REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS
OF LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
FOR NEWLY IDENTIFIED WASTES
AND HAZARDOUS SOIL
(PHASE II LDRs)
FINAL RULE
July 29,1994
Office of Solid Waste
Regulatory Analysis Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C 20460
-------
Table of Contents . Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .., .. ES-1
ES.1 Wastes Affected by the Rule ; ES-1
ES.2 Cost and Economic Impacts of Restricting the
Land Disposal of Phase 2 Wastes ES-1
ES.2.1 Cost of the Rule ES-3
ES.2.2 Economic Impacts of the Rule ES-3
ES.3 Benefits of Restricting the
Land Disposal of Phase 2 Wastes 1.. ES-5
ES.3.1 Human Health Risk Reduction-Ground-Water Pathway ES-5
ES.3.2 Human Health Risk ReductionAir Pathway ES-7
ES.3.3 Effects on Property Values ES-7
ES.4 Limitations of the Analysis ES-8
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Legislative Mandate and EPA Actions in Response to the Land Disposal
Restriction Provisions of HSWA 1-1
1.2 Organization of This Report '. 1-3
CHAPTER 2 CHARACTERIZATION OF AFFECTED WASTES 2-1
2.1 Wastes Affected, by the Rule 2-1
2.1.1 Organic Toricity Characteristic Wastes , 2-3
2.1.2 Coke By-products and Chlorotoluene wastes 2-11
2.2 Wastes Already Regulated by the LDRs and Affected by Regulatory
Changes 2-11
2.2.1 Wastes Affected by Universal Treatment Standards 2-11
-------
Pageii Table of Conten
2.2.2 Wastes Affected by Modifications to Hazardous Waste Recycling
Regulations 2-16
2.3 Effects of Waste Minimization 2-18
2.3.1 Methodology 2-19
2.3.2 Results of Waste Minimization on Affected Universe 2-23
2.4 Limitations of the Analysis 2-25
CHAPTER 3 - COSTS OF RESTRICTING THE LAND DISPOSAL OF
PHASE n WASTES 3-1
3.1 Cost Analysis Methodology \..' 3-1
3.1.1 Organic Toxicity Characteristic Waste , 3-1
3.1.2 Other Regulated Waste 3-7
3.1.3 Baseline Management Practices
3.1.4 Testing and Recordkeeping Costs 3-
3.1.5 Previously Regulated Wastes Affected by UTS 3-12
3.1.6 Previously Regulated Wastes Affected by Recycling Modifications .. 3-13
3.1.7 Waste Minimization 3-13
3.2 Results of the Cost Analysis ...:.. 3-20
3.2.1 Organic TC Wastes and Other Newly Regulated Wastes 3-20
3.2.2 Previously Regulated Wastes Affected by UTS and Recycling
Modifications .' 3-29
3.2.3 Sensitivity Analyses for Organic TC Wastes 3-32
3.2.4 Waste Minimization of Organic TC Wastes 3-36
33 Limitations of the Analysis " 3-44
-------
Table of Contents , Page iii
CHAPTER 4 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PHASE H LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS 4-1
4.1 Economic Impacts Methodology 4-1
4.2 Results of the Economic Impacts Analysis 4-1
4.3 Limitations of the Analysis 4-2
CHAPTER 5 BENEFITS OF PHASE II LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS 5-1
5.1 Human Health Risk ReductionGround-Water Pathway - 5-2
5.1.1 . Approach '. 5-3
5.1.2 Results 5-17
5.2 Human Health Risk Reduction-Air Pathway 5-23
5.2.1 Approach ; 1 5-23
5.2.2 Results 5-38
5.3 Effect of LDRs on Property Values 5-44
5.3.1 Methodology ... 5-44
5.3.2 Results 1 5-46
5.4 Limitations of the Analysis 5-47
5.4.1 Ground-Water Risk Analysis 5-47
5.4.2 Air Risk Analysis 5-51
5.4.3 Property Value Analysis 5-54
APPENDICES
A The toricity Characteristic (TC) Survey
B Cumulative Distribution Functions for Previously Regulated Hazardous Soil Volumes
C Percentage of TC Wastes Assigned to Treatment Technologies by Category of Waste
-------
Page iv . Table of Contents
D Unit Costs Used in Phase II Rule TC Waste Analysis
E Cost of TC Wastes by Waste Code
F Example Calculations for Estimating Exposure Concentrations (Human
Health Benefits - Air Pathway)
G Baseline and Post-regulatory Leachate Concentrations for Carcinogenic Constituents
H GEMS/GAMS Modeling Analysis
I Waste Minimization Commercial TSD Analysis
J Summary of Waste Minimization Analysis Telephone Contacts
K Sensitivity Analysis of Ground-Water Population Risk Assumptions
-------
Executive Summary Page ES-1
i . '
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS OF LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS FOR
NEWLY IDENTIFIED WASTES AND HAZARDOUS SOIL
This report, a regulatory impact analysis, estimates the costs, economic impacts,, and
benefits due to the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) for newly identified wastes and hazardous
soil. The rule has been developed by EPA as part of its legislative mandate to restrict the land
disposal of hazardous wastes where necessary to protect human health and the environment.
ES.l WASTES AFFECTED BY THE RULE
The rule would set land disposal treatment standards for the following wastes:
organic toxicity characteristic wastes (RCRA waste codes D018 to D043);
organic toxicity characteristic (D018 to D043) hazardous soil;
organic toxicity characteristic (D018 to D043) hazardous debris;
characteristic pesticide wastes that were not previously hazardous using the EP
leaching procedure (D012 to D017);
coke production wastes (K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, and K148); and
chlorotoluene wastes (K149, K150, and K151).
In addition, the rule establish universal treatment standards (UTS). These standards will
update nearly all current concentration-based treatment standards with constituent-specific UTS
concentrations. The quantity of wastes affected by the rule are shown in Exhibit ES-1.
ES.2 COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF RESTRICTING THE LAND DISPOSAL OF PHASE D
WASTES
Using data available from EPA's 1992 survey of facilities that manage TC wastes, EPA
was able to develop facility-specific cost estimates for the post-regulatory treatment of these
wastes EPA examined the data for each wastestream and assigned an appropriate treatment
technology for the post-regulatory alternatives. In addition to organic TC wastes, the Phase n
rule affects coke by-product and chlorotoluene wastes, and EPA conducted a facility-specific cost
analysis for these affected waste streams.
-------
PageES-2
Executive Summary
EXHIBIT ES-1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL QUANTITIES
OF AFFECTED WASTES
Wast*
Volume
Waste Newly Regulated By the LDRs
Organic TC Wastes (D018-D043)
Nonwastewaters
Hazardous Soil
Hazardous Debris
Subtotal (rounded) of Organic TC Waste
Characteristic Pesticide Waste Not Hazardous by EP
(D012toD017) .
Coke Production Waste
Chlorotoluene Waste
94,000s'
34,000s'
295,000
o-w
0-*
30
Previously Regulated Waste Affected by Changes in LDR Regulations
Affected By Universal Treatment Standards
Affected by Recycling Regulation Modifications
3.840
Subtotal (rounded) of Previously Regalajfoj Affected
Total Quantity (rounded) of Affected Waste
300,000
a/ Quantities presented are based on information contained in 1992 TC Survey questionnaires. They represent projected 1995 generation
rates, which EPA assumes are indicative of iteady itate generation. . .
b/ As part of toe Advance Notice of Rulemaking for the PbaK D LDRs, EPA requeued data on the D012 lo D017 pesticides that exhibit the
~ toaciry cbancterbtic using the Tosojry Cbaracterislic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) but not the Emotion Procedure (EP). EPA received
no data in response to this request, and it n assuming that this wast* volume will be negligible.
c/ Although there are large wastewater and nonwasuwater volumes of coke by-productt, none of these volumes is "p**"^ to be bmd
" disposed. On-site processes coostioiting trauncnt (it, coking) are Ibe man economical mamigement method for these wastes and are
currently widely practiced among coke and tar refining facilities.
d/ The affected universe b defined here as the universe of all wastes to which the UTS apply that are estimated to have cost impacts from the
~ change in treatment levels.
tt In addition, up to 7 minion tons of an previously regulated waste could be affected by the streamlining effect of the VIS. See disamton in
Chapter 3. _ ' _ ' _
-------
Executive Summary Page ES-3
ES.2.1 Cost of the Rule
Exhibit ES-2 summarizes the results of the cost analysis. In total, the Phase IILDR rule
would have an incremental annual cost of $191 to $219 million (representing accounting or not
accounting for waste minimization savings). Sixty-seven percent of this cost would be for the
treatment of organic TC nonwastewater wastes, and 16 percent and 17 percent would be for the
treatment of organic TC hazardous soil and debris. In addition, there may be a potential savings
of $1 million, associated with previously regulated waste affected by UTS and modifications to the
recycling definition. The cost savings associated with waste minimization is estimated to be $25
million. Finally, the streamlining effect of UTS on the treatment of previously regulated waste
presents a savings ranging from $0 to $55 million for incinerable wastes and $0 to $41 million for
wastes suitable for physical/chemical treatment.
ES.2.2 Economic Impacts of the Rule
For the 14 captive (i.e., non-commercial) facilities in the TC capacity database, only one
company would experience serious economic impacts when considering the ratio of incremental
compliance cost to cost of operations.
Since no costs are associated with the treatment standards for coke by-products, no
economic impacts are expected. Economic impacts for facilities that generate chlorinated toluene
wastes are such that no facilities are expected to experience significant impacts as a result of the
rule.
-------
Page ES-4
Executive Summary
EXHffiITES-2
SUMMARY OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHASE E LDR PROPOSED RULE
. . . ,.;. ";Vv '.:. v/" '-.-.. ''.-: .J. 'Post-ltegulatwy ;;;
iteste Type (rtlUont/yr)
Newly
Regulated Wastes
' Baseline Cost ': -1 ' Jriicratentat edit ' '
(illion $/yr) i (Ulion «/yr)
Organic TC Wastes (0018- D043) ' .
Nonwastewaters 174
Soi 1 53
Debris . . .45
30 147
\
17 35
8 37
Chlorotoluenes 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Waste
Minimization Impacts (25)
N/A (25)
.StAtotal f or '*l I.. Mely
'-With Waste «ini»ization
Previously Regulated Wastes Affected by Rule
K069 Recycling Wastes
Cyanide Wastes
66.5
0.6
66.6
(0.6)
(0.1)
-------
Executive Summary Page £5-5
ES.3 BENEFITS OF RESTRICTING THE LAND DISPOSAL OF PHASE n WASTES
EPA's analysis of the benefits of the Phase II LDRs addresses only TC wastes. These
wastes dominate the other newly identified wastestreams covered by the Phase II LDRs in terms
of volume and costs.. EPA evaluated three types of benefits for this RIA: reduction in human
health risks via the ground-water pathway, reduction in human health risks via the air pathway,
and positive effects on the value of properties near waste management facilities.
ES.3.1 Human Health Risk Reduction Ground-Water Pathway
EPA analyzed baseline human health risks, i.e.,risks posed by untreated TC wastes
managed in Subtitle C landfills as well as post-regulatory risks. The difference in risks between
the baseline and the post-regulatory condition is a measure of the benefits of the rule.
Exhibit ES-3 presents the estimates of the baseline and post-regulatory individual cancer
risk across all facilities. The results are presented in terms of a cumulative frequency distribution
indicating the. percentile level associated with an individual risk level across all facilities. As the
exhibit shows, the high-end baseline risk estimate is between one and two orders of magnitude
higher than the central tendency estimate across the distribution. About ten percent of the
individual risk values indicate baseline lifetime excess individual cancer risk exceeding 10"6 under
high-end assumptions, with almost five percent exceeding 10"4. About six percent of the
individual risk values exceed 10"6 in the baseline using central tendency assumptions, including
about two percent which exceed 10"4. In the post-regulatory case, about five percent of the
individual risk indicate excess cancer risks above 10"6, and about one percent exceed 10"4.
EPA's modeling also indicated estimated that non-caner effects were low. Using central
tendency assumptions, the 99th percentile baseline exposure level is less than the reference dose.
Under high-end assumptions, about two percent of the distribution exceeds a hazard index of
unity, indicating the potential for adverse non-cancer effects. Post-regulatory non-cancer risk,
however, is insignificant.
The central tendency estimate of baseline population cancer risk is on the order of 0.24
cases per year. The post-regulatory population cancer risk is about 0.02 cases per year. In other
words, the rule reduces 0.22 cases per year, or 92 percent of the baseline cancer cases.
-------
EXHIBIT ES-3
Cancer Risk
Via the Ground-Water Pathway
IE+00
IE-01
o IE-03
U
u
X
s
IE-04
IE-05
1E-06
1E-07
1E-08
High End Baseline Risk
Central Tendency Baseline Risk
Post-Regulatory Risk
80%
85% 90% 95%
Percentil^tlndividual Risk Values
100%
-------
Executive Summary . Page ES-7
ES.3.2 Human Health Risk ReductionAirPathway
Constituents contained in TC waste, soil, and debris may be emitted to air through
volatilization and dust entrainment. Reducing the concentrations of TC constituents through the
Phase II LDR treatment standards significantly reduces the potential for air emissions, and the
risks posed by those air emissions. .
In the baseline, 26 of the 35 modeled facilities (74 percent) have individual cancer risks
exceeding 10"6 at the high-end individual location: 16 have risks between 10"6 and 10"4, and 10
facilities have risks greater than 10"4. The highest value is 5 x 10"3. For the high-end individual
location, the non-cancer risk ratio exceeds one at only one facility. Note that these high-end
values represent risks to a hypothetical, and not an actual, individual.
The final regulation effectively reduces individual cancer risk. At the high-end individual
location, eight facilities have risks exceeding 10"6; the highest individual risk is 8 x 10"6. Doses of
all non-carcinogens are well below reference doses.
Exhibit ES-4 presents population risks. The central tendency estimate of baseline
population cancer risk is on the order of 0.037 cases per year. The post-regulatory population
^
cancer risk is about 0.0002 cases per year. In other words, the rule reduces 0.036 cases per year,
or 99 percent of the baseline cancer cases.
ES.3.3 Effects on Property Values
Treating organic TC wastes would allow them to be disposed of in Subtitle D (i.e., non-
hazardous) waste facilities rather than in Subtitle C (i.e, hazardous) waste facilities. To estimate
the potential benefit resulting from changes in property values that would occur if Subtitle C
facilities were replaced by Subtitle D facilities, EPA modified a hedonic pricing/land value study
and applied it to the universe of affected facilities. The premise of hedonic property value
analysis is that housing prices are determined by a range of attributes of the house, its site, and its
neighborhood. If one attribute included in the analysis is an environmental characteristic, the
effect of that characteristic on price can be used to estimate the benefits from changes in the
level of that characteristic (e.g. a change in the distance to a waste site).
For the purpose of estimation, EPA assumed that each of the 30 captive non-CBI Subtitle
C sites would be converted to or replaced with a Subtitle D facility under the LDRs. Using U.S.
Census Bureau data, EPA estimated the value and density of owner-occupied houses in the
-------
PageES-8
Executive Summary
EXHIBIT ES-4
POPULATION RISK VIA AIR INHALATION PATHWAY
Baseline Risk
Post-regulatory Risk
Risk Reduction: Baseline
minus post-regulatory risk
Estimated Annual Cancer
Cases
3.7E-02
1.8E-04
3.6E-02
Estimated Population
Exposed Above Reference
Dose
768
0
768
region in which each site is located, and calculated the expected number of houses within one
mile of each site, and the expected benefit per household for each site.
EPA estimates the potential benefit per house to range from $320 to $450 for houses
f -'> - '
the facilities. The total benefits, summed across facilities, are estimated to be about $20 millio
1
ES.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS
The analysis has several limitations in scope and methodology. EPA is not considering the
impacts of the rule with regard to lab packs or newly regulated characteristic pesticide waste, as
standards for these wastes are being changed slightly. Also, EPA is not considering the effects
that may be associated with universal standards for all listed wastes or recycling provisions being
promulgated. . ' . ~
More important, the cost, economic impacts, and benefits analyses have limitations
resulting from both methodology and available data. Some limitations overestimate costs and
benefits, others underestimate values, and some limitations introduce uncertainty where the
direction of bias is unknown. Sections 3.3,4.3, and 5.4 of this document detail the limitations of
the analysis.
-------
Introduction Page 1-1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource.
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) restrict the continued land disposal of hazardous wastes
(Section 3QQ4(g)).1 This section of RCRA specifies a schedule for the restriction of certain land
disposal practices of hazardous wastes and directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
develop a regulatory framework for implementing the land disposal restrictions program.
This report, a regulatory impact analysis, estimates the costs, economic impacts, and
benefits which are due to the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) for newly identified wastes.
This document fulfills the requirements of Executive Order No. 12866. This executive order
requires EPA to determine whether the regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to
OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. This document also fulfills the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.V which requires federal
agencies to assess the effects of regulations on small entities and to examine regulatory
alternatives that may bring about any adverse economic effects on these small entities.
1.1 LEGISLATIVE MANDATE AND EPA ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTION PROVISIONS OF HSWA
Through HSWA, Congress directed EPA to restrict the continued land disposal of RCRA
hazardous waste and to develop a regulatory framework for implementing the land disposal
restrictions by specified dates. As part of this statutory direction, HSWA authorized EPA to
promulgate regulations restricting the land disposal of hazardous wastes where necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
In addition, HSWA directed EPA to promulgate treatment standards that would
substantially diminish the toxicity of hazardous wastes or reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste (RCRA Section 3004(m)). Treatment standards may be
1 As defined in the statute and regulatory framework, land disposal includes, but is not limited to, disposal in
landfills, surface impoundments, land treatment facilities, waste piles, salt dome formations, salt bed formations,
underground mines or caves, as well as treatment or storage in surface impoundments. Underground injection, a
regulated form of land disposal, is addressed in a separate RIA which accompanies the proposed rule.
-------
Page 1-2
technology-based (i.e., specified treatment methods that must be employed before land disposal)
or concentration-based (i.e., specified concentration levels that must be attained before land
i
disposal). EPA's preference, whenever possible, is to establish concentration-based treatment
standards, because this allows the regulated community greater flexibility in complying with the
land disposal restrictions.
EPA's progress has been in accordance with the schedule set forth in HSWA. As
required, EPA submitted to Congress a schedule for promulgating land disposal restrictions
regulations for scheduled wastes on May 28, 1986 (51 FR 19300).
On November 7,1986 (51 FR 40572), EPA promulgated the land disposal restrictions rule
that is referred to as the "framework" rule. This rule set forth much of EPA's land disposal
restriction policy as well as treatment standards and effective dates for spent solvents and dioxin-
containing hazardous wastes.
On July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760), EPA promulgated the "California List" land disposal
restrictions. In this rule, treatment standards were established for liquid and non-liquid hazardous
wastes containing halogenated organic compounds (HOCs), and for liquid hazardous waste
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Also, the statutory prohibitions on the land disposaT
of corrosive wastes and dilute HOC wastewaters were codified, and the hard hammer provisions
took effect for free cyanides and California List metals. (The hard hammer provisions in RCRA
Section 3004 stipulated that land disposal of specified wastes would be banned altogether if EPA
did not promulgate treatment standards within given time periods.)
EPA promulgated the First Third scheduled wastes rule on August 18, 1988 (53 FR
31138). Treatment standards and effective dates for relatively high volume, intrinsically hazardous
wastes were established in that rule. EPA promulgated the Second Third scheduled wastes rule
on June 23, 1989 (54 FR 26594) and the Third Third scheduled wastes rule on June 1,1990 (55
FR 22520).
In addition to the above rules, for which specific deadlines were enacted in HSWA,
Congress directed EPA to promulgate standards for all newly listed and identified wastes (i.e.,
wastes brought into the RCRA system after the enactment of HSWA in 1984) six months after
promulgating listing rules. These newly identified and listed wastes are being addressed in phases.
The first phase, which addressed a group of newly identified wastes and all hazardous debris, was
-------
Introduction . Page 1-3
promulgated on August 18, 1992 (57 FR 37194). This RIA document accompanies the rule for
the second phase, which covers a different set of newly identified wastes, including organic toxicity
characteristic (TC) wastes, characteristic pesticide wastes that were not previously hazardous using
the EP leaching procedure, coke production or by-product wastes, and chlorotoluene waste. The
Phase II rule has been under development for several years, and the final rule reflects EPA's
consideration of comments received on the Phase n proposed rule (58 FR 48092).
On September 25, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit ruled on the various petitions for review filed against EPA regarding the Third Third
rule.2 The principal holdings of the case with respect to characteristic wastes, under EPA's
reading of the opinion, are that (1) EPA may require treatment under RCRA section 3004(m) to
more stringent levels than those at which wastes are identified as hazardous; (2) section 3004(m)
requires that treatment standards address both short-term and long-term potential hazards posed
by hazardous wastes, and consequently must result in the destruction and removal of hazardous
constituents as well as removal of the characteristic property; and (3) situations where
characteristic hazardous wastes are diluted, lose their characteristic^), and are then managed in
centralized wastewater management land disposal units (e.g., surface impoundments or injection
wells) are legal only if it can be demonstrated that hazardous constituents are reduced or
destroyed to the same extent they would be pursuant to otherwise applicable RCRA treatment
standards.
EPA is taking the position that to minimize the short- and long-term potential hazardous
posed by hazardous waste, it is necessary to promulgate treatment standards for the underlying
constituents (i.e., non-TC code carrying constituents) likely to be present in characteristic wastes.
Not all characteristic wastes will be affected by the Phase n rule, however. EPA will address
characteristic wastes managed in Clean Water Act (CWA) systems, CWA-equivalent systems, or
Class I Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) injection wells in a later rulemaking.
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
The methodology and results for the analysis of costs, economic impacts, and benefits of
the rule are presented in the remaining chapters and appendices of this report:
! Chemical Waste Management, Inc. etaLv. EPA, 976 F.2d (D.C. Or. 1992).
-------
Page 1-4 Introduction
Chapter 2 Presents a characterization of the affected wastes and the data sources
used.
Chapter 3 Estimates the compliance cost of the rule.
r
Chapter 4 Describes the economic impacts of the rule.
Chapters Estimates the benefits attributable to the rule.
Appendix A The Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Survey
Appendix B Analysis of UTS Impacts Wastestreams with Changing Treatment Standards
Appendix C Percentage of TC Wastes Assigned to Treatment
Technologies by Category of Waste
Appendix D Unit Costs Used in Analysis
Appendix E Compliance Cost by TC Waste Code
Appendix F Example Calculations for Estimating Exposure
Concentrations (Human Health Benefits - Air Pathway)
Appendix G Baseline and Post-regulatory Leachate Concentrations for Carcinogenic
Constituents
Appendix H GEMS/GAMS Modeling Analysis . ... -
Appendix I Waste Minimization Commercial TSD Analysis
-------
Introduction Page 7-5
Appendix J Summary of Waste Minimization Analysis Telephone Contacts
Appendix K Sensitivity Analysis of Ground-Water Population Risk Assumptions
-------
Characterization of Wastes Page 2-1
CHAPTER 2
CHARACTERIZATION OF AFFECTED WASTES
To assess the costs and benefits of setting treatment standards for the waste and
contaminated soil addressed in the Phase II LDR final rule, EPA first estimated the quantity of
affected waste and soil. In general, the waste and soil affected by the land disposal restrictions
are those currently disposed of in landfills, surface impoundments, or land treatment facilities;
they may also be stored or treated in waste piles. The Phase II rule also will affect some wastes
currently regulated under the LDR program because of new regulatory modifications.
