i on
Field test i ng on
two un i ts . Li q-
charge to robot 1-
er , f ina t aqueous
residue from re-
bo ifer, and final
overhead conden-
sate. Vent sam-
p 1 i ng of condenser
recei ver , and
product accumu-
1 ator vents ,
Unit 1
Unit 2







Test


Const! tuent
Methyl ethyl ketone
2,2-Dimethy 1 ox i cane
Methylene chloride
Isopropano 1
Carbon tetrach tor ide
1 , 1 , 1-Tr i ch 1 oroethane
Other VO
Total VOC





Acetone 99.7
Tr i ch 1 oroethane
1 , 1 , 1-Tr i ch 1 oroethane
To 1 uene
Methy 1 ethy 1 ketone
Isopropano 1
Aromati cs
Total VOC
resu 1 ts
Organ i c
remova 1
ef f i c iency ,
*
>99.97
>99.8
>99.7
>99.6
>99.4
29.0
>96.0
>99.0





0.074
>99.9
>99.7
>99.7
>99.6
98.0
97.0
99.8

Process
vent
emi ss i ons ,
Mg/yr
2.E
0.52
0.26
0.16
0.14
0.017
0.17
4.1






0.0034
0.00098
0.00095
0.00080
0.00015
0.00010
0.080

          ORD = Office  of  Research  and  Development.
          NMHC = Nonmethane  hydrocarbon.
          VO = Volatile organics.

          aThis tab Ie presents  a summary  of  the  resuIts  of  tests  of controI  techno Iog i es appI ted to TSDF emi ss i on sources.   For sources wi th aval table test measurements, estimated
           removal efficiencies and process  vent emissions  are  presented.
          ^Measured total  hydrocarbon concentration  ranged  from 2 to 3 ppmv  near the carbon adsorber to 30 to 40 ppmv at the escape hatch.  Plant personnel estimated total  leakage
           at 0.14 m3/s (300 cfm).
          GTotaI VO removaI  eff ic iency  represents we!ghted  average removaI eff iclency for the  I!sted const!tuents.
          ^Beds originally designed for odor controI,  spec!f i caIly for removaI of orthochlorophenoI,
          eRemoval efficiency is for total nonmethane hydrocarbon and  is not limited to the  listed constituents.  Only major constituents (in terms of relative concentrations) are
           presented.
          'Highest VO removal from  water  was obtained when  the  influent water  rate was throttled down to 1,140 kg/h  (2,513  Ib/h) and the air flow correspondingly  increased  to
           4.8 m3/min (170 ft3/min), giving  the  highest  air:water ratios observed during testing.
          9Under standard  operating conditions at the time  of the test, the  water flow rate was 8,200 kg/h  (18,078  Ib/hr),  and the air  inlet rate was unknown but  expected to be
           less than 1.7 m3/min (60 ft3/min).

-------
     TABLE  F-10.   SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT DIMENSIONS AT TSDF SITE 1
Impoundments
2
6
8
Dimensions, ma
36 x 30 x 4.6
61 x 33 x 4.6
71 x 72 x 5.2
Pitch (hortvert)
2:1
2:1
1:1
TSDF  =  Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
al_ength and  width  dimensions refer to the bottom of the ponds.
                                 F-23

-------
     Treated wastewater from  Pond 6  is then  pumped  to  Pond  8.   Pond 8,
which has a capacity of approximately 26,000 m3,  acts  as  a  holding pond
prior to the aerated WWT unit.   Effluent  from  the WWT  system is then pumped
back to Pond 8 so that the only  route for aqueous removal  is evaporation.
     Grab samples of wastewater  for  chemical analysis  were  collected on
April 7, 1987, in 1-L amber glass bottles  with Teflon-lined screw caps and
in 40-mL zero-headspace, Teflon-lined, septum  volatile organic  analysis
(VOA) vials.  Because no "anaerobic  zones" were  identified  in  Ponds 2 or 6
(i.e., no dissolved oxygen [DO]  < 1.0 mg/L were  measured),  only one set of
grab samples was collected from  these impoundments.  Samples were taken
from two different locations within  Pond  8:  one  in the aerobic zone near
the surface of the wastewater, and one in  the  anaerobic zone near the bot-
tom of the lagoon.
     The samples were analyzed for purgeable organics  according to EPA
Method 6242 and for base/neutral and acid  extractables  according  to EPA
Method 625.3  Data for the purgeable organics  identified  in the samples are
presented in Table F-ll.
     The extractable organic analysis included 56 compounds.  The data for
the compounds present in the wastewater samples  are presented in  Table
F-12.
     In addition to the chemical analysis  samples, samples  were obtained at
each of the sampling points for  biological activity testing.  Due to the
extremes in pH found in Ponds 2  and 6 (0.5 and 11.5, respectively),  the
samples from these ponds were not expected to be  biologically active.  Only
a limited amount of wastewater was collected from these ponds to  document
the presence or absence of biological activity.   At Pond  2,  approximately
3.8 L of wastewater was collected in a 9.5-L plastic container.   At Pond 6,
two 1-L amber glass bottles were filled using the residual  wastewater left
in the bucket after filling the  chemical   analysis sample  containers.  Sam-
ples for biological  testing were collected from  near the  surface  and from
near the bottom of Pond 8.   The  biological testing samples  were 9.5 L in
volume and  were collected in 9.5-L plastic containers.
     Microscopy studies were employed to confirm  the presence of  micro-
organisms  in  the wastewater.   Both wet drop slides and  gram-stained slides
                                   F-24

-------
       TABLE F-ll.   ANALYSES OF SAMPLES TAKEN AT SITE 1  SURFACE
                  IMPOUNDMENTS:  PUREGEABLE ORGANICS3
Concentration, //g/L
Pond 2
aerobic
Constituent sample
Methyl ene chloride 1
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 16
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,2, 2-Tetrach 1 oroethane
Benzene
Toluene 2
Ethyl benzene
Chlorobenzene
Acetone0 35
Isopropanolc 156
l-Butanolfr.c 71
Thiobismethanec
Freon 113C
Methyl ethyl ketonec 27
Total xylenesc 1
,850
880b
,000
<50
<50
<50
,070
<50
42b
,000
,000
,300
<50
<50
,000
,140
Pond 6
aerobic
sample
46b
22b
30b
<50
15b
gb
33b
llb
7b
5,450
8,400
510
<50
<50
210
<50
Pond 8
duplicate
aerobic samples
47b
2/3b
<50
22b
<50
<50
43b
12b
2b
4,500
4,200
<50
1,300
40b
510
47b
36b
2.5b
<50
24b
<50
<50
46b
15b
3b
4,200
3,200
<50
1,300
23b
490
49b
Pond 8
anaerobic
sample
44b
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
47b
<50
3b
4,100
3,200
<50
1,500
49b
620
<50
TSDF =  Treatment,  storage,  and  disposal  facility.

Determined  by  EPA Method  624.
"Indicates concentration  is  below the  reportable  quantisation  limit.
 These  compounds were  positively  identified,  but  the accuracy  of
 quantisation  is not guaranteed within 30  percent.

Indicates compounds identified that are not  Method  624  target analytes.
 These  compounds are not  quantitated according  to Method 624;  their
 absolute accuracy is  not  guaranteed.   However, the  relative concentra-
 tions  for any  one compound  should  be  consistent  (i.e.,  should show
 correct relative  trends).
                                 F-25

-------
       TABLE F-12.  ANALYSES OF SAMPLES TAKEN AT SITE 1 SURFACE
                 IMPOUNDMENTS:  EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS3
Concentration, /*g/L
Constituent
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)
ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Pond 2
aerobic
sample
17,600
6,560
72,800
<1,000
<4,000
Pond 6
aerobic
sample
76b
78b
5,600
660
35b
Pond 8
duplicate
aerobic samples
68b <200
43b <200
34b 75b
670 490
35b 40b
Pond 8
anaerobic
sample
148b
<200
160b
800
137b
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
aDetermined by EPA Method 625.
blndicates concentration  is below the reportable quantitation limit.
 These compounds were detected,  but the  accuracy of quantitation is not
 guaranteed within 30 percent.
                                 F-26

-------
were employed.   No motile organisms were observed using the wet drop
slides;  a few stalks of algae were observed in the samples collected from
Ponds 6  and 8.   Numerous bacteria were observed in all the wastewater sam-
ples using gram-stained slides.  The bacteria observed were predominantly
gram-negative,  with scattered gram-positive bacteria visible.
     From the microscopy studies, all wastewater samples apparently
contained microorganisms.  Pond 8 appeared to be the most heavily popu-
lated,  and Pond 6 appeared to be the least populated.  No other studies
were performed  to further identify the microorganisms.
     The presence of aerobic biological activity was determined by the
ability  of the  microorganisms to remove oxygen from the wastewater.  Two
experiments were employed to measure the oxygen consumption rate of the
microorganisms.
     The first  experiment performed was the dissolved oxygen (DO) depletion
experiment.  The procedure employed was as follows.  A wide-mouth, amber
glass,  0.5-L bottle was filled with the wastewater sample and allowed to
come to  thermal equilibrium.  Air was then bubbled through the sample for
approximately 5 min to raise the initial DO concentration.  A magnetic stir
bar was  added to the sample bottle.  The lid,  fitted with a DO probe, was
secured  allowing the wastewater to overflow in order to ensure zero
headspace within the bottle.  The sample was stirred using a magnetic
stirrer, and the DO concentration was recorded with time.  The DO depletion
experiments were approximately 1 day in duration.  A parallel DO depletion
experiment was  performed on each of the wastewater samples by adding 0.5 g
of biocide (mercuric acetate) to the 500-mL sample prior to testing.  The
parallel samples (denoted as killed) were used to distinguish between bio-
logical  oxygen  consumption and chemical oxygen consumption.
     The second oxygen uptake rate experiment employed a manometric
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) apparatus and was consequently termed the
BOD-type experiment.  The procedure employed was as follows.  To a 0.5-L
amber glass respirometry bottle,  350 to 400 ml of sample was quantitatively
added.   The bottle was then placed on a magnetic stirring plate and slowly
agitated.   The  respirometry bottle lid has a tube fitting to allow the
bottle to be connected to a mercury manometer and a sealing nipple that
                                   F-27

-------
houses  lithium  hydroxide.   During biodegradation,  the lithium hydroxide
absorbs the carbon dioxide  produced  so  that  the  consumption  of oxygen
results in a decrease  in the total pressure  of the system according to the
ideal gas  law.  The pressure drop resulting  from aerobic  (oxygen  consuming)
biological activity was measured with the mercury manometer  as a  function
of time.   The rate of  oxygen consumption in  these experiments was suffi-
ciently slow so that the oxygen transfer rate was  not limiting.   The BOD-
type experiments were  longer in duration than the DO  depletion experiment
and were performed over a 1- to 2-week  period.
     There was  negligible oxygen consumption in  the poisoned  wastewater
samples collected from Ponds 6 and 8, indicating  that the oxygen  consump-
tion observed by these samples was biological in  nature.   The oxygen con-
sumption of the poisoned sample from Pond 2, on  the other hand, was  nearly
identical  to the oxygen consumption of  the sample  with no biocide added.
This indicated that the oxygen consumption exhibited  by this  sample  was
chemical in nature, as would be expected by  the  biologically  prohibitive pH
(pH = 0.5) measured in Pond 2.   Plant personnel  stated that this  low pH was
not indicative of normal operating conditions for  Pond 2.
     The component-specific rate determinations  were  designed to  permit
organic removal  due to biodegradation while  limiting  their removal  by air
stripping.  The calculated  rate constants are summarized  in Table F-13.  In
general, the first-order rate constants typically  fit the data better than
the zero-order rate constants as judged by the correlation coefficient of
the regression analysis.  This is probably a consequence  of the low  initial
concentrations for most of  the volatile organics  studied.  The rate  con-
stants for a single compound, as calculated  for  the two different ponds,
are in fair agreement because they are within a  factor of 2 or 3.   Each
zero-order rate  constant is at least two orders  of magnitude  less than the
biodegradation rate constants typically reported  from laboratory  experi-
ments employing  single-component systems.  The low concentrations,  and the
presence of the  multiple,  potentially competing  substrates, are among the
reasons for the  low zero-order biodegradation rates observed.
     F.I.1.2  Site 2.4  Site 2 is primarily  engaged in the treatment and
disposal of dilute (less than 10 percent organic)  aqueous wastes  generated
                                   F-28

-------
   TABLE  F-13.   SUMMARY  OF  CONSTITUENT-SPECIFIC BIODEGRADATION RATES
            IN  SAMPLES TAKEN  AT  SITE 1  SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Constituent
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Acetone


Isopropanol

Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Zero-order
x 103
Pond 6
2.65
3.34
3.74
684


532

0.89
1.43
22.4
137
1.63
biorates,a
mg/g-h
Pond 8
0.19
2.04
4.21
318


222



38.7


First-order
x 103
Pond 6
5.77
1.73
4.44
22.8
10.9
22.9
1.38
0.20
1.92
3.06
9.86
3.73
13.7
6.57
biorates,
L/h
Pond 8
2.46
0.88
4.42
2.10
2.29
1.50
1.20
1.83
1.00


2.34


TSDF  =  Treatment,  storage,  and  disposal.

aThe  zero-order  biodegradation  rate  constants  were normalized  for the
 biomass  concentration  as  measured  by  the  volatile suspended  solids
 content.   The rate  constants  reported for Pond  6  were based  on  the
 biomass  concentration  measured in  Pond 8  (i.e.  16 mg/L).
                                 F-29

-------
by industry and commercial TSDF.  The organics  in  these  streams  are either
unsuitable for recycling or are too  low  in  concentration  to  make recovery
economically attractive.  A number of treatment  technologies are employed
at Site 2, including neutralization, distillation,  air stripping,  chemical
oxidation, incineration, and solar evaporation.  The  overall  processing
objective is to reduce the VO concentration  in  the  aqueous streams  to  a
level that is acceptable for final disposal  of  the  waste  in  evaporation
ponds.
     Approximately 227 million L of wastewater  is  pumped  to  the  evaporation
ponds for disposal each year.  At the time  of the  site visit,  the  B-Pond
was the receiving pond.  From the B-Pond, the wastewater  was  pumped  to the
C-Pond.  The B- and C-Ponds each cover approximately  81,000  m2 and  have a
depth of 1.2 to 1.8 m.  Appropriate piping  is in place to allow  the  trans-
fer of liquid between any two ponds at the  disposal site  to  ensure  adequate
freeboard and to maximize the surface area  for  evaporation.   There  is no
discharge from the site; each pond is dredged once  a  year to  remove  accumu-
lated solids.
     Two samples were taken at different places  in  the B-Pond  on Septem-
ber 23, 1986.  One sample each was taken from Ponds C, D, and  E.   The
samples were analyzed for purgeable organic  priority  pollutants  by  EPA
Method 624 and extractable organic priority  pollutants by EPA  Method^.625.
Concentration data are presented in Table F-14  for  purgeable  organics.  No
extractable organic priority pollutants were found  in any of  the samples.
     In addition to the chemical analysis samples,  samples were  obtained at
each of the sampling points for biological  activity testing.   These  samples
were collected in 9.5-L plastic containers.
     Microscopy studies were initially employed  to  confirm the presence of
microorganisms in the wastewater.  There were no motile microorganisms
observed using wet drop slides.  Pond B(W)  and  B(SE)  samples  appeared to
have agglomerations of coccoid blue-green algae.  The abundance  of  inor-
ganic solids,  however,  especially in the D-Pond  sample, hindered the wet
drop slide studies.  Both filamentous and nonfilamentous  bacteria  were
observed using gram-stained slides of Pond  B(W), B(SE), C, and D samples.
Both gram-positive bacteria (stained purple) and gram-negative bacteria
                                   F-30

-------
      TABLE  F-14.   PURGEABLE ORGANICS ANALYSES3 FOR WASTE SAMPLES
                 TAKEN AT SITE 2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Concentration, /*g/L
Constituent
Acetone^
Methyl ene chloride
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Freon 113b
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes^
Benzene
B-Pond
(SE corner)
1,700
35C
BQLd
BQLd
BQLd
BQLd
BQLd
35C
BQLd
56C
BQLd
B-Pond
(W side)
1,600
56C "
BQLd
BQLd
BQLd
BQLd
BQLd
40C
BQLd
70C
BQLd
C-Pond
54
BQLe
BQLe
BQLe
BQLe
BQLe
BQLe
7.5C
BQLe
BQLe
BQLe
D-Pond
2,800
11,000
110
120
1,300
130
550
890
170
820
60C
E-Pond
16,000
12,000
BQLC
BQLC
760
640C
370
3,000
100
430
69C
TSDF =  Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
Determined  by  EPA Method  624.
^Indicates  nontarget  compounds quantitated using a response factor from
 a single-point  calibration.
cCompound  identified  below strict quantitation limit;  accuracy of
 reported  concentration  not ensured to be within 30 percent.
"Below  method quantitation  limit  of 100  /xg/L.
eBelow  method quantitation  limit  of 10 /jg/L.
                                 F-31

-------
 (stained red) were observed.  No cell cultures were  grown  to  characterize
 the bacteria further.
     The presence of aerobic biological activity was  determined  by  the
 ability of the microorganisms to remove oxygen from  the  wastewater.   Two
 experiments were performed to measure the oxygen consumption  rate of  the
 microorganisms.
     The first oxygen uptake experiment performed was the  DO  depletion
 experiment.  The general procedure employed was as follows.   Two wide-
 mouth, amber glass, 0.5-L bottles were filled with the wastewater sample
 being tested.  To one of these bottles, approximately 0.5  g of mercuric
 acetate was added to arrest all biological activity.  Both samples were
 left at room temperature (23 °C) for several hours to ensure  that thermal
 equilibrium of both samples had been reached and that effective  poisoning
 of the "killed" sample had been accomplished.  Before testing, a magnetic
 stir bar was added to the sample bottle, and air was  bubbled  through  the
 wastewater for several minutes to raise the initial  DO concentration.  The
 bottle lid, which was fitted with a DO probe, was then secured to the
 bottle allowing the wastewater to overflow to ensure  zero  headspace within
 the bottle.  To test, the sample was stirred using a  magnetic stirrer, and
 the DO concentration was recorded with time.  The DO  uptake experiments
 were typically short in duration (less than 1 hour)  and  provided an esti-
 mate of the initial oxygen utilization rate.
     The second oxygen uptake rate experiment performed  was similar to a
 BOD determination.  To a 0.5-L amber glass respirometry  bottle,  250 ml of
 sample was added.  The respirometry bottle lid has a  tube  fitting to  allow
 the bottle to be connected to a mercury manometer.   A T.-connector was
 inserted in the manometer tubing; lithium hydroxide was  poured in the side
 tube to absorb produced carbon dioxide, and the side  tube  was sealed.  The
 bottle was then clamped in a wrist-action shaker and  sufficiently agitated
 to ensure that oxygen transfer was not rate limiting.  The pressure drop
 resulting from aerobic (oxygen-consuming) biological  activity was measured
with the mercury manometer as a function of time.  Duplicate  runs were   '
performed.   The BOD-type experiments were typically  long term in nature  (on
the order of days) and provided an estimate of the average potential  oxygen
utilization rate.
                                   F-32

-------
     A summary of oxygen utilization rates for samples from Ponds B, C, and
D is  given  in Table F-15.
     F.I.1.3  Site 3.5  Site 3 operates two separate manufacturing
facilities,  a petroleum refinery and a lubricating oil plant on the Gulf
Coast.  The  refinery produces various grades of gasoline and fuel oils.
The lubricating oil plant refines crude oil fractions from the refinery to
the lubricating oil base, which is blended into lubricating oil at other
sites.  The  two facilities have separate WWT systems and discharge through
separate outfalls to rivers.
     Process wastewater enters the refinery WWT system at a flow rate of
approximately 18,900 L/min.   The WWT system consists of neutralization,
equalization, flocculation,  dissolved air flotation (the float is pumped to
a sludge tank), aeration, and clarification (the bulk of the underflow is
recycled to  the aeration basin, excess sludge is pumped to an aerobic
digester,  and the overflow passes to the refinery polishing pond).
     The lube oil plant's process wastewater stream flows intermittently to
a retention/neutralization basin.  The neutralized wastewater along with
another "oily water" stream and cooling water flows to an American
Petroleum Institute (API) separator.  The flow from the API separator is
approximately 7,600 L/min and passes to dissolved air flotation,  equaliza-
tion,  aeration, and clarification.  The clarifier overflow then flows
through an  open channel to the polishing pond,  which also receives storm
water runoff from a holding  basin.
     Preliminary sampling of the polishing ponds was performed on
August 27,  1986,  to determine the wastewater composition and to evaluate
the potential for biodegradation and air emissions.  The refinery polishing
pond  has a  depth of 1.2 to 3 m, a flow rate of 27 million L/d, and a reten-
tion  time of 1.7 d.  The lube oil polishing pond has a depth of approxi-
mately 1.2  to 1.5 m, a flow  rate of 11 million L/d, and a retention time of
4 d.   Both polishing ponds discharge to rivers.
     Two samples, one near the bottom and the second approximately 7.6 cm
below  the surface at the same point, were collected from each polishing
pond  for chemical analysis.   Each sample was pumped through tygon tubing
into  an amber glass bottle with Teflon-lined cap.  The refinery polishing
                                   F-33

-------
 TABLE F-15.  SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ALL OXYGEN UPTAKE  EXPERIMENTS
   PERFORMED WITH SAMPLES TAKEN AT SITE 2 SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENTS9
Pond sample
and preser-
vation status
B(W) (normal)
B(W) (killed)
B(SE) (normal)
B(SE) (killed)
C (normal)
C (killed)
D (normal)
D (killed)
Experimental oxygen uptake rate, mq/L-h^
DO depletion
7.19
0.227
12.1
0.504
2.85
0.242
38C
38C
BOD-type
34.9
33.8
5.75
143
TSDF = Treatment, storage,  and disposal  facility.
DO = Dissolved oxygen.
BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand.

aThe purpose of this table  is to  demonstrate noncompound-specific
 oxygen uptake rates determined by two methods and to demonstrate
 the biological (as compared with chemical)  nature of the oxygen
 demand.

bOxygen uptake rates were determined by  using a least squares
 linear regression on the data.

cThe DO depletion experiment was  modified as explained in the text,
                                F-34

-------
pond sampling point was at the edge of the pond opposite the inlet and
about halfway along the length.  The lube oil plant polishing pond samples
were collected at a point 1.8 m from the edge of a small pier near the
inlet end of the pond.  In addition, a sample was obtained from each pond
at the same sampling point for biodegradation rate studies.  These were
pumped into Nalgene containers.
     The chemical analysis for purgeable organics was done in accordance
with EPA Method 624.  The analysis involved a gas chromatography-mass
spectrometry (GC-MS) search for 31 specific organic priority pollutants.
None of these compounds was found in any of the four chemical analysis
samples above a minimum detection limit of 10 /*g/L.  The samples also were
analyzed for acid,  base, and neutral extractable compounds by EPA
Method 625.  This analysis involved a search for 81 specific organic
compounds,  none of which was found at concentrations above the minimum
detection level.
     Because no priority pollutants were found in the chemical  analysis
samples above the minimum detection limit, no compound-specific biodegrada-
tion rates  were obtained.  However, the presence of aerobic biological
activity was determined by the ability of the microorganisms to remove
oxygen from the wastewater.  A wide-mouth, amber glass, 0.5-L bottle was
filled with wastewater from each biodegradation rate sample and allowed to
come to thermal equilibrium.  Air then was bubbled through the sample for
approximately 5 min to raise the initial DO concentration.  A magnetic stir
bar was added to the sample bottle.  The lid, fitted with a DO probe, was
secured allowing the wastewater to overflow in order to ensure zero head-
space within the bottle.  The sample was stirred using a magnetic stirrer,
and the DO  concentration was recorded with time.  Figures F-l and F-2
present the results of the DO depletion experiments on the samples obtained
near the surfaces of the refinery polishing pond and the lube oil plant
polishing pond, respectively.  In addition, on the basis of the measured
oxygen uptake rate,  the amount of biomass was estimated to be 0.0031 g/L  in
the refinery polishing pond and 0.0014 g/L in the lube oil polishing pond.
     F.I.1.4  Site 4.8  Site 4 is a chemical plant located in a south-
western State.   The plant produces aldehydes, glycols, glycol ethers,
                                   F-35

-------
_ 6
         Regression Output:
         y-intercept = 0.433 mg/L
              slope = 0.079 mg/L-h
                R2 =0.9813
                                               D Experimental DO uptake
                                               — Linear regression DO uptake
                       1
                                                               I
                   20
40
60
80
100
                                      Time (h)
      Figure F-1. TSDF Site 3 refinery polishing pond dissolved oxygen uptake curve.6
                                     F-36

-------
      Regression Output:
      y-intercept = 0.204 mg/L
           slope = 0.171 mg/L-h
            R2 = 0.9882
                                              D Experimental DO uptake
                                                Linear regression DO uptake
Figure F-2. TSOF Site 3 lube oil plant polishing pond dissolved oxygen uptake curve.
                                  F-37

-------
nitriles, esters, and numerous other products.   Manufacturing  wastewater is
treated  in a series of seven oxidation basins.
     Wastewater and runoff are collected at different  points within  the
manufacturing area of the plant.  The wastewater flows  through four  small
basins for settling and skimming to the series of seven  oxidation  basins.
Six of these basins contain mechanical aerators;  one is  unaerated.   The
discharge from the unaerated basin is pumped either to  the  last  aerated
basin or to a series of four large unlined facultative  (facultative  means
both aerobic and anaerobic activity are present)  basins.  The  wastewater
effluent averages 11.7 million L/d and is discharged from either the  last
aerated basin or the last large facultative basin  to surface water.
     The discharge permit application for the plant included the informa-
tion presented in Table F-16 about organic priority pollutants  found  at
detectable levels in the effluent.
     Preliminary sampling was performed on August  26,  1986, from the  first
facultative lagoon to determine the composition  of wastewater  in the  lagoon
and the potential for biodegradation and air emissions.  The lagoon  is
243,000 m^ in area,  and the depth ranges from 0.6  to 1.5 m.  The lagoon was
not we!1  mixed.
     Two samples, one near the bottom and one near the  surface  of  the
lagoon, were collected for chemical analysis.  Each sample  was  pumped
through tygon tubing into an amber glass bottle  with Teflon-Lined  cap.  The
sampling point was 1.8 m from the north edge of  the lagoon.  In  addition,
samples were pumped  into Nalgene containers from the same sampling point
for biodegradation rate studies.
     The chemical analysis for purgeable organics was done  in  accordance
with EPA Method 624.   The analysis involved a GC-MS search  for  31  specific
organic priority pollutants.   None of these compounds was found  in either
sample above a minimum detection limit of 10 /*g/L.  The  samples  also  were
analyzed  for acid,  base,  and neutral  extractable compounds  by  EPA
Method 625.   The analysis involved a search for  81 specific organic
compounds,  none of which  was found at concentrations above  the  minimum
detection limit.
                                   F-38

-------
    TABLE  F-16.   ORGANIC  PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS  FOUND AT DETECTABLE
              LEVELS  IN  TSDF  SITE 4 WASTEWATER EFFLUENT9

Methylene chloride
Acenaphthylene
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate
Naphthalene
Maximum
30-day value,
/*9/L
30
10
71
12
Long-term
average value,
/*g/L
18
10
24
4
TSDF  =  Treatment,  storage,  and  disposal  facility.

aThis table  presents  information  obtained  from the Site 4 discharge
 permit application.
                                F-39

-------
     Two experiments were performed to measure  the  oxygen  consumption  rate
of the microorganisms  in the wastewater.  The first was  the  DO  depletion
experiment.  A wide-mouth, amber glass, 0.5-L bottle was filled  with
wastewater from the biodegradation rate sample  and  allowed to come  to
thermal equilibrium.   Air then was bubbled through  the sample for approxi-
mately 5 min to raise  the initial DO concentration.  A magnetic  stir bar
was added to the sample bottle.  The lid, fitted with a  DO probe, was
secured allowing the wastewater to overflow  in  order to  ensure  zero head-
space within the bottle.  The sample was stirred, and the  DO concentration
was recorded with time.  Figure F-3 presents the results of  the  DO  deple-
tion experiment.  In addition, on the basis  of  the  measured  oxygen  uptake
rate, the amount of biomass at this facultative lagoon was estimated to be
0.044 g/L.
     The second oxygen uptake rate experiment performed was  similar to a
BOD determination.  A  300-mL sample was added to a  0.5-L amber glass
respirometry bottle.   The respirometry bottle lid has a tube fitting that
allows the bottle to be connected to a mercury manometer.  A T-connector
was inserted in the manometer tubing,  lithium hydroxide was  poured  in the
side tube to absorb carbon dioxide, and the  side tube was  sealed.  The
bottle then was clamped in a wrist-action shaker and sufficiently agitated
to ensure that oxygen  transfer was not rate  limiting.  The pressure drop
resulting from aerobic biological activity was measured with the mercury
manometer as a function of time.  The results of the BOD oxygen  consumption
experiment are presented in Figure F-4.
     The presence of anaerobic biological activity  was determined by the
ability of the wastewater sample to produce  gas in  the absence of oxygen.
In the test procedure,  nitrogen was bubbled  through the  liquid sample to
purge any oxygen that may have been introduced  during sample collection or
transfer.  The sample container was then sealed with a lid modified with a
small  tubing connection to a quantitative gas collection system.  Two dif-
ferent gas collection systems were used.  One system consisted of a water-
filled inverted graduated cylinder that collected gas by water displace-
ment.   The second gas collection system consisted of a horizontal syringe
whose free-moving plunger provided a quantitative measure  of the volume of
                                   F-40

-------
   4.0

   3.5


   3.0
Regression Output:
y-intercept = 0.315 mg/L
    slope = 2.40 mg/L-hr
       R2 = 0.9745
O)
E
   2.5
2.  2.0
CO
t->
a.
D
O  1.5
Q
   1.0
                    n
   0.5
     0 &-
                                        D Experimental DO uptake
                                        — Linear regression DO uptake
                        20
                             10
                             Time (min)
60
80
                   Figure F-3.  TSDF Site 4 dissolved oxygen uptake curve/
                                          F-41

-------
Q
O
02
             Regression Output:

             y-intercept = 2.06 mg/L

                 slope = 1.57mg/L-hr
                                                          D Experimental BOD

                                                            Linear regression BOD
                                                                         80
                 Figure F-4. TSDF Site 4 biochemical oxygen demand curve.
                                                                        10
                                         F-42

-------
gas produced.   Direct exposure of the sample to light was limited by
employing amber glass sample containers or cardboard box shields.  Anaero-
bic gas generation in the sample from the first facultative lagoon at
Site 4 was measured to be 0.022 mL/L-h.
     F.I.1.5  Site 5.^  Site 5 is a chemical manufacturing plant that
produces primarily nitrated aromatics and aromatic amines.  The raw materi-
als for this process include benzene, toluene, and nitric and sulfuric
acid.  A field study program was conducted during a 3-day period from
November 18 to November 20, 1985.  The lagoon studied during the testing
program was the wastewater holding pond for the WWT system at the plant.
The WWT system includes two decant tanks, a steam stripper,  a carbon
adsorption system, and final pH-adjustment tank prior to the discharge of
the wastewater stream into surface water.
     The goals of the lagoon field study were to:
     •    Evaluate the three-dimensional variation of organic chemical
          concentrations in the Site 5 wastewater holding lagoon
     •    Measure lagoon air emissions using emission isolation flux
          chambers.
Additional testing was performed on the Site 5 steam stripper (refer to
Section F.2.3.1.3) and carbon adsorption system (refer to Section F.2.2.2).
     Two wastewater streams that enter the process at the beginning are
distillation bottoms from aniline production (Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act [RCRA] waste code K083) and the nitrobenzene production waste-
water (RCRA waste code K104).  These two wastewater streams flow into a
holding tank,  called the "red" tank, due to the color of the wastewater
streams.  As the tank is filled, the overflow passes through a submerged
outlet into the wastewater holding lagoon.  The third process stream that
enters the lagoon is the plant sump wastewater.  This stream is intermit-
tent and occurs primarily during periods of heavy rain.   Two sump pumps are
activated when needed,  both of which pump into the lagoon.  The organic
sump pump is normally the only one in operation and pumps directly into the
steam-stripper feed tank.
     The lagoon where the test program was conducted is  105 m by 36 m by
3  m (the depth is measured from the plant roadway elevation rather than
                                   F-43

-------
from the top of the berm).  It is surrounded by  a  cement  wall  and  a  plant
roadway on the east or plant side.  The wall extends 0.3  m  above the road
surface.  The berm on the other three sides is 1.7 m wide,  consists  of
ground seashells, and extends to approximately the same height  above the
lagoon contents as the cement wall.  The  lagoon  is lined  with  packed clay.
During the test period, the liquid level  in the  lagoon ranged  from 1.2 m to
2.1 m in depth, with about 40.6 cm of freeboard  (measured down  from  the
level of the plant roadway) above the liquid surface.  The  remaining depth
was comprised of a bottom sludge layer, the thickness of  which  was never
measured directly.  By subtraction, this  layer varied from  about 0.6 m to
1.5 m deep.  Retention time in the lagoon is 20.8 days.
     Sampling locations were selected using a systematic  approach.   The
lagoon was divided into 15 grids of equal area;  each was  approximately 12 m
by 21 m or 250 m^.  Four of the grids (A, B, E,  and F) were chosen for
liquid and air emission sampling.  Two liquid grab samples were collected
from the impoundment surface at each sampling location just prior to plac-
ing the flux chamber in position.  Duplicate gas canister samples were
collected at each flux chamber location.  An additional location near the
southwest corner of the lagoon was sampled to examine the effect of  a
sludge layer on the emission processes.   Sludge  layer emissions were meas-
ured, and two liquid and one sludge sample also  were collected.  After the
flux chamber samples were collected,  liquid samples were  collected at 0.3-m
increments of depth,  and a sediment sample was collected  from the bottom at
each of four of the sampling locations (A, B,  E,  and F) for the stratifica-
tion study.  Sampling spanned 2 days;  Locations  A and B were sampled on
November 19,  1985,  and Locations E and F  and the southwest corner on  Novem-
ber 20,  1985.
     Gas samples were collected in evacuated stainless-steel canisters.
Liquid grab samples from the impoundment  surface were collected in clean,
glass VOA vials fitted with Teflon capliners.   A Bacon Bomb sampler,
designed for collecting samples from storage tank bottoms, was  used  to
collect  liquid grab samples from specified depths for the stratification
study.   This  sampler consists of a nickel-plated brass container with a
protruding plunger.   A cord was attached  to the  upper end of the plunger to
                                   F-44

-------
open the bomb,  which closed when tension on the cord was released.  A Ponar
grab sampler (clamshel1-type scoop) was used to sample sediment and sludge
to a depth of several  centimeters at the bottom of the lagoon.  Offsite
analyses of gas,  liquid,  and sludge samples were performed on a Varian
Model 3700 GC with flame ionization detector/photoionization detector/Hall
electrolytic conductivity detector (FID/PID/HECD).
     Table F-17 presents the results of the direct emission measurement
program.  Results of the stratification analyses are summarized in Table
F-18.  The results for each grid point provide fairly conclusive evidence
of stratification between the liquid and sludge layers, but not in the
liquid layer itself.  The sludge layer ranged up to several hundredfold
more concentrated than the liquid layer.  Table F-19 provides the results
of a comparison of the liquid and sludge organic contents using an average
concentration for each of the four primary lagoon organic components
(nitrobenzene,  2,4-dinitrophenol, 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol, and benzene)
reported in the liquid and sludge layers.
     F.I.1.6  Site 6.^  site 6 is a commercial hazardous waste TSDF.  The
site began operation in 1972 and was acquired by the current owner in 1979
and upgraded to accept hazardous wastes.  Before a waste is accepted for
disposal at the facility, samples must be analyzed to determine compat-
ibility with the facility processes.  Water-reactive, explosive, radio-
active, or pathogenic  wastes are not accepted.  Hazardous wastes are
received from the petroleum, agricultural products, electronics, wood and
paper, and chemical  industries.
     Emission measurements were performed for 2 days during the period from
June 18 through 23,  1984, on a surface impoundment at Site 6.  Source
testing of inactive  and active landfills at Site 6 is described in Section
F.I.3.2.  Section F.I.5.1 presents the results of the Site 6 drum storage
and handling area testing.
     The surface impoundment is used for volume reduction via solar evapor-
ation.  There is  daily  activity at most of the Site 6 surface impoundments.
Wastes are transported  to the impoundments by tank truck.  During the .first
day of testing  at the  impoundment,  a liquid-phase material balance was made
over an 8.5-h period.   According to company records, 58,000 L of waste were
dumped into this  impoundment during this 8.5-h period.
                                   F-45

-------
            TABLE F-17.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS FOR TSDF  SITE  5,
                         WASTEWATER HOLDING LAGOON12
Constituent
Cyclohexane
Tetrach 1 oroethy 1 ene
Toluene
Benzene
n-Undecane
Methylchloride
Total NMHCd
Emission
rate,3
x 103 Mg/yr
1.8
0.7
2,800
7,600
3.7
120
15,000
Liquid
concentration,'3
x 103 mg/L
38
58
2,600
17,000
150
29
75,000
Mass transfer
coefficient,0
x 106 m/s
0.4
0.1
9.0
3.7
0.2
35
1.7







TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.

aAverage of emission rates  measured with a flux chamber at Grid Points A, B,
 E,  F, and the SW corner.

^Average of concentrations  measured from liquid samples taken at Grid Points
 A,  B, E,  F,  and the SW corner.

cCalculated from measured  emission rates and liquid concentrations.

dThe NMHC  totals do not represent column sums because only constituents
 detected  in  gas and liquid samples are  presented.
                                    F-46

-------
        TABLE  F-18.
STRATIFICATION STUDY RESULTS9 FOR TSDF SITE 5,
   WASTEWATER HOLDING LAGOON13
Constituent concentration0
Sample
location'3
A-l
B-l
E-l
F-l
A-2
B-2
E-2
F-2
A-3
E-3
F-3
A-4
A-5
B-5
E-5
F-5
Sample
type
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sample
depth, m
0-0.3
0-0.3
0-0.3
0-0.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.8
1.2
1.5
1.5
Nitro-
benzene
440
630
390
670
560
880
420
460
480
380
350
1,100
87,000
130,000
14,000
120,000
2,4-Dinitro-
phenol
1,400
160
130
470
250
320
<20
3,000
210
260
110
210
4,600
18,000
9,300
5,200
4,6-Dinitro-
o-cresol
32
38
25
63
28
45
15
82
45
<10
30
56
2,300
7,700
3,300
2,600
Benzene
12
15
17
16
13
23
21
30
9.4
32
59
23,000d
1,000
1,000
372
2,400
TSDF  = Treatment,  storage,  and  disposal  facility.

aThis table presents the  results  of  the  analysis  of three-dimensional
 variation of organic chemical  concentrations  in  the TSDF Site 5 wastewater
 holding  lagoon.   Liquid  samples  were  collected  at  0.3-m increments of depth
 and  a sediment  sample was  collected from the  bottom at  each  of four sampling
 locations.

"Sampling grid  (A, B, E,  and  F) and  sample number  at each depth within the
 grid (1, 2, 3,  4, and 5).

Concentration  results are  gas  chromatography-flame ionization detector
 analyses, in mg/L for liquids  and mg/kg for sludges.

^Sample contaminated with sludge.
                                   F-47

-------
            TABLE F-19.  SLUDGE:LIQUID ORGANIC CONTENT COMPARISON
                FOR TSDF SITE 5, WASTERATER HOLDING LAGOON14
Liquid data    Sludge data
                                                               Weight  ratio
                                                               sludgerliquid
Estimated waste volume

Average waste constituent
 concentrations3

   Nitrobenzene
   2,4-Dinitrophenol
   4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
   Benzene

Estimated weight of
  waste constituent
                                 4,400
                                 560 mg/L
                                 460 mg/L
                                  38 mg/L
                                  22 mg/L
               4,100
               88,000 mg/kg
                9,300 mg/kg
                4,000 mg/kg
                1,200 mg/kg
Nitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Benzene

2,500 kg
2,000 kg
170 kg
100 kg

360,000 kg
38,000 kg
16,000 kg
4,900 kg
Average
144
19
94
49
= 77
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.

aAverage concentrations calculated using all  liquid values greater than detec-
 tion limits.
                                    F-48

-------
     The objectives of the testing program at the surface impoundment were:
     •     To obtain emission rate data using the emission isolation
          flux chamber approach
     •     To obtain emission rate data using a mass balance approach
     •     To obtain data on the concentration of VO for comparison to
          compounds identified during emission measurements and as
          future input to predictive models.
     The surface impoundment is a rectangular pond with nominal dimensions
of 137  m by 46 m.   The entire surface of the pond was gridded  (24 equal
grids).  Emission  measurements using the flux chamber and liquid samples
were collected on  June 20 and June 22, 1984.  Six sampling locations
(grids) were randomly selected for the flux chamber measurements.  However,
only three different locations could be sampled (one sample per location)
on the  first day and four different locations (one sample each at two loca-
tions and duplicate samples at two locations) on the second day because of
time constraints.   Liquid samples were taken corresponding to each emission
measurement at each sampling location.
     Air emission  measurements were made using the emission isolation flux
chamber.  It should be noted that during the flux chamber measurements, an
additional 30.5 m  of sampling line was required to reach the sampling loca-
tions from the shore.  Under normal conditions,  the flux chamber is oper-
ated with 3.1 m of sampling line.  In addition,  during collection of the
canister samples on June 20 at two sampling locations, the chamber differ-
ential  pressure was higher than normal.  This abnormality may have affected
those canister results on June 20.
     Air samples were collected in evacuated stainless-steel  canisters and
analyzed offsite by a Varian Model 3700 GC-FID/PID/HECD.  Liquid samples
were collected in  glass vials with Teflon-lined caps following the guide-
lines outlined in  American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) D33701,
"Standard Practices for Sampling Water."16  Liquid samples also were
analyzed offsite by the Varian Model  3700 GC-FID/PID/HECD.  Table F-20
summarizes the test results for the Site 6 surface impoundment.
     F.I.1.7  Site 7.1?'18  site 7 is a commerical hazardous waste
management facility located in the northeastern United States.  The site
was  developed for  hazardous waste operations in the early 1970s.
                                   F-49

-------
   TABLE F-20.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS9 FOR TSDF SITE 6, SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENT

                                                                  Mass  transfer
                                                                  coefficient^
                                                                   xlO6 m/s
Constituent
     Mean
emission rate,
     Mg/yr
        Mean
liquid concentration,
        mg/L
June 20, 1984, resu1tsc

Toluene                      0.4
Ethylbenzene                 0.2
Methylene chloride           2.4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane        4.9
Chloroform                   0.2
p-Dichlorobenzene            0.1
Total  NMHCd                 16

June 22, 1984, results
                                             9.0
                                             4.9
                                            18
                                            28
                                             1.0
                                             1.8
                                           320
                                               0.2
                                               0.2
                                               0.7
                                               1.2
                                               0.9
                                               0.3
                                               0.2
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Chloroform
p-Dichlorobenzene
Total NMHCd
2.0
1.1
6.8
9.3
0.5
0.1
61
4.3
5.4
4.2
19
0.2
2.0
280
2.4
1.0
8.4
2.6
12
0.4
1.1
TSDF = Treatment, storage,  and disposal facility.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.

aAir emissions were sampled with a flux chamber and liquid concentrations were
 determined from grab samples.

^Calculated from measured emission rates and liquid concentrations.

cDuring collection of the canister samples on June 20 at two sampling points,
 the chamber differential pressure was higher than normal.  This abnormality
 may have affected those canister results on June 20.

dThe NMHC totals do not represent column sums because only major constituents
 (in terms of relative concentrations) are presented.
                                     F-50

-------
     The  site's  aqueous WWT system has a throughput of 545,000 L/d with
typical discharges ranging from 330,000 to 382,000 L/d.  At the time of the
tests,  wastes  accepted into the WWT system included washwaters, pickle
liquors,  and  leachates from other facilities within the WWT system.  The
WWT process  at Site 7 includes chemical, physical, and biological  treat-
ment.  A  holding pond, a reducing lagoon,  and an oxidizing lagoon  of the
WWT system were  tested for emissions during the first week of October 1983.
Testing of an  active and a closed landfill at Site 7 is described  in
Section F.I.3.5.  Section F.I.5.3 discusses testing of emissions from the
Site 7  drum  storage building.
     The  holding pond is an 18,000-m3 aerated (pump aerator)  Hypalon-1ined
lagoon  that  receives the aqueous phase from the salts area of the  WWT sys-
tem.  The aqueous phase includes organics  that are soluble or suspendible
at a pH greater  than 11.5.  Dimensions of  the pond are nominally 135 by 36
by 3.1  m. Freeboard ranges from 0.6 to 1.5 m.  Filling and discharge of
the holding  pond are conducted monthly.  The field test took  place several
days after draining.  At the time of the test, the pond had a nominal 0.3
to 0.5  m  of  liquid waste and several meters of sludge present.  Because of
the low liquid level, the pump aerator was not operational.
     The  reducing lagoon is a  3,900-m3 Hypalon-1ined lagoon that receives
incoming  wastes  to the WWT system that are classified as reducing  agents.
The pH  is typically less than  2.  Dimensions of the lagoon are nominally 34
by 33 by  3.9 m.   The freeboard ranges from 0.6 to 1.5 m.  Liquid waste is
received  via tank truck and discharged through a flexible hose into the
lagoon.   Localized discharges  into the corners of the lagoon  have  created a
zone of bulk solids, precipitation products,  and construction debris.  The
surface of the lagoon was coated with an oil  film.  The frequency  of waste
unloading observed during the  field test was nominally four to five tank
trucks  per day.   The frequency is not regular.  The WWT system is  operated
on a batch basis,  making the residence time (throughput) dependent upon the
volume  of waste  received into  the system.
     The  oxidizing lagoon is a 3,900-m3 Hypalon-1ined lagoon  that  receives
incoming  wastes  to the WWT system that are oxidizing agents.   The  wastes
include halogens and organics  compounds (total organic carbon less than
                                   F-51

-------
2 percent)  and  have  a  pH  less  than  2.   Dimensions  of  the  lagoon are
nominally 35  by  35 by  4.1 m.   The freeboard  ranges  from 0.6  to 1.5 m.
Liquid waste  is  received  via tank truck  and  discharged through flexible
hose  into the lagoon.   Localized discharges  into the  north corner of the
lagoon have created  a  prominent  "delta"  of bulk solids, precipitation
products, and construction debris.   The  surface of  the lagoon  was coated
with  an oil film.  The  frequency of  waste unloading observed during the
field test  appeared  somewhat greater for the oxidizing lagoon  than for the
reducing lagoon  (four  to  five  truckloads per day).  As with  the reducing
lagoon, the oxidizing  lagoon is  a batch  operation,  making the  residence
time  (throughput) dependent on the  volume of waste  received.
      The objective of  the testing program at Site 7 surface  impoundments
was to develop and verify techniques for estimating air emissions from
these sources.   The  reducing lagoon  and  oxidizing  lagoon were  each gridded,
and air emission measurements  were made  within certain grids using the flux
chamber technique.   Liquid samples were  obtained concurrent with  flux cham-
ber testing.  Concurrent  samples were collected from  two grids  at each
lagoon.  Duplicate flux chamber measurements and concurrent  liquid samples
were taken at a  single  location  in the holding pond.
     Air sample  collection was made  by evacuated stainless-steel  canisters,
and analysis  was conducted offsite using a Varian Model 3700 GC-FID/PID/
HECD.  Liquid samples were collected in  glass containers in a  manner that
would minimize any headspace and analyzed offsite by  the Varian Model
3700 GC-FID/PID/HECD.  Tables  F-21 through F-23 summarize the  test results
from the holding pond,  reducing  lagoon,  and oxidizing lagoon,  respectively.
F.I.2  Wastewater Treatment
     F.I.2.1  Site 8.19  site 8  is a synthetic organic chemical production
plant.  Plant wastewater is treated  in a system that  includes  two parallel,
mechanically  aerated, activated sludge units that discharge to  a  UNOX-
activated  sludge system.  A field test was conducted  in November  1986 to
determine  biodegradation rates for methanol  and formaldehyde.   Biodegra-
dation rates were determined for the mechanically aerated systems by test-
ing  a sample composed of aeration tank feed and recycled sludge mixed in
proportions  to actual unit flows.
                                   F-52

-------
    TABLE F-21.  SOURCE TESTING  RESULTS3  FOR  TSDF SITE 7,  HOLDING POND

                              Mean             Mean liquid      Mass transfer
                        emission  rate,      concentration,      coefficient,b
Constituent                x  106 Mg/yr          x  103 mg/L        x 109 m/s
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
Total NMHCC
7,900
81,000
15,000
500
240,000
3,400
18,000
<370
6,000
11,000
1,200,000
19
230
37
2
500
10
30
62
9
21
2,600
2,700
2,300
2,600
1,600
3,100
2,200
3,900
<39
4,300
3,400
3,000
TSDF = Treatment, storage,  and  disposal  facility.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.

aAir emissions were sampled with  a  flux  chamber  and  liquid  concentrations
 were determined from grab  samples.

^Calculated from measured emission  rates  and  liquid  concentrations.

cThe NMHC totals do not represent column  sums  because only  major constituents
 (in terms of relative concentrations)  are  presented.
                                   F-53

-------
    TABLE F-22.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR TSDF SITE 7, REDUCING LAGOON
                              Mean            Mean liquid      Mass transfer
                         emission rate,     concentration,     coefficient,b
Constituent               x 106 Mg/yr         x 103 mg/L        x 106 m/s
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Naphthalene
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
p-Dichlorobenzene
Total NMHCC
1,600
160,000
2,700
2,000
500
12,000
1,000
35,000
12,000
38,000
640,000
9.2
910
14
10
5.4
29
5.0
130
31
420
3,600
4.9
5.0
5.5
5.7
2.6
12
5.7
7.6
11
2.6
5.0
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal facility.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.
aAir emissions were sampled with a flux chamber and liquid concentrations
 were determined from grab  samples.
^Calculated from measured emission rates and liquid concentration.

cThe NMHC totals do not represent column sums because only major constituents
 (in terms of relative concentrations)  are presented.
                                    F-54

-------
   TABLE F-23.  SOURCE TESTING  RESULTS3  FOR  TSDF SITE 7,  OXIDIZING LAGOON

                             Mean               Waste          Mass transfer
                        emission  rate,      concentration,'3    coefficient,0
Constituent               x  10^ Mg/yr            /*9/9            x 10^ m/s
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Total NMHCd
170
43
2,000
7,600
7.8
20
1.0
1,400
380
37
35,000
94
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and  disposal  facility.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.

aThis table presents the  results  of  analyses  of  air and  waste oil  and solids
 mixture samples collected during  source testing at the  TSDF Site  7 oxidizing
 lagoon.  Air emissions were  sampled with  a  flux chamber and waste concentra-
 tions were determined from grab  samples.

^The lagoon surface contained oils and  solids; therefore,  the grab sample of
 waste from the pond was  a sludge  and was  analyzed  as  a  soil sample.

Calculated from measured emission rates and  waste  concentration.
    NMHC totals do not represent  column  sums  because only major constituents
 (in terms of relative concentrations)  are  presented.
                                   F-55

-------
      Each  sample was  divided  using  a  2-1  plastic  graduated cylinder as
 follows:   up  to seven  1-L  bottles were  partially  filled with 500 mL of
 mixture, one  1-L bottle was completely  filled  with  the mixture,  and one
 specially  prepared  500-mL  bottle was  partially filled with 250 mi of the
 mixture.   The filled  bottle was designated  for volatile suspended solids
 analysis and  immediately stored on  ice.   One of the partially filled 1-L
 bottles was immediately preserved with  10 mL of saturated  copper sulfate
 solution and  agitated  gently  to ensure  that the copper sulfate solution was
 distributed.  This  bottle,  was then  used to  fill two 40-mL  septum vials.
 The  1-L bottle and  the two 40-mL bottles  were  stored on ice immediately
 thereafter for shipment to a  laboratory for organic compound analysis.
      The specially  prepared 500-mL  bottle had  a plastic tubing stub fitted
 into  and protruding through the cap.  Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)  tubing  was
 connected to the stub  leading to a  plastic  T-connector.  One side of the
 T-connector was attached to a short length  of  tubing filled with lithium
 hydroxide.  The other  side of the T-connector  was connected to a mercury
 manometer.  This bottle was used to monitor oxygen  uptake  over time.
      The partially  filled  1-L bottle  and  the partially filled 500-mL bottle
 were  then mounted on a wrist-action shaker  and  continuously agitated.  Over
 a period of up to 24 h, bottles were  removed from the shaker one by one and
 preserved with copper sulfate using the same procedure as  for the initial
 sample.  Similarly, 40-mL  vials were  filled for purgeable  organics  analy-
 sis.
      Biodegradation rate test samples were  analyzed for purgeable organics
 by EPA Method 624 (formaldehyde by  an MS  technique,20 and  methanol  by
 direct-injection GC).
      Based on the decrease in methanol and  formaldehyde with increasing
 reaction times,  zero-order biodegradation rates were calculated.   These
 rates were then  normalized by dividing by the  biomass present (as indicated
 by volatile suspended  solids)  in the  bottles.   Biodegradation rates for
methanol and formaldehyde  were determined to be 0.53 and 0.082 pg/
 (g»biomass-h), respectively.
     F.I.2.2  Sjjte__9.21,22  site 9  is a synthetic organic  chemical
production  plant.   Wastewater is collected at  various points in  the
                                   F-56

-------
manufacturing  area of the plant and pumped intermittently to a sump in the
WWT area.   Wastewater is pumped intermittently from this sump to an
equalization  tank with a residence time of approximately 90 h.  The
equalization  tank is not completely mixed and is operated primarily to
accommodate hydraulic surges.
     Wastewater is then pumped to a splitter box where it is mixed with
recycled sludge and divided between two identical and parallel, above-
ground,  concrete aeration tanks providing approximately 6 days of residence
time.  Air is  supplied through static mixers in each tank.  Approximately
5 cm of foam  was present on the surface of the tanks except in the areas
directly above the mixers.   The aeration tanks contained 2,500 mg/L of
mixed-liquor  suspended solids  during the test.  The water level is main-
tained by an  overflow weir.
     The wastewater from the two tanks overflows to a splitter box where it
is recombined  and then divided evenly between two clarifiers.  Sludge is
returned to the aeration tanks at the influent splitter box in an amount
sufficient to  maintain the  desired volatile suspended solids content of the
mixed liquor.
     One tank  was divided into 27 2.44 m x 2.44 m grids.  An enclosure
device,  the isolation emission flux chamber, was used to measure the off-
gas flow rate  from the different parts of a grid.  A slipstream of the
sample gas was collected for hydrocarbon analysis.
     A field  test to measure air emissions (with a mass emissions flux
chamber) and  biodegradation rates was conducted in September 1986.
Compound-specific air emissions integrated over the tank surface are given
in Table F-24  along with liquid concentration data obtained from analyses-
of mixed-liquor samples taken  at the same points at which the flux chamber
measurements were made.  Gas and liquid analyses were conducted by GC-
FID/PID/HECD.
     Samples of a mixture of aeration tank feed and recycled sludge were
dipped from the influent splitter box at the upstream end of the aeration
tank.  Each sample was divided using a 2-1 plastic graduated cylinder as
follows.  Up to seven 1-L bottles were partially filled with 500 ml of
mixture; one  1-L bottle was completely filled with mixture; and one
                                   F-57

-------
    TABLE F-24.  AIR EMISSIONS AND MIXED-LIQUOR COMPOSITION  IN THE
                       AERATION TANK AT SITE 9a
   Constituent
Emission rate,
  x 103 Mg/yr
                                             Liquid
                                         concentration,
Mass transfer
coefficient,^
  x 106 m/s
Methane
C-2 VOCC
Cyclopentane
Isobutene + 1-Butene
t-4-Methyl -2-pentene
To! uene
Methylene chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Acetaldehyde
Dimethyl sulf ide
Acetone
170
1.1
.93
.12
.11
2.9
.13
.70
5.6
.13
°d
0.0
15.8
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.6
8.3
6.0
170
4.9
70
NM
6.9
180
NM
NM
180
1.6
12
3.3
2.6
0
NM = Not meaningful.
VOC = Volatile organic compound.

aAir emission data estimated from flux measurements made at different
 points on the surface of a submerged aeration activated sludge tank and
 the average composition of the mixed liquor present in the tank.

^Calculated from measured emission rates and liquid concentration.

GVolatile organic compounds containing two carbons, e.g.,  ethane.

^Acetone measurements from the tank surface did not exceed blank
 concentration levels.
                                 F-58

-------
specially prepared 500-mL bottle was partially filled with 250 ml of
mixture.   The filled bottle was designated for volatile suspended solids
analysis  and immediately stored on ice.  One of the partially filled 1-L
bottles was immediately preserved with 10 ml_ of saturated copper sulfate
solution  and agitated gently to ensure that the copper sulfate solution was
distributed.  This bottle was then used to fill two 40-mL septum vials.
The 1-L bottle and the two 40-mL bottles were stored on ice immediately
thereafter for shipment to a laboratory for organic compound analysis.
     The  specially prepared 500-mL bottle had a plastic tubing stub fitted
into and  protruding through the cap.  Tygon tubing was connected to the
stub leading to a plastic T-connector.  One side of the T-connector was
attached  to a short length of tubing filled with lithium hydroxide.  The
other side of the T-connector was connected to a mercury manometer.  This
bottle was used to monitor oxygen uptake over time.
     The  partially filled 1-L bottle and the partially filled 500-mL bottle
were then mounted on a wrist-action shaker and continuously agitated.  Over
a period  of about 19 h, bottles were removed from the shaker one by one and
preserved with copper sulfate using the same procedure as for the initial
sample.  Similarly, 40-mL vials were filled for purgeable organics analy-
sis.
     Biode-gradation rate test samples were analyzed for purgeable organics
by EPA Method 624, acid extractable organics by EPA Method 625, and
methanol  by direct injection GC.
     The  slope of the linear regression line through the data points
represents the best estimate of the compound-specific biodegradation rate.
Concentrations would be expected to decline monotonically in the absence of
chemical  analysis errors.  This slope was then normalized for the biomass
concentration.  Selected biodegradation rate constants are given in Table
F-25.   Multiple rates for the same compound reflect data obtained during
different tests.   Taking the rate constant for phenol, as an example, as
0.25 /*g/min-g biomass,  would imply that a tank with mixed-liquor volatile
suspended solids  of 2,500 mg/L could effectively biodegrade 5,400 /ig/L of
phenol.   The actual difference between phenol in the influent and the
effluent  of the aeration tank during the study period averaged 6,200 fj.g/1
                                   F-59

-------
   TABLE F-25.  BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANTS OBSERVED IN
       SHAKER TESTS CONDUCTED AT SITE 9 AERATION TANKa
                                       Rate constant,
    Constituent                      /*g/(min-g biomass)

Methanol                                   12.8
                                            5.7

Phenol                                      0.087
                                            0.25
                                            0.29

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol                        0.037

Styrene                                     0.0011

Oxirane                                     0.38
                                            0.59

1,1,1-Trichloroethane                        0


TSDF = Treatment,  -storage,  and disposal  facility.
aThis table presents zero-order biodegradation rate constants
 determined from analyses of shaker test samples at Site 9.
 Where more than one rate is presented,  data were obtained
 from different tests  conducted during a 1-week period.
                            F-60

-------
(based on a weighted average of aeration tank feed concentration and
recycled sludge vs. aeration tank effluent); the effluent and recycle
streams were below the detection limit of 250 /ig/L.
     F.I.2.3  Site 10.23  The Site 10 facility produces acrylic fibers by
the continuous polymerization of acrylonitrile with methyl methacrylate.
Wastewater from this process is discharged to an aerated equalization basin
and then treated by flocculation before being disposed of by deep-well
injection.  Tests were conducted on the discharge trough and equalization
basin on May 20 and 21,  1986.
     The process wastewater containing acrylonitrile is discharged into an
open trough where it cascades downhill the length of the freeboard into the
equalization basin.  The trough is constructed of stainless steel and is
approximately 30 cm wide with a total length of 8.2 m.  The surface area of
the basin is approximately 4,000 m^.  During the testing program, the
trough length above the equalization basin waterline was approximately
6.4 m; the depth of the equalization basin was approximately 2.7 m.  The
estimated daily loading rate for acrylonitrile entering the equalization
basin over the 2 days of the testing program was 115 kg/d, based on a mean
discharge concentration of 56.8 ppm at 2 million L/d.
     The objectives of the testing program at Site 10 were to determine:
     •    Acrylonitrile emissions from the discharge trough prior to
          the equalization basin
     •    Biological  activity of the equalization basin
     •    Concentration of acrylonitrile in the equalization basin
          with respect to time.
     To determine acrylonitrile emissions from the discharge trough, grab
samples were collected at the trough influent and effluent.  A beaker was
dipped into the flow, and each sample was transferred into triplicate VOA
vials.  Samples were  collected three times daily at approximately 4-h
intervals.   Initial  readings for temperature and pH were recorded, and
duplicate analyses  using GC-FID were performed to determine the acryloni-
tri le concentration  of each sample.   Flow rate measurements were not
performed because of  the short period of time (less than 2 s) that the
discharged  wastewater resided in the trough.   In addition, the flow rate in
                                   F-61

-------
the  discharge  trough was  highly  variable,  which  led  to  alteration of the
sampling  protocol  for  the  final  four  sampling  events to allow for simultan-
eous  collection of  influent  and  effluent  samples.   Because  of the short
residence time in  the  trough and  the  change  in sampling protocol,  results
of testing  acrylonitrile  emissions  from the  discharge trough  prior to the
equalization basin  were inconclusive.
      To quantify the biological  activity  of  the  equalization  basin,  BOD
analyses  were  conducted on a representative  sample of the basin.   The sam-
ple  was collected  by compositing  grab  samples  from four different  points
about the perimeter of the basin  with  a glass  container.  Two separate BOD
analyses  were  then  prepared  and  run in triplicate.   Dilutions of  0.5, 0.67,
1.33, and 1.67 percent were  used, and  the  aliquots were left  unseeded.
Because BOD analyses also can measure  the  oxygen depletion  used to oxidize
reduced forms  of nitrogen  (nitrogenous demand),  an inhibitor  (2-chloro-6
[trichloromethyljpyridine) was added  to one  set  in order to better quantify
the  carbonaceous oxygen demand (COD)  of the  system.   All analyses  were
performed in accordance with Standard  Methods  for the Examination  of  Water
and  Wastewater (16th Edition).24  Table F-26 summarizes the results  of the
BOD  analyses and shows essentially no  change in mean  BOD with addition of
the  inhibitor.  This indicates that the oxygen demand on the  system  is not
due  to the oxidation of nitrogenous compounds  and implies that oxygen
demand is related to the biochemical  degradation of  organic material  and
the  oxidation  of inorganic materials  such  as sulfides.
     To determine the acrylonitrile concentration in  the equalization basin
with respect to time,  a total of  three different composite  grab samples was
collected as described- previously for  the  BOD  analyses.  After each  collec-
tion, portions of the composite sample were  allocated to eight VOA vials.
Two of these were analyzed immediately to  determine  the initial acryloni-
trile concentration of the basin.  Three of  the VOA  vials then were  set
aside under ambient conditions to be  analyzed  after  their respective  hold-
ing time had elapsed.   The remaining three were spiked  with 5 /*L  of  stock
acrylonitrile and were analyzed to determine their initial  acrylonitrile
concentration;  then they were set aside under ambient conditions  to  be
reanalyzed after their respective holding  time had elapsed.   All  of  the
                                   F-62

-------
     TABLE F-26.  BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN  DEMAND  RESULTS3 FROM EQUALIZATION
                           BASIN  AT  TSDF  SITE 1025

Sample Time
date sampled
5/20/86 1000

5/20/86 1000
5/20/86 1000

5/20/86 1000
Method blank

Method blank
TSDF = Treatment,
DO = Dissolved
BOD = Biological
Percent
of aliquot
analyzed
0.5

0.67
0.5

0.67
NA

NA
storage, and
oxygen .
oxygen demand
Initial
DO,
ppm
8.2

8.2
8.2

8.2
8.2

8.2
disposal

.
Final
DO, Mean BOD,b Analysis
ppm ppm comments
4.5
675 Total BOD
4.0
4.6
685 Inhibited BOD
4.0
8.0 300 mL of dilution
water
8.0
faci 1 ity.


