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
------- |