EPA discusses the waste affected by the Phase II LDR rule in two parts of this chapter.
In Section 2.1, we discuss waste newly affected by the Phase II rule. In Section 2.2, the Agency
discusses waste already regulated by the LDR program that will be affected by the two changes in
the regulations: the promulgation of universal treatment standards (UTS), and a modification of
the definition of recycled materials. Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the quantities of all wastes affected
by the Phase II LDR rule. In brief, the rule will bring into the LDR program an annual quantity
of nearly 300,000 tons of waste, and it will change existing requirements for roughly 11,000 tons
being generated annually.
2.1 AFFECTED WASTES NEWLY REGULATED BY THE LDRs
The rule will set land disposal treatment standards for the following newly identified and
listed wastes:
organic toxicity characteristic wastes (RCRA waste codes D018 to D043);1
organic toxicity characteristic (D018 to D043) hazardous soil;
organic toxicity characteristic (D018 to D043) hazardous debris;
'The Phase II LDR rule covers organic TC wastewaters as.well as organic TC nonwastewaters, soil, and debris.
However, it excludes from its scope wastes managed in CWA. or UlC-regulated units (LDR standards for these wastes
will be included in a future rulemaking). Because virtually all wastewaters are managed in CWA or UlC-regulated units,
EPA assumes wastewaters are affected by the Phase n rule.
-------
Page 2-2
Characterization of Wi
Vas^L
EXHIBIT 2-1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL QUANTITIES
OF AFFECTED WASTES
Waste Newly Regulated By the LDRs
Organic TC Wastes (D018-D043)
Nonwastewaters
Hazardous Soil
Hazardous Debris
Subtotal (rounded) of Organic TC Waste
Characteristic Pesticide Waste Not Hazardous by EP
(D012 to D017)
Coke Production Waste
Chlorotoluene Waste
167,000S/
94,000S/
34,000s'
295,000
30
Subtotat {rounded) of Newiy Regaiated Waste
mooo
Previously Regulated Waste Affected by Changes in LDR Regulations
Affected By Universal Treatment Standards
Affected by Recycling Regulation Modifications
3.840
gufrtoMfl^Od^
Total Quantity (rounded) of Affected Waste
300,000
»l Quantities presented are based on information contained in 1992 TC Survey questionnaires. They represent projected 1995 generation
rates, which EPA assumes are indicative of steady state generation.
b/ As part of the Advance Notice of Rulemaking for the Phase II LDRi, EPA requested data on the D012 to D017 pesticides that exhibit the
tozicity characteristic using the Toscity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) but not the Extraction Procedure (EP). EPA received
no data in response to this request, and it b assuming that this waste volume will be negligible.
c/ Although there are large wastewater and nonwastewater volumes of coke by-products, none of these volumes is apected to be land
disposed. On-site processes constituting treatment (Li, coking) are the most economical management method for these wastes and an
currently widely practiced among coke and tar refining facilities.
d/ The affected universe is defined here as the universe of all wastes to which the UTS apply that are estimated to have cost impacts from the
~ change in treatment levels.
e/ In addition, up to 7 million tons of all previously regulated waste could be affected by the streamlining effect of the UTS. See discussion in
Chapter3.
-------
Characterization of Wastes Page 2-3
characteristic pesticide wastes that were not previously hazardous using the EP
leaching procedure (D012 to D017);
coke production wastes (K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, and K148); and
chlorotoluene wastes (K149, K150, and K151).
2.1.1 Organic Toxicity Characteristic Wastes
EPA added 26 waste codes representing organic contaminants (i.e., D018 to D043) to the
toxicity characteristic as part of the toxicity characteristics revisions rule (March 29, 1990, at
55 FR 11796). The Phase II final rule sets treatment standards for wastes and soil that exhibit
the characteristic for these waste codes. To gather information about the generation and
management practices of organic TC wastes, EPA conducted a census of facilities land disposing
these wastes (OMB Information Collection Request Number 1605).
Design ofEPA's 1992 Survey of Organic Toxicitv Characteristic Wastes Managed in
Land Disposal Units (TC Survey)
In the spring of 1992, EPA conducted a census of all facilities that manage newly
identified TC organic wastes in land disposal units or dispose of these wastes in underground
injection wells. This survey was an important source of information for the RIA; it is described in
detail in Appendix A, and summarized below.
The primary purpose of the survey was to obtain estimates of the quantities,
characteristics, and management practices of newly identified organic TC wastes (D018-D043) that
would be managed in land disposal units (i.e., landfills, land treatment units, surface
impoundments, waste piles and underground injection wells) from 1992 to 1995. The survey
focused on waste disposal systems because the land disposal restrictions apply only to those wastes
destined for land disposal. The Agency understands that many TC wastes are currently treated
(e.g., incinerated) despite the absence of regulatory standards.
For each facility, EPA requested wastestream specific data on newly identified TC organic
wastes and information about on-site land disposal units and treatment and recovery systems.
-------
Page 2-4 Characterization of Wastes
EPA identified the universe primarily based on those facilities which had submitted permit
modifications or received interim status for managing newly identified organic TC wastes (DO 18-
D043). EPA used four major data sources to identify facilities suspected of managing these
wastes in land disposal units:
National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling
Facilities (TSDR Survey);
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS);
Compliance information compiled by EPA Regional Offices; and
Underground injection well information compiled by the EPA Office of Water,
Underground Injection Control Branch (UICB).
The TSDR survey was used to identify the type of land disposal units at TSDR facilitieB
RCRIS provided information on whether owner/operators had submitted a Part A or Part B
application for changes in management practices (i.e., because the facility was receiving newly
identified TC wastes as of September 5, 1991). In addition, OSW had obtained from each EPA
region a list of facilities that had submitted Part A applications or Part B modifications for the
generation or management of organic TC wastes. Using this information EPA verified the data
provided by the TSDR Survey and RCRIS, and also identified 50 additional survey participants.
EPA identified the facilities disposing of newly identified TC wastes in underground injection
wells from information provided by UICB. Also, EPA assumed that many commercial facilities
would manage organic TC wastes; consequently, all commercial landfills and surface
impoundments were included as potential survey participants.
EPA initially identified 400 facilities as potential survey participants. Each facility was first
called to verify that the facility was managing TC wastes in land disposal units. Based upon this
screening, EPA identified 140 facilities that might manage organic TC wastes in land disposal
units. Of the 140 questionnaires mailed, 5 were not returned. Forty-four facilities responded that
-------
Characterization of Wastes Page 2-5
they do not land dispose TC wastes, and 91 facilities confirmed that they manage organic TC
wastes in land disposal units. EPA compiled the data provided by these 91 facilities in a database
used for the RIA and capacity analyses for the Phase II LDR rule. More information on the TC
Survey and the associated database used for analyses can be found in the background document
O
on the capacity analysis for the Phase II LDRs Final Rule , located in the docket.
Use of the TC Survey for this Analysis
The survey requested information on all organic TC wastestreams, even those not affected
by the rule (e.g., wastewaters managed in UIC units). For this analysis EPA has selectively used
the information developed from the TC Survey. The Agency separated responses from facilities
with all organic TC wastes managed exclusively in CWA or UlC-permitted units as well as all TC
wastes which also are described with a RCRA listed waste code. EPA applied a series of filters
to the remaining wastestreams to obtain the subset of wastestreams reported in the TC Survey
that will be affected by the Phase II LDR rule.
Exhibit 2-2 indicates the effect these filters have in reducing the total volume of waste
that should be considered as affected by the Phase II LDR rule. The TC survey includes data on
740,000 tons of TC organic waste that is land disposed in units other than CWA or UlC-
permitted units. Nearly 60 percent of these wastes, or 430,000 tons per year carry a listed waste
code (e.g., F037, petroleum refining waste) in addition to a TC code. The Phase II LDRs will
require that listed wastes that also carry an organic TC characteristic code to meet treatment
standards for all constituents included in the UTS table. Thus, it is possible for a listed waste,
such as K048 (dissolved air flotation float from the petroleum refining industry), that also carries
the TC code for benzene (D018) to require treatment for more than the 15 constituents included
in the K048 BDAT-derived treatment standards. (See 40 CFR 268.41 and 268.43 for the current
requirements for K048 waste.). After a wastestream-specific review of the data, EPA determined
that in nearly all cases, meeting the treatment standards based on the listed code would also meet
the treatment standards that will result from the Phase II LDRs. Thus, to achieve a more
accurate estimate of the quantity of TC waste affected by the rule, wastes carrying both listed and
2U.S. EPA/OSW, Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Newly Listed and Identified Wastes and
Contaminated Soil to Support 40 CFR 268 Land Disposal Restrictions (Final Rule): Capacity Analysis Methodology and
Results, May 1994.
-------
EXHIBIT 2-2
ADJUSTMENTS OF TC SURVEY DATA AS USED IN
RIA COST ANALYSIS
Waste
Organic TC Wastes (D018-D043) Land Disposed (As Reported ID Survey)
Nonwastewaters
Hazardous Soil
Hazardous Debris
Total as Reported
580,000
123,000
41,000
744,009
Reduction 1: TC/Listed Wastes Not Requiring Additional Treatment
Nonwastewaters
Hazardous Soil
Hazardous Debris
of Iteduc&m I
407,000
16,000
5,000
428.000
Reduction 2: Surface Impoundment Closure Quantities
Nonwastewaters .
Hazardous Soil
Hazardous Debris
Total of Reduction 3
6,000
14,000
1,000
'21,000
Organic TC Wastes (D018-D043) Land Disposed (As Used In RIA)
Nonwastewaters
Hazardous Soil
Hazardous Debris
Total used in RIA
167,000
94,000
34,000
'295,000
-------
Characterization of Wastes Page 2-7
characteristic codes should be subtracted from the total quantity of TC wastes if they do not
require further treatment as a result of the Phase n rule (see Exhibit 2-2). EPA identified only
290 tons per year of nonwastewater and 290 tons per year of soil with both listed and
characteristic codes that would require additional treatment because of underlying constituents
that would have to be treated to reach UTS levels.
The quantities EPA is using in its cost analysis are based on projections made from data in
the TC Survey for the year 1995. Because EPA used 1995 as representative steady state volumes,
it discounted waste that would be generated in 1995 due to the closure of surface impoundments.
EPA did not consider roughly 20,000 tons per year of reported waste in its projection of steady
state generation because the waste was generated as part of surface impoundment closures. EPA
does not expect additional surface impoundment closures generating TC organic waste to occur
since the four-year minimum technology retrofit periods (under authority of RCRA 3005(j)(6))
for both the TC identification rule and the F037 and F038 listing will expire by early 1995.
However, these volumes may require treatment in the first year following promulgation of the
rule, therefore increasing the estimated cost of the rule in that year.
The final subset of the TC survey that EPA used for its cost analysis consisted of
approximately 167,000 tons of nonwastewater, 94,000 tons of soil, and 34,000 tons of debris.
These quantities are the sum of 569 nonwastewater streams, 266 soil streams, and 569 debris
streams.3
After culling out wastes as described above, 47 facilities remained. Eight of these facilities
provided confidential business information (CBI) data. Of the 39 non-CBI facilities, 17 (or 44
percent) were petroleum refineries, and an additional 12 (31 percent) were commercial waste
management facilities. Exhibit 2-3 indicates how quantities of TC waste affected by the Phase n
LDRs are distributed across SIC codes. Exhibit 2-4 indicates how quantities of TC waste affected
by the Phase n LDRs are distributed across states. Because three of these facilities did not
provide data (e.gl, constituent concentrations) necessary for the benefits analysis, only 36 were
used to produce the results included in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
^The quantities used in this analysis vary slightly from those in the accompanying capacity analysis. The capacity
analysis reports 223,000 tons of non-wastewater, 70,000 to 120,000 tons of soil, and 34,000 tons of debris. The difference
between the non-wastewater quantities used here and in the capacity analysis stems from our using 1995 projections (as
opposed to 1994) and our exclusion of closure wastes.
-------
EXHIBIT 2-3
Distribution of Affected TC Waste By SIC and Physical Form
SIC Code
2812 - Alkalines & Chlorides
2821 - Plastics
2869 - Organic Chemicals
2879 - Pesticides
291 1 - Petroleum Refining ,
4953 - Refuse Systems
95 1 1 - Waste Management
Not Available
Unknown
Total
Debris
Tons
175
0
1,282
0
332
11,763
111
7,570
13,233
34,466
Percentage
< 1
0
4
0
1
34
< 1
22
38
100
Nonwastewater
Tons
126
1,500
1,245
456
27,958
47,761
9,510
61,616
16,363
166,535
Percentage
< 1
1
1
< 1
17
29 .
6
37
10
100
Soil
Tons
605
0
2,204
0
25,124
33,485
277
18,562
13,351
93,608
Percentage
1
0
2
0
27
36
< 1
20
14
100
Total
Tons
906
1,500
4,731
456
53,414
93,009
9,898
87,748
42,947
294,609
Percentage
< 1
< 1
2
< 1
18
32
3
30
15
100
-------
EXHIBIT 2-4
Distribution of Affected TC Waste By State and Physical Form
State
Alabama
California
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
So. Carolina
Debris
Tons
1,241
10,010
929
17
2,297
.332
2,275
10,936
-
49
498
.
288
2,348
111
-
-
1,094
Percentage
4
29
3
,-< 1
7
1
7
32
-
< 1
1
.-
< 1
7
< 1
-
3
Nonwastewater
Tons
2,953
5,328
1,704
27,400
16,363
1,505
20,037
630
65
176
20
13
2,905
27,262
9,510
270
1,500
2,261
Percentage
2
3
1
16
10
< 1
12
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
2
16
6
< 1
< 1
1
Soil
Tons
3,057
24,690
158
-
2,216
11,681
11,135
1,211
1,021
1,494
869
2,615
277
-
-
367
Percentage
3
26
-
-
2
-
12
12
1
1
2
.
< 1
3
< 1
'
< 1
" Total
Tons
7,251
40,028
2,791
27,417
20,876
1,837
33,993
22,701
1,276
1,246
2,012
13
4,062
32,225
9,898
270
1,500
3,722
-------
State
Texas
Utah
Washington
Total
Debris
Tons
1,263
778
-
34,466
Percentage
4
2
-
100
Nonwastewater
Tons
35,083
11,050
500
166,535
Percentage
21
7
< 1
100
Soil
Tons
31,764
1,053
-
93,608
Percentage
34
1
100
Total
Tons
68,110
12,881
500
294,609.00
-------
Characterization of Wastes ' Page 2-11
The survey found that the vast majority of TC nonwastewaters are currently managed off-site.
The most frequently reported constituent in the organic TC wastes was benzene; the most
common waste code among nonwastewaters was D018, constituting 61 percent of the volume
requiring off-site commercial treatment. Exhibit 2-5 presents the distribution of affected waste by
waste code.
2.1.2 Coke By-products and Chlorotoluene Wastes
The coke by-product wastes hazardous waste listing rule, promulgated on August 18, 1992
(57 FR 37284), identified seven hew hazardous waste codes - K141, K142, K143, K144, K145,
K147, and K148. Although there are large wastewater and nonwastewater volumes of coke by-
products, none is expected to be land disposed. On-site processes constituting treatment (i.e.,
coking) are the most economic management method for these wastes and are widely practiced
among coke and tar refining facilities.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 30 tons of chlorotoluene wastes (i.e., K149,
K150, K151) land disposed per year.
2.2 Wastes Already Regulated by the LDRs and Affected by Regulatory Changes
2.2.1 Wastes Affected by Universal Treatment Standards
The Phase II LDR rule will establish universal treatment standards (UTS). These
standards will update nearly all current concentration-based treatment standards with constituent-
specific UTS concentrations. While the Phase n rule sets UTS levels for both wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, EPA expects that the UTS levels will have negligible cost effects on wastewaters,
given that nearly all listed-waste wastewaters are managed in tanks and never land disposed.
However, EPA evaluated the impacts of applying UTS levels to hazardous nonwastewaters.
EPA assembled a database of the current concentration-based standards (i.e., BDAT
standards) and a database of the universal treatment standards. EPA then merged these
databases on a waste-code basis to determine the specific waste codes and constituents for which
treatment standards would be changing. EPA determined that treatment standards for one or
more constituents would change for 155 waste codes, and that in all 498 waste code/constituent
-------
EXHIBIT 2-5
Distribution of Affected TC Waste by TC Code and Physical Form
TCCode
D018
D019
D020
D021
D022 '
D023
D024
D025
D026
D027
D028
D029
D030
D031
D032
D033
D034
D035
D036
D037
D038
D039
D040
D041
D042
D043
Total
Debris
27,384
271
16
228
261
57
50
60
1,286
244
337
324
363
13
68
103
29
293
. 238
227
538
1,069
878
22
22
85
34,466
Nonwastewater
89,692
4,516
2,283
4,267
3,978
3,899
517
310
1,681
1,144
7,997
3,712
513
205
3,339
452
414
4,206
327
614
2,312
6,892
6,591
110
122
16,442
166,535
Soil
77,097
266
325
1,775
215
31
30
30
126
1,795
1,408
1,930
1,757
17
61
60
60
416
628
336
567
2,944
1,634
17
17
66
93,608
Total
194,173
5,053
2,624
6,270
. 4,454
3,987
597
400
3,093
3,183
9,742
5,966
2,633
235 i
3,468 1
615
503
4,915
1,193
1,177
3,417
10,905
9,103
149
161
16,593
294,609
-------
Characterization of Wastes Page 2-13
treatment standards would be altered. Appendix 8 shows which constituents will be changing for
each of these waste codes.
Using engineering judgment* EPA evaluated what shifts in management practices the
changes in concentration-based standards for these 155 waste codes would cause. EPA
determined that relatively few waste codes would be significantly affected, i.e., allow the use of a
different treatment, and that only two parameters, total and amenable cyanide concentrations,
would be responsible for all shifts in management practices.
EPA believes that the lack of impact of implementation of the UTS standards is due to
two causes. First, generally the direction of all concentration-based standards for the constituents
within a treatability group must be the same before a waste can be managed differently. That is,
constituent standards, must either decrease or remain the same if a less stringent treatment is to
be allowed. It would not work, in general, if some constituent standards decrease while others
increase. Second, stabilization is usually the most preferable way of treating contamination with
metal constituents, regardless of the concentration-based treatment standard that must be
attained.
EPA identified twelve waste codes that had existing treatment standards for cyanide for
which concentration standards would be increased (i.e., become less stringent) by a factor of 10 or
more: F011, F012, P021, P029, P030, P063, P074, P098, P099, P104, P106, and P121. EPA used
1991 Biennial Reporting System (BRS) data to determine which wastestreams carried one or
more of these waste codes. Exhibit 2-6 presents these wastestreams and indicates how EPA
arrived at its estimate of the quantity of waste affected by the UTS. For each wastestream
included in Exhibit 2-6, EPA again applied engineering judgment, this time to determine if the
combined treatment standards for the wastestream, based on all the waste codes present, would
allow a less expensive treatment, typically stabilization, to take the place of the BDAT treatment,
alkaline chlorination. Very, often, the pressure of an origin waste code not exhibiting cyanide,
\
would dictate that treatment based on incineration would still be required; thus there would be no
change in treatment technologies. EPA's analysis indicates that a total of 1,209 tons of waste
could have been treated using a less expensive treatment technology in 1991 if the UTS had been
in place. EPA assumes that this result is the best projection for the future quantity of waste that
will be affected by use of the UTS.
-------
EXHIBIT 2-6
ANALYSIS OF CYANIDE WASTESTREAMS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE UTS
WASTESTREAM WASTE CODE(S)
QUANTITY REPORTED
IN 1991 BRS
(TONS)
AFFECTED
BY UTS
LEVEL'
F006 F007 F008 F009 F011
D001 D002 0003 D004 0007 K011 K013 P003 P016 P030 P063 P098 P101 P105 P106 U001 U002 U003 U004 U008 . '
F001 F002 F005 F008 F011
0001 0002 0003 0004 0008 0009 0010 0011 0012 0018 K001 K037 K045 K048 K049 KOS1 P012 P015 P030 P041 U048 U056 U088 U098 U112
0001 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 0009 0010 0011 0039 F001 F002 F003 F004 F005 F006 F007 F008 F009 F011 F019 POOS P022
0001 0002 0003 0004 0005 D008 0007 0008 0009 0010 0040 0043 F001 F003 F008 F011 F019 F037 K011 K013 K090 K094 P065 P070 U050
0001 0003 0018 0038 F039 K011 K013 K014 P063 U002 U009
F002 F003 F004 F005 P063 U002 U012 U038 U044 U131 U154 U239
O001 0002 0003 0004 0005 F032 K008 K010 K084 K117 K123 K124 K126 K131 P074 P106 P123 U002 U008 U024 U035 U058 U200 U201 U202
. 0007 KO11 K013 P083 U002 U003 U009
0001 0004 0005 0006 0007 D008 0009 0010 0011 0018 0019 0020 0021 0022 F001 F002 F003 F004 F005 F006 F007 P022 P030 U080 U122
P106
F006F012
0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 D008 0011 F002 F006 F007 F008 F009 F011 F012F019P011 P021 P029 P030 P074 P104 P106 P121 U061
0001 0002 0007 0009 F001 F002 F003 F004 F005 F039 P106 P120 U002 U019 U052 U056 U080 U122 U154 U159 U161 U196 U211 U220
F001 F002 F003 F004 F005 F006 F007 F012 F019
0006 F001 F002 F003 F005 F006 F007 F008 F009 F019 K062 P029 P030 P098 P104 P108 P121 U019 U031 U044 U080 U134 U188 U210 U220
0003 0008 0018 0027 0028 D029 0039 0040 F001 F002 F003 F005 P001 P020 P022 P030 P037P039 P040 P048 P051 P070 P071 P075 P089 P105 P106 P108 P122 P123 U002
F011
0001 0002 P063 P069
0005 0006 0007 D009 0011 F001 F002 F003 F004 F005 F006 F007 F009 F011
0006 F001 F002 F003 F005 P006 P021 P029 P031 P033 P068 P076 P078 P098 P105 P106 P122 U088 U089 U115 U127 U129 U133 U134 U135 U189 U246 U249
K011 K013 P063 U002 U003 U009
0048 0019 0020 0021 0022 0023 0024 0025 0026 0027 0028 0029 0030 0031 0032 0033 0034 0035 0036 0037 0038 P022 P030 U080 U122
0001 0002 0003 0005 0007 0008 0009 0040 F001 F002 F003 F005 P030 U002 U012 U044 U122 U220 U221 .
F012
P030 .
0001 0002 0003 0003 0007 0010 0011 F006 F007 F008 F011 P106
0003 F007 F008 P029 P030
F006 F007 F008 F009 F011 F012
0002 0004 0004 0009 0010 F005 F007 F008 F009 F019 K046 K061K062 K069 P106
P001 P004 POOS P010 P018 P020 P030 P037 P039 P041 P048 P050 POS8 P059 P063 P068 P070 P071 P089 P094 P105 P108 P123
D001 0002 0003 0004 0005 F002 F004 F005 K022 K084 K136 P012 P059 P062 P099 P105 PI 06 P109 U018 U020 U064 U145 U146 U187 U237
0003 0005 0007 F011 P106
P063P069
0003 DOOQj^fepOOS F007 F008 F009 F011
F008 P03
F007 P030
172.784
19.040
15,509
3.399
2.095
1.992
1.495
904
809
738
641
530
419
296
229
203
167
109
106
95
90
77
41
35
35
23
17
15
15
12
11
11
. 10
10
8
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
V
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Wastestreams are considered to be not affected (I.e., "N") If additional waste codes present prevent the use of less costly treatment.