NA = Not appl icable.
aGrab samples from four different  points  about  the  perimeter of the basin
 were composited and two separate  BOD  analyses  were prepared and run in
 triplicate.  An inhibitor  (2-chloro-6[trichloromethyl]-  pyridine)  was added
 to  one set in order to better quantify the  chemical  oxygen  demand  of the
 system.

bBOD is calculated as follows:  BOD =  [(Initial  DO  -  Final  D0)/Aliquot >] x
 100.
                                   F-63

-------
 acrylonitrile  concentration  determinations  were  conducted using a Hewlett-
 Packard  5840 GC-FID.   The  acrylonitrile  concentrations  of the basin compos-
 ites were  below  the  detection  limit  of 5 ppm.  Table F-27 presents the
 acrylonitrile  concentrations of  the  equalization basin  spiked samples.
     In  addition to  the eight  VOA  vials,  three aliquots  of each composite
 were placed  in standard BOD  bottles.  The DO concentration then was meas-
 ured with  a  YSI  5720A  BOD  DO probe.   The ground-glass stoppers  then were
 placed in  the  bottles, and a water seal  was placed  around the rim.   The
 bottles  were set aside under ambient  conditions  and  were reanalyzed for DO
 when their respective  holding  time had elapsed.   Table  F-28 presents the
 results  of the DO analyses.
     F.I.2.3   Site 11.28   The  Site 11 plant produces  specialty  chemicals in
 a number of  separate batch operations.   Wastewater  originates from water
 used during  the  reaction process, water  produced by  the  reaction,  water
 used in  rinsing  the  final  products,  and  water used  in cleaning  operations.
 The wastewater is treated  in a series of  processes  (neutralization,  primary
 clarification,  and activated sludge)  prior to being  discharged.   Testing
 was conducted during the week  of August  13 through  19,  1984.
     The site was chosen because of  the  emission  control  system used to
 minimize odor from the aerated lagoon that  is part  of the activated sludge
 system.  Therefore,  the test program  was  focused  on  the  lagoon  enclosure.
 Specifically, the primary  objectives  of  the lagoon  enclosure  testing were
 to:
     •      Measure the control  efficiency  of the  activated carbon  beds
           that were used in the treatment of the  off-gases  from the
           1agoon
     •      Measure the overall  effectiveness of the  dome  and  carbon
           adsorption systems
     •      Determine the validity of  Thibodeaux's  model for predicting
           emission rates from  aerated impoundments.
 In addition,  the effectiveness of 0.21-m3 drums  of  carbon used  to control
breathing  and working losses from the neutralizer tanks  was  evaluated.
     Results  of the  analysis of the effectiveness of the dome are presented
in Section  F.2.1.1.   Effectiveness of the vapor-phase carbon  adsorption is
discussed  in  Section F.2.2.1.2.
                                   F-64

-------
   TABLE F-27.
ACRYLONITRILE CONCENTRATIONS OF THE EQUALIZATION BASIN
    SPIKED SAMPLES3 AT TSDF SITE 1026

Sample
date
5/20/86
5/20/86
5/21/86

PH
7.0
6.7
3.2
Mean initial
concentration,
mg/L
93
97
99
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and
NA = Not appl icable.
Mean final
concentration,
mg/L
52
45
105
disposal facility.

Percent
reduction
44
54
NA

Mean total
holding
time, h
34.4
28.5
6.8

aGrab  samples  from  four different  points  about  the  perimeter  of  the basin
 were  composited  a  total  of  three  different  times.   After  each collec-
 tion,  portions of  the composite sample were allocated  to  eight  volatile
 organic  analysis vials,  three  of  which were spiked with 5 /zL of stock
 acrylonitri le.   This table  presents  the  results  of the analyses of the
 three sets  of spiked samples.
                                 F-65

-------
           TABLE F-28.  DISSOLVED OXYGEN DATA FOR EQUALIZATION
                    BASIN SAMPLES3 AT TSDF SITE 1027
Sample
date
5/20/86
5/20/86
5/21/86
pH
7.0
6.7
3.2
Mean
initial DO,
mg/L
6.8
6.3
8.4
Mean
final DO,
mg/L
0.3
0.2
6.8
Mean
percent
reduction
96
97
19
Mean total
holding
time, h
29.5
25.6
9.4
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and  disposal  facility.
DO - Dissolved oxygen.

aGrab samples  from four different  points  about  the perimeter of the basin
 were composited  a total  of three  different  times.  After each collec-
 tion,  three aliquots  of the composited  sample  were placed in standard
 biochemical  oxygen demand  bottles for  DO concentration  analysis.
                                 F-66

-------
     The aerated lagoon at Site 11 is approximately 46 by 130 m.  The
lagoon  aeration is performed by two large 56-kW (75-hp) aerators and 25
smaller 5.6-kW (7.5-hp) aerators.   At least one of the large aerators and
an average of 16 of the smaller aerators are operated at all times.  The
depth of the lagoon is generally held near 1.5 m.   During the test period,
the level  was substantially lower at 0.55 m.  The lagoon is covered with a
PVC-coated polyester dome structure.  The dome is an air-tight inflated
bubble  structure,  approximately 9 m tall at the highest point.  The dome is
pressurized by a main blower and equipped with an emergency fan, a propane-
powered auxiliary blower (for use during power failures), and a propane
heater  (for winter operation).   The air in the dome structure is purged
continuously through a fixed two-bed carbon adsorption system.  The beds
are alternately regenerated every 24 h.  The carbon adsorption system is
designed to remove odorous compounds (primarily orthochlorophenol,  which is
not a VO)  from the exhaust gases.
     The wastewater from the batch reactors flows  into two neutralizer
tanks for pH adjustment.  At the time of the tests, the plant estimated
that the wastewater flow rate averaged 20.8 L/s.   The capacity of each tank
is approximately 75,000 L.   In  the neutralizer tanks, caustic or acid is
added to maintain  the pH in a range of 5 to 9.  To reduce odors and VO
emissions,  two 0.21-m3 (55-gal) drums of activated carbon are used to
capture vented hydrocarbon losses  from these covered neutralizer tanks.
     Liquid and slurry samples  were collected at  various locations around
the WWT facility at Site 11 to  characterize inlets to and outlets from the
system.  In addition,  the vapor stream entering the carbon adsorption
system  (representing air emissions from the aerated lagoon controlled by
the dome)  was sampled.  The liquid and sludge samples were collected in
glass containers with  Teflon-lined caps.  The sample bottles were filled to
minimize any headspace.  Gas volumetric flow rate was determined by
procedures  described in EPA Reference Method 2.29   Average gas velocity was
determined  following procedures outlined in Reference Method 1.30  Gas sam-
ples were  collected from the carbon adsorption system inlet and outlet two
to three times daily in evacuated  gas canisters.
                                   F-67

-------
     Offsite analyses of  air  samples were  performed  on  a  Varian  Model
3700 GC-FID/PID/HECD.   Liquid  samples were prepared  in  a  purge-and-trap
manner and then analyzed  by GC-FID/PID/HECD.
     Table F-29 summarizes the test results  from  the covered  aerated  lagoon
used to evaluate the validity  of Thibodeaux's model  for predicting  emission
rates from aerated  impoundments.
     F.I.2.4  Site  12.31,32   $-jte 12 is a  large,  continuously operated
organic chemical complex.  A  test program  was conducted during August 1983
on the biological WWT system  at this site.   It  has a large  flow  of  14.3 x
10^ L/d from 16 production units.  The majority of the  process units dis-
charge continuously.
     At the WWT system, the wastewater passes through a flowmeter and
discharges into a two-stage agitated pH adjustment system where  sulfuric
acid or caustic is  added  to adjust the pH  and renders the waste  amenable
for subsequent biological treatment.  The  retention  time within  this system
averages 30 min.
     After pH adjustment, the wastewater drops 0.91  m into  a  splitter box
and gravity-flows to two  of three primary  clarifiers.   The  clarifiers
remove any floating materials or organic layers from the quiescent  liquid
surface as well  as  any settleable solids.  The floating materials are
directed to a completely  closed 114,000-L  horizontal decanter.   The
decanted water is intermittently pumped back to the  pH  adjustment system.
The accumulated organics  in the decanter were quantitatively  characterized
at the end of the study.  The underflow from the  clarifier  is  pumped con-
tinuously to the primary  solids settling basin  (PSSB) where the  solids are
settled out and the supernatant is gravity-transferred  to the  aerated sta-
bilization basins for further treatment.   The retention time  of  the waste-
water in the primary clarifiers averaged 2.7 h during this  study.
     The clarified wastewater from the primary system flows by gravity to
an equalization basin.   This basin is well mixed  by  recirculation pumps
with submerged" suction  and discharge lines and serves to  "equalize" peak
loads.   An oil  mop  located at one end of the basin may  be used to reduce or
eliminate floating organics not removed in the clarifiers.  Although float-
ing organics  were present on the basin during this study, the  oil mop was
                                   F-68

-------
                                            TABLE F-29.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS8 FOR TSDF SITE 11, COVERED AERATED LAGOON
 I
CTl
IT)
Constituent
1,2-Dich loro-
ethane
Benzene
To 1 uene
Inf luent
rate to
1 agoon ,
Mg/yr
29
39
9.1
Outlet
con cent rat i on,
mg/L
4.2
0.60
0.28
Emission
Mater i a Is
balance
27
39
8.9
rate. Mq/yr
Air
measurement
3.5
3.2
4.6
Emi ss i on flux
rate, x 10s g/m2-s
Mater i a 1 s
ba lance
160
230
51
Air
measurement
20
18
25
Mass transfer
coefficient,'' x 10s m/s
Mater i a Is
ba lance
38
380
180
Air
measurement
4.8
30
89
                  TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.

                  aTo perform the materials balance analysis, numerous  liquid and slurry samples were collected at various locations around the
                   Site 11 WWT facility to characterize  inlets to and outlets from the system.  Air emission measurements represent the average of
                   the analyses of three gas canister samples collected from the carbon adsorption system inlet.

                  °The mass transfer coefficient is emission flux rate divided by outlet concentration.

-------
not used.' At the  southeast corner of  the  basin,  the  wastewater passes  over
an overflow weir and drops 0.6 m from  a  discharge pipe  into  a  waste  trans-
fer ditch that  leads to the secondary  treatment  area.   The wastewater
remains  in this basin for approximately  50  h.
     The wastewater is pumped from the ditch  into one of  two parallel
aerated  stabilization basins, each containing  15  aerators  (3.7 to  56 kW and
7.5 to 75 kW  [5 to 75 hp and 10 to 100 hp]).   Approximately  half of  the
aerators were in operation during this study.  Within these  basins,  a
microbial population capable of degrading  the  organics  present in  the waste
is maintained.  The concentration of this  population, measured as  mixed
liquor suspended solids (MLSS), was 1,000  to 2,200 mg/L.  To maintain a
viable biological  population, both phosphorus  and nitrogen are added as
nutrients to the waste transfer ditch  or feed  line ahead  of  the aerated
stabilization system as required.  The liquid  retention time in these
basins was 250 hours (10.5 days).
     The effluent  from the aerated stabilization  basins is pumped  to a UNOX
biological system.  This system consists of four  trains in parallel.  Each
train contains three completely enclosed reactors in  series.   The  MLSS
concentration in these reactors was on the order  of 6,000 mg/L during this
study, and the liquid retention time was about 27 hours.
     Some key physical  parameters of each WWT  process unit are presented in
Table F-30.  The wastewater remained within this  treatment facility  for a
total  of approximately 330 hours before being  discharged  to  the receiving
water.  The duration of this study represented 1.7 retention times of the
wastewater within the facility.
     The objective of this study was to develop a mass  balance for selected
organic compounds  in an industrial  biological  WWT facility at  a typical
organic chemical production complex.   Eight chemicals were monitored in
this study,  including four of high volatility  (benzene, toluene,
1,2-dichloroethane, and ethyl benzene) and four of low  volatility
(tetralin,  2 ethyl  hexanol,  2 ethyl hexyl acrylate, and naphthalene).
     Sampling was conducted between August 1 and  23,  1983.   Twenty-four-
hour composite samples  of the wastewater were  collected from the influent
to the treatment plant,  the effluent from the  primary system,  the  effluent
                                   F-70

-------
         TABLE F-30.  PHYSICAL PARAMETERS  OF  PROCESS  UNITS  AT TSDF
                  SITE  12, WASTEWATER TREATMENT  SYSTEM33


Inlet box & pH adjustment tanks       •   Two 61-m3 uncovered  tanks
                                     •   4.6 m  diameter,  3.7  m high
                                     •   Each mixed with  7.5-kW (10-hp),  45-rpm
                                        agitator  0.91  m  wide,  3.7 m long

Splitter box                          •   Open top,  rectangular,  water drops
                                        1.4 m

Primary clarifiers                    •   Three  in  parallel—two usually  in
                                        operation,  13.7  m  diameter,  2.4  m  deep

Equalization basin                    •   3.6-Mg basin  (3.1-Mg effective  volume)
                                     •   Approximately  3.4  m  deep

Waste transfer ditch                  •   122 m  long,  open ditch, 0.6 to  1.5  m
                                        deep,  1.2 to 3 m wide

Aerated stabilization basin           •   Two basins in  parallel--each holds
                                        11  Mg,  3.7 m deep  (MLSS 1,500 to 3,000
                                        mg/L)
                                        Aerators--3.7  to 5.2 kW  (5  to 7  hp)
                                                  7.5  to 75  kW (10  to 100  hp)

UNOX reactors                         •   12  reactors  in 4 parallel trains of 3
                                        reactors  each
                                     •   Each reactor 9.4 m diameter by  8.5  m
                                        deep


TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal  facility.
MLSS = Mixed liquor suspended solids.
                                   F-71

-------
from the equalization basin, the effluent  from the  aerated  stabilization
basin, and the final effluent from the treatment  plant.   The  samples  were
analyzed onsite within 12 h of collection  by GC.  On  each day of  the  study,
total VO concentrations were measured by an organic vapor analyzer  (OVA) in
the ambient air upwind and downwind of each unit  in the  treatment facility.
Air samples around the aerated stabilization basins also were collected
daily on Tenax sorbent cartridges for subsequent  analysis by  GC-FID or
GC-MS.
     Tables F-31, F-32, and F-33 summarize the test results from  the
primary clarifiers, equalization basin, and aerated stabilization basins,
respectively-
F.1.3  Landfills
     F.I.3.1  Site 13.34  Site 13 is a commercial hazardous waste
management facility located northeast of San Francisco,  CA.   The  current
owners took over the site in 1975.  The site accepts  a variety  of wastes.
     Emission measurements were performed  on the  active  landfill  at Site 13
on October 11 and 23,  1983.  The open landfill covered approximately
19,970 rr)2 and was contained within the confines of the natural  topography
and an earthen embankment.  No liner was used because of the  low  permeabil-
ity of the natural soil (clay).  The landfill did not include any type of
leachate collection system, nor any gas ventilation.  This  landfill had
been worked for approximately 4 years.  One more  lift was planned for the
landfill before clos-ing it.  The landfill  accepted only  hazardous waste,
primarily inorganic pigments,  solids such  as organic-contaminated soils,
and organic sludges.  No liquids were accepted into the  landfill, and no
fixation was performed.  Any drums received were  crushed prior  to placement
into the landfil1.
     Material was unloaded in the north corner and spread over  the surface
by bulldozers.  Compactors then went over  the waste surface prior to  addi-
tional waste being spread.  Periodically,  dirt was brought  in to  be mixed
with the waste being spread, but no attempt was made  to  cover the landfill
on a daily basis.  Activity at the landfill was on an as-needed basis.
     The objectives of the testing program were to obtain:
     •    Emission rate data at the active landfill using the emission
          isolation flux chamber approach
                                   F-72

-------
                            TABLE F-31.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS8 FOR TSDF SITE 12, PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
Inf 1 uent
rate to
c larif iers,
Constituent Mg/yr
Tetral inc
2-Ethyl hexanolc
2-Ethyl hexyl-
acry latec
Naphtha lenec
1,2-Dichloro-
ethane°
Benzene^
~n ,
1 Toluene"
00 Ethyl benzened
0.8
72
13
3.8
1.2
40
8.1
27
Outlet
concentration,
mg/L
0.
22
1
0,
0
16
2.
6,
,1

.8
.8
.5

.9
.9
Emi ss i on
Mater i a Is
ba 1 ance
<0.0
20
<0.0
1.3
0.3
0.8
0.9
10
rate, Mq/yr
Air
measurement
0.
8.
2.
0,
.3
,8
.1
,7
0.01
2
1.
2.
.8
,4
,5
Emissi
rate. x
Mater i a Is
ba lance
NA
2,200
NA
140
32
89
100
1,100
on f 1 ux
106 q/m2.s
Air
measurement
28
950
230
70
1.1
300
1B0
270
Mass transfer
coefficient,15 x 106 m/s
Mater i a 1 s
ba 1 ance
NA
100
NA
180
64
5.6
34
160
Air
measurement
230
43
130
88
2.2
19
52
39
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
NA = Not available.
aTwenty-foui—hour composite samples of the wastewater were collected from the influent to the treatment plant and the effluent
 from the primary clarifiers.  An organic vapor analyzer was used to collect air samples within the downwind plume from the
 primary clarifiers on selected days.
t'The mass transfer coefficient is emission flux rate divided by outlet concentration.
cAir emissions were measured for the  tow volatility compounds on August 18, 1983.  Influent rate and outlet concentration
 measurements correspond to the air emission measurements.
dAir emissions were measured for the  high volatility compounds on August 15, 17, 18, 20, and 23, 1983.  Influent rate and outlet
 concentration measurements correspond to the air emission measurements.

-------
                            TABLE F-32.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR TSDF SITE 12,  EQUALIZATION BASIN


Const i tuen t
Tetral inc
2-Ethyl hexanolc
2-Ethy 1 hexano 1
aery 1 atec
Naphtha lenec
l-2,Dichloro-
ethaned
Benzene^
Toluene"1
Ethyl benzened
Influent
rate to
basin,
Mg/yr
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
40
9.9
22
Outlet
concentration,
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
7.1
1.6
3.5
Emi ss i on
Mater i a 1 s
ba 1 ance
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
23
6.2
14
rate, Mg/yr
Air
measurement
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.8
10
10
3.1
Em i ss i on flux
ratej x 10s g/m2-s
Mater i a 1 s
ba 1 ance
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.S
140
38
86
Air
measuremen t
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.9
61
61
19
Mass
coeff i c i e
Mater i a 1 s
ba 1 ance
NA
NA
NA
NA
18
20
24
26
transfer
nt,b x 106
Air
m/s

measurement
NA
NA
NA
NA
16
8.6
38
5.4







TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
NA = Not avallable.
aTwenty-four-hour composite samples of the wastewater were collected from the influent to and the effluent from the equalization
 basin.  An organic vapor analyzer was used to collect air samples within the downwind plume from the equalization basin on
 se I ected days .
bjne mass transfer coefficient is emission flux rate divided by outlet concentration.
CA i r emi ssi ons reportedly were measured for the Iow voI ati Ii ty compounds on August 12, 1983, but were not presented in the
 report.
^Ai r emissIons were measured for the h i gh voI ati I 1ty compounds on August 11 and 12, 1983.  Influent rate and outlet concentra-
 11 on measurements correspond to the air em!ss t on measurements.

-------
                       TABLE F-33.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR TSDF SITE 12, AERATED STABILIZATION BASINS


Const i tuen t
Tetral inc
2-Ethy 1 hexanold
2-Ethy 1 hexyl
aery 1 a ted
Naphthalene0
1 ,2-Dich loro-
ethaned
Benzened
To 1 uened
Ethyl benzened
Inf luent
rate to
aerated
bas i ns ,
Mg/yr
NA
30.1
B.I
NA
2.4
17
4.7
11
Outlet
concentrat i on ,
x 103 mg/L
NA
1,800
56
NA
14
16
11
43
Emi ss i on
Materials
ba 1 ance
NA
26.2
4.9
NA
2.4
17
4.7
11
rate, Mg/yr
Air
measurement
NA
1.2
6.3
NA
0.8
1.4
E.6
2.4
Emi ss
rate, x
Mater i a 1 s
ba 1 ance
NA
28
5.3
NA
2.6
18
5.1
12
i on flux
10s g/m2-s
Air
measurement
NA
1 .3
6.9
NA
0.87
1.5
6.1
2.6
Mass
coe Ff i c i er
Materials
ba 1 ance
NA
16
95
NA
186
1,100
460
280
transfer
it,b x 106 m/s
Air
measurement
NA
0.7
120
NA
62
94
650
60
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
NA = Not avai lable.

aTwenty-four-hour composite samples of the wastewater were collected from the influent to and the effluent from the aerated
 stabilization basins.  An organic vapor analyzer was used to collect air samples within the downwind piume from the aerated
 stabiIization basins on seIected days.
^The mass transfer coefficient Is emission flux rate divided by outlet concentration.
cNo a i r samp I i ng resuIts were presented for these compounds.
"Air emissions were measured for these compounds on August 13, 14, 16, and 17, 1983.  Inlet rate and outlet concentration
 measurements correspond to the air emlss i on measurements.

-------
     •    Data on the concentration of  VO  compounds  in  the landfill
          soil/waste for comparison to  compounds  identified during
          emission measurements  and as  future  input  to  predictive
          models.
     The sampling grid was established  over  the eastern  side of  the
 landfill and included approximately 93  percent of  the total  exposed  area.
 The western side of the landfill was only  sampled  at one,  nonrandomly
 selected point (one air canister sample and  corresponding  soil sample)
 because of the extremely moist sampling surface and  the  relatively small
 surface area of this side.  Sampling points  within the  grid  were randomly
 selected.  Points were chosen in 6 out  of  20 grids.  Duplicate air canister
 samples and corresponding duplicate core samples were collected  at two
 locations; single air canister samples  and corresponding core samples were
 collected at four locations.  The area  appeared to be homogeneous.   The
 sampling locations were thought to be representative of  the  landfill as a
 whole.
     The emission isolation flux chamber was used  for the  air emission
 testing.  Air samples were collected in stainless-steel  canisters.   Soil
 samples were collected with a thin-wall, brass core  sampler.  Air and soil
 samples were analyzed offsite using a Varian Model 3700  GC-FID/PID/HECD.
 Table F-34 presents a summary of the source  testing  results.
     F.I.3.2  Site 6.^5  site 6 is a commercial hazardous  waste  TSDF. The
 site began operation in 1972 and was acquired by the current owner in 1979
 and upgraded to accept hazardous wastes.   Before a waste is  accepted for
 disposal at  the facility,  samples must be  analyzed to determine  compatibil-
 ity with the facility processes.  Water-reactive,  explosive, radioactive,
 or pathogenic wastes are not accepted.  Hazardous wastes are received from
 the petroleum,  agricultural products,  electronics, wood  and  paper, and
 chemical industries.
     Emission measurements were performed  on the inactive  landfill June 19,
 1984,  and on the  active landfill June 21,   1984, at Site  6.   Source testing
was also conducted on a Site 6 surface  impoundment (refer  to Section
 F.I.1.6) and the  Site 6 drum storage and handling  area  (refer to Section
 F.I.5.1).
                                   F-76

-------
  TABLE F-34.  SOURCE TESTING  RESULTS9  FOR  TSDF SITE 13,  ACTIVE LANDFILL


                             Mean               Mean soil         Emission
                                                                f III y Tfl t P "
                        emission rate,       concentration,               '
Constituent                  Mg/yr             x  10~3 /ig/m3      x 106 g/m2»s
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Total xylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Total NMHCC
3.3
3.8
2.2
1.8
1.0
54
130
16
25
260
.78
1,400
5.2
6.0
3.5
2.9
1.6
86
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and  disposal  facility.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.

aAir emissions were sampled with  a  flux  chamber and  soil  concentrations were
 determined from samples collected  with  a  thin-wall,  brass core sampler.
    emission flux rate  is the  emission  rate  converted to grams/second divided
 by  the exposed surface  area  (19,970 m2)  of the  landfill.

cThe NMHC totals do not  represent column  sums  because only major constituents
 (in terms of relative concentrations) are presented.
                                   F-77

-------
     Free liquids were not accepted for disposal to the active  landfills.
Any containers containing free liquids were solidified prior to disposal.
The landfills accepted bulk waste solids and containerized solids.  Empty
drums were crushed prior to burial.
     Containerized solid wastes were transported to the facility  in sealed
containers and unloaded directly into the assigned burial area.   Containers
of previously examined and tested compatible wastes were placed upright in
the landfill disposal areas and covered with soil.  Bulk solid wastes were
placed in layers in the landfill, compacted, and covered daily with soil.
Subsequent layers of solid wastes and soil cover, sloped for drainage, were
added until  the final landfill configuration was achieved.
     At the time of testing,  none of the landfills had been closed.
Completed landfills had a 0.91-m native clay cover.  Active landfills had
approximately 0.3 m of native clay between lifts and 15.2 cm of loose cover
applied daily.  The landfill  areas had no leachate collection systems and
no gas ventilation systems.
     Landfill activities at the site involved operations at three different
landfills.  The expansion of one landfill was operational and encompassed
approximately 153,800 m^.  This active landfill was used to dispose of bulk
solids, empty containers, containerized reactive and high pH materials,
hydroxide filter cake,  and contaminated soil.  It was covered daily with
0.61 or 0.91 m of soil.   The inactive landfill  was completed in 1982 and
has a surface area of approximately 12,140 m^.   The waste types disposed of
at this site included containerized waste solvents, sludges, and  toxics.
     The objectives of the testing program at the Site 6 landfills were to
obtain:
     •     Emission rate data at the inactive landfill using the emis-
          sion isolation flux chamber approach
     •     Data on the concentration of VO in the inactive landfill
          soil for comparison to compounds identified during emission
          measurements
     •     Emission rate data at the active landfill using the emission
          isolation flux chamber approach
                                   F-78

-------
     •    Data on the concentrations of VO compounds in the active
          landfill  soil  for comparison to compounds identified during
          emission  measurements.
     The inactive landfill was an elliptical area of nominally 2,370 m^.
The area was divided into 25 equal grids.  Sampling locations were selected
randomly and were thought to be representative of the overall landfill.
Air emission measurements were made at two grid points (one air canister
sample at each point),  and a single soil core sample was collected at a
different point.   Therefore, the soil sample did not correspond to the air
emission samples.
     The active landfill was relatively homogeneous, but for sampling
purposes it was divided into two areas.  The temporary storage area had not
received fresh waste in 1 to 2 days.  The surface area of the temporary
storage area was  1,490 m^.  It was divided into eight equal grids, from
which three were  randomly selected for air emission measurements  (single
air canister samples at each grid).  Corresponding single soil cores were
obtained at each  of the three grid points.  The active working area had a
surface area of 670 m^.   Corresponding single air emission measurements and
soil sampling were  conducted at one location selected by visual inspection
due to time limitations.
     The emission isolation flux chamber approach was used in testing air
emissions.   Gas samples were collected in evacuated stainless-steel canis-
ters.  Soil samples were collected with a thin-wall, brass core sampler.
Gas and soil samples were analyzed offsite using a Varian Model 3700 GC-
FID/PID/HECD.   Table F-35 summarizes the source testing results for the
inactive landfill.   Tables F-36 and F-37 summarize the source testing
results for areas 1 and  2, respectively, of the active landfill.
     F.I.3.3  Site  14.36,37  Site 14 is a commercial waste disposal
operation  that services  four industrial clients exclusively.  The site is
located in  the Gulf Coast area and includes both a land treatment area and
a landfill.  It has been in operation since 1980.  Tests were conducted on
the land treatment  area  and the landfill during the week of November 14,
1983.   The  land treatment source testing is discussed in Section  F.I.4.5.
     The landfill that  was tested at Site 14 consists of multiple cells
with overall  dimensions  of 549 by 152 by 4.6 m deep.
                                   F-79

-------
         TABLE F-35.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS9 FOR TSDF SITE 6,
                           INACTIVE LANDFILL
Constituent
Methylene chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Total NMHCC
Mean emission
rate, x 10^ Mg/yr
10
5.3
56
Emission flux rate,
x lO^ g/m2«s
130
71
750
b



TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal facility.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.

aAir emissions were sampled with a flux chamber.
     emission flux rate is the emission rate converted to grams/second
 divided by the surface area (2,370 m^) of the inactive landfill.

cThe NMHC totals do not represent column sums because only major
 constituents (in terms of relative concentrations) are presented.
                                F-80

-------
           TABLE F-36.  SOURCE TESTING  RESULTS3  FOR TSDF SITE 6,
                  ACTIVE LANDFILL,  TEMPORARY  STORAGE AREA
Constituent
     Mean
emission rate,
 x 103 Mg/yr
                                                Mean  soil
                                             concentration,
 Emission
flux rate,13

x 10*3 g/m2»s
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylene
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Tetrach 1 oroethy 1 ene
Total NMHCC
3.4
5.9
30
20
2.6
120
30
660
ND
ND
ND
1,200
ND
ND
0.65
18,000
73
130
650
430
56
2,600
650
14,000
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal  facility.
ND = Not detected.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.

aAir emissions were sampled with a flux  chamber  and  soil  concentrations  were
 determined from samples collected with  a thin-wall,  brass  core sampler.
    emission flux rate is the emission  rate  converted  to  grams/second  divided
 by the surface area (1,470 m^) of the active landfill  temporary  storage area.

cThe NMHC totals do not represent column sums because only major  constituents
 (in terms of relative concentrations) are presented.
                                   F-81

-------
            TABLE F-37.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR  TSDF  SITE  6,
                    ACTIVE LANDFILL, ACTIVE WORKING AREA
Constituent
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Tetrachloroethylene
Total NMHCC
Emission rate,
x 103 Mg/yr
19
200
34
680
3.8
270
1,400
Soil concentration,
/ig/m3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31,000
Emission
flux rate,b
x 109 g/m2.s
900
9,500
1,600
32,000
180
13,000
66,000
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal facility.
ND = Not detected.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.

aAir emissions were sampled with a flux chamber and soil concentrations were
 determined from samples collected with a thin-wall, brass core sampler.

t>The emission flux  rate is  the emission rate converted to grams/second divided
 by the surface area (670 m?)  of the active landfill active working area.

cThe NMHC totals do not represent column sums because only major constituents
 (in terms of relative concentrations)  are presented.
                                    F-82

-------
     At the time of the tests, the active cells in the landfill included:
     •    A = centrifuge filter cake
     •    B = polymerization catalysts
     •    C = reduced metal catalysts
     •    D = miscellaneous..
     Cell  A consists of a rectangular pit with nominal dimensions of 15.2
by 12.2 by 3.0 m deep.  Wastes disposed of in cell A were expected to
include solids from acrylonitrile, acetone cyanohydrin, lactic acid, terti-
ary butylamine,  and iminodiacetic acid production activities.  Waste is
typically unloaded with cell A four to eight times per month.  During the
test period, a single truckload of waste was unloaded.  The waste covered
approximately 25 percent of the floor of the cell and was left uncovered.
     The objectives of the test program at cell A were to provide data to
evaluate both measurement and modeling techniques for determining air emis-
sions from hazardous waste landfills and to provide an indication of the
air emission levels from cell A.   Gas-phase sampling was performed by the
emission isolation flux chamber method, and solid grab samples were col-
lected.  For the flux chamber sampling, cell A was divided into 20 equal
grids, and samples (single air canister samples)  were collected from two of
the grids.  Nine solid grab samples were collected, of which two were
selected for detailed analysis.  Only one of the solid samples selected for
detailed analysis corresponded to a flux chamber measurement.
     Gas samples were collected in evacuated stainless-steel canisters.
Solid samples were collected in glass VGA vials with Teflon-lined caps and
filled with material  so that no headspace was present.  Gas and solid
sample offsite analysis was done  using a Varian Model 3700 GC-FID/PID/HECD.
Table F-38 presents the source testing results from cell A of the Site 14
landfill.
     F.I.3.4  Site 15.38,39  site 15 is a commercial hazardous waste
management facility located in the northeastern United States.  The site
includes four chemical landfills  with provisions  for a fifth.  Landfills M,
N,  and 0 were closed in 1978,  1980,  and 1982, respectively.  Landfill P was
opened in  February 1982.   At the  time of the test, the categories of waste
placed in  landfill  P included:
                                   F-83

-------
           TABLE F-38.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR TSDF SITE  14,
                           ACTIVE LANDFILL, CELL A
Constituent
Acrylom'tri le
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
All xylene
Styrene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
Chlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
Total NMHCC
Emission rate,
x 106 Mg/yr
<370
540
<370
<370
<740
<370
<370
<370
ND
<370
1,100
4,800
Soil
concentration,
/*g/g
1.5
0.21
0.69
0.29
1.9
0.67
0.73
0.32
0.51
ND
ND
31
Emission
flux rate,b
x 109 g/m2.s
<63
93
<63
<63
<130
<63
<63
<63
ND
<63
190
820
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal facility.
ND = Not detected.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.

aAir emissions were sampled with a flux chamber and soil concentrations were
 determined from a  sample collected in a glass VOA vial.
     emission flux rate is the emission rate converted to grams/second divided
 by the surface area (185 m2)  of cell  A.

cThe NMHC totals do not represent column sums because only major constituents
 (in terms of relative concentrations)  are presented.
                                    F-84

-------
     •     Flammables--paint waste,  etc. (flashpoints from 27 to 60 °C)
     •     Pseudo metals—cyanide,  arsenic,  etc. (no longer an active
          cell)
     •     Toxics — polychlorinated  biphenyls (PCB),  pesticides,  etc.
     •     General  organics—flashpoints greater than 60 °C
     •     Heavy  metals--oxidizers,  WWT sludge.
Liquids were not accepted in landfill  P.   The waste material was limited to
5 percent free fluid,  which included air (previous  value had been 10 per-
cent).   Liquid wastes  were solidified  prior to disposal.  Municipal wastes
were kept separate from the chemical waste and disposed of in the sanitary
landfill.
     Testing was performed at landfills P and 0 on  October 11 and 12,  1983.
At the  time of testing, landfill  P was 240 by 160  by 8.5 m deep at grade
and had a volume of 3.3 x 10^ m^.   The landfill has a 3.2-ha bottom and was
4 ha at the top  of the berm.  Major categories of  waste were disposed of in
distinct subcells.  The area allocated for each type of waste in landfill P
was nominally:
     •     Heavy  metals--35 percent
     •     General  organics--35 percent
     •     Flammables--20 percent
     •     Toxics--10 percent.
A 15.2-cm cover  was placed over the disposed waste  daily to minimize
exposure to the  atmosphere.  The  cover could consist of soils,  ashes,  lime,
hydrated carbon,  or low-level contaminated soils.
     Chemical  landfill  0 is typical of the inactive landfills at Site 15.
Landfill  0 was closed  in 1982 and  occupies approximately 2 ha.   Wastes  were
segregated into  subcells for general waste categories as described for
landfill  P.   The final  cap of the  landfill  includes 0.9 m of compacted
day, a 0.2-cm high-density polyethylene  (HOPE) liner,  0.5 m of loose clay,
and  15.2  cm of topsoil  and vegetation.  The design  permeability of the  cap
is 1  x  10~7  cm/s.
                                   F-85

-------
      Closed  landfills  at  Site  15  include  both  standpipes  for leachate
 collection and gas  vents.   There  are  two  standpipes  in  each  of the five
 subcells, for a  total  of  10.   The standpipes  are  61  cm  diameter and open to
 the  atmosphere.  There are  two gas  vents  per  subcell, for a  total  of 10.
 The  gas  vents are valved  shut,  with provisions  for gas  release through
 carbon canisters if the gas pressure  builds up  within, the subcells.
      The objectives of the  test program at landfills  0  and P were  to
 provide  data to  evaluate  both  measurement and modeling  techniques  for
 determining air  emissions from inactive and active hazardous waste
 landfills and to provide  an indication of the air emission levels  from
 landfills 0 and  P.
      Emission measurements were made  at the inactive  chemical  landfill 0
 using the flux chamber and  vent sampling techniques.  No  emissions  were
 detected as measured by the flux  chamber with continuous  total  hydrocarbon
 (THC) monitor; therefore, no syringe  or canister  samples  were  taken.  Six-
 teen  vents were  sampled,  at least one vent from each  cell.   Fifteen  samples
 by real-time hydrocarbon  analyzer and one canister and  two syringe  samples
 were  collected.  No solid samples were collected.
      Emission sampling at the  active  chemical landfill  P  was limited  to two
 flux  chamber measurements in the  flammable cell only.   One canister  and two
 syringe samples were collected.   No solid samples were  collected.   No
 attempt was made to grid  the area.  The nominal surface area of  the  active
 landfill  was 38,000 m2.
     Canister samples  were analyzed offsite using a Varian Model 3700 GC-
 FID/PID/HECD.  Syringe samples were analyzed onsite by  GC-FID.   Table F-39
 presents  the results of the canister  sample collected from a standpipe in
 the general  organic cell of landfill 0.  Table  F-40 presents the results of
 the canister sample collected  from the flux chamber over  the flammable cell
 of landfill  P.   The nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) totals  represent  averages
 of the canister and syringe samples.
     F.I.3.5  Site 7.40,41,42  site 7 is a commercial hazardous  waste
management  facility located in the northeastern United  States.   The  site
was developed for hazardous waste operations in the early  1970s.   Site 7
has a total  of nine chemical landfills.  Seven  are closed, one is  under
                                   F-86

-------
     TABLE F-39.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR
         TSDF SITE 15,  INACTIVE LANDFILL 0

                                Emission rate,
Constituent                      x 10^ Mg/yr
Benzene                               3.3
Toluene                             230
Ethylbenzene                          9.7
Total xylene                         28
Styrene                               3.9
n-Propylbenzene                       3.0
Methylene chloride                  220
Chloroform                            7.4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane                 3.4
Total NMHCb                         930
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.
aThis table presents the results of the analysis of
 a single canister sample collected from a stand-
 pipe in the general organic cell.
     NMHC totals do not represent column sums
 because only major constituents (in terms of
 relative concentrations) are presented.
                      F-87

-------
         TABLE F-40.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR TSDF SITE  15,
                 ACTIVE LANDFILL P, FLAMMABLE WASTE CELL
Constituent
Tol uene
Total xylene
Methylene chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Total NMHCC
Emission rate,
x 103 Mg/yr
100
190
380
51
250
1,900
Emission flux rate,b
x 10^ g/m2»s
420
790
1,600
210
1,000
7,900
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
NMHC = Nonmethane  hydrocarbon.

aAir emissions were sampled with a flux  chamber.  One air canister
 sample was collected from the flammable waste cell.  No soil samples
 were collected.
     emission flux rate is the emission rate converted to grams/second
 divided by the surface area (7,600 m2) of the flammable waste cell.
cThe NMHC totals do not represent column sums because only major
 constitutents  (in terms of relative concentrations)  are presented.
                                  F-l

-------
construction,  and one is active (landfill B).   Tests were conducted at
landfill  B and one of the closed landfills  (landfill A) during the first
week of October 1983.  Also at Site 7, tests were conducted on three
surface impoundments in the WWT system (refer to Section F.I.1.7) and on
the drum storage building (refer to Section F.I.5.3).
     When the tests were conducted, landfill B covered an estimated 2.5 ha,
with dimensions of 128 by 168 by 10.4 m at completion.  The waste was
segregated into subcells according to the general category of the waste.
Table F-41 lists the subcells' percent of area occupied, types of wastes
accepted, and cover material at the time of the testing.  The waste
accepted included both drums and bulk fill.  Municipal waste was not
accepted.  Waste was being disposed of at landfill B at a rate of
6,900 m3/mo.
     All  cells of landfill B were active during the sampling at Site 7.
The activity  in the landfill and type and form of waste disposal (bulk vs.
drum) was dependent on the waste received.  Drums were unloaded from semi-
trailers via  towmotor with drum grabbers and positioned in the suitable
cell for disposal.  The drums were used in alternating layers (drum layer,
bulk waste layer), giving the cell structural  integrity.  Some drums were
crushed in place after delivery using earth-moving equipment.  Layers of
waste were covered with 15.2 cm of clay or low-level contaminated soils on
a daily basis, leaving little waste exposed to the atmosphere.  The inter-
nal berms of  landfill B were being increased (in height) allowing for fill-
ing at different rates.
     Chemical  landfill A is one of seven inactive landfills at Site 7.
Landfill  A was built in September 1978, covers 2.6 ha of surface area, and
contains  371,000 m3 of waste.  The landfill has subcells for general waste
categories as  previously described for landfill B.  The final cap of the
landfill  includes 0.9 m of compacted clay, a 5.1-/*m PVC liner, 0.46 m of
uncompacted clay, and 15.2 cm of topsoiI/sod.   The design permeability of
this cap  is 1  x 10~? cm/s.  During the field test, a new cap was being
installed. The capping process was essentially complete, with the topsoil
being finished off.
                                   F-89

-------
       TABLE F-41.  DESCRIPTION3 OF TSDF SITE 7, DESCRIPTION OF SUBCELLS
                            IN ACTIVE LANDFILL
Subcell
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
No. 4

No. 5

Percent of General
area waste
occupied category
40 Heavy metals
10 Pseudo metals
25 General wastes
15 Halogenated
wastes

10 Flammable
wastes

Waste description
Cadmium, chromium, copper,
cobalt, iron, lead,
manganese, mercury, nickel,
tin, etc.
Antimony, arsenic, beryl-
lium, bismuth, phosphorus,
selenium, tellenium
Nonhalogenated aromatics,
hydroxyl and amine deriva-
tives, acid aldehydes,
ketones, flashpoint
greater than 54 °C
Controlled organics with
flashpoint greater than
54 °C not suitable for
fuel, PCB-contaminated
soi Is
Organics with flashpoints
greater than 27 °C and less
than 54 °C not suitable
for fuel
Composition
of cover
65% soil
35% neutral-
ized salts
Soils with
calcium
carbonate
waste solids
65% soil
35% neutral-
ized salts
65% soil
35% neutral-
ized salts

65% soil
35% neutral-
ized salts

TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
 PCB = Polychlorinated  biphenyls.

Characteristics  of the active landfill  B subcells at the time source testing was
 conducted.
                                    F-90

-------
     Closed landfills at Site 7 include a gas collection system with open
vents and a leachate collection system.  The gas collection system has a
total of 18 vents,  with each subcell vented individually.  The vents are
15.2-cm schedule 40 PVC pipe.  The leachate collection system has one well
for each subcell for a total of seven.  Leachate is pumped directly to the
WWT system.  Table F-42 lists the purgeable organics (as measured by EPA
Method No. 624)  reported by Site 7 in the leachate from chemical land-
fill A.
     The major compounds found were methylene chloride, trans-l,2-dichloro-
ethene, chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethane, benzene, 1,1,2,2-
tetra-chloroethane, and toluene.  In the wastes disposed of in the
landfill, these compounds were typically present in higher concentrations
than the other purgeable organics.
     The objectives of the test program at landfills A and B were to
provide data to evaluate both measurement and modeling techniques for
determining air emissions from inactive and active hazardous waste land-
fills and to provide an indication of the air emission levels from land-
fills A and B.
     Emission measurements were made at the inactive chemical landfill A
using both vent sampling and flux chamber techniques.  Each of the 18 vents
was surveyed using a real-time hydrocarbon analyzer and syringe, and single
canister samples were collected from two vents in the general organic cell.
Single-flux chamber measurements were made in the toxic and general organic
cells.  No emissions were detected by the flux chamber measurements.  No
solid samples were collected.
     Emission measurements were made at active landfill B using flux
chamber techniques.  The flammable and general organic cells were gridded,
and single canister samples were taken in one of four grids in the flam-
mable cell and in two of nine grids in the general organic cell.  Single
soil samples also were collected in glass VOA vials during the flux chamber
measurements.  The exposed surface area of the flammable cell was 2,100 m2
and of the general  organic cell 4,200 m2.
     No emissions through the cap of inactive landfill  A were detected
using the flux chamber technique.  The canister samples were taken from two
                                   F-91

-------
     TABLE F-42.   PURGEABLE ORGANICS3 REPORTED
       IN LEACHATE FROM CHEMICAL LANDFILL A
                 AT TSDF SITE 544
                                      Mean
                                  concentrations
Compound
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene chloride                  25,295
Trichlorofluoromethane                 189
1,1-Dichloroethene                      55
1,1-Dichloroethane                     944
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethene             4,061
Chloroform                           2,193
1,2-Dichloroethane                   7,596
1,1,1-Trichloroethane                  502
Carbon tetrachloride                    64
Bromodichloromethane                    50
1,2-Dichloropropane                     89
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene               50
Trichloroethene                      2,493
Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene                150
1,12-Trichloroethane                    90
Benzene                              1,842
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether               <10
Bromoform                               50
Tetrachloroethene                      941
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane            3,357
Toluene                              4,378
Chlorobenzene                          559
Ethylbenzene                         1,427


TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility,

Measured by EPA Method 624.
                      F-92

-------
vents  and  were analyzed offsite using Varian Model 3700 GC-FID/PID/HECD.
Table  F-43 presents the results of the analyses.
    The canister and soil  samples from the flux chamber testing at active
landfill B were analyzed using Varian Model 3700 GC-FID/PID/HECD.  Tables
F-44 and F-45 present the results of the analyses for the flammable and
general  organic cells,  respectively.
F.I.4   Land Treatment
    F.I.4.1  Site 16.45  A study from 1986 to 1987 by a corporate research
facility consisted of a bench-scale laboratory simulation of a land
treatment  operation.  The goals of that simulation were to measure air
emissions  that result from current land treatment practices, to determine
the effectiveness of land treatment as a means of biologically degrading
refinery sludges, and to measure the effectiveness of potential emission
control  strategies, including centrifugation and thin-film evaporation
(TFE).  The test setup  consisted of two soil boxes, each with a surface
area of approximately 0.46 m^.  Soil and waste from a company-owned land
treatment  operation were placed in the soil boxes for testing.  For each
test,  ambient air that  was treated to remove carbon dioxide (C02) and
hydrocarbons was circulated over the soil boxes at regulated conditions.
Installed  instrumentation was used to monitor air flow and temperature
profiles in the boxes and to obtain samples of the air both upstream and
downstream of the soil  boxes.  The air samples were analyzed for
hydrocarbons using GC-FID and for C02 using gas chromatograph-thermal
conductivity detector (GC-TCD).  Prior to application of waste to the soil
surface, the waste was  analyzed by the modified oven drying technique4^
(MOOT) to  determine the oil, water, and solids content and by gravimetric
purge  and  trap to determine the VO content.
    For the first test,  only one soil box was used, and API separator
sludge (RCRA waste code K051) was applied using subsurface injection, which
is the normal  method of waste application by the company.  For the second
test,  two  soil  boxes were used.  API separator sludge was applied to one
box, and API separator  sludge treated in a laboratory to simulate a centri-
fuge and drying operation was applied to the other box.  In a third test,
emissions  were measured from samples of an oily waste that had been
                                   F-93

-------
           TABLE F-43.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR TSDF SITE 7,
                            INACTIVE LANDFILL A
Constituent
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylene
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Acetaldehyde
Total NMHCb
Vent 2A
rate, x




11,
3,
3,
1,
1,

44,
emission
106 Mg/yr
730
280
130
140
000
100
100
100
200
58
000
Vent 3-2 emi
rate, x 109

2
3

27
1




220
840
,800
,600
ND
,000
,200
550
620
ND
ND
,000
ssion
Mg/yr











TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
ND = Not detected.
NMHC - Nonmethane  hydrocarbon.
aThis table presents the results of the analysis of vent samples collected
 during source testing at the TSDF Site 7 inactive landfill A.  Single
 canister samples  were collected from two vents in the general organic
 cell.

"The NMHC totals do not represent column sums because only major
 constituents (in  terms of  relative concentrations) are presented.
                                 F-94

-------
           TABLE F-44.  SOURCE TESTING  RESULTS9  FOR  TSDF SITE.7,
                  ACTIVE  LANDFILL  B,  FLAMMABLE WASTE CELL
Compound
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylene
Styrene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
Methylene chloride
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Total NMHCC
Emission rate,
x 106 Mg/yr
62,000
17,000
57,000
13,000
3,700
5,300
600
5,900
110,000
170,000
700,000
Soil
concentration,
ND
220
11,000
ND
430
1,400
1,000
ND
97
12,000
220,000
Emission
flux rate,b
x 1Q9 g/m2.s
940
260
860
200
56
80
9.1
89
1,700
2,600
11,000
TSDF  - Treatment, storage, and disposal  facility.
ND -  Not detected.
NMHC  = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.

aAir  emissions were sampled with  a  flux  chamber  and  soil  concentrations  were
 determined from samples collected  in glass  volatile organic  analysis  vials.
    emission flux rate is the emission  rate  converted  to  grams/second  divided
 by the surface area  (2,100 m2) of the flammable  waste  cell.

cThe NMHC totals do not represent column  sums  because only major  constituents
 (in terms of relative concentrations) are  presented.
                                   F-95

-------
           TABLE F-45.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3  FOR  TSDF  SITE  7,
                ACTIVE LANDFILL B, GENERAL ORGANIC WASTE  CELL
Compound
    Mean
emission rate,
 x 103 Mg/yr
                                              Mean  soil
                                            concentration,
Mean emission
 flux rate,t>

 x 109 g/m2.s
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylene
Styrene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
Methylene chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Total NMHCC
8.4
490
890
4,300
1,800
48
100
4.4
97
59
1.5
9,600
ND
10
39
200
87
4.4
8.2
14
1.0
ND
1.6
1,200
63
3,700
6,700
32,000
14,000
360
760
33
730
•450
11
72,000
TSDF = Treatment,  storage, and disposal facility.
ND = Not detected.
NMHC = Nonmethane  hydrocarbon.

aAir emissions were sampled with a flux chamber and soil concentrations were
 determined from samples collected in glass volatile organic analysis vials.
bThe emission flux  rate is the emission rate converted to grams/second divided
 by the surface area (4,200 m2)  of the general organic cell.

cThe NMHC totals do not represent column sums because only major constituents
 (in terms of relative concentrations) are presented.
                                    F-96

-------
processed by TFE in a previous study of TFE (described in Section
F.2.3.3.1).   Two samples of TFE-processed waste were evaluated:  one that
was generated under operating conditions of high feed rate and low
temperature, and one generated under conditions of low feed rate and high
temperature.  The first test was continued for about 2-1/2 months, the
second was continued for 22 days, and the third was continued for 26 days.
     The results of the sludge analyses for the test runs are presented in
Table F-46.   Table F-47 presents the cumulative emissions over the test
period and the weight fraction of applied oil  emitted over the test period.
     F.I.4.2  Site 17.^7  In 1986, bench-scale laboratory experiments were
set up to simulate a land treatment operation.  The objectives of the study
were to:
     •    Measure air emissions of total and specific VO from land-
          treated refinery sludges
     •    Correlate the measured emissions with the total and specific
          VO
     •    Document the presence of bioactivity in the soil/sludge
          mixture.
     The simulation was carried out using four identical  soil boxes that
were enclosed and instrumented to control and monitor experimental condi-
tions.  Airflow over the soil, temperature, and humidity were controlled to
preselected  values.   The concentration of VO in the air downstream of the
soil  boxes was monitored and used to estimate total VO emissions.  In one
test run, samples of the air downstream of the soil boxes were collected in
canisters and analyzed for specific VO constituents.  Measured emissions
were correlated with results of analyses of the applied waste.
     Two different test runs were made using soil and sludge from two
different land treatment operations.  In each test, land treatment soil was
placed in each of the four soil boxes, and sludge was applied to three of
the soil boxes.  Two of the boxes with sludge applied served as .duplicate
tests,  and the third was treated with mercuric chloride to eliminate (or
reduce)  bioactivity in the soil.  The fourth box had no sludge applied and
was used as  a control  box.
                                   F-97

-------
          TABLE F-46.  WASTE ANALYSES3 OF PETROLEUM REFINERY SLUDGES
                    USED IN LAND TREATMENT TESTS AT SITE 16
Percent composition,


Waste
constituent
Oil
Water
Solids
VO

Test 1
API separator
sludge
6.8
71.3
21.9
2.4
Test

API separator
sludge
8.8
78.4
13.2
2.5
wt %
2

Centrifuged
waste^
10.9
0.9
88.4
0.2


TFE-
processed
waste0
17.4
80.5
2.2
NA
-
Test 3
TFE-
processed
wasted
67.3
17.8
15.2
NA
Note:  Test numbers do not correspond to those used in the test report.

VO  =  Volatile organic.
TFE =  Thin film evaporator.
NA  -  Not analyzed.

aThe oil,  water,  and  solids content was determined using the modified oven
 drying technique.   The volatile organic content was determined using
 gravimetric purge  and trap technique.

bAPI separator sludge, treated to simulate a centrifuge and drying operation,
 was used.

C0ily waste processed by  TFE  under conditions of high feed rate and low
 temperature.

dOily waste processed by  TFE  under conditions of low feed rate and high
 temperature.
                                   •F-98

-------
      TABLE  F-47.   MEASURED AIR EMISSIONS9 FROM LAND TREATMENT
                  LABORATORY SIMULATION AT SITE 16
Test
Test 1,
sludge
Test 2,
sludge
Test 2,
waste01
Test 3,
waste6
Test 3,
waste'
No.
API separator
API separator
centrifuged
TFE-processed
TFE-processed
Test
duration,
d
69
22
22
26
26
Emissions
Cumulative, kgb
0.38
0.06
0.005
0.005
0.01
Wt % of
applied oilc
40
11
1
1
2
Note:   Test  numbers  do not correspond to those used in the test report.
laboratory  simulation of land treatment operation using subsurface
 injection.
  ir samples  analyzed  for hydrocarbons  by gas chromatograph-f lame
 ionization  detector and  for C02 by gas chromatograph-thermal
 conductivity detector.
cWeight  fraction  of  applied  oil  emitted over test period.
^API separator sludge,  centrifuged and  dried before testing.

eOily waste  processed  by  TFE under conditions of high feed rate and
 low temperature.
fflily waste  processed  by  TFE under conditions of low feed  rate and
 high temperature.
                               F-99

-------
     Each test was continued for 31 days,  during  which  time  emission  rates
were measured on a semicontinuous basis  using  THC analyzers.   After sludge
was applied to a soil box,  it remained on  top  of  the  soil  for 24  hours  and
then was mixed into the soil to simulate tilling.   Additional  "tillings"
were carried out at 8 and 15 days after waste  application.   Analyses  of the
raw sludge were made using  several different analytical  methods,  and  the
results were compared with  measured VO emissions  over the  entire  test
period.  In the second test run, GC'MS analyses were  made  of  both  the raw
sludge and the air downstream of the soil  beds to determine  the fraction of
VO in the applied waste that is emitted during the  test.
     Table F-48 shows the makeup of the waste  used  in each of  the  test  runs
as determined by the modified oven drying  technique.  For  Run  1,  the waste
was an API separator sludge; for Run 2, the waste was an induced  air
flotation (IAF) sludge.
     Table F-49 summarizes  the results of  the  two test  runs.   For  each
test,  the table presents the oil (organic)  loading  on each soil box as
determined from the modified oven drying technique  sludge  analysis, the
cumulative emissions from each soil box over the  test period,  and  the
percent of applied oil emitted from each box over the test period.
     F.I.4.3  Site 18.48  From June 25 through July 5,  1985,  field
experiments were conducted  at Site 18, an  active  midwestern  refinery that
has a crude-oil-processing  capacity of approximately  14.3  million  L/d
(90,000 bbl/d).  Operations conducted at the facility include  atmospheric
distillation,  vacuum distillation, delayed coking,  fluid catalytic
cracking, catalytic reforming,  aromatic isomerization,  lube  oil processing,
and asphalt processing.
     The field study used a test plot that has been used routinely  in the
past for land treatment of  oily refinery sludges.   Most  of the sludge
applied to the site in the  last 3 years has been  an oily WWT  sludge com-
posed  of API separator and  dissolved air flotation  (DAF) bottom sludges
with an average composition of 71 percent  water,  22 percent  oil,  and  7  per-
cent solids.  The field test plot also receives biological sludge  from  an
onsite activated sludge plant two to three times  a  year.   Single  monthly
sludge applications of 3,180 to 3,980 L  (20 to 25  bbl)  of  oil  per  plot, or
approximately 39,300 L/ha (100 bbl/acre),  are  normal  during warm  periods.
                                   F-100

-------
   TABLE  F-48.   WASTE ANALYSES3 OF PETROLEUM REFINERY SLUDGES
     USED IN  LAND  TREATMENT LABORATORY SIMULATION AT SITE 17

       Waste                  Percent composition,  wt %
     constituent               Run 1&          Run 2C

       Oil                       29.5            21.3

       Water                     65.0            69.7

       Solids                    5.5             9.0


aThe oil,  water,  and  solids content was determined using the
 modified oxygen drying  technique.

^American Petroleum Institute separator sludge was used.,

clnduced  air  flotation float was used.
                               F-101

-------
    TABLE F-49.  TOTAL VO EMISSIONS AT 740 HOURS AFTER APPLICATION OF
    PETROLEUM REFINERY SLUDGES TO LAND TREATMENT SOIL BOXES, SITE 17
Test
Test run/ duration,
soil boxa h
Run ld 740
Box 1
Box 2
Box 3
Box 4
Oil loading,
kg oil/m^

9.58
No sludge
applied
9.47
9.71e
Total VO
emissions at
740 h,c kg

0.14
Negl igible
0.17
0.20
Percent of
total oil.
applied
emitted

5.2
NA
6.5
7.46
Percent of
total VO
applied
emitted

19
NA
27
33
Run 2d        740

  Box 1               5.68               0.29          18          41
Box 2
Box 3
Box 4
No sludge
appl ied
5.57
5.32
0.05
0.29
0.32
NA
19
22
NA
56
49
VO = Volatile organics.
NA = Not applicable.

aFor Run 1, American Petroleum Institute (API) separator sludge was
 surface-applied.  For Run 2, induced air flotation sludge was surface-
 applied.

^As measured using the modified oven drying technique (MOOT).
cBased on emissions associated with the sludge only (i.e., VO emissions
 from Box 1, 3,  or 4 minus the VO emissions from control Box 2).  VO
 concentrations  were measured using two Byron Instrument Analyzers.
 During the first 24 h after sludge application, a real-time total hydro-
 carbon analyzer (Byron 401 analyzer) measured emissions once per minute.
 Long term monitoring was done using a Byron 301 analyzer, with an average
 total  hydrocarbon measurement made approximately once per hour.   (An
 average measurement consisted of the average of five individual measure-
 ments taken during that period.)

^Sludge applied  to Box 1 and Box 3 as duplicate tests; sludge treated
 with mercuric chloride to eliminate (or reduce) bioactivity applied to
 Box 4 and no sludge applied to Box 2.

eAverage MOOT results used rather than MOOT results for Box 4.
                                  F-102

-------
This  is  equivalent  to  11,900  L of sludge per plot (75 bbl  of sludge per
plot).   In  cold  weather,  loadings are routinely half these rates.   Plots
are generally  tilled within  a few days of surface waste application.   A
second  tilling is  usually carried out 2 to 3 weeks later.   A 4-week treat-
ment  period from the first tilling event is generally used before  waste is
reapplied  in a given  location.
     The specific  objectives  of the project were to:
     •     Evaluate  a type of  flux chamber for measuring air emissions
          at hazardous waste  land treatment facilities in  conjunction
          with emission source testing, compliance monitoring,  and
          model  validation activities
     •     For  seven waste constituents, evaluate the Thibodeaux-Hwang
          air  emission model  in field studies using actual hazardous
          wastes to determine its applicability and limitations rela-
          tive to  the  prediction of full-scale hazardous air emissions
          from land treatment facilities.
     The test  plot  was approximately 6 m by 182 m and was  divided  in  half
lengthwise with  three  emission measurement locations per half to conform
with waste application methods normally used by the refinery.  Waste
applications were  made independently to each side of the field plot using
gravity feed from  a tank  truck equipped with a slotted application pipe
approximately  3  m  in  length  and 8 cm in diameter.  Each side of the
application area received a  full truckload of waste corresponding  to
approximately  3,330 L  as  reported by the tank truck operator.
     Tilling was conducted approximately 24 h after waste  application and
again approximately 155 h after waste application due to rainfall  that had
occurred following  the first  tilling.  Tiller depth ranged from approxi-
mately  17  cm to  approximately 23 cm.
     The application area was subdivided into six subsections,  with each
subsection  further  subdivided into 396 grid locations of 0.69 m by 0.69 m.
Six sampling flux  chambers were used for sample collection at randomly
chosen  grid locations.   The  same sample locations were used throughout the
test  program to  preserve  spatial continuity of the data collected.  Four
distinct sampling  phases  were conducted:
     •     Background sampling of the test site prior to tillage
     •     Background sampling of the test site following tillage and
          prior  to  waste  application

                                   F-103

-------
     •    Specific constituent emission  sampling  following  waste
          addition
     •    Specific constituent emission  sampling  following  each  of two
          tilling operations.
Tenax sorbent tubes were used to collect the  air  emission samples  to  be
used for quantifying seven constituents.   The constituents  that  were  quan-
tified are identified in Table F-50.
     In addition to the flux chamber sampling of  air  emissions,  soil
samples and samples of the waste applied during field  testing  were col-
lected for analysis.  The soil samples were analyzed  for particle  size
distribution, particle density, oil and  grease, and specific constituents.
Air emission and waste samples were analyzed  by GC-FID.
     Table F-50 presents the concentration of specific organic constituents
in the hazardous waste applied during field testing.   The values represent
averages of 10 waste samples.  Figure F-5  presents measured emission  flux
data over time for one test plot over one  testing period.   Data  for other
tests show similar trends.  Table F-51 presents cumulative  emissions  for
each constituent monitored and shows the weight fraction emitted for  each
constituent over the test period.  These test results  show  wide  variations
among the different measurement locations  in the weight fraction of applied
constituents emitted to the air.  In a few instances,  values of  measured
emissions of a constituent are greater than measured  values of the amount
applied.  This anomaly exists for ethylbenzene at all  sampling locations
and for benzene at three sampling locations.  No clear reason  for  these
anomalies are evident in the test report.  Oil in the  soil  prior to the
application of waste for the test would  contribute to  measured emission
values and could account for part of the reported results.  Emission  data
for the test show most of the measured emissions occurred during the  first
24 hours of the test before the waste was  tilled  into  the soil.
     F.I.4.4  Site 19.50  In 1984,  field tests of land treatment emissions
were conducted at Site 19, a West Coast  commercial crude oil refinery
producing a variety of hydrocarbon products.  Refinery wastewater  treatment
sludges,  some of which are RCRA-listed hazardous wastes, are applied  to an
onsite land treatment plot using subsurface injection.
                                   F-104

-------
   TABLE F-50.  WASTE ANALYSIS,  CONCENTRATION OF
    VOLATILE ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN PETROLEUM
    REFINERY SLUDGES3 APPLIED IN LAND TREATMENT
        FIELD EXPERIMENTS AT TSDF SITE 1849


                                  Concentration,
Constituent^                       /*9/9 waste0

Benzene                                249

Toluene                                631

Ethyl benzene                            22
p-Xylene                                33

m-Xylene                               181

o-Xylene                                56
Naphthalene                            124


TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
aWaste was a combination of American Petroleum
 Institute separator sludge and dissolved air
 flotation sludge.
^Constituent analysis done using gas chromatograph-
 flame ionization detector.
cEach concentration is the average of 10 waste
 samples.
                      F-105

-------
E
x

if

c
o
      0.010
         tol
                                Emissions vs. Time — Plot D After Till
20          40



  ethylbenzene
                                                 I
                                                60

                                             Time (h)
       80
p-xyl
100
120
   m-xyl
            naph
                  Figure F-5. Measured emission flux for one plot over one test period at Site 18.