-------
EXH
ANALYSIS OF CYANIDE WASTESTREAMS
ENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE UTS
WASTESTREAM WASTE CODE(S)
QUANTITY REPORTED
IN 1991 BRS
(TONS)
AFFECTED
BY UTS
LEVEL'
P029 P030 P098 P104 P106
D003 D004 D005 D006D007 0008 D009 D010 D011 F007 F008 F009 F010 F011 F019
D001 D002 0003 D004 D007 D011 K011 K013 POOS P016 P030 P063 P106 U001 U002 U003 U004 U009 U019 U053
D001F008F011
0003D007P106
D003 F002 F008 P098 P106
0003 F012
P121
0002 0005 0006 0008 P030U188
D003 0006 P026 P029
D007D008F010FOH
.0001 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 0009 0010 0011 F007 F008 F009 P021 P029 P076 P078
0003 P106
P063U003
P098
D003P030P106 .
0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 0009 0010 0011 F006 F007 F008 F009 F010 F011 F019 , .
D003P098 ' ' .
0002 P068 P076 P078 P098 P105 P106 U115 U189 U246
0002 0004 0007 0008 P098 P10S
0003 F008 P030 P106
P098P106
00030011 P104P106
0003 0007 F011
P021 P068 P098 P105 P106 P122 U048 U098 U115 U133 U134 U135 U147
F009P106P121
0003 P030 '
D003P106P121
P063 ' "
0001 0004 0007 0012 0013 0014 0015 0016 0018 D019 0020 0022 0024 0027 0028 0029 0035 0038 0040 F002 F003 F004 F005 P020 P050 P098 P123 U002 U003 U012 U03
0003 F011 .
0005 F011
D003P029P106P121
0003 0009 P021 P029 P030 PQ74 P098 P104 P106 P121
P029
0008 PI06
P010 P012 P018 P024 P037 P048 P075 P077 P081 P098 P105 P106 P108 P116 P119 P120 P121
0005 0007 0008 0010 0011 F007 F008 F011 F012 LABP LABP
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
* Wastestreams are considered to be not affected (i.e., "N") if additional waste codes present prevent the use of less costly treatment.
-------
Page 2-16 Characterization of Wastes
2.2.2 Wastes Affected by Modifications to Hazardous Waste Recycling Regulations
The Phase II LDR rule also broadens the scope of an existing exclusion to the definition
of solid waste to allow certain materials to be recycled in an environmentally beneficial manner.
This section provides a brief background of historical developments related to the definition of
solid waste before explaining how EPA assessed what types of waste will be affected by changes in
the regulations.
In the January 4, 1985, final rule (50 FR 639), known as the LDR framework rule, EPA
promulgated an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for secondary materials that are
recycled in a "closed loop" (i.e., returned to the original production process in which' the material
was generated). According to the framework rule, to be considered a closed-loop process three
conditions must be met:
(1) The secondary material must be returned to the original process
without undergoing significant alteration or reprocessing;
(2) The production process to which the unreclaimed materials are
returned must be a primary production process (i.e., a process that
uses raw materials as the majority of its feedstock, as opposed to a
secondary process that uses spent or scrap materials as the majority
of its feedstock); and
(3) The secondary material must be returned as a feedstock to the
original production process and must be recycled as part of the
process, as opposed to an ancillary process.
The Phase II LDRs will make it easier for industry to recycle materials in an
environmentally beneficial manner by removing the second of the three conditions above. The
Agency expects that the only effect of this change will be for K069 wastes (emission control dust
from secondary lead smelting), since this is the only waste from a secondary process listed as
hazardous.
-------
2-7
TREATMENT OF K069^PRb ON 1991 BRS DATA
(TONS)
WASTE CODE
K069 ONLY
K069 & OTHER
CODES
ALL REPORTED
K069
TREATMENT
LOCATION
OFF -SITE
TREATMENT
ON-SITE
TREATMENT
SUB- TOTAL
TREATMENT
LOCATION
OFF-SITE
TREATMENT
ON-SITE
TREATMENT
SUB- TOTAL
TREATMENT
LOCATION
OFF-SITE
TREATMENT
ON-SITE
TREATMENT
TOTAL
TREATMENT TYPE
M011-HTMR
TONS
614
NONE
614
NONE
NONE
NONE
614
NONE
614
M013-SECONDARY
SMELTING
TONS
67
90
157
141
NONE
141
208
90
298
M019-METALS
RECOVERY,
UNSPECIFIED
TONS
9
NONE
9
'NONE
NONE
NONE
9
NONE
9
M1 09- SLUDGE
TREATMENT,
UNSPECIFIED
TONS
5
NONE
5
NONE
NONE
NONE
5
NONE
5
M111-
STABILIZATION/
CHEM. FIXATION
TONS
85
NONE
85
1
1,271
1,272
86
1,271
1,357
M121-
NEUTRALIZATION
ONLY
TONS
NONE
NONE
NONE
765
NONE
765
765
NONE
765
M132-LANDFILL
TONS
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
1,271
1,271
NONE
1,271
1,271
M141 -TRANSFER
FACILITY
TONS
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
74
74
NONE
74
74
M999-UNKNOUN
CODE
TONS
9
NONE
9
NONE
NONE
NONE
9
NONE
9
ALL TREATMENT
TONS
789
90
879
906
2,617
3.523
1,695
2,707
4,402
-------
Page 2-18 Characterization of Wastes
To determine the quantity of K069 affected by this change, EPA analyzed data from the
1991 BRS database. Exhibit 2-7 indicates the quantities of K069 generated in 1991 and how they
were managed. .EPA expects that the result of the modification to the exclusion of the definition
of solid waste will be to allow recycling for all waste with K069 only. Wastestreams with codes in
addition to K069 were included only if the additional codes corresponded to characteristic levels
of constituents regulated by the BDAT standards for K069 (i.e., lead and cadmium). K069
wastestreams with other codes (e.g., D010 for selenium toxicity) were not included in this analysis.
Exhibit 2-7 indicates that 4,402 tons of affected K069 were generated in 1991. Of this amount,
921 tons (i.e., 614 plus 298 plus 9) were recovered through recycling processes such as high
temperature metals recovery (HTMR) and secondary smelting. Accordingly, EPA assumes the
quantity of K069 potentially affected by the Phase fi LDR rule is the remaining 3,841 tons of
K069. In light of the modifications to the definition of solid waste, this quantity of K069 now will
be suitable for management using recovery technologies. Nine facilities account for the affected
waste.
2.3 EFFECTS OF WASTE MINIMIZATION
In the Phase II Proposed Rule, the Agency accounted for the effects of waste
minimization directly in the volumes used in the RIA from the TC Survey database. Where
respondents to the survey indicated that they were in the process of (or had near-term plans to)
reduce their waste volumes through waste minimization activities, these estimated reductions were
1 \
subtracted from the overall volumes on a facility-specific basis. These adjusted volumes became
the basis for the regulatory analysis of the Phase n standards.
However, in the RIA for the proposed rule, the Agency raised two concerns regarding its
accounting of waste minimization. The first concern was the absence of waste minimization as a
potential least-cost compliance alternative for the regulated community in the RIA. The second
issue raised was effectively whether the waste minimization identified in the TC survey should be
assigned as a part of the baseline scenario or the post-regulatory scenario in the RIA. In other
words, would the waste minimization activities identified in the TC survey have been implemented
in the absence of the Phase n rule.
-------
Characterization of Wastes Page 2-79
For this Phase H Final Rule RIA, the Agency performed a separate waste minimization
analysis. Using the TC Survey as its basis, the Agency performed a more detailed accounting of
waste minimization, which also addressed the concerns in the proposed rule analysis. The section
below describes the methodology and presents the results behind this waste minimization
accounting.
23.1 Methodology
The methodology for the waste minimization analysis follows six steps:
" (1) Develop a profile of the industries affected by the Phase n rule that indicated
plans for waste minimization in the 1992 TC Suvey Database.
(2) From the industry profile, select industries to examine in the waste minimization
analysis which would be representative of the TC waste universe.
(3) Make telephone data verification calls to facilities within the industries identified
in Step 2.
(4) For the facilities participating in the verification, determine the cost components
for the post-regulatory and waste minimization scenarios for all wastestreams.
(5) Estimate the total costs/cost savings for the waste minimization and the post-
regulatory (i.e.: without waste minimization) scenarios.
(6) Extrapolate results to TC waste universe, and determine overall cost/cost savings as
the difference between the post-regulatory and waste minimization scenarios.
" ' '
The first three steps focus on the characterizing the waste subject to minimization and are
discussed in greater detail below. The last three steps focus on estimating the cost impacts of
waste minimization. These impacts are presented 4n detail in Chapter 3.
-------
Page 2-20 Characterization of Wastes
Step 1. Develop a profile of the industries affected by the Phase II rule that indicated
plans for waste minimization in the 1992 1C Suvey Database. The Agency employed the TC
Survey to construct the industry profile for the waste minimization analysis. However, not all of
the wastestreams represented in the TC Survey are amenable to waste minimization. Therefore,
the Agency eliminated wastestreams to derive the relevant universe for the waste minimization
analysis.
The TC survey contains 316,000 tons of TC wastes that are subject to the Phase n rule.
(This is equivalent to the volume after Reduction 1 discussed in Section 2.1.1.) As all of the
waste subject to the Phase n rule is not amenable to waste minimization, waste minimization was
not considered for wastestreams from the closure of surface impoundments, remediation-derived
wastestreams, wastestreams described as soil, and wastestreams described as sporadically generated
debris. These wastes were eliminated based on the assumption that they are one-time generated
wastes and annual waste minimization cost savings would be small, if any. Exhibit 2-8 shows
pictorially how the TC waste tonnage was reduced from 316,000 tons to the "reduced data set" of
197,000 tons. ,
The "reduced data set" was then divided into three sections based on the facility name I
knowledge of what that facility does: (1) commercial TSDs, (2) CBI, and (3) industrial waste
generator/treater. The largest potential for waste minimization is present at the industrial waste
generator/treater.
Commercial TSDs receive waste from generators. The waste minimization potential at the
commercial TSDs itself is minimal. The Agency examined the possibility of tracing these waste
volumes to the generator through use of the Biennial Reporting Survey (BRS). However, early
effort on this approach proved ineffective, and refinements would have been time consuming,
with uncertain results. The Agency acknowledges that there are potentially large savings from
waste minimization which is not accounted for due to this limitation. Appendix I presents the
large quantity wastestreams reported by commercial TSDs that were characterized for waste
minimization potential.
For CBI facib'ties, no wastestream specific information was publicly available (i.e.: no
information was non-CBI). The CBI universe of generated waste was assumed to be similar to
the non-CBI generated waste, and the cost savings from the non-CBI analysis were extrapolated
-------
Exhibit 2-8: Flow Chart of Methodology to Develop Quantity of
Waste Streams Amenable to Waste Minimization
CBI Data
(69,000 tons)
All TC Wastes Affected by
the Phase 2 Rule (316,000 tons)
Wastes Derived from
Closure of Existing Surface
Impoundments (21,000 tons)
Remediation-derived Wastes
(2,000 tons)
One-time Generated and
Spill Generated Soils
(93,000 tons)
Sporadically Generated
Debris (3,000 tons)
Reduced Data Set (197,000 tons)
Wastes Received by TSDs
(91,000 tons)
Industrial Derived Waste
(37,000 tons)
Petroleum and
Petrochemical Industry
(32,000 tons)
Organic Chemical
and Other Industries
(5,000 tons)
-------
Page 2-22 Characterization of Wastes
\
to the CBI wastes.
The results of this data analysis identified 86 non-CBI facilities that responded to the 1992
TC survey. Approximately 87 percent of the facilities that remained were in the petroleum
refining industry and the organic chemical manufacturing industry.
Step 2. From the industry profile, select industries to examine in the waste
minimization analysis that would be representative of the TC waste universe. As the petroleum
refining and organic chemical industries represented the 87% of the volume of wastes subject to
the Phase n TC LDRs, these two industries were selected to represent the universe of TC wastes
for the purposes of the waste minimization analysis. From these two industries, 16 facilities were
identified that both land dispose of their TC wastes on-site and had indicated that they are
pursuing or plan to undertake waste minimization activities.
The decision to concentrate on these facilities for phone contact was based primarily on
two considerations. First, it was believed that facilities that relied on on-site treatment, primarily
land farming or other land application, such as surface impoundments, would have a more
immediate need, with the imminent promulgation of the Phase n TC LDR treatment standards,
to institute waste minimization activities necessary to reduce the volume of TC wastes pro
The fact that these facilities had also indicated on the TC survey that they were pursuing or were
planning to undertake waste minimization lent support to this consideration.
Second, the waste volumes generated by these facilities were deemed sufficiently
representative of the universe of the TC wastes subject to the Phase n TC LDRs to extrapolate
any cost savings from the minimization of .these wastes to the remaining balance of the wastes
deemed amenable to waste minimization. This consideration took into account that a major
component of the newly identified TC wastes was various tank bottoms from crude oil storage and
from various intermediate distillate storage.
Step 3. Make telephone data verification calls to facilities within the industries
identified in Step 2. To confirm the information on waste minimization provided in the 1992 TC
survey, EPA attempted to contact the 16 facilities mentioned above. In addition, if the facilities
were willing to provide cost savings information, such data would be collected from up to nine
facilities. '
-------
Characterization of Wastes Page 2-23
The Agency developed a telephone protocol to verify the information in the TC survey
database concerning facilities planning to perform waste minimization on Phase n wastestreams.
The telephone protocol and the results from the telephone calls are documented in Appendix J.
2.3.2 Results of Waste Minimization on Affected Universe
The waste minimization analysis found that approximately 21,000 tons of waste would not
need to be treated due to waste minimization activities. This total quantity represents 14,100 tons
of petroleum refinery tank bottoms, 6,400 tons of petroleum refinery lime sludges, and 65 tons of
regenerated spent catalyst. The effects of waste minimization on each of these waste types are
discussed in greater detail below.
"Reduced Data" The "reduced data" contains 197,000 tons. Exhibit 2-9 presents this
"reduced data" broken out by industry, generation category and physical form. Of this "reduced
waste", 35 percent is associated with CBI facilities; 46 percent is associated with commercial
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDs); the remaining 19 percent is associated with
industrial waste generator/treater. The petroleum and petrochemical industry accounts for 87
percent of the waste at industrial facilities. The waste at the industrial waste generator/treater has
the highest potential for determining cost savings from waste minimization.
The generation category of "tank clean out" is a derivative of the replacement of surface
impoundments with tank systems. The waste quantity in this category is the estimated quantity of
sludge generated in these tank systems. Because waste minimization would take place before
wastestreams entered the tank system, and the type of waste entering the tank systems is not well
known, the waste minimization potential of these wastes was not evaluated.
Petroleum and Petrochemical Industry Analysis. Routinely generated wastes (8,000 tons)
are dominated by a single large wastestream. Shell Oil - Wood River (survey 27) reported a 6,400
ton dewatered lime sludge generated from treatment of benzene contaminated groundwater,
dewatered in a filter press. The facility plans to perform waste minimization on this wastestream.
A follow up phone call was made to the facility (see Section 3.2) to verify this information.
-------
Page 2-24
Characterization of Wastes
Exhibit 2-9 Summary of the Reduced Data by Industry,
Generation Category, and Physical Form
Industry
CBI
CBI ,
CBI
CBI
CBI
Generation Category
Routinely Generated
Routinely Generated
Routinely Generated
Tank Clean Out
Sporadic
Physical Form
Debris
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater-Liquid
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Subtotal CBI
TSD
TSD
TSD
Routinely Generated
Routinely Generated
Sporadic
Debris
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Subtotal TSD
Petroleum/Petrochemical
Petroleum/Petrochemical
Petroleum/Petrochemical
Routinely Generated
Tank Clean Out
Sporadic
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Subtotal Petroleum/petrochemical
Other
Other
Other
Routinely Generated
Tank Clean Out
Sporadic
Debris
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Subtotal Other
GRAND TOTAL
Quantity
(tons)
. 7,000
59,000
300
300
2,000
69,000
24,000
45,000
22,000
91,000
8,000
11,000
13,000
32,000
20
5,000
20
5,000
197,000
-------
Characterization of Wastes ' Page 2-25
Sporadically generated wastes (13,350 tons) are dominated by "tank bottoms." Eight "tank
bottom" streams account for 13,270 tons. Three petroleum refiners indicated waste minimization
of tank bottom wastes were being planned or considered.
Additional Tank Bottom Wastestreams. The TC Survey database was searched to find
additional "tank bottom" wastestreams. A total of 22 additional streams were found by searching
the waste description field for "tank bottom." Of these, six were wastewaters, two were soils, and
one was a wastewater treatment sludge. The remaining 13 streams from various industries range
in quantity from 0.5 tons to 281 tons and sum to a total of 738 tons. These tank bottoms were
not included in the waste minimization calculations.
Catalyst Wastestreams. Conversations with two petroleum refiners involved future plans
to recycle catalyst wastestreams. Therefore, the waste description field of,the TC Survey database
was searched for catalyst wastestreams. Five wastestreams were found. The largest was 232 tons
of "OHC catalyst and HC1 filter elements" generated by Georgia Gulf Corp. The next largest was
40.5 tons of "spent catalysts and support material from petroleum and refining" generated by
Mobil Oil. Marathon Petroleum generated 12.5 tons of "replacement of catalyst from 77C
reactor." Ashland Chemical Co generated 7.5 tons of "catalysts fines from VGO reactor, catalyst
change." Vulcan Chemical generated 3.9 tons of "spent EDC catalyst from the production of
EDC," however, this wastestream is not in the spreadsheet because it also contains a listed waste
code.
Organic Chemical Industry. The Agency was unable to contact any facilities that would
participate in the verification of data, and therein be included in the waste minimization analysis.
2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS
In this RIA, EPA is not considering the impacts of the rule with regard to lab packs or
newly regulated characteristic pesticide waste (D012-D017). The standards for these classes of
wastes vary only slightly from the original standards, and thus, no significant costs or benefits are
-------
Page 2-26 Characterization of Wastes
expected. In addition, these waste volumes are expected to be negligible when compared with
other wastes addressed in the Phase n rule.
EPA has used data from the TC Survey and the BRS to characterize the affected
universe. Both of these data sources have limitations. For instance, hazardous debris was not
formally defined by EPA until July 1992, several months after information for both of the data
sources used was submitted. Databases such as the TC Survey and the BRS may also be
inconsistent with each other because of differences in the information submitted and the
procedures used for structuring data.
EPA queried the 1991 BRS to estimate the quantity of solids, sludges, and soils that have
only organic TC wastecodes (i.e., D018-D043). This query indicated a total quantity of 193,000
tons, with 70 percent of this comprised of D018 streams. This estimate compares well with the
estimates based on the TC survey that are used in this RIA.
EPA's projections of TC waste volumes take into account waste management process
modifications indicated in the TC Survey. To the extent that plans for modifications have
changed, EPA's estimates for TC wastes may err. Underestimates and overestimates could resulL
from changes in waste management operations that were not indicated in the TC Survey.
Finally, the RIA overlooks some degree of regulation of the land disposal of TC wastes
that may presently be occurring. California has enacted legislation that requires that treatment of
wastes containing volatile and semi-volatile contaminants before land disposal. The legislature of
California has postponed the effective date of this regulation until January 1,1995,4 and so EPA
believes that these regulations should not -be reflected in the affected universe considered for the
RIA.
4 Telephone conversation between John Trever, of ICF Incorporated, and Watson Gin, of the California Toxic
Substances Division, April 7, 1994. .
-------
Costs Page 3-1
CHAPTERS
COSTS OF RESTRICTING THE LAND DISPOSAL OF PHASE U WASTES
In this chapter, EPA estimates the incremental cost of restricting the land disposal of
Phase n wastes by estimating both the costs attributable to post-regulatory management of the
waste and the costs associated with the current (or baseline) management of the same waste. The
incremental cost is the difference between the post-regulatory cost and the baseline management
cost.
3.1 COST ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Because of differences in available data, EPA developed separate methodologies for each
type of waste affected. The discussion that follows describes EPA's methodologies for this
analysis.
3.1.1 Organic Toxicity Characteristic Waste
The organic toxicity characteristic wastes addressed in the Phase II LDR rule and the
description of available data were discussed in the previous chapter. Using the data from the TC
Survey, EPA was able to develop facility-specific cost estimates for the post-regulatory treatment
of these wastes. EPA approached this part of the cost analysis using the following five steps:
Step 1. Create a subset of the TC Survey (and its resulting database) for a more efficient
cost analysis by removing wastes that are not affected by the Phase n LDR rule
(e.g., wastewaters).
Step 2. For each wastestream in the resulting cost analysis database, review all available
information and assign treatment technologies under the post-regulatory scenarios.
Step 3. Collect appropriate unit cost information for treatments assigned.
Step 4. Calculate testing and recordkeeping costs.
-------
Page 3-2 Costs
Step 5. Create a model to process data and summarize results.
These steps are discussed in detail below.
Step 1. Create a subset of the TC survey database for a more efficient cost analysis.
The original TC survey database described in Chapter 2 contained 91 facilities and over 900
wastestream records. Many of these wastestreams (e.g., organic TC wastewaters managed in
CWA permitted units, are unaffected by the Phase n LDR rule, as discussed in Chapter 2;
consequently, EPA removed them in developing a subset of the database for use in the cost
analysis. In addition, EPA removed any waste streams for which the projected 1995 generation
was zero. Exhibit 3-1 summarizes the subset of the TC survey database used for the cost analysis.
The subset contained facility-specific data for each of the 47 facilities that EPA determined would
be affected by the Phase n LDR rule. These data included over 700 wastestream groups, which
represented combinations of physical form and waste code, consisting of 295,000 tons of affected
waste, soil, and debris.
Step 2. For each wastestream in the resulting cost analysis database, review all
available information and assign treatment technologies. For the organic TC wastestreams in
the data subset used for the cost analysis, EPA reviewed data records, including the original
completed questionnaires, for each wastestream and made a wastestream-speciGc determination of
the treatment technology required to achieve the universal treatment standards promulgated in
the Phase n LDR rule for the TC constituents as well as for any underlying constituents. EPA
assumed that the treated wastes would be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. The baseline
management practice was in all cases land disposal at the facility.1
In assigning technologies to treat TC nonwastewaters. EPA followed general
guidelines on how these wastes would be treated. For oily TC nonwastewaters,
such as wastes that are derived from hydrocarbon, olefin or petroleum production .
1 EPA used the designation "landfill-oflsite" for wastes disposed of at commercial facilities receiving wastes from
generators.
-------
Costs
Page 3-3
EXHIBIT 3-1
SUBSET OF TC SURVEY DATA USED FOR COST ANALYSIS
No. of
Facilities.
Number of
Wastestream
Groups^
Quantity of
Waste
(tons)
Non-Commercial
(Company Captive)
Commercial
Total
D018 Benzene
All Other Waste Codes
Total
DO 18 Benzene
All Other Waste Codes
Total
30
17
. 47
Form of Waste
Nonwastewater
54
258
312
Nonwastewater
89,700
76,800
166,500
Soil
34
150
184
Form of Waste
Soil
77,100
16,500
93,600
Debris
30
185
215
Debris
27,400
7,100
34,500
Wastestream groups represent combinations of physical form and waste code.
-------
(tank bottoms, gasoline, oil-water emulsions), depending on the oil content, EPA
assumed that any of the following technologies would be employed: fuel
substitution, chemical treatment, critical fluid extraction, thermal desorption, or
biodegradation. However, EPA assumed that TC wastes from hydraulic oils or
transformer oils would require incineration in a TSCA-pennitted incinerator.