-------
                  TABLE F-51.  RESULTS OF PETROLEUM REFINERY SLUDGE LAND TREATMENT FIELD EXPERIMENTS3 AT  TSDF  SITE  18

                                                         CumuI ati ve emi ss ic
Test
ocat i on
A
8
Cd
D
E
F
Benzene0.
fig/cm
272
300
168
456
382
32S
wt %
81
110
39
141
106
84
To 1 uene
2
/lg/cm
349
454
210
703
576
465
wt 7.
41
66
17
86
63
47
Ethy 1 benzenec
2
/Jg/cm
58
96
59
101
109
72
wt 7.
195
402
140
353
345
208
._ p-Xyl<
jUg/cm2
7
8
16
24
21
7
sne
wt 7.
16
21
25
55
43
13
m-Xy 1 ene
2
/Ig/cm
96
164
87
185
136
78
wt 7,
-39
83
25
79
52
28
o-Xy 1 ene
/ig/cm2
21
23
19
38
32
21
wt %
28
38
17
52
39
24
Naphths
/ig/cm
2
2
3
3
2
2
ilene
wt 7.
1
2
1
2
1
1
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
SFIux chamber shading was utilized  in  all samp Ii ng events following  soil  tilling  after  surface  application  of  the waste in  o'rder to
 evaIuate the effect shading had on chamber air  and  so i I temperatures.   Tena x  sorbent tubes  were  used  to  coI Iect  a i r  emi ss i on  samp Ies.
 Samples were ana Iyzed by gas chromatograph/fIame  i on i zati on  detector    Waste  was  a  combinat\on of  Amer ican Petroleum Institute
 separator sludge and dissolved air flotation sludge.
"Test durat i on was approx i mate Iy 8  d.
cln  some instances emissions are greater than amount applied.  AI though  there  are  no clear reasons  in  the test report for  these
 anomalies, oi.l  in the soil prior to the application of waste for  the  test would  contribute  to  the  measured emissions and  could account
 for part of the reported resuIts.
°0n  the first day of tests, samp I 'r ng I ocat ion C  was  stepped  in, which  may have affected  the  resu I ts .

-------
     The applied waste  is typically 50 to  75  percent  DAF/API  float,  20 to
30 percent separator cleanings, and about  5 percent miscellaneous  oily
waste.  The sludge composition is typically about  76  percent  water,  12 per-
cent solids, and 12 percent oil (boiling curves  usually  start about
177 °C).  Annual sludge disposed of ranges from  about  5.4  to  9.1 x 106
kg/yr, and a typical application rate is about 16  L/m2 (50 bbl/1/8 acre).
     The objectives of  the test program at the Site 19 land treatment
facility included the following:
     •    To determine  the amount of organics volatilized  relative to
          the applied purgeable organics and  of  the applied oil
     •    To estimate the emissions of applied VO  from the test plots
          for the 5-week testing period and annually  for the  entire
          land treatment facility
     •    To determine  the effectiveness of subsurface injection in
          reducing VO emissions from land treatment by comparing the
          measured emission rates from the two application methods
     •    To determine  the extent of oil degradation  and/or measurable
          biological activity
     •    To determine  the effects of various environmental and opera-
          tional parameters on emission rates and  emission rate meas-
          urements, including those due to the emission measurement
          procedure
     •    To compare the measured emission rates to those  calculated
          using the Thibodeaux-Hwang air emission  model.
     Three adjacent plots were selected for the  emission tests; each plot
was 27.7 m long and 15.2 m wide.  A portion of the land treatment area was
recovering from oil over-loading, but the test plots were selected in an
area that had not experienced oil  overloading.   The center plot of the
three was used as a "control  plot," i.e., no waste was applied, and  sludge
was applied to the other two test plots using normal  refinery procedures.
Each plot was tilled two to three times per week (in  addition to tilling
immediately following sludge application) during the  test  period.  (This
was the typical  practice at this refinery.)  The waste loading was
1.40 x 104 kg of sludge per plot.
     Two flux chambers were used simultaneously  throughout the testing
program to measure emissions.  Eight measurements  were made daily on each
                                   F-108

-------
test  plot  and  two  on  the control  plot.   Each plot was marked into 21 grids.
Both  random  and  semicontinuous sampling techniques were employed.  Of the
eight measurements made on each test plot,  four measurements were made on
random grids,  while the remaining four measurements were made (two each) on
two control  grids.  This procedure was designed to reduce both random and
systematic error associated with  the estimate of the mean emission rate.
In addition  to the flux chamber sampling of air emissions, numerous other
parameters were  analyzed.
     Sampling  was  performed for 4 days during three separate sampling
periods that were  approximately 7 to 10 days apart.  Testing began
October 9, 1984,  and  concluded on November 2, 1984.  During this time,
tilling occurred approximately three times per week for a total  of 16
episodes.
     Canister  air  samples, sludge samples,  and liquid samples were analyzed
by GC-FID/PID/HECD.  The determination of water,  oil, and solids content in
the sludge was done according to  the tetrahydrofuran (THF) protocol sup-
plied by the land  treatment operator.   The percent of oil and grease in
soil  grab  samples  was determined  by EPA Method 413.1.51  Soil physical
properties were  determined by standard methods from undisturbed soil cores.
Results of an  analysis of  a single sludge sample by the THF method showed
71.6  percent water, 19.8 percent  oil,  and 8.6 percent solids.  Figure F-6
shows the  trend  over  the first 12 days in half-day average emission flux
rates of total VO  as  calculated from the combined Byron (onsite, syringe
samples)  and Varian (offsite,  canister samples) GC analytical results.
Table F-52 shows  estimated total  cumulative emissions of selected individ-
ual compounds  and  total  VO over the entire test schedule.
     F.I.4.5  Site 14.53  From November 14 through November 17,  1983, field
tests of land  treatment emissions were conducted at Site 14, a commercial
waste disposal operation that services  four industrial  clients exclusively.
The site is  located in the Gulf Coast  area and includes both a land
treatment  area and a  landfill.  Tests  of landfill emissions are discussed
in Section F.I.3.3.   Waste in the form of an oil-water emulsion is disposed
of as it  is  received  because there is  no onsite storage.  Liquid waste is
received via tank  truck and discharged  through flexible
                                   F-109

-------
                                      Total VO Emission Flux vs. Time—All Tests
o
          "en
 x
_g

LL

 c.
 o
'co
 CO



LU
                     0  1
      Plot A— Surface
                                        567

                                            Time (days)

                                   Plot B — Background
8
10     11
12
                  Plot C — Subsurface
                                   Figure F-6. Measured VO emission flux for first 12 days at Site 19.

-------
     TABLE F-52.   ESTIMATED  CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS OF SELECTED ORGANIC
     CONSTITUENTS AND  TOTAL VO  FROM CRUDE OIL REFINERY WASTE LAND
                TREATMENT  FIELD TESTS AT TSDF SITE 1952
Constituent9
n-Heptane
Methyl cyclohexane
3-Methyl -heptane
n-Nonane
1-Methylcyclohexene
1-Octene
/J-Pinene
Limonene
Toluene
p-, m-Xylene
1, 3, 5 -Tri methyl benzene
o-Ethyl-te-luene
Total V0d
Total oil
Cumulative
wt % of appl
Surface
application
60
61
52
56
49
50
17
22
37
35
21
32
30
1.2
emissions,0
ied material0
Subsurface
injection
94
88
77
80
76
74
21
26
56
48
27
42
36
1.4
TSDF -  Treatment, storage,  and  disposal  facility.
VO = Volatile organics.
aAir samples for chemical  specification  were  collected in canisters using
 a flux  chamber.

^Test duration was 5 weeks.
cWaste  oil consists of 50  to  75  percent  dissolved  air flotation/American
 Petroleum Institute (API)  float,  20  to  30  percent API separator clean-
 ings,  and about 5 percent  miscellaneous oily wastes.
^Determined using a purge-and-trap  technique  and  analyzed using a Varian
 Model  3700 GC-FID/PID/HECD.
                                  F-lll

-------
     A single truckload of waste  totaling  20,060  L  was  offloaded  during  the
hose onto the surface  (at ambient  temperature)  and  spread  with  a  toothed
harrow (teeth up).   For the field  test,  the  dimensions  of  the application
area were nominally  30 m by 18.3  m.
testing period.  The calculated application  rate  was  34,720  g/m2;  however,
observations indicated the waste  was not spread evenly,  and  daily  tilling
did not appear to even out the waste during  testing.   In addition,  the
waste was reported to have been aged for about  1  year.   Table F-53  list's
waste and land application characteristics.
     The objective of the test program at  the Site  14  land treatment plot
was to provide data  to evaluate both measurement  and  modeling techniques
for determining air  emissions from hazardous waste  land  treatment  technolo-
gies.  Because the test was conducted using  aged  waste,  results are not
expected to be representative of  the level of air emissions  from other land
treatment operations.
     For measurement purposes, the surface of the land  treatment plot was
divided into six equal grids.  Air emission  measurements were made  over a
3-day period using the flux chamber technique.  Flux  chamber sampling
locations were selected at random, with the  control point  providing a
common position for  sampling each day.  Canister  samples were collected
from two grids in addition to the control  point.  Soil  samples  also were
collected from two grids in addition to the  control point, though  only two
of the soil samples  (control point and grid  5) corresponded  to  flux chamber
measurements.  Gas and soil sample analysis  was done  offsite using  a Varian
Model 3700 GC-FID/PID/HECD.  Figure F-7 presents  the  emission flux  rates
over time as calculated from the  flux chamber measurements.   Table  F-54
shows cumulative measured total VO emissions and  cumulative  benzene emis-
sions.
     F.I.4.6  Site 20.56  Qver a  period of 7 months in  1983,  an independent
research organization conducted a laboratory study  of  land treatment
emissions  by setting up a laboratory simulation of  the  land  treatment of
oily refinery sludges.  The simulation used  both  soil  and  sludges  from
refineries that use  land treatment routinely to dispose  of their hazardous
waste.
     The objectives of the study were to:
                                   F-112

-------
          TABLE  F-53.   TSDF SITE 14 WASTE AND LAND TREATMENT
                      FACILITYa CHARACTERISTICS54


      Characteristic                                       Measure


Area  of  land  treatment site (m2)                              520

Waste volume  applied (L)                                    20,060

Oil  in waste  (wt %)                                           23.4

Average  density  of applied waste (g/cm^)                      0.9

Average  depth of oil penetration (cm)                        19.6

Approximate elapsed  time  from waste
 application

  First  tilling  (h)                                             19
  Second till ing (h)                                           47


TSDF  = Treatment,  storage, and disposal facility.

aSite 14 is a commercial  waste disposal operation that services four
 industrial clients  exclusively.  During the testing period at the land
 treatment site,  a single truckload of waste with the characteristics
 listed1  was offloaded.
                                 F-113

-------
_
LL

o
LJJ
900


800


700


600


500


400


300


200


100


  0
                                    Emission Flux vs. Time
                               20
                                              40
60
                                          Time (h)
                          Figure F-7. Measured emission flux at Site 14.

-------
       TABLE F-54.  MEASURED CUMULATIVE LAND TREATMENT
                EMISSIONS3 AT TSDF SITE 1455


                 Elapsed time,           Measured emissions,*3
Constituent           h                         wt %

Total  VOC            69                    0.77 (wt % of
                                            applied oil)

Benzene              69                    3.9 (wt % of
                                            applied benzene)


TSDF = Treatment,  storage, and disposal facility.
VO = Volatile organics.

aAir emissions sampled with a flux chamber.

^Test  was conducted using surface-applied waste reported to
 have  been aged about 1 year.  As a result, the volatiles are
 expected to have been emitted to the atmosphere prior to the
 test.

cDetermined using purge-and-trap technique and analyzed using
 a Varian Model 3700 gas chromatograph-flame ionization
 detector/photoionization detector/Hall electrolytic
 conductivity detector.
                           F-115

-------
     •    Obtain detailed information and samples of  sludges  and  soils
          from refineries that use land treatment to  dispose  of oily
          sludges
     •    Characterize sludge and soil samples by both chemical and
          physical properties
     •    Identify sludge and soil samples that represent  a broad
          range of typical land treatment operations
     •    Measure volatility during an 8-hour test using different
          combinations of sludge and soil types in controlled
          laboratory simulations of land treatment operations.
     Actual soil and sludge samples were obtained from eight  refineries.
Soil samples were analyzed to determine pH (Method 21 from Agriculture
Handbook No. 60),57 specific gravity (ASTM D854-54),58 moisture content
(using weight loss after 16 h at 50 °C),  particle size distribution (ASTM
D422),59 soil classification (ASTM D2487),60 oil and  grease content (EPA
Method No. 413.1), organic carbon by heating (ASTM D2974),61  anc| organic
carbon by titration.  Sludge samples were analyzed to determine oil, water,
and solids content (by centrifugation), oil and grease content (EPA Methods
413.1 and 413.2),62 and volatility (using procedures  developed in an
earlier phase of study).
     The results of the soil and sludge analyses were used to select three
soils and three sludges to represent a wide range of  field conditions.
Soils were selected to represent sand, silt,  and clay soil types and
sludges were selected to represent high,  medium, and  low volatility
sludges.  A series of tests was conducted using different combinations of
the selected soils and sludge samples.  The tests were conducted in
enclosed soil boxes with a surface area of 0.093 m2.  Oil  loading of the
soil was varied over a wide range in the tests.
     During each test,  THC emissions were monitored continuously using a
Byron 401 analyzer.  During each test, air flow over  the soil box, humid-
ity, soil and air temperatures, and background levels of hydrocarbons were
periodically monitored and regulated as necessary.
     Figure F-8 presents the average emission flux rate for all tests over
time.  These values were calculated in a separate study63 fr0m the test
report.   The average cumulative emissions over time for all tests that were
run for the entire 8-hour test period are presented in Table  F-55.
                                   F-116

-------
 3 eo

cS
 <=
E
LLJ
           8
                                              Emission Flux vs. Time
                                                         I
                                                         4


                                                     Time (h)
8
                                  Figure F-8. Average measured emission flux at Site 20.

-------
    TABLE F-55.   AVERAGE CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS FROM A
       LABORATORY SIMULATION OF PETROLEUM REFINERY
           WASTE LAND TREATMENT3 AT SITE 20°4
Run
number
18
21
24
27
28
32
33
34
35
36
37
40
41
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Type of
waste^
SL-14
SL-11
SL-14
SL-11
SL-14
SL-11
SL-11
SL-14
SL-12
SL-11
SL-14
SL-12
SL 11
SL-13
SL-13
SL-13
SL-13
SL-13
SL-13
SL-13
SL-13
Cumulative emissions,0
wt % of applied oil
9.1
4.4
0.02
0.6
0.1
3.0
2.6
0.01
0.9
78.8
9.9
0.7
2.8
4.9
49.9
7.7
6.9
5.0
9.7
1.1
0.47
Independent research Laboratory simulation of land treat-
 ment activities.   Total  hydrocarbon emissions monitored
 using a Byron 401 analyzer.

^Sludge type (surface applied):

   SL-11 = Emulsions from wastewater holding pond
   SL-12 = Dissolved air flotation (DAF) sludge
   SL-13 = Mixture of American Petroleum Institute (API)
           separator bottoms,  DAF froth, and biological
           oxidation sludge
   SL-14 = API separator sludge.

cTest duration for each run was 8 h.
                           F-118

-------
     F.I.4.7   Site 21.65  In 1979,  field tests were conducted at a land
treatment  facility at  Site 21,  a Midwestern petroleum refinery.  The
refinery  had  a capacity of 19.7 million L/d (124,000 bbl/d) and produced a
typical  fuels product  mix.
     In  the spring of  1976,  three 2.4 m by 46 m test plots, designated A,
B,  and C,  were laid out side by side on a flat grassy area near a tank farm
on  refinery property.   During 1976,  1977, and 1978, the plots were used for
land treating oily refinery wastes.   Over this 3-year period, Plot A
received  a centrifuge  sludge and Plot B an API separator sludge.  Plot C
was used  as a control  and received no waste applications.  The final waste
applications  were carried out on November 10 and 14, 1978, on Plots A and
B,  respectively,  and the final  tilling on December 4.  All three plots were
rototilled on May 10,  1979,  in  preparation for the emission study that
began May 22.  Tests were concluded  October 9, 1979.
     The  objective of  the field tests conducted at Site 21 was to attempt
to  quantify VO emissions from the land treatment of two refinery wastes
(API separator sludge  and a centrifuge sludge).  The API separator sludge
was applied at a  rate  of 29.9 L/m2 (760 bbl/acre)  and contained 1.7 kg/m2
(15,000  Ib/acre [5.2 weight percent]) organic fraction.  Centrifuge sludge
from a refinery sludge and wastewater treatment dewatering operation was
applied  at a  rate of 35.4 L/m2  (900  bbl/acre) and contained 3.2 kg/m2
(28,300  Ib/acre [8.1 weight percent]) organic fraction.  Table F-56 sum-
marizes  the waste loading on Plots A and B of the test site and presents
properties of the applied sludges.
     The  API  separator sludge was obtained from the primary WWT separators,
sampled,  and, prior to being applied to the test plot, was weathered for 14
days in  open  18.9-L buckets in  an outdoor open shelter.  The centrifuge
sludge was derived from centrifuge dewatering of an oily sludge mix stem-
ming from normal  refinery operations and wastewater treating, including the
API separator sludge.
     The  sludges  were  analyzed  using a modified extraction technique for
phase separation  to determine the amount of organics, water, and minerals
in  the sludge.  However,  because of  the temperatures involved, some loss of
light organics  may have occurred.  Soil sampling was attempted, but diffi-
culties with  obtaining a representative soil sample and uneven waste
spreading  made  organic balance  determinations of little significance.

                                   F-119

-------
      TABLE F-56.  WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND APPLICATION RATES FOR
           FIELD EXPERIMENTS ON PETROLEUM REFINERY WASTE LAND
                        TREATMENT, TSDF SITE
Test information
Sludge type
Total sludge applied (kg/m2)
Total oil applied (kg/m2)
Incorporation depth (cm)
Final oil concentration in soil
Sludge composition3
Oil (wt %)
Water
Solids
Test location
A
Centrifuge sludge
39.0
3.2
20.3
(wt %) 4.3

8.1
72.1
19.8
Test location
B
API separator
sludge
33.0
1.7
20.3
3.0

5.2
85.2
9.6
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
API = American Petroleum Institute.

aAnalyzed using a  modified  extraction technique for phase separation.
 Because of temperature involved,  some loss of light organics may have
 occurred.
                                  F-120

-------
     A  flux  chamber with  a  surface area of 0.093 m^ was inverted over the
area  of the  test  plot  to  be studied and served to collect total  emissions
from  the plot  soil beneath  it.   The box was continuously purged  with a
stream  of fresh air that  was carried from the box through sample lines into
an adjacent  trailer where a Mine Safety Appliances Company Model 11-2 con-
tinuous hydrocarbon/methane analyzer was used to measure VO as methane and
total  NMHC.  There was no identification of specific organic emissions.
     The experimental  program was carried out in three phases.:
     •     Phase  I  - Background Tests 1, 2, and 3 on the three test
          locations.
     •     Phase  II -  Emission Tests 4,  5, and 6 on the centrifuge
          sludge  applied  to test location A.
              Test 4  data  were not included.
              Test 5  was conducted at  a new location with new waste
              applied.
              Test 6  followed rototilling at the end of run 5 on the
              same ground  area.
     •     Phase  III -  Emission Tests 7, 8, and 9 on the API separator
          sludge  applied  to test location B.
              Test 7  was conducted at  a new location with new waste
              applied.
              Test 8  was conducted at  a new location with new waste
              applied.
              Test 9  followed rototilling at the end of run 8 on the
              same ground  area.
     Table F-57 summarizes  the Site 21  data providing the fraction of
applied oil  emitted during  the test.  These results were calculated using
the measured emission  flux  rates and the amount of oil applied during waste
application.   Figure  F-9  shows derived  tabular values of total VO emission
flux  versus  time  at Site  21.
F.I.5   Transfer,  Storage,  and Handling  Operations
                                                 4
     F.I.5.1   Site e.68   Site 6 is a commercial hazardous waste TSDF.  The
site  began operation  in  1972 and was acquired by the current owner in 1979
and upgraded to accept hazardous wastes*.  Before a waste is accepted for
                                   F-121

-------
  TABLE F-57.  FRACTION OF APPLIED OIL EMITTED BY LAND TREATMENT TEST
                            AT TSDF SITE 2167
Waste
type Test No.a
Centrifuge
sludge

API separator
sludge"3

5
6
7
8
9
Test duration,
d/h
0.83/19.9
12.8/307
25.8/619
5.1/122
21.7/520
Wt % of applied
oil emitted
0.1
1.8
10.9
3.3
10.4
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
API = American Petroleum Institute.
aAir emissions sampled with flux chamber.   Waste was surface-applied.
^Weathered for 14  d in open 18.9-L buckets in an outdoor open shelter
 prior to application.
                                  F-122

-------
ro
GO
           5^
           ^"o
           B  c
           rr  8
              Z3
           C  O
           O .C
           E
           LU
1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7 l-

0.6

0.5

0.4

                                           Emission Flux vs. Time — All Tests
         tests
testG
200                  400
             Time (h)
      •  test?
                                                                                       600
                                                          tests
I  test 9
                                   Figure F-9. Measured emission flux for tests at Site 21.

-------
disposal at the facility, samples must be  analyzed  to  determine  compatibil-
ity with the facility processes.  Water-reactive, explosive,  radioactive,
or pathogenic wastes are not accepted.  Hazardous wastes  are  received  from
the petroleum, agricultural products, electronics,  wood and paper,  and
chemical industries.
     All wastes that are stored at the facility are received  in  bulk
0.21-m3 drums, 18.9-L pails, or carboys.   Wastes are stored in drums or
tanks.  Typical wastes stored at the facility  include  pesticides,  PCB, wood
preservatives, and miscellaneous organics.
     The drum marshalling area is situated near the waste  processing area.
Bermed embankments surround the staging area.  All  drums  are  offloaded into
this area.   Here,  they are opened and sampled  to determine the proper proc-
essing.  The drums containing free liquids are then  selected  for decanting.
Pumpable organics are sent to the surge tanks  and separation  tanks  for
physical separation of phases.  Chlorinated organics are  solidified and
then landfilled.   Supplemental fuels are sent  to the fuel  tanks  for storage
and testing prior to being hauled offsite.  Nonchlorinated, nonignitible
aqueous organic wastes are sent to the aqueous organic tank.  Sludges from
the decanting operation are solidified with the non-RCRA  kiln dust  and
landfilled.  During the site visit,  the drum handling  area contained 220
open drums.  Turnaround time for the drum  handling  area is approximately
3 days.
     The objective of the drum storage and handling area  testing was to
survey ambient concentrations at and immediately downwind  of  the drum stor-
age and handling  area.  Section F.I.1.6 discusses source  testing of a
Site 6 surface impoundment; Section F.I.3.2 describes  the  emission  measure-
ments made  on inactive and active Site 6 landfills.
     A survey was made during the morning  of June 22,  1984, of the  various
drum storage areas, including the tank storage area, an outside  drum stor-
age area,  a building for PCB drum storage, and a drum  transfer area.  Dur-
ing the survey, no specific activity was taking place  in  the  area.  Ambient
hydrocarbon measurements were made in the  immediate vicinity  of  the storage
areas using a portable OVA.  Table F-58 presents the results  of  the survey.
                                   F-124

-------
    TABLE  F-58.   SUMMARY  OF  DRUM STORAGE AND HANDLING AREA SURVEY
           OF  AMBIENT  HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS,3 SITE 669


    Sampling            Concentration  of
    location                THC,  ppm                  Comments

Vicinity  of tank               0.2           220 empty drums;  all  open;
  storage                                   in good condition

Drum storage area              0.0           600 empty drums;  all  open;
                                            in good condition

Drum transfer  area            0.0           No decantation in progress

PCB building                   0.1           70 drums;  32 empty;  all  in
                                            good condition


THC   Total hydrocarbon.
PCB =  Polychlorinated  biphenyl.

aAmbient  hydrocarbon measurements were made in the immediate  vicinity of
 the storage areas with  a  portable organic vapor analyzer.
                                 F-125

-------
     F.I.5.2  Site 22.70,71  Site 22 is a commercial chemical  conversions
and reclaiming facility located in the eastern United  States.   Solvents are
recycled at the facility.
     The objectives of the testing program at Site 22  were  to  develop and
verify techniques for determining air emissions from drum storage  areas and
storage tanks.  The field testing was conducted during the  week of
October 24, 1983.
     A large number of drums were located in the various drum  storage areas
at Site 22.  Site personnel provided a drum inventory  taken  in July 1982.
The total inventory of drums amounted to almost 28,000, with approximately
3,000 of those being empty, used drums.  Test personnel did  not do a com-
plete drum inventory during the test period, but they  estimated that the
number of drums in storage in three areas was approximately  35 percent less
than had been inventoried in July 1982.  Additionally, the  number  of empty,
used drums in storage appeared to be significantly less than the 3,000
inventoried by plant personnel.
     The drums in the three major storage areas were,  for the most part,
stacked four drums high.  One of the areas was partially submerged in
approximately 0.3 to 0.6 m of water.  This area served as an emergency
retention area during periods of excessive rainfall and was  enclosed with
an earthen dike.   None of the drum storage areas was covered.
     During the test period, several types of drum handling  activities were
being performed.   The basic operations were:
     •    Emptying old drums filled with waste and distillation
          residues
     •    Removing the tops of empty, used drums in preparation for
          removing these drums from the plant site
     •    Emptying drums of spent solvent for purification
     •    Filling drums with the reclaimed solvent and/or bottoms  from
          the solvent distillation/purification process.
     Emissions were examined using real-time gas analyzers.  The measure-
ments were made at a distance of approximately 2.4 m from the  drums on all
four sides of the drum pile.  The wind during this examination was from the
                                   F-126

-------
southwest  and  had  a  speed  of 1.2 km/h.   Between the two drum storage areas
was  a  drum transfer  area  that contained a number of open drums.  This area
contributed to the emissions measured on the adjoining sides of the two
storage  areas.  The  measured gas concentrations are presented in Table
F-59.
     Storage tanks at  Site 22 range in  size from 1,290 to 71,900 L.
Feedstocks,  products,  and  wastes are all stored in aboveground tanks.  In
addition,  three underground storage tanks are used to store boiler fuel.
All  of the tanks are vented directly to the atmosphere.  Pressure-relief
valves are not present in  the vent lines.
     Sampling  was  attempted on five storage tank vents.  The sampling
equipment  consisted  of a  hot wire anemometer for velocity measurements and
a variety  of gas monitoring/collection  devices.  Portable FID and/or PID
analyzers  were used  to obtain real-time continuous total hydrocarbon con-
centration measurements in excess of 10,000 ppmv at the exits of these
vents.  When the hot wire  anemometer proved to be insufficiently sensitive,
a dry-gas  meter and  a  10-mL bubble meter were used to measure gas flows.
These meters also  failed  to register any gas flows, so no further examina-
tion of  vent emissions was undertaken.
     F.I.5.3  Site 7.?3  site 7 is a commercial hazardous waste management
facility located in  the northeastern United States.  The site was developed
for hazardous  waste  operations in the early 1970s.  Source testing was
conducted  at a drum  storage building during the first week of October 1983.
Section  F.I.1.7 discusses  source testing on three surface impoundments in
the Site 7 WWT system  and  Section F.I.3.5 presents source testing results
from Site  7 active and closed landfills.
     Drum  storage  at Site  7 takes place in two buildings.  One building is
used for storage of  drums  containing PCB, and another building (different
location)  houses hazardous and nonhazardous drums.  Field measurements were
made at  the hazardous  and  nonhazardous  drum storage building only.  The
building dimensions  are nominally 33.5  by 48.8 by 4.9 m, with a 12:1 roof
slope.   The building is ventilated by two manually operated fans nominally
rated  at 0.75  kW (1  hp)--5.8 m3/s at 0.245 standard pressure (S.P.).
Makeup air enters  through  two vents at  the end of the building opposite the
                                   F-127

-------
    TABLE F-59.  RESULTS OF EMISSION SURVEY9 AT DRUM STORAGE AREA,
                               SITE 2272

                              n. .       f           Concentration of
                              Distance of               T,,r
                           measurement from        	mt' ppm	
  Sampling location            drums, m             OVA         PID

Upper drum storage area

  East side                       0.3               60           9
  East side                       6.1                7          0.5
  South side                      2.4                5          0.1
  West side                       2.4               5-7         0.1
  North side                      1.5              10-20       5-10

Lower drum storage area

  East side                       2.4              10-20        0-2
  South side                      2.4              20-30       5-15
  West side                       2.4                5          0.1
  North side                      2.4                7         0-0.2


THC = Total  hydrocarbon.
OVA = Organic vapor analyzer.
PID = Photoionization detector.

aReal-time gas analyzer measurements were made on  all  four sides of the
 drum pile.   The wind was from the  southwest at 1.2 km/h.   A drum
 transfer area containing a number  of open drums between the two drum
 storage areas contributed to  the emissions measured on the adjoining
 sides of the two storage areas.
                                 F-128

-------
fans  and  through  a  27.4-m roof vent.   The design ventilation rate for the
drum  storage  building  and adjoining office is six air changes per hour.
Four  emergency  fans nominally rated at 1.1 kW (1-1/2 hp)--6.9 m-Vs at
0.286 S.P.--are available.   An explosive-level  monitor provides an alarm
warning  at  35 percent  and activates the emergency fans at 60 percent.
     The  drum storage  building is designed to process 1,000 drums/day.
This  translates to  10  to 11  trucks/day.  Total  design storage capacity is
2,000 drums.  Drums are filled,  labeled,  sealed, inventoried, and stored in
cordoned  areas  by material  type.   The stored drums typically are comprised
of 40 to  50 percent landfill  waste, 35 to 50 percent fuels, 1 to 5 percent
chlorinated solvents for recycling, 5 to  10 percent aqueous waste, and
1 percent other.  During the field test,  it was estimated that the storage
area  had  1,500  drums.   The drum types included  95 percent standard 0.16-m3
steel drums,  2  to 5 percent  overpack, and 1 percent O.ll-m^ fiber drums.
No leakage  was  observed.
     The  objective  of  the tests on the drum storage building was to develop
and verify  techniques  for determining air emissions from drum storage
facilities.  A  vent was fabricated at the exit  of the ventilation fans.
Velocity  traverses  and real-time THC measurements were made at a total of
48 points within  the vent.   The hydrocarbon measurements were all 4 ppmv by
OVA and  0 ppmv  by PID.  In addition,  a single canister sample was collected
from  the  exhaust  air and analyzed offsite using a Varian Model 3700
GC-FID/PID/HECD.  The  emission rate from  the vent was calculated as the
product  of  the  concentration and flow rate.  Table F-60 lists the measured
emission  rates.
F.2  TEST DATA  ON CONTROLS
     The  controls considered for TSDF emission  sources serve either to
suppress  air  emissions by capture, containment, or destruction of VO  (e.g.,
by using  enclosures or covers for surface impoundments and tanks or combus-
tion  devices  for  vents) or to remove VO from hazardous waste streams  (e.g.,
by steam  stripping  or  distillation) to avert air emissions from downstream
treatment or  disposal  operations.  This section presents the results  of
field tests conducted  to evaluate the efficiency of controls to suppress
air emissions or  remove VO from hazardous waste streams.
                                   F-129

-------
    TABLE F-60.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS9 FOR TSDF
           SITE 7 DRUM STORAGE BUILDING74
                                  Emission rate,
  Constituent                       x 106 Mg/yr

Toluene                                 2,300

Total xylene                            1,000
Naphthalene                               560

Methylene chloride                     80,000

1,1,1-Trichloroethane                   4,500

Carbon tetrachloride                    3,500

Tetrachloroethylene                    45,000

  Total NMHCb                         150,000


TSDF = Treatment, storage,  and disposal  facility.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.

aVent emission rate calculated as the product of the
 concentration and flow rate.   Concentration deter-
 mined from a single canister sample of  the exhaust
 air and flow rate determined from velocity traverses
 made at a total  of 48 points within the vent.

^The NMHC total  does not represent a column sum
 because only major constituents (in terms of
 relative concentrations)  are presented.
                        F-130

-------
F.2.1   Capture  and  Containment
     F.2.1.1  Air-Supported  Structures — Site II.75  Section F.I.2.3 con-
tains  a description of  the testing program conducted during the week of
August 13  through  19,  1984,  at the Site 11 WWT system.  One of the objec-
tives  of the  testing program was to measure the control  efficiency of the
dome and carbon adsorption system designed to control odors and emissions
from the aerated lagoon serving as part of the activated sludge system.
     The control  effectiveness of the dome structure is  a measure of the
dome's ability  to  contain  gas-phase NMHC emissions from  the aerated lagoon.
During the test,  the contro-1 effectiveness could not be  quantified.  The
plant  indicated the dome had a relatively good seal and  estimated the total
leakage at 0.14 m^/s.   Test  personnel performed a crude  leak check of the
dome by surveying  the  perimeter with a portable hydrocarbon analyzer.  The
measured total  hydrocarbon concentration ranged from 2 to 3 ppmv near the
carbon adsorber to  30  to 40  ppm at the escape hatch.  Personnel also used
water to roughly quantify  any detected leak by spraying  the liquid along
the dome seal and  observing  any bubbles.  Relatively few small leaks were
found, indicating  that  the leak rate may be much less than 0.14 m^/s.
F.2.2   Add-on Control  Devices
     F.2.2.1  Gas-Phase Carbon Adsorption.
     F.2.2.1.1   Site 23.76  A test program was conducted for 4 days during
May 1985 on  the air-stripping system used to treat leachate at Site 23.
Site 23 is on the  National Priority List (NPL--Superfund) currently managed
by EPA under  the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability  Act  (CERCLA).  One of the objectives of the test program was to
assess the performance  of  the existing gas-phase, fixed-bed carbon
adsorption system  used  to  treat the air effluent from the air stripper.
The air-stripping  process  is described in Section F.2.3.2.1.
     Air samples of the stripper exhaust and carbon adsorber exhaust were
taken  at a variety  of  water  and air flow rates.  No information was docu-
mented concerning  sampling equipment, but sample analysis was performed
using  GC-MS.  Process  data collected included all stripper influent and
effluent temperatures  and  both air and water influent rates to the air
stripper.
                                   F-131

-------
     Material balances and stream flow and concentration  data  were  used to
characterize the carbon adsorber system  influent  and  effluent.   Air meas-
urements were taken under the test conditions yielding the  highest  VO
removal from the water.  This was obtained when the  influent water  rate was
throttled down to 1,140 kg/h, and the air flow correspondingly  increased to
4.8 m3/min, giving the highest air:water ratio observed during  testing.
Table F-61 presents the source testing results.
     F.2.2.1.2  Site 11.77  Section F.I.2.3 contains  a description  of the
WWT system at Site 11, including the activated carbon fixed beds  used to
treat the off-gas.es from the aerated lagoon and the carbon  canisters used
to control breathing and working losses from the  neutralizer tanks.
     To measure the effectiveness of the gas-phase fixed-bed carbon
adsorption control devices,  the inlet to and exhaust 'from the  carbon
adsorption system and the inlet to and exhaust from the disposable  carbon
drums were sampled during the week of August 13 through 19, 1984.
     Gas volumetric flow rate was determined by procedures  described in EPA
Reference Method 2.  Average gas velocity was determined  following  proced-
ures outlined in EPA Reference Method 1.  Gas samples were  collected from
the carbon adsorption system inlet and outlet two to  three  times  daily in
evacuated gas canisters.  Evacuated gas canisters fitted with  flow  control-
lers were used to collect the carbon drum inlet and outlet  samples  inte-
grated over a 16-h period.  Offsite analyses of these samples  permitted
calculation of the removal efficiency of each vent emission control  device.
In addition,  a small  canister of clean, activated charcoal  was  placed in
line upstream bypassing each 0.21-m3 (55-gal) drum to collect  all VO being
vented over a known time interval.  The carbon was extracted offsite to
yield the mass/unit time of VO reaching the control devices.   This  informa-
tion was combined with the removal efficiency data to allow calculation of
the average emissions to the atmosphere from each control device  as  well as
the efficiency of the carbon drums.  Offsite analyses of  air samples were
performed on  a Varian Model  3700 GC-FID/PID/HECD.  Table  F-62  presents the
carbon adsorption fixed-bed system removal efficiency for specific  species.
Table F-63 presents the neutralizer vent carbon drum  removal efficiency
results.
                                   F-132

-------
    TABLE  F-61.   SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR TSDF SITE 23,  AIR STRIPPER
   EMISSIONS  WITH GAS-PHASE,  FIXED-BED CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM APPLIED
Exhaust from
air stripper



Constituent
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
(o,m)-Xylene
p-Xylene
Toluene
Aniline
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Ethylbenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Other V0d
Total V0e
Mass flow
rate,
x 103
kg/h
13
5.2
1.7
2.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.75
0.097
NA
0.48
24
Exhaust from
carbon adsorber
Mass flow

Cone. ,
ng/L
44,000
18,000
6,000
9,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,600
340b
NA
1,700
82,400
rate,
x 106
kg/h
0.14
2.6
1.7
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.43
0.14
NA
0.58
7.3

Cone. ,
ng/L
<1.0
9.0
5.7
6.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
<1.0b-c
NA
2.0
25.0
Carbon
adsorber
system
organic
removal
efficiency,
wt. %
99.999
99.95
99.9
99.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
99.9
99.9

99.9
99.97
TSDF =  Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
NA = Not  available.
VO = Volatile  organics.
aThis tables demonstrates  the effectiveness of activated carbon as an
 adsorbent  for VO  in  gas  streams.
^Concentration reported  for all  isomers  of dichlorobenzene,  not just
 1,2-dichlorobenzene.
Constituent concentration  below detection limit.
^Includes 4-methyl-2-pentanone,  chlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene,  and
 dichlorocyclohexane  isomers.
elncludes all  speciated  organics.
                                    F-133

-------
              TABLE F-62.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR TSDF SITE  11, AERATED  I AGOON EMISSIONS WITH  GAS-PHASE
                                       CARBON ADSORPTION FIXED-BED SYSTEM APPLIED78
                                     Gas-phase  concentration,  ppmv
Date Location MeCl2 C^H^CIg Dioxane Benzene Toluene
18-Aug-84 Inlet 4.3 240 0.0 21.2 92.1
18-Aug-84 Outlet 2.1 355 0.0 24.8 64.1
Removal eff.b (%) 51.2 -47.9 NA
17-Aug-84 Inlet 4.0 204 0.0
17-Aug-84 Outlet 4.2 205 0.0
Removal eff.t (!?) -5.0 -0.5 NA
17-Aug-84 Inlet 5.1 172 0.0
17-Aug-84 Outlet 5.1 231 0.0
Removal eff.t (») 0.0 -34.3 NA
17-Jul-84 Inlet 0.0 770 0.0
17-Jul-84 Outlet 0.0 770 0.0
Removal eff.b («) NA 0.0 NA
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal
^-2^4^ ' 2 ~ 1 , 2-D i ch 1 oroethane .
DCBZ = D i ch 1 orobenzene .
MeC 1 2 = Methytene chloride.
NA = Not appl icable.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.
CBZ = Ch 1 orobenzene .
Paraffins = Primarily C7 and C8 compounds.
NMHC = Nonmethane hydrocarbon.
17.0
26.0
22.8
12.3
4.5
15.1
-236
2.4
2.6
-8.3
f ac i 1 i ty



aThis table demonstrates the variation in removal effi
and chemical classes. The variation in removal eff ic
g i ven .
bThe carbon beds were not removing the major s
pecies i
41.3
5.7
7.5
-31.6
5.1
19.6
-284
181
119
34.3




c i ency
i enc i es
n the d
CBZ DCBZ Chlorofor
0.4 1.2 81.5
8.8 0.1 34.0
-2,100 91.7 58.3
13.2 0.6 27.4
13.3 0.8 25.9
-0.8 -33.3 5.5
3.6 0.5 16.4
6.6 0.2 16.1
-83.3 60.0 1.8
76.8 NA NA
112 NA NA
-45. B NA NA




for gas-phase carbon adso
at different times and f
ome exhaust nas stream fo
m Paraffin Aromatic Halogen NMHC
153 117 331 607
167 89.8 409 698
-9.2 23.2
63.2 33.1
49.8 32.2
21.2 2.7
10.4 11.2
13.0 38.6
-25.0 -245
45.6 303
50.3 217
-10.3 28.4



-23.6
251
251
0.0
200
264
-32.0
848
1 ,070
-26.2



rption of different specific
or different gas compositions
r two reasons. Fir:
-15.0
348
334
4.0
200
317
-42.8
1,360
1,480
-8.8



compound:
is also
;t. the beds were
not originally designed for bulk removaI of NMHC, but  rather  for  odor  control,  specifically  for  removaI  of  orthochloro-
phenoI .   Second,  the extremely high  (saturated) water  vapor content  in the  exhaust  gas  stream interfered with  the removaI
capabi IItles of the activated carbon.

-------
GJ
en
                        TABLE F-63.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR TSDF SITE 11,  NEUTRALIZER TANK EMISSIONS WITH A
                                              GAS-PHASE CARBON DRUM APPLIED,  TSDF SITE II79
                                                            Gas-phase concentration,  ppmv
        Date       Location  MeC I   C2H4CI2  Dioxane  Benzene  Toluene  CBZ  DCBZ  Chloroform  Paraffin  Aromatic  Halogen  NMHC

        19-Aug-84  Inlet     0.0    17.9      0.0     12.4      12.4   0.5   0.0      0.1        8.7      25.1      19.3   53.1
        19-Aug-84  Outlet    2.6     0.0      0.0      0.0       0.0   0.0   0.0      0.0        0.8       0.2      23.5   24.7

        Removal  eff.b (%)     NA     100       NA      100       100   100    NA      100       90.8      99.2     -21.8   53.5
        TSDF       = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
        DCBZ       = DichIorobenzene.
        NMHC       = Nonmethane  hydrocarbon.
        NA         = Not applicable.
        CBZ        - Ch I orobenzene.
        Paraffins  = Primarily C7 and  C8  compounds.

        aThis table demonstrates the variation in removal  efficiency for gas-phase carbon adsorption of  different specific
         compounds and chemical  classes.
        "The test report does not explain the negative removal  efficiency for halogens.

-------
     As the results in Table F-62 indicate, the carbon beds were  not
removing the major species in the dome exhaust gas stream.  This  was  not
unexpected for at least two reasons.  First, the beds were not  originally
designed for bulk removal of NMHC from the air stream.  Rather, the beds
were designed for odor control  (for which they appeared to be effective)
and specifically for removal of orthochlorophenol.  Second, the extremely
high (saturated) water vapor content in the exhaust gas stream  interfered
with the removal capabilities of the activated carbon.  Generally, acti-
vated carbons are used only on gas streams with a relative humidity of
50 percent or less.  The carbon drums were achieving a high degree of
removal for specific components (i.e.,  1-2 dichloroethane, benzene,
toluene, chlorobenzene, and chloroform)  and a relatively high degree of
removal for specific compound groups (except halogens).
     F.2.2.2  Liquid-Phase Carbon Adsorption—Site 5.80  Tests were
conducted on November 20, 1985, to evaluate the effectiveness of  liquid-
phase carbon adsorption used to treat steam-stripped wastewater at Site 5.
Site 5 is a chemical manufacturing plant; the wastewater streams  that are
produced are predominantly water-soluble.  The two major waste  streams are
redwater and Whitewater.  The waste streams pass through decanters where
the oils are separated from the aqueous  phase.  A surface impoundment
(lagoon) is used as a large storage vessel to provide a stable  flow to the
steam-stripping unit.   The field testing of the Site 5 wastewater holding
lagoon is described in Section F.I.1.5.   The steam stripper removes organic
compounds and water from the waste stream.  Section F.2.3.1.3 describes the
field testing of the steam stripper.  The organics separate and are trans-
ferred to an organic slopsump.  The water that separates from the steam-
stripper condensate is recycled to the wastewater stream.  Effluent from
the steam stripper is  passed through a liquid-phase carbon adsorption unit
to recover any residual organics in the  stream.  The effluent is  then pH-
adjusted and discharged to surface water.
     Sampling was conducted over a 2.5-h period with an average of four
samples collected from each sampling point.  Liquid grab samples  were
collected from the carbon adsorber influent and effluent streams  in 40-mL
VOA bottles.   In addition, the temperatures of the influent and effluent
                                   F-136

-------
streams  were measured.   The VO in the liquid samples were speciated and
quantified  using a Varian Model  3700 GC-FID/PID/HECD.  Material  and energy
balances and stream flow and concentration data were used to characterize
the process streams around the carbon adsorption unit.
     The flow rate of the stream leaving the carbon adsorption unit was
31,500 kg/h.  The influent stream flow rate should have been virtually
identical.   Table F-64  presents  the source testing results for the TSDF
Site 5 liquid-phase carbon adsorption system.
     F.2.2.3  Condensation.
     F.2.2.3.1  Site 24.81  Jests were performed on September 24 and 25,
1986,  to evaluate the performance of the condenser system used to recover
VO stripped from wastewater at Site 24.   The system consisted of a water-
cooled primary condenser, a decanter, and a water-cooled vent condenser.
The steam stripping process is described in Section F.2.3.1.1.
     The overhead vapors from the stripper pass through a condenser cooled
with cooling tower water.  The condensate enters a decanter that separates
the heavier organic layer from water.  The entire water layer is returned
to the steam stripper,  and the organic layer is drained periodically by the
operator to a small collection tank for  recycle back to the process.  The
collection  tank is open-topped and has a layer of water and sludge floating
on top of the organic layer.
     The condenser is vented through the decanter to a vent condenser
(cooled  with cooling tower water).  The  vent condenser receives  vapors from
the initial water/organics/solids decanters and the steam stripper con-
denser/decanter.   The initial  decanters  and storage tank are fixed-roof
tanks  and  have conservation vents that open as necessary to prevent pres-
sure buildup.
     Samples of the vapor and  liquid condensate condensed in the primary
condenser were taken,  and flow rates at  these  points were measured.  The
samples  were analyzed by direct-injection GC after the compounds were iden-
tified using GC-MS.
    Table  F-65 presents the source testing results including mass flow
rates  of four  specific  volatile  organics into  and out of the Site 24
primary  condenser.   Condenser  organic removal  efficiencies are reported
                                   F-137

-------
   TABLE F-64.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR TSDF SITE 5, STEAM STRIPPER
       WASTEWATER TREATED BY A LIQUID-PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
Influent to
carbon adsorber



Constituent
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrotoluene
4-Nitrotoluene
Total
Water

Mass flow
rate,
kg/h
1.29
0.076
0.139
1.51C
31,500d


Cone. ,
ppmw
40
2.4
4.4
47
NA
Effluent
from carbon
adsorber

Mass flow
rate,
kg/h
O.025
O.025
<0.025
<0.075C
31,500d


Cone. ,
ppmw
<0.8
<0.8
<0.8
<2.4
NA
Carbon
adsorber
u r y a ri I c
removal
efficiency,
wt %
>98
>67
>82
>95
NA
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
NA = Not applicable.

aThis table presents  the effectiveness of carbon adsorption as a wastewater
 treatment technology for dilute nitroaromatic-containing streams.

^Values represent  minimum removal  efficiencies resulting from constituent
 concentrations below analytical detection limits.

cCalculated as the total of the three detected compounds.

^Balance after accounting for three quantitated organics.
                                    F-138

-------
 TABLE  F-65.   SOURCE TESTING RESULTS9 FOR TS.DF SITE 24,  STEAM STRIPPER
         OVERHEAD TREATED BY PRIMARY WATER-COOLED CONDENSER82

Constituent
Chloromethane
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Total V0d


Vapor i
75.
10,500
2,940
136
13,700

Mass flow rate,
n^ Liquid outc
7 67.1
9,420
2,780
122
12,400

g/h
Vapor out
8.6
1,050
160
14
1,230
Condenser
organic
removal
efficiency
%
88.6
90.0
94.4
89.6
90.9
TSDF =  Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
VO = Volatile  organics.

aThis table  presents mass flow rates  by  constituent into and out of the
 primary  water-cooled condenser associated with the steam stripper at
 TSDF Site 24.   Under operating conditions at the  time of the test,  no
 additional  removal  was  observed in the  secondary  condenser.

^From mass balance around stripper.

cBy difference between inlet and outlet  vapor flows.

^Total  of four quantified organics.
                                 F-139

-------
based on effluent data.  The condenser  influent data presented  are  based on
a mass balance.
     F.2.2.3.2  Site 25.83  Tests were  performed on July 22  and  23,  1986,
to evaluate the performance of the condenser system used to  recover  VO
steam stripped from wastewater at the Site 25 plant.  The  system  consisted
of a primary condenser cooled with cooling tower water  in  series  with a
secondary condenser cooled with glycol.   The steam-stripping process is
described in Section F.2.3.1.2.
     Samples of the condensate and vapor leaving the secondary  condenser
vent were analyzed, and the flow rates  at each point were  measured.  The
vapor flow rate (noncondensibles) leaving the condenser vent was  measured
by the tracer gas dilution technique with propane as the tracer because
this is a closed system operated at a pressure of 28 kPa.  Although the
condenser was vented to an incinerator,  these data were obtained  to assess
condenser vent rates because many steam strippers have the overhead stream
vented to the atmosphere.  The average  condenser vent flow rate was 3.1 L/s
reported at 101 kPa of pressure and 25  °C.
     Condenser system efficiency was evaluated from the organic  loading
(organics entering the primary condenser with the vapor) and the  quantity
of organics leaving through the secondary condenser vent.  The difference
between the mass rates of organics entering with the feed  and the mass
rates of organics leaving the stripper with the bottoms represents the
organic loading on the condenser.  The  1,2-dichloroethane was by  far the
major organic constituent entering the  condenser.
     The mass rate of organics leaving  the condenser vent was determined
from the measurement of the vent flow rate and concentration.  Table F-66
presents the source testing results for the Site 25 condenser system.
     The condenser system removal efficiency for the major component
(1,2-dichloroethane) was consistently above 99 percent.  However, as the
vapor-phase concentration decreases and  the volatility of  individual
constituents increases, the condenser efficiency drops.  Solubility of the
vapor constituents in the condensate also may affect condenser efficiency.
     The overall  mass flow rates from the condenser vent average  about
20 Mg/yr of VO for this system.  These  rates represent emissions  from the
                                   F-140

-------
   TABLE F-66.   SOURCE  TESTING  RESULTS3  FOR  TSDF SITE 25,  STEAM STRIPPER
                  OVERHEAD  TREATED  BY  CONDENSER SYSTEM84






Constituent
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethene
1, 1-Dichlproethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
Total VO, g/s (Mg/yr)



Average
vent mass
flow rate,
g/s
0.084
0.043
0.031
0.013
0.0098
0.11
0.34
0.63 (20)
Average
condenser
system
organic
removal
efficiency, b
%
6
47
15
88
84
96
99.5

Condenser
system
organic
removal
efficiency
range,
%
(0-15)
(32-65)
(0-53)
(83-94)
(73-94)
(93-99)
(99.2-99.8)

TSDF  =  Treatment,  storage,  and  disposal  facility.
VO =  Volatile  organics.

aThis table describes  the  TSDF  Site  25  condenser system efficiency as
 evaluated from  the mass flow  rates  of  constituents  entering  the water-cooled
 primary condenser and  leaving  the glycol-cooled secondary condenser vent.

'-'Based  on the  propane  tracer measurement of  vapor flow rate.
                                   F-141

-------
secondary condenser cooled with glycol at  about  2  °C.   The  emission  rates
would be expected to be higher for condensers  cooled  only with  cooling
tower water at ambient temperatures  (e.g., 25  °C).
     The overall condenser removal efficiency  for  total  VO  is high because
the removal is dominated by the high  loading of  a  single constituent  (1,2-
dichloroethane).  An average VO loading of 68  g/s  is  reduced to  an average
vent rate of 0.63 g/s and represents  a VO  control  efficiency of  99.1
percent.
F.2.3   Volatile Organic Removal Processes
     F.2.3.1  Steam Stripping.
     F.2.3.1.1  Site 24.85  Tests were performed on the  Site 24  steam
stripper on September 24 and 25, 1986.  The Site 24 plant produces one-
carbon  chlorinated solvents such as methylene  chloride,  chloroform, and
carbon  tetrachloride.  The steam stripper  is used  to  recover solvents and
to treat the plant's wastewater.  The major contaminants that are recovered
and monitored by the plant include methylene chloride, carbon tetrachlor-
ide, and chloroform with National  Pollutant Discharge  Elimination System
(NPDES) discharge limits of 50, 55, and 75 ppb,  respectively.   Plant analy-
ses showed variable concentrations in the  feed stream  to the steam strip-
per, ranging from hundreds of parts per million  to saturation of the water
phase with organics and concentrations in  the  effluent generally on the
order of 50 to 75 percent of the NPDES discharge limits.
     The wastewater at this plant consists of  reactor  rinse water and
rainfall collected from diked areas around the plant;  consequently, the
flow rate and composition of the wastewater is cyclical  and dependent on
the amount of rain.   Plant personnel  indicated that the  steam stripper
operated roughly 75 percent of the time with accumulation in storage when
the stripper is not operating.  Once the stripper  is  started, it operates
in an essentially continuous mode until the wastewater in storage has been
steam-stripped.
     Site 24 wastewater enters one of two  decanters (each approximately
76 ITH)  where it is processed as a batch.   Sodium hydroxide  solution
(caustic)  is added to the decanter to adjust the pH,  and flocculants are
added to aid in solids removal.  The mixture is  recirculated and mixed in
                                   F-142

-------
the decanter  and  allowed to settle.   The wastewater (upper layer) is sent
to the  stripper feed (or storage)  tank (approximately 470 m^).   The organic
layer (on  the bottom)  is removed periodically from the decanter and sent to
a surge or collection  tank, and solids are removed periodically with a
vacuum  truck  for  disposal.   The cycle time for a batch of wastewater in the
decanter is about 1  day.
     The steam stripper feed passes  through a heat exchanger for preheating
by the  effluent from the stripper.   The stripper column is packed with
2.5-cm  saddles and processes about  0.8 L/s.  The stripper effluent,  after
cooling by the heat  exchanger,  enters one of two open-topped holding tanks
(about  19  m3) where  the pH  is adjusted and analyzed for comparison with the
discharge  limits.  If  the analysis  is satisfactory, the water is pumped to
a surge tank  for  final  discharge to  the river under the NPDES permit.   The
overhead vapors from the stripper pass through the condenser system
described  in  Section F.2.2.3.1.
     The primary  objective  of the field test of the steam-stripping process
at Site 24 was to determine how efficiently it removes VO from the waste-
water.   Liquid samples  were taken from the stripper feed,  bottoms, and
condensate five times  at approximately 2-h intervals during the day shift
for each of the 2 days  of testing.   The samples were taken in 40-mL glass
VOA vials  with septa and no headspace.  Vapor samples were taken three
times each test day  from the primary condenser vent, secondary  or tank
condenser  vent,  and  the vent of the  stripper's feed (storage) tank.   Vapor
samples also  were collected over the open organic collection tank and  from
the decanter  vent prior to  the  vent  condenser.  The vapor samples were
taken in evacuated electropolished  stainless steel canisters.  Process data
were collected throughout the test.   Process data included the  feed flow
rate and temperature,  steam flow rate and temperature,  cooling  water
temperature,  column  pressure drop,  heat exchanger temperature,  and outage
measurements  for  the holding tanks.
     Samples  for  volatile organics  initially were analyzed by GC-MS using
EPA Method 624.   After  the  individual  components were identified by GC-MS,
the compounds were quantified  by EPA Method 601.86  Method 601  is a purge-
and-trap procedure that is  used for  analysis of purgeable halocarbons  by
                                   F-143

-------
GC.  The Method 601 results are  reported  for  aqueous  samples.   The level of
VO in the organic phase was determined by direct-injection  GC.   All  of  the
vapor samples were analyzed by GC with calibration  standards  for the com-
ponents of  interest.  Source testing  results  for  the  Site 24  steam stripper
are given in Table F-67.
     F.2.3.1.2  Site 25.87  Tests were performed  on-the  Site  25  steam
stripper on July 22 and 23, 1986.  The Site 25 plant  produces  1,2-dichloro-
ethane (ethylene dichloride [EDC]) and vinyl  chloride monomer.   Wastewaters
from the production processes and from other  parts  of the plant,  including
stormwater  runoff, are collected in a feed tank from  which  the waste is
pumped into the steam-stripper column.  The organics  are stripped  from  the
waste and condensed overhead in  a series  of two condensers  described in
Section F.2.2.3.2.  Approximately 2,400 Mg/yr of  VO are  removed  from the
waste stream.  The entire condensate, both aqueous  and organic phases,  is
recycled to the production process.  The  effluent stream from the  stripper
column is sent through a heat exchanger to help preheat  the feed  stream and
then is sent to a WWT facility.
     No design information is available for the tray  steam-stripper  column.
Typically,  the feed rate is about 850 L/min to the  column operating  at
136 kPa.   Steam is fed at 446 kPa and at  146  °C at  a  rate of  about
1,700 kg/h.
     The objective of the field  test of the steam-stripping process  at
Site 25 was to determine how efficiently  it removes VO from hazardous waste
streams.   Liquid samples were taken from  the  stripper influent and effluent
and from the overhead condensate aqueous  and  organic  streams.  Air emis-
sions from the condenser vent also were sampled.  Sampling was conducted
over 2 days with samples taken five times  at  2-h  intervals on each day.
Liquid grab samples were collected in 40-mL VOA vials.   Gas vent  samples
were collected in evacuated stainless steel canisters.   Process  data were
collected at half-hour intervals throughout the testing.  Process  operation
data collected included feed,  effluent,  condensate, and  steam flow rates;
temperatures of the feed,  effluent, and condensate; and  the steam  pressure.
     The  VO in the water samples were analyzed by a purge-and-trap
procedure with separation and quantification  performed by GC-MS  analysis
                                   F-144

-------
                   TABLE F-67.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS FOR TSDF SITE 24, STEAM STRIPPER
Inf 1 uent
to str i pper


Const! tuent
Ch 1 oromethane
Methyl ene chloride
Ch 1 orof orm
Carbon tetrach 1 or i de
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Mass
f 1 ow
rate,
g/h
79.6
10,800
3,090
134
13.7
13.0

Cone . ,
ppmw
32.6
4,490
1,270
54.8
5.6
5.3
Effluent
from stripper c;
Mass
flow
rate,

<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
g/h
.014
.028
.017
.014
.014
.014
Cone . ,
ppmw
<0.005
<0.011
<0.006
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Overhead

F 1 ow,
kg/h
NA
9.25
2.50
NA
NA
NA

Cone . ,
ppmw
NA
787,000
213,000
NA
NA
NA

organ i c
remova 1 Vent
ef f i c i ency ,
wt
>99.
>99.
>99.
>99.
>99.
>99.
a emissions,"3
% Mg/yr
98
999
999
98
8
8
0.
39
12,
4,
NA
NA
.51

,1
.9


TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal faciIity
NA = Not avallable.

aBased on fraction of  influent mass not accounted for  in stripper bottoms.

''Total emissions from  steam stripper, solids decanter, and storage tank, based on operation of 50 wk/yr.

-------
 (EPA Method 624).  The organic phase  in the condensate was  analyzed  by
 direct-injection GC.  The vent gas analysis procedures are  detailed  in the
 site-specific test and quality assurance plan dated July  7,  1986,  but were
 not presented in the report.
     Stream flow and concentration data were used to characterize  all
 process streams around the steam stripper.  Table F-68 presents  the  source
 testing results including average stream mass flow and composition data for
 each stream entering and leaving the  Site 25 steam stripper  as well  as
 organic removal efficiencies.  The organic removal efficiency for  the steam
 stripper was calculated on the basis  of influent and effluent flows  from
 the stripper.  The composition data available for the condensate are pre-
 sented in Table F-68 but are not used to calculate removal  efficiencies.
 This is done because of the need to see the actual amount of organic
 removed from the wastewater and because of the incompleteness of the
 condensate data.
     F.2.3.1.3  Site 5.88  Field evaluations were performed  on November 20,
 1985, of the steam-stripping system at Site 5.  Section F.2.2.2 contains  a
 description of Site 5 and an evaluation of the liquid-phase  carbon
 adsorption system at the facility.  The following paragraphs describe the
 steam-stripping system at Site 5.
     Wastewater from a feed tank is pumped to the steam-stripping  column
 where the organics are steam-stripped in the column and condensed  from the
 overhead stream.  The stripped organics are separated from  the condensed
 steam in the organic condensate tank.  The aqueous layer  is  recycled from
 the organic condensate tank to the feed tank.  The organic  phase is  sent  to
 a vented storage tank.  From there, the organics are transferred to  tank
 trucks and taken offsite for resale as fuel.
     The steam-stripping column is 19.2 m high with an internal diameter of
0.46 m.  The column is packed with 3.17 m^ of 2.5-cm diameter stainless
 steel  rings.   The steam stripper operates with a gas-to-liquid ratio rang-
 ing from 55 m-Vm^ at the bottom of the column to 24 m3/m3 at the top of the
column.  Steam is fed to the column at approximately 130  °C  and 365  kPa
pressure at a feed-to-steam ratio of  14.7 kg/kg.
     The objective of the field test  of the steam-stripping  process  at
Site 5 was to determine how efficiently it removes VO from  hazardous waste
                                   F-146

-------
                                  TABLE F-68.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS FOR TSDF SITE 25, STEAM STRIPPER

                                                                                Overhead condensate3
Inf 1 uen t
to stripper
Mass f 1 ow
rate, Cone . ,
Const i tuent
1 , 2-Di ch 1 o roe thane
Ch 1 orof orm
Benzene
Carbon tetrach 1 or i de
Ch lorobenzene
Ch 1 oroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-D i ch 1 oroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Tetrach 1 oroethene
1 , 1 ,2-Tr ich loroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl ch tori de
Total VO
TSDF = Treatment, stor
kg/h
270
13
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
290d
-age, a


0098
083
017
47
54
23
44
059
069
37
24
41

nd dis
ppmw
5,600
270
0.
1 .
0.
9.
11
4 .
8.
1.
1.
7
4
8
5,900
posal fi


20
7
34
.6

7
9
.2
4
.5
.8
.4


Effluent
from stripper
Mass flow
rate,
x 106 Cone. ,
kfl/h
4,900
480,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
95
>99
>97
>99
)99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99

7,
.998


.4
.0
.9
.9
.8
.9
.2
.3
.9
.8
.9
.8

Condense
vent
emi ss i ons
Mg,
11
3
NA
NA
NA
1
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
20

/yr

.5



.4
.41
.98
.31




.6


NA = Not analyzed for this constituent.
VO = VoI a11Ie organ i cs.
aNot used for calculation of removaI  efficiencies because of need to determ ine actual organic removed and i ncompIeteness of condensate
 ana Iyses.
"-"On I y ch I orof orm and 1,2-dichloroethane were analyzed in the condensa te.   Because of the use of average f I ows and  average concentrations,
 the component mass balance for these components may not be as close as was usually obtained at a given samp ling time.
CAI I  concentrations were below detection  I imit.
^CaIcuI ated as sum of quantifled organ)c  compounds.

-------
streams.  Liquid and gas samples were collected and process  parameters
measured at various points in the steam-stripping system.   Liquid  samples
were collected from the steam-stripper influent and effluent  and from the
overhead aqueous and organic condensates.  Emissions from  the  condensate
tank vent were sampled.  Sampling was conducted over a 2.5-h  period with an
average of four samples collected from each sampling point.   Liquid grab
samples were collected in 40-mL VGA bottles.  Gas vent samples were col-
lected in evacuated stainless steel canisters.  Process operating  data were
collected over a 4.5-h period to ensure that the process was  operating at
steady state.   Process data collected included feed, steam,  and vent gas
flow rates, temperatures, and pressures.
     Vent gas  was analyzed using GC-FID;  identifications were  confirmed
with GC-MS.  The VO in the liquid samples were speciated and  quantified
using a Varian Model 3700 GC.  Material  and energy balances  and stream flow
and concentration data were used to characterize all process  streams around
the steam stripper.  Table F-69 presents  the Site 5 steam  stripper source
testing results.
     The steam-stripper organic removal  efficiency was calculated  based on
the influent and effluent flows for the stripper.   The composition data for
the overhead streams are presented but are not used to calculate removal
efficiencies.   This is done to show the actual removal of  organics from the
waste stream.   It also minimizes any background interference effects for
the wastewater.  By looking at the same bulk stream of liquid, the same
liquid background is present, allowing for consistency between samples.
     F.2.3.1.4  Site 26.89  Source testing was conducted from  December 3
through 5,  1984,  on the Site 26 steam stripper.  Site-26 is engaged in the
reclamation of organic solvents for recycle and sale.  The  live steam-
stripping process is used for organic solvent reclamation.  This system is
located inside a building that also contains three 3.8-m3  waste solvent
storage tanks  and three 3.8-m3 product storage tanks.  The  building also is
used for drum  storage.   There are five 38-m3 outside storage tanks that are
used primarily for contaminated solvent and residue storage.   An oil/gas-
fired boiler system is used for process steam generation.   An  analytical
laboratory  is  maintained in the building  that houses company offices.
                                   F-148

-------
                                   TABLE F-69.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS FOR TSOF SITE 5, STEAM STRIPPER
Effluent
Const i tuen t •
Ni trobenzene
2-Ni troto 1 uene
4-N i troto 1 uene
Total V0b
Inf 1 uent to
Mass f 1 ow
rate,
fcg/h
15.0
2.33
1.53
18.9
str ipper
Cone . ,
ppmw
500
78
51
630
from str
Mass f 1 ow
rate,
kg/h
1.29
0.076
0.139
1.61
ipper
Cone . ,
ppmw
40
2.4
4,4
47
Overhead condensate
Aqueous
Mass f 1 ow
rate , Cone . ,
kg/h ppmw
0.812 1,900
0.037 87
0.019 45
0.868 2,000
Organ
Mass f low
rate ,
kg/h
12.12
2.97
1.49
16.6
I c
Cone . ,
x 10~3
ppmw
787
193
97
1,080
Steam-
s tr i pper
organic
remo va 1 ,
91.4
96.7
90.9
92.0
Process3
air-
em i ss i ons ,
x 103 Mg/yr
<1.1
<•!.!
<1.1
<3.3
TSOF = Treatment, storage, and disposal.
VO = Volabile organics.
aCondenser vent emlss i ons,
°TotaI  of three quantified organics.

-------
     The contaminated organics processed  by  Site  26  are  generated  mostly by
the chemical, paint, pharmaceutical, plastics,  and heavy manufacturing
industries.  The types of chemicals  recovered  include  the following  VO:
ketones, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated  solvents,  freons,  and  petroleum
naphthas.  The recovered products may be  recycled back to the  generator or
marketed to suitable end users.  Generally,  50  to 70 percent solvent  recov-
ery from the waste stream is expected.  Residues  from  the stripping  process
are solidified by mixing with sorbents and shipped offsite  to  be  land-
filled.
     Contaminated organic solvents are charged  to the  stripper tank  in a
batch operation.  Steam is injected  through  spargers into the  tank.   The
stripper volume is circulated and pumped  into the steam  line for enhanced
contact between the steam and the stripper liquid.  The  stripped organics
and steam leaving the tank are directly condensed overhead  and enter  a
decanter.  The decanter then contains two immiscible phases and, upon com-
pletion of the batch stripping, the  organic  phase is decanted  to a storage
tank and the aqueous phase enters a  miscible solvent tank.  The aqueous
residual currently is being landfilled.   The recovered solvents are
recycled or sold.
     The horizontal  stripping tank has a  volume of 1.9 m^ with a steam
sparger running lengthwise along the bottom  of  the tank.   Steam is usually
supplied at 240 kPa and at unknown temperature  at a rate  of about  250 kg/h.
     The objective of the field test of the  steam-stripping process  at
Site 26 was to determine how efficiently  it  removes volatiles  from hazard-
ous waste streams.  Liquid and gas samples were collected  and  process
parameters measured at various points in  the steam-stripping process.
Liquid samples were collected from the steam-stripper  influent, condensate,
miscible solvent tank,  and recovered VO storage tank.  Gas  samples were
collected from the condenser,  miscible solvent  tank, and  recovered VO stor-
age tank vents.   In  addition,  the volumes of liquid in the  steam stripper,
miscible solvent tank,  and recovered VO storage tank were monitored.
     Four batch  tests were performed with the steam-stripper system.  The
four batch charges contained:   (1) aqueous xylene, (2) 1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane/oil,  (3)  aqueous 1,1,1-trichloroethane,  and (4) aqueous mixed
                                   F-150

-------
solvents.   Each  batch  was  sampled and monitored in the same fashion.  The
liquid  stripper  contents were sampled at the beginning and end of each
batch test,  with two intermediate samples taken.  Liquid distillate samples
were taken  at  the end  of the process, and gas vents were tested near the
midpoint  of the  process.   Liquid grab samples were collected in 40-mL VOA
bottles.  Gas  vent samples were collected in evacuated stainless steel
canisters.   Process  data were collected periodically for the distillate
rate, overhead vapor temperature, and steam pressure and rate, and all
other process  data were gathered at the start or finish of the operation.
     Vent gas  was analyzed by headspace GC-analysis method.  The VO in the
liquid  samples were  speciated and quantified by direct-injection GC and
headspace GC.   Material and energy balances and process volume and concen-
tration data were used to  characterize the batch stripping process.
Site 26 steam  stripper source testing results are presented in Table F-70.
The organic removal  efficiency was calculated on the basis of initial and
final mass  of  a  constituent in the stripper tank.  The composition data for
the overhead streams are presented but are not used to calculate removal
efficiencies.   This  is done because of difficulties in measuring the batch
volumes in  combination with high organic removal efficiencies obtained.
Removing  small,  final  amounts of a constituent from the stripper tank would
change  the  organic removal efficiency but would not significantly change
the volume  in  the condensate receiving tanks.  By looking at the same bulk
volume  of material,  the actual amount of organic removed from the waste is
determined.  This also removes the effect of any receiver tank contamina-
tion, volume reading bias  for the stripper tank, or background interference
in the  1iquid.
     F.2.3.1.5  Site 27.90  Tests were performed August 18 and 19, 1984, on
the Site  27  steam stripper.  The steam stripper at Site 27 is used to
remove  VO,  especially  methylene chloride, from aqueous streams.  The steam
stripper  removes 38.6  Mg/yr VO from the waste streams.
     A  process waste stream consisting of methylene chloride, water, salt,
and organic  residue  is fed to the steam stripper in which much of the VO is
stripped  and taken overhead.   The overhead vapor is condensed, with the
aqueous phase  being  recycled to the column and the organic phase stored for
                                   F-151

-------
                             TABLE F-70.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS3 FOR TSDF SITE 26, STEAM STRIPPER
Ini tia 1
stripper charqe
Const i tuent
Batch 1
Acetone
Isopropano 1
Methyl ethyl ketone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Tetrach 1 oroethene
Ethyl benzene
To 1 uene
Xy 1 ene
Tota 1 V0e
Batch 2
1 , 1 , 1 -Tr i ch 1 oroethane
Methy 1 ethy 1 ketone
Total V0e
Batch 3
1 , 1 , 1-Tr i ch 1 oroethane
Methy 1 ethy 1 ketone
Acetone
Ethy ! benzene
Isopropano 1
Total V0e
Mass,

0.049
1.2
1.3
0.21
0.36
16^
16^
76 f
110

590
67
660

100
0.18
0.16
0.025
0.021
100
Cone. ,t
ppmw

39
960
1,040
170
290
360
86
2,000
4,900

660,000
75,000
740,000

180,000
320
290
44
37
180,000
Final str i pper
res i due
Mass,
kg

<0
<0
0
0
<0
0
0
0.
0.

1.
<0.
1.

6.
<0.
<0.
0
<0.
6

.0086
.0086
.048
.028
.028
.14
.06
.38
.68

.3
.0024
3

5
0038
.0032
.0065
.0032
.5
Cone . ,
ppmw

<6
<6
34
20
<20
100
42
270
480

4,100
<7
4,100

12,000
<7
'<6
12
<6
12,000
Overhead cond
Aqueous
Mass,

0.
2
1
0.
0.
<0.
<0.
0.
4 .

220
1.
220

100
0.
0.
0
0
100

.087
.79
.68
.2
.04
.001
.001
.006
.8


6



22
.20
.006
.027

Cone . ,
ppmw
350
11,000
6,600
1,100
160
<4
<3
25
19,000

560,000
4,000
560,000

560,000
1,200
1,100
35
160
560,000
ensat*
)c
Orqj
Mass,
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
4.
19
16
87
120

520
25
550

33
0.
<0.
1
<0
35
3
3
3
3
3










.6
.004
.7
.004

in i c
Cone . ,
ppmw
< 1,000
< 1 , 000
< 1,000
<1,000
1 1 , 000
57,000
49,000
260,000
380,000

770,000
37,000
810,000

730,000
14,000
<1,000
38,000
<1,000
780,000
Steam
str i pper
organ i c
remova 1
ef f i c i ency .
wt V,
91
99.6
96
87
96
99.1
99.6
99.5
99.4

99.8
100
99.8

94
99
99
74
<85
94
Process^
a i r
emi ss i ons
< 10J Mg/y
NA
4 .
19
4.
2.
3.
16
8.
58

1.
77
79

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

5

2
3
9

5


9









See notes at end of table.
                                                                                                                   (cont i nued)

-------
                                                                      TABLE F-70 (Continued)
                     Const i tuent

                  Batch  A
                  Acetone
                  IsopropanoI
                  1,1,1-Trichloroethane
                  Tetrachloroethene
                  To Iuene
                  Xylene
                  Total  V0e

                  TSDF - Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
                  NA  = Not avallable.
                  VO  = Volati le organics.
                  aThis  table describes the mass balance around the steam stripper at Site 26 for four different waste mixtures and the
                   treatability of different compounds in different matri ces.   For two waste mixtures, air emi ss i ons f rom the condenser vent have
                   been  est i mated.
"^                ^Concentrations given for liquid charged to batch stripper,
I—i                cNot used to calculate overhead removaI because of volume reading difficulties, possible receiver tank contamination, and the
Q~l                 need  to caIcuI ate actua I amoun t of organic removed from waste stream.
                  "Condenser vent emissions based on 24 h/d, 5 d/wk operat i on.
                  eTotaI of compounds accounted for.
                  ^Accidental  inclusion of an unknown xylene/aromatic mixture.   Estimated initial masses from final results.
                  SBelow amount expected due to unmixed sample col Iected.
                  nEst i mated from  laten concentration.
Ini tia 1
stripper charge
Mass, Conc.,b
kg ppmw
2.
0.
0.
0
0.
0
3
.3
03
.78
.02
.03
.001
.489
6,500
95
2,200
55
869
49
9,700h
Final s tr i pper
res i due
Mass , Cone . ,
kg ppmw
<0.002
NA
0.080
NA
0.012
0.042
0.14
<6
NA
230
NA
3B
120
390
Overhead conde
Aqueous
Mass , Cone . ,
kg ppmw
3
0.
1.
0
0
0
4
.2
.035
.4
.029
.0032
.045
.6
23,000
250
10,000
210
23
320
34,000
Organ i c
Mass, Cone . ,
kg ppmw
<0 . 004
< 0.004
0.13
<0.024
<0.004
0.86
0.99
< 1,000
< 1,000
40,000
6,000
< 1 , 000
270,000
310,000
Steam
str i pper
organ i c
remova 1
ef f i c i ency
wt f.
99.96
NA
90
NA
NA
NA
96
Process^
a i r
emi ss ions,
X 103 Mg/yr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

-------
reuse.  The bottoms stream is used to preheat the  incoming waste.   Then  it
is either sent to a publicly owned treatment works or  sent back  into  a tank
for the feed stream, depending on whether the effluent meets  discharge
limits.  If the midpoint temperature of the stripping  column  is  above a
given setpoint, the effluent meets limitations and is  sent to the  treatment
faci1ity.
     The stripping column contains 3.0 m of 1.6-cm pall  rings and  has a
diameter of 0.20 m.  The waste stream feed rate  is approximately 19 L/min
with an overhead organic product rate of about 0.28 L/min.  Steam  was fed
at a pressure range of 190 to 320 kPa, although  the temperature  and rate
were unspecified.
     The objective of the field test of the steam-stripping process at
Site 27 was to determine how efficiently it removes volatiles  from hazard-
ous waste streams.  Liquid samples were collected from the process waste
feed, stripper effluent, and organic overhead condensate.  Air emissions
from the product receiver tank vent also were sampled.   Sampling of the
influent and effluent was conducted approximately hourly for  5 h on the
first day and 12 h on the second, although a shutdown  and restart  delay of
6 h occurred on the second day because of instrument difficulties.  Liquid
grab samples were collected in either a glass or stainless steel beaker and
then distributed into individual glass bottles for analysis.   A  composite
sample of the organic product was collected in glass bottles  after comple-
tion of the test.  Gas vent samples were collected in  evacuated  glass
sampling bulbs.  Process data collected included feed  flow rate; column,
feed, effluent, and vent temperatures; and steam pressure.
     Vent gas was analyzed using GC-FID (Method  18).91   The VO in  the
liquid samples were analyzed by GC-MS (Method 8240).92   Material and energy
balances and stream flow and concentration data were used to  characterize
all process streams around the steam stripper.   Table  F-71 presents the
source testing results.
     F.2.3.2  Air Stripping.
     F.2.3.2.1  Site 23.93  A test program was conducted for  4 days during
May 1985 on the Site 23  air stripping system.  Site 23 is an  NPL Superfund
site currently managed by EPA under CERCLA.  It  is a 1.6-ha abandoned waste
                                   F-154

-------
                                TABLE F-71.   SOURCE TESTING  RESULTS  FOR  TSDF  SITE  27, STEAM STRIPPER
cn
en
Effluent
Inf 1 uent



Const! tuent
Methy 1 ene chloride
Ch 1 orof orm
Carbon tetrach 1 or i de
Tota 1 VO
to str I

Mass f 1 ow
rate,
kg/h
4.6
0.067
__d
4.7
pper


Cone . ,
mg/kg
3 , 900C
57
__d
3,900
from str
Mass f 1 ow
rate,
x 106
kg/h
789
6,000
<290e
6,000
i pper


Cone . ,
mg/kg
0.066
5.1
<0.250f
5.2
Overhead
condensate3
Mass f 1 ow
rate,
x 103,
kg/h
88
19
<0.043
107


Cone . ,
mg/kg
5,200
1,100
<2.5
6,300
Steam
str 1 pper
organ i c
remova 1
ef f i c i ency ,
wt 7,
>99.99
91
NA
99.8


Process
a i r
emi ss i ons,
x 103 Mg/y
1,400
13
4.7
1,400




b
r




TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
NA = Not avallable.
VO = Volati le organics.
aNot used for calculation of removal efficiencies because of desire to see actual removal from waste stream
 and to remove any background interference effects.
"Product receive^ tank vent flow rate equals 1 L/s.
cCalculated from average concentrations and average influent flow rate.
"Twelve of thirteen analyses below reliable detection limit.
eSome concentrations observed were below the detection limit; results presented are averages over 13 samples
 with samples below detection limit averaged as zero.
^AI  I analyses below reliable detection  limit.

-------
disposal facility that operated from  1962 to  1970.  Several  lagoons  were
used to dispose of various liquids and sludges during  operation  of this
dump.
     In response to citizen complaints received  in early  1983,  EPA
installed monitoring wells, a security fence, and a soil  cap  and  regraded
portions of the site during these initial actions.  A  leachate  collection
and treatment system also was installed by EPA at this time.  The treatment
system consisted of an induced-draft  air stripper.  Air is drawn  counter-
currently to the water flow,  and, upon leaving the column, the  air passes
through granular-activated carbon before entering the  atmosphere.  The
effectiveness of the gas-phase carbon adsorption system is discussed in
Section F.2.2.1.1.  The water effluent from the  stripper  column directly
enters a creek.  The VO stripped from the leachate are disposed of with the
spent carbon.
     The 32.6-cm inside diameter column contains 6.7 m of 2.54-cm super
intalox polypropylene saddles and/or  2.54-cm polyethylene Pall  rings as the
packing material.  The system is designed to operate automatically with the
air blower operating continuously and the water  pump cycling  on and off,
depending on the volume of leachate available in the collection tank.  The
pump provides a maximum water feed rate of about 8,200 kg/h but can be
throttled down to 1,100 kg/h.  Water  is generally fed  at  the  maximum pump
rate,, and, as noted during system testing,  this  causes the pump to operate
approximately 35 percent of the time.  The air blower  is  designed to
deliver 0.12 m^/s,  but rates  measured at the air intake port  were less than
this and depended on the water feed rate.  At a  water  feed rate of 1,140
kg/h,  the measured air rate at the intake port was 0.08 nvVs.  When the
water feed rate was increased to 8,200 kg/h,  the air rate at  the  intake
port decreased to less than 0.028 m3/s although  the air flow  remained
essentially constant near the blower  for the two different water  rates.
This is probably because the, higher pressure drop at the  higher  liquid flow
rate and equipment leaks allowed outside air to  enter  the system.  The air
leaving the column is blown through four 0.21-m3 canisters of granular-
activated carbon arranged in  parallel.  The carbon is  replaced  every month.
     The objectives of the field tests on the air stripper at Site 23 were
to:
                                   F-156

-------
     •     Assess  the condition  and current performance of the existing
          air-stripping system
     •     Evaluate treatability of leachate by air stripping
     •     Determine optimum contaminant removal  efficiency attainable
          at  the  existing air-stripper system.
Influent  and  effluent water samples as well as air samples were taken at a
variety  of water  and air flow rates.   When the pump cycled on and off dur-
ing testing,  the  samples were taken as late as possible during the pumping
cycle to  ensure that the system was operating close to equilibrium condi
tions.   No information was documented regarding  sampling equipment,  but
sample  analysis was performed using GC-MS.  Process data collected included
all stripper  influent and effluent temperatures  and both air and water
influent  rates.
     The  air  stripper VO removal  efficiency was  determined at a variety of
air:water ratios.   The water feed rate was varied from 8,200 kg/h to
1,100 kg/h,  and,  as noted before, this caused the air flow rate to change.
The VO  removal  efficiency was determined at several intermediate water
rates giving  a  range of air:water ratios from which to characterize the
performance of  the air stripper.   Material balances and stream flow and
concentration data were used to characterize the process streams around the
air-stripper  system.
     Table F-72 presents the Site 23  air stripper source testing results
under test conditions yielding  the highest VO removal from water.  This was
obtained  when the influent water rate was throttled down to 1,140 kg/h and
the air  flow  correspondingly increased to 0.08 rn^/s,  giving the highest
airrwater ratios  observed during testing.  Table F-73 presents the source
testing  results under Site 23 air stripper standard operating conditions at
the time  of the test,  where the water flow rate  was 8,200 kg/h, and the air
inlet rate was  unknown but expected to be less than 0.028 nvVs.  These
conditions represented the lowest air:water ratio at which the column
operated  and  yielded the lowest VO removal efficiency.
     F.2.3.3   Thin-Film Evaporation.
     F.2.3.3.1  Site 28.94  The use and effectiveness of a thin-film
evaporator (TFE)  on petroleum refinery sludges were tested.  A pilot-scale
                                   F-157

-------
                         TABLE F-72.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS FOR TEST YIELDING  HIGHEST VO REMOVAL PERCENTAGE
                                                    AT TSDF SITE 23,  AIR  STRIPPER
en
OO
Water
Inf 1 uent
to str i pper
Mass f 1 ow


Const! tuent
l,2,3-Trichloropropanec
(o,m)-Xy lened
p-Xy lened
To 1 uene
A n i 1 i n e
Phenol
2-Methy 1 pheno 1
4-Methy 1 pheno 1
Ethy 1 benzene
1,2-Dichloro benzene
1,2,4-Trichl oro benzene
Other VO
Total VO
rate,
x 106
kg/h
34,000
15,000
4,600
240
120
120
60
22
46
40
35
62
54,000

Cone . ,
/ta/L
30,000
13,000
4,000
210
102
109
53
19
40
35
31
54
47,700
Effluent
from str i pper
Mass f 1 ow
rate,
x 106
kg/h
<570
<570
<570
<570
55
32
18
<11
<570
<11
<11
43
150

Cone . ,
/*fl/L
<500d
<500d
<500d
<500d
48
28
16
<10d
<500d
<10d
<10d
38
1,400
Ai
ra
Eff luent
from stripper
Mass f 1 ow
rate,
x 106,
kg/h
13,000
5,200
1,700
2,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
750
97
NA
480
24,000

Cone . ,
ng/L
44,000
18,000
6,000
9,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,600
340e
NA
1,700
82,400

A i r str i pper
organ i c
remova 1
ef f i c i ency ,
wt %
>98
>96
>88
NA
63
>53
70
>53
NA
>71
>68
30
>99


Process
a
emi ss
x 106
<1
23
15
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
1
NA
5
64
i r
i ons, "
Mg/yr
.3







.8
.2

.1

             TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
             VO  - Volatile organics.
             NA  = Not available.
             aAir influent to stripper is not included  because  no  concentration  data  were  available.
             ^Gas-phase carbon  adsorber  effluent to atmosphere.
             GConcentrations  given  as  both volatile and semivolatile fractions.   Only  volatile  fraction  data  used.
             dComponent concentration  below detection limit.
             eConcentration reported for all  isomers  of dichIorobenzene,  not  just 1,2-dichIorobenzene.

-------
       TABLE  F-73.   SOURCE  TESTING  RESULTS  FOR  STANDARD  OPERATING
                 CONDITIONS  AT  TSDF  SITE  23,  AIR STRIPPER
                                         Water
Influent
to stripper

Consti tuent
1,2,3-Trichloropropane3
(o,m)-Xylenesa
p-Xylenec
Toluene
Aniline
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
bis-(s-Chloroisopropyl )
ether
2,4-Dimethylphenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethane, 1,1-oxybis
[2-ethoxy-
Other VO
Total VO
Mass flow
rate
x 10°
kg/h
240,000
90,000
34,000
23,000
1,800
1,600
1,300
<41
98
710

110
160
710
820
780

8,000
1,800
400,000
Cone. ,
/*g/L
29,000
11,000
4,100
2,800
226
198
160
<10b
12
87

13
19
87
100
95

980
220
49,100
Effluent
from stripper
Mass flow
rate
x 10°
kg/h
220,000
39,000
18,000
12,000
1,200
780
900
5,700
39
340

41
110
340
90
250

7,700
980
300,000
Cone. , f
/*g/L
27,000
4,700
2,200
1,500
141
95
110
7.1
4.8
42

<10b
13
42
11
31

940
120
37,000
Air
stripper
organic
removal
efficiency,
wt %
6.9
57
46
46
38
52
29
NA
40
51

>62
34
52
89
67

4.1
45
25
TSDF  =  Treatment,  storage,  and  disposal  facility.
NA =  Not  available.
VO =  Volatile  organics.

Concentrations given  as  both volatile  and  semivolatile  fractions.
 tile fraction data used  only.

"Constituent concentration  below  detection  limit.
Vola-
                                   F-159

-------
TFE operated by an equipment manufacturer was tested  in  September  1986  as
part of an EPA/HWERL program.  The TFE was tested  using  two  different
wastes at different temperatures, flow rates; and  pressures.   The  wastes
tested at Site 28, emulsion tank sludge and oily tank  bottoms, were
selected based on their oil, water, solids, and organic  content, which  were
similar to those for RCRA-listed refinery wastes,  such as API  separator
sludge, that are currently  land-treated.  Temperature  was varied between
150 and 340 °C, feed rate was varied between 0.010 and 0.073 kg/s«m2
surface area, and the unit was operated both at atmospheric  pressure and
vacuum.  Objectives of the tests included evaluating  the process effective-
ness and cost for organic removal from refinery waste  sludges, estimating
organic emissions and any other residuals from the process,  and determining
process limitations for treating hazardous wastes.  Samples  of feed,
bottoms, overhead condensate, and condenser vent emissions were taken.
Liquid samples were analyzed for volatiles by GC-FID  headspace and purge-
and-trap GC/MS.  Liquid samples were analyzed for  semivolatiles by
acid/base/neutral solvent extraction--GC/MS.  Condenser  vent samples were
analyzed by GC/MS.
     A total  of 22 tests were performed.  Vent gas samples were speciated
and quantitatively identified for one test, but the vent gas flow  rate was
too low (<10 cm^/min)  to measure so that an estimate  of  process air emis-
sions cannot be made on a compound-specific basis.
     Mass balance data for test numbers 7 and 10 are  presented in  Tables F-
74 and F-75.   Operating conditions for test number 10  represent conditions
that resulted in the highest organic removal efficiencies.   Test number 10
was conducted at atmospheric pressure,  high operating  temperature
(approximately 312 °C),  and a feed rate of 0.018 kg/s  (0.064 kg/s»m2) of
surface area).  As illustrated by test number 7, removal efficiencies were
only slightly lower when the TFE was operated at low  temperatures  (150  °C),
and substantially less  water was evaporated along with the organics,
reducing the need for additional treatment to separate the aqueous and
organic phases.  Operation under a vacuum at high  temperatures resulted in
problems of feed carryover into the condensate.  The  condensate from the
vacuum runs was a milky-white emulsion requiring additional  treatment to
separate the oils.
                                   F-160

-------
                                        TABLE F-74.
                                                     PERFORMANCE OF THIN-FILM EVAPORATOR RUN #7 AT SITE 28 FOR TREATMENTS OF PETROLEUM
                                                                        REFINERY EMULSION TANK SLUDGE3
 I
I—»
CTi

Const! tuent
Benzene
To 1 uene
Ethy 1 benzene
Sty rene
m-Xy lene
o , p-Xy 1 ene
Phenol
Benzy 1 a Icoho 1
2-Methy 1 pheno 1
4-Methy 1 pheno 1
2 ,4-D imethy Iphenol
b i s (2-Ethy 1 hexy 1 ) phtha 1 ate
Naphtha 1 ene
2-Methy 1 naphtha lene
Acenaphthy lene
Acenaphthene
D i benzof uran
F 1 uorene
Phenanthrene
An th racene
Pyrene
Ben zo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Dt-n-octylphthalate
Benzo f 1 uoranthene^
Benzo (a) py rene
NA = Not avai lable.
aUsed 0.069 kg/s-m2 of surfa
Feedb
Flow, C
kg/h
0.016
0.19 2
0.012
0.011
0.019
0.019
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0B2
0.054
0.0014
0.0032
0.0025
0.0058
0.01S
0.0014
0.0028
0.0013
0.0022
0.0012
0.00089
0.00096
,ce area of
one . ,
mg/kg
230
,800
180
160
280
280
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
765
790
21
47
37
86
225
20
41
19
32
16
13
14

Condensa te
Bottoms Aqueous phase
Flow, Flow, Qrganjc
kg/h Cone., kg/h Cone., F1 ow ,
(>
<0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.






32
41
<2.
<2
0.
3
12
1
I
1
1
0
0

(103)
.039
.38
13
16
.24
28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.76
.68
.62
.52
.063
.40
.60
.13
.51
.39
.95
NA
.82
.76

mg/kg (x!03)
<0.62« f
6.1
2.1
2.5
3.8
4.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
520
660
<40e
<40»
26
64
200
18
24
22
31
NA
13
12

mg/kg kg/h
0
0
0
0
0
0






0
0
<0
<0
<0
0
0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
.0073
.15
.0095
.0061
.012
.018
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.0061
.0037
.00031
.00031
.00031
.000077
.000049
.00031
.00031
.00031
.00031
NA
.00031
.00031
sludge processed
phase
Cone . ,
mg/kg
6,000
120,000
7,800
5,000
9,700
14,600
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,000
3,000
<250B
<250e
<250e
63
40
<250°
<250e
<250e
<250e
NA
<250«
<2B0e
at approx
Organ i c
remova 1
ef f i c i ency , c

99
99
98
98
98
98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
16


29
36
11
10
40
-IB
3
NA
0
14
i mate 1 y
7.
.739
.78
.83
.44
.64
.43






.03
.46


.73
.84
.11
.00
.74
.79
.13
.00
.29
150 °C.
Air
emissions
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

                     "Feed data are averages of two analyses on the semivolati le and votatile fractions.
                     cBased on mass flow rates of feed and bottoms.
                     ^Includes two coeluting i somers.
                     eBeIow detection  limit.
                     ^Condensate sample not analyzed for this run.
                     9Uses reported detection limit of 0.62 mg/kg  for benzene.

-------
                                     TABLE F-75.
                                                  PERFORMANCE OF THIN-FILM EVAPORATOR RUN $10 AT SITE 28  FOR  TREATMENTS  OF  PETROLEUM
                                                                     REFINERY EMULSION TANK SLUDGE3
CTl
IX)
Condensate
Bottoms
Feedb
F 1 ow , Cone . ,
Const i tuent
Benzene
To 1 uene
Ethy 1 benzene
Sty rene
m-Xy 1 one
o, p-Xy lene
Phenol
Benzy 1 a 1 co^io 1
2-Methy 1 phenol
4-Wethy 1 phenol
2,4-Dimethy 1 phenol
b i s (2-Ethy 1 hexy 1 ) phtha 1 ate
Naphtha t ene
2-Methy (naphtha lene
Acenaphthy lene
Acenaphthene
0 i benzof uran
F 1 uorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Py rene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
D i -n-octy 1 phtha 1 ate
Benzo f 1 uoranthene0-
Benzo (a) py rene
NA = Not avai (able.
kg/h
0.015
0.18
0.012
0.010
0.018
0.018
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.050'
0.051
0.0014
0.0031
0.0024
0.0056
0.015
0.0013
0.0027
0.0012
0.0021
0.0012
0.00085
0.00091

mg/kg
230
2,800
180
160
280
280
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
765
790
21
47
37
86
225
20
41
19
32
18
13
14

Flow,
kg/h
(x!03)
0.0047
0.023
0.0033
0.010
0.0060
0.0061
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.20
0.84
0.12
<0.28
0.25
0.75
3.6
3.6
0.67
0.32
0.73
NA
0.41
0.26

Cone . ,
mg/kg
0.B6
2.7
0.39
1.2
0.71
0.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24
99
14
<33e
30
89
430
430
80
38
86
NA
49
31

Aqueous phase
Flow,
kg/h
(x!03)
0.071
0.234
0.0081
0.0076
0.011
0.010
0.011
0.0050
0.028
0.021
0.0086
0.0011
0.071
0.038
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.0051
0.0049
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
NA
<0.010
<0.010
Cone . ,
mg/kg
1 .4
4.6
0.16
0.15
0.21
0.2
0.21
0.098
0.55
0.41
0.17
0.022
1.4
0.74
<0.2«
<0.2»
<0.2a
0.1
0.096
<0.2«
<0.2°
<0.2e
<0.2e
NA
<0.2e
<0.2«
API separator sludge
.
.Organic phase__ removal
Flow, Cone., efficiency, c
kg/h
0.011
0.20
0.14
0.0076
0.016
0.029
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.032
0.035
0.0011
0.0018
0.0015
0.0034
0.0044
0.00032
0.00035
<0.0029
<0.0029
NA
<0.0029
<0.0029
processed
mg/kg
1,900
34 , 000
24,000
1,300
2,800
4,900
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,400
6,000
190
300
260
580
760
54
60
<500«
<500e
NA
<500e
<500e

99
99
99
99
99
99
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
96
87
33
>90
89
86
75
NA
74
74
65
NA
61
71
at approximately

.76
.90
.78
.25
.75
.74






.86
.47
.33

.48
.50
.21

.38
.06
.14

.11
.28
312 °C.
Air
em i ss i ons
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

                  "Feed  data are averages of two analyses on the semi volatile and volatile fractions.
                  cBased on mass fIow rates of feed and bottoms.
                  "Includes two coeIut i ng i somers.
                  eBetow detection Iimit.

-------
     Several  conclusions  were drawn from the pilot-scale test of a TFE.
TFEs  are  able to  process  nonhazardous feed streams such as oily refinery
sludges and were  found  to have high removal  efficiencies of volatile
organic compounds from  the waste sludges tested.   Removal  efficiency for
volatile  organics was greatest when the TFE was operated at the highest
temperature  (320°C) .  Removal efficiencies from semivolatiles ranged from
10 to 75  percent  depending on operating conditions.   When  operated at high
temperatures  and  under  vacuum, some carryover of  feed into the condensate
was observed,  with the  condensate being a milky-white emulsion requiring
additional treatment.   Foaming of the feed reduces the heat transfer to the
material  being processed.  Flow rates and total volatile organic emissions
from the  condenser were highly dependent on the waste being processed;
lower condenser temperatures were capable of substantially reducing
emissions.  The capital  and operating costs of using  TFE to process
petroleum waste sludges under various operational  modes are significantly
less than the cost of  land treatment.  The effectiveness of TFE as an
emission  control  strategy was evaluated by subjecting TFE-treated waste to
a land treatment  simulator program and is described  in Section F.I.4.1.
     F.2.3.3.2  Site  29.95  Contaminated organic  solvents  from a variety of
waste sources are processed at the Site 29 facility,  a waste solvent
recycler.  Three  separate processes are used to treat the  different wastes.
A batch thin-film evaporator is used to treat waste  paint  and lacquer thin-
ners, and an  azeotropic steam injection distillation  unit  is used to purify
chlorinated solvents.   These two units process most  of the waste that is
treated at the facility.   The other treatment process available is flash
distillation,  which usually is used for single- or two-component mixtures
of alcohols,  glycols, or  aromatic or aliphatic solvents.  The thin-film
evaporator and the steam  injection distillation unit  were  tested from
August 18 through 21, 1986,  but the flash distillation was not tested.
steam injection distillation unit test results are presented in Section
F.2.3.4.1.
     The  paint and lacquer wastes are pumped from a  feed tank into the
batch Kontro  thin-film  evaporator unit.  The evaporator operates under a
                                   F-163

-------
vacuum, and heat is provided through a steam jacket to generate  the  over-
head vapor.  The vapor is condensed and collected  in a product receiver
tank before being discharged to a  larger product storage tank at  atmos-
pheric pressure.  The bottoms stream is collected  and utilized as  a
supplemental fuel for offsite asphalt kilns.  The  recovered  solvents are
recycled.
     The evaporator has a heat transfer surface area of 1.9  m^.   During
testing, the feed rate was 0.24 L/s.  The system was operated at  a pressure
of 47 kPa.  Steam was fed to the system at 1,140 kPa and 185 °C,  but the
rate was not specified.  A heating capacity of 2 x 10^ Btu/h was  given,
which corresponds to approximately 760 kg/h of steam, if the system  is run
at maximum capacity.
     The objective of the field test of the thin-film evaporation process
at Site 29 was to determine how efficiently it removes volatiles  from haz-
ardous waste streams.  Liquid samples were collected from the evaporator
feed stream, evaporator bottoms,  and condensate.   Samples of the  liquid
influent and effluent streams were collected in 40-mL VOA bottles and 1-L
amber glass bottles, depending on the analysis to  be performed.   These grab
samples were apparently combined to yield composite samples, but  it was not
specified how often the samples were collected and how they were  compos-
ited.  Gas samples were taken at selected locations by pumping air through
charcoal tubes.  This analysis yielded component concentrations  in the air,
but vent gas velocities were not measured and emission rates for  these
compounds could not be calculated.
     The test run for the thin-film evaporator was performed over a period
of 6.75 hours.   Process data collected for the thin-film evaporator
included:  (1)  feed, bottoms, and condensate tank  volumes at the  beginning
and end of the process; (2) overhead product, bottoms, and  liquid sample
temperatures; (3) system pressure; and (4) steam temperature and  pressure.
     The analysis technique used for the gas samples collected in the
charcoal tubes was not given.  VO concentrations in the liquid samples were
determined by GC-FID.  VO identification was confirmed by direct-injection
GC-MS for each sample.  Water concentration was determined  using  ASTM
                                   F-164

-------
Method  D1744.96  Material  balances were used to characterize the operation
and resultant  conditions of the thin-film evaporator.  Table F-76 presents
the source  testing results for the Site 29 thin-film evaporator.  The
organic removal efficiency was calculated based on the constituent flow
rates  in  the  feed and the  bottom streams to show the amounts actually
removed from  the feed.
     F.2.3.3.3  Site 30.97  On August 31, 1984, a field evaluation of the
Site 30 thin-film evaporator was performed.  Site 30 uses thin-film evapor-
ation  for the  reclamation  and recycle of organic solvents.  The primary
activity  at Site 30 is  the reclamation of organic solvents and contaminated
products  for  recycle or sale.  Specialty solvent blends that are optimized
for specific  client uses also are produced.  The solvent recovery processes
include two VO recovery systems:  a Luwa thin-film evaporator and one SRS,
Riston  Batch  Distillation.
     Support  facilities include a drum storage and management area,  a
cooling water  system, an oil-fired boiler for steam generation, an air
compressor,  a  bench-scale  Rodney-Hunt thin-film evaporator,  storage tanks,
and associated pumps and piping.
     The  wastes processed  by Site 30 are from the chemical,  plastics,
paint,  adhesive film, electronics, and photographic industries.  The types
of chemicals  recovered  include chlorinated solvents, freons, ketones, and
aromatic  hydrocarbons.   Approximately 1,200 Mg/yr VO are recovered.   There
is currently  no vacuum  system and consequently no capability for operating
the Luwa  evaporator under  reduced pressure.  This precludes processing of
high-boiling  compounds  such as naphtha and xylene.
     The  contaminated organic solvents to be treated are charged to the
feed recirculation tank of the batch process thin-film evaporator.  Steam
is used to  heat the liquid pumped into the evaporator, generating the over-
head product that is condensed and pumped into a product tank.  The evapor-
ator bottoms are pumped back to the feed tank and recirculated through the
evaporator  until  a predetermined VO removal is attained.  The final  bottoms
residues  are utilized as fuel,  if possible, or are solidified with diatoma-
ceous earth and landfilled.   Overhead products are recycled or sold.
                                   F-165

-------
                         TABLE F-76.   SOURCE  TESTING  RESULTS FOR TSDF SITE 29, THIN-FILM EVAPORATOR
o-i
CTi
Inf 1 uent to TFE

Const i tuent
Xy 1 enes
Acetone
Ethy 1 acetate
Ethyl benzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
n-Buty 1 a 1 coho 1
To 1 uene
Methy 1 ethy 1 ketone
Isopropano 1
Total VOC
Other9
Flow,
kg/h
49
140
8.1
16
10
8.1
160
130
56
580
140d
Cone . ,
ppmw
66,000
190,000
11,000
22,000
14,000
11,000
220,000
180,000
76,000
790,000
NA
Bottoms from TFE
Flow,
kg/h
76
1.9
<4.4
17
2.0
<2.0
29
21
<2.0
150
180e
Cone . ,
ppmw
210,000
5,200
<12,000b
48,000
5,600
<5,600b
81,000
57,000
<5,600b
420,000
NA
Overhead TFE organic
condensate 	 . ,
Flow,
kg/h
33
71
4.6
11
6.2
5.1
95
87
33
350
25h
Cone., efficiency,
ppmw
84,300
183,000
11,700
28,300
16,000
13,000
243,000
223,000
83,700
890,000
NA
wt %
NA
99
>45
NA
80
>75
82
84
>96
74
NA

emi ss i ons,a
Mg/yr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
TFE = Thin-fiIm evaporator.
NA = Not available.
VO = Volatile organics.
aEmission rates could not be calculated because vent gas velocities were not measured.
^Constituent concentrations below detection limit.
°TotaI  of all  identified volatile organics.
"This includes some mineral spirits not analyzed for and other unknowns.
eBalance of total flow after accounting for organics and water.

-------
     The  batch  process  evaporator has a heat transfer surface area of
1.0  m^  and  operates  at  atmospheric pressure.  The feed circulation tank has
a volume  of 1.7 m^  from which  the contents are pumped into the evaporator
at a rate of 1,390  kg/h.   Steam entered the system at 310 kPa and 135 °C
for  this  test,  but  it  can  be used over a range of 310 to 650 kPa, depending
on the  solvent  processed.
     The  objective  of  the  field test of the thin-film evaporation process
at Site 30  was  to determine how efficiently it removes volatiles from
hazardous waste streams.   Liquid samples were collected from the evaporator
feed stream,  evaporator bottoms, and condensate.   Gas samples were col-
lected  from the condenser  vent.  Sampling of the treated waste was done at
the  end of  the  process,  but the other samples were taken during the first
third of  the waste  treatment cycle.   Process data included feed, steam,
overhead  product,  bottoms,  and vent  gas flow rates,  temperatures, and
pressures.
     Material  and energy balances and stream flow and concentration data
were used to characterize  all  process streams around the Site 30 thin-f^lm
evaporator.   Table  F-77 presents the source testing  results.  The organic
removal efficiency  was  calculated on the basis of influent and effluent
flow rates  of a constituent in the thin-film evaporator.  The composition
for  the overhead condensate is presented but is not  used to calculate
removal efficiencies.   This is done  because the sampling time of the over-
head product was unspecified.   The feed and bottoms  were sampled at the
beginning and end of the run,  respectively.  Because of the recirculation
of the  feed volume,  the overhead concentration would change during the
process.  Computing  the organic removal efficiency this way also removes
the  effect  of any receiver  tank contamination or background interference in
the  liquid  by looking  at  the actual  amount of organic removed from the same
bulk volume of  material.
     F.2.3.3.4   Site 22.98   The primary activity at  Site 22 is the recovery
of organic  wastes  and  contaminated chemicals.  The company also engages,
to a lesser extent,  in  waste management for some firms.
                                   F-167

-------
         TABLE F-77.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS FOR TSDF SITE 30,
                         THIN-FILM EVAPORATOR

Constituent
Acetone
Xylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Freon TF
Ethyl benzene
Total V0d

Influent
waste
cone. ,
ppmw
690,000
60,000
23,000
5,100
11,000
3,500
1,900
<1,020C
800,000

Treated
waste
cone. ,
ppmw
550,000
140,000
14,000
3,000
17,000
850
1,800
500
730,000

Overhead
condensate3
cone. ,
ppmw
770,000
21,000
34,000
9,300
9,600
5,200
1,900
3,100
860,000
Thin-film
evaporator
organic
removal
efficiency, b
wt %
76
30
82
82
54
93
72
<85
73
TSDF = Treatment, storage,  and disposal facility.
VO = Volatile organics.

aSampled at the same time as the waste.

^VO removal is estimated based on 70 percent recovery (i.e., 70 percent
 reduction in waste volume), e.g.,

                                 Treated waste x ^_Qj)
    Overhead removal wt  % = (1 - T 4:icon^''—T	T }  x 100%  .
                            v    Influent waste cone, x 1 ;

GConstituent concentration  was below detection limit.

dTotal  of all identified VO.
                                F-168

-------
     The  recovery and purification processes involve three VO recovery
systems:
     •     One Luwa thin-film evaporator
     •     One batch fractionation distillation column
     •     One continuous feed fractionation distillation column.
Support  facilities include a concrete drum storage and management area, a
cooling  water system,  an activated sludge wastewater treatment system, an
oil-fired boiler system for steam generation,  and a main building providing
housing  for offices,  laboratories, and locker rooms.
     On  July 26,  1984,  a field evaluation of the thin-film evaporator was
conducted.   The Luwa thin-film evaporator processes organic wastes from the
furniture,  chemical,  dry cleaning, and paint industries.  Wastes processed
include  furniture finishing wastes and other organic wastes that could
contain  sludges.   The sludge would include paint films,  particulates,  and
insoluble organic materials.  Approximately 7,500 Mg/yr of VO are recovered
overhead.
     Batches of organic waste, contaminated solvents, and organic byprod-
ucts are  pumped into the Luwa thin-film evaporator, where the more volatile
organics  are evaporated under vacuum and condensed overhead.   The overhead
product  may be further refined through fractional distillation or reused
elsewhere.   The evaporation is operated so the remaining bottom residue
retains  sufficient heat value to be- used as fuel in kilns or incinerators.
     The  evaporator heat transfer surface area is 4.0 m^.  Typically,  the
feed rate is 0.38 L/s,  with 70 to 95 percent of the material  taken as  over-
head product.   The system can be operated at a pressure of about 6.66  kPa
or 46.6  kPa,  depending  on the vacuum pump system used.  Steam is fed to the
system at. a temperature of 55.6 °C above the boiling point of the feed and
at a rate of about 190  kg/h, although the pressure is unspecified.
     The  objective of the field test of the thin-film evaporation process
at Site 22  was to determine how efficiently it removes volatiles from
hazardous waste streams.   Liquid samples were collected from the influent
to the evaporator,  evaporator bottoms,  and condensate.  Air emission
                                   F-169

-------
samples were collected from the vacuum pump vent.   Process  data  also  were
recorded during sampling.  One grab sample was taken  for  each  liquid  sam-
pling point, with both the liquid and the equilibrium vapor being  analyzed.
Vent air samples were collected in carbon adsorption  tubes  and analyzed for
VO.
     Measured concentration data and an assumed 95-percent  organic  removal
were used along with the feed flow and material and energy  balances to
characterize all process streams around the thin-film evaporator.   Table
F-78 presents the source testing results for the Site 22  thin-film  evapor-
ator.  Much of the high-boiling hydrocarbon mixture was removed  overhead,
leaving only sufficient amounts of hydrocarbons to  give an  acceptable vis-
cosity in the bottoms.
     F.2.3.4  Batch Distillation.
     F.2.3.4.1  Site 29."  The Site 29 facility is a waste solvent
recycler as is described in Section F.2.3.3.2.  Tests  were  performed on the
steam injection distillation unit from August 18 through  21, 1986.
     Chlorinated solvents are charged to a kettle in  the  steam injection
distillation unit in a batch operation.  Steam is injected  into  the tank to
give turbulent mixing and to evaporate the solvents.   The overhead  stream
is condensed and collected in a receiver tank, from which it is  sent to a
decanter.  When enough water has accumulated on top of the  organic  product,
the water is drawn off and discharged to an aeration  pond and then  to the
sewer.   The recovered solvent is pumped to a calcium  chloride drying column
to remove any remaining water before being recycled.   The water  from the
drying  column is diluted and discharged to the sewer.  The  residue  in the
kettle  is deep-well  injected.
     The horizontal  steam injection kettle has a capacity of 3.8 m3.  Steam
is supplied at about 184 kPa and 117 °C.  The steam feed  rate was estimated
to be about 300 kg/h, but this was not measured.
     The objective of the field test of the steam injection distillation
unit system at Site 29 was to determine how efficiently it  removes  vola-
tiles from hazardous waste streams.  Two batch tests  were performed with
the steam injection distillation unit system.  The  first  batch contained
                                   F-170

-------
          TABLE F-78.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS FOR TSDF SITE 22, THIN-FILM EVAPORATOR
Inf 1 uent to
Flow,
Const! tuent
Methy 1 ene chloride
Ch 1 orof orm
1, 1 , 1-Tri ch 1 oroethane
To 1 uene
Freon TF
Hydrocarbon mixture
Total VOC
kg/h
6.
5.
2
2
0
203
230
.0
.1
.1
.5
.2


TFE
Cone . ,
ppmw
26
22
9
11

930

,000
,000
,100
,000
780
,000
NA
Eff luent from TFE
F 1 ow,
kg/h
0.005
0
0.01
0.36
0.003
11
lid
Cone . ,a
ppmw
460
0
910
33,000
300
NA
NA
Overhead
condensate
Flow,
kg/h
2
0
0
3
6
205
208
.6
.16
.146
.05
.2



Cone., efficiency,'3
ppmw
12,000
750
670
14,000
28,500
940,000
NA
wt
99
>99.
>99,
<85
80
NA
NA
7,
.1
.99
.5
.0



TSDF - Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
TFE = Thin-film evaporator.
VO = Volatile organics.
NA = Not avai I able.
aEstimated based on headspace analysis.
"Based on reduction in headspace concentration.
cSum of quantified VO.
"Based on 95 percent of the feed taken overhead.

-------
methylene chloride as the major constituent,  and  the  second  one  contained
1,1,1-trichloroethane as the major component.
     The two batches in the steam injection distillation  unit  were  sampled
and monitored similarly.  Liquid samples were collected  in 40-mL VOA
bottles and 1-L amber glass bottles.  These samples were  taken of the waste
feed, the final injection kettle residue, the overhead organic condensate,
and the overhead aqueous condensate for both  runs.  Although the time at
which the overhead condensate samples were taken  was  unspecified, it was
assumed that they were taken at the-end of the process when  the  sample
would be a composite of the condensate collected  from the entire batch.
The waste feed for run 1 was composed of 22 drums of waste,  of which 14
were initially in the kettle.  The remaining  eight drums  were  added shortly
after batch startup.  A sample of the waste feed  was  collected after the
addition and mixing of all the waste feed.  The waste feed for run 2
consisted of nine drums of material, and samples  were taken  of each drum
and combined to yield a representative sample of  the  feed.   The  techniques,.
used for determining VO and water concentration were  the  same  as  those used
for the thin-film evaporator samples.  Gas samples were collected at
selected locations by pumping air through charcoal tubes.  This  analysis
yielded constituent concentrations in the air, but vent gas  velocities were
not measured and emission rates for these compounds_,could not  be  calcu-
lated.
     The first batch of waste was processed for 5 h on 1  day and  for an
additional  3.5 h on the next day.  The second batch was completely proc-
essed in 1.9 h.  Process data collected included:  (1) injection  kettle and
overhead product tank volumes at the beginning and end of the  process,
(2) overhead,  distillate,  and tank temperature at various times  during the
process, and (3)  steam temperature and pressure.
     Table  F-79 presents the source testing results for both batches.  The
organic removal efficiency is based on the constituent mass  in the steam
injection kettle at initial  and final conditions  to show  the amount of a
constituent actually removed from the waste during the process.
     F.2.3.4.2  Site 31.1Q0  The primary activity at  Site 31 is  the
reclamation of contaminated solvents and other chemicals  through
                                   F-172

-------
                          TABLE F-79.   SOURCE TESTING RESULTS FOR TSDF SITE 29, STEAM DISTILLATION UNIT
In i t i a 1
kettle charge
Consti tuent
Batch 1
Tetrach 1 oroethy lene
Methy lene chloride
Carbon tetrach 1 or i de
Ch lorobenzene
Trichloro-trif 1 uoroethane
D i ch 1 orobenzene
Xy lenes
Ethy 1 acetate
Isopropano 1
Methy 1 i sobuty 1 ketone
Total VOC
Mass,
kg
390
2,200
3.3
1.6
32
0.91
4.8
46
670
<1.1
3,300
Cone . ,
ppmw
82,000
450,000
680
330
6,600
190
1,000
9,600
140,000
<220b
690,000
Final
kettle residue
Mass,
kg
43
180
<0.64
3.4
<4.0
<1.3
3.0
8.2
430
110
780
Cone . ,
ppmw
11,000
45,000
<160b
860
80
NA
>87
NA
38
82
36
NA
76
Process a i r
emi ss i ons , a
Mg/yr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
See footnotes on next  page.
(conti nued)

-------
                                                    TABLE F-79 (continued)
In i ti a 1
kettle charge
Const! tuent
Batch 2
Tetrach loroethy lene
Tr i ch 1 oroethy 1 ene
Methyl ene chloride
1,1, 1-Tri ch loroethane
Ch 1 orobenzene
Trichloro-trifl uoroethane
Xy lenes
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Isopropano 1
Total VOC
Mass,
kg
2.3
3.8
6.1
1,060
1.6
6.1
1.9
2.3
3.4
1,090
Cone . ,
ppmw
1,200
2,000
3,200
560,000
860
3,200
1,000
1,200
1,800
574,000
Final
kettle residue
Mass,
kg
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
91
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
91
Cone . ,
ppmw
<3,800b
<3,800b
<3,800b
112,000
<3,800b
<3,800b
<3,800b
<3,800b
<3,800b
112,000

Overhead
condensate
Aqueous
Mass,
K 103
kg
<9.2
<9.2
<9.2
<9.2
<18
<84
<9.2
<9.2
390
390
Organ i c
Cone . ,
ppmw
<220b
<220b
<220b
<220b
<220b
<2,000b
<220b
<220b
9,400
9,400
Mass,
kg
0.09
0.09
0.09
920
1.8
8.7
0.09
0.09
7.0
940
Cone . ,
ppmw
<160b
<160b
<160b
840,000
<3,200b
7,900
<160b
<160b
6,400
850,000
Steam
d i st i 1 1 at i on
organ i c
removal Process air
efficiency, emissions,3
wt % Mg/yr
NA NA
>21 NA
>51 NA
91 NA
NA NA
>51 NA
NA NA
NA NA
>12 NA
91 NA
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
NA = Not aval I able.
VO = Volatile organics.
aEmission rates could not be calculated because vent gas velocities were not measured.
bConstituent concentration below detection limit.
cTotal of all identified VO.

-------
evaporation  and distillation.   About 10 percent of the incoming chemicals
are contaminated products,  with the remainder being classified as hazardous
waste.   Approximately 85 percent of the reclaimed chemicals are recycled
back to  the  generator with  the remainder being marketed to suitable end
users.
     Processing equipment includes two Votator agitated thin-film evapora-
tors,  two distillation reboilers,  eight fractionation columns, and one
caustic  drying  tower.  Support facilities include 97 storage tanks
(3,790-m3 capacity);  two warehouses containing dyked concrete pads for drum
storage;  an  analytical laboratory; gas-fired steam generation; and an
office building.  A fleet of tractors and vacuum tankers is maintained for
transporting solvents and chemicals to and from the plant.
     On  December 19 and 20,  1984,  field tests were conducted on the distil
lation systems.  The  wastes  processed by Site 31 are from the chemical,
paint,  ink,  recording tape,  adhesive film, automotive, airlines,  shipping,
electronic,  iron and  steel,  fiberglass, and-pharmaceutical industries.  The
types of chemicals recovered included the following VO:  alcohols, ketones,
esters,  glycols, ethers,  chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons,
petroleum naphthas, freons,  and specialty solvents.  Distillation units one
and two  recover 560 Mg/yr and  1,400 Mg/yr VO, respectively.  Contaminated
organic  chemicals and solvents are received in bulk and drum shipments and
processed for reclamation and  recycle.
     All  waste  material is  processed first either in the thin-film evapora-
tor or in the distillation  reboilers.  Approximately 90 percent of the
incoming shipments are processed through one of two Votator thin-film evap-
orators  during  which  about  80  percent of the material is stripped off as
overhead product.  The limiting factor for the amount of liquid that can be
recovered is that the bottoms  product must be acceptable in heat value and
viscosity for offsite consumption  as fuel.  The overhead product may or may
not be further  refined through fractionation distillation, depending on the
intended  end use.  Thin-film evaporator bottoms are shipped offsite and
utilized  as  fuel in cement  kilns.
     There are  eight  fractionation distillation systems of varying capabil
ity and  capacity at the Site 31 facility.  The fractionation distillation
                                   F-175

-------
system's each consist of a reboiler, a tray column  and  condenser,  an  accumu-
lator, and associated pumps, valves, and piping.   Instrumentation  includes
a reboiler and column head vapor temperature  recorders  (multipoint  record-
er) and rotameters in the reflux and product  lines.  The  system  selected
for any particular separation is dependent on a number  of factors  such as
throughput, relative vapor pressures, and required purity of  the  process
streams.
     A variety of organic and aqueous wastes  can be processed  through the
distillation columns at Site 31.  These trials, however,  were  restricted to
wastewaters containing fairly low concentrations of VO.   The  reboiler of a
distillation system is charged initially with a wastewater quantity,
depending on the distillation system used.  Steam  is applied  to the  coil  of
the reboiler,  causing the organics and water  to boil out  of the waste.  The
vapors pass through a distillation column where the VO  are separated from
the wastes and then are condensed and sent to a vented  product storage  "
tank.  The distillation process co-ntinues until the VO  content in the
aqueous volume is less than 0.10 percent.  The reboiler contents then are
discharged to a hazardous treatment site or to the municipal  WWT system,
depending on the contaminants present.  After sufficient  accumulation of
similar overhead products in storage, the recovered organics  are sent
directly to specific clients or are refined further before.being sent to
the clients.  The need for further refining depends on  the end-use of the
product and cannot be characterized because of the wide variety of wastes
processed.
     The objective of the field tests of batch distillation systems  at
Site 31 was to determine how efficiently they remove volatiles from
hazardous waste streams.  Two separate,  but similar, distillation systems
were tested at the facility.  Distillation unit one has a reboiler capacity
of 42 m3-  with a 1.07-m diameter, 30-tray distillation  column.  The  trial
used a reboiler charge of 30 m3.  Steam was fed to the  reboiler coil at
960 kPa at a rate of 820 kg/h.   The temperature of the  steam  was not speci-
fied.  Distillation unit two has a reboiler capacity of 13 m3, with  a
0.81-m, 30-tray distillation column.  The trial used a  reboiler charge of
11 m3-   The same quality steam was fed to the reboiler  coil at a  rate of
590 kg/h.
                                   F-176

-------
     Liquid samples were collected from the charge to the reboiler,  final
aqueous residue from the reboiler, and final overhead condensate.  Gas
samples were taken from the condenser, receiver, and product accumulator
vents.  Sampling was conducted for the batches  in units one and two  over
periods of 15.0 and 11.5 h, respectively, with  samples taken at the  start
and end of the process, and at least two times  during the fractionation.
Liquid grab samples were collected in 40-mL VOA bottles.  Vent gas samples
were collected in evacuated stainless-steel canisters.  Process operating
data were collected throughout the distillation process.  Process data
included initial batch charge, estimated steam  flow rate, reboiler and
column head temperature, reflux rate, and vent  velocity and temperature.
     Vent gas was analyzed by GC.  The VO compounds in the liquid samples
were identified and quantified by both direct injection GC and headspace
GC.  Material and energy balances were used to  characterize the operation
and resultant conditions of the fractional distillation units.  The  source
testing results are presented in Tables F-80 and F-81 for Site 31 distilla-
tion units one and two, respectively.  The organic removal efficiency was
calculated on the basis of initial and final mass of a constituent in the
reboiler.  No composition data were available for the overhead condensate,
so the values presented for final overhead condensate were calculated by
assuming that all the initial organics in the reboiler, except what
remained at the end of the process, were collected as overhead condensate.
F.2.4  Other Process Modifications
     F.2.4.1  Subsurface Injection of Land-Treated Waste — Site 19.101
Section F.I.4.2 describes the test program conducted during the period of
'October 9,  1984, through November 2,  1984, on the land treatment site at
the Site 19 refinery.   One of the objectives of the test program was to
determine the effectiveness of subsurface injection in reducing VO emis-
sions from land treatment by comparing the measured emission rates from the
two application methods.  Sludge was  surface-applied on Plot A and
subsurface-injected into Plot C.
     Subsurface injection as practiced at this  refinery did not appear to
have a large effect on the emissions.  Immediately after sludge application
and before  first tilling,  the cumulative 2-day measured emissions from the
                                   F-177

-------
           TABLE F-80.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS FOR TSDF SITE 31, FRACTIONAL DISTILLATION UNIT ONE
I
1—»
CO
Initial charge
to reboi ler

Const! tuent
Methy 1 ethy 1 ketone
2, 2-Di methyl oxirane
Methano 1
Methy lene chloride
Isopropano 1
Carbon tetrach 1 or i de
1,1, 1-Tri ch loroethane
Other VO
Total VOC
Mass,
kg
900
190
110
93
57
51
21
64
1,400
Cone . ,
ppmw
30,000
6,400
3,500
3,100
1,900
1,700
710
2,200
49,000
Final
aqueous residue
from reboi 1 er
Mass,
kg
<0 . 3
<0.3
<0.3
<0 . 3
<0.3
<0 . 3
15
<0 . 9
15
Cone . ,
ppmw
<10b
<10b
<10b
<10b
<10b
<10b
530
<30
530
Fi na 1
overhead
condensate
Mass,
kg
900
190
110
93
57
51
6
63
1,400
Cone .
D i st i 1 1 at i on
organ i c
, efficiency,
ppmw
640,
140,
78,
66,
41,
36,
4,
45,
1 , 000 ,
000
000
000
000
000
000
300
000
000
wt
>99.
>99.
>99.
>99.
>99.
>99.
29
>98
>99

emi ssions,3
% Mg/yr
97
8
7
.7
,5
,4



2,
0.
0,
0
0
0
0
0
4
,5
.52
.30
.26
.16
.14
.017
.17
.1
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
VO = Volatile organics.
aCondenser and product accumulator vent emissions.  Condensate receiver vent emissions were negligible.
bConstituent concentration below detection  limit.
cSum of VO identified by gas chrornatography.