For volatile TC organics, EPA assumed that low temperature thermal desorption,
critical fluid extraction, fuel substitution or biodegradation would reach the
required levels. For pesticides and other halogenated TC wastes either high
temperature thermal desorption or critical fluid extraction followed by incineration
of residues was assumed.
Finally, EPA assumed incineration could always meet the treatment levels.
However, where certain contaminants exist, incineration was less likely to be used:
volatile toxic metals (particularly As, Hg, Se, Pb); toxic nonmetal-oxide formers; (
corrosive gas-forming halogens; high sodium, calcium, or silicates in the waste; ana
corrosive inorganic compounds. For residues from incineration, EPA generally
believes that low temperature thermal desorption would be used for uncombusted
volatiles, and stabilization for metals. Where several technologies applied for a
wastestream, EPA generally chose the least costly technology.
For soil contaminated with organic TC wastes, the approach was similar to that
used for nonwastewaters: treatment was selected that would meet the universal
treatment standards in the Phase n LDR rule. To estimate the cost of treating
organic TC soil, EPA first reviewed the TC survey database to select the most
likely waste treatment. EPA reviewed the waste description, constituent, and
waste management information on each soil wastestream. For soils contaminated
only with volatile organic compounds, EPA assumed that vapor extraction or some
form of thermal desorption would be used in both soil treatment alternatives. If
the waste description or constituent information indicated that toxic metals were
-------
Costs Page 3-5
present, EPA generally assumed that the residual from treating the organic would
require stabilization. EPA assumed that semi-volatiles, non-volatile, and complex
mixtures of contaminants would generally require incineration. In cases where a
survey respondent indicated specific plans for treating the waste, EPA assumed this
treatment would be selected. EPA did not adjust the data to account for the
potential use of treatability variances for contaminated soil.
To determine treatment under each regulatory scenario for debris contaminated
with TC wastes. EPA used a'n approach similar to that described above for soils.
However, for debris more emphasis was placed on the waste matrix. For instance,
EPA assumed that combustible wastes (e.g., contaminated rags and fabric filters)
would be incinerated, as would complex mixtures of relatively small objects. EPA
also assumed that washing or chemical extraction would be used for larger objects
that would require a great deal of size reduction to allow thermal desorption or
incineration.
After technology assignments were made, EPA determined whether in the post-regulatory
scenario treatment would occur on-site or off-site. EPA relied on the on-site/off-site designations
in the current TC survey database (as developed by the capacity program branch); these
designations show that over 99 percent of the TC wastes will be treated off-site (i.e., at
commercial facilities). These designations were completed at the time the data were collected as
part of an extensive review of survey responses, including follow-up telephone conversations with
facility contacts. For this RIA, EPA reviewed each facility's permit status from a recent RCRIS
inventory to determine if any of the facilities designated in the database as "off-site for treatment"
had active RCRA permits, or have applied for a RCRA permit for on-site treatment. EPA found
only one facility that had been issued a RCRA treatment permit, and eight others that had
applied for treatment permits. For these nine facilities, EPA changed the designations to "on-site
for treatment."
To make its analysis more efficient, EPA examined the number of wastestreams and
volumes of waste for each of three categories, nonwastewater, soil, and debris, and determined a
-------
Page 3-6
wastestream volume threshold above which over 95 percent of the affected volume would be
accounted for. The thresholds were 80 tons per year per wastestream for nonwastewaters, 100
tons per year for hazardous soil, and 25 tons per year for hazardous debris. For these waste
streams, a speciflc technology was not assigned; rather, an average treatment cost developed for
each physical form was used. These average costs were calculated by first examining the waste
streams with specific technology assignments and calculating the average for each category. By
employing these thresholds, EPA was able to reduce the need for wastestream-specific technology
assignments, while still accounting for more than 95 percent of the waste volume. Average costs
were also assigned to wastestreams that did not have sufficient data to make a technology
determination, as was often the case.
Step 3. Collect appropriate unit cost information for treatments assigned. Once
wastestream-specific technology assignments were made, EPA estimated the unit costs for each .
treatment technology. EPA examined several studies and sources for unit costs (see Appendix C
for more discussion of unit cost and their sources). First, EPA conducted a thorough literature^
search to determine costs and prices that have been effective over the past two years. In
addition, EPA reviewed .nearly 100 Superfund RODs which were signed in 1993 to evaluate
information given about the cost of remediation and off-site treatment. Finally, EPA contacted
eight commercial treatment suppliers who provide customers with thermal treatment and
stabilization for organic TC waste. When necessary, EPA used off-site unit costs from "1990
Survey of Selected Firms in the Hazardous Waste Management Industry," Final Report, July 1992,
U.S. EPA Office of Policy Analysis (OPA), or EPA's "Cost and Economic Impact Analysis of
Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly Listed Wastes and Contaminated Debris (Phase I LDRS)
*
Final Rule," June 30,1992. Because vendor price quotes and literature sources usually report
unit costs as a range, EPA took the mid-point of each range and then averaged multiple sources,
if necessary, to determine a single unit cost for each technology.
The unit costs employed in this analysis assume subtitle D disposal for treated TC wastes.
Since virtually all the waste is currently disposed of at commercial facilities (see discussion above),
EPA assumed that transportation costs would be the same in both the baseline and post-
regulatory scenarios. Finally, when data allowed, as was the case for commercial incineration
-------
Costs " Page 3-7
0
prices, EPA adjusted its unit cost values to reflect economics of scale for treating large quantity
wastestream.
Step 4. Calculate testing and recordkeeping costs. The development of testing and
recordkeeping costs is discussed in detail in section 3.1.4. For organic TC wastes, EPA applied
the appropriate baseline and post-regulatory testing costs for each wastestream as well as a
facility-specific recordkeeping cost.
Step 5. Create a model to process data and summarize results. EPA developed a series
of spreadsheets and datasets to store the data. Data manipulation was then performed using SAS
software as well as Lotus 1-2-3. For each wastestream in the database, EPA determined the cost
of the baseline and post-regulatory management practice. For example, if a nonwastewater
wastestream of 1,000 tons per year had a baseline management cost of $75 per ton and a post-
regulatory cost of $1,000 per ton for the standards set in the Phase n LDR rule, the
corresponding total costs for the wastestream would be $75,000 in the baseline and $1,000,000 in
the post-regulatory scenario. The incremental treatment cost in the post-regulatory scenario
would be $925,000.
Costs for each wastestream were summed for each facility by waste form and post-
regulatory treatment technology. Testing and recordkeeping costs were added to the sum of all
treatment costs to determine a total cost per facility.
3.1.2 Other Regulated Waste
In addition to organic TC wastes and previously regulated hazardous soil, the Phase n
LDR rule affects coke by-product and chlorotoluene wastes. EPA conducted a facility-specific
cost analysis for these affected waste streams.
Based on an economic analysis of coke by-product waste management performed for the
Coke By-Products Listing Final Rule,2 EPA believes that generators of these wastes will recycle
2Cost and Economic Impact Analysis of Listing Hazardous Wastes K141-K145, K147, and K148 from the Coke By-
Products (Coking and Tar Refining) Industry, Final Report, June 1992.
-------
Page 3-8
rather than dispose of their waste in Subtitle C landfills. Therefore, EPA believes no coke by-
product wastes wijl be affected by this rule.
For chlorotoluene wastes, the baseline practice was assumed to be on-site disposal in a
Subtitle C unit. The post-LDR waste management method was assumed to be commercial
Subtitle C incineration. The price, including transportation, is $1,320 per ton ($1,200 per ton for
incineration and $120 per ton for transport of waste 500 miles).
3.1.3 Baseline Management Practices
For wastes newly regulated by the LDRs, EPA assumed that the baseline management
practice is land disposal in a unit meeting Subtitle C requirements. The 40 CFR Part 264
requirements for such units include the installation of a liner and leachate detection and removal
system. In addition, the units must have, provisions for ground-water monitoring, corrective
action, closure, post-closure care, and financial responsibility.
For wastes currently regulated by the LDRs but affected by universal treatment standards,
EPA assumed that the baseline management practice is compliance with treatment standards us
the best demonstrated available technologies (BDATs) described in LDR technical background
documents. For K069, baseline management practices are explicitly indicated in Exhibit 2-7,
based on analysis of 1991 BRS data.
3.1.4 Testing and Recordkeeping Gists
In addition to post-regulatory treatment costs, EPA considered testing and recordkeeping
costs. (Testing and recordkeeping costs were included in the facility-specific cost estimates
developed for organic TC wastes.) There are three times that testing might occur in the context
of the LDRs. First, testing may be needed to identify a waste as hazardous (e.g., TCLP); this
would occur in the baseline scenario. Second, testing may be needed in the post-regulatory
scenario prior to treatment to determine the number and concentration of constituents for which
treatment standards are set. Third, testing may be needed to determine in the post-regulatory
scenario if a wastestream meets concentration-based treatment standards.
For this RIA, EPA assumes that generators of characteristic wastes will test each
wastestream in the baseline to determine the "waste's RCRA status, and they will then use their
-------
Costs Page 3-9
knowledge of the waste to determine LDR applicability and underlying hazardous constituents.
EPA further assumes that waste-generating processes have a four-year effective life; i.e., after
four years a given process undergoes significant modification such that its wastestream must be re-
characterized. Generators of listed hazardous waste will not test before treatment, but will apply
their knowledge of the waste to determine LDR applicability. .
Post-treatment testing to demonstrate compliance is required for wastes with
concentration-based treatment standards and will be performed after each waste load is treated.
EPA assumes that for regularly generated nonwastewaters, four waste loads are treated annually,
and for hazardous soils and debris, one waste load is treated annually.
TC Nonwastewaters. For TC nonwastewaters, all underlying constituents must be treated
to universal standard levels. Therefore, the waste must be tested before treatment to identify
underlying constituents. EPA assumes that a test for all F039 constituents would be conducted.
After treatment, the waste must be tested for those constituents identified in the first test, both
the original TC constituents and the underlying constituents. Based on the TC survey, EPA
estimates that the average wastestream will need to be tested for five constituents.
4
Phase II Newly Listed Wastes. The coke production wastes (i.e., K141-K145, K147, and
K148) and the chlorotoluene wastes (i.e., K149-K151) will not require a pre-treatment test
because generators can use their knowledge of the waste to determine applicability of the LDRs.
After treatment, these wastes will require testing to determine that the concentration standards
have been met. For each waste, there are ten or fewer volatile or semi-volatile organic regulated
constituents. .
Soil. For newly regulated soil, pre-treatment testing for all F039 constituents must be
conducted to identify the number and concentration of constituents present. After treatment, the
soil must be tested for those constituents initially determined to be present Based on the TC
survey, EPA estimates that the average wastestream will need to be tested for five constituents.
-------
Page 3-10 Costs
Debris. Newly regulated debris is the only debris affected by the rule and is not subject to
any testing requirements. Generators can use their knowledge of the waste to determine the
required treatment, and as long as the treatment is conducted properly, there is no testing
required to demonstrate compliance.
Exhibit 3-2 presents the estimated incremental testing costs attributable to the Phase II
LDR rule. In developing the estimates, EPA made several assumptions. For each test, EPA
assumes that there is one waste sample and one QA/QC sample. For each test, EPA also
assumes that a test for all FQ39 constituents is equivalent to a test for all the universal standard
constituents, although there are some small differences between the two sets of constituents.
EPA based testing costs on several sources including a March 4,1993, letter from Texaco to the
RCRA Docket TTCA, Emergency Rule Notice; an API letter to the RCRA Docket HWEP, for
the HWIR proposed rule; and EPA's testing cost analysis done in support of the HWIP.
The Information Collection Request (ICR) for this rule, being prepared by EPA,
estimates that-the recordkeeping cost is $346 per wastestream. It is estimated to take one hour to
develop and submit the required notification and one quarter of an hour to retain copies of thi
documentation and notification. EPA estimates that modifications to the waste analysis plan
required under 40 CFR 268.7 may cost each facility an additional $350 in recordkeeping costs.
-------
Costs
Page 3-11
EXHIBIT 3-2
ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL TESTING COST FOR PHASE H LDR WASTES
Testing Requirement
Annnalized Costs
Baseline
Cost
Post Regulatory Cost
Pre-
treatment
Post-
treatment
Incremental
Cost
TC Nonwastewater
TCLP to Determine RCRA Status (every 4 years)
Comprehensive (F039) test to Determine All Constituents
Present (every 4 years)
Total Constituent Analysis for 5 Constituents (4 wasteloads
per year)
Incremental Cost
Phase 2 Newly Listed Wastes
Generator Knowledge
Generator Knowledge
Total Constituent Analysis for 10 Volatile or Semi-volatile
Organic Constituents (4 wasteloads per year)
Incremental Cost
Newly Regulated Hazardous Soil
TCLP to Determine RCRA Status (one load per year)
. Comprehensive (P039) test to Determine All Constituents
Present (one load per year)
Total Constituent Analysis for 5 Constituents (one load per
year)
Incremental Cost
tt#!
0
,
835*'
0
3200?
C K/|ft4f
J,OW"
3,685
5,600
. 1,4002'
3340*
1,200*
3,140
a/ Single TCLF costs $700 (and would be doubled for one QA/QC sample) for all organics and two metals based
on EPA's HWIP cost analysis.
by In a comment to the Emergency Rule notice, Texaco stated that a single test for all F039 constituents costs
$1,670 (double for one QA/QC sample).
c/ Single test (double for one QA/QC sample) costs $400 for two inorganic and three organic constituents based
on EPA's HWIP cost analysis.
d/ Single test (double for one QA/QC sample) costs $1,400, assuming the sample must be tested separately for
volatile* and. semi-volatiles based on EPA's HWIP cost analysis.
e/ Single test (double for one QA/QC sample) costs $600, assuming two inorganic and three organic constituents,
based on soil testing costs submitted in a recent comment by API.
-------
Page 3-12 Costs
\
3.1.5 Previously Regulated Wastes Affected by UTS
EPA has identified one type of previously regulated wastes that may be affected by the
UTS: cyanide-bearing wastes. For these wastes, the Phase n LDR rule may potentially result in
a cost savings. The approaches used to estimate these savings are described below (also see the
discussion in Chapter 2).
Cyanide-bearing wastes may be affected because the UTS for cyanide is higher (less
stringent) than previous BDAT standards for some cyanide-bearing waste codes. EPA identified
twelve waste codes that had existing treatment standards for cyanide that would be increased by
over a factor of ten. EPA then used 1991 BRS data to determine which wastestreams carried one
N
or more of these codes. For each wastestream, EPA applied engineering judgement to determine
if the combined treatment standards for the wastestream would allow a less expensive treatment,
i.e., stabilization, to take the place of the BDAT treatment, alkaline chlorination.
In addition, the new consistency provided by the UTS will help streamline the treatment
and management of all RCRA waste. This streamlining can, in fact, result in significant cost
savings. For example, one commenter, DOW Chemical Co., reported that the UTS will result j
an annual savings of $366,000 for one of their plants because it will eliminate the need for
campaign burning, i.e., processing an individual wastestream through an incinerator so as not to
commingle residues.3 This plant has a rotary kiln processing 15,000 tons per year; thus, the
savings associated with the streamlining effect of UTS would be $24 per ton of waste incinerated.
EPA examined all prior LDR rules and determined that 2.3 million tons of waste annually would
require incineration. Thus the maximum potential savings associated with the streamlining effect
of UTS could be as high as $55 million per year (2.3 million tons per year times $24 per ton).
EPA further extrapolated this information to wastes undergoing physical/chemical treatment
because EPA believes that these types of treatment may also be conducted in campaigns. EPA
estimates that approximately 5 million tons per year of waste are treated by physical/chemical
treatment. Because physical/chemical treatment costs are roughly one-third of incineration costs,
EPA assumes the savings associated with the streamlining effect of UTS would be reduced
proportionally (i.e., $8 per ton). Therefore, the maximum potential savings for wastes suitable for
'EPA notes that it received many comments suggesting the UTS would increase costs. In general, however, these
commenters were assuming that the treatment of underlying constituents would be required for listed wastes. EPA
believes this erroneous assumption was the basis of their estimate of increase cost
-------
Costs Page 3-13
physical/chemical treatment could be as high as $41 million per year (5.1 million tons per year
times $8 per ton). Thus the total maximum potential savings would be $96 million per year. EPA
realizes that this characterization of savings resulting from the streamlining effect of UTS is based
on an analysis employing broad assumptions and therefore regards the estimate as the maximum
potential savings. However, EPA believes that it is possible that there may be additional cost
savings resulting from the streamlining due to factors such as reduced labor requirements or
recordkeeping needs.
3.1.6 Previously Regulated Wastes Affected by Recycling Modifications
EPA has identified one type of previously regulated wastes that may be affected by the
recycling modifications: K069 wastes. For these wastes, the Phase n LDR rule may potentially
result in a cost savings. The approaches used to estimate these savings are described below (also
see the discussion in Chapter 2).
EPA determined that K069 wastes (emission control dust from secondary lead smelting)
would be affected by the Phase n provision redefining the recycling definition to allow recycling
of secondary process wastes. To estimate the potential cost savings, EPA used 1991 BRS data to
determine the quantities of K069 waste currently being managed under a variety of treatment
technologies. EPA then used unit cost data for the treatment technologies to estimate the total
treatment cost avoided by the Phase n rule. . .
3.1.7 Waste Minimization
As discussed in Section 2,3 of this RIA, EPA performed a separate wziste minimization
analysis for the Phase n Final Rule RIA. Using the TC Survey as its basis, the Agency
performed a more detailed accounting of waste minimization, which also addressed the concerns
in the proposed rule analysis. The characterization of wastes subject to minimization was
discussed in, Section 2.3. This section addresses the methodology used to assess the cost impacts
of waste minimization.
The methodology for the waste minimization analysis follows six steps:
-------
(1) Develop a profile of the industries affected by the Phase n rule that indicated
plans for waste minimization in the 1992 TC Survey Database.
(2) From the industry profile, select industries to examine in the waste minimization
analysis which would be representative of the TC waste universe.
(3) Make telephone data verification calls to facilities within the industries identified
in Step 2.
f
(4) For the facilities participating in the verification, determine the cost components
for the post-regulatory and waste minimization scenarios for all wastestreams.
(5) Estimate the total costs/cost savings for the waste minimization and the post-
regulatory (i.e.: without waste minimization) scenarios.
(6) Extrapolate results to TC waste universe, and determine overall cost/cost savi
the difference between the post-regulatory and waste minimization scenarios.
The first three steps pertain to waste characterization and were discussed in detail in Section 2.3.
The last three steps pertain to the cost impacts of waste minimization and are discussed in detail
below.
Step 4. For the facilities participating in the verification, determine the cost
components for the post-regulatory and waste minimization scenarios for all wastestreams. The
costing methodology is designed to capture the true costs of waste minimization. The
methodology addresses the capital investment costs, the operating costs, and maintenance costs
associated with implementing waste minimization technologies and operating practices. If
information on regulatory and legal/liability costs could be obtained from the data verification
activity described above, such costs (and savings) would also be included in the cost calculations.
-------
Costs Page 3-15
The first step in the developing the potential costs (and cost savings) for waste
minimization activities was to identify the specific pollution prevention action that industry
planned to employ. For example, several petroleum refiners indicated in the TO Survey that by
dewatering tank bottoms (a D018 waste stream) and separating out sand/grit-type material, the
resultant oils could be re-introduced to the feedstock for processing.
Based on the database analysis and verification phone contacts, the following waste
minimization alternative actions were identified:
Recycle of petroleum refinery oil storage tank bottoms;
Reuse of petroleum refinery lime sludges as cement kiln feedstock; and
Regeneration of spent catalysts.
After identifying these waste minimization activities, EPA developed conceptual
engineering flowsheets to depict the action and identify potential costs for capital equipment and
operation. The specific investment costs for each alternative were obtained and developed under
the following categories:
Depreciable Capital Expenditures - Equipment, Materials, Site Preparation,
Installation, Engineering/Procurement.
Expenses - Start-up, Permitting (if available), Salvage, Training (if appropriate),
Working Capital, Disposal, Raw Materials, Utilities, Labor, Maintenance,
Insurance.
%
Operating Revenues - Eliminated Expenses, By-product Revenues.
Economic Factors - Lifetime of Activity, Escalation Rate, Discount Rate.
In Exhibit 3-3, EPA present the basis for each of the above factors. An example
worksheet for calculating the investment costs and savings are shown on Exhibit 3-4. The table
-------
Page 3-16 ' Costs
EXHIBIT 3-3
CALCULATION BASIS OF INVESTMENT COST FACTORS
Depreciable Capital Expenditure (DCE)
Equipment - Actual Vendor Costs or Cost Handbook Values
Materials - Actual Vendor Costs or Cost Handbook Values
Site Preparation - None - Mobile equipment.
Installation - 5 percent of equipment and material costs
Engineering/Procurement - 2 percent of equipment and material costs
Expenses
Start-up - 5 percent of Depreciable Capital Equipment (DCE)
Permitting - 3 percent of DCE
Salvage - 20 percent of DCE
Training - $2,000 first year of operation
Working Capital - assumed included in other O&M cost factors
Disposal - Disposal Cost value; $75/ton for non-hazardous wastes or $1,200 for hazardous
wastes .
Raw Materials - Actual vendor/supplier costs
Utilities - $.25/KWHr
Labor - $25/Labor Hour required for operation
Maintenance - 2 percent of DCE
Insurance - $300/Vr
Operating Revenues
Eliminated Expenses/Revenues - Amount of Materials/Costs Saved x actual current costs
By-Product Revenues - Actual income derived, based on current prices
Economic Factors
Lifetime of Activity - Expected equipment life of principal capital equipment
Escalation Rate - 4 percent
Discount Rate - 7.5 percent
-------
AT1NC
SAMPLE WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING POTENTIAL INVESTMENT COSTS
5000 torn par yaar of tank bottom
30 gpm dacantar. 3 phaaa. 88. canafega
RasuUnu aold* i
WORKSHEET 1
LEVEL 1 - MVE8TMENT COSTS
DeprvcMbte Capital CaahFtow Ufatima Escalation FlratYaarof Occuranca Discount PraaantVahia Factor Prasant ArmualUatton Factor AnnuaHsaJ
ExpandUuraa Esftnala Rata Cash Flow 8-onca Rata p PVF Vahia AF Cash Flow
C 1 1-rapaal 4 <1««Mf«Q b»*«|1**nM1*r« FV KH^r*tiM|1«dfn.1| |FVNAF|
M* ICNPVFI
Eojutomant
Matartals
SNa praparation
ImlaMatlun
CimliiaaifcMftmifurainant
SuMotal
rieijTo.dr
10 00
iooo,1
$9.106.50
S3.643.40
$194.921*0
<
1
1
1
IS
1
'
s
s
0.04
0.04
O.O4
0.04
0.04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.075
0.07S
0.07S
0.075
0.075
0.9674
0.9674
0.9674
0.9674
0.9674
c
1
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.0000
1.0000
$162.170.00
$0.00
$000
$9.106.50
$3.649.40
0.1133
0.1133
0.1133
0.1133
0.1133
$70.637.54
$000
iooo
$1.031.88
$412.75
$22.062.18
[EXPENSES
ttart-UD
Btea^Mtt6i«MM
rwnMunH
Safcaoa
Training
tlm Hil.1^ ^t^^kJa^
rVOfUng Cfl^nM
DKpftiyjj
rv&Vw IMHlMMB
Uattaa
Labor ' .