-------
           TABLE F-81.  SOURCE TESTING RESULTS FOR TSDF SITE 31, FRACTIONAL DISTILLATION UNIT TWO
In i t i a 1 charge
to rebo i 1 er

Const! tuent
Acetone
Tr i ch 1 oroethane
1,1, 1-Tr i ch 1 oroethane
To 1 uene
Methy 1 ethy 1 ketone
Isopropano 1
Xylene and ethyl benzene
Total VOC
Mass,
kg
2,400
110
32
31
26
5.0
3.3
2,600
Cone . ,
ppmw
212,000
9,500
2,800
2,700
2,300
440
290
230,000
Final
aqueous residue
from reboi ler
Mass ,
kg
6.0
<0.09
<0.09
<0.09
<0.09
0.11
<0.09
6.1
Cone . ,
ppmw
690
<10b
<10b
<10b
<10b
13
<10b
700
Final
overhead
condensate
Mass,
kg
2,400
110
32
31
26
4.9
3.3
2,600
Cone
Di sti 1 1 ati on
organ i c
. . ef f i c i ency ,
ppmw
923
42
12
12
10
1
1
1,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,900
,300
,000
wt %
99.
>99.
>99.
>99.
>99.
98
97
99.
.7
.9
.7
.7
,6


8
Process a i r
emi ss i ons, a
x 103
74
3
0
0
0
0.
0,
80
Mg/yr

.4
.98
.95
.80
.15
.10

TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
VO = Volatile organics.
aCondenser, condensate receiver, and product accumulator vent emissions.
bConstituent concentration below detection  limit.
cSum of VO identified by gas chromatography.

-------
surface application plot were  slightly  greater  than  those  from the subsur-

face application plot.  After  the  first  tilling episode  (2 days after  the

initial application), the cumulative measured emissions  seemed to  be

slightly greater for the subsurface application plot throughout the remain-

der of the test period.  The total cumulative measured emissions were

14 percent greater from Plot C than from Plot A.   Similarly,  the estimated

total emissions from Plot C  (39.0  kg) were  17 percent greater than the
total for Plot A (33.3 kg) for the 5-week test  period.   Therefore,  based on

the test data, there is no reduction in  annual  emissions resulting from

subsurface injection at this location.

F.3  REFERENCES
1.   Allen,  C., J. Coburn, D. Green, and  K. Leese  (Research Triangle Insti-
     tute).   Site Visits of Aerated and  Nonaerated Surface Impoundments--
     Draft Summary Report.  Prepared for  U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency.  Research Triangle Park, NC.   EPA  Contract  No. 68-03-3253.
     June 2, 1987.

2.   Method 624--Purgeables,  49 FR 209.  p.  141,  October  26, 1984.

3.   Method 625--Base/Neutrals and Acids, 49 FR  209, p.  153,  October 26,
     1984.

4.   Research Triangle Institute.  Site  Visit Report for Visit  to  Interna-
     tional  Technologies Corporation, Martinez,  California, August  18,
     1987.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Cincinnati,
     OH.   EPA Contract No. 68-03-3253.   66  p.

5.   Coburn, J. (Research Triangle Institute).   Site Visit Report  for Visit
     to Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Lake Charles, Louisiana,  July  21,
     1987.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Research
     Triangle Park,  NC.   EPA Contract No. 68-03-3253.  33  p.

6.   Reference 5,  p.  13.

7.   Reference 5,  p.  13.

8.   Green,  D.  (Research Triangle  Institute).   Site  Visit  Report for Visit
     to Texas Eastman Company,  Longview,  Texas,  July 21, 1987.  Prepared
     for  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research  Triangle Park,  NC.
     EPA  Contract  No. 68-03-3253.  25 p.

9.   Reference 8,  p.  10.

10.   Reference 8,  p.  13.
                                   F-180

-------
11.   Seely,  D.  E.,  and R.  Roat (GCA Corporation).  First Chemical Corpora-
     tion  Wastewater Holding Lagoon Field Study.  Draft Final Report.
     Prepared for U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  Research Triangle
     Park,  NC.   GCA-WR-4698.  August  1986.  285 p.

12.   Reference  11,  p.  2-5.

13.   Reference  11,  p.  7.

14.   Reference  11,  p.  59.

15.   Radian Corporation.   Hazardous Waste Treatment,  Storage and Disposal
     Facility Area  Sources,  VOC Air Emissions.  Volume 1.   Prepared for
     U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.  Research  Triangle Park, NC.
     EMB Report 85-HWS.   December 1984.  90 p.

16.   ASTM  D3370.   Practices  for Sampling Water.  In:   1985 Annual Book of
     ASTM  Standards, Section 11,  Water and Environmental Technology, Vol.
     11.01,  Water (I).  American  Society for Testing  and Materials.
     Philadelphia,  PA.  1985.

17.   Radian Corporation.   Hazardous Waste Treatment,  Storage and Disposal
     Facility Area  Sources.   VOC  Air  Emissions.  Draft Report.   Prepared
     for U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, NC.
     DCN 87-222-078-17-13.   January 1987.  108 p.

18.   Radian Corporation.   Evaluation  of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste
     Treatment,  Storage  and  Disposal  Facilities in Support of the RCRA Air
     Emission Regulatory  Impact Analysis (RIA):  Data Volume for Site 4 and
     Site  5.   Prepared for  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.
     Cincinnati,  OH.  DCN 83-203-001-63-19.  January  11, 1984.   454 p.

19.   Reference  1.

20.   Graven,  J.  T.,  et al.   Method Development for the Determination of
     Trace Levels  of Formaldehyde in  Polluted  Waters.  In:  Formaldehyde
     Analytical  Chemistry and  Toxicology, Turaski,  V.,  (ed.).  Washington,
     DC, American  Chemical  Society.   1985.

21.   Green,  D.,  and  B. Eklund.   Field Assessment of the Fate of Volatile
     Organics in  Aerated Waste Treatment Systems.  In:   Proceedings of the
     13th  Annual  Research Symposium on Land Disposal, Remedial  Action and
     Treatment  of  Hazardous  Waste.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.
     Publication  No. EPA/600/9-87/015.  July 1987.

22.   Memorandtmr from Green,  David, RTI, to Docket.   November 16, 1987.
     Field  test  data from activated sludge wastewater treatment system at a
     synthetic  organic chemical manufacturing  plant.

23.   Warn,  T. E., and  S. O'Brien  (GCA Technology Division, Inc.).  Techni-
     cal Assistance  in Evaluating Acrylonitrile Emissions  from an
     Acrylonitrile Source.   Draft Final Report.  Prepared  for U.S.
     Environmental Protection  Agency.   Atlanta, GA.  EPA Contract No.
     68-02-3892.  June 1986.   41  p.

                                   F-181

-------
24.  Standard Methods for the  Examination  of  Water  and  Wastewater (16th
     Edition).   (Complete reference will be added.)
25.
26.
27.
28.
Reference
Reference
Reference
Nelson, T.
22,
22,
22,
P.
P-
P-
P-
, B
9.
10.
11.
. M.
                           Eklund, and  R. G.  Wetherold  (Radian  Corporation).
     Field Assessment of Surface  Impoundment  Air  Emissions  and Their
     Control Using an Inflated Dome and Carbon  Adsorption System.   Prepared
     for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Cincinnati,  OH.   DCN 85-
     203-023-33-01.  August 6, 1985.   266 p.

29.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   Determination of Stack  Gas
     Velocity and Volumetric  Flow Rate (Type  5  Pitot Tube),  EPA  Method 2,
     Environment Report.   December 5,  1980.   p. 23-33.

30.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   Sample  and  Velocity  Traverses
     for Stationary Sources,  EPA Method 1, Environment  Report.   December 5,
     1980.  p. 23-26.

31.  Alsop, G. M., R. L. Berglund, T.  W. Siegrist,  G. M. Whipple, and B. E.
     Wilkes (Union Carbide Corporation).  Fate  of Specific  Organics in an
     Industrial Biological Wastewater  Treatment Plant.   Prepared  for U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Cincinnati,  OH.   EPA Contract No.
     CR81028501.  June 29, 1984.  293  p.

32.  Berglund, R. L., and  G.  M. Whipple (Union  Carbide  Corporation).
     Predictive Modeling of Air Emissions of  Organic Compounds  from a Full-
     Scale Petrochemical Wastewater Treatment Facility.   (Presented at
     American Institute of Chemical Engineers Meeting.   August  24-27,
     1986.)  45 p.

33.  Reference 32, Table 1.

34.  Radian Corporation.   Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,  and Disposal
     Facility Area Sources--VOC Air Emissions.  Prepared for U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park,  NC.  EMB
     Report 85-HWS-l.  May 1985.  54 p.

35.  Reference 15.

36.._	Reference 17.

37.  Radian Corporation.   Evaluation of Air  Emissions from  Hazardous Waste
     Treatment,  Storage, and  Disposal  Facilities  in Support of the  RCRA Air
     Emission Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA):   Data Volume for Site 2.
     Prepared for U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Cincinnati, OH.
     DCN 84-203-001-63-24.  (Undated).  337 p.
                                   F-182

-------
38.   Reference  18.

39.   Radian  Corporation.   Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
     Facility Area  Sources.   VOC Air Emissions.  Prepared for U.S.
     Environmental  Protection Agency.   Research Triangle Park,  NC.  DCN 85-
     222-078-17-09.   January 25, 1985.   141 p.

40.   Reference  17.

41.   Reference  18.

42.   Reference  39.

43.   Reference  17,  p.  30.

44.   Reference  17,  p.  32.

45.   Ricciardel1i,  A.  J.,  et al.  Summary Report:  1986 Landfarm Simulator
     Program.   Chevron Corporation, Richmond,  CA.  July 24,  1987.  348 p.
46.
47.
48.
49.

50.
51,
     Gouw,  T.  H.,  K.  K.  Torres,  and A. J. Ricciardel1i.   The Modified Oven
     Drying Technique:   A New Method to Determine Oil, Water, and Solids in
     Oily Waste.   International  Journal of Environmental Analytical
     Chemistry.   27(3):165-182.   1986.

     Radian Corporation.   Assessment of Air Emissions  from a Laboratory
     Land Treatment Facility, Volume I.  Final Report.  Prepared for U.S.
     Environmental  Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park,  NC.  August
     1987.   220  p.

     Dupont,  R.  R.,  and  J.  A. Reinemon (Utah Water Research Laboratory).
     Evaluation  of  Volatilization of Hazardous Constituents at Hazardous
     Waste  Land  Treatment Sites.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental
     Protection  Agency.   Ada, OK.  Publication No. EPA/600/2-86/071.
     August 1986.   157  p.
     Reference 48,  p.  47,

     Eklund,  B.  M.,  T.  P,
     Field  Assessment  of
     Treatment Facility.
     Agency.   Cincinnati,
     330  p.
 Nelson, and R. G
Air Emissions and
 Prepared for U.S
,  Wetherold  (Radian  Corporation).
 Their  Control  at  a  Refinery  Land
,  Environmental  Protection
                          OH.   DCN 86-222-078-15-07.  September 12, 1986.
     EPA  Method  413.1.   (Gravimetric,  separatory funnel extraction), Method
     for  oil  and grease,  total,  recoverable.  In:  Technical Addition to
     Methods  for Chemical  Analysis of Water and Wastes.  Environmental
     Monitoring  Systems  Laboratory,  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.
     Publication No.  EPA-600/4-84-017.   March 1984.  p. 413.1-1 - 413.1-3.

52.   Reference 50,  p.  145.
                                   F-183

-------
53.  Reference 19.
54.
55.

56.



57.


58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.

64.

65.
Osbourn,  S., et al.  (GCA Corporation).   Air  Emissions  from Land
Treatment — Emissions  Data  and Model  Review.   Draft  Technical  Note.
Prepared  for U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   Research  Triangle
Park,  NC.  Contract  No. 68-01-6871,  Assignment  No.  49.   August  1985.
p. 4-33.

Reference 54, p. B-31 through B-34.

Radian Corporation.   Assessment  of  Hydrocarbon  Emissions from Land
Treatment of Refinery Oily Sludges.   Final Report.   Prepared  for
.American  Petroleum Institute.  Washington, DC.   June 1983.   112 p.
Method 21 from Agriculture Handbook  No.  60.
added.)
'Ful1  reference  wi11 be
ASTM D854-54.  Standard Method  for  Specific Gravity  of  Soils,  1985
Annual Book of ASTM Standard, Section 4,  Construction,  Vol.  4.08, Soil
and Rock; Building Stones.  American Society  for  Testing  and
Materials.  Philadelphia, PA.   1985.  p.  212-215.

ASTM D422.  Standard Method for  Particle-Size  Analysis  of Soils.  In:
1985 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4,  Construction,  Vol.
4.08, Soil and Rock; Building Stones.  American Society for  Testing
and Materials.  Philadelphia, PA.   1985.   p.  117-128.

ASTM D2487.  Standard Test Method for Classification  of Soils  for
Engineering Purposes.  In:  1985 Annual  Book  of ASTM  Standards,
Section 4, Construction, Vol. 4.08, Soil  and  Rock; Building  Stones.
American Society for Testing and Materials.   Philadelphia, PA.   1985.
p. 395-408.

ASTM D2974.  Standard Test Methods  for Moisture,  Ash, and Organic
Matter of Peat Materials.  In:   1985 Annual Book  of  ASTM  Standards,
Section 4, Construction, Vol. 4.08, Soil  and  Rock; Building  Stones.
American Society for Testing and Materials.   Philadelphia, PA.   1985.
p. 497-498.

EPA Method 413.2.  (Spectre-photometric,  Infrared), Method for  Oil and
Grease, Total Recoverable.  In:  Technical Addition  to  Methods  for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.   Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency.  Publication
No. EPA-600/4-84-017.  March 1984.  p. 413.2-1    413.2-3.

Reference 54, p. B-7'5 through B-79.

Reference 54, p. B-75 through B-79.

Weldon, R. (Suntech, Inc.).  Atmospheric  Emissions from Oily  Waste
Landspreading.  Prepared for American Petroleum Institute.
Washington, DC.  Project SWM-8(563).  April 1980.  63 p.
                                   F-184

-------
66.   Reference  65,  p.  10,  and Reference 54,  p.  4-3.

67.   Reference  65,  p.  23.

68.   Reference  15.

69.   Reference  15,  p.  2-39.

70.   Radian  Corporation.   Evaluation of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste
     Treatment,  Storage,  and Disposal  Facilities in Support of the RCRA Air
     Emission  Regulatory  Impact Analysis (RIA).   Data Volume for Site 6.
     Prepared  for U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency.   Cincinnati, OH.
     DCN  84-203-001-63-23.   February 21, 1984.   153 p.

71.   Reference  39.

72.   Reference  39,  p.  2-60.

73.   Reference  39.

74.   Reference  39,  p.  2-49.

75.   Reference  28.

76.   Baker/TSA,  Inc.   Tyson's Dump Site Leachate Treatability Study.
     Draft.   Prepared  for NUS Corporation.   NUS  Subcontract No.  Z0830907.
     February  1986.   58 p.

77.   Reference  28.
78.   Reference  28,  p.  53.

79.   Reference  28,  p.  55.
80.
81,
     Harkins,  S.  M.,  C.  C.
     Triangle  Institute) .
     Control:   Field  Tests
     G.   Prepared for U.S.
     OH.   EPA  Contract No.
     75  p.
Allen,  C. M. Northeim, and D. A. Green (Research
Hazardous Waste Pretreatment for Emissions
of Steam Stripping/ Carbon Adsorption at Plant
Environmental Protection Agency.  Cincinnati,
68-02-3253,  Work Assignment No. 5.   August 1986.
     Branscome,  M.,  S.  Harkins,  and K.  Leese (Research Triangle Institute).
     Field  Test  and  Evaluation of the Steam-Stripping Process at Occidental
     Chemical,  Belle,  West Virginia.   Prepared for U.S. Environmental
     Protection  Agency.   Cincinnati,  OH.   EPA Contract No. 68-03-3253, Work
     Assignment  1-6.   March 13,  1987.  129 p.

82.   Reference 81, p.  6-21.
                                   F-185

-------
83.  Research Triangle Institute.  Field Test and Evaluation of the  Steam
     Stripping Process at B. F. Goodrich, La Porte, Texas.  Prepared for
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Cincinnati, OH.  EPA Contract
     No. 68-03-3253, Work Assignment 1-6.  December 5,  1986.  91 p.

84.  Reference 83, p. 39.

85.  Reference 82.

86.  EPA Method 601.  Purgeable Halocarbons.  Environmental Monitoring
     Systems Laboratory,  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  July 1982.

87.  Reference 83.

88.  Reference 11.

89.  Allen,  C. C. (Research Triangle Institute).  Hazardous Waste Pretreat-
     ment for Emissions Control:  Tests of a Direct Injection Steam
     Stripper at Plant D.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency.  Cincinnati, OH.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-3992, Work Assignment
     35.  January 1986.

90.  Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.  Post Sampling Report for Olin Chemical,
     Rochester,  New York.  Draft.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.  September 1986.  65 p.

91.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Method  18--Measurement of
     Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography.  In:  Code
     of Federal  Regulations.  Title 40, part 60, Appendix A.  July 1, 1986.
     p. 677986.

92.  EPA Method 8240.  Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry for Volatile
     Organics.  In:   Test Methods for Evaluating Solid  Waste, Vol. IB,
     Laboratory Manual for Physical/Chemical Methods,  34th ed.  Office of
     Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  SW-846.  November
     1986.  p. 8240-1 - 8240-42.

93.  Reference 76.

94.  Harkins,  S., C. Allen, and C. Northeim (Research Triangle Institute).
     Pilot-Scale Evaluation of a Thin-Film Evaporator for Volatile Organic
     Removal from Petroleum Refinery Wastes.  Prepared  for U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Cincinnati, OH.  EPA Contract No.
     68-02-3253,  Work Assignment 1-6.  April 1987.  404 p.

95.  Roeck,  D.,  N. Pangaro, J. Schlosstein, and S. Morris  (Alliance  Tech-
     nologies Corporation).  Performance Evaluations of Existing Treatment
     Systems:   Site-Specific Sampling Report for KDM Company, San Antonio,
     Texas.   Draft Final  Report.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental
     Protection  Agency.  Cincinnati,  OH.  EPA Contract  No. 68-03-3243, Work
     Assignment  No.  1.  November 1986.   148 p.
                                   F-186

-------
96.
97.
ASTM D1744.
1985 Annual
Lubricants,
Lubricants (II).
Philadelphia, PA.
 Test Method for Water
Book of ASTM Standards
and Fossil  Fuels,  Vol.
      American Society for Testing
       1985.
in Liquid Petroleum Products.   In
 Section 5,  Petroleum Products,
5.02,  Petroleum Products and
            and Materials.
Allen, C. (Research Triangle Institute
(Associated Technologies, Inc.).
Pretreatment as an Air Pollution
Environmental Protection Agency.
68-03-3149-25-1.  January 1986.
                            and S. Simpson and G. Brant
                      Field Evaluations of Hazardous Waste
                     Control Technique.  Prepared for U.S.
                      Cincinnati, OH.  EPA Contract No.
                     156 p.
98.   Reference 97.

99.   Reference 95.

100.  Allen,  C. C.  (Research Triangle Institute).  Hazardous Waste Pretreat-
     ment for Emissions Control:  Field Tests of Fractional Distillation at
     Plant B.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
     Cincinnati,  OH.   EPA Contract No.  68-02-3992,  Work Assignment No.  35.
     January 1986.

101.  Reference 50.
                                   F-187

-------
                  APPENDIX G



EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND CONTINUOUS MONITORING

-------
                                APPENDIX  G
              EMISSION  MEASUREMENT  AND CONTINUOUS  MONITORING

G.I     EMISSION MEASUREMENT  METHODS
G.I.I   Sampling
    The purpose of the volatile  organic  (VO)  test method  is  to  gain an
understanding of the VO  emission potential  of a  particular waste.   The
accuracy of any analytical result becomes irrelevant  if the  sample  is  not
representative of the total  waste.   A  representative  sample  is  defined  as a
small amount of waste that has the same VO  per unit weight as the  average
of a much larger amount  of waste.  Included in the  test method  will  be
guidance in proper sampling  and  storage techniques  to obtain a  representa-
tive sample while minimizing VO  loss during sample  collection.
    The primary emphasis  to  date has been in  identifying  proper procedures
for  sampling liquid wastes from  a pipe.   This is anticipated to represent
the  majority of the regulatory need.   The following discussion  provides
insight into the current  status  of this aspect of the VO  test method
development.
    There are two problems with  sampling  from a  pipe:
    a.  The first is nonhomogeneity of  the waste. A sample of a
nonhomogeneous waste extracted from  a  wall  tap would  probably be biased.
Turbulent flow creates a  mixing  action that will homogenize  single-phase
waste,  but may not be enough to  disperse  and  homogenize a multiphase waste.
    b.  The second problem is that VO can  volatilize during sample
collection.  EMB has investigated VO loss from the  handling, storage,  and
transfer of synthetic waste  and  has  found significant losses for compounds
                                    G-3

-------
with low solubility and high volatility.   This investigation indicates a
need to provide guidance in the test method to minimize this potential VO
loss.  Two types of sampling systems were considered to minimize these
potential problems.  These are discussed  below.
    A closed loop sampling system was considered because of its ability to
sample representatively.  The entire waste stream is diverted to a bypass
loop.  After purging the bypass loop with the waste, the waste is directed
back through the waste line and the bypass loop is removed by a series of
valves with the sample sealed inside.  The sample container is essentially
a length of pipe capped at both ends.  Because an entire cross section of
the waste stream is collected, the problem of nonhomogeneity of the waste
stream is- eliminated.   The closed loop sampler does not leave a messy
sampling site or expose the waste sample  to the air; thus,  VO loss is
minimized.  The sample loop can be shipped in ice to a lab for VO analysis.
The closed loop sampling system works for the on-site tester but creates  a
problem for the lab.  The lab must mix and aliquot a representative
subsample while restricting VO loss.  The actual  sample container would
also have to be designed to withstand potential  extremes in pressure and
temperature and to minimize back pressure during sample collection.
    The second system  considered was installation of a static mixer with
the sample collected from a wall tap down stream of the mixer.   This
arrangement offers the tester more flexibility in the type of sample
container used.  A literature search has  shown that properly designed
static mixers are capable of dispersing and mixing an oily phase or a solid
slurry into an aqueous phase.  The static mixer can be installed in the
sample line or in a bypass line.  The cost of the mixers range from $500  to
$5000, depending on materials and size.  Once the phases are fully
dispersed and homogenized, a tap sample is representative of the waste.
Another advantage to this approach over using the closed loop sampler is
that the sample containers can be less sophisticated, inexpensive, and more
reliable.  However, there is now exposure to the atmosphere during
collection, so that precautions are needed to minimize VO losses.
                                   G-4

-------
   The sampling protocol will  recommend  a properly designed static mixer
with the sample extracted from  a  wall  tap after the mixer as the preferred
method for sampling  for  VO.   Guidance  on  what constitutes a properly
designed static mixer  and the acceptable  location of the wall  tap will be
provided in the test method.  To  minimize VO loss during sample collection,
the method will require  the  sample  to  be  cooled to <4 °C (40 °F) with a
stainless steel cooling  coil  in an  ice bath.  After exiting the cooling
coil, the waste will flow through a Teflon-- tube to the bottom of a chilled
sampling container.  If  the  VO  test method is a headspace analysis, the
sample collection  container  will  also  be  the container used in the
analysis, and  there  would be no transfer  of sample.  If the VO test method
requires the sample  to be transferred  to  another container, then the volume
of the sampling container will  be defined as the volume needed for the
analysis, and  homogenizing and  subsampling the sample in the lab will not
be necessary.  This  also means  that the sample can be stored with no
headspace.

G.I.2  Analytical  Approach
   The analytical approach  chosen  to  measure volatile emissions from waste
was to develop a two-part method.  First, the VO would be separated from
the waste, then the  VO would be measured  by a suitable analytical
technique.
   The separation step  was  considered to be advantageous for two reasons:
   a. By choosing a separation process based on the waste components vapor
pressure, the  separation step can be used to test what constitutes the
waste's volatile fraction.   By  investigating different volatile separation
techniques and varying the physical  parameters of the chosen technique, the
separation's removal efficiency might  be  matched or correlated with the
emission potential from  a variety of hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities  (TSDF).
   b. Once the waste's  volatile  fraction has been separated,  analyzing for
organic constitutents  in the volatile  fraction is much easier.  Organic
analysis of whole  waste  samples is  plagued with difficulties because of a
                                    G-5

-------
host of interfering components and unfavorable physical characteristics.
The separated volatile fraction can be analyzed as either a vapor in a
carrier gas,  condensed as a pure compound, mixed with a carrier solvent, or
adsorbed on a solid adsorbent.  Any of these sample matrices would be free
from a majority of the analytical  difficulties encountered with whole
waste.
    Because the final  decision as  to whether to monitor for specific com-
pounds, total organics, or a combination of both has not- been made, several
measurement techniques have been considered.  If it is decided that only
individual compounds are to be monitored, then the solid waste methods in
SW-846 would provide validated methods for all Appendix IX compounds.
These methods could be applied directly to the waste or adapted to analyze
the volatile fraction separated during the test method.
    Two different techniques have  been investigated to provide a total
organic analysis of the separated  volatile fraction.  The first technique
collects the volatile fraction in  or on a suitable media, such as a Tedlar--
bag or charcoal adsorbent for organic vapors and water for condensed
organics.  The collected fraction  is then analyzed first by a commercially
available total organic carbon analyzer, and then by a commercially
available total halogen analyzer.   The amount of carbon as methane and
halogen as chlorine are added to approximate the total organic in the
volatile fraction.
    The second technique is to analyze the separated fraction immediately
after the separation thereby eliminating the collection step.  This
technique should substantially improve the method's precision and provide
immediate results.  All the separation techniques considered involve a step
in which the volatile components are in the vapor phase.  A representative
sample of this vapor fraction can  be analyzed continuously or periodically
throughout the separation with a combined total  carbon and total halogen
analyzer developed for this test method.  The total organic analyzer, based
on a flame ionization detector (FID) design, provides a signal throughout
the separation process, whereas the total halogen analyzer traps the
halogen ions in a solution that can be monitored electrochemically during
                                    G-6

-------
the separation or titrated  at  the  end  of  the  separation.   Again,  the amount
of carbon and halogen are added  to approximate  the total  organic  in the
volatile fraction.

   6.1.2.1.  Evaluation Approach.  The three  proposed analytical  techniques
were evaluated in the following  general manner.   Six waste types  were
identified as representing  a typical range  of waste handled by TSDF.  These
waste types were single-phase  dilute aqueous  waste, multiphase aqueous
waste, aqueous sludge waste, organic sludge waste, organic waste,  and solid
waste.  Six synthetic wastes were  prepared  to represent the six waste
types.
   Each synthetic waste contained varying  concentrations of nine organic
compounds chosen to  represent  different chemical  classes  with a range of
physical characteristics.   Two chlorinated  compounds were chosen:  methylene
chloride, a chloroalkane with  a  very high vapor pressure, and
chlorobenzene, a halogenated aromatic  compound  with a much lower  vapor
pressure.  Three hydrocarbons  were chosen:  isooctane, an  alkane with a high
vapor pressure; toluene, an aromatic with a lower vapor pressure;  and
naphthalene,  a polynuclear  aromatic with  a  low  vapor pressure.  Three
oxygenated hydrocarbons were chosen: 2-butanone,  a ketone with a  high vapor
pressure; 1-butanol, an alcohol  with a high vapor pressure; and phenol, an
aromatic alcohol with a low vapor  pressure.  One nitrogen-containing
organic compound was chosen: pyridine, an aromatic amine  with a medium
vapor pressure.  The actual volatilities  and  relative volatilities of these
compounds depend on  the waste  matrix and  the  environmental conditions.
   The three separation techniques were  evaluated under  a variety of
operating conditions.  These conditions include batch steam distillation
with a distillate volume varying from  1 percent to 40 percent of  the total
waste volume  (1 to 40 percent  boil over);  purge  and trap at 25 °C  and 90 °C
with purge volumes varying  from  8  to 49 times the waste volume; and
equilibrium headspace at 25 °C,  50 °C,  75 °C, and 90 °C.   Each of the six
synthetic wastes was tested under  each set  of conditions  in triplicate, for
a  total of 54 tests.
                                    G-7

-------
    The percent recovery for each compound from each waste was determined
as a function of some physical parameter of the technique's operating
conditions.  Percent recovery is defined as the fraction of the initial
amount of a compound added to a waste recovered in the distillate, charcoal
traps, or headspace after separation from the waste. The variable parameter
was one that controlled the degree of severity of the separation process.-
For example, temperature was varied for headspace analysis, a combination
of temperature and purge volume was varied for elevated temperature purge-
and-trap, and volume of distillate or boil over was varied for batch steam
distillation.  Because a recovery profile was generated for each
technique's set of operating conditions, a matching of the recovery from a
specific technique and set of operating conditions with the predicted
volatile emissions from a source category or type could be attempted at a
later date.  The recovery profile also allowed a single technique to be
evaluated as a way to test several different waste treatment technologies.
For example, the recovery for steam distillation with a boil over of 10
percent may match the emission potential of a surface impoundment; however,
a steam distillation of 20 percent may be needed to match the emission
potential of a land farm.
    G.I.2.2  Separation Technique Evaluation.  The batch steam distillation
evaluation consisted of distilling 250 to 500 ml of synthetic waste or
waste plus water, with water being added if the waste matrix were not
aqueous.  Condensate fractions were collected and analyzed at different
points during the distillation.  The waste's pH was initially made basic
and then acidic after 20 percent of the sample had been removed.  In
addition to the condensate fractions, the vapors leaving the distillation
apparatus were collected in a Tedlar bag, and the condenser was rinsed with
solvent to remove solids and adsorbed organics.
    The purge-and-trap technique initially purged approximately 7 mL of
waste suspended in 18 mL of water.  The waste was buffered at a pH of 8 and
purged for 10 min at 25 °C and a flow rate of 20 mL/min.  The organics
removed were trapped on charcoal-adsorbent traps.  The temperature was then
raised to 90 °C,  and the waste was purged for another 10 min.  Finally, the
                                     6-8

-------
waste was purged a third  time  for 40  min,  for a total  purge time of 60 min.
The adsorbent traps were  changed  after each purge step,  extracted with a
mixture of carbon disulfide  and acetone,  and analyzed.
   For the headspace  analysis, 10 g  of synthetic waste  was added to a 4-oz
(115-mL) glass jar sealed with a  Teflon-coated septum.  The jar was placed
in a constant temperature bath and allowed to equilibrate for 1 h.  A
volume of the headspace .was  then  removed  and analyzed.  A separate sample
was prepared "for each  temperature.
   After testing each technique,  it  was  confirmed that  the recoveries
varied widely between  techniques,  varied  predictably with separation
parameters, and varied with  compound  class.
   The highest recoveries in  all  cases were achieved with steam
distillation. As one would expect, recoveries increased  with the amount of
distillate boiled over.   For most waste types,  the bulk  of the organic
compound was recovered before  10  percent  boil over.  The  water-soluble
compounds with the lowest vapor pressures  (phenol  and pyridine) were the
only compounds  still  being  recovered in  significant amounts after 10
percent boil over.
   The purge-and-trap technique  obtained  the next highest recoveries.
Very little of the water-soluble  compounds was recovered at 25 °C.
Increasing the temperature to  90  °C drastically increased the recovery for
water soluble compounds 2-butanone, 1-butanol,  and pyridine.  Phenol was
never recovered to any extent  with this technique.  The  nonpolar compounds
were recovered completely either  at 25 °C  or after 10 min at 90 °C, except
for naphthalene whose  recovery was generally low (especially in organic
waste).
   The headspace analysis obtained the lowest overall recoveries during
the evaluations.  An increase  in  recovery  was found for  all waste between
the 25 °C, 50 °C, and  75  °C  headspace analysis; however, most of the waste
results showed little  or  no  increase  in recovery between 75 °C and 90 °C.
In general, the recoveries for the organic waste were 5  to 10 times lower
than for the other waste  types.   Like the  purge-and-trap data, the water-
soluble compounds were not recovered  at 25 °C.    Recovery  of phenol was
very low for most of the  waste types  even  at 90 °C.
                                   G-9

-------
    The general trend found between waste types for all three techniques
was that the organic matrix waste retarded the removal of the nonpolar
compounds and required more severe separation parameters to remove the same
percentage as in an aqueous waste.  Recovery of polar compounds from an
organic matrix was slightly higher than from an aqueous matrix.  For the
steam distillation, recoveries were higher for the solid matrix than for
all other waste forms, except for the multiphase waste.  Although the
multiphase liquid waste gave the highest overall recoveries for both the
steam distillation and the headspace techniques, it gave the second to the
lowest recoveries for the purge-and-trap technique.  The headspace
recoveries for a solid waste were lower than for the aqueous waste and
higher than for the organic waste.  For the purge-and-trap evaluation,  the
lowest recoveries were found for the solid waste.
    Several general trends were also found for compound classes during all
the technique evaluations. The compounds with lowest solubility were the
first to be removed.  Thus, the nonpolar compounds were generally the
easiest to recover because most of the waste types either contained water
or were mixed with water before testing.  Vapor pressure appeared to have
little influence, with naphthalene being recovered more easily than
methylene chloride for many wastes.   In organic waste, however,  a direct
relationship existed between vapor pressure and removal efficiency for
nonpolar compounds.  Of all the polar compounds, the two compounds known to
dissociate appreciably in water (phenol and pyridine)  were the most
difficult to recover.  Recoveries for all  the polar compounds increased in
organic waste types compared to the aqueous waste  types.
    Repeatability for each technique was evaluated by testing each
synthetic waste in triplicate.  By using the relative standard deviation
(RSD) of the percent recovery for each compound at each point in a test, an
estimate of the laboratory variability was made.  The RSD of the final
recoveries for the steam distillation ranged from 10 percent to 25 percent,
with the greatest RSD found for the dilute aqueous waste where
concentrations were the lowest.  The variability for recoveries of
individual compounds at points during the distillation were slightly higher
                                   G-10

-------
than the variability at the 40 percent  boil over.
   Variability of the purge-and-trap recoveries  was  greater than that for
steam distillation, with a range  of  5 to  55 percent RSD for recoveries at
90 °C after a 60-min purge time.   Unlike  the variability of steam
distillation, variability of  the  intermediate recoveries for the purge-and-
trap technique were lower than the variability of the recoveries after a
60-min purge at 90 °C, and the waste form with the highest concentration
(multiphase aqueous waste) showed the greatest variability in recoveries.
Even so, the compounds with the  lowest  recoveries consistently had the
highest variabilities.
   The headspace technique provided the  most consistent results.
Variability for most of the recoveries  was below  10 percent.  Recoveries
for the test at 25 °C  showed  the  greatest variabilities.  Solid waste
showed the greatest variability  of the  waste types because of the low
recoveries found.  The polar  compounds  showed the highest variability,
which again is a result of the  low recoveries found for the compounds using
the headspace technique.

G.2 MONITORING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES
   Because of the wide variability  and inconsistency of both the physical
and chemical characteristics  of  most waste process streams,  no continuous
monitors for VO are likely to be  available.   Continuous monitors available
to monitor proper operation and  maintenance of control  systems will  be
discussed after identification of potential  control  systems.

G.3 EMISSION TEST METHOD
   At this time, no recommendations can  be made  regarding a compliance
test method because the objective of such a test  method has still not been
fully defined and because of  the  shortcomings found in all the techniques
during the laboratory  evaluation.  What follows is a  discussion and
comparison of these techniques,  as well  as the current work and planning
being conducted to establish  an  acceptable compliance test method.
                                   6-11

-------
    Each technique was compared earlier with regards to recovery efficiency
and repeatability.  What was not mentioned are the problems and practical
considerations of each technique.
    Using percent recovery data alone to compare the techniques is not very
useful for several reasons.  The expected percent recovery for each
compound from each waste treatment technology has not been determined, so
the desired recovery efficiency is unknown.  Another problem is that the
percent recoveries calculated during the evaluation may not always
represent what was removed from the waste.  For certain waste types, the
initial waste concentration and the final waste residue concentrations were
determined.  From these numbers, the percent removal could be calculated
and compared with the percent recovered.  In the case of the steam
distillation test, a consistent discrepancy was found between the amount
removed and the amount recovered, with the mass balance for nonpolar
compounds showing a loss from the system.  Similar problems were
encountered with the purge-and-trap evaluation.  The apparent loss of VO
during the test could be a result of volatile loss during sample prepara-
tion, storage, and handling, or it could be a result of leakage from the
apparatus or loss during measurement.
    Experiments were conducted with two waste types to determine the
volatile loss of the nine compounds during waste preparation, storage, and
handling prior to the separation step.  The results indicate that for the
dilute aqueous waste only isooctance is significantly lost during
preparation and storage whereas significant amounts of seven of the nine
compounds are lost during handling.  No loss was found from the organic
waste during preparation, storage, or handling.  Because losses were
detected before the separation step with the synthetic waste, the better
compliance test would minimize the number of sample handling steps.  Of the
techniques evaluated,  headspace required the fewest handling steps.
    Leaks from the test apparatus were more difficult to evaluate
quantitatively.  Leaks were detected from the steam distillation apparatus
with a portable organic analyzer, but they could not be quantified.  For
steam distillation, several apparatus configurations and sealing materials
                                    G-12

-------
were  compared, and  the  measured  loss  remained constant.   This strongly
suggests that  leakage from  the apparatus  is a minor source of loss.  The
technique with the  simplest apparatus would be expected  to have the least
potential for  leakage;  again, the  headspace technique best fits that
description
   Measurement  losses  could result from  sample collection,  storage, and
handling of  the  collected volatiles after the separation step, calibration
errors  in the  analysis,  or  matrix  interferences during the analysis.  A
study is currently  being conducted to determine which (if any) of these
possible errors  could be contributing to  compound loss for the steam
distillation technique.  The condensate collection technique is being
changed to determine  if the recovery is affected by the  way the samples are
collected, handled,  and stored.   Matrix spike studies are also being
performed to determine  if any matrix effects are occurring dur.ing
condensate analysis.  Because measurements taken for the headspace
technique only require  a simple  gaseous injection, measurement error would
be minimized.
    From the standpoint of  cost  and complexity, the headspace technique
appears to be  the best  choice as a candidate compliance  test method. The
purge-and-trap technique would be  second  best, with steam distillation a
close third.  As the  evaluation  results show, removal efficiency is
inversely proportional  to the cost and complexity of the technique.
Although the headspace  technique may be easy to perform  and it may provide
good  measurement of the removed  organics, its low removal efficiencies may
prevent its  use  for waste facilities  where emission potential may demand a
more  severe  separation  technique.
   A fourth technique  is currently being evaluated that will combine some
of the  operational  ease and simplified measurements of the purge-and-trap
technique with the  more severe separation of the steam distillation
technique.   This method  is  a modification of the California Air Resource
Board Method 401 gravimetric purge-and-trap.  The basic  principle to its
operation is to  suspend  the waste  in  an organic matrix (dioctylphthalate)
and purge with a high purge flow rate (15 L/min) at approximately 100 °C.
                                    G-13

-------
The original method would require measuring the mass gain of a charcoal
trap used to collect the VO.  The proposed compliance method would lower
the detection limit and increase the volatility range by measuring the
removed VO with a continuous total organic analyzer or by analyzing the
charcoal trap's solvent extract.
    Once the gravimetric purge-and-trap technique is evaluated and the
required removal  efficiency is known,  the best candidate method or methods
will be chosen.  An optimization study will  be performed, followed by a
real waste evaluation.   Feasibility of method automation and simplification
will be investigated before the method is released in its final form.
                                   6-14

-------
                APPENDIX H




COSTING OF ADD-ON AND SUPPRESSION CONTROLS

-------
                                APPENDIX H
                COSTING OF ADD-ON AND SUPPRESSION CONTROLS

     The purposes  of this appendix are (1) to document the general approach
used in  developing detailed cost estimates for add-on emission control
technologies  that  could be applied to control air emissions from hazardous
waste treatment,  storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF),  (2) present a
specific example of add-on control cost development, and (3) summarize the
add-on control  costs.   The model units (presented in Appendix C) developed
for each TSDF waste management process served as the basis for the cost
analysis.   Detailed cost estimates were made for the types of add-on
control  devices listed in Chapter 4.0 (Table 4-2).  The total annual cost
for each control  technology has been divided by the appropriate model unit
throughput  to yield an estimated cost per megagram of waste managed.  The
ultimate use  of these costs is to estimate the nationwide cost of control-
ling organic  air emissions from TSDF.  This same costing approach described
here was used to develop detailed cost estimates for the organic removal
processes  presented in Appendix I.  The cost of incineration processes was
made using  a  different procedure, which is described briefly in Appendix I.
     The bases  for the costing method developed are (1) an EPA guidance
manual on  estimating the cost of air emission controls,! (2) a textbook,
Plant Design  and Economics for Chemical  Engineers,.2 and (3) a series of
articles in Chemical Engineering magazine.3-8  These sources identified the
total capital  investment, annual operating cost, and total annual cost
(i.e., annualized  cost) as the key elements of a cost estimate.  Section
H.I describes how  each of these key elements was costed.
     A specific example of the cost approach, the control  of organic ait-
emissions  from  an  aerated, uncovered hazardous waste treatment tank  via a
fixed roof  vented  to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber is presented in
                                    H-3

-------
Section H.2.  All costs are expressed in January 1986 dollars.  A specific
example of the cost approach for the organic removal processes is provided
in Section 1.2 of Appendix I.
     A summary of the total capital investment, annual operating cost, and
total annual cost for add-on controls applied to selected model units is
presented in Section H.3.  These results are based on detailed cost esti-
mates for each add-on control device found in the design and cost document
prepared as part of the TSDF project docket.9
H.I  COSTING APPROACH
H.I.I  Data
     For each detailed cost estimate, three cost tables are provided.  The
first table lists the major equipment items associated with the control
system and the capital cost of each item.  The second table lists any
required auxiliary equipment and their costs plus direct and indirect
installation charges.  The third table lists the direct and indirect annual
operating cost and the total annual cost.
H.I.2  Total Capital Investment
     The total capital investment for a control device includes all costs
required to purchase equipment, the costs of labor and materials for
installing the equipment (direct installation charges), costs of site
preparation and buildings, and indirect installation charges.  Items
normally included in the direct installation charges are foundations and
supports, erection and handling of equipment, electrical work, piping,
insulation, and painting.  Indirect installation charges include costs for
engineering, construction and field expenses, contractor fees, startup and
performance testing, and contingency expenses.10
     The major equipment items that constitute the control system and that
are necessary for its installation were costed for each model unit listed
in Appendix C.  The first table of each set of cost tables presents the
major equipment items.  The purchase cost, materials of construction, and
size of each item were obtained from vendor data, handbooks  (such as
Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook**), the literature, and plant trip
reports from numerous operating commercial facilities.  In general, the
purchase cost is "F.O.B.," meaning no taxes, freight, or installation
                                    H-4

-------
charges  are  included.   However,  in some instances, purchase cost data
obtained from a  vendor or other source does include taxes, freight, or
installation  charges.
     All purchase costs are expressed in January 1986 dollars.  If the cost
data obtained represent the cost at a different time, escalation factors
are used to  convert to 1986 dollars.   Table H-l presents the cost escala-
tion factors  used in this study.  The sum of the purchase costs for the
major equipment  items  is equal  to the base equipment cost.
     Once the base equipment cost is  determined, the purchased equipment
cost can be  computed.   The purchased  equipment cost includes the cost for
auxiliary equipment (e.g.,  pumps and  ductwork), instrumentation, freight,
and sales tax.13  Costs for pumps and ductwork are developed based on
information  obtained from vendors or  the literature and, when necessary, on
engineering  judgment.   If the costs for pumps and ductwork are found to be
a large  fraction of the purchased equipment cost, they are presented as a
separate item in the major equipment  list.
     The costs  for instrumentation, freight, and sales tax are factored
from the sum of  the base equipment cost and the auxiliary equipment cost.
The factors  used are listed in  Table  H-2.1^
     The direct  and indirect installation charges for each control device
are factored  directly  from the  purchased equipment cost and are based on
such considerations as:  (1) whether  the control device is delivered as a
packaged unit or requires field assembly, (2) the availability of utili
ties,  and (3)  whether  the equipment is to be outside or enclosed.  The cost
of site  preparation and buildings are based on information obtained from
vendors  and  other sources such  as cost manuals.15  The sum of the purchased
equipment cost,  direct installation charges, and indirect installation
charges  are  equal  to the total  capital investment.
H.I.3  Annual  Operating Costs
     The annual  operating cost  for a  control consists of direct and
indirect charges less  any recovery credits.  Recovery credits result from
the recovery  of  organics from the waste through the use of organic removal
processes such as  steam stripping, batch distillation, and thin-film
evaporation  equipped with control devices such as condensers, or fixed-bed
                                    H-5

-------
     TABLE H-l.   COST ADJUSTMENT MULTIPLIERS12

   Year                             Cost multipliera

1981 - 1986                              1.245
1982 - 1986                              1.095
1983 - 1986                              1.036
1984 - 1986                              1.027
1985 - 1986                              1.008

aThe cost adjustment multipliers were obtained from
 the Chemical  Engineering magazine plant cost index
 and were used as necessary in the costing process
 to adjust costs to January 1986 dollars.
       TABLE H-2.   FACTORS USED TO ESTIMATE
             PURCHASED EQUIPMENT COSTS

                             Value ( -  BEC +
                               a u x i 1 i a ry
     Item                      equipment)

     Instrumentation              10.0
     Freight                      5.0
     Sales  tax                     3.0

     BEC  =  Base  equipment  cost.
                        H-6

-------
regenerable carbon adsorption.  Recovery credits can be based on the value
of specific chemicals recovered or the energy value of the recovered
organics.   Energy recovery credits have been selected for nationwide cost
estimates  because they are consistent with the existence of an established
waste processing industry sector that produces "waste fuels."  Also, it
would be more difficult to establish the true value of specific chemicals
recovered  because of the unknown costs to separate them from impurities.
     Direct operating charges include all costs for raw materials; utili
ties; operating, supervisory, and maintenance labor; replacement parts;
waste disposal  (spent carbon or spent carbon canisters,  for example); and
maintenance materials.  The indirect operating expenses include overhead,
property taxes,  insurance, administrative charges, and capital recovery.16
     The annual  cost for raw materials, utilities, and waste disposal are
based on estimated consumption or discharge rates multiplied by appropriate
unit costs.  Generally, add-on controls do not require raw materials.
Utilities  include electricity, steam, water, and auxiliary fuel.  Haste
disposal costs  include effluent and sludge generated from venturi  scrub-
bers, spent activated carbon, and hazardous ash from incinerators.
     Operating  labor costs are estimated by multiplying the annual hours o1""
operation  (based on typical TSDF industry practices) by the operator wage
rate.  The labor rate for operators is also used for organic control
activities that  do not include actual devices, such as response to waste
spills.   Supervisory labor costs are estimated as 15 percent of the
operating  labor  requirement.17  Maintenance labor costs are determined by
multiplying the  estimated annual number of maintenance hours required by
the maintenance  labor rate.  Because maintenance laborers are generally
more skilled  than control operators,  a 10-percent wage premium is  included
in the labor  rate.18  Note that these are base labor rates,  which  do not
include  fringe benefits,  worker's compensation, pension,  or Social
Security.   These factors are included in the estimation of overhead.
     Maintenance materials typically include items such as oil, lubricants,
and small  tools.   These costs are estimated as 100 percent of maintenance
labor.19
                                    H-7

-------
     Replacement parts  include  items  such  as  activated  carbon  for  carbon
adsorbers and filter bags for baghouses.   Typically,  these  expenses  are
large and are incurred  one or more times during  the  useful  Ijfe  of a  con-
trol.  The annual cost  for replacement parts  is  estimated as a function of
the  initial parts costs, replacement  labor costs, the  life  of  the  parts,
and  the assumed  interest rate. 20  The annual  cost for  replacement  parts is
estimated as:
                         CRCp =  (Cp + Cpl) *  CRFp
where
     CRCp = annualized  cost for  replacement parts, $/yr
       Cp - initial cost for replacement parts,  S
      Cpl = replacement labor costs,  $
     CRFp = capital recovery factor for the parts
        i = annual interest rate
        n = useful service life of the replacement parts.
     As stated earlier, overhead includes such items as fringe benefits,
workmen's compensation, pension, and Social Security.  Also  included in the
estimation of overhead are fixed costs for items such as plant security,
parking, and landscaping.  Because it is often difficult to  estimate these
items individually, overhead costs generally are factored as a percentage
of total labor and maintenance material costs.  A value of 60 percent is
used to estimate the overhead expenses associated with a control device. 21
Property taxes,  insurance, and administrative charges are estimated as  1,
1, and 2. percent,  respectively, of the total capital investment .22
     Capital recovery is the annualized recovery of the total capital
investment over the useful service life of the control.  Capital recovery
was determined as:
                                    H-8

-------
                         CRCs = CRFs * (TCI - Cp)
where
     CRCs  =  capital  recovery for the control, $/yr
     CRFs  =  capital  recovery factor for the control
      TCI  = total  capital  investment,  $
        i  = annual  interest rate
        n  = useful  service life of the control,  yr.
     The last term on the  right side of the equation,  Cp,  accounts for
replacement parts  purchased during the useful service life of the control.
H.I. 4  Total  Annual  Cost
     The total  annual cost (i.e.,  annualized cost)  for a control is the sum
of all  direct and  indirect annual  operating costs less any recovery credits
(recovery  credits  were discussed in Section H.I. 3).  Table H-3 presents the
unit  costs for utilities and labor and the interest rate used in the
example cost  estimate that follows.
H.2  DETAILED EXAMPLE COST ANALYSIS FOR A FIXED ROOF VENTED TO A FIXED-BED
     CARBON ADSORBER APPLIED TO AN UNCOVERED, AERATED TREATMENT TANK
H.2.1  Introduction
     To illustrate the cost approach outlined in Section H.I, an example
cost  analysis for  controlling a TSDF treatment tank is presented in this
section.  The control technology applied is a fixed roof vented to a fixed-
bed carbon adsorber.  Discussions  of the applicability and performance of
fixed roofs and fixed-bed  carbon adsorbers can be found in Chapter 4.0,
Sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.2.2,  respectively.  Similar analyses were performed
for all  of the types of control technologies listed in Table 4-2, and the
results  are contained in the design and cost document that presents the
details  of cost estimating for potential TSDF controls such as suppression
controls.   This cost document provides sets of cost tables for each model
                                    H-9

-------
         TABLE H-3.  UTILITY RATES, LABOR  RATES,  AND  INTEREST RATE
                      USED IN EXAMPLE COST  ESTIMATE3


             Item                      Unit price,  1986  $         Reference

Utilities

  Electricity                            0.0463  ($/kWh)           23,24,25
  Steam                                    57.19  (S/Mg)            26,27,28'
  Process makeup water                     SO.04  ($/ITH)                  29
Labor

  Operators                                12.00  ($/h)                  30
  Maintenance                              13.20  ($/h)               31,32
Capital  recovery

  Interest rate (real)                         10:^                     33

aThese unit costs were obtained from current information sources  and  are
 used to estimate the cost of individual elements of potential TSDF con-
 trols.
                                    H-10

-------
unit,  process  flow diagrams,  material  balances, energy consumption, sample
calculations,  and other details of potential TSDF control cost esti-
mating.-^
H.2.2   Model  Unit
     An uncovered,  diffused air hazardous waste treatment tank with a
capacity of 108 m^ (model  unit T01G) was selected as the unit of analysis
to develop the detailed cost  estimate.  This size was selected from the
range  of sizes identified  in  the Westat Survey35 of hazardous waste genera-
tors and TSDF.  Uncovered,  diffused air tanks typically are cylindrical
steel  structures.  The model  treatment tank parameters are summarized in
Table  H-4.  Additional details of this model unit can be found in Appen-
dix C.
H.2.3   Emission Estimates
     Under normal operating conditions, organic emissions occur from the
waste  surface  of diffused-air waste treatment tanks as a result of ait-
being  sparged  into the bottom of the tank and leaving at the top.  The
sparged air strips organics from the waste as the air bubbles rise through
the liquid,  and the air leaving the waste surface is enriched with organics
and water  vapors.  This loss  of organics to the air constitutes the uncon-
trolled emissions to which  the emission control system is applied.
     Estimates of annual uncontrolled emissions from the model diffused-air
treatment  tank described above were determined using the emission models
and model  unit parameters  described in Appendix C of this document.
Table  H-5  presents the estimated uncontrolled organic emission for two
model  waste compositions likely to be found at TSDF aerated treatment
tanks.  For a  detailed discussion on the selection of the model wastes and
their  compositions,  refer  to  Appendix C.
H.2.4   Emission Control System
     As shown  in Figure H-l,  the major emission control system equipment
consists of a  fixed roof,  vent piping, two fixed-bed carbon adsorber units,
and a  pressure and vacuum  relief valve.  The overall emission reduction
achieved by the system is  estimated to be 95 percent, as discussed in
Chapter 4.0 of this document.36  This estimated overall emission reduction
is achieved by a combination  of the capture efficiency of the fixed-roof,
estimated  to be 100 percent,  and the control efficiency of the carbon
adsorber,  estimated at 95  percent.

                                   H-ll

-------
     TABLE H-4.  MODEL UNIT PARAMETERS FOR AN UNCOVERED, DIFFUSED-AIR
                          TREATMENT TANK (T01G)a


Volume              •                                    108 m^

Surface area                                            26.4 in^

Height                                                   2.9 m

Throughput                                           235,000 Mg/yr

aThis model  unit is one of several  models of treatment and storage tanks
 that were defined for the purpose  of estimating emissions,  emission con-
 trol costs,  and emission reductions for tanks at TSDF.   These models
 reflect differences in size,  waste throughput,  and other characteristics
 of tanks found at TSDF.
                                   H-12

-------
       TABLE H-5.  ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
      FROM AN UNCOVERED,  DIFFUSED-AIR TREATMENT TANK
        (T01G)  HANDLING TWO DIFFERENT MODEL WASTES


                                         Uncontrolled
                                          emissions.^
Waste form3                                  Mg/yr

Dilute aqueous                                 870

Aqueous sludge/slurry                         130

aModel waste compositions are presented in Appendix C.

^Emissions from the dilute aqueous waste are greater than
 emissions from the aqueous sludge/slurry (even though the
 aqueous sludge/slurry has a much higher total organic
 content)  because of the higher volatility of the organic
 compounds in the model dilute aqueous waste.
                           H-13

-------
                                                       Steam and organic; out
I
I—>
-pi
yapor
stream in

Stean




Carbon
bed
in



Carbon
bed






Exh
\
aust
f

Cooling water
Out In Vent Vent
t * 1 1

r»i . , latino
tank
•
^ Water Required only if
returned to tank organic recycle
is desired
                                                      Steam and organics out
                                     Figure H-1.  Schematic diagram of dual, fixed-bed gas-phase carbon adsorption

                                                           system with steam regeneration.

-------
     Parameters used to determine the carbon bed size are:  (1) volumetric
flow rate to the adsorber (dependent on the explosive limits for the
organics in air),  and (2) inlet and outlet organic mass loadings,  adsorp-
tion time,  and working capacity of the carbon.37  Carbon working capacities
vary with the specific compounds being adsorbed.  Likewise, the lower
explosive limit (mixture of the organic[s] in air) is compound-dependent.
Because of the wide variety and large number of compounds for which carbon
adsorption control  costs are needed, a generic approach to carbon
adsorption system design was developed for use in estimating nationwide
impacts.  The carbon bed size for the example presented here was determined
using procedures presented in Reference 37 and average or mean values for
lower explosive limit and carbon working capacity.38  in general,  for
sizing the carbon beds,  volumetric flow rate was specified to maintain the
organic concentration at 25 percent or less of the lower explosive limit,
and the adsorption  cycle time was maintained between 8 and 12 hours.   A
dilute aqueous waste composition (dilute aqueous-1)  described in Appendix C
was used in the example cost analysis.
H.2.5  Cost Analysis
     Tables H-6 through H-8 present the estimated base equipment cost,
total capital investment, total annual cost, and annual  operating cost for
a fixed roof vented to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber.
     The major equipment items required for the system are listed in
Table H-6.   These items include a fixed roof, carbon adsorbers, granular
activated carbon,  pressure and vacuum relief valves, and other process
equipment such as  ducting.  The purchase costs, excluding taxes and freight
for all items, were obtained from vendor data75,76 an(j literature
sources.77,78  jne  total base equipment cost for the system was estimated
to be S70,700.
     The purchased  equipment cost,  direct and indirect charges, and total
capital investment  are shown in Table H-7.  Pumps, ductwork, and instru-
mentation are included as other equipment in the major equipment items for
this system.   The costs  for freight and sales tax were factored from the
base equipment cost as discussed earlier.  The purchased equipment cost  for
this system is estimated at $76,400.
                                   H-15

-------
     TABLE H-6.  MAJOR EQUIPMENT ITEMS NEEDED TO INSTALL A FIXED ROOF
          VENTED TO A FIXED-BED CARBON ADSORBER ON AN UNCOVERED,
                    DIFFUSED-AIR TREATMENT TANK (T01G)a
Item  (number)
                          Size
               Purchase
Materials of     cost,
construction       $
            References
Tank cover

Fi xed-roofb

Pressure/vacuum
  relief valve

Carbon adsorber

Adsorbers (2)
Carbon
Other process
  equi pmentd

Base equipment cost
  (BEC)
                      27 m2
Aluminum
                      76 mm diameter  Stainless
                                      steel
                                      Stainless
                                      steel
 11,500

  1,600
39,40

   41
                      3,538 kgc
                      @$4 kg
Granular
activated
carbon
                                      Tank fixed
                                      roof
                                      Carbon ad-
                                      sorber
                                      Total
 27,400


 14,000



 16,200


 13,100

 57,600

$70,700
                              42,43
44,45
                                                                    46,47
aThis table lists the major items of equipment needed to control air
 emissions from the model tank.  The necessary number of each item,
 the cost of each item, and the source of information used are identified.
 Costs are in January 1986 dollars.   Costs are for dilute aqueous waste.
 Waste forms and their compositions  are presented in Appendix C.
^The fixed roof is a sealed unit with an opening for
 adsorber.  Aeration is assumed to be provided by an
 system.
                                                     ducting to the carbon
                                                     existing diffused-air
cAirflow is sufficient to maintain contaminant concentrations below 25 per-
 cent of the lower explosive limit.

dOther process equipment for the fixed-roof tank includes ducting and safety
 screen for venting off-gases from the tank.  Other process equipment
 related to the carbon adsorber includes fan,  condenser, decanter, pumps,
 piping, and instrumentation.  Process equipment costs are based on
 Reference 25,  which suggests a cost of 39 percent of the total cost for
 adsorbers and carbon.
                                    H-16

-------
              TABLE H-7.  TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR A TANK COVER VENTED TO A FIXED-BED CARBON
                     ADSORBER APPLIED TO AN UNCOVERED, DIFFUSED-AIR TREATMENT TANK  (T01G)a
Item

Va 1 ue


Direct equipment costs
Base equipment cost (BEC)
Pumpsb
Ductwork'-'
Instrumentat
Sa 1 es taxes
i onc
and freight

855 (BEC + instr.)




Purchase equipment cost (PEC)
D i rect i nsta 1 1
Foundat i ons
Piping
E 1 ectr i ca 1
Hand 1 i ng and
Painting
Insu lation
ation costs
and supports
erect i on

Co y e r
13,100
0
0
0
1,050
14,200
Cost
, s
Adsorber
57,600
0
0

4
62
0
,610
,200
References
Tota 1
70,700
0
0

5
76
0
,660
,400

48




Cover Adsorber
855
455
1455
155
155
of
of
of
of
of
PEC
PEC
PEC
PEC
PEC
Site prep, and bu i Iding
Ind i rect i nsta
Eng i neer i ng
Construct i on
expenses
Construction
Startup and
Cont i ngency
Tota 1 cap i ta 1

1 1 at i on costs
and field
fee
test i ng
investment (TCI)

555 of PEC 1055
1055 of PEC 555
1055
255 of PEC 355
355 of PEC 355



of
of
of
of
of



PEC
PEC
PEC
PEC
PEC


0
0
0
0
0
0
0

710
1,420
0
280
420
17,000

4
2
8


6
3
6
1
1
99
,980
0
,490
,720
620
620
500

,230
,110
,230
,870
,870
,500
4
2
8


6
4
6
2
2
116
,980
0
,490
,720
620
620
500

,940
,530
,230
,150
,290
,000
49
50
51
52
53
54

55,
57,
59,
61,
63,





56
58
60
62
64

aThis table shows the estimated direct and  indirect  installation costs associated with the emission  control
 system.  These  instal lation costs are combined with equipment costs to obtain the estimated  total capital
 investment required.

'-'Pumps and ductwork are  included as other equipment  in major equipment items.

clnstrumentation costs for carbon adsorber  are  included as other equipment  in major equipment  items.