Malntafiarioa
Insuranoa
Mbc
Sub-total
$9.748.
is.e47.i
0
M
<$38.9B4J8I
$2.000.00
$000
133.36173
$0.00
§.668.67
.333.33
.896.44
$300.00
$0.00
15
15
'S
IS
IS
IS
15
IS
15
IS
IS
IS
0.04
0.04
< i.O-
i.O<
O.O4
OO4
O.O4
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1 »
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1 .
1
1
O.O7S
0.075
i
i
(
1.0)
1.0
n
«
U>79
0.075
OATS
OATS
(
I
I
>.0/!
i.07i
I.O/!
-
(ATS
OM74
0.9674
0981
0*61
'4
f4
0*674
0*674
0.9674
0*674
<
I
1
).9674
a.9674
1*67'
0967-
1
0
i
1
1
1
1
1
.9674
*674
.6087
*674
.6285
.6285
.6285
.6285
11*289
11.6209
1
1
.6289
.626!
§. 428.78
.657.27
($23.728.141
$1.93488
$0.00
$411.429.33
$0.00
$42.637.61
$38.76
$45,33:
A
e;
$3.48834
$0.00
0.1133
0.11
0.'
133
133
0.1133
0.1133
0.1133
0.1133
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.'
0.
133
33
33
33
33
$1.068.16
$64090
{$2.688:101
$219.;
$0.0
O
I
$46.609.09
$0.00
§.830.30
2*1
.10
.135.83
$39571
$0.00
$60.002.18
IQPERATlNORfcVtlKJE*
R.v«-.(r«~H*
Sub-total
0138.80000,
l$155.800.0m
1
T~
J*
1
00
1
1*87-
\\
13
«8S
-------
Page 3-18 Costs
shows that the Present Value and Annualized Cash How were calculated to quantify the
investment costs and allow comparison of alternative approaches to meeting the Phase n Rule
(i.e., invest in waste minimization techniques or simply treat the Phase n wastes by conventional
end-of-pipe technologies). .
Step 5. Estimate the total costs/cost savings for the waste minimization and the post-
regulatory (i.e.: without waste minimization) scenarios. The net annualized waste minimization
savings were calculated by summing the separate annualized waste minimization cash flows for
each cost element, adjusting the annualized cost for tax liabilities, and subtracting the adjusted
result from the post-regulatory compliance annualized costs (Exhibits 3-4 and 3-5). A 34 percent
corporate tax rate was assumed and capital equipment was depreciated on a double-declining-
balance method. Both the pre-tax and post-tax net annualized savings are discussed. Escalation
rates of 4 percent and discount rates of 7.5 percent were used for all cost elements. The net
present value was calculated by dividing the net annualized savings by an annualization factor that
is a function of the discount rate and life of the project. The project life equals the life
expectancy of the principle equipment item in the waste minimization alternative.
Worksheets for each level, cost summary and financial calculations were used to insure all
costs are accounted for to the extent possible. Exhibit 3-5 presents an example worksheet for
adjusting potential costs and cost savings for taxes.
Because tank bottom dewatering was performed at a number of facilities with significantly
different wastestream volumes, EPA created a series of model plants and developed individual
costs (normalized per ton of waste) for each model plant. The costs were then graphed to
facilitate interpolation and extrapolation of potential costs and cost savings for actual plants. For
example, a cost survey was developed for potential costs/cost savings for recycling of tank bottoms
at petroleum refineries where the wastestream volume ranged from 35 tons per year up to 5,280
tons per year.
Step 6. Extrapolate results to TC waste universe, and determine overall cost/cost
savings as the difference between the post-regulatory and waste minimization scenarios. The
Agency calculated the annualized savings for each of the wastestreams, including extrapolating it
-------
EXHIBIT 3-5
SAMPLE WORKSHEET FOR TAX ADJUSTMENT OF COSTS
5000 tons per year of tank bottoms
30 gpm decanter, 3' phase, SS, centifuge
Resulting solids non-hazardous
WORKSHEET 4
SUMMARY - ANNUAUZED COSTS
Coat Elements
Waste Minimization Discount Dep Factor Tax Rate Tax Adjustment Adjusted
Alternative d FD Minus Total
Depreciable
rnriniJTT.i.iMM1
$22.082.16
0.075
0.7784
0.34
$5.844.45
TI6.237.72
Expenses
$60.602.18
0.34
$20.604.74
$39.997.44
Operating Revenues
($205.244.02)
0.34
($69.782.97)
($135.461.05)
Total
Tax Adjustment
($43.333.78)
Tax Adusted Total
($79.225.00)
-------
Page 3-20 Costs
^""^^^^-^^-^^^^«««.«^^»^^^-.^^i^^»i^^^^^^^^^^^«i^^^^.-....^^^^^^^^«^^^^^^fc
to the CBI volumes. The waste volumes which were included in the waste minimization analysis
made up 35% of the total on-site treated, non-CBI, non-wastewater, non-sporadically generated
wastes. For CBI data, EPA used the "unit savings" calculated for the on-site treated, non-CBI,
non-wastewater, non-sporadically generated wastes, and applied it to 35% percent of the total
volume of CBI on-site treated, non-CBI, non-wastewater, non-sporadically generated wastes.
33, RESULTS OF THE COST ANALYSIS
Exhibit 3-6 summarizes the results of the cost analysis. In total, the Phase IILDR rule
would have an incremental annual cost of $191 to $219 million (representing accounting or not
accounting for waste minimization savings). Sixty-seven percent of this cost would be for the
treatment of organic TC nonwastewater wastes, and 16 percent and 17 percent would be for the
treatment of organic TC hazardous soil and debris. In addition, there may be a potential savings
of $2 million, associated with previously regulated waste affected by UTS and modifications to the
recycling definition. The cost savings associated with waste minimization is estimated to be $25
million. Finally, the streamlining effect of UTS on the treatment of previously regulated waste
presents a savings ranging from $0 to $55 million for incinerable wastes and $0 to $41 million fat
wastes suitable for physical/chemical treatment. -
3.2.1 Organic TC Wastes and Other Newly Regulated Wastes
As described above in Section 3.1.1., EPA conducted a facility-specific cost analysis for
those facilities managing organic TC waste. Exhibit 3-7 shows a breakdown of results for all
organic TC wastes, i.e., nonwastewater, soil, and debris. In Exhibit 3-7, there are estimates for
testing and fecordkeeping as well as for treatment; all costs were derived on facility-specific
information. These facility-specific costs are presented in Exhibit 3-8. In addition, Exhibit 3-9
presents detailed information on waste characteristics and baseline and post-regulatory treatment
costs. For each facility, this exhibit presents the waste quantity, the baseline and post-regulatory
treatment technologies and unit costs, total baseline, post-regulatory, and incremental treatment
costs, sorted by post-regulatory treatment technology and waste form. Summaries of costs by SIC
code and state are also provided in Exhibits 3-10 and 3-11.
-------
Costs
Page 3-21
EXHIBIT 3-6
SUMMARY OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHASE JJ LDR PROPOSED RULE
'"> Waste Type v" '':,.'".'. . " :
Post -Regulatory
-" ' ' -Cost
(illion $/yr)
Baseline Cost
(Billion */yr)
Incremental Cost
(Billion */yr)
Mewly Regulated Wastes
Organic TC Wastes (D018- DM3)
Nonuastewaters
Soil
Debris
Chlorotoluenes
174
53
45
0.1
30
17
8
147
35
37
Waste Minimization Impacts
(25)
N/A
(25)
Subtotal for All Mewly Regulated Wastes2'
Without Waste Mim'Mization
With Waste Minimization
272
247
56
56
219
191
Previously Regulated Wastes Affected by Rule
K069 Recycling Wastes
Cyanide Wastes - UTS Savings
0
66.5
0.6
66.6
(0.6)
(0.1)
/ Cost livings associated with wast* minimization can b* attributed to the Phase II rula when a facility, 1n facing
Tocreased Mast* management costs under Phase 'II. has an option that, while Incurring Incremental costs, can produce a
positive financial return as compared to management under the Phase II cost structure. However, EPA does not have
sufficient Information to claim that all waste minimization Investments are 100 percent attributable to the Phase II
rule. To reflect this uncertainty, EPA presents the total cost of the rule both with end without the potential cost
savings.
-------
Page 3-22
Costs
EXHIBIT 3-7
RESULTS FOR TC NONWASTEWATER, SOIL, AND DEBRIS
TC Nonwastewaters
Number of Wastestreams
Quantity
Baseline Cost
Post-Regulatory Treatment Cost
Post-Regulatory Testing Cost
Incremental Cost
TC Soil
Number of Wastestreams
Quantity
Baseline Cost
Post-Regulatory Treatment Cost
Post-Regulatory Testing Cost
Incremental Cost
TC Debris
Number of Wastestreams
Quantity
Baseline Cost
Post-Regulatory Treatment Cost
Post-Regulatory Testing Cost
Incremental Cost
Total Number of Facilities
Total Rounded Quantity of Waste
Total Recordkeeping Cost
569
167,000 tons/yr
$30 million/yr
$175 million/yr
$2.1 million^-
S147 million^
266
94,000 tonsftr
$17 million/yr
$52 million/year
$0.8 millioafyear
$35 million/year
569
34,000 tons/yr
$8.1 million/yr
$45 million/yr
SO
$37 million^
47
295,000 tons/yr
$486,OOQ/yr
-------
EXHIBIT 3-8
FACILITY-WIDE INFORMATION & COSTS
>
mciLmr
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 - .-,;;
15
;. .'' :/ 16 :" ";'.;
17
18
19
20
21
22" - ":;:
23
24 ' .!;
25
26
27
28 :
29
. 30
31
"''" '"32
33
"-'; 34
35
":.;':/":36
37
...:h:I:»
39
CBI(8Fac.)
L
A
/ '
PRIMARY SICCOIJE
4953-REFUSE SYSTEMS
4953-REFUSE SYSTEMS
29 11 -PETROLEUM REFINING
4953-REFUSE SYSTEMS
2911-PETROLEUM REFINING
4953-REFUSE SYSTEMS
2911-PETROLEUM REFINING
4953-REFUSE SYSTEMS
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2812-ALKALINES & CHLORINES
29H-PETROLEUM REFINING
2911-PETROLEUM REFINING
4953-REFUSE SYSTEMS
2911-PETROLEUM REFINING
291 l-PJETROLEUM REFINING
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
291 l-PETROLEUM REFINING
4953-REFUSE SYSTEMS
4953-REFUSE SYSTEMS
9511-WASTE MANAGEMENT
4953-REFUSE SYSTEMS
2821 -PLASTICS MATERIALS AND RESIN
4953-REFUSE SYSTEMS
2911-PETROLEUM REFINING
2879-PESTICIDES & AGMC. CHEM. NEC
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
291 l-PETROLEUM REFINING :
29 1 1 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2812-ALKALINES & CHLORINES
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
291 l-PETROLEUM REFINING
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2911-PETROLEUM REFINING
291 l-PETROLEUM REFINING
4953-REFUSE SYSTEMS
291 l-PETROLEUM REFINING
29 1 1 -PETROLEUM REFINING
CB1
TOTALS
RECORDKEWINd
$10,038
$1,385
S346
' "./ '*»?
$1,038
$33,229
$4,154
$2,769
$346
$346
$346
$346
$346
$6,923
$692
$346
$4,154
$346
$11,076
$11,076
$16,615
$2,077
$346
$20,422
$692
$346
$346
'."..:':/..; ; $692
$346
$4.846
$5,538
$346
$2,077
$692
$1,385
$346
$15,922
$1,038
$346
$321,564
$485,981
ANTO*Al,»K
t-Esnuo
$77,200
$11,100
$3,700
> :'"';/:v.::.$7,4oo';
$11,100
: $214.900
$33,300
$24,700
$3,700
$3,700
$3,700
$3,700
$3,700
$27,900
$7,400
$3,100
$22,900
$3,700
$80,500
$81,600
$148,100
$22.200
$3,700
$139.500
$6,800
$3,700
$3,100
.;"...,'.. '.:&.&**..
$3JOO
$28,500
$21,700
$3,700
$9,900
$6,800
$14,200
$3,700
$126,700
$10.500
$3,700
$1,733,900
$2.929,900
31EMENTALCOS-
TW5ATME8T
$21,936,131
12,336,563
12,710
- 1#80,7Q2
5,456,000
18,908.064;
1,909,239
' 732,870
346,095
390,195
123,186
554,400
941,850
14,922,127
63,549
«35,590
785,050
12,710
555,712
. 4,154,893
10,385,228
334,984
1,807,500
4,120,196
886,772
«81,720
481
;: 12342,200
941,850
131,481
197,040
1,183,260
1,120,480
46,792
1,535,624
149,500
14,818,717
4,620,614
747,500
73,406,283
$215,715,798
rs
s ' TOTAL
$22,023,369
, 12,349.048
16,756
: ;;-:Vv3:-:|i088im:i
5,468,138
:' .';:; ':4?,iS6;i»,;
1,946,693
760,339
350,141
594,24!
127,232
558,446
945,896
14,956,950
71,641
439,036
812,104
16,756
647,288
4,247,569
10,549,943
359,26)
1,811,546
4,280,118
894,264
685,766
3,927
:. ;12349i692;
945,896
164,827
224,278
1,187,306
1,132,457
54,284
1,551,209
153,546
14,961,339
4,632.152
751,546
75,461,747
$219,131,679
-------
NUNBCR OF QUANT ItT GENERATED
row or WAST! wastes rac AM CROUPS WASTC CODES IN 1*93 (tots)
DEBRIS > ' MIB, 0026. O037. ft OTMCR5 IO.OIO
NONVASTCWATCR IS MIB. DOI*. M2I, * OTMCRS 4.763
SOU I Ml*. DO26. M27, ft OTHERS 24.690
I
NUNBCI
row or WASTC WASTCSTBCM
OCBRIS
MOMWA5TEWATER
MDHWASTCWATER
39,463
Or ' QUANTITV BCMRATCD
CROUPS WASTE CODES IN 1*95 (TONS)
DO4I . II
0043 ' 13, Ml
. Ml* 54
ASCL INC
MAMAGCMCNI NETMOb
LANDFULIMB -- OFF. SITC
LANDrilLINO -- Orr-ItTC
LANOriLLINC -- OFF. SITC
BASEL IM
NANAGCNCNT METHOD '
LANOriLllNB -- OFF. SITC
LANDriLLIMB -- OFF. SITC
LANDriLLIMG -- OFF. SITC
I 11.954
NUNBCR Or QUANT 1 TV CCMCRATtO
FORM Or WASTC WASTCSTREAN CROUPS WASTC CODCS IN 1*95 (TONS)
NDNWASTCWATCR 1 MIB p 13
NUNBCR Or QUANTITY CCMRATCD
row or WASTC WASTCSTRCAN CROUPS WASTC CODCS IN 1*93 (TONS)
HONWASTCWATCN I DOI* 1 ,OSO
NUNBCT Or QUANTITY CCNCRATCD
.row or WASTC WASTCSTRCAN CROUP* WASTC CODCS IN 1993 (TONS)
MNWASTCWATCR 2 MIB 6.OOO :
NONWASTEWATCN I DOI* 6.40O
BASCL IM
NANACCNCNT NCTHOO
LAHDFILLINB
BASCLIM
NAMACCNENT NETHOO
LANDFULIMB -- OFF-SITC
BASCLIM
NANACCNCNT NCTHOO
LANDFILL INB
LANDFULINC -- ON-SITI
3 12.400
NUNBC
row or WASTC WASTCSTRCAI
DEBRIS
DEBRIS
DEBRIS
OCBRIS
NONWASTEWATCR
NONWASTCWATCR
NOMWAS TCWATCR
NONWASTCVATCN 1
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
R Or QUANTITV CCRCRATCO
N CROUPS WASTC CODCS IN 1995 (TONS)
0026 27
Ml*, OOM, ft DO4O 2.094
OO40 5*
DO 19, 0021, 0025. ft OTMCRS 120
D026, MM. OO40 2,990 ,
DOI*, 0021, M22, ft OTMCRS 9,247
MI*. DOI*. M32, ft OTHERS 4.733
0020. D02I. DO23, ft OTHERS 393
Ml* 1,733
Ml* ' 290
DO40 . 123
DOI*. Ml*. OOM, ft OTHCRS 7O
ASCLIM
NANACCNCNT NCTHOO
LANDF LI MB - OFF- n
LANDF LL MB - OFF- TC
LANDF LL MB - OFF- TE
LANDF LL MB - OFF- TC
LAMDF LL MB - OFF- TC
LAMOF LL MB - OFF. TC
LAMDF LL MB - OFF- TC
LAMDF LL MB - OFF- TE
LANDT LL MB - OFF- TE
THERMAL' OCSORPTION
LAMDF LL MC OFF- TC
LANDF LL MB - OFF- TE
4* _ 20.*76
NUNBCT Or ' QUANTITY BCNCRATCO
row* or WASTE WASTCSTRCAN CROUPS ' WASTC cooes IN 1*95 (TONS)
OCBRIS t Ml*, ft MM 332
MOMWASTCWATCR 1 Ml* 1.466
MONWASTEWATCB 1.. MM 39
' ' NUNBC
rORN Or WASTE WASTCSTRC*
OCBRIS
NDMWAS TCWATCR
NONWASTEWATER
SOIL
NUNM
rom or WASH WASTCSTRCAI
MONWASTEWATCB
4 . ' l,*37
R Of QUANTITY OCRCRATCD
N CROUPS WASTC CODCS IN 1995 (TONS)
1 Ml* 1
1 DOM 2**
S 001*. 001*. 0022. ft OTHCRS 2*5
1 Ml* 2
~ 5*6
R V QUANT ITT BCNCRATCO
N GROUPS WASTE CODCS IN 1995 (TONS)
S MIB. ft M2B 334
BASCLIM
NANACCKNT ftCTHOD
LANDFILL 1MB ON- SITE
LANDFILLIMB -- ON-SITE
LANDFILLINC -- ON- SITC
ASCLIM
NANACCNCNT NCTHOO
LANDFILLIMB -- ON-SITC
LANDFILLIMB -- ON-SITC
LANDFILLIMB -- ON-SITC
LANDFILLIMB -- ON-SITC
LANDFILLIMB
NUNBCR Or . ' QUANT in CCNCRATCD BASCLIM
rotm or WASTC WASTCSTRCAN CROUPS WASTC cooes IN I99S (TONS) NANACCNCNT NXTHOO
NONWAS TCWATCR 3 MIB. OO22. ft OOM 261 LANDF ILLINQ
.^^ NUNBCR Or QUANTITY CCNOUTEO
rORN OF WASTC ^^ferSTRCAN CROUPS WASTC CCOCS ' IN IV9S (TONS)
MONUASTCVATCR ^^^^B ' OOI»- ^022, OOM, ft OTHERS * IM
ASCLIM
LANDFULIMB
MCUII* i
BASCUNf
UNIT COST
SSI
SI
USI
Mstum
UNIT COST
S2SI
MSI
ASCL IMC
UNIT COST
USCIINC
IMIT COST
USI
MSCUNI
UNIT COST
!n
>s
MStllNI
UNIT COST
USI
USI
USI
USI
USI
HI!
USI
ISIS
USI
USI
MSCLINE
UNIT COST
\',\
$73
BASCLIM
UNIT COST
$'5
575
75
$'5
BASCLIM
UNIT COST
$73
ASCLIM
UNIT COST
FACILITY II
ASCLIM
UNIT COST
"4
BASEL IM TOTAL
HAHACCKNT COS!
fl> ,910. 10*
3924,1 34
$6,191,264
$9,627.306
BASEL IM TOTAL
NANACENCNT COST
$4,2*3
$3,4*0,*00
$14.043,
$3,499,105
BASCLIM TOTAL
NANACCNCNT COST
$973
BASCLIM TOTAL
NANACCNCNT COST
$263,29*
BASCLIM TOTAL
NAMACCMMT COST
$45O.OOO
$4*0,000
$93O,OM
BASCL INC TOTAL
NAMACCNCNT COST
$6.771
$52S.O9I
*14,O43
$3O,O9I
$2,O6*'oi*
$1,369,427
$9*. 349
$434,567
$149. 3SO
$30,643
$17.333
$3,694,075
BASCLIM TOTAL
NAMACCNCNT COST
$2,923
$137.775
BASCLIM TOTAL
NAMACCNCNT COST
$75
$22.150
521,375
iiso
f41,*30
$26.550
BASCLIM TOTAL
NANACCNCNT COST
519,379
AHfltm TOTAL
^toCNT COST
^^^A $9.450
TREATNCNT TECHNOLOai
AVCRAOf COST USCO *
AVERACC COST USED *
AVERAGE COST USED
TREATNCNT TCCHNOLOCV
AVERACC COST USCO
INCINCRATION - SLUDGES/SOL IDS
AVERAGE COST USCO
TRCATNCNT TECHMOLOBT
AVCRACC COST USCO *
TRCATNCNT TCCHNOLOBT
INCINCRATION - SLUDCCS/SOLIOS
TRCATNCNT TCCHNOLOGY
TMfUNAL OCSORPTION -- OFF-SITC
THERMAL DESORPTION
TREATNCNT TCCHMOLOBT
EXTRACTION (OFF-SITC)
INCINCRATION
IMC IN STABILIZATION (25*)
AVCRACC COST USED
THERMAL OCSORPTION -- OFF -SITC
INCINERATION - SLUDCCS/SOLIOS
IMC IN (SOLID) * STABILIZATION (IOB)
AVCRACC COST USCO «
THERMAL DESORPTION
DCSORPTION -- OF r -SITC * STABILIZATION (
INCINCRATION
AVERACC 'COST USCO
TRCATNCNT TCCHNOLOCV
CXTRACTION (OFF- SI TCI
INCINCRATION - SLUDGCS/SOLIDS
AVCRACC COST USCD
TRCATNCNT TCCHNBLOCY
AVCRACC COST USCD
IMC IN (SOLID) * STABILIZATION
-------
FORM Of WASTE
mmrootn
roRM or wAsn
NONWASTEWATER
roRN or wAsn
DEBRIS
DtBRIS
DEBRIS
SOIL
t SOU
roRM or WASTE
MONWASTEWATER
roRN or WASTE
SOIL
FORM Or WASTE
DEBRIS
DEBRIS
MOMMAS TEWATtR
, HONWASTCWATtR '
SOU
'foam or WASTE
NONWASTCWATtR
roRN or WASTE
DEBRIS
MONWASTEWATER
NONWASTEWATER
Sit
U
FORM OP WASTE
DEBRIS
DIOR IS
MOMWASTtWATER
MONWASTEWATER
NONWASTCWATtR
SOIL
SOIL
FORM or WASTE
DEBRIS
DEBRIS
NONWASTCWATtR
MONWASTEWATER
SOIL
FORM or WASTE
NOMWASTtWATCR
NONWASTEWATER
_|Kp£ou
^f'
WASTESTREAM GROU
1
. WASTtSTREAM OJKXJ
1
4
46
7
17
79
WASTESTRCAN GROU
a
NUMBER or
WASTtSTREAM GROU
1
NUMBER Or
WASTtSTREAM GROU
4
1
1
16
WASTtSTRCAN GROU
..'
WASTtSTREAM GROU
1
4
.i
27
NUMBER or
WASTtSTREAM CROU
."' *
M
IUBMR or
WASTtSTRtAN CROU
1
11
7
7
16
41
NUMBER Of
WASTESTREAM CROU
. 1
1
2
PS WASH coots
DOtft
PS WASTt CODES
DOIt
PS WASTE COOtS
OOlt
ooit* 0021! 0022!
DOIt, 0021, 0027,
DOIt, 0022, O023,
PS WASTt COOtS
OOlt
PS WASTt CODtS
DO It
PS WASTt CODES
DOM, OOM
OO2t, 6 OOM
DOM
DOIt, DOM. ft DO*
OOM, OOM. DOM,
PS WASTt CODtS
OOlt
PS WASTt COOtS
DOIt, 0020, 0017,
' OO35
DOIt. 0032. DOM.
OOlt
oot9, ooii. ooaa.
PS WASTt CODtS
OOlt
O027. 0010. OOM,
DOIt
OOlt. OOlt. 002O.
DOM. DOM, ft DO*
OOlt
OOlt, 0029. OOM.
PS WASTt COOtS
DOIt
DOIt. 0021. 002*.
. DOIt. 0023. 0024,
DD27, DO2*. DO 32,
DOIt. OOlt. DO2O,
PS WASTt CODtS
* 001*
DDK
ft OTHERS
ft OTHERS
ft OTHERS
ft OTHERS
'.
0
ft OTHERS
1
ft OTHERS
ft OTHERS
ft OTHERS
ft OTHERS
ft OTHERS
>
ft OTHERS
ft OTHERS
ft OTHERS
ft OTHERS
ft OTHERS
QUANT IT* GENERATED
IN 1995 (TONS)
1.260
QUANT I Tf GtNERATED
^N 1995 (TOMS)
6M
QUANT ITT GENERATED
IN IMS (TONS)
1,511
9. 1*S
240
10. 7M
137
11.071
QUANTITY GENERATED
IN 1995 (TOMS)
61
QUANTITY GENERATED
IN I99S (TONS)
1,211
QUANTITY GENERATED
IN I99S (TONS)
443
55
5
15
1,494
2,012
QUANTITY GENERA YED
IN I99S (TONS)
13
QUANTITY GENERATED
IN 1995 (TONS)
49
124
52
Ml
740
1,246
QUANTITY CtMtRAltD
IN 1995 (TOMS)
2M
49
2*4
2,595
a*
52
17
4,062
QUANTITY GtNERATED
IN 19*5 (TONS)
2t
63
9.462
4t
277
t.*M
QUANT ITT GENERA TED
IN IMS (TONS)
an
41
a 70
BASEL INE
MANAGEMENT NtTHOO
LANDFILL ING
MANAGEMENT METHOD
LAND? ILL 1MB
BASELINE
MANAGEMENT METHOD
LANDriLLINB -- OFF -SITE
LANDriLLINB -- OFF-SITE
LANDFILLINB -- OFF-SITE
LANDFILLINB - OTF-SITE
LANDflLLINC .. OFF-SITE
1
BASELINE
MANAGEMENT METHOD
LAND TREATMENT
BASEL IMC
MANAGEMENT NtTHOO
LAND TREATMENT
BASELINE
MANAGEMENT METHOD
LANDTUL NB -- ON SJTt
LANDTILL NB -- ON SITE
LANDFILL NB ON SITE
LANDFILL NB ON SITE
LANDFILL NB -- ON SITE
BASELINE
MANAGEMENT METHOD
LANDTILLINB
BASUINt
NANACtNCMT NtTHOO
LANDFILL 1MB -- OTF-S TE
LANDFILLINB -- OFF -5 TE
LANDFILLINB -- OFF-S TC
LANDFULINB -- Off-S TC
LANDTULINB -- OFF-S TE
BASEL IMC
MANAGEMENT METHOD
LANDTILLIMB -- OFF-SITE
LAMDF ILL IMC -. OFF -SITE
LAMDriLLINB OFF -SITE
LANDFILLINB -- OFF-SITE
LANDFILLINB -- OFF-SITE
LANDTILL1NB -- Of r -SITE
LAMOriLLIMB -- OFF-SITE
BASEL INI
MANAGEMENT HtTHOO
LAMDT LL NB -- OTF-SITt
LAMDF LL NB OFF -SITE
LAMDF LL NB Of F -JUT
LANDT LL NB -- orr-siu
LAMDT LL NB OFF. SITE
BASELINE
NANAGENENT METHOD
LANDTILLINB -- OTT-SITt
LANDriLLINB -- Off -S ITT
BASEL 1M
UNIT COST
97S
BASEL INt
UNIT COST
975
BASIL IMC
UNIT COST
251
9251
9251
S2SI
251
BAStlINt
UNIT COST
975
BASELINE
UNIT COST
975
BASELINE
UNIT COST
:7S
75
975
975
975
BASELINE
UNIT COST
975
BASELINE
UNIT COST
Si!
251
SSI
51
BASEL INt
UNIT COST
9251
5251
8ii
9251
BASCLINE
UNIT COST
Hi!
BASELINE
UNIT COST
9231
9251
COST
BASEL IRE YOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
947, 2SO
BASEL IMC TOTAL
NANAGENENT COST
376,49*
92.303.231
»60.lt2
'**4|SO«
93,534,524
VASELINE TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
94.675
BASELINE TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
90,625
BASELINE TOTAL
HANAGCNCNT COST
933,229
4.125
91 .125
9II2.05O
51SO,9OO
BASIL INt TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
9975
BASIL IMC TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
912,2*7
SI, 094
3.040
97O.4A4
91*5.562
9312.447
BASIL IK TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST.
95*. 932
911,2*7
971,216
96SO.722.
6,520
9213,646
94.263
91,016.5*7
BASIL 1ME TOTAL
MANAGtNCMT COST
7.021
920,913
92.171,691
9I2.0M
969.461
sa.4sa.oaa
BASELINE TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
«57,424
910.2*1
9*7, 70S
rRCAIMCNT TECHNOLOGY ,
THCRMAl KSORPTION -. OfF-S|Tt
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INCIMERAVIOM - SLUDGES/SOLIDS
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DISORPTION (OFF-SITt)
INCINERATION
AVERAGE COST USED «
THERMAL OESORPTION
AVERAGE COST USED
TREATMENT TEO6WLOGV
AVCRAGC COST USCO
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
OESORPTION --Off -SITE * STABILIZATION (
TREATMENT TECHNO! OG* . .
THERMAL DtSORPTION (OFF-SITt)
INCINERATION
THCRMAL OESORPTION
INCINERATION - SLUDGES/SOL 10*
THCRMAL DESORPTION
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
AVERAGE COST USCO *
TREATMENT TICHNOLOOT
AVCRAGt COST USCO
INCINERATION - SLUDGES/SOLIDS
AVERAGE COST USED
THERMAL DCSORPTION
AVERAGE COST USED
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
DESORPTIOM STABILIZATION (100*)
AVERAGE COST USCO
THCRMAL DCSORPTION .. OTF.SITt
INC IN (SOLID) * STABILIZATION (10%)'
AVCRAGC COST USED
DESORPTION -. orr-SlTE * STABILIZATION (
AVCRAGC COST USED
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INCINERATION
AVERAGE COST USED
INCINERATION - SLUDGES /SOL IDS
AVERAGE COST USED
AVCRAGC COST USED
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INCINERATION - SLUDGES /SOL IDS
AVERAGE COST USED
POST-RCG
UNIT COST
9SI9
POST-RIG
UNIT COST
91.370
POST -RIO
UNIT COST
955
S,I10
*2tl
isis
556
POST -RIO1
UNIT COSY
SI ,053
POST-REG
UNIT COST
765
POST-RE*
UNIT COST
SS
91,110
isis
91.370
is 15
POST-REG
UNIT COST
91,053
POST-REG
UNIT COST
J 1.2*1
1.970
91.053
isis
9356
POST-REG
UNIT COST
60S
91.291
9SI5
I.S92
91.053 .
|76S
9556
POST-RtG
UNIT COST
S.110
.291
91.370
9I.OS3
iss«
POST-RtG
UNIT COST
91,570
91,053
POST-RCG IOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
9649,900
POST-RIG TOTAL
NANAGCHtNT COST.
99**, 100
POST-RCG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
963.109
914.317. 7«O
307,536
9S.S60.970
167,279
aO, 456 ,650
POST-RCG TOTAL
NANAGCHCHT COST
6*. 424
POST-RCG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
9926.415
POST-REG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
924. MS
9 116,030
92,373
923,550
9769,410
935,930
POST-REG TOTAL
MANAGCMENT COST
13,6*5
POST-RtG TOTAL
NANAGCMCNT COST
962,7*9
9194.6*0
954, 7M
9144,715
9411,236
9*6*. IS9
POST-REG TOTAL
NANAGCMCNT COST
9144.999
96a.7S9
9146,260
94.I3I.24O
927. M9
651.760
59.447
95.173.460
POST-RtG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
(39,0*0
IO6.3S6
912,497,350
950,52*
9153,936
912.M7.2SO
POST-REG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
9359. 5M
43,199
9402,6*9
IMCREMENIAL
COST
9554,400
INCREMENTAL
COST
941,650
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
9-295,793
912.014.529
5247.3S4
92,953,264
102,773
914,922,127
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COSY
963,349
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
9635,590
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
9-*.*6O
111.923
92.200
22,423
657, MO
7BS.O5O
ANNUAL
IMCREMCNTAL
COST
I2.7IO
ANNUAL
IMCRCMCNTAL
COST
50.501
9163,5*6
941.699
974,251
9225,674
9533,712
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
9*4,663
950,501
975.O44
3,4*0.316
20,950 '
95^1*4
94,I54,*93
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
952 05*
9*5 543
910.124 659
M 492
S*4 475
910. MS .22*
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
SM2.10*
932.679
334,9*4
AVERAGE COST tAU USED HWM
Or TOTAL QUANTIT
>VD HWM (I) WASTE STREAM VOLUME IS BELOW CUT-OFF VALUE BASED O» 99 PEW
!V Or PHYSICAL roRM| OK (I) WHEN AVAILABLE INFORMATION HAS INSUmCICNT
TO NACC TRfATMEMT ASSIGNMENT.
-------
rom or WASTI
NQNMASTCWATEB
rom *r WASTE
DCBRI9
DEBRIS
OEBQIS
NONWASTEWATCR
NONWAS TEWATER
NONVASTCVATCR
SOU
SOIL
rom or WASTE
NONWA3JCVATER
SOIL *
rom or WASTE
MOMMAS TEWATER
rom or WASTE
sou
roRM or WASTE
MOMMAS TEWATER
SOIL
rom or WASTE
NOMMSTEWATER
rom or WASTE
DEBRIS
sou
sou
rom or WASTE
DORIS
SOIL
rom or WASTE
MOMMAS TCWATEB
rom or WASTE
DORIS
NOMVASTtWATEB
SOIL
NUHBEB Or
WASTESTRCAN CROUPS
I
WA9TESTRCAN GROUPS
1
44
NUNBEB Or
WASTC9TRCAH CROUPS
I
1
I
NUMBER Or
WASTCSTRCAM CROUPS
1
NUMBER Or
WASnSTREAN CROUPS
1
WASTESTRCAN GROUPS
1
1
2
WASTC9TRCAN CROUPS
1
NUMBER Or
WASnSTRCAN CROUPS
I
*
MUNMR or
WASTCSTRCAM CROUPS
14
It
M
WASTE STREAM GROUPS
1
WASTCSTREAN CROUPS
1
1
I
1
WASTE CODES
0049
WASTE COOCS
Ml*. 002*. DOM. * OTHERS
DO 19, OO20, 0022. OTHERS
0019
Ml*
MI9. DOM. OO21, ft. OTHER!
DO 39, 4 OO4O
DOI*. D020. M9I, 4 OTHERS
WASTE CODES
Ml*
Ml*
s
WASTE CODES
Ml*. DO32
WASTE CODES
Ml*
WASTE CODES
Ml*
DOI*
WASTE COOES
Ml*
WASTE COOCS
Ml*, 4 0022
Ml*, Ml*, DOM, 4 OTHERS
002*
WASTE CODES
Ml**, Ml*. 0021. OTHERS
Ml*, Ml*. OO21, OTHERS
WASTt COOCS
Ml*
WASTE CODES
Ml*
Ml*
Ml*
QUANTITY GENERA TCO
IN 19*5 (TONS)
1.900
QUANT ITf GENERATED
IN IMS (TONS)
2*
335
111
1.7*2
3**
24]
125
9.721
QUANTITY CCNCRATcb
IN I99S (TONS)
35
5*2
5*7
QUANT ITT GENERATED
IN IMS (TONS)
494
QUANT 1 TV CCNCRATCO
IN 1995 (TONS)
1
QUANTITY CCNCRATCO
IN 1993 (TONS)
5,29*
21,247
2*. 509
QUANTITY GCMCRATCD
IN IMS (TONS)
43O
QUANTITY CCMCRATCD
IN IM9 (TONS)
175
Ml
942
7*0
QUANTITY GENERATED
IN IMS (TOMS)
312
. 4*2
774
QUANTITY GENERATED
IN IMS (TONS)
7*O
QUANTITY CC NCR A TED
IN IMS (TONS)
472
400
I7O
1.242
CIMIBII J.9 PM
BASELINE
NAMAGiNarr NETHOO
LANDFILL IN*
BASEL INC
NANACENENT NETHOO
ANDT LI NO - OFF- Tt
AMDF tL MB .- Or -
AMDT LL NG -- Or .
ANDT LL We -- or -
ANor LL NG .- OF -
ANDT LL NG '- Or -
LANDr LL NG -- OF -
LAMDF LLING -. OF .
BASEL INC
MAMACCMENT METHOD
LAND TRC ATMCNT
LAND TREATMENT
BASCLINE
MANAGEMENT METHOD
LANDFILL 1MB
BASCLINE
MANACCMENT METHOD
LANDFILIIMB ON-9ITC
BASELINE
MANAGEMENT METHOD
LAND TREATMENT .
LAND TREATMENT
BASCLINE
MANACCNCNT METHOD
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
BASELINE
MANAGEMENT METHOD
LANDTILLINO -- ON-SITE
LANDriLLINB -- ON-SITC
LANDT ILL ING -. ON-SITC
BASELINE
NAMA6CNEMT NETHOO
LANDTILLIMB ON* SITE
LANDFILL IMC -. ON-SITC
BASEL INK
NANACEMCMY METHOD
LAND TREATMENT
BASCLINE
MANAGEMENT NETHOO
LANDriLLINB -- ON-SITE
LANDFILL INC -- ON-SITE
LANDTILLINE -- ON-SITE
*« u if» rnrAtm
fACHITV 23
BASEL IMC
UNIT COST
75
BA9CLINC
UNIT COST
9251
S2S
S2S
525
525
25
25
525
BASELINE
UNIT COST
79
FACILITY 24
BASCLINE
UNIT COST
73
BASCLINE
UNIT COST
S7S
BASCLINE
UNIT COST
975
75
FACILITY 2*
BASEL INC
UNIT COST
75
FACILITY 9O
BASEL INC
UNIT COST
75
BASELINE
UNIT COST
75
75
BASCLINE
UNIT COST
rACILITT 39
BASELINE
UNIT COST
NT COS 13
BASEL IMC TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
112,500
BASCLINE TOTAL
RAMAGCNCNT COST
7 .O2I
1*3,904
9*4,005
927 ,*34
997!2*S
94O.4B4
931,349
919,929
BASEL INC TOTAL
NAMACCMCNT COST
2.425
42.150
44. 7 79
BASELINE TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
94 .200
BASELINE TOTAL
NAMAGCNCNT COST
79
BASEL INC TOTAL
MANAGCMEMT COST
994, 35O
SI. 749, 525
*2,I37.*7S
BASELINE TOTAL
MAMACCMCMT COST
47.250
BASELINE TOTAL
MAMACCMCMT COST
19.125
19.729
25,450
SB.SOO
BASCLINE TOTAL
NAMAGCMCNT COST
29.400
34.450
SB.OSO
BASELINE TOTAL
NAMAGCMENT COST
SB.SOO
BASEL INK TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
915,400
45.000
12.790
593,150
TRCATNCNT TECHNOLOGY
INCINERATION - 9LUDOC9/9OL ID9
TRCATNCNT TECHNOLOGY
CM TRACT ION (OFF -SITE)
INCINERATION
AVERAGE COST USCD
INCINERATION - SLUDGE 3 /SOL IDS
IMC IN (SOLID) * STABILIZATION (10*)
AVERAGE COST USED *
THERMAL DESORPTION
AVERAGE COST USCD
TRCATNCNT TCCHNOLOCY
AVERAGE COST USCD
INC IH (SOLID) STABILIZATION (IOK)
TRCATNCNT TCCHNOLOBT
INCINERATION - SLUDCCS/SOL IDS
TRCATNCNT TCCHNOLOGT
AVERAGE COST USCD "
TREATMENT TCCHNOLOGT
THERMAL DCSORPTION -- OTr-SITC
THERMAL OESORPTION
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INCINERATION - SLUDCCS/SOL IDS
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESORPTION (OM-SITt)
AVERAGE COST USCD *
THERMAL DESORPTION (ON-SITC)
TRC ATMCNT TtCHNOLMT
THERMAL OC9ORPTION (OCF-SITE)
THERMAL DESORPTION
TRCATNCNT TECHNOLOGY
INC IN (SOLID) » STABILIZATION (IOK)
TRCATNCNT TCCI41ULU4T
EXTRACTION (OFF -SITE;
INCINCRATION - SLUDCCS/SOL IDS
THERMAL OCSORPTION
*
POSt.RCG
UNIT COSI
I,2*O
PO3T-RC*
UNIT COSI
990
R.I 10
,l*t
I. 570
1.302
91.059
9556
POST-REG
UNIT COST
1,059
1,592
POST -REG
UNIT COST
1.570
POST-REG
UNIT COST
SS54
POST-RCG
UNIT COST
SIS
515
POST-RCG
UNIT COST
I.57O
POST-REG
UNIT COST
59
554
100
POST-REG
UNIT COST
,555
SIS
POST-REG
UNIT COST
1,5*2
POST-RCG
UNIT COST
9*0
1.370
IBi3> Thursday
POS1-RCG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
1,920,000
POST.RCG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
IO.920
91, 542, 410
429.269
9174,270
2.294,124
940*. 494
SI24.43O
969,464
95.033,525
POST -REG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
*9*,*49
9*94.704
991 ,947
POST.RCG TOTAL
NAMAGCMCNT COST
715,920
POST-RCG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
954
POST-REG TOTAL
NANACENENT COST
2.707.A70
S1I.972.20S
I4.4M.075
POST-RCG TOTAL
NAMAGCMENT COST
99*9.100
POST-RCG TOTAL
NAMAGCMCNT COST
146!l54
34.200
1*9. MI
POST-RCG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
. 917.1*0
237.99O
295.090
POST-REG TOTAL
NANAGENCNT COST
91,241,740
POST -RE 0 TOTAL
NAMACCNCMT COST
1*4 ,O*O
9942 ,OOO
U7.S5O
Uy l>, 1944 3
INCRfNFNTAL
COST
1.407.50*
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
3,*M
1.199,104
345.265
514*, 43*
l.*52.2*5
311.141
943.945
93*. 121
4.120,194
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
94,21*
' MS2.5S4
CW4.772
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
4*1,720
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
4*1
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
2,919.520
IO,22*.6*O
912,542 ,2OO
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
«941.*50
ANNUAL
INCRCHCNTAL
COST
-9.SOO
124,491
191,4*1
ANNUAL
INCRCMCNTAL
COST
-4, 240
2O9.2M
1*7,040
ANNUAL
INCRCNCNTAL
COST
1.1*3.240
ANNUAL
INCRCMCNTAL
COST
14* .440
97.000
974.BOO
IT MO> HKWDI (it mm mm MU«I » MUM an-*n nut MH> m w-rwcnrr
or rani OUOTITT or pirrjifu. FOMII m wn amluaif ranMtiai uu naumcinrr
-------
._ "f- I.
WJMBC* 0*
>1D(« OMUM
I
. 1
. *
NUMBCR Or
FORM OF WASTE WASTCSTREAN GROUPS
NONWASTCVATCR 1
NONWAS TEVATER I
SOIL I
4
FORM Or WASTC WMTESTREAN GROUPS
NDNWASTEWATER 1
FORM Or WASTC WAS TI STREAM GROUPS
DEBRIS
DEBRIS
NONWAS TEWATER
MDNWASTEWATER
NONWAS TEVATER
SOIL
SOIL
1$
FORM OF WASTC WASTESTREAN GROUPS
' NONUASTCWATER 1
MDNVASTEVATER 1
SOIL 1
1
NUMBER Of
FORM Or WASTC WASTCSTREAN GROUPS
MOHWAS TEVATER I
FORM OF WASTC WASTESTRCAN GROUPS
DEBRIS
DEBRIS
DEBRIS *
octrois
DEBRIS M
NONWASTEWATER
NOMkttSTEVATER
NOMVASTEVATER
NONWAS TEVATER I
MDNWASTEVATER II
LIQUID NONWASTEWATER
LIQUID NOMWASTCWATER
LIQUID NOMMSTEUATER '
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL SB
255
GRAND TOTAL '' 711
WASTE CODES
DOI*
001*
WASTE COOCS
OBI*
DOIB
DOI*
WASTE COOCS
001*
. WASTE COOCS
003$
DOI*. OOM, ft 0040
OOI*
DOI*
DO2*, ft DOM
DOI*, ft 002*
OOM, O04O, ft OO43
WASTE COOCS
DBIB
001*
OOI*
WASTE COOCS
DOIB
WASTC coon
OOI*, DOM. * OOM *
0037
O026
001 , OBM, O04O
OOI , OOI*, DO22. ft OTHERS
OOI
OOI
DOI
OOI , DOI*, OOM. ft OTHERS
DOI , DOI*, 0020. ft OTHERS
002
OOI '
DOI
DOI . OOXO. OOM
DO40
0022
001*. 0019, OOM. ft OTHERS
QUANT ITT GENERATED
IN IMS (TONS)
10
77
7
QUANTIfV CCMCRATED
IN IMS (TONS)
I.OOO
IS
54
1.069
QUANT ITT CCMCRATCD
IN IMS (TONS)
100
QUANT IT* CCMCRATCD
IN IMS (TONS)
4*
255
I* .454
2,324
36
.472
64
M.654
QUANT ITT GENERATED
IN IMS (TONS)
3.520
234
SO
3,*O4
QUANT ITT GENERATED
IN IMS (TONS)
500
QUANT ITT GENERATED
IN IMS (TONS)
2.1**
10*
614
353
4,306
21*
344
31
2*. 62 7
31,521
154
110
10
f .353
2*4
35
li.MO
7.74*
294,609
ASCLINC
MANAGEMENT NETMOO
LANDFILLIM -- ON -SITE
LANDFILLIM -- ON-SlTC
ASCLINC
MAMACENCNT METHOD
LANDFILLIM
LAND TREATMENT
LAND TREATMENT
BBS,,..