-------
  TABLE H-8.  ANNUAL OPERATING  AND  TOTAL  ANNUAL  COST  FOR A FIXED ROOF VENTED TO A FIXED-BED CARBON ADSORBER
                        APPLIED TO  AN  UNCOVERED,  DIFFUSED-AIR TREATMENT TANK  (T01G)a








HI
1
t— '
co





Item
Direct annual costs
Raw mater i a 1 s
Uti 1 i ties
E 1 ectr i c i ty
Steam
Coo 1 i ng water
Labor
Operator
Superv i s i on and
admi n i strat i on
Ma i ntenance
Maintenance materials
Replacement parts
Carbon replacement6
Indirect annual costs
Overhead
Property taxes, insurance,
and administrative charges
Capital recovery
Recovery credits"
Value or unit price



$0.0463/kWh
$7.19/Mg
$0.04/m3

$12/hc
15% of d i r . 1 abor
$13.2/hd
100% of ma int. labor
$4/kg
Replacement labor
at $0.11/kg 5 yr
1 i fe, 10% i nterest

60% (Lab. + ma int. mat.)
4% of TCI
10% at 10/yr
(exc 1 ud i ng initial
carbon cost)

Annua 1 Annua 1
consumption cost," $



37,100 kWhc 1,720
2,890 Mg 20,800
270,000 m3 10,700

550 hr/yr 6,600
990
550 hr/yr 7,260
7,260
0.2638 x 4,100
initial carbon
cost plus replace-
ment labor

13,300
4,660
16,700
0
References



65
66
67

68
69
70
71
72

73
74


See notes at end of table.
(cont i nued)

-------
            Item

TotaI  annua I  cost
                                            TABLE H-8  (continued)
   Value or unit price

Direct •+• indirect costs -
  cred i ts
  Annua I
consumpt i on
Annua I
cost;b $

94,000
                                                                                                   References
Annual operating cost (AOC)
Direct + indirect costs -
  capital recovery - credits
                  77,400
Th roughput
      Mg/yr
235,000
Cost/throughput
      $/Mg
                       0.40
TCI — Total capital investment.

3This table presents example annual operating costs and total annual costs for an emission control system
 applied to a tank handling dilute aqueous waste.  Costs for other waste forms would be calculated similarly
 Differences in costs would be due to differences  in the size of the carbon adsorber   Totals may differ due
 to rounding.
bJanuary 1986 do I  lars .
cCarbon adsorber:   102 kWh/day, 365 days/yr
"Recovered organic from the carbon adsorber  is recycled to the treatment tank.

-------
     The direct  installation charges  include  items  related  to  installing
the adsorber, e.g.,  foundations  and handling  and  erection.   There  are  no
separate direct  installation charges  for  the  fixed  roof  because  the  vendor
supplied data only for the total  installed  cost.  The  total  direct  instal-
lation charges are 29 percent  of  the  purchased  equipment cost  for  the
carbon adsorbers.  Indirect installation  charges  include engineering,
construction and field expenses,  construction fees,  startup  and  testing,
and contingency  expenses.  These  charges  are  29 p-ercent  of  the total
purchased equipment  cost.  Summing the purchased  equipment  cost  and  the
direct and  indirect  charges gives an  estimated  total capital investment of
$116,000.
     Table  H-8 presents the direct and indirect annual operating cost,
total annual cost, and cost per megagram  of throughput for  the dilute
aqueous-1 model  waste for the  fixed-bed carbon  adsorber.  Utility costs,
labor rates, and interest rate used are from  Table  H-3.
     Indirect annual costs include overhead;  property  taxes, insurance, and
administrative charges; and capital recovery.   As stated  earlier, overhead
was estimated to be  60 percent of all labor costs plus maintenance material
costs.  Capital  recovery of the totel initial investment  (minus  the  initial
cost of carbon)  is based on an estimated  service  life  of  10  years and  a
real interest rate of 10 percent.  Property taxes,  insurance, and admini-
strative charges were factored at 4 percent of  the  total  capital invest-
ment.
     The total annual operating cost  is equal to  the direct  plus indirect
annual costs less the capital   recovery and any  credits.   As  shown in Table
H-8, the annual operating cost is 577,400 for controlling emissions  from
the dilute  aqueous-1 model waste.
     The total annual cost for a  fixed-bed carbon adsorber was determined
as the direct plus indirect annual costs  less any credits.   The  total
annual  cost is $94,000 for an  adsorber controlling  emissions from the
dilute aqueous-1 model waste.
     The annual cost per megagram of  throughput was  determined by dividing
the total  annual  cost by the amount of waste  treated.  In the model  unit
used in  the example cost analysis, annual throughput is  235,000  Mg,  which
results  in a unit cost of $0.40 per megagram  of waste  treated.
                                   H-20

-------
     Based  on  cost estimates for two model waste compositions, composition
differences between the model  wastes cause a significant difference in the
costs of the control  system.  For the example system controlling air
emissions from the dilute aqueous-1 model waste, total annual costs are
594,000 and the cost  per megagram of waste treated is $0.40.  On the other
hand, a system designed to control emissions from the aqueous sludge/slurry
model waste has a total annual  cost of 564,000 and a cost per megagram of
waste treated  of 50.27.  The lower cost for the aqueous sludge/slurry is
brought about  by the  lower uncontrolled emissions from that model waste
(see Table  H-5),  which, in turn, results in smaller carbon beds in the
control system.  The  smaller carbon beds have both lower capital costs and
lower operating costs.
H.3  SUMMARY OF CONTROL COSTS
     To determine the potential  nationwide cost of controlling organic
emissions from hazardous waste TSDF, model unit costs were developed for
each of the add-on controls listed in Table 4-3.  The model units used in
the costing exercise  are presented in Section C.2 of Appendix C.
     A summary of the control  costs for each add-on control as applied to
one model unit is presented in Table H-9.  In this table, total capital
investment, annual operating cost, total annual cost, and cost per megagram
of waste treated for  each control are given.  Also listed are the assumed
efficiency, the service life of  the control device, and the quantity of
waste treated.  The ultimate use of the costs presented in Table H-9 is to
estimate nationwide impacts.
     For each  waste management process (e.g., an aerated surface
impoundment),  a range of model  unit sizes that span the range of process
sizes found at TSDF was used to  develop emission and cost estimates that
reflect current industry operating practices.  However, because site-
specific characteristics of hazardous waste management units throughout the
country are unknown,  a  "national average model unit" was developed to
represent each type of  waste management process.  Statistical data were
available to describe the national distribution of waste management unit
                                   H-21

-------
                                  TABLE H-9.  TOTAL CAPITAL  INVESTMENT, ANNUAL OPERATING COST, AND TOTAL ANNUAL COST FOR ADD-ON AND SUPPRESSION CONTROLS APPLIED TO A TSDF SOURCE8
ro
ro
TSDF source Effect on emission:
(mode 1 un i t) Contro 1 dev i ce Capture Suppress ion
Covered Vent to carbon can! ster 100 —
storage tanks 100
(S02D) 100
100
100
Internal floating rooff -- 74.0
61. 0
79.0
Covered Fi xed-bed carbon
treatment tank adsorpt i on
(quiescent)
(T01E)
Uncovered Fixed- roof — 87 .5
storage tanks — 99.2
(S02I) — 98.9
98.2
93.5
Fixed-roof ven ted to 100 87 . 5
carbon canister 100 99.2
100 98.9
100 98.2
100 93 6
Fixed-roof with -- 95.0
internal floating roof
Uncovered treat- Fixed roof vented to 100 —
ment tank f i xed-bed carbon 100
Model unitd
;,b K throughput,
Control
95 .0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
__
__
95.0

	
__
__
__
"
95 .0
96.0
95.0
95.0


95 , 0
95.0
Wast
0 i lute
Organ i c
Organ i c
Aqueous
2-Phase
Di lute
Organi c
2-Phase

Di lute
Organic
Organic
Aqueous
2-Phase
D ! 1 ute
Organic
Organ 1 c
Aqueous
e formc
aqueous
1 i qu i d
s 1 udge/s 1 urry
sludge/s lurry
aqueous/organic
aqueous
s 1 udge/s 1 urry
aqueous/organ ic
AI 1

aqueous
1 i qu i d
s 1 udge/s 1 urry
s 1 udge/s 1 urry
aqueous/organ ic
liquid
s 1 udge/s 1 urry
s 1 udge/s 1 urry
AI 1
D i
Aque

ous sludge/slurry
M
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
27

3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
3 uw
g/y
, 330
,260
,900
,100
,860
,330
,900
,850
,700

,330
,260
,900
,100
,850
^250
,900
,100
aca
3,330-4,100

235

^250
Total
i nves
1
i
i
i
i
11
11
11
73

14
14
14
14
14
1 5
15
15
15
15
24

124
126
capital0
tment, $
, 050
,050
,050
,050
,050
,400
,400
,400
,300

,800
,800
,800
,800
,800
^900
,900
,900
900
,500

,000
Annual
operet i nge
cost, $
87 , 400
20,310
47,000
7,940
38,600
2,160
2,160
2,160
38,600

1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
88 , 600
21,600
48,200
9,100
2,980

46 , 100
78,100
Total
annual0
cos
87 ,
20,
47,
8,
38,
3,
3,
3,
50,

2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
90 ,
23,
50,
11,
5,

65 ,
94,
t, '
600
500
200
100
700
490
490
500
400

900
000
900
900
900
600
400
200
100
800

900
100
:._-- 	 	 -
per unit
throughput ,
J/Mg
26 4
6.31
12
1.98
10
1.05
0.89
0.91
1.82

0.88
0.91
0.76
0.72
0.76
7.22
12.8
2.7
10 8
1.43-
1.81
0.40
                  (aerated)         adsorption
                  (T01G)

                 Surface impound-  Floating membrane
                  menb storage
                  (quiescent)
                  (S04C)

                                   Air-supported structure
                                    vented to fixed-bed
                                    carbon adsorption
95.0
95.0
95.0
                                        49,140         67,000
    Dilute aqueous         49,140        249,000
  Aqueous sludge/slurry    49,140        311,000
2-Phase aqueous/organic    49,140        249,000
                                                                        6,890
64,800
93,200
64,800
                                                                                  16,200
102,000
137,000
102,000
2.07
2.78
2.07
                 See notes at end of table.
                                                                                                                                                                                         (conti nued)

-------
TABLE H-9 (continued)

TSDF source
Treatment
i mpoundmen t
(T02D)

(A)

Fixation-
mechan i ca 1
mixer (A)
Drum or other
container
_!_ storage (S01B)
|
(X)
CO
Dumpster
(S01C)
Wastepi le (S03E)

Active landfill
(D80E)
Closed landfill
(DB0H)

See notes at end


Air-supported structure
vented to fixed-bed

membrane
mixer with baghouse
adsorber
Vent to fixed-bed
carbon adsorber

Vent to carbon
adsorpt i on




Dumpster cover
30-mi 1 HOPE wastepi le
cover
Dai ly earth cover

30-mi 1 HOPE cover

100-mi 1 HOPE cover
of table.
Model unitd
Effect on emissions. b % throughput.
100 -- 95.0 Dilute aqueous 98,696
100 -- 96.0 Aqueous sludge/slurry 98,696




100 -- 96.0 Al 1 16,660


96.0 Dilute aqueous 460
95.0 Organic liquid 440
95.0 Organic sludge/slurry 610
95.0 Aqueous sludge/slurry 660
95.0 2-Phase aqueous/organic 440
96 Organic containing so id 800
99.0 -- Aqueous sludge/slurry 16
2.2-98.6 — All 116,600

11.0 — All 116, 500

2.2-98.6 -- All 116,600

7.0-99.6 — All 116,500

Annua 1
Total
237
263




164


39
40
39
40
40
39


6



60

166

capital'
,000
,000


'

,000


,900
,100
,000
,100
,100
,600
160
,480

0

,400

,000

* operating0
59
86




67


12
12
12
12
12
12

2

313

2

6

,900
,400




,600


,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
40
,470

,000

,400

,200

Total
annua 1 e
co«t. t
97
182
97




88


18
18
18
18
18


4

313

9

23

,600
,000


,000

,400


,400
,500
,300
,500
,500

64
,660

,000

,300

,300
(cor
per i
1 cost
jn it
throughput,
J/Mg
0.99
1
0




5


41
42
30
33
42

4
0

2

0

0
.30
.99




.31









.04

.69

.00

.20
it i nued)

-------
                                                                                               TABLE H-9 (continued)
 I
ro
                                                                  	Effect on *mj s.sj^mSjk % 	
                                                              Capture    Suppress ion     Control
TSDF source
(model uott)          Control device

Tank and          Submerged  loading             00            66,0
 conba i ner
 loading
 (drum loading)

Equ i pment  Ieaks   Monthly  i nspec t i on
 (A)              "	~"

                  Light  liquid  service9         —                70

                  Heavy  liquid  service"         --                78

TSOF = Treatment, storage, and  di sposaI faci I i ty .

     = Not applicable.

aThis table summarizes the costs of potential add-on and suppression controls to reduce TSOF air
                                                                                                          Waste formc

                                                                                                                 All
                                                                                                                 All

                                                                                                                 All
Model unitd
throughput,
   Mg/yr
                                        Annual cost
                   Annual       Total     per unit
TotaI  capital4   operating0   annual*   throughput,
investment, S      cost, S    cost, $      VU9
                 27,900

                 27,000
                    7,790

                    1,700
12,300

 6,100
bA control device may affect emissions in any of three ways.  It may capture (or contain) emissions and pass them to an emission control device; it may suppress emissions
 by containing them or reducing the rate at which they leave the source; or it may control emissions by destroying the organtcs or removing organics from a vent stream.

cFor initial model waste stream compositions, refer to Appendix C.

^Densities used to convert volumetric waste throughputs to mass throughputs were the following:
      Dilute aqueous - 0.999 kg/L
      Organic liquid - 0.976 kg/L
      Organic sludge/slurry - 1.34 kg/L
      Aqueous sludge/slurry - 1/23 kg/L
      Two-phase aqueous/organic ~ 0.976 kg/L
      Organic-containing solid - 1.76 kg/L

*January 1986 dollars.

'Emissions and emission reductions vary with waste form as a result of the different concentrations and volatility of organics present  in the model wasters used to
 represent the waste form.

9The model unit used as a basis for estimating cost contains 6 pump seals, 166 valves, 9 sampling connections, 44 open-ended lines, and 3 pressure-relief valves.  Costs are a
 function of the number of each of these items in the waste management process.

"The model unit contains the same equipment counts as described in note g, but only the sampling connections, open-ended lines, end pressure-relief valves are included  in the
 inspection and maintenance program.

-------
sizes,  e.g.,  surface area of surface impoundments and tank volumes for
storage tanks.   These statistical size distribution data were used to
develop weighting factors for each model unit size.79  The costs (total
capital investment and annual operating cost per megagram of waste
throughput)  for each model  unit size were multiplied by the corresponding
weighting factor.  The sum of these products results in weighted cost
factors for each national average model unit.  The weighted cost factors
were then compiled for use in estimating nationwide costs.
     The data base used by the Source Assessment Model  to estimate nation-
wide impacts  identifies the waste streams and waste management processes of
each TSDF.   The weighted average costs were multiplied  by the throughput
for each waste management process at each TSDF.  The waste throughputs were
obtained from the TSDF Industry Profile, a collection of facility-specific
data described in Appendix D.  These costs are then summed over all waste
management  processes at all TSDF to obtain a nationwide cost estimate.
H.4  REFERENCES
 1.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EAB Control Cost Manual (Third
     Edition),  Section 2: Manual Estimating Methodology.  Office of Ait-
     Quality  Plannino and Standards, Economic Analysis  Branch.  Publication
     No. EPA  450/5-87-OOK.  NTIS PB87-166583.  February 1987.  p. 2-1
     through  2-33.
 2.  Peters,  M. S.,  and K.  D. Timmerhaus.  Plant Design and Economics for
     Chemical Engineers, Third Edition.  New York, McGraw-Hill Book
     Company.  1980.
 3.  Vatavuk, W. M., and R. B. Neveril.  Chemical Engineering,  p. 165-168.
     October  6, 1980.
 4.  Vatavuk, H. M., and R. B. Neveril.  Chemical Engineering,  p. 157-162.
     November 3, 1980.
 5.  Vatavuk, H. M., and R. B. Neveril.  Chemical Engineering,  p. 71-73.
     December 29, 1980.
 6.  Vatavuk, VI. M., and R. B. Neveril.  Chemical Engineering,  p. 171-177.
     May 18,  1981.
 7.  Vatavuk, W. M., and R. B. Neveril.  Chemical Engineering,  p. 131 132.
     January  24, 1983.
 8.  Vatavuk, W. M., and R. B. Neveril.  Chemical Engineering,  p. 97-99.
     April  2, 1984.
                                   H-25

-------
 9.  Research Triangle Institute.  Cost of Volatile Organic  Removal  and
     Model Unit Air Emission Controls for Hazardous Waste  Treatment,  Stor-
     age, and Disposal Facilities.  Draft.   Prepared  for U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality  Planning  and Standards.
     October 24, 1986.

10.  Reference  1, p. 2-5.

11.  Perry, R.  H., and C1. H. Chilton.  Chemical  Engineers' Handbook,  Fifth
     Edition.   New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.  1973.

12.  Annual CE  Plant Cost Index.  Chemical Engineering.  May 26,  1986.
     p. 7.

13.  Reference  1, p. 2-5.

14.  Reference  1, p. 2-22.

15.  Mahon-ey, W. D. (ed.).  Means Construction Cost Data 1986.   Kingston,
     Massachusetts, R.S. Means Co., Inc.  1985.

16.  Reference  1, p. 2-10.

17.  Reference  1, p. 2-27.

18.  Reference  1, p. 2-27.

19.  Reference  1, p. 2-27.

20.  Reference  1, p. 2-29.

21.  Reference  1, p. 2-31.

22.  Reference  1, p. 2-31.

23.  Memorandum from Kong, Emery, Research Triangle Institute, to Thornloe,
     Susan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  May  19, 1987.  5  p.
     Revised energy and steam costs.

24.  Monthly Energy Review,  U.S. Department  of Energy,  Washington, DC,
     January 1987.  131 p.

25.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   EAB  Control Cost Manual  (Third
     Edition), Section 4:  Carbon Adsorbers.  Office  of Air Quality  Plan-
     ning and Standards, Economic Analysis Branch.  Publication  No.  EPA
     450/5-87-001A.  February 1987.  p. 4-29 through  4-32..

26.  Reference 23.

27.  Reference 24.

28.  Reference 25,  p.  4-28.
                                   H-26

-------
29.   Reference 8.

30.   RCRA Risk Cost Analysis Model, Phase III Report, Appendix D, Exhibit
     Dl-10.   ICF,  Inc.  January 13, 1984.

31.   Reference 30.

32.   Reference 1,  p. 2-27.

33.   Reference 1,  p. 2-13.

34.   Reference 9.

35.   Memorandum from Branscome, Marvin, Research Triangle Institute, to
     Docket.  November 13, 1987.  Hestat data used to develop model  units
     for surface impoundments and tanks.

36.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Storage of Organic Liquids.
     In:  AP-42.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,  Fourth
     Edition,  Section 4.3.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  September 1985.

37.   Reference 25,  p. 4-1 through 4-37.

38.   Memorandum from Coy, Dave, Research Triangle  Institute, to Thorneloe,
     Susan,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  September 3, 1987.  Cost
     estimates for generic fixed-bed carbon adsorption.

39.   Telecon.   Roberts, John, Temcor, with Chessin, Robert,  Research
     Triangle  Institute.  June 12, 1987.  Retrofit costs for aluminum fixed
     roofs for tanks.

40.   Letter from Anderson, Richard, Conservatek, to Chessin, Robert, RTI.
     June 15,  1987.  Aluminum dome tank cover costs.

41.   Memorandum from Johnson, W. L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     to Wyatt, Susan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   September 24,
     1985.  VOC abatement for small solvent storage tanks.  Draft.

42.   Reference 25,  p. 4-21 through 4-24.

43.   Reference 38.

44.   Reference 25,  p. 4-21.

45.   Reference 38.

46.   Reference 25,  p. 4-23 and 4-24.

47.   Reference 38.
                                   H-27

-------
48.   Reference 4.



49.   Reference 25,  p. 4-25.



50.   Reference 25,  p. 4-25.



51.   Reference 25,  p. 4-25.



52.   Reference 25,  p. 4-25.



53.   Reference 25,  p. 4-25.



54.   Reference 25,  p. 4-25.



55.   Reference 25,  p. 4-25.



56.   Reference 4.



57.   Reference 25,  p. 4-25.



58.   Reference 4.



59.   Reference 25,  p. 4-25.



60.   Reference 4.



61.   Reference 25,  p. 4-25.



62.   Reference 4.



63.   Reference 25,  p. 4-25.



64.   Reference 4.



65.   Reference 25,  p. 4-29.



66.   Reference 25,  p. 4-28.



67.   Reference 25,  p. 4-29.



68.   Reference 25,  p. 4-33.



69.   Reference 25,  p. 4-33.



70.   Reference 25,  p. 4-34.



71.   Reference 25,  p. 4-34.



72.   Reference 25,  p. 4-32.

-------
73.   Reference 4.

74.   Reference 4.

75.   Reference 39.

76.   Reference 40.

77.   Reference 25,  p.  4-1 through 4-37.

78.   Reference 41.

79.   Memorandum from Coy, Dave, Research Triangle Institute, to Thorneloe
     Susan,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  December 2,  1987.
     Methodology for weighted costs.
                                   H-29

-------
             APPENDIX I

COSTING OF ORGANIC REMOVAL PROCESSES
  AND HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATION

-------
                                APPENDIX I
                   COSTING OF ORGANIC REMOVAL PROCESSES
                     AND HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATION
     Organic removal processes and hazardous waste incinerators provide
alternatives to using add-on and suppression air emission controls at
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF).
Removal or thermal destruction of organic compounds in a hazardous waste
prior to disposal of the waste in a TSDF unit (e.g.,  surface impoundment,
treatment tank, or landfill) will lower the content of volatile organics in
the waste and,  consequently, reduce the air emissions from the TSDF unit.
The purpose of this appendix is to:
     •    Explain the methodologies used to estimate organic removal
          processes and incinerator control costs
     •    Present an example cost analysis for an organic removal
          process (steam stripping)
     •    Summarize organic removal processes and incinerator control
          costs presented in the document Cost of Volatile Organic
          Removal and Model Unit Air Emission Controls for Hazardous
          Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.1
I.I  COST ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
     Cost analysis methodologies were developed to estimate the control
costs for organic removal  processes and incinerators.  These costs include
capital  investment,  annual operating cost,  total annual cost (i.e.,
annualized cost),  cost  per quantity of hazardous waste processed,  and cost
per quantity of organic removed from the hazardous waste as a result of
processing.   All  costs  are expressed in January 1986 dollars.
     Control  costs are  used for estimating the nationwide costs of
implementing different  potential  TSDF control  strategies.  A recent survey
                                    1-3

-------
of the TSDF industry by EPA provided current data about the  quantities  of
hazardous waste processed at each TSDF  located  in the United  States  (refer
to Appendix D, Section D.2.1).  To calculate the nationwide  costs  for using
organic removal processes or incinerators to control TSDF  air emissions,
the costs per quantity of waste processed summarized in Section  1.3  were
incorporated into the Source Assessment Model  (refer to Appendix D,
Section D.I).
1.1.1  Organic Removal Processes
     Control cost analyses were performed for  four types of  organic  removal
processes:  (1) air stripping, (2) steam stripping,  (3) batch  distillation,
and (4) thin-film evaporation.  Process descriptions and flow  diagrams  for
each of these organic removal processes are presented in Chapter 4.0,
Section 4.3.
     The cost methodology used for the  organic  removal process cost
analyses is identical to the methodology used  for the add-on  and suppres-
sion control cost analyses.  This methodology  is described in  Appendix  H.I.
An example of how the methodology was applied  to an organic  removal  process
is presented in Section 1.2.
1.1.2  Hazardous Haste Incinerators
     Rotary kiln incinerators can be used to lower the organic content  of
organic slurry, sludge, or solid hazardous wastes.  The minimum destruction
efficiency required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act  (RCRA)
regulations for hazardous waste incineration (40 CFR 264,  Subpart 0) is
99.99 percent.  Additional information  about rotary kiln incinerators is
presented in Chapter 4.0,  Section 4.4.
     Rotary kiln incinerator costs were estimated using EPA  cost factors.
These cost factors were developed to investigate the costs of  alternative
treatment technologies, including incineration, for disposing  of hazardous
wastes subject to proposed land disposal restrictions.2,3  The cost  factors
are applicable to rotary kiln incinerators ranging in size from 1.5  to
44 MW.
                                    1-4

-------
1.1.3  Waste Stream Composition and Throughput Selection
     Many different types of hazardous waste  (e.g., liquids, sludges, and
solids with different chemical compositions)  are processed  in TSDF units.
Furthermore, the quantity of hazardous waste  processed (termed "through-
put") at each facility varies significantly.  Therefore,  it is not reason-
able to perform control cost analyses for every possible hazardous waste
stream composition and throughput.  Instead,  the cost analyses were
performed for selected hazardous waste stream compositions  and throughputs
that are representative of existing TSDF operations.
     The approach used for selecting the waste compositions and throughputs
was to develop model parameters that are typical of existing TSDF hazardous
waste stream compositions and process throughputs.  The same model param-
eters are used for:  (1) estimating TSDF air  emissions, and (2) sizing arid
costing potential TSDF controls.
     The model waste stream compositions used for the cost  analyses are
described in Appendix C, Table C-5.  Because  of physical  form or chemical
composition limitations, not all types of hazardous waste can be treated in
all types of organic removal processes.  Air  and steam strippers typically
process dilute aqueous waste, whereas thin-film evaporators process sludges
and batch distillation units process organic  liquids.  Therefore, each
organic removal process cost analysis was performed using the model waste
stream composition defined for the waste form that is most  appropriate for
the process.  To account for the capability of rotary kiln  incinerators to
burn a variety of waste forms, cost analyses  for the rotary kiln
incinerators were performed for the organic sludge/slurry and organic-
containing solid model  waste stream compositions.
     A specific model process throughput was  matched individually to each
type of organic removal process and incinerator based on data for typical
commercial TSDF operations.  Explanations of  the selection  rationale for
each organic removal process and incinerator  are presented  in References 1,
4,  5, and'6.  In general,  model process throughputs were selected to be
within the range of throughput capacities reported for commercial-scale
process units currently in operation.
                                    1-5

-------
1.2  STEAM STRIPPER COST ANALYSIS
     This section presents the cost analysis of steam stripper to show the
application of the cost analysis methodology to an organic removal process.
Similar analyses were performed for air stripping, batch distillation, and
thin-film evaporation.  The cost analyses calculations and results tables
for these processes as well as rotary kiln incinerators are presented in
Reference 1.
     The basic operating principle of steam stripping is the direct contact
of steam with a waste, which results in the transfer of heat to the waste
and the vaporization of the volatile constituents.  The resulting vapor is
condensed and the organics separated from the water and recycled or
incinerated.   More information about steam stripping is presented in
Chapter 4.0,  Section 4.3.1.
1.2.1  Process Design Specifications
     The first step in the cost analysis was to select values for the key
steam stripper design specifications:  (1) waste stream composition,
(2) process throughput,  and (3) organic removal efficiency.  These design
specifications define the steam stripping unit performance conditions for
which the major equipment component sizes (e.g., stripping column, feed
preheater,  condenser,  storage tanks) and utility consumptions (e.g.,  steam,
water,  electricity) are calculated.  The calculated design values were then
used to estimate capital investment and annual costs for a steam stripping
unit.
     Steam stripping is a commercially proven process that typically is
used"to remove organics from aqueous waste such as chemical manufacturing
and refinery  process wastewater.  To represent this type of waste for the
steam stripper cost analysis,  the model waste stream composition was
defined as  99.6 percent water and a mixture of six organic compounds.  Two
compounds were selected to serve as representative organics for each of
three volatility classes that were based on ranges of Henry's law
constants.   The compounds chosen were:
     •     High volatility:  methylene chloride and vinyl chloride
     •     Medium volatility:  pyridine and acrylonitrile
     •     Low volatility:  phenol and o-cresol.
                                    1-6

-------
     Operating data for four existing commercial-scale steam stripping
units were reviewed to select the model waste stream process throughput.
The actual process throughputs ranged from 0.02 to 0.85 m3/min (5 to 225
gal/min).   Based on this range of actual commercial steam stripping unit
throughputs and a cost sensitivity analysis, a model process throughput of
0.28 m-Vmin (75 gal/min) was selected for the steam stripping cost
analysis.   This throughput value was judged to be a size that would be
practical  for onsite waste treatment by waste generators yet that would be
of sufficient size to provide the cost-effectiveness advantage of economy
of scale.
     Selection of organic removal efficiency for the steam stripping cost
analysis was based on a review of the field test data compiled for existing
commercial-scale steam stripping units  (refer to Appendix F, Section
F.2.3.1).   These data indicate that organic removal efficiencies greater
than 90 percent have been achieved by steam stripping units in commercial
operation  for both high and medium volatility class organic compounds.
Therefore, the steam stripper performance level chosen for the cost analy-
sis was 90 percent removal of the organic compound in the medium volatility
class that was most difficult to remove.  For the model waste stream
composition used for the steam stripper cost analysis, this compound is
pyridine.
1.2.2  Equipment Component Size Determination
     The major steam stripper equipment component sizes were determined
using a computer chemical process simulation model called ASPEN (Advanced
System for Process Engineering).'7
     The ASPEN model  was developed by the U.S. Department of Energy and .is
widely used by industry and universities to design, cost, and optimize
chemical process units.  Several  features of the ASPEN model make it
suitable for sizing an organic removal process and its ancillary equipment
such as condensers.  These are:
     •    Built-in modular process flowsheets
     •    Representation of solid materials
                                    1-7

-------
     •    Built-in thermodynamic calculations
     •    Optimal design capability.
     A countercurrent flow steam stripping tower configuration as shown in
Figure 1-1 was used for the ASPEN simulation.  For the cost analysis, it is
assumed that the overhead process stream is passed through a two-stage
condenser consisting of a water-cooled primary stage and brine-cooled
secondary stage.  The test data compiled for existing commercial-scale
steam stripping units suggest that the highest volatile organic removal
efficiencies will be achieved when this type of overhead control is used.
     A residual amount of organics remains in stripper bottoms.  At
existing steam stripping operations, the bottoms process stream normally is
discharged to a sewer for treatment at a publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) facility.  For the ASPEN simulation of a steam stripping process,
the residual stream was assumed to be treated in the same manner as the
entire waste stream prior to application of the stripper.
     Liquid-phase mass transfer coefficients needed to size the steam
stripper tower height for a specific removal efficiency were based on the
Onda mass transfer model.8  Phase equilibrium calculations in the overhead
condenser were based on the Soave modification of the Red!ich-Kwong equa-
tion of state.  This equation allows prediction of three-phase equilibrium
compositions (i.e.,  vapor-liquid-liquid compositions).
     Using the selected waste composition,  process throughput, organic
removal  efficiency,  and design configuration, the ASPEN computer model
simulated the steam stripper operation by computing the theoretical
material  balance, energy balance, and equipment sizes for the desired level
of performance.  The mass flow rates of the six organic compounds were
calculated for each  step of the steam stripping process.  Table 1-1
presents  the results of the ASPEN material  balance calculations correspond-
ing to the process streams shown in Figure 1-1.  An energy balance was also
computed  to determine the amount of steam and electricity needed to achieve
the desired performance.
1.2.3  Total Process Cost Estimates
     Each steam stripper equipment component size calculated using the
ASPEN model  was multiplied by an appropriate cost factor to estimate  the
purchase  cost of the required equipment component.  These cost factors were

                                    1-8

-------
                                                                  3IIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIC
                                                                        Vapor 2
Waste
                                                                               Steam
                          Figure 1-1. Schematic of steam stripping process.

-------
                                TABLE  1-1.   MATERIAL  BALANCE FOR  A  STEAM  STRIPPING  ORGANIC  REMOVAL  PROCESS3
l
i—>
o


Process
stream Vi ny 1
Process f 1 ow
Methy lene Acrylo-
number'5 chloride chloride ni
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
aThis
mode 1
0.2
0.002
0.19
0.19
0 . 0000
0
0.19
0.19
0.004
0.006
0.18
table presents
for the steam
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
the mater
str i pp i ng
2 0
002 0
19 0
19 0
0000 0
0
19 0
16 0
04 0
001 0
16 0
i a 1 ba 1 ance
of a d i 1 ute
trile Pyr
.2
.002
.19
.19
.0002

.19
.19
.003
.0001
.19
calculated by
aqueous waste
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
rate,c kq/min

d i ne
.2
.002
.19
.19
.019

.17
.09
.08
.0000
.09
the ASPEN


o-Creso 1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
chemi ca
2
002
19
19
13

06
005
055
0000
005
1 process
containing the following


Phenol Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
.2 278
.002 3
.19 275
.19 275
.18 275
36
.014 36
.0001 0
.014 36
.0000 0
.0001 0
imu 1 at i on
compounds and
con cent, rat i ons :







Vi ny 1 ch 1 ori
Methy lene ch
Pyr id i ne
Pheno 1
Aery 1 on i tr i 1
o - Cresol
Water
de
1 or i de


e









. 0.073
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
99.6%










































                   The stripper  is designed  to  remove  90  percent  of  the pyridine at a  process throughput of

                   0.28 m3/min  (75 gal/min).



                  ^Stream numbers refer  to the  schematic  diagram  presented  in  Figure 1-1.



                  CFIow rates calculated  by  ASPEN  and  manually  rounded  for  presentation  in  this  table.

-------
obtained from published cost correlations commonly used to estimate
chemical process costs.  The references for these equipment component cost
factors are listed in Table 1-2.  Table 1-2 presents the base equipment
cost (BEC)  for the steam stripper.  This cost Is the sum of the major
equipment component costs such as the stripping column, decanters, feed
preheater,  and condensers.
     Total  capital investment is presented in Table 1-3.  The installation
costs,  both direct and indirect, are calculated by a percentage of the
purchased equipment cost (PEC).   The percent values used for the installa-
tion cost estimates are listed in Table 1-3.  Further explanation of the
costing factors is provided in Reference 1 and Appendix H.
     The total annual cost  is presented in Table 1-4.   This cost is the sum
of the  direct annual  costs  (e.g., utilities, labor, and maintenance), the
indirect annual costs (e.g.,  overhead,  property taxes,  insurance, admini-
strative charges,  and capital recovery), and any recovery credits.  An
explanation of the basis for recovery credits is given  in Appendix H,
Section H.I.3. The annual operating cost is defined as  the total annual
cost minus  capital recovery.   For a total  waste throughput of 122,000
Mg/yr,  the  steam stripping  system has an estimated cost of approximately
54.50/Mg of throughput.
1.2.4  Modular Cost Estimates
     To determine  the cost  effectiveness (cost per unit throughput) of the
major steam stripping components, the process was divided into four
modules.  The modules are shown  in Figure 1-1 and identified as:
(1)  storage and handling, (2) organic removal,  (3) overhead control, and
(4)  bottoms handling.  The  capital investment and annual costs for organic
removal were  estimated for  each  module.  The following  guidelines were
followed in assigning costs to each module:
     •     Direct and  indirect installation cost factors are the same
          for all  modules in  the steam stripping process and are equal
          to  the factors used for the whole process.
          Labor costs are proportioned among the steam  stripping
         modules  as  follows: 85 percent to organic removal,
          5 percent each to storage/handling, overhead  control, and
          bottoms  handling.
                                   1-11

-------
                   TABLE 1-2.  BASE EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR A STEAM STRIPPING ORGANIC REMOVAL PROCESS3
Equipment component
Storage tanks
Stripping column
Decanter
Feed preheater
Primary condenser
Secondary condenser
Refrigeration unit
Flame arrestors
Total base equipment cost (BEC)
Component Number of Materials of
size" components construction
204 m3 2
0.76 m dia . x 42 m hi gh 1
95 m3 2
978 m2 1
56 m2 1
14 m2 1
350 W 1
NA 4

Carbon stee 1
Carbon steel
Carbon steel
Carbon stee 1
Carbon stee 1
Carbon steel
NA
NA

Purchase Cost
cost,'5 factor
$ source0
66,000
90,000
50,000
116,000
13,000
7 ,000
7,000
1,000
$350,000
9
10
9
7
7
7
9
11

NA = Not applicable.

aThis table presents estimates of the major equipment purchase costs required for the steam stripping
 of z dilute aqueous waste.

^AI I  costs rounded to the nearest $1,000 and expressed in January 1986 dollars.

cNumber refers to reference listed in Section 1.4.

^Equipment component sizes were calculated by ASPEN computer simulation using the model waste composition
 shown in Table 1-1 and a process throughput of 0.28 m3/min (75 gal/min).

-------
           TABLE 1-3.   TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR A STEAM STRIPPING
                            ORGANIC  REMOVAL PROCESS3


Cost i tern
Direct equipment costs
Base equipment cost (BEC)
Pumps (#)
Ductwork
Instrumental on

Sales taxes & freight

Purchased equipment cost
(PEC)
Direct installation costs
Support
El ectr i ca 1
Erect i on
Painting
Site preparation
Indirect instal lation costs
Eng i neer i ng
Construction & field
expenses
Construction fee
Startup and testing
Cont i ngency
Total capital investment (TCI)


Va lue



244 m at $11.98/m
10% (BEC + pumps
+ ductwork)
8% (BEC + pumps
+ instr. •+• ductwork)



7% of PEC
4% of PEC
2055 of PEC
1% of PEC
1% of PEC

1055 of PEC
7% of PEC

10% of PEC
2% of PEC
5% of PEC



Costb $

350,000
0d
3,000
35,000

31,000

419,000


30,000
17,000
84,000
4,000
4,000

42,000
30,000

42,000
8,000
21,000
$701,000
Cost
factor
sourcec

Table 1-2

12
13
14
15,16



15,16





15,16





17

aThis table presents estimates  of  direct  and  indirect capital  costs  for  the  steam
 stripping of a dilute aqueous  waste.   Installation  costs and  equipment  costs  are
 added to estimate the total  capital  investment.

^AI I  costs rounded to nearest $1,000  and  expressed  in January  1986  dollars.

cNumber refers to reference Iisted in  Section  1.4.

       are implicitly included  in  the  assignment  of  direct installation  factors.
                                      1-13

-------
                             TABLE  1-4.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST FOR A STEAM STRIPPING
 ORGANIC REMOVAL PROCESS3


Cost i tern
Direct annual costs
Uti 1 itiesd
Electr i c i ty
Steam
Water
Labor
Operating labor
Supervision & administration
Ma i ntenance
Labor
Mater i a 1 s
Total direct annual costs
Indirect annual costs
Overhead
Property taxes
Insurance
Administrative charges
Cap i ta 1 recovery
Total indirect annual tosts
Recovery credits6
Total annual cost^


Value or unit price, Annual consumption,
un i ts un i ts

$0.0463/kWh 3 x 106 kWh
S3.09/109 J 3.5 x 1013 J
$0.04/m3 4.8 x 105 m3
$12/h 7,200 hd
15% of direct labor NA

$13.20/h 795 h
100% of ma int. labor NA


60% of (total labor costs)
2% of TCI
1% of TCI
1% of TCI
10% at 15 yr


Direct + indirect costs
- recovery credits


Annua 1
cost,b $

140,000
107,500
19,000
86,500
13,000

10,500
10,500
$387,000

72,000
14,000
7,000
7,000
92,000
$192,000
$27,000
$552,000

Cost
factor
sourcec

18
18
18
16
16

19
20


21
15,16
15,16
15,16
15,16
15,16


See notes at end of table.
                                                     (cont i nued)

-------
                                                    TABLE 1-4.   (concluded)
                                                                                                            Cost
                                               Value or unit price,     Annual consumption,    Annual       factor
                    Cost item                          units   .                units           cost," $     sourcec
         Annual operating cost9                TAC-capital recovery                             460,000
         Throughput                                    Mg/yr                                    122,000
         Cost/throughput"                              $/Mg                                        4.53
         NA = Not applicable.
         TCI = Total capital  investment.
         aThis table presents estimates of direct and  indirect annual operating costs for the steam stripping of a
          di lute aqueous waste.  Annual operating costs are added to capital recovery costs to estimate total annual
          costs.  Total annual cost  is divided by the  annual process throughput to estimate the cost effectiveness
          of using steam stripping to remove organics  from a dilute aqueous stream.
         "A I I  costs rounded, to nearest SI,000 and expressed in January 1986 do I lars.
         GNumber refers to .'reference  listed  in Section 1.4.
i	,        "Ut i I i ty consumpt ipn was calculated by ASPEN  computer s i muI at i on mode I assuming unit is operated 24 h/d,
i          300 d/yr.
i—•
en        eRecovery of condensed organics produces a  Iiquid that can be used as a fuel in boi lers and other combustion
          devices.  For this  cost analysis,  no cost  credit was taken for the recovered organics.
         'Sum of total direct annual cost plus total  indirect annual cost.
         9TotaI  annual cost minus capital recovery.
         "Total  annual cost divided  by throughput.

-------
     •    Utilities  (electricity, steam, water) consumption  is
          assigned to each module according to the material  and  energy
          balance.
     Table  1-5 presents the capital investment and operating costs  for the
four modules.  The total annual cost shown in Table 1-5 includes capital
recovery  (10 percent interest over a service life of  15 yr)  as an indirect
annual cost.  Any credits for recovery of condensed organics are also
included  in the total annual cost.
1.3  SUMMARY OF ORGANIC REMOVAL PROCESS AND INCINERATOR CONTROL  COSTS
     Organic removal process and incinerator control  costs are summarized
in Table  1-6.  This table shows the total capital investment, annual
operating cost, and total annual cost for each process evaluated.   Also
presented are the total annual cost per megagram of throughput and  per
megagram  of organic removed.  The complete cost analysis results for all of
the processes are presented in Reference 1.
     Total  capital investment for an organic removal  process ranges from
about $328,000 for a batch distillation unit to $1.5  million for a  thin-
film evaporator.  Total capital cost for a rotary kiln incinerator  ranges
from approximately 513 million for firing organic sludge/slurry  to  approxi-
mately S21 million for firing an organic-containing solid.
     Annual operating cost for an organic removal process ranges from a
credit of $391,000 for the batch distillation unit to a cost of  $463,000
for the steam stripper.  The credit for batch distillation results  from the
recovery  of organic compounds for use as a waste fuel.  The  value of the
recovery  credit was estimated based on the heat content of the recovered
organics.  Annual  operating cost for a rotary kiln incinerator ranges from
approximately $1.9 mill.ion for firing an organic sludge/slurry to S4.7
million for firing an organic-containing solid.
     The cost per megagram of waste throughput for an organic removal
process ranges from a credit of $23/Mg for a batch distillation  unit
handling an organic liquid to $33/Mg for a thin-film  evaporator  handling an
aqueous sludge/slurry.   The cost per megagram of throughput  for  a rotary
kiln incinerator ranges from $110/Mg for firing an organic-containing solid
to $146/Mg for firing an organic sludge/slurry.
                                   1-16

-------
      TABLE  1-5.   COMPARISON  OF  MODULAR  COSTS  FOR A STEAM STRIPPING
                         ORGANIC  REMOVAL  PROCESS9
Steam stripping
unit module
Storage & handling
Organic removal
Overhead control
Bottoms control^
Total
capital
investment
$134,000
$565,000
$2,000
SO
Annual
operating
costb
$22,000
$405,000
$17,000
$17,000
Total
annual
costc
$39,000
$479,000
$17,000
$17,000
Total
$701,000
$461,000
$552,000
aThis table  compares  the  cost  estimates  for the  steam stripping  unit
 modules  shown  in  Figure  1-1,  i.e.,  storage and  handling,  organic removal,
 overhead control,  and  bottoms  handling.   Costs  are presented  in January
 1986 dollars.   Capital costs  for  storage apply  only at  TSDF that do  not
 have existing  tank or  drum  storage.

^Annual operating  cost, excludes capital  recovery.   Recovery credit is
 taken  in the organic  removal  module.

cTotal  annual cost, includes capital  recovery.
     cost of  bottoms  handling  is  estimated  by  attributing a portion of the
 operating  labor,  utilities, and  indirect annual  costs  to the handling of
 the  steam  stripper bottoms.
                                   1-17

-------
                                        TABLE  1-6.   SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ORGANIC REMOVAL PROCESS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR CONTROL COSTS3
'
Organ i c
remova 1

Rotary-ki In incinerator 99.99
A 1 r str i pp 5 ngf H i gh vo 1 at i 1 e
Medium volati le
Low vo 1 at i le
Steam stripping9 High Volatile
Med i urn vo 1 at ! le
Low vo 1 at i le
Batch disti 1 lationf High volatile
Medium volati le
Low vo 1 at i la
Thin-film evaporator*1 High volatile
Medi um vo 1 at i le
Low vo 1 at i le
Mg = Megagram.




99
13
1
99
99,
16
99,
18.
6.
99.
65.
20.





.0
.7
.1
.99
.96
.5
.0
.0
.0
,8
.9
,7

aThi s table shows the estimated costs of process i nq
- . _ -. . . _. . ,
Model

Organ i c si udge/s 1 urry
Di lute aqueous-3


Dilute aqueous-2


Organ i c It qu i d


Aqueous s 1 udge/s lurry




Model unit
throughput,'' Total cap i ta 1 ,

26,900 12,900,000
81,600 818,000


122,000 701,000


17,300 328,000


17,600 1,510,000




S/Mg
Annual oper . Total annual S/Mg organic

1,920,000 4,020,000 146 146
80,600 188,000 2.3 16,200'


461,000 552,000 4.53 1,600'


(391,000) (348,000) (22.60) (48.04)


340,000 586,000 33.3 536




        ^Organic removal efficiency  is defined as the fraction of organic material  in a waste stream that is removed either by separation or  incineration.
         For hazardous waste  i nc i nerat ion, all organic compounds are estimated to be removed at an eff i c iency of 99,99 percent.  For organ i c  removaI processes, the
         control is designed  to remove A high or medium volatility compound at a specific efficiency.  Lower volatility compounds included in the model waste stream are
         removed with  less efficiency.  The overall efficiency of organic removal processes depends on the actual waste stream composition.
        GFor initial waste stream compositions, refer to Appendix,C, Table C-5.
        "Waste stream throughputs are based on data for exi sti ng process un i ts.
        eA I I costs are expressed in  January 1936 dollars.
        ^Costs based on a process designed to remove 99 percent of the most volatile compound in the model waste stream.

        9Costs based on a process des i gned to remove at  I east 90 percent of the med i urn volatility class compounds i n the mode I  waste.
        "Costs based on a process designed to achieve removal efficiencies demonstrated by test results for a pilot-scale thin-film evaporator unit.
        'Costs per megagram of organic removed are high for these control options because of the very low organic content of the waste.

-------
     The cost per megagram of organic removed ranges from a credit of $48

for a batch distillation unit to $15,200 for an air stripper operating on a

dilute aqueous waste.   The high cost per unit of organic removed for the

steam stripper is due primarily to the very low organic content (0.4 per-

cent) in the dilute aqueous waste stream.  For a rotary kiln incinerator,

the cost per megagram of organic removed ranges from a credit of $146/Mg

for firing an organic sludge/slurry to $ll,000/Mg for firing an organic-

containing solid.  The high' cost of organic destruction for the rotary kiln

incinerator firing organic-containing solids is due to the small concen-

tration of organics in the organic-containing solid (1 percent aceto-
nitrile).

1.4  REFERENCES

1.   Research Triangle Institute.  Cost of Volatile Organic Removal and
     Model Unit Air Emission Controls for Hazardous Waste Treatment,  Stor-
     age,  and Disposal Facilities.  Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
     Washington,  DC.  (To be revised February 1988).

2.   Pope-Reid Associates, Inc.  Alternative Waste Management Technology
     Cost  Estimates for the California List Land Disposal Restrictions.
     Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington,  DC.
     May 1987.  p. 22-28.

3.   Memorandum from Coy, Dave, and Champagne,  Paul, RTI, to Thorneloe,
     Susan, EPA/OAQPS.  January 25, 1988.  Incinerator costs for treatment
     of organic sludge/ slurries and VOC-containing solid wastes.

4.   Memorandum from Spivey, Jerry, RTI, to Thorneloe, Susan, EPA/OAQPS.
     June  3, 1987.  Selection of chemicals for sensitivity analysis;
     throughput selection for VO removal processes.

5.   Memorandum from Rogers, Tony, RTI, to Thorneloe,  Susan, EPA/OAQPS.
     July  13, 1987.  Cost tables and modular costs for ASPEN steam
     stripping model.

6.   Andress, T.  W.  Operation and Capital Cost Estimate for Fractional
     Distillation Process.  Associated Technologies, Inc.  Charlotte, NC.
     May 1986.

7.   Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  ASPEN Technical Reference
     Manual, Volume 2.  Cambridge, Massachusetts.  DOE/MC/16481-1202,
     DE82020201.   May 1982.  p. 408.
                                   1-19

-------
8.   Onda, K., E. Sada, and Y. Murase.   Liquid Side Mass Transfer
     Coefficients in Packed Towers.  AICHE Journal.  5:235-239.   1959.

9.   Corripio, A. B.,  K. S. Chrien, and  L. B. Evans.   Estimate Cost  of  Heat
     Exchangers and Storage Tanks Via Correlations.  Chemical Engineering.
     p. 125.  January  25,  1982.

10.  Peters, M. S., and K. D. Timmerhaus.  Plant Design and  Economics for
     Chemical Engineers.   3rd ed.  New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
     1980.  p. 199-203.

11.  Telecon.  Gitelman, A., RTI with Hoyt Corporation.  September 8, 1986.
     Cost of flame arresters.

12.  R. S. Means Co.,  Inc.  Means Construction Cost Data.  Kingston, MA.
     1986.  p. 292-293.

13.  Reference 10,  p.  170.

14.  Perry, R. H.,  and C.  H. Chilton.  Chemical Engineers'  Handbook.  5th
     ed.  New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.  1973.   p. 25-12.

15.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EAB Control Cost Manual,
     Section 2:  Manual Estimating Methodology.  3rd Edition.  Draft.
     Office of Air Quality Planning and  Standards.  Research Triangle Park,
     NC.  Publication  No.  EPA-450/5-87-001A.  February 1987.  p. 2-27
     through 2-31.

16.  Vatavuk, W.  M.,  and R. B. Neveril.  Part II:  Factors for Estimating
     Capital and Operating Costs.  Chemical Engineering.  November 3, 1980.
     p. 157-162.

17.  Reference 10.   p. 176.

18.  Memorandum from Kong, Emery, RTI,  to Thorneloe, Susan,  EPA/OAQPS.
     May 19, 1987.   Revised energy and steam costs.

19.  Reference 10,  p.  199.

20.  Reference 14,  p.  25-30.

21.  Reference 10,  p.  203.
                                   1-20

-------
               APPENDIX J

EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR MAXIMUM RISK AND
        NONCANCER HEALTH EFFECTS

-------
                                APPENDIX J
                 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR MAXIMUM RISK AND
                         NONCANCER HEALTH EFFECTS

     The purpose of this appendix is to present the treatment, storage, and
disposal facility (TSDF) data and the models used to assess chronic and
acute risk from TSDF air emissions.  Chronic risk is expressed as  (1) risk
of-contracting cancer from long-term (e.g., 70 years) exposure to
carcinogenic agents, and (2)  risk of adverse health effects from long-term
exposure to noncarcinogenic agents.  Acute risk is expressed as the risk of
adverse noncancer health effects from exposure to short-term, concentrated
TSDF emissions of chemical  agents.
     Chronic risk is assessed using the maximum annual average ambient
concentrations estimated from (1) the emission models, and  (2) the
Industrial Source Complex Long-term (ISCLT) model.  Acute risk is  assessed
from the short-term (peak)  ambient concentrations estimated from (1) the
short-term emission models  and (2) the Industrial Source Complex Short-term
(ISCST)  model.  Each ISC model calculates the ambient concentration of the
waste constituents or their surrogates in TSDF emissions dispersed at the
facility fenceline and beyond.  To calculate chronic cancer risk,  the
ambient concentration is multiplied by a constituent's or surrogate's unit
risk factor (see Appendix E).   Chronic and acute noncancer  health  effects
are assessed by comparing the ambient concentration of constituents to
their reference doses (RFDs)  (see Appendix E).  The modeling is performed
not only to assess risk from  exposure to uncontrolled TSDF  emissions but
also to evaluate the effectiveness of control techniques in lowering TSDF
emissions and  risk.   Appendix  E provides a detailed discussion of  these
risk assessment procedures.
                                    J-3

-------
     Briefly, the steps required to assess risk are as follows:
     •    Characterize the TSDF of interest.
     •    Collect meteorological data (hourly for short-term assess-
          ments and annual frequency distribution for long-term
          assessments).
     •    Identify the characteristics of wastes managed at the TSDF.
     •    Generate organic emission rates (hourly for short-term
          assessments and annual average for long-term assessments).
     •    Execute dispersion modeling of the organic emissions.
     •    Identify the highest ambient concentration of the organic
          emissions.
Chapter 6.0 presents the results of the ISCLT for chronic cancer risk as
maximum lifetime risk.  Chronic and acute risk assessments for noncarcino-
genic TSDF emissions are still in progress.
     This appendix discusses the models used to estimate short-term and
annual average concentrations used in the health effects assessment.  It
presents the TSDF characterized for the risk assessment and then addresses
the information used to assess the reduction in risk once emission controls
are in place.
     To expand on these particular model inputs, data generated and their
corresponding Appendix J sections include:
     •    TSDF long-term emission models (Section J.I.I)
     •    TSDF short-term emission models (Section J.I.2)
     •    TSDF to be modeled including their plot plans, design and
          operating parameters,  and waste characterization (Section
          J.2)
     •    Long-term example control strategies and emission estimates
          (Section J.3)
     •    Short-term control  strategies (Section J.4, currently not
          available)
     •    Dispersion modeling for chronic health effects (Section
          J.5).
     Chronic risk estimates are computed using long-term TSDF emission
estimates.   The long-term emission models discussed in Section J.I.I are
                                    J-4

-------
the same as those summarized in Appendix C, Section C.I.  (A detailed
description of emission models is contained in a recent TSDF air emissions
models report.^)  The emission models compute the emission of organic
surrogates (defined in Appendix D, Section D.2.3) for chronic cancer
effects.  Physical properties of each surrogate are classified according to
(1) Henry's law constant and biodegradabi1ity,  or (2) vapor pressure and
biodegradability.  Table J-l lists the physical properties of surrogates
(numbered 1 through 9) associated with values of Henry's law constant and
the physical  properties of surrogates (numbered 1 through 12) used with
values of vapor pressure.  (The properties associated with the Henry's law
constants are valid for dilute aqueous wastes;  the properties for vapor
pressure are used for oily or more concentrated organic wastes.)
     Chronic noncancer effects will be evaluated using specific chemicals
instead of organic surrogates.  Waste constituents of interest will  be
modeled using the long-term emission models and the ISCLT model to estimate
annual ambient concentrations.  These concentrations will be compared to
health benchmark values for each constituent to assess chronic noncancer
effects of TSDF air emissions.
     Acute risk assessments must be based on short-term TSDF emission esti-
mates; therefore, it was necessary to modify the long-term emission  models
in Appendix C to estimate emissions on an hourly basis.  These modifica-
tions (summarized in Section J.I.2) are explained in Reference 2.  The
emission models compute the emission of specific waste constituents  from
the two modeled TSDF.   Physical properties of each waste constituent are
taken from an appropriate surrogate listed in Table J-l.
     In Section J.2,  the selection of facilities to be modeled is
addressed.   As explained in Chapter 6.0,  the detailed and accurate data
necessary to estimate  risk for each TSDF in the Nation and,  in turn, iden-
tify the TSDF causing  the maximum risk in the Nation were not available.
Therefore,  -two TSDF were selected to estimate chronic cancer risk (referred
to as maximum lifetime risk),  and chronic and acute noncancer health
effects.   The following topics are discussed for the two TSDF selected:
     •    Comparison  of TSDF selected to characteristics of TSDF nationwide
          Description  of each  TSDF
                                    J-5

-------
                                     TABLE  J-l.   PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF ORGANIC SURROGATES USED IN THE DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSES3
 I
CD

Surrog
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMB
LHHB
MHHB
HHHB




atesc
6
3
8,9
5
2
7
4
1



Surrogatesc
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7,8,9
10,11
12
Mo 1 ecu 1 ar
we i ght ,
g/g mo 1
112
144
78.4
57.0
117
97.3
69.9
98.4

Mo 1 ecu 1 ar
weight,
g/g mo 1
74.4
72.5
117.0
111.0
132.0
185.0
98.0
39.3
80.7
Diff. water,
(10~6 cm2/s)
8.60
9.39
11.3
11.8
8.24
9.64
11 .6
9.4


Diff. water,
(10-6 cm2/s)
10.6
10.7
9.63
9.02
7.50
7.32
11.1
14.6
11.8
Physical properties associated
B i orate,
Diff. air, mg organ ics/
(10-2 cm2/s)
7.64
8.76
18.0
11.5
7.40
8.27
9.56
8.73
Physical proper-tie

Diff. air,
(10-2 cm2/s)
9.89
13.4
8.99
7.68
6.43
6.69
9.50
10.1
10.7
g/h
0.390
0.302
3.55
11.2
2.71
23.2
40.1
29.2
is associated
B i orate,
mg organ ics/
g/h
34.30
B.97
0.30
22.60
3.02
0.39
4.08
47.50
0.30
with Henry's 1 aw°
Henry's law constant, atm-m^/g mo 1
(T = Kelvin)
H = (e ((-4,879.12/T)+17.1726))/105
H = (e ((-2,27S:36/T)tl5.6418))/105
H = e ((-11,562.27/T)+23.14)
H = (e ((-4,090.15/T)+16.13143))/10B
H = (e ((-6,462.87/T)+23.10247))/10E
H = e ((-11,562.27/1)^23.14)
H = (e ((-3,256.36/T)tl2.84471))/105
H = (e ((-3,180.14/T)-fl6.96871))/105
with vapor pressure^

Vapor pressure, mm Hg
(T = Celsius)
VP = 10 [0.0187T + 1.846]
VP = 10 [0.01685T + 1.8388]
VP = 10 [0.014475T + 2.046]
VP = 10 [0.0335T - 0.4192]
VP = 10 [0.02416T - 0.2984]
VP = 10 [0.0256T - 0.176]
VP = 10 [0.07716T - 5.929]
VP = 10 [0.0138T t 2.9315]
VP = 10 [0.0135T ^ 2.97]
Henry ' s 1 aw
constant at 298 K
(10-6 atm-m3/g mo 1 )
22.2
30,000
0.158
40.8
1,180
0.158
68.0
5,380


Vapor pressure
at 25 °C
206
182
256
2.62
2.02
2.91
0.0001
1,890
2,030
            aSurrogate properties  (defined  in Appendix D, Section D.2.3.3) are classified into two groups:  physical properties associated with Henry's
             law, and physical properties associated with vapor pressure.
            ^Low Henry's  I aw constant  less  than 1.0 x 10"^ atm-m3/g mo I.
             Medium Henry's law constant 1.0 x 10~5 to 1,0 x 10~3 atm-m^/g mo I .
             High Henry's law constant greater than 1.0 x 10~3 atm-m3/g mo I.
            GSurrogate codes:
             MHLB = Med i urn Henry's law, low biodegradation.
             HHLB = High Henry's law,  low biodegradation.
             LHMB = Low Henry * s I aw,  med i um biodgradat'ion.
             MHMB ~ Med i um Henry's I aw, medium biodegradation.
             HHMB = High Henry's law, med i um b1odegradati on.
             LHHB = Low Henry' s I aw,  high biodegradation.
             MHHB = Med i um Henry J s law, high biodegradation.
             HHHB = High Henry's law, high biodegradation.
             HVHB = High volatility,  high biodegradation
             HVMB = High volatility,  medium biodegradation.
             HVLB = High volatility,  low biodegradation.
             MVHB = Med i um volatility,  high biodegradation.
             MVMB - Med i um voI ati Ii ty,  med i um biodegradation.
             MVLB = Med i um volatility,  low biodegradation.
             LVMB = Low vo I at i I i ty , med ium b'l odegradat i on.
             VHVHB = Very high volatility, high biodegradation.
             VHVLB = Very high volatility,  low biodegradation.
            ^Low volatility  less than 0.0076 mm Hg.
             Medium volatility 0.0076 to 0.76 mm Hg.
             High volatility 0.76   to 760 mm Hg.
             Very high volatility  greater  than 760 mm Hg.