LANDFILLIM
ASCLINC
NANACCRCNT METHOD
LAMM? LLIM ON-SITE
LANDF LLIM -- ON-SITE
LANDF LLIM ON- SITE
LANDr LLIM -- ON. SITE
LANDF LLIM -- ON-SITE
LANDF LLIM -- ON-SITE
LANDF LLIM -- ON-SITC
""
ASCL IMC
MAMACENCNT METHOD
LAMDFILLIM
LAND TREATMENT
. LAND TREATMENT
ASCLINC
MANAGEMENT NCTMOO
LAND TREATMENT
ASCLINC
HANACENCNT NCTMOD
LANDFILL M -- OFF. TC
LANDFILL M OFF. TC
LANDFILL M -. OFF- TC
LANDFILL M -- ON-S C
LANDFILL NB OFF- TC
LANDFILL MB
LAND TREATMENT
LANDFILL M -- OFF. TC
LANDFILL M -- OFF. TC
LANDFILL NB OFF. TC '
LANDFILL NB -- OFF- TE
LANDFILL M -- OFF- TE
LANDFILL NB -- OFF- TE
LANDFILL NB OFF- TE
LANDFILL NB -- OFF. Tt
LANDFILL NB -- OFF -SITE
BASELINE j
UNIT COSTl
S7S
USCLIM
WIT COST
75
MHUM
UNIT COST
75
MCI im
UNIT COST
J75
75
75
75
f>9
75
75
USCIIM
UNIT COST
75
75
79
UStllK
UNIT COST
79
JUC1IMC
UNIT COST
251
251
Sit
51
75
251
75
75
251
251
251
251
251
ill!
$251
$251
9. TOTAL
NT COST
$750
$5.775
$6,52S
BASELINE TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
S7S.OOO
$1,125
S4.OSO
BO.I7S
BASELINE TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
sr.soo
BASELINE TOTAL
HANACENENT COST
$3,675
19.125
1,459.050
174,300
S2.70O
$4*5, 40O
$4, *00
$2, 14* .050
BASELINE TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
$264.000
17,550
$3.750
$2*5. 30O
ASCLINC TOTAL
MANACCNENT COST
37.SOO
ASCLINC TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
$54*,* 14
$27. OB2
$153,9*7
$**. 51*
S*43.03I
54,914
25 .MO
$47.325
S7.I70.S07
SS.V62.05*
27*5*4
$2. SOB
$5*0.03*
$731723
SB, 777
. S3. 7 9*. 994
19, 54* ,35*
$55, 76*. 4*2
TREATMENT TECHNOLOCV
AVERAGE COST USED
AVCRACf COST USED
TREATMENT TECHMOLOCI
INCINERATION - SLUDGES /SOL IDS
AVERAGE COST USEO -
AVERAGE COST USEO
TREATMENT tECHNOLOCT
INCINERATION - SLUDCES/SOLIDS
TREATMENT TECHNOLOCT
OESORPTION STABILIZATION (100%)
INCINERATION
THERNAL OESORPTION - OFF-SITE
INCINERATION - SLUDGES/SOLIDS
AVERAGE COST USEO *
THERNAL DCSORPTION
AVERAGE COST USED
TREATMENT TECHNOLOCV
INCINERATION . SLUDCC9VSOL IDS
INC IN (SOLID) * STABILIZATION (|OK>
AVCRACE COST USED
TREATMENT TECHNOLOCT
INCINERATION - SLUOCCS/SOL IDS
TREATMENT TECHNOLOCT
DCSORPTION * STABILIZATION (lOOt)
OCSORPTIOM .- OFF- SITE * STABILIZATION (
INCINERATION
INC IN * STABILIZATION (2SK)
AVCRACC COST USED
THERMAL OESORPTION .- OFF -SITE
THERMAL OCSORPTION
INCINERATION - SLUOCCS/SOL IDS
1NC1N (SOLID) * STABILIZATION (I OH)
AVERACC COST USEO
THERNAL DESORPTION -- OFF-SITC
IMC IN (SOLID) * STABILIZATION (IOK)
AVCRACE COST USED
DESORPTION -- OFF-SITE STABILIZATION (
IMCIM (SOLID) STABILIZATION (IOX)
AVERACC COST USED
AVERAGE COST USEO
POST-REB
UNIT COST
1,053
SS56
POST-REB
UNIT COST
! 1,570
I.OS3
ISS6
POST. REG
UNIT COST
$1,570
POST-REG
UNIT COST
$605
$2,110
$515
$1.2*0
$1,053
515
$5M
POST-RCB
UNIT COST
SI. MO
fl,.S
POST-RCB
UNIT COST
$1,570
POST-MB
UNIT COST
$1(2*1
$513
$515
SI.S7O
KOS3
isis
$1.5*2
I.O53
$765
1.592
$1,053
$556
POST -REG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
$10,527
$42,7*1
$53,317
POST-REB TOTAL
MANACEMCNT COST
SI ,570,000
$15,7*0
$30,OO*
SI. 615, 799
POST -REG TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
$157,000
POST-RCO TOTAL
NANACEMCNT COST
$2* 645
$51* OSO
$10,01* *10
$2,974 720
$37 *96
S3, 333 OBO
35 566
16,967,767
POST-RCB TOTAL
NANACENCNT COST
$4.505.600
$372.52*
27,7*6
$4.905,914
POST-REG TOTAL
NAHACEHEMT COST
S7*5,OOO
POST-RCB TOTAL
MANAGEMENT COST
SI .324 .MS
$2.620
$1,2*5,540
S6SS.6**
$5,517.713
$112.7*5
$177,160
$MO.*70
SM. 242. 114
$33,1*1,1*5
$7*, 310
$175,120
$10,527
S1.VOO.04S
S46B.04*
S3«.*43
**,*24,9O9
$92,974,641
271,4*5.2*0
INCRFNEHCAL
COST
$9.777
37,016
$4».7*Z
ANNUAL .
INCREMENTAL
COST
$1.4*5.000
$14,665
$25,959
$1,535.624
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
149,500
AMIAJAl
INCREMENTAL
COST
$25,970
(5 It, f 29
,559,760
SJ. tOO. « 20
y 5,196
7,6*O
3O.766
I4,*I*,7I7
UNMUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
4.241,600
ilS4,97t
$24,036
$4,620,614
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
$747.500
INCRCMEMTAL
COST
$775.431
$55. SM
$1,141.573
$567.17*
$4,574.6*1
$57 .M*
$151.360
$943.345
$31,063,607
$27,219,137
$40.693
$147,536
S*.OI*
1.210.007
394.325
$2*. 06 7
5,027,915
73.406,2*3
. $215. 715, 7M
TO MUt lW«tKt»I U5IOMCIIT.
-------
Page 3-28
Costs
EXHIBIT 3-10
SUMMARY OF COSTS BY SIC
SIC CODE
4953
2911
9511
CBI
All others
DESCRIPTION
Refuse Systems
Petroleum Refining
Waste Management
Mostly Refuse Systems
Pesticides, Chemicals, and Plastics
. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
COST
43%
15%
5%
34%
3%
EXHIBIT 3-11
SUMMARY OF COSTS BY STATE
STATE
Texas
California
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Oklahoma
All other states
CBI
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL COST
18 %
10%
9%
9%
7 %
5%
8%
34 %
-------
Costs Page 3-29
Since EPA believes no coke by-product wastes will be landfilled as a result of the coke by-
product listing rule (August 18, 1992, at 57 FR 37284), EPA estimates that no costs will be
associated with the treatment standards for coke production wastes. The incremental cost for
chlorinated toluenes is estimated to be less than $0.1 million annually.
The unit cost for the treatment of TC nonwastewaters averages $1,050 per ton. (The
average baseline cost is $30 million/year divided by 167,000 tonsfyear = $180/ton)4. For TC
hazardous soils and debris, the unit treatment costs average $560 and $1,300 per ton, respectively.
While the total incremental cost for the 47 facilities in the cost analysis is $219 million, the
average cost per facility differs substantially between captive (i.e., non-commercial) and
commercial facilities. For the non-CBI captive facilities, the average incremental compliance cost
for captive facilities is $1.4 million. (The range is from $4,000 to $13 million, with a standard
deviation of $2.5 million.) For the non-CBI commercial facilities, the average incremental
compliance cost is $8.8 million. (The range is from $300,000 to $22 million, with a standard
deviation of $7.7 million).
The significance of the distinction drawn here relates primarily to the possible economic
impacts caused by the costs incurred. For the captive facilities, the potential for pass through of
costs is determined by the structure of the markets for the products associated with the
generation of the wastes affected by the Phase n LDR rule. There would be large variation in
elasticity, which determines the degree to which cost pass through is possible. For commercial
firms, the primary market is for the waste management service. The elasticity of demand for
waste management services might be expected to be more consistent across commercial facilities.
3.2.2 Previously Regulated Wastes Affected by UTS and Recycling Modifications
As described in Sections 3.1.5 and 3.1.6, EPA estimated cost savings associated with less
stringent treatment standards for some cyanide-bearing wastes and avoided treatment costs for
K069 wastes due to the recycling definition. Wastestream-speciGc data for cyanide wastes is
presented in Exhibit 3-12. As this exhibit shows, the baseline treatment cost for these wastes is
$66.6 million, and the post-regulatory cost is $66.5 million. In .other words, an incremental savings
4 This compares well with EPA's estimated compliance cost of the TC identification rule, which estimated an
incremental compliance cost of $160Aon, in 1992 dollars. From U.S. EPA Background document Toricitv Characteristic
Regulatory Impact Analysis. Final Report. March 1990. .'
-------
EXHIBIT 3-12
ANALYSIS OF CYANIDE WASTESTREAMS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE UTS
WASTESTREAM WASTE CODE(S)
QUANTITY REPORTED AFFECTED
IN1991BRS BY UTS BASELINE POST-REG. (NCR.
(TONS) LEVEL* COSTS COSTS COSTS
rooe Foo7 FOOS F009 FOII
0001 0002 0003 0004 D007 KO11 K013 P003 P018 POM P083 POM P101 P10S P108 UO01 U002 OO03 U004 U008
FO01 F002 FOOS F008 F011
00010002 oooa 0004 ooos oooe0007 oooa ooot 0010 0040 0043 Foot FOOS FOOS FOI 1Foi9 Fos7 KOIi KOIS KOSO KOM poes POTO uoso
DOOI.O003 DOta 0038 FOM KO11 K013 K014 Poas U002 U000
F002 FOOS F004 FOOS P063 U002 U012 U038 U044 U131 U1S4 U239
O001 0002 0003 0004 OOOS F032K008 K010 K064 K117 K123K124 K128K131 P074 P108P123 U002 U008 U024 U035 UOS8 U200 U20t U202
0007 K011 K013 P083 U002 U003 0009
PI 00
F008 F012
0003 O004 DOOS DO06 D007 0008 Ml t F002 FOOS F007 FOOS FOOO F011 F012 F019 POt 1 P021 P029 P030 P074 P104 P108 P121 UOSt
F001 F002 FOOS F004 FOOS F008 F007 F012 F019
FOtl
0001 D002 P06S P069
0005 OOOe D007 0009 D011 FO01 F002 FOOS F004 FOOS FOOS F007 F009 F011
DOOS F001 F002 F003-F005 POOS P
K011 K013P083 U002U003U009
O018 D019 0020 0021 D022 0023 (
O001 D002 DOOS DOOS 0007 0008 D009 0040 FOOt F002 FOOS FOOS POM U002 U012U944 U122 U220 U221
F012
P030
0001 D002 DOOS 0003 0007 D010D011F008F007 FOOS FOI 1P108
0003 F007 FOOS P029 P030
F000F007 FOOS F009 FOI 1F012 - -
D002 D004 0004 0009 0010 FOOS F007 F008 F009 F019 K046 K081 K062 K069 P108
DOOS OOOS O007 FOII P106
P083POS9
0003 DOOS 0007 DOOS F007 FOOS F009 FO11
FOOfl P030
F007 POM
P0?9 P030 POgjI^^hfl 08
re considered to be not affected (I.e.. "N") if additional waste codes prase
172,784
19,040
15,509
3,399
2,095
1,992
1.495
904
809
738
641
530
419
296
229
203
167
109
106
95
90
77
41
35
35
23
17
15
15
12
11
11
10
10
8
6
6
4
4
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
$51,835.200
$5.712,000
$4,652.700
$1.019.700
$628.500
$597.600
$448.500
$271.200
$242.700
$221.400
$192,300
$159.000
$125.700
$88,800
$68,700
$60,900
$50.100
$32,700
$31,800
$28,500
$27,000
$23,100
$12,300
$10,500
$10.500
$6.900
$5.100
$4.500
$4.500
$3.600
$3,300
$3.300
$3.000
$3.000
$2,400
$1.800
$1,800
$1.200
$1,200
$51.835.200
$5.712.000
$4.652.700
$1,019.700
$628,500
$597,600
$448,500
$271,200
$242,700
$221.400
$192,300
$116,600
$92.180
$88,800
$68.700
$60.900
$50.100
$32.700
$23.320
$28,500
$27,000
$23.100
$12.300
$10.500
$10.500
$5.060
$3,740
$3.300
$3,300
$2,640
$3,300
$3,300
$3,000
$2.200
$2.400
$1.320
$1.320
$880
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($42.400)
($33.520)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($8.480)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
,$0
($1.840)
($1.360)
($1.200)
($1.200)
($960)
$0
$0
$0
($800)
$0
($480)
($480)
($320)
($320)
mt the use of less costly treatment.
-------
.. "r- I- '
EXHIBI
ANALYSIS OF CYANIDE WASTESTREAMS P
TIALLY AFFECTED BY THE UTS
QUANTITY REPORTED AFFECTED
IN 1991 BRS BY UTS
WASTESTREAM WASTE CODE(S) (TONS) LEVEL*
0003 D004 0005 D008 D007 DOOS 0000 0010 OO1 1 F007 FOOS F009 F010 Foil F019
D001 0002 O003 0004 0007 001 1 KO1 1 K013 P003 P016 P030 P083 P106 U001 U002 U003 U004 U009 U019 U053
OOOI FOOS F01I
DOOS D007 P106
0003 F002 FOOS P09S P106
D003F012
P121 .
0002 0005 0008 DOOS P030 U1S8
0003 D008 P028 P02» .
0007 DOOS F010 F011 " '
0001 0002 0003 0004 DOOS DOOS D007 DOOS DOOS 0010 001 1 F007 FOOS F009 P021 P029 P076 P078
0003 PI 08
P083U003 . .,
P098
D003P030P108 '
0003 0004 DOOS DOOfl D007 0008 0009 O010 D01 1 F008 F007 FOOS F009 F010 F01 1 F019
0003 P09S
D002 P08S P076 POTS P098 P10S P108 U1 IS U189 U248
0002 0004 D007 DOOS POM P10S
0003 FOOS P030 P10S ' '
P098P108
0003 001 1P104P108 .
DOOS 0007 F011 ' " .
P021 P088 P09S P10S PlOfl P122 U04S UOflS U1 IS U133 U134 U135 U147
F009P108PI21
0003 P030
0003P106P121
P083
DOOt 0004 0007 0012 OO'tS 0014 D01S O018 0018 0019 0020 D022 D024 0027 D02S 0029 D035 D038 D040 F002 F003 F004 FOOS P020 POSO
0003 F011
0005 F0 11
D003P029P108P121
0003 0009 P021 P029 P030 P074 P09S P104 P108 P121
P029
ooospioe
POIO P012 P01S P024 P037 P048 P07S P077 POS1 P09S P10S P108 P108 P1 18 P1 19 P120 P121
DOOS O007 DOOS 0010 D01 1 F007 FOOS F01 1 F012 LABP LABP
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
BASELINE
COSTS
$1.200
$1.200
$1.200
$900
$900
$900
$900
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
$300
POST-REG.
COSTS
$880
$1,200
$880
$660
$900
$660
$660
$600
$600
$440
$440
$440
$600
$220
$220
$220
$220
$300 .
$300
$220
$220
$220
$220
$300
$220
$220
$220
. $220
$300
$220
$220
$220
$220
$220
$220
$300
$220
(NCR.
COSTS
($320)
$0
($320)
($240)
$0
($240)
($240)
$0
$0
($160)
($160)
($160)
$0
($80)
($80)
($80)
($80)
$0
$0
($80)
($80)
($80)
($80)
$0
($80)
($80)
($80)
($80)
$0
($80)
($80)
($80)
($80)
($80)
($80)
$0
($80)
' Wasleslreams are considered to be not affected (i.e., "N") if additional waste codes present prevent the use of less costly treatment.
$66,615,000 $66.518,280 ($96,720)
-------
Page 3-32
Cote
of $100,000. The cost savings associated with the redefinition of recycling of K069 wastes is
presented in Exhibit 3-13. As this exhibit shows, the potential avoided treatment cost is $600,000.
EXHIBIT 3-13
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH K069 WASTES
Quantity (tons)
» 1360
1,270
Baseline Treatment
Stabilization
Landfilling
Unit Cost
$220
$251
Total Avoided Cost
$300,000
$320,000
3.2 J Sensitivity Analyses for Organic TC Wastes
Permit Modification Costs. EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine whether
permitting costs for the nine facilities for which it had originally assumed on-site treatment based
>
on permit information in the RCRIS database would incur significant permit modification
EPA reviewed an earlier analysis to estimate permit modification costs on a per facility basis.
earlier analysis, conducted, in part, to support RCRA reauthorization and the corrective action
studies, assumed, that for on-site treatment, the permit application and process would cost $60,000
over the first two years, there would be no further modifications, and a renewal cost of $23,000
would be realized every five years.
EPA applied this schedule of payments to the RIA analysis by assuming the following.
Since eight facilities have only submitted the first part of the permit application, they will need to
"modify" their application immediately (i.e., adjust the Part B application before submittal). EPA
did not consider new operating costs associated with modified permits, such as worker training.
EPA assumed, conservatively, that permit modification would cost the same as a full application,
namely $60,000 in the first year. EPA further assumed that renewals would take place every five
years for twenty years, roughly, the effective life of the treatment process. Thus, EPA assumed
the facility-specific schedule of payments would be as follows:
-------
Costs
Year.
0
1
Page 3-33
5 10 15 20
i l i i
Payment: $60,000
$23,000
$23,000
$23,000
$23,000
While this schedule of payments is conservative, for example, realizing the full $60,000 in
year one rather than over two years, EPA believes it approximates the order of magnitude of
permitting costs likely to be associated with this rule.
Exhibit 3-14 shows the per facility present value and annualized cost and the total annual
incremental cost for six scenarios. EPA calculated the costs for both eight and nine affected
facilities for three discount rates: 4 percent, 6 percent, and 10 percent. The period of over which
the cost is annualized is 20 years in all scenarios.
EXHIBIT 3-14
PERMIT MODIFICATION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PHASE E LDRs
DISCOUNT
RATE
4 percent
4 percent
6 percent
6 percent
10 percent
10 percent
PRESENT
VALUE COST
PER FACILITY
$120,000
$120,000
$110,000
$110,000
$92,000
$92,000
ANNUALIZED
COST PER
FACILITY
($/yr)
$8,800
$8,800
$9,600
$9,600
$11,000
$11,000
NO.
OF
FACS.
8
9
8
9
8
9
TOTAL ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL
COST
($M
$70,000
$79,000
$77,000
$86,000
$88,000
$99,000
The total annual incremental cost due to permit modifications ranges from $70,000 to
$99,000. This would have no significant effect on the overall cost of the rule as developed in the
RIA, since the total annual incremental cost of the rule is $219 million. The permit modification
-------
Page 3-34
C^ti
costs associated with these nine facilities would increase the total cost of the rule by 0.05 percent
at the most, an effect well within the rounding error for the RIA cost calculation.
TC Waste From Closures. EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the effect on
results of including the costs incurred as a result of TC waste generated during closure. EPA
approached this order-of-magnitude estimate by reviewing the analysis of contaminated soil
conducted as part of EPA's HWIP analysis. According to EPA's earlier studies, as presented in
the HWIP analysis, of the total 2.1 million tons/year of affected soil, 160,000 tons/year are a result
of RCRA closures. The ratio of RCRA closure-derived soil to all other remediation soil, then, is
0.16 to 1.94 (i.e., 2.1 minus 0.16). Using this ratio, EPA estimated the quantity of TC closure-
derived soil by multiplying the total quantity of TC hazardous soil, 94,000 tonstyear, by 8.25
percent (i.e., 0.16/1.94), calculating 8,000 tonstyear of closure-derived TC soil.
Since EPA's estimated incremental annual cost for TC hazardous soil is $35 million, based
on 94,000 tons per year (i.e., $370 per ton), then an additional 8,000 tons of closure-derived TC
soil would have an associated incremental annual cost of $2.9 million. This would increase the
total cost of the rule by roughly one percent. Exhibit 3-15 plots incremental cost as a function
the quantity of closure-derived TC waste. .
This order-of-magnitude estimate encompasses four limiting assumptions. First, EPA
assumes that only soil will be generated in significant amounts during closure. Second, EPA
assumes that the proportion of closure-derived TC soil to other remediation TC soil is the same
as the ratio for all hazardous soil (i.e., including non-TC soil). Third, EPA assumes the
technologies used for closure-derived TC soil will be the same as for TC remediation soil. A final
limitation is that it is impossible to determine how much overlap there is between the estimate of
hazardous soil reported in the HWIP analysis and the 94,000 tolas/year of newly regulated TC
hazardous soils. This indeterminable overlap affects the accuracy of EPA's estimate.
Testing Costs. For its cost estimate, EPA assumes that there is one waste sample and one
QA/QC sample for each test performed. EPA also performed a sensitivity analysis of the testing
cost for affected TC wastes in which it varied (1) the frequency with which waste is tested for
identification, and (2) the number of wasteloads which are treated, and thus require testing, each
-------
a
c
-------
Page 3-36 Costs
year. TC wastes must be tested to determine the underlying hazardous constituents. In the RIA,
EPA assumed that waste-generating processes have a four-year effective life; i.e., after four years
a given process undergoes significant modification such that its wastestream must be re-
characterized. For this sensitivity analysis, EPA varied the effective life of waste-generating
processes for TC nonwastewaters from 3 months to 10 years. EPA assumed each TC soil
wasteload must be tested for identification purposes since TC soil is not generated by a specific
process. EPA also varied the number of wasteloads tested per year. For TC nonwastewaters,
the number of wasteloads tested each year varies from 1 to 12. Since EPA implicitly assumed
that soil is generated at one-fourth the frequency of TC nonwastewaters, the frequency of testing
for TC soil wasteloads ranges from once every four years to three times each year.
Exhibit 3-16 presents the results of the sensitivity analysis. Given the parameters specified
above, the total testing cost could range from $800,000 per year to $11.2 million per year, or a
negative one percent to a positive four percent incremental change in the total cost of the rule.
3.2.4 Waste Minimization of Organic TC Wastes
The total cost savings estimate for the waste minimization analysis of the Phase n Rule
was approximately $25 million annually. This is made up of $22 million from tank bottoms
savings, and $3 million from lime sludges savings. A description of these savings is provided
below.
Recycle of Tank Bottoms. Oil product storage tank bottoms (referred to as tank bottoms
hereafter) represents one of the largest wastestreams in the database readily amenable to waste
minimization. A number of alternative waste minimization alternatives were considered:
Storage tank mixing to reduce deposition,
Sludge coking, and
Phase separation by centrifuge and recycle of recovered feedstock.
-------
'. «*(..
$12
§,$11.3-
o
S $9.61
00
I ,,o-
S
V
EXHrei
IT 3-16
SENSTIVITY ANALYSIS: PHASE II LDR TESTING COST
FOR AFFECTED TC WASTES
Frequency of waste identification testing, every
'Assumptions used in RIA
_L
3 5 7 M II
Frequency of waste treatment and testing (Wasteloads tested per year)
-------
Page 3-38 Co:
Phase separation by centrifuge was selected as the most viable alternative due to its
applicability across all types of oil product tank bottoms and its general applicability in facilities of
various design. Storage tank mixing and sludge or centrifuge solids coking are still viable
alternatives that may be implemented separately to, or in conjunction with, centrifuging on a
facility-specific basis to further reduce tank bottoms or solids disposal. They are, however, not
considered within this case study.