-------
     •     Source of data
     •     Plant layout
     •     Waste managed and their characteristics.
The plot plans and design and operating parameters of each facility also
are presented.
     For long-term emission control, the two example control strategies
described in Chapter 5.0 are applied in Section J.3.  Efforts to identify
controls for both acute and chronic noncarcinogenic TSDF emissions are
still in progress.  No information is currently available on short-term
controls for.Section J.4.
J.I  TSDF EMISSION MODELS
     Estimates of air emissions from the two TSDF described in this
appendix include both short-term or peak emissions and annual average
emissions.   The emission models derived for short-term estimates use inputs
that are based primarily on a high level of activity with most transfers of
waste occurring during an 8-h period each day.  The approach for average
annual  emissions assumes a relatively continuous operation, and the
emission models for annual average estimates use inputs based on average
flow rates,  a temperature commonly used in emission modeling, and an
average annual windspeed.
J.I.I  Long-Term Emission Models
     Annual  average or long-term emissions are estimated from the emission
models  presented in the TSDF air emission models report.  This approach is
based on annual average waste flow rates (instead of the peak rates used
for the short-term approach) and average meteorological conditions.  The
source  descriptions and dimensions used as inputs to the models are the
same as those used for the short-term effort and are described in Section
J.2.
     For both sites, a temperature of 25 °C was used as recommended in
Reference 1.  The frequency of occurrence of various windspeeds at each
site was used to estimate an annual average windspeed.  The average annual
windspeed used for TSDF Site 1 was 3.5 m/s and the windspeed used for
Site 2  was  4.5 m/s.  None of the TSDF emission sources were defined as
biologically active treatment systems; consequently, biodegradation was not
                                    J-7

-------
included in the emission models.  The annual average estimates for each
source include adjustments to the organic concentration in the waste to
reflect losses due to air emissions from prior processing.
J.I.2  Short-Term Emission Models
     The models used to estimate short-term emissions are discussed in
detail in Reference 2 and are based on modifications to the annual average
models presented in the TSDF air emission models report.  A basic modifica-
tion used for the short-term models is to present the input parameters and
mass transfer correlations in terms of their dependence on temperature and
windspeed.  Accounting for short-term variations in temperature and wind-
speed will then yield more accurate estimates of short-term emissions.  For
example, the following properties were expressed in terms of their tempera-
ture dependence:  vapor pressure, Henry's law constant, diffusivity of a
compound in air and water, density and viscosity of air, and diffusion
coefficients.  For models that contain windspeed as an input parameter, the
functional dependence on windspeed was retained as a variable.
     The short-term approach uses site-specific data on temperature and
windspeed to estimate emissions for short time intervals.  The temperature
and windspeed are updated hourly to estimate hourly instantaneous emissions
from each source.  The emission estimates generated in this manner permit
peak emission periods to be identified and also allows the estimation of
peak ambient air concentrations of organics around the facility.  This
approach also reduces the organic concentration as the waste is- processed
to reflect losses to the air from previous process emission sources.  The
emission source descriptions, including method of operation, peak waste
pumping rates and pumping times, and process unit dimensions used in the
short-term models are provided in Section J.2.
J.2  TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES SELECTED FOR DETAILED
     ANALYSIS
     -This section introduces two TSDF selected for model i.ng the dispersion
of organic emissions to assess chronic and acute health effects from
exposure to ambient air concentrations.  These TSDF are based on actual
facilities.
                                    J-8

-------
     In Sections J.2.2 and J.2.3, each TSDF emission source is described,
including quantity of waste transferred,  loading times, dimensions of emis-
sion source, and input parameters for the appropriate emission calcula-
tions.
     The data used to characterize both facilities came from test reports
prepared for EPA, along with the Industry Profile and the Waste Characteri-
zation  Data Base (WCDB).   (The Industry Profile and WCDB are described in
more detail in Appendix D.)   This information was supplemented by
discussions with EPA Regions,  State agencies, RCRA permit applications,  and
the 1986 National Screening Survey.3
     Representative waste concentrations were developed for chemical
constituents and their organic surrogates for Sites 1 and 2 as an input to
the emission models.  Us'ing the Industry Profile along with the test
reports prepared for EPA, waste stream mixtures consisting of RCRA waste
codes,  their physical/chemical forms,  and quantities were designated for
each waste management process  (multiple waste codes may be mixed and
managed in the same process).   All  of the waste data bases constituting the
WCDB (see Appendix D, Section  D.2.2) were then accessed to provide
compositional  data for determining representative waste concentrations of
constituents or surrogates.   Default compositions (described in Appendix D,
Section D.2.2) were used  to characterize waste streams that were undefined
in the  WCDB.  The methodology  for developing constituent and surrogate
concentrations is documented in Reference 4.
J.2.1  Rationale for Selection of Facilities
     As noted  earlier,  two TSDF were selected for modeling in order to
assess  chronic and acute  health effects from exposure to air emissions at
the facilities.   For these assessments, the highest ambient concentrations
in the  vicinity of the facilities are used to assess the potential for the
greatest human exposure.   The  highest ambient concentrations around a
facility are sensitive to a number of factors, including:
     •     Magnitude and rate of emissions from all sources of air
          emissions at a  facility
                                                            4
     •     Emission release characteristics such as temperature, height
          of release,  the area over which the emissions occur,  etc.
                                    J-9

-------
     •    Location of the emission sources relative to the impact area
     •    Meteorology at the site that affects both emission rates
          (e.g., temperature and windspeed) and transport and dispersion
          of the emissions (e.g., windspeed, wind direction,  atmospheric
          stability, depth of the mixed layer, etc.).
     Ideally, the facilities selected for analysis would be those that are
indicative of the highest exposures around TSDF.  Because of the complex
nature of TSDF and the dependency of ambient concentration estimates on the
factors cited above, selecting facilities that have the greatest potential
for the highest ambient concentrations is extremely difficult.  Thus, the
approach used here was to select the facilities on the basis of a number of
criteria, including:

     •    Sufficient information on the facility must be available in
          order to properly characterize it for emission model and
          refined dispersion model applications
     •    The facilities should contain a variety of TSDF emission
          sources in order to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative
          control strategies on lowering emissions from the various
          source types
     •    The facilities should have significant waste volume
          throughputs to maximize the potential for high emissions.
Inital screening of all TSDF identified relatively few sites with the
necessary information to perform a refined'model ing analysis and meet the
above criteria.  Of these, two sites that best met the criteria were
selected after reviewing the available information on emission source
types,  forms of waste handled,  site layout, and process flow.
J.2.2  Description of Site 1
     Site 1  is a commercial hazardous waste management facility.  The
facility accepts a variety of hazardous wastes, both in bulk and in
containers.   Much of the waste that the facility handles is treated onsite,
and it consists primarily of wastewater containing soluble oils., acids,
caustics, chromium,  cyanides, and some solvents.  4Waste entering Site 1
arrives in drums and by tank truck.  The facility has wastewater and waste
                                   J-10

-------
oil  treatment units.  Figure J-l presents a plot plan of Site 1 and Figure
J-2  presents a flow diagram of Site 1.  The plot plan shows numbered
emission sources that correspond to the same description of the facility.
The  flow diagram contains alphabetized process flows that are keyed to
short-term and continuous (annual average) flow rates in Table J-2.
     The contents (waste form and code) of each waste mixture managed at
Site 1 are presented in Table J-3.  The average concentrations of waste
constituents of a health concern in each waste stream mixture managed in a
process unit on Site 1 are shown in Table J-4; average waste compositions
of each waste mixture expressed as organic surrogates are listed in Table
J-5.  Design and operating parameters for the site along with the
appropriate emission calculations are described in the following section.
     J.2.2.1  Design and Operating Parameters of Emission Points for
Site 1.  The following pages present the design and operating parameters of
Site 1 emission sources.  Each numbered emission source is identified in
the  plot plan, as shown in Figure J-l.  For each emission point within a
source, the reader is referred to the modified TSDF emission equations of
Reference 2 when dealing with short-term emission estimates.  Table J-6
presents the definitions of variables listed for each emission source when
estimating short-term emissions.
     J.2.2.1.1  Storage and transfer building (emission source No.  1).
Five hundred 0.21-m3 (55-gal) drums arrive each week.  Drums are sampled
and  moved to separate hazard class storage areas.  The contents of 250 of
these drums are stored in three covered 23-m3 aqueous waste storage tanks
(3 m x 3 m x 2.5 m).  It is assumed that each drum contains 15 percent
solids.  Solids are consolidated into drums and shipped offsite for
disposal.
     Each week, two 23-m^ tank trucks transfer the aqueous waste from the
drum storage building to the acid/alkali receiving area.  Tank truck
loading occurs on Monday and Thursday at 1000 hours for 1 h at a rate of
6.72 x ID'3 m3/s.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
                         Assume all surrogates are heavy liquids.
                                   J-ll

-------
                                                   Receiving Aics
                           m   m  m  £:.;:'
                                        T.nkl
        Drum Storage and Transfer Building
                  NoHh


0   0  [D      I""B","'°"



0mm      'I   3   I"
                                                                                                n
                                                                                                         c,.n,d«
                                                                         I 1      .. .    andFllliau   ]
                                                                          T,.,m.n,S,,.m            J
                                                          Ivtnii   J      (



                                                               Oldil*  Sicondary

                                                                       Fu«l
                                                                                              Filleruki lo


                                                                                             Stcuri L.nddll
-Q



-m
                                                                                                                        South Waite

                                                                                                                        Receiving Ai ed
O,O * Waste management procen unill

      (eminion fourcc)
                    Figure J-1.  Detailed facility analysis plot plan of Site 1.

-------
                                                              000
0
 O Waste stream mixture number
 Q Waste management process units
   Alphabetized line* = process flow path
                                                                                                                                                 Offiite
                                                                            Filter cake is tent
                                                                            olfiite to landfill.
                                       Figure J-2.  Detailed facility analysis: treatment, storage,
                                                and disposal facility, Site 1  flow diagram.

-------
          TABLE J-2.  DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS:  SHORT-TERM AND
             CONTINUOUS PROCESS FLOW RATES WITHIN TSDF SITE la
Process
flow
pathb
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
Short-term
flow rates,0
ID'3 m3/s
0
0
6
6
8
28
0
0
6
3
2
0
0
2
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
6
.258
.018
.72
.5
.42
.9
.516
.611
.23
.72
.5
.343
.343
.16
.89
.03
.00845
.89
.132
.744
.0929
.3
Short-term
timeframe
(7
(7
(2
(7
(7
(1
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(1
(7
(7
(7
(1
d/wk,
d/wk,
h/wk)
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
h/mo)
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
8
8

1
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

8
1
8
2
h/d)
h/d)

h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)

h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
Continuous
flow rates, d
10-3 m3/s
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.086
.006
.08
.27
.35
.172
.172
.204
.08
.24
.833
.114
.114
.72
.63
.677
.00282
.00282
.044
.031
.031
.075
TSDF = Transfer, storage,  and disposal  facility.

aThis table presents short-term and continuous flow rates that are based
 on site-specific information.

t>Hazardous waste management process flow paths are alphabetized to corre-
 spond to Figure J-2.

cShort-term flow rates were estimated based on site-specific information.

^Continuous flow rates used to estimate long-term emissions were estimated
 given nonstop flow through the facility 7 d/wk, 24 h/d.
                                   J-14

-------
                                   TABLE J-3.  DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS:  CONTENTS OF EACH WASTE MIXTURE MANAGED AT TSDF SITE la
 I
I—>
en
Waste mi x ture
number : ^
Percent comp .
by waste form:c
RCRA waste code
within eachj
waste form:

































1
25% 2XX
75% 3XX
D004
D005
D009
D010
F006
F007
F008
F009
F011
K052
K086
P021
P029
P074
P098
P121
U134



















2
1005! 3XX
D004
D005
0009
D010
F006
F007
F008
F009
F011
F012
K052
K086
P021
P029
P074
P098
P121
U134


















3
10055 4XX
F001
F002
F003
F004
F005
P005
U001
U002
U012
U019
U028
U031
U037
U052
U070
U071
U076
U077
U080
U112
U121
U122
U140
U1B4
U159
U161
U165
U188
U191
U208
U209
U210
U213
U220
U226
U227
4567
30% 2XX 2455 3XX 3055 2XX 30% 2XX
70% 3XX 75% 3XX 70% 3XX 7055 3XX
D004 F001 D004 D004
D005 F002 D005 D005
0009 F003 0009 D009
D010 F004 0010 D010
K052 F005 F006 K052
U001 F019
U002 K052
U012 K086
,11019 U134
U028
U031
U037
U052
U070
U071
U076
U077
U080
U112
U121
U122
U165
U188
U191
U208
U209
U210
U226
U227







8
30% 2XX
70% 3XX
F007
F008
F009
F011
F012
P021
P029
P074
P098
P121


























9
100% 4XX
F001
F002
U037
U070
U071
U076
U077
U080
U121
U208
U209
U210
U226
U227






















10
100% 4XX
F003
F004
F005
U001
U002
U012
U019
U028
U031
U037
U052
U112
U122
U140
U154
U159
U161
U165
U188
U191
U213
U220














11
100% 3XX
F003
F004
F005
U001
U002
U012
U019
U028
U031
U037
U052
U112
U122
U140
U154
U159
U161
U165
U188
U191
U213
U220














12
100% 2XX
0004
0005
0009
D010
F006
F007
F008
F009
F011
F012
K052
K086
P005
P021
P029
P074
P098
P121
U134

















            TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
            RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
             2XX = Aqueous sIudge.
             3XX = Aqueous Ii qu i d.
             4XX = Organic I  1 quid.

            aThis table presents the RCRA waste codes (and their physical/chemi cal forms) managed in each waste mixture at Site 1.
            ^Waste mi xture numbers  correspond to the mixture of RCRA waste codes and their forms that enter waste management un i ts at TSDF S i te 1.
             These mixtures are labeled in Figure J-2.
            CA waste m'l xture may be a combination of two or more physical /chemi cal waste forms of a RCRA waste code.  These forms are descr i bed i n
             Appendix  D,  Section D.2.2.
                  waste codes are defined in 40 CFR 261, Subparts C and D.

-------
TABLE J-4.   DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS:   WASTE  CHARACTERIZATION  BY
              CONSTITUENT OF CONCERN FOR TSDF SITE  la
., . Surrogate
Waste 	 a 	
mixture H-jb VPj
1 1
1 4
1 5
1 3
1 7
1 9

2 4
2 5
2 7
2 9

3 1
3 1
3 1
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 7
3 5
3 5
3 5
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 6
3 6
3 6
3 1
3 1
3 1
3 7
3 7
1
1
2
3
4
6

1
2
4
6

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
Average
concentration,
c % Constituent
0.0001
0.0361
0.0941
0.0001
0.001
0.132
Total organic =
0.0352
0.0916
0.0001
0.175
Total organic =
" 7.88
3.14
0.0072
6.31
0.183
0.827
1.43
1.82
0.588
4.304
0.0007
0.0765
3.054
0.0262
5.48
1.19
0.0033
0.344
0.07
0.0162
0.2028
0.0977
4.2
0.0131
0.2802
Methylene chloride
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl alcohol
1, 1,1-Trichloroethane
Phenols
Cyanide
0.818
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl alcohol
Phenols
Cyanide
0.620
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Butanol
Isopropanol
Ethyl acetate
Methanol
Ethyl alcohol
Acetone
Propanol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Perchloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Methyl methacrylate
1,4-Dioxane
Ethyl benzene
Dichlorobenzene
Xylene
Toluene diisocyanate
Isobutyl alcohol
                                                            (continued)
                              J-16

-------
TABLE J-4 (continued)
Waste
mixture
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Surroaate Average
Surrogate concentration,
Hib VPic % Constituent
8
8
3
6
4
3
3
7

1
1
1
4
4
4
4
7
2
2
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
1
1
1
7
7
7
8
8
3
5
5
6
6
10
12
3
4
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
0.0111
0.0078
0.292
0.241
0.0073
1.12
0.0001
0.0002
organic =
2.43
6.028
0.0055
0.124
0.6097
1.107
4.84
1.32
0.0005
0.0013
0.0006
3.32
0.448
0.0202
0.0025
0.922
2.36
4.23
0.0591
0.0541
0.013-
0.281
0.163
0.0754
3.32
0.0005
0.0101
0.216
0.0086
0.006
0.2405
Anil ine
Methyl acrylate
Styrene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Gasol ine
Phenols
0.146
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Benzene
Butanol
Isopropanol
Ethyl acetate
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methanol
Acetic acid
Chlorobenzene
Propanol
Acetone
Ethyl alcohol
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Methyl methacrylate
1,4-Dioxane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Ethyl benzene
Dichlorobenzene
Xylene
Phenol
Toluene diisocyanate
Isobutyl alcohol
Aniline
Methyl acrylate
Styrene
                                     (continued)
        J-17

-------
                    TABLE J-4  (continued)
c Average
Waste surrogate concentration,
mixture H-jb VP-jc % Constituent
5 6
5 4
5 3
-
6 1
6 4
6 5
6 3
6 3
6 7
6 9

7 3
7 7
6
10
12
Total
1
1
2
3
3
4
6
Total
3
4
0.186
0.005
0.866
organic =
0.0002
0.0666
0.174
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
organic = 0
0.0001
0.0002
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
Tri chl orotri fl uoroethane
68.2
Methyl ene chloride
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl alcohol
Gasoline
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Phenols
Cyanide
.8303
Gasoline
Phenols
8
   Total organic - 0.146



6          0.267        Cyanide



   Total organic = 0.386
9 1
9 1
9 1
9 4
9 4
9 7
9 5
9 5
9 5
9 3
9 3
9 3
9 3
9 3
9 3
9 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.0153
0.0552
5.068
0.422
0.0094
0.126
0.001.5
0.013
0.0054
0.007
1.69
9.48
0.0558
6.503
0.163
0.733
Benzene
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Isopropanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methanol
Propanol
Ethyl alcohol
Acetone
Carbon tetrachloride
Perchloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
                                                          (continued)
                            J-18

-------
TABLE J-4 (continued)
Waste
mixture
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
SurrnnatP Average
^urr°9ate concentration,
Hib VPic % Constituent
6
1
1
1
7
6
3

1
1
4
4
4
4
7
5
5
3
6
1
1
7
8
8
3
6
4

1
1
4
7
2
2
1
1
4
7
3
4
4
4
4
6
12
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5.
6
6
10
Total
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
4
4
4
0.0345
0.0083
0.208
0.0074
0.0278
0.0057
2.38
organic =
1.38
14.3
2.62
0.334
1.15
11.5
3.22
1.061
7.85
1.86
0.128
0.364
7.82
0.511
0.0142
0.0203
0.532
0.435
0.0133
organic =
0.01
0.0082
0.0023
0.0059
0.0037
0.01
0.046
0.0031
0.0001
0.0035
1,4-Dioxane
Xylene
Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene diisocyanate
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Trichlorotrif luoroethane
90.46
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Ethyl acetate
Butanol
Isopropanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methanol
Ethyl alcohol
Acetone
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Methyl methacrylate
Ethyl benzene
Xylene
Isobutyl alcohol
Methyl acrylate
Aniline
Styrene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
88.5
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Ethyl acetate
Methanol
Acetic acid
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Xylene
Benzaldehyde
Phenol
                                      (continued)
        J-19

-------
                           TABLE J-4 (continued)
.. , Surrogate
Waste 	 a 	
mixture Hjb VP^
11 2
11 3

12 1
12 4
12 5
12 3
12 3
12 9

5
6

1
1
2
3
3
6

Average
concentration,
c % Constituent
0.0001
0.115
Total organic =
0.0004
0.0387
0.1007
0.0001
0.0004
0.0021
Total organic =
Cumene
Styrene
0.996
Methylene chlori
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl alcohol
Gasol ine



de



1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Cyanide
0.628


TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.

aThis table presents the average concentrations of specific hazardous
 constituents of health concern in the waste mixtures handled at TSDF Site 1
 for the Detailed  Facility  Analysis.

bH-j  = Henry's law  surrogate number keyed to the properties in Table J-l.

cVPj = Vapor pressure surrogate number keyed to the properties in Table J-l.
                                   J-20

-------
                                           TABLE J-B.
                                                       DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS:   AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF SURROGATES IN
                                                                 WASTE STREAM MIXTURES AT TSDF SITE la
C-,
I
no
Agueous waste concentration (ppm
Henry 's
law
surrogate'*
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMB
LHHB
MHHB
HHHB
Total
Waste
mi xture
1
312
280
2,040
4,560
633
1
361
1
8,190
Waste
mi xture
2
122
54
2,450
3,170
48
1
352
0
6,200
Waste
mi xture
4
41
269
89
301
754
2
0
0
1,460
Waste
mi xture
6
236
592
192
6,210
403
1
666
2
8,300
Waste
mixture
7
41
269
89
301
754
2
0
0
1,460
by weight)
Waste
mixture
8
0
0
3,610
247
0
0
0
0
3,860

Waste
mi xture
11
55
3,640
1,320
226
1,180
573
202
2,770
9,970

Waste
mi xture
12
142
948
61
4,120
618
0
387
4
6,280
Oily waste j;^ncentrati on_^p'pm by weight)
Vapor
surrogate^
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Total
Waste
3
225,000
84,300
239,000
67,400
82,200
43,600
138,000
3,160
11,500
894,000
Waste
5
172,000
64,300
185,000
61,100
63,600
32,500
103,000
2,450
8,890
683,000
Waste
9
69,000
40,000
475,000
10,600
98,900
16,900
177,000
1,950
24,500
904,000
Waste
10
360,000
149,000
28,300
114,000
65,300
65,100
99,700
4,080
0
885,000
















































                                 TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
                                 aThis table presents the average concentrations of surrogates based on Henry's law constants (for
                                          wastes)  and vapor pressure (for oily wastes).   Surrogates are defined in Appendix D,
                                          D.2.3.3.
 aqueous
 Secti on
"Surroga
 MHLB
 HHLB
 LHMB
 MHMB
 HHMB
 LHHB
 MHHB
 HHHB
 HVHB
 HVMB
 HVLB
 MVHB
 MVMB
 MVLB
 LVMB
 VHVHB =
 VHVLB =
                                         te codes:
                                         Medium Henry's law, low biodegradation.
                                         High Henry's law, low biodegradation.
                                         Low Henry's law,  medium biodegradation.
                                         Medium Henry's law, medium biodegradation.
                                         High Henry's law, medium biodegradation.
                                         Low Henry's law,  high biodegradation.
                                         Medium Henry's law, high biodegradation.
                                         High Henry's law, high biodegradation.
                                         High volatility,  high biodegradation.
                                         High volatility,  medium biodegradation.
                                         High volatility,  low biodegradation.
                                         Medium volatility,  high biodegradation.
                                         Medium volatility,  medium biodegradation.
                                         Medium volatiIity,  low biodegradation.
                                         Low volatility,  medium biodegradation.
                                          Very high volatility, high biodegradation.
                                          Very high volatility, low biodegradation.

-------
     TABLE  J-6.   DETAILED  FACILITY ANALYSIS:   DEFINITION OF VARIABLES
                USED  IN  SHORT-TERM TSDF  EMISSION  EQUATIONS9
     Variables
        Definitions
     /'waste

     Mwwaste

     D

     H

     POWR

     At

     d

     u

     d*

     Aq

     Pt

     A



     MWoil
     w

     U
Throughput

Turnovers/year

Density of waste

Molecular weight of waste

Diameter

Height

Total power to aerator

Area affected by aeration

Impeller diameter, m

Rotational speed of impeller

Impeller diameter, ft

Quiescent area

Total operating pressure

Area

Density of water

Molecular weight of oily waste

Length of uncovered dumpster or
 fixation pit

Width of uncovered dumpster

Windspeed
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.

aThis table presents those  variables  used  to estimate short-term organic
 emissions from TSDF.   The  emission equations (given in Reference 2)  are
 modified versions of the long-term equations defined in Reference 1.
                                   J-22

-------
     Spills              Spill fraction during drum transfer to
                         storage = 1 x 10~4.
                         Q = 2.40 x ID'4 m3/s.
                         Assume only 50 percent of the organics in the
                         spill is volatilized to the atmosphere.
                         Spills occur 8 h each day.
     Drum and Tank       Q - 6.72 x 10'3 m3/s (for two tank trucks).
     Truck Loading
     Tank Loading        Q = 2.40 x 10'4 m3/s for three tanks (from
                         drum to storage tank)
                         N = 47.
                         MWwaste = 18 g/g mol.
     Tank Storage        D = 3.0 m, H = 1.2 m.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the above
     equations.
     J.2.2.1.2  Acid/alkali receiving area  (emission source No.  2).  The
acid/alkali receiving area consists of six covered 41-m3 storage tanks
(3.7 m x 3.7 m x 3 m).
     Each week, six 30-m3 tank trucks deliver acidic and caustic waste to
the acid/alkali receiving area.  Tank loading occurs daily at 0900 hours
for 1 h at a rate of 6.50 x 10'3 m3/s.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Tank Loading        Q - 2.40 x 10'4 m3/s, N = 33 (for two tanks).
                         Q - 6.5 x 10~3 m3/s, N - 56 (for four tanks).
     Tank Storage        D = 3.7 m, H = 1.8 m.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all the above
     equations.
     J.2.2.1.3  North equalization basin (emission source No. 3).   For 8 h
each day, waste from the acid/alkali  receiving area is pumped to the North
equalization basin (an uncovered,  aerated tank).   Wastewater from the oil
treatment system and washwater and filtrate from the rotary vacuum filters
are pumped 8 h each day to the North  equalization basin.
     Pumping and Piping    Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
                                   J-23

-------
     Mechanically Aerated  POWR - 14.9 kW  (20 hp), At = 16.7 m2,
     Uncovered Tank        retention time  = 12 h, d = 1.524 m,
                           w = 0.93 rad/s, d* -  1.524 m, Aq = 66.8 m2,
                           7.7 m x 10.8 m  x 2.3  m, Q = 5.10 x 10'3
                           m3/s.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table  (Table  J-l) for each of the above
     equations.
     J.2.2.1.4  South waste receiving area (emission source No. 4)  Each
week, the contents of four 26.5-m3 tank trucks are pumped into the South
waste receiving area, which consists of four covered 30.3-m3 (8,000-gal)
storage tanks (3.7 m x 3.7 m x 3 m).  One  tank truck contains acid/chrome
waste, two tank trucks contain acid/ alkali dilute sludge, and one tank
truck contains cyanide.  Each type of waste is stored in a separate storage
tank.  Tank loading occurs early Thursday  at 0900 hours each week for 1 h
at a rate of 2.89 x 10~2 m3/s.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3  in Reference 2.
     Tank Loading        Q = 2.89 x 10'2 m3/s, N = 36.
     Tank Storage        D = 3.7 m,  H = 1.4 m.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table  (Table  J-l) for all of the
     above equations.
     J.2.2.1.5  Cyanide pretreatment (emission source No. 5).  Cyanide is
pumped from the South waste receiving area to the uncovered, quiescent
cyanide pretreatment tank (5 m x 6 m x 3 m) each day for 8 h.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3  in Reference 2.
     Flow-through        A = 30 m2,  D = 3 m,  Q = 1.29 x 10'4 m3/s.
     Uncovered Tank
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table  (Table  J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.2.1.6  Chrome reduction (emission source No. 6).  The acid/chrome
waste is pumped from the South waste receiving area to the uncovered,
quiescent chrome reduction tank (5 m x 6 m x 3 m) each day for 8 h.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3  in Reference 2.
                                   J-24

-------
     Flow-through       'A - 30 m2, D = 3 m, Q = 1.29 x 10'4 m3/s.
     Uncovered
     Tank
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.2.1.7  Neutralization tank (emission source No. 7).  The
acid/alkali dilute sludge and the reduced acid/chrome waste are pumped to
the uncovered, quiescent neutralization tank (7 m x 10 m x 5 m) each day
for 8 h.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Flow-through        A = 70 m2, D - 5 m, Q = 3.87 x ICT4 m3/s.
     Uncovered Tank
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.2.1.8  South equalization basin (emission source No. 8).  The
contents of the neutralization tank along with the pretreated cyanide waste
are pumped into the South equalization basin--an uncovered, aerated tank
(6.9 m x 15.8 m x 2.2 m).  Pumping occurs each day for 8 h at a rate of
1.13 m3/s.  The contents of the North equalization basin are pumped into
the South equalization basin along with neutralization chemicals at a flow
rate of 5.10 x 10'3 m3/s for 8 h each day.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Mechanically        POWR = 22.4 kW (30 hp), At = 10.9 m2,
     Aerated Uncovered   retention time = 12 h, d = 1.067 m, w = 1.13
     Tank                rad/s, Aq = 97.8 m2, 6.8 m x 15.8 m x 2.2 m,
                         Q = 6.23 x 10~3 m3/s.
     Use. the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.2.1.9  Aqueous waste clarifier (emission source No. 9).  The
contents of the South equalization basin are pumped into the aqueous waste
clarifier--an uncovered, quiescent treatment tank (6.9 m x 15.8 m x 2.2 m).
Pumping occurs for 8 h each day.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Flow-through        A = 108.7 m2, D =  2.2 m, Q = 6.23 x 10~3
     Uncovered Tank       m3/s.

                                   J-25

-------
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table  (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.2.1.10  Rotary vacuum filters  (emission source No.  10).  Waste
from the aqueous waste clarifier is pumped to the rotary vacuum filters at
a rate of 2.50 x 10~3 m^/s.  The vacuum filter operates continuously from
0800 to 1600 hours.  The vacuum generates 68.8 m3 of filter  cake each week.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Vacuum Pump         Pt = 40 kPa, (0.4 atm), Qt = 11.2 m3.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table  (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.2.1.11  Sludge loading area (emission source No. 11).  Filter cake
from the rotary vacuum is generated at a  rate of 19.7 m3 every 2 days.
Filters are loaded on an open dump truck  and hauled to an offsite landfill.
     Vacuum Filer Cake   L = 3.0 m, W = 2.5 m.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table  (Table J-l) for the above
     equation.
     J.2.2.1.12  Receiving tank 8 (emission source No 12).   Each day,
industrial waste oils from one 18.9-m3 tank truck and oily wastewater
(nonhazardous waste) from two 26.5-m3 tank trucks are pumped into receiving
tank 8, which consists of four 19-m3 (5,000-gal) treatment tanks—uncovered
and quiescent (3 m x 3 m x 2.5 m deep).    Pumping duration is 23 m3 for 8 h
each day.  Hazardous waste is transferred at a rate of 5.1 x 10~4 m3/s for
8 h each day.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Oil Film Surface    A = 37.16 m2,  p\_ = 8.8 x 105 g/m3, MW0ji = 100
                         g/g mol.
     Use the vapor pressure surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.2.1.13  Recovered waste oil  storage tank (emission  source no. 13).
Recovered waste oil  from receiving tank  8 is pumped to the recovered waste
oil  storage tank (3.7 m long x 1.8 m diameter) along with waste oil
                                   J-26

-------
containing flammable solvents from the waste oil storage tank (3 m x 3 m x
2.5 m) each week.  The storage tank is covered and vented.  Pumping rate is
1.32 x ID'4 m3/s for 8 h each day from Section 0.2.2.1.12, Receiving
tank 8.  The recovered waste oil is blended and used as secondary fuel.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Tank Loading        Q = 1.23 x 10'3 m3/s, N = 48.
     Tank Storage        Assume />waste = 8-8 x lo5 9/m3< MWwaste = 10°
                         g/g mol,  D = 4.0 m, H = 2.0 m.
     Use the vapor pressure surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of
     the above equations.
     J.2.2.1.14  Reusable chlorinated solvent storage tank (emission source
No. 14).  Each day, reusable chlorinated solvents are pumped at a rate of
8.45 x 10~6 m3/s from receiving tank 8 to the 6.8-m3 chlorinated solvent
storage tank (a covered tank 2 x 2.3 m in diameter).  Pumping duration is
8 h each day.  Once a month, chlorinated solvents are sent offsite for
reclamation.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Tank Loading        Q = 8.45 x 10'6 m3/s, N = 13.
     Tank Storage        Assume MWwaste = 100 g/g mol, D = 2.3 m,
                         H = 1.1 m.
     Use the vapor pressure surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.2.1.15  Waste oil storage tank (emission source No.  15).  Each
week,  the contents of 90 drums are pumped into an 18.9-m3 waste oil storage
tank (3 m x 3 m x 2.5 m).  The storage tank is covered and vented and is
located in the drum storage and transfer building.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Spills              Spill  fraction during drum transfer to storage =
                         1 x lO'4-   Q = 9.29 x ID'5 m3/s.
     Tank Loading        Q = 9.29  x 10'5 m3/s.
                         N - 51.
                         Avaste =  8-8 x lo5 9/m3'  MWwaste = 100 g/g mol.
                                   J-27

-------
     Tank Storage        D = 3.0 m, H = 1.2 m.
     Use the vapor pressure surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
J.2.3  Description of Site 2
     Site 2 is a commercial hazardous waste treatment and disposal
facility.  A variety of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes are accepted at
the facility.  Common wastes received include wastes from chemical, steel,
and automotive industries.  Of specific interest are the following
activities:  active  landfills, wastewater treatment (including 'uncovered
tanks and surface impoundments),  and drum transfer and processing.  The
plot plan with numbered emission sources and a flow diagram for Site 2 are
shown in Figures J-3 and J-4,  respectively.  The flow diagram contains
alphabetized process flows that are keyed to short-term and continuous
(annual average) flow rates as shown in Table J-7.
     Table J-8 gives the contents (waste form and code) of each waste
mixture managed at Site 2.  The average concentrations of waste consti-
tuents of a health concern in each waste stream mixture are shown in Table
J-9; average waste compositions expressed as organic surrogates are listed
in Table J-10.  Design and operating parameters for the site along with the
appropriate emission calculations are described in the following section.
     J.2.3.1  Design and Operating -Parameters of Emission Points for Site 2.
The following pages present the design and operating parameters of Site 2
emission sources for estimating both long-term and short-term emissions.
Each numbered emission source is identified in the plot plan as shown in
Figure J-3.  Table J-6 presents the definitions of variables listed for each
emission source when estimating short-term emissions.
     J.2.3.1.1  Drum storage and transfer building (emission source No. 1).
Five hundred 0.21-m3 drums containing aqueous waste arrive each week.  The
contents of these drums are stored in a 90.8-m3 covered storage tank (4.8 m
x  4.8 m x 4 m).  It is assumed that each drum contains 15 percent solids.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Spills              Spill fraction during drum transfer to
                         storage = 1 x  10'4,   Q = 4.80 x 10~4 m3/s.
                         (Assume only 50 percent of the organics in
                         the spill  is volatilized to the atmosphere.)
                                   J-28

-------
1620
1500
1380
1260
1140
1020
 900
 780
 660
 540
 420
 300
 180
  60
                                          Wastewater Treatment Facility
                                           Phase!
          Wastewater Treatment Facility
             Phase 2
    0  60     180     300     420    540     660     780    900     1020    1140    1260    1380   1500    1620
               300m
                             Scale
          O,D = Waste management process units
                             Figure J-3.  Detailed facility analysis plot plan of Site 2.
                                                        J-29

-------
CO
o
1
ENCLOSURE STORAGE TREATMENT TREATMENT ENCLOSURE
A ^ 1. Drum C fc 2. Covered E 3. Covered F G 5. Filter
/~^\

©
S
18.
Lan
OWa.
DWa
Alp
Storage ' Tanks " Tanks *• "ow-iiiiougn - w pres$
'ID
L\:J
B H
20. Solids to
^^^ Active Landfill
\^s L --"JT- '!",! K J . ...
ki STnBAfiF ^ STORA^F ^ TRFATMFNT
8" ^ov*rad 9. Covered 6,7. Surface
Tank Impoundment

I'M - ^ 	 ^
TREATMENT rREATMFNT . ... » FMnnSIIRF ^-*. in "niiHr tn

1— ». Impoundment Tank l^. band K Active Landfills
* ENCLOSURE 	 E* Filters
. 1 20. Active
p. Landfill
i r Q
Closed 1 ^-^ ' ^-^
dfills From 5 From 12

TREATMENT
13,14,15,16.
te stream mixture number Surface
te management process units Impoundments

17. Liquids pumped of fsite.
Solids dredged once a year.
                                                       Figure J-4. Site 2 flow diagram.

-------
         TABLE  J-7.   DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS:   SHORT-TERM AND
             CONTINUOUS  PROCESS FLOW RATES WITHIN  TSDF SITE 2a
Process
flow
pathb
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Short-term
flow rates ,c
ID'3 m3/s
0
0
3
24
21
21
21
21
0
21
21
66
21
21
21
0
21
21
59 m
59 m
.48
.253
.84

.5
.5
.5
.4
.094
.4
.4
.0
.4
.4
.4
.094
.3
.3
3/mo
3/mo
(7
(1
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(1
(7
(7
(7
(7
(7
(1


Short-term
timeframe
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
h/wk)
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
d/wk,
h/mo)


8
8
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

8
8
8
8
8



h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)

h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)
h/d)



Continuous
flow rates, d
10-3 m3/s
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
0
0
7
7
7
0
7
7
0
0
.160
.0264
.160
.01
.17
.17
.17
.13
.0314
.13
.392
.392
.52
.52
.52
.0314
.49
.49
.0228
.0228
TSDF  =  Treatment,  storage,  and  disposal  facility.

aThis' table  presents  short-term and continuous flow rates that are based
 on site-specific  information.
^Hazardous waste management process flow paths are alphabetized to corre-
 spond  to Figure J-4.
cShort-term  flow rates  were estimated based on site-specific information.

^Continuous  flow rates  used to  estimate  long-term  emissions were estimated
 given  nonstop  flow through the facility 7 d/wk, 24 h/d.
                                   J-31

-------
          TABLE J-8.   DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS:   CONTENTS OF EACH
                    WASTE MIXTURE MANAGED AT TSDF  SITE 2a


Waste mixture
  number:b         123456


                                                20% 2XX
Percent comp.   7% 2XX    100% 1XX   100% 3XX   65% 3XX   100% 3XX   100% 1XX
by waste form:c 93% 3XX                         15% 5XX
RCRA waste D002 D002 D002 D002
code within D005 D005 D005 D003
each waste F009 F009 F009 D004
formrd K062 K062 K062 D005
U210 U210 U210 D006
D007
D008
D009
D010
D011
F009
K002
K049
K050
K051
K052
K062
P015
P030
U009
U012
U036
U037
U080
U102
U122
U124
U125
U134
U144
U147
U151
U159
U189
U207
U210
U211
U220
U228
D002
D003
D004
D005
D006
D007
D008
D009
D010
D011
F009
K002
K049
K050
K051
K052
K062
P015
P030
U009
U012
U036
U037
U080
U102
U122
U124
U125
U134
U144
U147
U151
U159
U189
U207
U210
U211
U220
U228
D002
D003
D004
D005
D006
D007
D008
D009
D010
D011
F009
K002
K049
K050
K051
K052
K062
P015
P030
U009
U012
U036
U037
U080
U102
U122
U124
U125
U134
U144
U147
U151
U159
U189
U207
U210
U211
U220
U228
                                                                  (continued)
                                  J-32

-------
                            TABLE J-8 (continued)
RCRA  =  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
TSDF  =  Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
 1XX  =  Inorganic solid.
 2XX  =  Aqueous  sludge.
 3XX  =  Aqueous  liquid.
 5XX  =  Organic  sludge/solid.

aThis table presents the RCRA waste codes (and  their physical/chemical forms)
 managed  in each waste  mixture at Site 2.

bWaste  stream numbers correspond to the mixture of RCRA waste codes and their
 forms  that enter waste management units at TSDF Site 2.  These streams are
 labeled  in Figure J-4.

CA waste  stream may be  a mixture of two or more physical/chemical  waste forms
 of a RCRA waste code.   These forms are described in Appendix D, Section
 D.2.2.

dRCRA waste codes are defined in 40 CFR 261,  Subparts C and D.
                                   J-33

-------
TABLE J-9.  DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS:   WASTE CHARACTERIZATION BY
              CONSTITUENT OF CONCERN FOR TSDF SITE 2a
c . Average
Waste Surrogate concentra?iorl(
mixture Hjb VPic %
1 1
1 4
1 4
1 7
1 2
1 2
1 5
1 5
1 3
1 9
1 9
1 9
1 1
1 7
1 8
1 3
1 6
1 9
1 7
1 4
1 3

2 1
2 3
2 2

3 1
3 4
3 4
3 7
3 2
3 2
3 5
3 5
3 3
3 9
3 9
3 9
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
6
8
10
12

1
3
5

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
0.0012
0.0002
0.0002
0.005
0.0013
0.0001
0.0011
0.0002
0.0002
0.0008
0.0001
0.0001
0.0038
0.0005
0.0116
0.0002
0.0054
0.0003
0.0003
0.0004
0.0001
Total organic = 0.2
0.0003
0.0253
0.0003
Total organic = 1.12
0.0012
0.0002
0.0002
0.005
0.0013
0.0001
0.0011
0.0002
0.0002
0.0008
0.0001
0.0001
Constituent
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Isopropanol
Methanol
Acetic acid
Benzene, Chloro
Vinyl acetate
Acetone
1,2-Dichloroethane
Formic acid
Ethyl glycol
Hydrazine
Xylene
Phenol
Anil ine
p-Chloroaniline
Dimethyl formamide
Glycidol
Glycerin
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane

Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Cumene

Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Isopropanol
Methanol
Acetic acid
Benzene chloro
Vinyl acetate
Acetone
1,2-Dichloroethane
Formic acid
Ethyl glycol
Hydrazine
                                                           (continued)
                             J-34

-------
TABLE J-9 (continued)
Waste
mixture
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 .
4
4
4
4
Surrogate
Hib VPjc
1
7
8
3
6
9
7
4
3

1
1
4
4
4
7
2
2
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
6
9
9
9
1
1
7
5
5
8
8
3
3
6
9
4
4
5
6
6
6
8
10
12

1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
Average
concentration,
% Constituent
0.0038
0.0005
0.0116
0.0002
0.0054
0.0003
0.0003
0.0004
0.0001
Total organic
0.0001
0.0142
0.0012
0.0002
0.0014
0.0367
0.0087
0.0004
0.0003
0.0069
0.0002
0.0016
0.0004
0.0016
0.0206
0.0038
0.0002
0.0072
0.392
0.0008
0.002
0.0243
0.0056
0.0003
0.0002
0.0742
0.113
0.0001
0.0009
0.0347
0.0206
Xylene
Phenol
Ani 1 ine
p-Chloroanil ine
Dimethyl formamide
Glycidol
Glycerin
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
= 0.2
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Isopropanol
Acrylonitri le
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methanol
Acetic acid
Benzene, Chloro
N-propanol
Vinyl acetate
Ethanol
Acetone
Trichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Carbon tetrachloride
1, 4-Dioxane
Formic acid
Ethylene glycol
Hydrazine
Dichlorobenzene
Xylene
Phenol
Acetophenone
Methacrylic acid (MAA)
Ani 1 ine
Phthalic anhydride
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
P-Chloroaniline
Dimethyl formamide
Hexachloroethane
                                    (continued)
        J-35

-------
                           TABLE J-9 (continued)
Average
Waste Surrogate concentraJi
mixture Hib VP-jc %
4 9
4 7
4 8
4 4
4 2
4 3

5 4
5 4
5 7
5 2
5 2
5 5
5 5
5 3
5 9
5 9
5 9
5 1
5 8
5 3
5 6
5 9
5 7
5 4
5 2
5 3

5 1
6 4
6 3
6 2

6
8
9
10
11
12
Total
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
6
6
6
8
10
11
12
Total
1
1
3
5
Total
0.0016
0.0016
0.0001
0.0855
0.0037
0.0006
organic =
0.0002
0.0002
0.0043
0.0014
0.0001
0.0003
0.0011
0.0003
0.0008
0.0001
0.0001
0.0041
0.0124
0.0002
0.0058
0.0003
0.0003
0.0004
0.0006
0.0001
organic =
0.0003
0.0015
0.0261
0.003
organic =
on,
Constituent
Glycidol
Glycerin
Maleic anhydride
Formaldehyde
Di ethyl amine
Bromomethane
6.17
Isopropanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methanol
Acetic acid
Benzene, Chloro
Acetone
Vinyl acetate
1,2-Dichloroethane
Formic acid
Ethylene glycol
Hydrazine
Xylene
Ani line
p-Chloroanil ine
Dimethyl formamide
Glycidol
Glycerin
Formaldehyde
Di ethyl amine
Bromomethane
>0.198
Benzene
Isopropanol
Carbon tetrachloride
Cumene
1.2214
TSDF = Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.

aThis table presents the average concentrations of specific hazardous
 constituents of health concern in the waste mixtures handled at TSDF Site 2
 for the Detailed  Facility  Analysis.

"H-j  = Henry's law  surrogate number keyed to the properties in Table J-l.

cVP-j = Vapor pressure surrogate number keyed to the properties in Table J-l.

                                   J-36

-------
   TABLE  J-10.   DETAILED FACILITY  ANALYSIS:   AVERAGE  CONCENTRATIONS  OF
            SURROGATES  IN WASTE  STREAM  MIXTURES  AT  TSDF  SITE  2a

                              Concentration,  ppm by weight
Henry1 s
law
surrogate'3
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMB
LHHB
MHHB
HHHB

Waste
mixture
1 and 3
236
223
495
738
121
79
18
93
Aqueous
Waste
mixture
2
2,190
2,900
4,630
1,390
3
48
0
3
waste
Waste
mixture
5
254
212
521
707
130
68
21
87
Oily waste
Waste
mixture
6
2,190
3,230
4,760
1,580
67
249
132
11
Vapor
pressure
surrogate^
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Waste
mixture
4
565
1,340
6,470
424
8,810
2,050
37,900
1,320
656
Total
2,000
11,200   2,000    12,200
59,500
TSDF  =  Treatment,  storage,  and  disposal  facility.

aThis table  presents  the  average  concentrations  of  surrogates  based  on
 Henry's  law constants  (for aqueous  wastes)  and  vapor  pressure (for  oily
 wastes).  Surrogates are defined in Appendix  D,  Section  D.2.3.3.

^Surrogate codes:

 MHLB = Medium Henry's  law,  low biodegradation.
 HHLB = High Henry's  law,  low biodegradation.
 LHMB = Low  Henry's  law,  medium biodegradation.
 MHMB = Medium Henry's  law,  medium biodegradation.
 HHMB = High Henry's  law,  medium  biodegradation.
 LHHB - Low  Henry's  law,  high biodegradation.
 MHHB = Medium Henry's  law,  high  biodegradation.
 HHHB = High Henry's  law,  high  biodegradation.
 HVHB = High volatility,  high biodegradation.
 HVMB = High volatility,  medium biodegradation.
 HVLB = High volatility,  low biodegradation.
 MVHB = Medium volatility,  high biodegradation.
 MVMB = Medium volatility,  medium biodegradation.
 MVLB = Medium volatility,  low  biodegradation.
 LVMB = Low  volatility, medium  biodegradation.
 VHVHB  =  Very  high volatility,  high  biodegradation.
 VHVLB  =  Very  high volatility,  low biodegradation.
                                   J-37

-------
     Tank Loading        Q = 4.8 x 10~4 m^/s  (from drum to storage
                         tank)
                         N = 56, MWwaste = 18 g/g mol.
     Tank Storage        D = 5.4 m, H - 2.0 m.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l)  for all of the
     above equations.
     J.2.3.1.2  LI - Tank storage  (emission source No. 2).  Each day at
0900 hours, aqueous waste is pumped from the 90.8-m3  storage tank to LI, a
2,271-m3 covered storage tank (15 m x 15 m x 10 m) for 1 h at a rate of
3.84 x ID'3 m3/s.
     Each day, twenty 30.3-m3 tank trucks deliver aqueous waste to tank LI
at the wastewater facility.  Vlaste from the tank trucks is loaded into
storage tank LI daily beginning at 0800 hours for 8 h at a rate of 2.40 x
ID'2 m3/s.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Tank Loading        Q = 3.84 x 10~3 m^/s (from aqueous storage
                         tank to tank LI)
                         Q = 2.40 x ID"2 m3/s (from tank trucks to
                         tank LI)
                         N = iOO.
     Tank Storage        D = 17 m,  H = 5.0 m.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l)  for all of the
     above equations.
     J.2.3.1.3  LR - Neutralization tank (emission source No. 3).  The
aqueous waste is pumped from tank LI to tank LR (uncovered, quiescent) for
neutralization.  Pumping occurs for 8 h each day at a rate of 2.15 x 10'2
m3/s.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Flow-through        A = 38.4 m2, d = 5 m, Q - 2.15 x 10"2 m3/s.
     Uncovered Tank
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l)  for each of the
     above equations.
                                   J-38

-------
     J.2.3.1.4   L2  -  Surface  impoundment  (emission  source No. 4).  The
neutralized waste is  pumped to  12,  a  1,325-m3 quiescent surface
impoundment.  Pumping occurs  for 8  h  each day at  a  rate of 2.15 x 10"2
m3/s.
     Pumping and Piping   Refer  to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Flow-through         A -  121 m2,  D =  11 m, Q  =  2.15 x ICT2 m3/s.
     Surface
     Impoundment
     Use the Henry's  law  surrogate  table  (Table J-l) for all of the
     above equations.
     J.2.3.1.5   Filter press  (emission source No. 5).  Waste is pumped from
the L2 surface impoundment to the filter  press at a  rate of 2.15 x 10~2
m3/s for 8 h each day.  Solids  trapped by the filter (2.4 m x 9 m) are
collected in an  open  dump truck and taken to an active landfill (see
Section 0.2.3.1.20).  Solids  are generated at a rate of approximately 9.4 x
10~5 m3/s for 8  h each day.
     Pumping and Piping   Refer  to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Vacuum Filter  Cake   1 =  3.04 m,  w =  2.44 m.
     Use the Henry's  law  surrogate  table  (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.3.1.6   L3  - Aerated  surface  impoundment  (emission source No. 6).
Waste is pumped  from the  filter press to  the aerated surface impoundment at
a rate of 2.14 x 10'2 m3/s for 8 h  each day.
     Pumping and Piping   Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Mechanically         POWR = 14.9  kW (20 hp), At = 45 m2, retention
     Aerated Surface     time = 12  h.
     Impoundment         d - 1.524 m, u = 0.93 rad/s, Aq = 180 m2,
                          15 m x 15 m  x 6 m,  Q - 2.14 x 10'2 m3/s.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table  (Table J-l) for all of the
     above equations.
     J.2.3.1.7   14 - Surface impoundment  (emission source No. 7).   Waste is
pumped  from surface  impoundment L3 to the quiescent surface impoundment L4
at a rate of 2.14 x  10"2 m3/s for 8 h each day.
                                   J-39

-------
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.

     Flow-through        A = 225 m2, Q - 2.14 x 10~2 m^/s, D - 6 m.
     Surface
     Impoundment

     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the
     above equations.

     J.2.3.1.8  L5 - Storage tank (emission source No. 8).  L5, a 1,136-m^

covered storage tank, receives leachate from the closed landfills (SCMF 1,

2, 3, and 4).  Leachate is pumped to L5 each Monday at 0900 hours for 1 h.

     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.

     Tank Loading        Q = 6.60 x 10"2 m3/s.

     Tank Storage        D = 15.5 m, H = 3.0 m, N = 11.

     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the
     above equations.

     J.2.3.1.9  L6 - Storage tank (emission source No. 9).  Each week,
leachate is pumped from tank L5 to tank L6 (a covered tank) for 1 h at a

rate of 6.6 x 10~2 m^/s.  Waste is pumped from surface impoundment L4 to

storage tank L6 at a rate of 2.14 x 10~2 m3/s for 8 h each day.

     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.

     Tank Loading        Q = 6.6 x 10~2 m3/s (from tank L5).
                         Q = 2.14 x 10~2 ITH/S (from surface impound-
                         ment L4).

     Tank Storage        D = 15.5 m, H - 3.0 m, N = 198.

     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all of the
     above equations.

     J.2.3.1.10  L7 - Surface impoundment (emission source No. 10).  Waste
is pumped from tank L6 to aerated surface impoundment L7 for 8 h each day
at a rate of 2.14 x 10'2 m3/s.

     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.

     Mechanically        POWR = 14.9 kW (20 hp),  At = 37.7 m2,
     Aerated Surface     d = 1.524 m,  u = 0.93 rad/s, Aq = 150.9 m2
     Impoundment         15.5 m diameter x 6 m high, Q = 2.14 x 10~2
                         m
|3/s.
                                   J-40

-------
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for all  of the
     above equations.
     J.2.3.1.11  18 - Neutralization tank (emission source No. 11).  Waste
is pumped from surface impoundment L7 to the uncovered, quiescent
neutralization tank L8 for 8 h each day at a rate of 2.14 x 10~2 m3/s.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Flow-through        A = 188.7 m2, D = 6 m, Q - 2.14 x 10'2 m3/s.
     Uncovered Tank
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.3.1.12  Sand filters (emission source No. 12).  Waste is pumped
from the neutralization tank to the sand filters at a rate of 2.14 x 10~2
m3/s for 8 h each day.   Solids trapped by the filter (2.4 m x 9.1 m) are
collected in an open dump truck and taken to the landfill.  Solids are
generated at a rate of 9.4 x 10~5 m3/s for 8 h each day.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Vacuum Filter Cake  1 = 3.04 m, w = 2.44 m.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.3.1.13  L9 - Surge tank (emission source No. 13).  Liquid waste
from the sand filters is pumped to the 1,136-m3 uncovered, quiescent surge
tank at  a rate of 2.13  x 10~2 m3/s for 8 h each day.
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Tank Loading        Q = 2.13 x 10~2 m3/s, N = 197.
     Tank Storage        D = 15.5 m, H = 3.0 m.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.
     J.2.3.1.14  L10 -  Surface impoundment (emission source No. 14).  Waste
from the surge tank is  pumped to the aerated L10 surface impoundment at a
rate of  2.13 x 10~2 m3/s for 8 h each day.
                                   J-41

-------
     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.

     Mechanically        POWR = 30 kW (40 hp),  At = 37.7 m2,
     Aerated Surface     d = 1.524 m, « = 0.93 rad/s, Aq = 150.9 m2,

     Impoundment         15.5 m diameter x 6 m high, Q = 2.13 x 10~2
                         m3/s.

     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.

     J.2.3.1.15  111 - Surface impoundment (emission source No. 15).  Waste

from the L10 surface impoundment is pumped to aerated impoundment 111, a

1,136-m3 surface impoundment, at a rate of 2.13 x 10~2 m3/s for 8 h each

day.

     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.
     Mechanically        POWR = 14.9 kW (20 hp),  At = 37.7 m2,
     Aerated Surface     d = 1.524 m, u = 0.93 rad/s, Aq = 150.9 m2
     Impoundment         15.5 m diameter x 6 m high, Q = 2.13 x 10~2
                         m3/s.
     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.

     J.2.3.1.16  L12 - Surface impoundment (emission source No. 16).  Waste

is pumped from 111 surface impoundment to the aerated impoundment L12, a

1,136-m3 surface impoundment, at a rate of 2.13 x 10~2 m3/s for 8 h each

day.

     Pumping and Piping  Refer to Table 3 in Reference 2.

     Mechanically        POWR = 14.9 kW (20 hp),  At = 37.7 m2,
     Aerated Surface     d = 1.524 m, w = 0.93 rad/s, Aq = 150.9 m2
     Impoundment         15.5 m diameter x 6 m high, Q = 2.13 x 10~2
                         m3/s.

     Use the Henry's law surrogate table (Table J-l) for each of the
     above equations.

     J.2.3.1.17  Discharge (emission source No. 17).  Liquids from the L12

surface impoundment are pumped offsite.

     J.2.3.1.18  Closed landfills (emission source No. 18).  Emissions from

closed landfills are not included because of a lack of information on waste
                                   J-42

-------
concentrations within the source and the difficulty of modeling this
source.  In addition, closed landfills are not currently included in the
Detailed Facility Modeling effort.
     J.2.3.1.19  Waste fixation pits (emission source No. 19).  On the
first Monday of each month at 1000 hours, two tank trucks, each containing
20 m3 aqueous sludge slurry, are emptied into fixation pit A.  On the first
Monday of each month at 1100 hours, one tank truck containing 19 m3 organic
sludge slurry is emptied into fixation pit B.  Each pit has a 1-h fixation
time.  This facility encloses two fixation pits (4 m x 3 m x 3 m) that
operate at ambient temperature.  The entire building is evacuated through
the two particulate scrubber units, which have stacks 17 m tall and 1.2 m
in diameter.  The building is 15 m tall.  The scrubbers exhaust 21 m3/s
each and operate simultaneously and continuously.
     Fixation Pit     1 = 4.0 m, w = 3.0 m, U = 0.045 m/s.
     Use the vapor pressure surrogate table (Table J-l) for the above
     equation.
     J.2.3.1.20  Active landfill (emission source No. 20).  Each Monday at
0900 hours, an open dump truck containing 19 m3 bulk solids from the filter
press  (see Section J.2.3.1.5) is emptied at the active landfill.  Each
Friday at 1000 hours, an open dump truck containing 19 m3 bulk solids from
the sand filters (see Section J.2.3.1.12) is emptied at the active
landfill.  Each Monday at 1000 hours, an open dump truck containing 16 m3
of bulk solids from drums is emptied at the active landfill.  On the first
Monday of each month at 1400 hours, 59 m3 of fixed waste is disposed of at
the landfill.  Use the vapor pressure surrogates.  Emissions occur from the
uncovered waste for 1 week before it is covered.
     Active Landfill  Loading = 1.94 x 104 g oil/m3 soil, water = 50
                      percent, weekly depth of waste, = 1.11 m, total
                      porosity = 0.5, air porosity = 0.25, MW0-j] = 147
                      g/g mol, exposure time = 7 d, total landfill
                      area = 5 x 104 m2.
J.3  LONG-TERM TSDF EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES
     The two example control strategies described in Chapter 5.0, Section
5.2,  were applied to Sites 1 and 2 for each emission source.  Control
                                   J-43

-------
strategy I is based primarily on the use of individual source (add-on)
controls.  Control strategy II is based on the application of waste treat-
ment to remove organics prior to placement in open area sources.  Storage
tanks that hold the waste prior to organic removal are covered,  and if they
fail the vapor pressure cutoff of 1.5 psia, they are vented to a control
device.  Both strategies use the concept of a volatile organic (VO) cutoff
level of 500 ppm and a vapor pressure cutoff of 1.5 psia as described in
Chapter 5.0, Section 5.2.
     The baseline for the control strategies will include the land disposal
restrictions (LDR) as described in Chapter 5.0.  For estimates of
controlled emissions, LDR includes the incineration of organic liquid and
organic sludge wastes instead of landfilling.  Aqueous sludges are
solidified under LDR prior to landfilling.  Certain wastes may also be
banned from surface impoundments under LDR; however,  treatment impoundments
may be exempted and other impoundments may be replaced by large uncovered
tanks.  Because impoundments may be exempted or replaced by a source with a
similar emission potential,  this analysis assumes that LDR will  not affect
emissions from surface impoundments at the two sites described in this
appendix.
     The wastes handled at Sites 1 and 2 are mixtures of different waste
codes and waste forms.  Each of these waste form/waste code combinations
has different organic concentrations and different physical/chemical
properties;  consequently, these different combinations may require differ-
ent types of organic removal processes.  For this analysis,  weighted
average organic removal process efficiencies were derived for each waste
stream mixture based on the waste code and form,  the associated organic
process removal  efficiencies,  and the quantity of the waste stream.  The
process removal  efficiencies are based on those used in the Source
Assessment Model and are given in Appendix D.
     In this analysis, the waste stream mixtures  are separated into their
individual  waste streams, the VO content, as measured by the VO test method
(see Appendix G),  is estimated for the individual stream, and the individ-
ual streams  are composited into two groups.  One  group contains those waste
streams with a total VO content less than 500 ppm, and the other is com-
posed of waste streams with a total  VO content greater than 500 ppm.
                                   J-44

-------
     For control strategy I, process units that receive wastes with a VO
content greater than the 500-ppm cutoff are covered.  The waste streams
with a VO content  less than the 500-ppm cutoff are assumed to be processed
through the facility as defined for the baseline case (open-area sources
remain uncovered).  Storage tanks that receive waste streams that exceed
the vapor pressure cutoff of 1.5 psia are controlled at 95 percent, and
storage tanks that pass the vapor pressure cutoff are not controlled.  The
emissions from these three types of waste streams are added for each source
to estimate the cumulative effect of control strategy I on emissions.  For
control strategy II, organic removal processes are applied to the waste
stream mixtures with a VO content greater than the 500-ppm cutoff level.
The treated wastes (after organic removal) are combined with the wastes
that pass the cutoff and are processed through the facility as defined for
the baseline case.
     The analysis  used to estimate the VO content of individual  waste
streams is based on what the VO test method is projected to measure (see
Appendix G).  The  approach uses factors derived for steam distillation with
20-percent boilover to adjust for the percent recovery of high,  medium, and
low volatiles.  For example, the appropriate factor (representing the
fraction recovered by the method for a given volatility class) is
multiplied by the  surrogate concentration to predict the concentration that
the test method would measure.  The test method concentrations are summed
for each surrogate to obtain the total VO as measured by the test method.
This total is compared to the VO cutoff level of 500 ppm to determine
whether control is required.  These test method correction factors are used
only to determine which waste streams in the mixture require control.  The
estimates of impacts are based on the surrogates and their actual concen-
trations in the waste stream mixtures.
J.3.1  Long-Term Control Strategies for Site 1
     Table J-ll summarizes the controls applied to each source at Site 1
for the two example control  strategies.  For control strategy I, waste
streams exceeding the VO cutoff (500 ppm)  require that open area sources be
enclosed and vented to a carbon adsorber.   Storage tanks that are covered
                                   J-45

-------
                        TABLE J-ll.  DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS:  TSDF SITE 1 EXAMPLE CONTROL STRATEGIES APPLICATIONS8
                                                                               Example control strategy"
                        Emission source
 i
J^
CTl
              1.  Drum storage and transfer bldg.
                  a. Storage tanks

                  b. Drum storage
2.  Acid/alkali receiving area


3.  North equalization basin





4.  South waste receiving area


5.  Cyanide pretreatment


6.  Chrome reduction


7.  Neutralization tank


8.  South equalization basin





9.  Aqueous waste clarifier


10.  Rotary vacuum fiIters

11.  Sludge loading area

12.  Receiving tank 8
                                       Vent to carbon adsorption
                                         Collection and removal - 95%
                                       No controls
                                                     Vent tanks to carbon adsorption
                                                       Collection and removal - 95%

                                                     Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
                                                       Collection and removal - 95%
Vent tanks to carbon adsorption
  Col lection and removal - 95%

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95!?

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 955!

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 9555

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%
                                                     Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
                                                       Collection and removal - 9555

                                                     No controls

                                                     No controls

                                                     Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
                                                       Collection and removal - 95%
Vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%
Existing enclosure vented to
  carbon adsorption

Vent tanks to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Organic removal
HV - 99.98%, MV - 93.13%
LV - 15.66%
Overhead control - HV - 98.40%
MV - 99.96%, LV - 99.99%

Vent tanks to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Organic removal
HV - 99.93%, MV - 85.92%
LV - 17.72%
Overhead control - HV - 98.40%
MV - 99.96%, LV - 99.99%

No controls'^
                                        No controls

                                        No controls

                                        Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
                                          Collection and removal - 95%
                                                                                                                     (continued)

-------
                                              TABLE J-ll (continued)
                                                                 Example control strategy"
          Emission source'
13. Recovered waste oil storage
      tanks

14. Reusable chlorinated solvent
      storage tank

15. Waste oil storage tank
Vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 9555

Vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Vent to carbon adsorption
  Col lection and removal - 9B5?
Vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 955?

Vent to carbon adsor[lion
  Collection and removal - 955?

Vent to carbon adsorption
  Col lection and removal - 95/5
TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
  VO = Volatile organic.
  HV = High volatile organic.
  MV = Medium volatile organic.
  LV = Low volatile organic.

aThis table presents the control devices and efficiencies required for the management units at Site 1 based on
 the example control strategies presented in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.2.
"Example control strategy I applies to wastes containing greater than 500 ppm of VO.   It generally entails covers
 and controls for tanks and impoundments, submerged loading of drums, and covers for dumpsters.
 Example control strategy II applies to wastes containing greater than 500 ppm VO.   It generally entails intro-
 ducing organic removal processes before treatment tanks, storage or treatment impoundments, and waste fixation
 processes; covers and controls for storage tanks; enclosure and control  of drum storage areas; submerged loading
 of drums; covers for dumpsters; and inspection and monitoring of equipment leak sources.
cThe organic removal process efficiencies are weighted according to the control  efficiencies associated with each
 waste form processed at a given management unit.  The weighted organic removal  efficiencies are based on the
 thin-fiIm evaporator and the steam stripper efficiencies as shown in Appendix D.
^This management unit requires no controls because the previous management unit is  controlled using a organic
 removaI  dev i ce.

-------
are also vented to a carbon adsorber.  Sludge that is loaded onto a dump-
ster (Source 11)  is covered to control emissions.  As discussed in Section
5.2, equipment leak emissions (e.g., leaks from pumps) will be controlled
by the TSDF air standards for fugitive emissions and process vent controls
for waste streams containing 10 percent or more organics.  For control
strategy II, organic removal processes are applied to wastes with VO
greater than 500 ppm before the waste enters the North equalization basin
(Source 3)  and the South equalization basin (Source 8).  Because the waste
has been pretreated before it enters the clarifier (Source 9), no controls
are required for this open source.  For control strategy II, inspections,
monitoring, and equipment standards are an additional requirement for
control of equipment leak emissions for waste streams with organic concen-
trations of 10,000 ppm or greater.
J.3.2  Long-Term Control Strategies for Site 2
     The controls applied to the emission sources at Site 2 for the example
strategies are summarized in Table J-12.  For control strategy I and wastes
exceeding the 500-ppm VO cutoff, open sources are enclosed and all enclosed
sources are vented to a carbon adsorber.  Sludge loaded into a dumpster
(Sources 5 and 12) is covered to reduce emissions.  The controls for
landfills are those from the LDR, which include incineration of organic
liquids and sludges and the solidification of aqueous sludges prior to
landfill ing.  Control strategy II requires removal of organics for wastes
exceeding the VO cutoff before placement in surface impoundments or the
fixation pit.  In addition, removal of organics is required for waste
mixture 5 before it enters the impoundment (Source 10) at the Phase 2
treatment system.  The tanks and impoundments that follow Source 10 in the
treatment train do not require control under control strategy II because
the waste has already been treated to remove organics.  Equipment leak
emissions for both strategies are controlled as described for Site 1.
J.3.3  Annual Average Emission Estimates
     The estimates of annual average emissions for each site are summarized
in Table J-13 for the two example control strategies.  Because there are no
sources at Site 1 affected by LDR, the emissions for the uncontrolled and
LDR cases are the same.  At Site 2, the oily waste (waste mixture 4) is
incinerated instead of landfilled under LDR and the aqueous sludges are
solidified prior to landfill ing.  The effect of LDR on total emissions at

                                   J-48

-------
          TABLE J-12.  DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS:  TSDF SITE 2 EXAMPLE CONTROL STRATEGIES APPLICATIONS3
                                                                 Example control strategy"
          Emission source
1.  Drum storage and transfer
2.  LI - tank storage
3.  Neutralization tank
4.  Surface impoundment
    - fIowthrough
5.   Fi Iter press

6.   Aerated surface impoundment
7.  Surface impoundment
    - fIowthrough

8.  Storage tank
9.  Storage tank
10. Surface impoundment
    - aerated
11. Neutralization tank


12. Sand fiIters

13. Surge tank
No controls
Vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Col lection and removal - 955!

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 96%
No controls

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Col lection and removal - 95%

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Col lection and removal - 95%

Vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%
Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Col lection and removal - 95ft

No controls

Vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%
Existing structure vented to carbon
  adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Vent to carbon adsorption
  Col lection and removal - 9555

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Organic removal
HV - 99.97%, MV - 92.5055
LV - 16.75%
Overhead control - HV - 98.40%
MV - 99.96%, LV - 99.9%

No controls

No controls6
No controls6
Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Col lection and removal - 95%

No controls6
Organic removal for waste stream
  mixture 5,  HV - 99.99%, MV -
  94.50%, LV - 16.45%
  Overhead control, HV - 98.40%,
  MV - 99.96%, LV - 99.99%

No controIs6
No controIs

No controls6
                                                                                                       (conti nued)

-------
                                                            TABLE J-12  (continued)
                                                                               Example control strategy"
c_n
O
                        Emission  source
               14.  Surface  impoundment
                   -  aerated

               15.  Surface  impoundment
                   -  aerated

               16.  Surface  impoundment
                   -  aerated

               17.  Discharge of  liquids from
                   16. surface  impoundment

               18.  Closed  landfiI Is

               19.  Fixation pits
              20. Active  landfi I Id
Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 95%

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Col lection and removal - 95%

Cover and vent to carbon adsorption
  Collection and removal - 955!

No controls
No controls

No controls
                                                     No controls
No controls6


No controIse


No controls0


No controls


No controls

Organic removal
HV - 99.98%, MV - 96.555!
LV - 76.635?
Overhead control - HV - 98.565?
MV - 98.995!, LV - 99.0055

No controIs
              TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
                VO = Volatile organic.
                HV = High volati le organic.
                MV = Medium volatile organic.
                LV = Low volatile organic.

              aThis table presents the control devices and efficiencies required for the management units at Site 2 based on the
               example control strategies presented  in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.2.
              ^Example control strategy I applies to waste containing greater than 500 ppm of VO.  It generally entails covers
               and controls for tanks and impoundments, submerged  loading of drums, and covers for dumpsters.
               Example control strategy II applies to wastes containing greater than 500 ppm VO.  It generally entails introduc-
               ing organic removal processes before treatment tanks, storage or treatment impoundments, and waste fixation
               processes'; covers and controls for storage tanks; enclosure and control of drum storage areas; submerged loading
               of drums;"covers for dumpsters; and inspection and monitoring of equipment leak sources.
              cThe organic re'mova I process efficiencies are weighted according to the control efficiencies associated with each
               waste form processed at a given management unit.  The weighted organic removal efficiencies are based on the
               rotary kiln incinerators, thin-film evaporator and steam stripper efficiencies as shown in Appendix D.
              °Land disposal  restrictions have been applied concerning the wastes processed at the landfill.  Organic liquids
               originally destined for landfiI ling are shipped offsite in response to the land disposal restrictions.  No con-
               trols are applied to the landfill  itself
              °This management unit requires no controls because a previous management unit is controlled using a organic removal
               device.

-------
       TABLE  J-13.   DETAILED FACILITY ANALYSIS:   ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL
             AVERAGE ORGANIC EMISSIONS FOR TSDF  SITES 1 AND 2a
Organic emissions (Mg/yr)
Control case
Uncontrolled
Baseline (LDR)b
Control strategy Ic
Control strategy IId
Site 1
337
337
11
16
Site 2
356
352
e
e
TSDF =  Treatment,  storage,  and disposal  facility.
 LDR =  Land  disposal  restrictions.

aThis table  presents  the estimates  of annual  average emissions for the two
 sites  for the uncontrolled case,  baseline case,  and the two example
 control  strategies  described in Chapter 5.0.
     baseline will  include regulations anticipated in the LDR and any
 emission  reductions  associated with them.  LDR is projected to affect only
 the active  landfill  at Site 2.
cControl  strategy  I  is  based primarily on enclosure and venting to a
 control  device.
^Control  strategy  II  is based primarily on organic removal  treatment and
 venting  enclosed  sources to a control device.
eThe results  from  Site  1 are used to estimate maximum lifetime risk in
 Chapter  6.0.  Site  1 has a higher ambient concentration, and, in turn,
 higher risk  than  Site  2 for control strategies 1 and 2.
                                   J-51

-------
Site 2 is small because the emission reduction occurs only for the active
landfill, which contributes a very small percentage to the uncontrolled
emi ssions.
     For control strategy I, open area sources receiving wastes with over
500 ppm VO are covered.  Those open sources that are operated at a nearly
constant liquid level are assumed to contribute breathing emissions after
covering; however, loading emissions are assumed to be negligible because
the flow into these covered sources equals the flow out of the source.  For
covered sources that are alternately loaded and then unloaded, working
(loading) losses are included in addition to breathing emissions.  Storage
tanks that fail the vapor pressure cutoff are controlled, and storage tanks
that pass the vapor pressure cutoff are not controlled.  Emission estimates
are also included for those waste streams that pass the VO cutoff based on
processing in uncontrolled sources.  The approach for control strategy II
is based on sending wastes that require pretreatment (VO greater than
500 ppm) to a storage tank prior to removing organics.  Storage tanks are
controlled based on vapor pressure as described for control strategy I.
Other wastes (VO less than 500 ppm) are processed through the regular
treatment process.  After removal of organics, the treated waste is
combined with the wastes that do not require pretreatment and the composite
mixture is processed through the wastewater treatment system.  For all
cases in sequential processing steps, the concentration in the waste as it
enters a subsequent process unit is reduced by the amount that is lost by
air emissions (or organic removal processing) in a prior process unit.
Emissions from the pretreatment device are based on the concentration and
flow rate of the stream to be treated,  the organic removal process effi-
ciency (Table J-ll),  and the overhead control efficiency (Table J-ll).
     Control strategy I results in an emission reduction from the baseline
of 97 percent for Site 1.  Control strategy II provides an emission
reduction of 95 percent for Site 1.  Site 1 resulted in a higher ambient
concentration,  and, in turn, higher risk than Site 2.  Its risks are
presented in Chapter 6.0.  The emission estimates for control strategy I
are lower than  those for control strategy II primarily for two reasons.
The emissions for covering the sources (strategy I) are based on breathing
emissions only  for most sources that were previously open (no loading
emissions)  because they are assumed to be operated at a nearly constant

                                   J-52

-------
liquid level.  Breathing emissions are very low compared to  loading
emissions.  For organic removal  (strategy II), the uncovered aerated
sources remain uncovered.  However, some moderate and low volatiles remain
in the treated waste stream after organic removal and are emitted in the
uncovered aerated units.  Consequently, covering  (strategy I) controls all
of the compounds whereas organic removal (strategy II) is most effective
for control of the more volatile compounds and is less effective than
covering for the less volatile compounds.  A  significant difference between
the two control strategies is the organic content of the wastewater
discharged from the facility.  Under control  strategy I (covers), the
organics are suppressed and remain for the most part in the wastewater;
consequently, the water discharge under this  strategy contains a high level
of organics.  Under control strategy II, significant quantities of organics
are removed during pretreatment and the concentration of organics in the
discharge is much lower than that from control strategy I.
     The annual average emission estimates for each source will be used in
the dispersion modeling analysis discussed in Appendix E.   The dispersion
modeling uses the Industrial Source Complex-Long Term (ISCLT) model, the
site-specific layout and description of emission sources,  and site-specific
meteorological data to estimate maximum annual ambient air concentrations
at receptors placed at the facility's property line.  The emission esti-
mates and dispersion modeling results are used with the composite unit risk
factor for organics (Appendix E) to estimate  the maximum lifetime risk from
organic emissions for each example control  strategy and for each site.
J.4  SHORT-TERM CONTROLS
     After the modeling of uncontrolled short-term emissions, the need to
assess short-term controls will be determined.  If the long-term control
strategies do not provide adequate control  of peak emissions, additional
control strategies will be investigated.
J.5  DISPERSION MODELING FOR CHRONIC HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
     One portion of the health effects assessment is concerned with quanti-
fying health effects associated with long-term exposure to potentially
hazardous substances emitted from TSDF.  Included in this portion of the
assessment are effects due to chronic exposure to both noncancer toxicants
and carcinogens.  In order to conduct this assessment, estimates of ambient

                                   J-53.

-------
concentrations of these substances in the vicinity of TSDF are required.
For this assessment, the ambient concentration estimates have been obtained
by estimating the magnitude of air emissions occurring at TSDF using emis-
sion models and by applying an atmospheric dispersion model to simulate the
transport and dispersion of the emitted substances downwind of a facility.
This section describes the application of the dispersion model to obtain
the estimates of ambient concentration.
     Atmospheric dispersion models have traditionally been used to relate
air emissions of pollutants occurring at a source to ambient concentrations
at downwind locations.  These models are made specific to the application
under consideration by including in the application the following factors:
the rate of emission at each source, the physical configuration of each
source, the locations of sources with respect to the areas at which ambient
concentrations are to be estimated, and the meteorology affecting the
transport and dispersion of the air emissions.  For the modeling analysis
described here, this type of an application was conducted to estimate
ambient concentrations in the vicinity of two TSDF.  The selection and
characterization of the two TSDF were described previously, and the data
presented there were used to develop the atmospheric dispersion model
inputs described in this section.  In all  model applications, primary
emphasis was placed on determining the highest ambient concentrations at
the facility fencelines or beyond in order to quantify the greatest human
exposure.  This type of information can be used,  for example, to determine
the maximum exposed individual  for a cancer risk assessment (i.e., maximum
individual  risk or maximum lifetime risk).  Analyses designed to measure
aggregate population risk (e.g.,  the number of annual  incidences) are
described in Appendix E.
     Atmospheric dispersion models are routinely applied to relate ambient
concentrations of a specific pollutant to source emission rates of that
pollutant.   For this analysis,  however,  a somewhat different approach was
used in order to provide an efficient procedure for estimating ambient
concentrations for a number of hazardous pollutants.  In the  approach used
here,  "normalized"  ambient concentrations are computed as the ratio of
                                   J-54

-------
downwind ambient concentration to the source emission rate.  The normalized
ambient concentrations can then be used to estimate ambient concentrations
of any specific pollutant by multiplying the normalized value by the "true"
source emission rate of the pollutant.  Because the atmospheric dispersion
model need only be applied once, this approach is particularly suited to
estimating ambient concentrations for a large number of substances, as well
as for evaluating several control scenarios in which the emission rates of
individual sources are altered.
     The discussion below is divided into three parts.  The first briefly
describes the particular atmospheric dispersion model used in this analy-
sis.  The second part describes in general terms the use of normalized
concentrations in estimating ambient concentrations of specific pollutants.
The third and final portion of this section describes the applications of
the atmospheric dispersion model to the two TSDF modeled in this study.  As
discussed in Appendix E, the results of this dispersion modeling are used
to estimate ambient concentrations of both individual toxicants and total
volatile organic compounds.  Because only normalized concentrations were
generated with the atmospheric dispersion model, however, the discussions
below are not pollutant-specific.  A description of the specific pollutants
evaluated is included in the health effects description of Appendix E.
J.5.1  Description of the Atmospheric Dispersion Model
     The atmospheric dispersion model used in this study was selected on
the basis of its applicability to the specific situations being modeled and
the outputs required for the health effects assessment.  TSDF are charac-
terized by a wide variety of source types (e.g., closed roof storage tanks,
surface impoundments, open tanks, building fugitives, vents, stacks, and
landfills).   Sources such as these are represented in dispersion modeling
analyses as either point, area, or volume sources.  Thus, the model
selected for this assessment must have the capability to consider all three
source types.  Another factor affecting the model selection is the consid-
eration of the averaging times required for estimating ambient concentra-
tions (i.e.,  short-term averages such as 1 hour or 3 hours versus long-term
                                   J-55

-------
averages such as annual or multiyear).  Because only long-term averages are
needed for the chronic portion of the health effects assessment, a computa-
tionally efficient model type capable of producing such estimates was
selected.
     The particular model selected for this analysis is the ISCLT model.5,6
The ISCLT is a steady-state, Gaussian plume, atmospheric dispersion model
that is applicable to multiple-point, area, and volume emission sources.
It is designed specifically to estimate long-term ambient concentrations
resulting from air emissions from these source types in a computationally
efficient manner.  ISCLT is recognized by the Guideline on Air Quality
Models as a preferred model for dealing with complicated sources (i.e.,
facilities with point, area, and volume sources) when estimating long-term
concentrations (i.e., monthly or longer)-7  The current UNAMAP 6 version of
ISCLT as implemented on EPA's National Computing Center (NCC)  UNIVAC 1100
computer system was used in all model applications described in this
section.8
     As described in the Guideline on Air Quality Models,  the ISCLT is
appropriate for modeling industrial  source complexes in either rural or
urban areas located in flat or rolling terrain.  With this model,  long-term
ambient concentrations can be estimated for transport distances up to
50 km.  The ISCLT incorporates separate point,  area, and volume source
computational  algorithms for calculating ambient concentrations at user-
specified locations (i.e.,  receptors).  The locations of the receptors
relative to the source locations are determined through a user-specified
Cartesian coordinate reference system.
     ISCLT source inputs vary according to source type.  For point sources,
the inputs include emission rate,  physical stack height, stack inner diam-
eter,  stack gas exit velocity,  and stack gas exit temperature.  If the
stack  is located  adjacent to a building and aerodynamic wake effects are to
be considered,  the building dimensions are also required as inputs.  Inputs
for the other two types of sources include emission rate,  horizontal dimen-
sions  of the source,  and the effective height of release.   Individual area
sources are required to have the same north-south and east-west dimensions
(i.e.,  they must  be square), but multiple square area sources of different
                                   J-56

-------
size can  be  used  to  approximate the geometry of a source of another shape.
Horizontal dimensions of volume sources can be determined from the physical
dimensions of the source using procedures contained in the ISCLT User's
Manual .9
     The  ISCLT  is a  sector-averaged model that uses statistical summaries
of meteorological data to calculate long-term, ground-level ambient concen-
trations.    The principal meteorological inputs to the ISCLT are stability
array  (STAR) summaries that consist of a tabulation of the joint frequency
of occurrence of windspeed categories and wind-direction sectors, classi-
fied according to Pasquill atmospheric stability categories.  STAR summar-
ies are routinely generated from meteorological data collected at major
U.S. meteorological monitoring sites that are available from the National
Climatic  Center in Asheville, NC.  As recommended in the Guideline on Air
Quality Models, a 5-year period of record was used in generating the STAR
summaries used in the model applications described below.  Other meteoro-
logfcal data requirements include average maximum and minimum mixing
heights and  ambient air temperatures.  Recommended procedures for develop-
ing these inputs are contained in the ISCLT User's Manual.
     The  discussion above is intended to provide a brief overview of the
ISCLT model  and some of its features.  It should be noted that the model
contains  a number of features not relevant to the applications discussed
here,  and thus the model description is not comprehensive in nature.  For a
more complete discussion of the model, the reader is referred to References
5 and 6.
J.5.2  Normalized Concentrations
     As described above, the ISCLT model computes long-term ambient concen-
trations at user-specified receptor points that occur as a result of air
emissions from multiple sources.  These computations are done on a source-
by-source basis such that the ambient concentration from each source at
each receptor is computed.   Total  ambient concentrations at a particular
receptor are obtained by summing the contributions from each of the
sources.  With Gaussian plume algorithms such as those included in the
ISCLT,  the source contributions at each receptor are directly proportional
                                   J-57

-------
to the source emission rate.  As a result, ambient concentrations corre-
sponding to any number of desired source emission rates can be obtained by
applying the atmospheric dispersion model once, and scaling the ambient
concentrations by the ratio of the desired emission rate to that used  in
the dispersion model application.  This is the approach that has been  used
for this analysis, and it is described below.
     Normalized ambient concentrations for each source-receptor combination
were computed such that they would correspond to a unit emission rate  of
1 g/s for each source in the facility.  The total ambient concentration at
a receptor is then computed as the sum of the contributions from each
source, where the latter are computed as the product of the normalized
concentration and the desired emission rate.  Mathematically, this can be
expressed as follows:
                             J
                       X. =  E q.x..  ,                                 (J-l)
                             =     J
     X-j  = total ambient concentration at receptor i,
     q-j  = emission rate for source, g/s
     x-jj = normalized source contribution from source j to receptor i,
     J   = total number of sources at the TSDF.
Thus, the principal output of the dispersion modeling applications is a set
of normalized source contributions, i.e., x-jj in Equation (J-l) for each
facil ity modeled.
     In the formulation presented in Equation (J-l) above, both the
individual normalized source contributions and total ambient concentrations
represent multiyear averages because a 5-year period of record was used in
developing the statistical STAR summaries.  The emission rates in Equation
(J-l) are also long-term estimates (e.g., annual average values), although
they are expressed on a gram-per-second basis.  All ISCLT outputs generated
for this analysis were structured such that the total emission rate for
each source could be used in Equation (J-l).  In a few instances, a TSDF
source group was represented by a small number of individual sources  in the
                                   J-58

-------
 ISCLT modeling  analyses.   When  this  situation  involved  point or  volume
 sources,  the  total  source  group emission  rate  was  apportioned equally among
 the  individual  ISCLT  sources.   This  was performed  in  the modeling analyses
 by setting the  input  ISCLT source  emission  rate equal to the reciprocal of
 the  number of sources  in the  group.   In an  analogous  manner, the input
 ISCLT emission  rates  for all  area  sources were set to the  reciprocal of the
 total area of the source because area  source inputs for ISCLT are
 expressed on an emission density basis  (i.e.,  grams per square meter per
 second).  Thus, all normalized  source  contributions output for developed in
 this analysis are on  a gram per second  basis for the  entire source group,
 regardless of the type of  source or  the number of  individual sources used
 to represent the group.
 J.5.3  Dispersion Model Application
     This section describes the ISCLT  model applications conducted in order
 to estimate the normalized concentrations for  use  in  Equation (J-l) for
 each of the two TSDF  described  earlier.   Described below are the ISCLT
 source inputs, the meteorological  data  used in the modeling analyses, the
 receptor  networks, and other  model options.
     Tables J-14 and  J-15  list  the source inputs used in the modeling
 application for each  of the two TSDF.   The  tables  list  an  ISCLT source
 group number, an ISCLT source reference number, the emission source number
 assigned  earlier in this appendix, a brief  source description,  and the
 source and effluent characteristics  used  in the ISCLT modeling analyses.
 Normalized concentrations were  developed  only  for each  ISCLT source group.
 In most cases, each group corresponds  to  a  single  ISCLT source.   In a few
 instances, however,  a source  group is  represented by  more than one ISCLT
 source in order to better approximate  the geometry of the source or to
 combine sources when their emissions are  equally apportionable among the
 individual sources.    In these cases, the  normalized concentrations for the
 source group are equal to the sum of the contributions  from the individual
 ISCLT sources making up the group.  With  respect to the source character-
 izations,  sources with emissions released at ground level  from open areas
                                                 4
are usually modeled  as area sources, stacks as point  sources,  and closed
and open storage tanks as volume sources.    In the latter case,  initial
                                   J-59

-------
TABLE J-14.  SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION FOR SITE 1
Source identification
ISCLT
group
number
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
cn 9
o
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
ISCLT
source
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Emi ss i on
source
number
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
5
6
7
8
8
Source description
Aqueous Drum Unload
Aqueous Drum Unload
Aqueous Drum Unload
Waste Oi 1 Unload
Tank Truck Loading
Acid/Alkali Rcvg Area
Acid/Alkali Rcvg Area
Acid/Alkali Rcvg Area
Acid/Alkali Rcvg Area
Acid/Alkali Rcvg Area
Acid/Alkali Rcvg Area
North Equalization Basin
South Waste Rcvg Area
South Waste Rcvg Area
South Waste Rcvg Area
South Waste Rcvg Area
Cyanide Pretreatment
Chrome Reduction
Neutralization Tank
South Equalization Basin
South Equalization Basin
Source
type
Area
Area
Area
Area
Vo 1 ume
Volume
Vo ) ume
Vo 1 ume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Area
Vo 1 ume
Volume
Vo 1 ume
Volume
Vo 1 ume
Volume
Vo 1 ume
Area
Area
Emi ss i on
rate"
0.
0.
0.
0.
1,
1.
1.
1,
1.
1.
1
0
I :
1.
1,
1,
1
1
1,
0.
0
.00148
.00148
.00148
.00444
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0121
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
.00913
.00913
Source coordinate:
x,m
70.
85.
100.
74.
91
177
187.
167,
167
177
187
206
277
277
287
277
258
258
259
231
238
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
y,i
166.
165.
165,
144,
183
217
217
217
227
227
227
214
202
217
217
232
203
233
220
215
219
Sb
n
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Source
height,
m
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
3.7
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
Vertical
dispersion
coef f i c ient,
m
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
,0
.0
.0
.0
.7
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.0
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.3
.0
.0
Hor i zonta t
dimension,0
m
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
9.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.3
2.0
7.4
7.4
                                                                                         (cont "i nued)

-------
                                                                TABLE J-14  (continued)
Source identification
ISCLT
group
number
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
27
28
ISCLT
source
number
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Emission
source
number
9
9
10
11
12
12
12
12
13
14
15
Source description
Aqueous Waste Clarifier
Aqueous Waste Clarifier
Rotary Vacuum Filters
Sludge Loading Area
Rcvg Tank 8
Rcvg Tank 8
Rcvg Tank 8
Rcvg Tank 8
Rcvg Waste Oil Stor. Tank
Reusable Chi. So 1 v . Storage
Pretreatment Device
Source
type
Area
Area
Volume
Volume
Vo 1 ume
Vo 1 ume
Volume
Vo 1 ume
Volume
Volume
Point
Emi ssion
rate8
0.00913
0.00913
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Source coord i nates'-'
x,m
230
230
235
235
167
177
177
167
180
165
125
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
y,m
194
198
173
148
167
167
177
177
150
150
175
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Source
height,
m
0
0
6
6
2
2
2
2
1
2
9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
.5
.5
.8
.0
.2
Vertical
d i spers i on
coef f i c i ent ,
m
0,
0.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
NAd
,0
.0
,8
,8
,2
,2
.2
,2
,8
,9

Hori zonta 1
dimension,0
m
7.
7.
2.
2,
0,
0.
0
0
0
0
NA
4
4
.8
,8
.7
.7
.7
.7
.6
.5

ag/s for point and volume sources;  g/m^-s for area sources.
^Relative coordinate system.
GHorizontal dispersion coefficient for volume sources;  horizontal  dimension for area sources.
^Not applicable to point sources; for ISCLT source number 32,  the  effluent temperature is 298  K,  the stack  exit velocity 0.4  m/s,  and the stack
 d i ameter 0.1 m.

-------
                                                              TABLE J-1&.   SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION FOR SITE 2
CT>
ro
Source identification
ISCLT
group
number
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
17
17
17
18
ISCLT
source
number
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Emission
source
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
18
18
18
18
18
Source description
Drum Transfer and Storage
Tank Storage LI
Neutralization Tank LR
Surface Impoundment L2
Fi Iter Press
Aerated Impoundment L3
Surface Impoundment L4
Storage Tank L6
Storage Tank L6
Surface Impoundment L7
Neutralization Tank L8
Sand Fi Iters
Surge Tank L9
Surface Impoundment L10
Surface Impoundment Lll
Surface Impoundment L12
Closed Landf i 1 1 SCFM1
Closed Landf i 1 1 SCFM1
Closed Landf i 1 1 SCFM1
Closed Landf i 1 1 SCFM1
Closed Landf i 1 1 SCFM2
Source
type
Volume
Vo 1 ume
Vo 1 ume
Area
Vo 1 ume
Area
Area
Vo 1 ume
Volume
Vo 1 ume
Vo 1 ume
Volume
Vo 1 ume
Volume
Vo 1 ume
Volume
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Emi ss i on
rate8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.00826
1.0
0.00444
0.00444
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
f
f
f
f
f
Source
x,m
1160.0
720.0
770.0
810.0
840.0
850.0
900.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
220.0
220.0
605.0
663.0
605.0
663.0
476.0
coord i nates"
y,m
760.
770.
765.
766.
766.
765.
766.
400.
350.
310.
270.
220.
210.
180.
180.
210.
218.
218.
160.
160.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,0
,0
.0
,0
223.0
Source
height,
m
6.1
10.0
5.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
12.0
6.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Vertical
d i spers i on
coefficient,
m
2.8
4.7
2.3
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
4.7
2.8
5.6
2.8
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hor i zonta 1
d imens i on , c
m
18.4
3.0
1.4
11.0
2.3
15.0
15.0
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.3
3.2
13.7
3.2
3.2
58.3
58.3
58.3
68.3
62.5
                                                                                                                                                        (continued)

-------
TABLE J-16 (continued)
Source identification
ISCLT
group
number
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
1 19
0-1
00 20
20
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
ISCLT
source
number
22
23
24
26
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Em i s s i o n
source
number
18
18
IB
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
Source description
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
C losed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
SCFM2
SCFM2
SCFM2
SCFM3
SCFM3
SCFM3
SCFM3
SCFM3
SCFM3
SCFM3
SCFM3
SCFM4
SCFM4
SCFM4
SCFM4
F i xat i on Pit
Fixation Pit
Acti ve
Act i ve
Act i ve
Act i ve
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
Landf i 1 1
SCFM5
SCFM5
SCFM5
SCFM5
Pretreatment Device
Source
type
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Point
Point
Area
Area
Area
Area
Point
Emission Source _coord.inatesb
rate3 x,m y,m
f 538,
f 476,
f 638
f 260,
f 306,
f 362,
f 418
f 260,
f 306,
f 362
f 418.
f 1600
f 1602
f 1500
f 1602
0.5 1140
0.5 1140
0.000020 1255
0.000020 1367
0.000020 1266
0.000020 1367
1.0 660
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
223.0
160.0
160.0
161.0
161.0
161.0
161.0
160.0
150.0
160.0
160.0
1000.0
1000.0
900.0
900.0
660.0
685.0
662.0
652.0
640.0
640.0
780.0
Source
height,
m
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
17.1
27.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
Vertical
d i spers i on
coef f i c i ent ,
m
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
NAd
NAd
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NAe
Hor i zonta 1
dimension,0
m
62.6
62.6
62.5
66.0
56.0
56.0
66.0
66.0
56.0
56.0
66.0
100.5
100.6
100.5
100.5
NAd
NAd
7.0
112.0
112.0
112.0
NA«
                                                                         (conti nued)

-------
C_i

cr>
                                                                           TABLE  J-15  (continued)
           ag/s  for  point  and  volume  sources;  g/m^-s  for  area  sources.

           ^Relative coordinate  system.

           GHor izontal  dispersion  coefficient  for  volume  sources;  horizontal  d imens ion  for  area  sources.

           ^Not  applicable to  point sources; for  ISCLT  source  numbers  37  and  38,  the  effluent  temperature  equals  the  ambient  temperature,  the stack exit
            velocity is 18.8 m/s,  and the  stack di ameter  is  1.3  m.

           eNot  applicable to  point sources; for  ISCLT  source  number 43,  the  effIuent temperature  equaIs the  amblent  temperature,  the stack  exit velocity is
            0.4  m/s,  and.the stack diameter  is 0.1  m.

           'Emi ssions from closed  landfills  are not included because of a lack of  i n format! on  on waste  concent rat J ons w'l th i n  the source.

-------
 horizontal  and  vertical  dispersion  coefficients  for volume sources were
 derived from  the  physical  dimensions of the  source according to the
 procedures  recommended  in  the  ISCLT User's Manual.
      Meteorological data were  chosen to reflect  the geographical locations
 of the TSDF on  which the source configurations were based.  STAR summaries
 for both facilities were derived from hourly surface data using the follow-
 ing 5-year periods of record:  1970 through  1974 for Site 1,  and 1973
 through 1977  for  Site 2.   In both cases, the TSDF were identified as being
 located in an urban environment, so the ISCLT urban dispersion coefficients
 were used in  all model simulations.  Ambient temperatures for each locale
 were obtained from Local Climatological Data summaries, and mixing heights
 from Holzworth.10'11  Procedures contained in the ISCLT User's Manual  were
 employed to estimate the ISCLT input values for ambient temperature and
 mixing height.
      The receptor networks used in conjunction with the ISCLT modeling
 analyses are  shown in Figures J-5 and J-6.  As noted in the introductory
 portion of this section, primary emphasis was placed on detecting  the
 highest ambient concentrations at,  or outside of, the  fenceline of the
 facility.   Because most sources are characterized by emission releases at
 relatively low heights,  the highest ambient concentrations tend to occur
 nearest the sources.   Most of the receptors are,  therefore,  located at the
 TSDF fencelines.  The receptor networks shown in  Figures  J-5  and J-6 were
 developed  after performing several  sensitivity analyses to identify the
 location of each source's maximum impact and the  likely locations  of the
 greatest aggregate facility impacts.
      In addition to source, meteorological,  and  receptor  data,  the  ISCLT
 contains a  number of  options  that  affect the dispersion model  calculations.
 In  general,  these options were chosen  to be consistent  with the regulatory
^recommendations  contained in  the  Guideline on Air Quality  Models.   Table
 J-16  lists  several  of  these,  along  with  other model  options that were  used
 to  generate  the  normalized  concentrations.
 J.5.4   Estimation  of Average  Annual  Ambient  Concentration
     This appendix provides explanations  on  (1) how  TSDF organic emissions
 were estimated,  and  (2)  how the dispersion  of these  emissions was modeled.
 A detailed discussion on  the  estimation  of  maximum  lifetime risk is
 provided in  Appendix E.   To estimate risk,  the ambient  concentration of the

                                   J-65

-------
                                                                                                            -•	•-
 i
en
01
                                                              a  m  m  r,r
                                               Drum $IOf*«i «nd Trmiftr Bulldlnf
                                         O,Q • W«n man»9tm«nl proc«ti unln
                                                                                           ,__,      ,	,    f«u*llllll««   Iqullttll
                                                                                           CD  Q  0      •««       »..*
                                                                                                                                     South Wuti
                                                                                                                                     Receiving Ate*
                                                                                           m  m m
                                                                                                       •CD-
                                                                                           0  EEj
                                                                                           EH
                                                                                                            Aqutout
                                                                                                            Witit
                                                                                                            anifk<
^Cr
                                                                                          ©   ®
                                                                                       •Mi   I     -
                                                                                       r-1     I
                                                                                                j l""™""r"""         \
                                                                                             -•	%
    -«b—•-
                                                                                                                                         SIB
                                                                                                                                  = Receptor
                                                                Figure J-5.  Receptor network for Site 1.

-------
1620
1500
1380
1260
1140
1020
 900
 780
 660
 540
 420
 300
 180
                                         Wastewater Treatment Facility
                                          Phase 1
                                                     3  r- 5
Wastewater Treatment Facility
  Phase 2
     8
     9
     ib
     n
                                                                    r	i
    0  60     180     300     420     540     660     780     900    1020   1140    1260    1380    1500    1620
               300m
                         >~  Scale
                                                                             =  Receptor
          O,D = Waste management process units
                                     Figure J-6.  Receptor network for Site 2.
                                                        J-67

-------
            TABLE J-16.  OPTIONS USED IN ISCLT MODEL APPLICATIONS

Urban dispersion mode 3 used.

Terrain effects not included (i.e., no elevated receptors).

Wind system reference height set to 10 m.

ISCLT default values used for vertical potential  temperature gradients and
for wind profile exponents.

Stack-tip downwash and buoyancy-induced dispersion used for point
sources unaffected by building wake effects.

Final plume rise used.

Decay coefficient set to zero.

Correction angle for grid system versus wind direction data is 45 degrees
for facility one, and zero for Site 2.

Multiyear concentrations computed using 5-year STAR data.
                                    J-68

-------
TSDF organic  emissions  at the point  of  human  exposure must  be  known.  This
is accomplished by multiplying the TSDF emission  estimate for  each emission
source by  its corresponding dispersion  factor for each  receptor.  The sum
of the products of TSDF emission  sources  results  in  a maximum  ambient
concentration for each  receptor expressed  in  /*g/m3.  The receptor with the
maximum ambient concentration is  used in  combination with health effects
data to estimate maximum lifetime risk.
J.6  DISPERSION MODELING FOR ACUTE HEALTH  EFFECTS  ASSESSMENT
     The preceding section described the  modeling  approach  used to estimate
long-term  ambient concentrations  for the  assessment  of  both cancer and
chronic noncancer health effects.  Another aspect  of the health effects
assessment is the potential for adverse effects that could  result from
short-term exposures to air emissions from TSDF.   Thus, for this
assessment, estimates of ambient  concentrations for  short averaging periods
are needed (i.e., averaging times of 24 h  and less).  The approach used to
produce this  information consists of integrating  short-term TSDF emission
models with a short-term air quality dispersion model.  The TSDF emission
models estimate short-term emission  rates  from each  of  the  various emission
sources within a TSDF,  and the air quality dispersion model provides
estimates of  ambient concentrations  of  the emitted substances  over short-
term periods.  The purpose of this section is to  describe the  modeling
approach and  the manner in which  it was  used  to generate the ambient
concentration estimates needed for the  acute  health  effects assessment.
     The short-term modeling analysis described here was conducted in a
manner analogous to the long-term approach described in the preceding
section.  The integrated emission and dispersion  models were applied to the
two TSDF described earlier in this appendix.  As  with the application
described in the preceding section,  this  analysis  was structured to
estimate the highest ambient concentrations of potentially  hazardous
substances in the vicinity of the facilities  in order to assess the
potential  for the greatest human exposure.  The hazardous substances
consist of a number of waste constituents that pose  a potential health
hazard if their ambient concentrations  are sufficiently high.  Appendix E
describes the rationale for selecting the constituents, and Section J.2 of
                                   J-69

-------
this appendix lists the specific ones included in the modeling analyses
described here.  For each constituent, ambient concentrations were
estimated for the following short-term averaging periods:  15 min,  1 h,
3 h, 8 h, and 24 h.  For the health effects assessments, the concentration
estimates obtained from these modeling applications are compared to
available health data corresponding to these averaging times.
     All of the modeling analyses conducted for the acute health effects
assessment were performed using estimated uncontrolled emissions.  As such,
the potential effects of control strategies in lowering short-term levels
were not evaluated.  However,  some of the results obtained from the short-
term analysis were used to indicate whether control strategy evaluation
should be carried out for some constituents to assess their effectiveness
in mitigating chronic, noncancer health effects.  As is described below,
the short-term dispersion model is also capable of producing long-term
average concentrations if applied for a sufficiently lengthy period of
record.  This was done in order to identify those constituents that posed a
potential problem with respect to chronic health impacts.  Any constituent
so identified became a candidate for control strategy evaluation.  All
subsequent control strategy analyses that were performed were done with the
long-term models because they are less costly and require less processing
time than do the short-term models.
     The remaining portion of this section is divided into two parts.  The
first describes the modeling approach in general terms, with primary
emphasis placed on describing the manner in which the emission models were
integrated with the short-term dispersion model.  This discussion is
followed by a description of the application of that approach to the two
TSDF and a summary of the results obtained from that application.  The
results of the acute health effects assessment itself are described in
Appendix E.
J.6.1  Short-Term Modeling Approach
     The estimation of short-term ambient concentrations of potentially
hazardous substances in the vicinity of TSDF is complicated by several
factors.   First,  a large number of waste constituents must be evaluated,
making the analysis relatively resource-intensive.  Second, short-term
                                   J-70

-------
 emission  rates  of  potentially  hazardous substances from many of the sources
 within  TSDF  are affected  by  meteorological  conditions.   In many cases,  the
 meteorological  conditions  associated  with  the greatest  emission rates  are
 the  same  conditions  that  give  rise to the  greatest atmospheric  dispersion
 (e.g.,  high  ambient  temperatures,  which are often  associated with
 atmospheric  instability,  and high  windspeeds).   Thus,  reliable  estimates of
 short-term,  maximum  ambient  concentrations  cannot  be obtained by selecting
 source  emission rates  and  meteorologically  induced dispersion conditions
 independently.   Finally,  the emission rate  of a  specific substance  depends
 on the  concentration of the  substance in the waste being processed  at  the
 facility.  Not  only  do the concentrations  of individual  substances  in  the
 wastes  processed at  TSDF  vary  substantially,  but they can  also  vary
 significantly from source  to source within  a TSDF  because  of the various
 processing steps used  in  the treatment  of  that waste.
     Because of the  complexities cited  above,  a  specialized  modeling
 procedure was developed to produce the  desired ambient  concentration
 estimates.   With this  approach, mathematical  short-term  emission models are
 integrated with a  short-term atmospheric dispersion  model.   The formulation
 of the  emission models that  have been developed  for  the  various TSDF
 sources is discussed in Section J.2 and is  summarized here.   The short-term
 emission models provide estimates  of  hourly emission  rates of individual
 waste constituents using  information  on the chemical  and physical
 properties of the  substance, the source operating  practices,  the
 concentration of the substance  in  the waste,  and the meteorological
 conditions affecting emission  rates (e.g.,  windspeed  and temperature).  In
 these models, the  physical and chemical properties of a  substance are
 represented  by  a surrogate chemical with similar properties.  The models
 are structured  such that contaminant  concentrations  leaving  a particular
 treatment step  can be  estimated, and  input  to a  second emission model used
 for the treatment  step to  which the waste is  next  transferred.   The
 emission models are then  linked together to generate estimates  of hourly
 emission rates  for all  sources individually within a TSDF, and  these
estimates reflect  variations in meteorological conditions, waste
concentrations,  and the operating  practices of the facility.
                                   J-71

-------
     The emission models discussed above are used to estimate hourly emis-
sion rates for each source within a TSDF for use with an atmospheric
dispersion model.  The dispersion model selected for this application is
the Industrial Source Complex Short-term (ISCST) model-12'13  The ISCST is
a Gaussian plume model that is applicable to multiple point, area, and
volume sources.  As noted in The Guideline on Air Quality Models, ISCST is
a preferred model for dealing with complex sources (i.e., facilities with
point, area, and volume sources).  With this model,  industrial  surce
complexes located in either urban or rural  areas with flat or rolling
terrain can be modeled.  As with the ISCLT model described in the preceding
section, ambient concentrations can be estimated for transport  distances up
to about 50 km.  All of the ISCST model applications for the analysis
described in this section were performed with the UNAMAP 6 version of ISCST
as implemented on EPA's National Computing Center (NCC)  UNIVAC  1100
computer system.^
     The ISCST source and receptor inputs are virtually identical to those
of the ISCLT,  and thus no further discussion is included here.   The reader
is referred to Section J.5.1 for a brief overview of these inputs, or to
the ISCST User's Manual for a more comprehensive description.  A major
difference between inputs to the ISCLT and ISCST occurs in the  form and
structure of the meteorological data inputs.  With ISCST, these inputs
include hourly estimates of wind direction,  windspeed,  ambient  air
temperature, Pasquill stability category, and mixing height.  These data
can be developed by the user,  or can be generated from meteorological data
collected at various National  Weather Service (NWS)  monitoring  sites
located around the country using a preprocessor program described in the
User's Manual  for Single Source (CRSTER) model.15  Use of the hourly
meteorological data with the dispersion model algorithms contained in ISCST
enables the model to calculate 1-h average concentrations at various
receptors positioned around the facility being modeled.   The model can be
run for any number of hours, ranging from one to a complete 366-d year.
Concentrations for averaging times longer than 1 h can be calculated
directly from  the hourly values.  For example, if the ISCST is  used with a
                                   J-72

-------
 full  year of sequential,  hourly  meteorological  data,  annual  average
 concentrations  can  be  computed at  each  receptor included  in  the  ISCST
 simulation.
      The  TSDF emission  models and  the  atmospheric  dispersion models  are
 integrated by conducting  an  annual  simulation  of the  emissions released  to
 the atmosphere  and  their  subsequent transport  and  dispersion downwind.   In
 this  simulation, the emission models are  used  to calculate the hourly
 emission  rates  for  each hour of  the year,  and  the  dispersion model is  used
 to calculate the resultant ambient  concentrations  for those  same  hourly
 periods.  These calculations are performed  for  each waste constituent
 included  in  the modeling  application.   (In  order to minimize computational
 expenses, the atmospheric dispersion model  is  run  one time with normalized
 emission  rates  [see Section  J.5.2]  to  generate  all hourly contributions
 from  each source to each  receptor.   Ambient  concentrations of specific
 constituents are then  calculated by merging  the emission model estimates
 with  the  ISCST  output.)   The ambient concentrations for the  other averaging
 times of  interest are  computed directly from the hourly average estimates.
 For all averaging times longer than 1  h,  the concentrations  are computed as
 block averages  for  successive time  periods.  For example, the 3-h averages
 in a  single day would  correspond to the following  time periods:   12-3,  3-6,
 6-9,  etc.  The  15-min  average concentrations are estimated from the  hourly
 values using an empirical scheme developed  by Briggs  that relates
 concentrations  for  different averaging times to atmospheric  stability and
 emission  release height.16   Finally, the  EPA-recommended approach for
 treating calm wind  situations is used  in  the computation of  the
 concentrations  for  each of the averaging  times.^  With this method,  hours
 with calm winds are treated  as missing data, and the  longer-term  averages
 are adjusted according to the number of such periods  occurring during the
 averaging period.
J.6.2   Short-term Model Application
     The short-term modeling approach described  in the previous section was
applied to the two TSDF discussed earlier.   Three  annual simulations were
performed for each facility  in order to include  effects of year-to-year
variations in meteorology on the ambient  concentration predictions.   As
                                   J-73

-------
noted earlier, the highest ambient concentration for each of the chemicals
listed in Tables J-4 and J-5 were generated for each of the averaging times
of concern (i.e., 15 min, 3 h, 8 h,  24 h, and annual).
     The source data and receptor data required by the ISCST are very
similar to that of the ISCLT discussed in Section J.5.  Thus, the source
data listed in Table J-14 and J-15 are the same as those used in the ISCST
application.   Similarly, the same receptor networks were used in both
applications as well, and these are shown in Figures J-4 and J-5.  The
other major type of input data is the meteorological data.  For the ISCST
applications described here, data were obtained from NWS sites and
preprocessed with the meteorological  preprocessor referenced earlier.
Other relevant ISCST options used in  the model  applications are described
in Table J-17.
     As described earlier,  the short-term modeling approach for the acute
health effects assessment was designed explicitly to estimate the highest
ambient concentrations of each waste  constituent at the two TSDF.  Tables
J-18 and J-19 have been prepared to summarize these results.  These tables
show the total annual average emissions on a facility basis for each of the
constituents  included in the analysis.  Theyalso show the highest ambient
concentration estimates found in the  three annual simulations for each of
the averaging times of concern.  Note that the  ambient concentration
estimates for a given constituent decrease with increasing averaging time.
Further,  a comparison of the predictions for different chemicals reveals
that ambient  concentration estimates  are not necessarily proportional to
total facility emissions.  This occurs because  ambient concentrations are
affected by such factors as the characteristics of the emission release
(e.g.,  height, horizontal area),  the  location of the release relative to
facility fenceline,  and the meteorology.  Thus, direct comparisons of
results for individual  constituents  and facilities may be inappropriate.
For a discussion of how these levels  compare with available health data,
the reader is referred to Appendix E.
                                   J-74

-------
            TABLE J-17.   OPTIONS USED IN ISCST MODEL APPLICATIONS
Urban dispersion mode 3  used.

Terrain  effects not  included  (i.e.,  no elevated receptors).

Meteorological  data  selected  from preprocessed NWS data.

Default  wind  profile exponents  and vertical  temperature
          gradient values  used.

For point  sources  unaffected  by  adjacent buildings, final plume
rise,  stack tip downash,  and  buoyancy-induced dispersion used.

Decay coefficient  set to zero.

ISCST calms processing routine  used in the calculation of all ambient
concentrations.

ISCST =  Industrial Source  Complex Short-Term.
NWS   =  National  Weather Service.
                                    J-75

-------
                                              TABLE J-18.   SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ACUTE HEALTH EFFECTS MODELING ANALYSIS OF SITE 1
c_,

\1
CTl
Waste constituent
1,1, 1-Trich 1 oroethane
1, 1 ,2-Trich loroethane
1,2-Dich 1 oroethane
1,4-D i oxane
Acetic acid
Acetone
An i 1 ine
Benza Idehyde
Benzene
Butane (
Carbon tetrach tor i de
Chlorobenzene
Ch loroform
Cumene
Cyanide
Dich lorobenzene
Ethy 1 acetate
Ethyl alcohol
Ethy 1 benzene
Forma Idehyde
Gaso 1 ine
Isobuty 1 alcohol
Isopropano 1
Methane 1
Methyl aery late
Methyl ethyl ketone
Average
emissi ons,
Mg/yr
1
6
1
3
7
8
2
1
1
3
6
2
E
2
1
1
5
6
9
2.
1.
6.
I,
3.
1.
1.
.0 X
.9 x
.5 x
.2 x
.3 x
.1
.0 x
.8 x
.3 x
.4 x
.4 x
.0
,0 x
.0 x
.8 x
.8 x
.3
.1 x
.2
.0 x
.6 x
8 x
B
2
4 x
2 x
101
10-1
10-1
10-2
10-1

10-3
10-2
10-2
10-2
10-3

10-2
10-2
10-1
10-2

100

10-2
10-2
10-2


10-3
101

IE
1.6
9.7
2.0
4.6
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.6
1.6
4.2
8.7
2.8
7.0
2.8
8.8
1.8
1.1
1.4
1.4
e.6
6.6
7.4
1.8
3.8
1.4
1.4
H
mi n
x 103
x 101
x 101

x 103
x 103
x 10-1
x 101


x 10-1
x 103

x 101
x 101

x 103
x 103
x 104

x 101

x 102
x 102
x 10-1
x 103
ighest estimated ambient concentrations by averaging time, /Jm/m3

1
7
1
3
7
8
1
1
1
3
6
2
6
2
7

8
1
1
4
3
6
1
3
1
1
1 h
.2 x
.7 x
.6 x
.6
.8 x
.2 x
.6 x
.2 x
.3
.4
.9 x
.1 x
.6
.1 x
.0 x
1.4
.6 x
.1 x
.0 x
.9
.3 x
.8
.4 x
.0 x
.1 x
.1 x
3 h
103
101
101

102
102
10-1
101


10-1
103

101
101

102
103
10"

101

102
102
10-1
103
4
3
6
1
2
3
1
E
8
2
2
7
2
7
3
1
3
4
3
1
1
3
6
1,
7
5
.8 x
.2 x
.7
.E
.6 x
.7 x
.1 x
.6
.1 x
.0
.9 x
.2 x
.3
.2
.6 x
.0
.8 x
.9 x
.6 x
.6
.1 x
.6
.7 x
,4 x
.9 x
.3 x
102
101


102
102
10-1

10-1

10-1
102


101

102
102
103

101

101
102
10-2
102
8 h
2.6
1.8
3.7
8.1
1.3
2.0
4.6
2.9
3.1
9.3
1.6
3.4
1.3
3.4
2.2
4.1
2.4
3.3
2.1
6.6
4.2
1.6
3.4
7.4
3.1
2.7
x 102
x 101

x 10-1
x 102
x 102
x 10-2

x 10-1
x 10-1
x 10-1
x 102


x 101
x 10-1
x 102
x 102
x 103
x 10-1


» 101
x 101
x 10-2
x 102
24 h
1.2 x
8.3
1.8
3.9 x
4.6 x
1.0 x
2.6 x
1.1
1.7 x
6.1 x
7.E x
1.2 x
6.0 x
1.2
1.4 x
2.2 x
9.3 x
1.6 x
6.6 x
2.2 x
1.6
8.8 x
1.9 x
4.0 x
1.8 x
l.E x

102


10-1
101
102
10-2

10-1
10-1
10-2
102
10-1

101
10-1
101
102
102
10-1

10-1
101
101
10-2
102
Annual
1.2 x
8.0 x
1.7 x
3.7 x
4.6
9.S x
3.1 x
l.E x
1.6 x
6.4 x
7.3 x
1.2 x
6.8 x
1.2 x
1.3
2.7 x
1.7 x
3.4 x
6.3 x
1.9 x
E.B >
9.4 x
1.8
3.8
2.2 x
1.4 x

101
10-1
10-1
10-2

100
10-3
10-1
10-2
10-2
10-3
101
10-Z
10-1

10-2
101
102
101
10-2
10-2
10-2


10-3
101
(continued)

-------
TABLE J-18.  (continued)
Waste constituent
Methy isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacry 1 ate (R,T)
Methyl ana chloride
Perch loroethy lene
Phenol
Propanol
Styrena
To 1 uane
Toluena diisocyanate
Tr i ch 1 oroethy 1 ana
Trich lorotri f 1 uoroethane
Xy lene
Average
emi ssions,
Mg/yr
6.
1,
7,
2
7
1
2
1.
2
5
2
1
7 x 10-2
,4 x 10-1
.8
.3
.3 x 10-3
.6 x 10-3
.3 x 101
.6 x 101
.8 x 10-3
.8
.1
.6
Hi ghast
15 mi n
6.
1.
3.
3.
7
1 .
3.
2.
3.
e.
3.
9.
1
9 x
0 X
,2 x
.0
.9 x
.6 x
7 x
.6 x
.2 x
.0 x
,3 x

101
103
102

10-1
104
103
10-1
102
102
102
estimated ambic
1 h
4.
1
2.
2
6
1,
2
2,
2
6
Z.
7
.8
.6
.3
.6
.6
.6
.6
.0
.8
.6
.4
.06

x 10L
x 103
x 102

x 10-1
x 104
x 103
1 1*-\
x 10 ^
x 102
x 102
x 102
ant concentrations by averaging time, /4m/m3
3 h
3
6
7
1
2
6
8
7
1
2
9
2
.3
.1
.7
.0
.4
.8
.9
.2
.7
.7
.8
.4


x 102
x 102

x 10-2
x 103
> 102
* fm 1
X 10 l
x 102
X 101
x 102
8 h
1.
3
5
6
1
3
5
4,
~J (
1.
6.
1.
.4
.4
.0 x
.7 x
.6
.6 x
.7 x
,7 x
,7 x
.6 x
.4 x
.6 x


102
101

10-2
103
102
10-2
102
101
102
24 h
7 ,
1
1
2
8
1.
1.
1.
4.
7,
2.
4.
.6 x
,6
.5 x
.7 x
.3 x
.8 x
,7 x
,8 x
.1 x
.0 x
6 x
4 x
10-1

102
101
10-1
10-2
103
102
10-2
101
101
101
Annua 1
9,
1
1
2
7
1,
j
2.
4.
6.
2.
4.
.0 x
.6 x
.6 x
.6
.0 x
.8 x
.3 x
2 x
4 x
7
5
4
10-2
10-1
101

102
10-3
102
101
10-3



-------
                                        TABLE J-19.  SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ACUTE HEALTH EFFECTS MODELING ANALYSIS OF SITE 2
oo
Waste constituent
1 , 2 , 3-Tr i ch 1 oropropane
1 , 2-D i ch 1 oroethane
1,4-D i oxane
Acetic acid
Acetone
Acetophenone
Aery 1 oni tri le
An i 1 i ne
Benzene A
Bromome thane
Carbon tetrach lori de
Ch 1 orobenzene
Cumene
D i ch 1 orobenzene
Di ethyl amine
Dimethyl formamide
Ethyl alcohol
Ethyl ene glycol
Forma Idehyde
Formic acid
Glycerin
Qlycidol
Hexach 1 oroethane
Hydrazine
Isopropanol
Maleic anhydride
Methacrylic acid (MAA)
Methanol
Average
emi ssi ons,
Highest
Mg/yr 16
2.4
4.9
7.1
3.0
4.6
6.9
6.8
3.6
7.0
2.4
6.1
2.3
7.0
4.2
7.4
9.5
6.3
1.7
9.2
2.6
6.2
9.3
6.0
3.1
4.7
7.7
3.9
1.0
x 10-7
x 10-1
x 10-6

x 10-1
x 10-7
x 10-6
x 10-1
x 10-3
x 10-1
x 10-1
x 10-1
x 10-3
x 10-6
x 10-2

x 10-6
x 10-2
x 10-1
x 10-2
x 10-3
x 10-3
x 10-6
x 10-3
x 10-1
x 10-1"
x 10-7
x 10-1
4
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
6
1
2
1
8
2
1
1
2
8
8
2
3,
9.
1.
4.
2.
7.
3.
.6
.6
.6
.7
.0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.4
.2
.0
.1
.9
.9
.6
.3
.9
.1
.8
.2
.3
,2
.1
0
6
3
7
min
x 10-6
x 101
x 10-4
x 101

x 10-6
x 10-4
x 101


x 102


x 10-6

x 102
x 10-4
x 10-1

x 10-1
x 10-1
x 10-1
x 10-4
x 10-1

x 10-8
x 10-6

estimated ambit
1 h
3.4
1.2
1.0
2.1
2.7
8.4
8.0
9.9
1.1
4.1
9.3
1.6
6.7
6.7
2.3
7.8
8.4
2.0
6.4
6.8
1.7
2.6
7.0
8.6
3.1
2.0
6.6
2.8
x 10-6
x 101
x 10-4
x 101

X 10-e
x 10-6



x 101

X 10-1
X 10-6

x 101
X 10-6
X 10-1

x 10-1
x 10-1
x 10-1
x 10-4
x 10-2

x 10-9
x 10-6

»nt concentrations by averaging time, /4m/m3
3 h
1
4
4
1
1
2
4
6
3
1
3
9
2
2
1
6
3
9
3
4
1
1
2
6
2
6
1
1
.3
.2
.8
.3
.7
.9
.6
.1
.6
.4
.1
.3
.2
.3
.3
.1
.3
.2
.9
.2
.1
.6
.6
.2
.0
.8
.9
.8
x 10-6

x 10-6
x 101

x 10-6
x 10-6

x 10-1

x 101
x 10-1
x 10-1
x 10-6

x 10-1
x 10-6
x 10-2

x 10-1
x 10-1
x 10-1
x 10-4
x 10-2

x 10-9
x 10-6

8 h
9.9
1.8
3.7
6.6
1.2
2.2
3.6
6.2
1.3
6.9
1.1
4.1
9.8
1.4
6.8
3.6
2.6
7.3
1.9
3.6
9.1
1.3
2.0
4.6
9.3
3.9
1.6
1.6
x 10-7

x 10-6


x 10-6
x 10-6

x 10-!
x 10-1
x 101
x 10-1
x 10-2
x 10-6
K 10-1
x 101
x 10-6
x 10-2

x 10-1
x 10-2
x 10-1
x 10-4
x 10-2
x 10-1
x 10-9
x 10-6

24
3.7
6.3
1.4
2.2
6.7
8.8
1.4
2.4
4.4
2.1
3.9
1.6
3.3
7.0
2.2
2.7
9.8
2.8
8.6
1.7
4.1
6.1
7.7
2.0
4.4
2.0
E.9
6.7
h
x 10-7
x 10-1
x 10-6

x 10-1
x 10-7
x 10-6

x 10-2
x 10-1

x 10-1
x 10-2
x 10-6
x 10-1
x 101
x 10-6
x 10-2
x 10-1
x 10-1
x 10-2
x 10-2
x 10-6
x 10-2
x 10-1
x 10-9
x 10-7
x 10-1
Annua 1
2.3
2.2
6.6
1.7
6.7
6.4
6.1
1.0
1.0
9.3
8.7
1.1
1.0
3.9
2.1
2.0
6.8
1.3
9.9
6.9
1.7
2.6
4.6
8.7
6.2
7.0
3.6
2.9
x 10-8
x 10-i
x 10-7
x 10-1
x 10-2
x 10-8
x 10-7
x 10-1
x 10-3
x 10-3
x 10-2
x 10-2
x 10-3
x 10-7
x 10-2

x 10-7
x 10-3
x 10-2
x 10-3
x 10-3
x 10-3
x 10-6
x 10-4
x 10-2
x 10-H
x 10-8
x 10-2
                                                                                                                                          (conti nued)

-------
TABLE J-19.  (continued)
Waste constituent
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ene chloride
n-propano 1
Perch 1 oroethy 1 enp
Phenol i
Phthal ic anhydride
p-ch 1 oroan i 1 tne
To 1 uene
Tr ich 1 oroethy tene
Vinyl acetate
Xylene
Average
emi ss i ons,
Mg/yr
4.
2.
9.
7,
9.
2.
A.
3
1
2
9
6 x
7
4 x
.3 x
.8 x
.2 x
.7 x
.3 x
.4 x
.4
.0
10-1

10-6
10-"
10-3
10-4
10-1
10-6
10-6


Highest estimated ambient concentrations by averaging time, [Im/m3
15 m i n
4.
3
1
1
3
4
1
6
3
2
1
.0
.1 x
.9 x
.5 x
.6 x
.2 x
.1 x
.9 x
.0 x
.1 x
.0 x

101
10-4
10-2
10-1
10-3
101
10-6
10-t
101
102
1 h
3.2
2.4 x
1.3 x
1.0 x
2.7 x
3.2 x
8.2
4.0 x
2.0 x
1.6 x
7.6 x
3 h

101
10-4
10-2
10-1
10-3

10-6
10-4
101
101
2
1
4
4
1
1
2
2
9
8
4
.0
.4 X
.7 X
.9 x
.7 x
.1 x
.8
.3 x
.5 x
.7
.3 x

101
10-6
10-3
10-1
10-3

10-6
10-6

101
8 h
9
6
3
3
1
8
1
1
7.
8
2.
.3
.3
.7
.8
.4
.6
.2
.8
.6
,1
.0
x 10-1

x 10-6
x 10-3
x 10-!
x 10-4

x 10-5
x 10-6

x 101
24
4
2
1
1
6
3
4
6
2
3
6
.3
.2
.4
.4
.4
.3
.3
.8
.8
.5
.9
h
x 10-1

x 10-6
x 10-3
x 10-2
x 10-4
x 10-1
x 10-6
x 10-6


Annua 1
6
6
8
6
2
2
1
3.
1.
3.
3.
.0
.4
.6
.7
.8
.1
.8
.1
.3
B
3
x 10-2
x 10-2
x 10-7
x 10-6
x 10-3
x 10-6
x 10-2
x 10-7
x 10-6
x 10-1
x 10-1

-------
J.7  REFERENCES

1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Hazardous Waste Treatment,
     Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF)--Air Emission Models.  Office
     of Air Quality, Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     December 1987.  367 p.

2.   Memorandum from Gitelman, A., RTI,  to Docket.  December 4, 1987.
     Detailed facility analysis:  Modified TSDF emission models.

3.   Memorandum from Maclntyre,  L.,  RTI,  to Docket.  November 4, 1987.
     Data from the 1986 National Screening 'Survey of Hazardous Waste Treat-
     ment, Storage, and Disposal, and Recycling Facilities used to develop
     the Industry Profile.

4.   Memorandum from Gitelman, A., RTI,  to Lassiter, P., EPA/OAQPS.
     May 19, 1987.  Detailed facility analysis:  Surrogate concentrations
     for Sites 1, 2, 3.

5.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Industrial  Source Complex (ISC)
     Dispersion Model User's Guide - Second Edition, Volume 1.  Research
     Triangle Park, NC.  Publication No.  EPA 450/4-86-005a.  1986.

6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Industrial  Source Complex (ISC)
     Dispersion Model User's Guide - Second Edition, Volume 2.  Research
     Triangle Park, NC.  Publication No.  EPA 450/4-86-005b.  1986.

7.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Guideline on Air Quality Models
     (Revised).  Research Triangle Park,  NC.  Publication No. EPA 450/2-78-
     027R.  1986.

8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  User's Network for Applied
     Modeling of Air Pollution (UNAMAP) ,  Version 6 (Computer Programs on
     Tape).  National Technical  Information Service, Springfield, VA.  NTIS
     No. PB 86-222361.  1986.

9.   Reference 5.

10.  Department of Commerce.  Local  Cl imatological Data.  Annual Summaries
     with Comparative Data.

11.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds,
     and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United
     States.  Research Triangle  Park, NC.  1972.  AP-101.
12.  Se^- Reference 5.

13.  See Reference 6.

14.  See Reference 8.
                                   J-80

-------
15.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  User's Manual for Single Source
     (CRSTER) Model.  Research Triangle Park,  NC.  Publication No. EPA-
     450/2-74-013.  1977.

16.   Briggs,  G.  Diffusion Estimation for Small  Emissions.  Atmospheric
     Transport and Dispersion Laboratory.  Oak Ridge, TN.  Report No.  79
     (draft).  1973.
                                   J-81

-------