A decanter type centrifuge was selected due to its ability to accept virtually any type of
pumpable liquid/solid mixture and its ability to operate in a continuous mode. The decanter type
centrifuge is capable of a 98.5 percent oil/water/solids separation while producing a sludge cake in
excess of 40 percent solids. For this case study a more conservative 90 percent oil/water
separation and a 95 percent solids removal with a 30 percent solids cake is assumed. The
conceptual design is a three-phase (water, oil, and solids) decanter centrifuge with a 30 gallon per,
minute (gpm) capacity, mounted on a trailer with a 1,000 gallon feed surge tank, a 1,000 gallon oil
product tank, a five cubic yard dumpster for solids storage, and appropriate pumps and level
controllers. The initial capital investment costs were calculated to be about $200,000 with a
salvage value of about $39,000 after a 15 year life;
The oil product stream from the centrifuge is returned to the process stream as a resource
with a value of $16.00 per barrel. The water phase is discharged to the industrial sewer, and the
solids are disposed by either landfilling, if non-hazardous, at a cost of $75 per ton, or off-site
incineration, if hazardous, at a cost of $1,280 per ton. As the total quantity of wastewater treated
at the database facilities is not known, it is not possible to assign an incremental treatment cost to
the water phase. It is suspected that the incremental cost would be insignificant.
The potential annualized costs of the waste minimization alternative were calculated for
tank bottom quantities representative of the range of facility tank bottom generations in the
database -200 tons, 500 tons, 1,000 tons, and 5,000 tons per year. The annualized costs of the
post-regulatory compliance alternative, incineration and subtitle D disposal, are calculated over
the same project life as the waste minimization alternative (15 years) at the same escalation rate
and discount rate. Both annualized costs were adjusted for corporate tax liability. The net7
potential waste minimization annualized savings were calculated by subtracting the waste
-------
Costs ' Page 3-39
minimization alternative costs from the post rule compliance alternative costs for the four tank
bottom quantities indicated above.
Exhibit 3-17 provides the annualized pre-tax costs and savings associated with the waste
minimization alternative and the post-regulatory compliance alternative for various quantities of
tank bottoms representative of the generators found in the database. Column A (and E)
represents the quantity of tank bottoms, i.e., 200 tons per year. Column B is the annualized pre-
tax cost of the waste minimization alternative (centrifuging) for the various quantities of tank
bottoms shown in Column A, i.e., $50,831 for annual tank bottom quantities of 200 tons per year.
Column C is the annualized pre-tax cost for incinerating (post-regulatory compliance alternative)
the post-Phase II Rule hazardous tank bottoms assuming no waste minimization is performed, i.e.,
$337,243 for annual tank bottom quantities of 200 tons per year. Column D is the net annualized
pre-tax savings realized in implementing the waste minimization alternative and is calculated by
subtracting the waste minimization cost (Column B) from the incineration cost (Column C), i.e.,
$337,243 minus $50,831 equals $286,412 of net annualized pre-tax savings for minimizing 200 tons
of tank bottoms per year. Column F is the annualized factor (AF) calculated using the formula
shown in Exhibit 3-4. The net present value, NPV, (Column G) is calculated by dividing the net
annualized pre-tax savings (Column D) by the annualized factor, AF, (Column F). Column H is
the net annualized pre-tax savings on a per ton of tank bottom basis obtained by dividing the net
annualized pre-tax savings (Column D) by the tonnage of tank bottoms (Column E). Likewise,
Column I is the net present value on a per ton of tank bottom basis obtained by dividing the net
present value (Column G) by the tonnage of tank bottoms (Column E).
The net annualized pre-tax waste minimization savings ranged from $286,412 for 200 tons
of tank bottom per year to $7,804,774 for 5,000 tons of tank bottoms. A graph of the potential
net annualized pre-tax savings per tank bottom quantities is shown in Exhibit 3-18. The data
points are approximately linear and represent a potential pre-tax annualized savings of about
$1,560 per ton of tank bottoms. The pre-tax net present value (NPV) ranged from $2,528,192 for
200 tons of tank bottoms to $68,893,674 to 5,000 tons of tank bottoms.
/
The net annualized post-tax waste minimization savings ranged from $187,370 for
minimizing 200 tons of tank bottoms per year to $5,150,000 for minimizing 5,000 tons of tank
bottoms per year. The post-tax net present value (NPV) was also calculated for the same tank
-------
EXHIBIT 3-17
CALCULATION OF POTENTIAL COSTS/COST SAVINGS FOR TANK BOTTOMS
Worksheet 5
d Discount rat*
n - Project lifetime
Financial Calculations
Tank Bottoms
Annualized Pro-Tax Costs and Savings
d-0.075
n« 15
A
Tank Bottoms
B
Waste Mlnlmlztlon
Pro-Tax Cost
C
Incineration
Pro-Tax Cost
D
Savings
Not
E
Tons
Bans
F
AF
G
NPV
H
Savings
per ton
1
NPV
per ton
Hazardous Centrifuge Residual Solids
200 tons
* *
500 tons
1000 tons
5000 tons
$50.831.14
$86.798.11
$146.743.07
$626.302.71
$337243.06
$843.107.66
$1.686^15.32
$8.431.076.62
$286.411.92
$756.309.55
$1.539,472.26
$7.804.773.91
200
500
1000
5000
0.1133
0.1133
0.1133
0.1133
$2.528.192.35
$6.676.034.95
$13.589.105.95
$68.893.673.90
$1.432.08
$1.512.62
$1.539.47
$1.560.95
$12.640.96
$13.352.07
$13.589.11
$13.778.73
-------
8,000.000.00
$7,000,000.00
6,000,000.00 -
5,000,000.00
o
.E
« 4.000.000.00
3,000,000.00 -
2,000.000.00
1.000.000.00
0.00
IIBIT 3-18
PRE-TAX SAVINGS FROM TANK BOTTOMS
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Tank Bottoms - Tons
-------
Page 3-42 Costs
bottom quantities and respectively ranged from $1,654,000 at 200 tons to $45,455,000 at
5,000 tons.
Reuse of Lime Sludge. One petroleum refinery indicated they produced a 6,400 TPY
dewatered lime sludge from groundwater treatment that was contaminated with benzene and
petroleum liquids. The facility stated that a cement kiln was willing to accept the sludge as
feedstock at a cost to the refinery. The cost per ton was not given. Therefore, a cost of $50 per
ton was assumed based oh the cost for lime ($50/ton from Chemical Prices March 18, 1994).
Assuming no annual change in the charge for the lime sludge, reuse of the lime sludge would cost
$465 per ton less than end-of-pipe treatment. The annualized potential cost savings is $3,000,000.
Regeneration of Contaminated Catalysts. The TCDMS showed two refineries were
instituting regeneration of contaminated spent catalysts rather than waste disposal. One refinery
stated they realized a savings of $37 per ton of catalysts by regenerating rather than disposing of
the catalyst. Four refineries reported previous waste disposal of spent catalyst. However, the
total volume for all four facilities was less than 65 tons per year. Potential savings were
determined to be insignificant. Note that one facility with 270 tons per year of spent catalyst
waste was instituting waste minimization; however, the catalyst wastestream was not listed in
TCDMS.
Other Factors Affecting the Results. The work assignment methodology was directed at
estimating the cost savings to industry from waste minimization associated with compliance to the
Phase n LDR rule. The analysis only covered newly identified TC wastes that were being
regulated under this rule. However, a significant percentage of these TC wastes are not amenable
to source reduction or recycling waste minimization activities because they are:
Wastes generated from closures and corrective actions.
Wastes generated from remediation activities.
Contaminated soils and debris.
-------
Costs Page 3-43
Among the reasons these wastes are not amenable to waste minimization activities include:
These wastes are generally not routinely generated.
Particularly in the case of contaminated media and closure and remediation wastes,
the wastes are generated as a result of releases to the environment, and as such,
once the release has occurred and the wastes have been generated, there is little
or no opportunity for minimization.
Particularly in the case of contaminated media, it is often the case that the
concentration of the contaminant(s) of concern is too low to be economically
recovered.
It is important to note for this analysis that even though many of the newly identified TC
wastes are not amenable to waste minimization activities, other wastes subject to the Phase n
LDRs, such as residuals from manufacture of chlorotoluenes and coke, are amenable to waste
minimization activities.
These estimates likely understate savings potential for two reasons. First, discussions with
regulated facilities suggest that there are newly regulated TC wastes being minimized that are not
included as part of the cost baseline developed for the Phase n RIA. Savings associated with
these wastestreams have not been integrated into our savings estimate because of a desire to
maintain consistency with the cost analysis. Second, we have given only cursory consideration to
wastes received by commercial TSDs. The analysis presented in Appendix A indicates three of
the largest wastestreams received by TSDs have the potential for waste minimization. In most
cases, there is insufficient information to determine the waste minimization potential for these
wastes at the generator level. Since these wastes represent roughly half of the universe of newly
regulated waste, they may present additional waste minimization savings potential.
-------
Page 3-44
33 LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS
Both the data used for this analysis and the methodologies developed have limitations.
The most important limitations are addressed below.
The use of on-site/off-site treatment designations provided by the Capacity
Programs Branch in their database (over 99 percent of the TC waste is designated
for off-site treatment) may not reflect long-term management. To the extent that
EPA overestimated the quantity shipped off-site for treatment, EPA overestimated
the cost of the rule.
Our unit costs are based on off-site treatment and our earlier work for on-site
treatment (see section 3.1.1). Since there are wide ranges of unit costs for each
technology, EPA has used the mid-point of the range. To determine the effect of
the wide range of unit costs, EPA has run its model using the low end of the range_
and the high end. EPA found that the annual incremental cost of $219 million
TC wastes should be viewed as a best estimate with a range of error from 60
percent below this value ($87 million) to 65 percent above this value ($360
million).
I .
The main source of unit costs are vendor quotes and are "prices" charged for
treatment services. These prices measure the "cost" to waste generators who ship
waste off-site or who hire on-site vendor services. Since these prices are
determined by market factors, they are typically higher than the actual cost of
treatment. Moreover, since these prices can include transfer paymentssuch items
as insurance, interest, and profit in excess of full competitionthey may
overestimate the true social costs. .
For TC nonwastewater waste, EPA have removed all quantities that have both a
"D" waste code and a RCRA listed waste code. While over 400,000 tons of waste
were reported'as listed and characteristic, the data rarely reported the constituents
-------
Costs Page 3-45
,x '
present in the wastestream. Consequently, EPA assumed that treatment by the
listed waste standard would also treat all underlying constituents to required levels.
EPA acknowledges that this lack of data may create a significant false negative; to
that extent, the analysis may underestimate the true cost of the rule.
When assigning treatment technologies for cost estimation purposes, EPA assigned
nonwastewater, soil, and debris streams to thermal desorption technologies. While
the Agency believes that thermal desorption may have future application to the
treatment of RCRA wastes, it acknowledges that currently there are no permitted
thermal desorption units in operation. Therefore, EPA conducted a sensitivity
analysis to estimate the effect on treatment costs if thermal desorption were not
available.
To conduct the sensitivity analysis, EPA first determined the total tonnage of each
waste form that had been assigned to thermal desorption or to a combination of
thermal desorption and other technologies (e.g., thermal desorption followed by
stabilization) (see Appendix C for current percentages). For soils, the thermal
desorption category had been combined with soil vapor extraction technologies
because of similar unit costs and applicability. Because these wastes were never
specifically assigned to one of the two specific technologies, EPA assumed that
half would be treated by thermal desorption. EPA then selected alternative
technologies to be used if thermal desorption were not available. For
nonwastewater and soil, EPA selected incineration, and for debris, EPA selected
extraction. In cases where a treatment train had been assigned, EPA assumed that
only the thermal desorption portion would change and the remaining elements
(e.g., stabilization) would be unchanged.
Using unit costs from the main analysis for thermal desorption and the alternative
technologies (see Appendix D), EPA estimated the cost increase for each waste
form. For nonwastewaters, the cost for treating the affected wastestreams
-------
Page 3-46
increased from $21 million to $53 million; for soil, the cost increased from $13
million to $30 million; and for debris, the cost increased from $2 million to $4
million. In summary, the total treatment costs increased from $37 million to $87
million, or an increase of $50 million.
This cost increase reflects the potential underestimate of costs if thermal
desorption was not employed for treating these wastes. In addition, this sensitivity
analysis shows what the costs of the rule may be immediately following
promulgation of the rule (i.e., before thermal desorption capacity, or other less
costly treatment, comes on line).
-------
Economic Impacts , Page 4-1
CHAPTER 4
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PHASE H LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
The economic impacts of the rule are measured as the difference between the likely
expenses that result from regulatory compliance and the industrial activity that would continue in
the absence of regulation (i.e., baseline conditions). EPA typically considers economic impacts
based on the private cost of regulation evaluated on a facility-specific basis.
4.1 ECONOMIC IMPACTS METHODOLOGY
Economic impacts for facilities managing organic TC wastes were evaluated on a facility-
specific basis, limited only by the extent that data were available. This economic analysis is based
on 20 of the 47 facilities for which costs were determined on a facility-specific level. EPA
estimated the economic effects by comparing incremental annual compliance costs to two financial
measures: revenue, and cost of operations (i.e., cost and expenses). The most recent financial
data available were obtained from Standard & Poor's Corporation Records, Dunn and
Bradstreet's Million Dollar Directory, and Disclosure Information Services.
Since EPA believes that no costs will be associated with the treatment standards for coke
by-products in the proposed rule, no economic impacts will be associated with the regulation of
these wastes. Economic impacts of compliance for facilities currently land disposing chlorotoluene
waste were evaluated on a facility-specific basis. EPA estimated the economic effects by
calculating the ratio of the incremental annual before-tax compliance costs to the value of
production. Baseline and compliance before-tax annualized costs were srimated for each facility
using the unit costs, prices, and waste quantities presented in the cost analysis. Data on total
sales for facilities that generate chlorinated toluene wastes were obtained from Dun & Bradstreet
42 RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS ANALYSIS
For the 14 captive companies (i.e., companies with non-commercial or captive landfills that
receive the company's wastes) in the TC capacity database, only one company would have a ratio
of incremental compliance cost to cost of operations greater than one tenth of one percent; all
other facilities would experience even lower econqmic impacts. See Tables 4-1 and 4-2 for
-------
Page 4-2 . Economic Impacts
results. Note that Table 4-2 presents the logarithm of the ratio; in this way it provides an
estimate of the order of magnitude of the effect For example, the ratio of revenues to
compliance cost for the first facility has a log of 5.07. That is, revenues are 5 orders of
j
magnitude, ~ 100,000 times, greater than the cost of compliance. Similarly, the ratio of
compliance cost to cost and expenses has a log of -4.99. That is, the compliance cost is 5 orders
of magnitude less, or 0.00001 times the non-regulatory cost and expenses.
Since no costs are associated with the treatment standards for coke by-products, no
economic impacts are expected. Economic impacts for facilities that generate chlorinated toluene
wastes are calculated based on the before-tax annualized incremental costs. The results of the
analysis, however, are aggregated since the data used in the analysis are propriety. Based on a
ratio analysis of incremental.cost to total sales, none of the facilities that generate these wastes is
expected to experience significant impacts as a result of the proposed rule.
43 LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS
Both the data used for this analysis and the methodologies developed have limitations.
The most important limitations are addressed below. '
Not all the facilities in the TG capacity database, the primary data source for this
4
analysis, make financial information publicly available.
Five captive companies with public financial information have more than one
facility; there is no way to determine economic effects at the facility level. Thus;
our analysis is limited to company-wide economic effects. To the extent that
companies cannot redistribute the cost of compliance among facilities, our analysis
may not identify faculties with economic effects at the local level.
-------
TABLE 4-
PHASE II LDR ECONOMIC IMPACTS
NON-COMMERCIAL FACILITIES AFFECTED: FINANCIAL DATA AND ESTIMATED COST OF COMPLIANCE
(all figures in $million/yr)
FACILITY
30
23
34
27
9
33
28
38
29
25
16
12
15
35
32
39
5
13
3
7
SIC CODE
2812-ALKALINES & CHLORINES
2821 -PLASTICS MATERIALS AND RESIN
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
291 1 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
951 1 -WASTE MANAGEMENT
PARENT COMPANY
DOW CHEMICAL CO.
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP.
AMOCO CORP.
EASTMAN KODAK CO.
UNION CARBIDE CORP.
UNION CARBIDE CORP.
AMOCO CORP.
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO.
CHEVRON CORP.
EXXON CORP.
EXXON CORP.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
MAXUS ENERGY CORP.
SHELL OIL CO.
SHELL OIL CO.
SHELL OIL CO.
TOTAL PETROLEUM (NORTH AMERICA), LTD.
USX CORP.
ASHLAND OIL, INC.
FISCAL
YEAR
1992
1992
1992
1993
1992
1992
1992
1993
1992
1993
1993
1992
1992
1992
1993
1993
1993
1992
1992
1993
REVENUE
18.971
8,494
25,280
16,364
4.872
18,487
41.428
115,000
.
38,695
718
24,700
.
._.
2.397
17,841
10,199
COSTS &
EXPENSES
15,661"
8,058
26,307
15,567'
4,426
16,508
38,487
101,580
~
33,616
523
20,034'
-
'
2,382
17.523
9,959
OPERATING
INCOME
3,310(est)
436
(1.027)
797(est)
446
1.979
2,941
13,420
5,079
.
196
4,666(est)
-
15
318
240
NET
INCOME
(489)
(591)
(74)
(1,515)
(175)
269
1,569
5,280
1,403
74
5,998
.
2
1,826
142
COST OF
COMPLIANCE
0.16
1.81
0.05
0.00
0.35
1.13
12.55
4.63
0.94
0.89
0.84
0.56
0.07
1.55
1.19
0.75
5.47
0.95
0.02
1.94
' Information only available for 1991
Figures in parentheses represent deficits
TOTAL
35.85
-------
w "~ I
TABLE 4-2
PHASE II LDR ECONOMIC IMPACTS
NON-COMMERCIAL FACILITIES AFFECTED: ESTIMATE OF MAGNITUDE OF ECONOMIC EFFECT
(all figures in common logarithms)
FACILITY ID
30,
23
27
9
33
34
28
38
30
25
16
12
15
35
32
39
5
13
3
7
SIC CODE
2812-ALKALINES & CHLORINES
2821 -PLASTICS MATERIALS AND RESIN
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2869-INDUS. ORG. CHEMICALS NEC
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
291 1 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
291 1 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
291 1 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
291 1 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
2911 -PETROLEUM REFINING
951 1 -WASTE MANAGEMENT
PARENT COMPANY
DOW CHEMICAL CO.
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP.
EASTMAN KODAK CO.
UNION CARBIDE CORP.
UNION CARBIDE CORP.
UNION CARBIDE CORP. SUBTOTAL
AMOCO CORP.
AMOCO CORP.
AMOCO CORP. SUBTOTAL
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO.
CHEVRON CORP.
EXXON CORP.
EXXON CORP.
EXXON CORP. SUBTOTAL
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. SUBTOTAL
MAXUS ENERGY CORP.
SHELL OIL CO.
SHELL OIL CO.
SHELL OIL CO.
SHELL OIL CO. SUBTOTAL
TOTAL PETROLEUM (NORTH AMERICA), LTD.
USX CORP.
ASHLAND OIL. INC.
REV./
COMP.COST
5.07
3.67
6.61
3.57
3.30
3.61
4:74
4.86
4.79
2.76
3.55
3.50
5.95
3.72
COMP.COST/
COSTS&EXP.
-4.99
-3.65
-6.59
-3.53
-3.32
-3.56
-4.70
-4.81
-4.73
-2.62
-3.45
-3.50
-5.94
-3.71
-------
Economic Impacts Page 4-5
Financial data are based on the last year reported and may not accurately predict
longer-term company results.
EPA estimated the economic impacts of the proposed rule for non-commercial
facilities. In attempting to determine costs associated with commercial facilities,
EPA matched BRS data for generators sending waste off-site to commercial
facilities identified in the TC Survey. The results were ir conclusive because data
from these two sources were inconsistent and left a large percentage of waste
unaccounted for. Therefore, due to data limitations, for the commercial facilities
that receive waste from off-site generators, EPA did not look at cost pass-through
scenarios to estimate if any generators would be affected by the proposed rule.
No small businesses or entities were identified in the TC capacity database,
however, they may be impacted by commercial facility pass-throughs. EPA did not
examine this effect
-------
Benefits Page 5-1
CHAPTERS
BENEFITS OF PHASE U LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
This chapter discusses EPA's analysis of the benefits to society associated with the Phase
II LDR final rule. While the RIA for the Phase H rule quantifies a number of benefits, there are
potential benefits attributable to the rule that are unable to be quantified at this time. These
potential benefits are grounded in the basic premise of the LDR program, that the only
permanent solution to management of hazardous wastes is significant reduction of toxicity in such
waste through treatment Such treatment offers benefits to human health and the environment
over the long-term.
EPA quantified three types of benefits for the Phase n rule:
reduction in human health risks via the ground-water pathway,
reduction in human health risks via the air pathway, and
potential positive effects on the value of properties near waste management
facilities.
In addition, EPA's benefit analysis covers only TC wastes. These wastes dominate the
other newly regulated wastestreams covered by the Phase H LDRs in terms of volume and costs.
Moreover, the data needed to evaluate the Phase n rule benefits were more readily available and
of much higher quality for the TC wastes' attributes (e.g., concentration, volume) than for the
other Phase n wastes.
-------
Page 5-2
5.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK REDUCTION GROUND-WATER PATHWAY
One of HSWA's primary LDR goals is protecting human health. To that end EPA
analyzed human health risks posed by TC wastes under the baseline scenario, that is with no
LDRs in place, as well as under the post-regulatory scenario. The difference in risks from the
baseline to the post-regulatory scenario is one measure of the benefit of the rule. The benefits
estimated in this analysis focus on the long-term benefits associated with the permanence of waste
treatment. However, this assessment is limited to benefits realized under average or reasonably
expected conditions. It is not able to estimate the benefits associated with more extreme
scenarios, such as a catastrophic landfill containment system failure or karst aquifer settings.
Under these extreme cases, the benefits of the Phase n LDR would be greater.
The fundamental concept underlying EPA's approach for assessing ground-water risk
reduction is that Subtitle C containment is completely effective in the short-term, i.e., over a
period of about 30 years after liner and cover installation. During this period, no leachate is
released to ground water, and Subtitle C regulation achieves its goal of reducing risk to human
health and the environment Over the longer term, however, containment systems eventually
and, because the waste in the unit has not been treated, constituents are released to the
environment This release, and its resulting ground-water contamination, may not be detected by
owner/operators, and could continue unaddressed by corrective action, closure, or other programs.
This longer-term risk (i.e.', occuring in the future) would be reduced by the LDRs.
5.1.1 Approach
EPA used similar but slightly different approaches to calculate risks to hypothetical
individuals and population risks across all facilities. The approaches are described below.
Individual Risks
EPA's basic approach involves the following seven steps:
(1) Analyze waste concentration data from the TC survey database to estimate waste
concentrations.
-------
Benefits . Page 5-3
(2) In cases where respondents reported total waste concentrations, rather than Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) concentrations, use the Organic Leaching
Model (OLM) to estimate leachate concentrations.
\
(3) Calculate the mean concentration of each constituent at each facility, weighted across the
volume of all TC wastes managed at that facility.
(4) Calculate the risk that would be posed by consumption of leachate, for both cancer and
non-cancer effects, at each facility.
(5) Develop a set of dilution/attenuation factors (DAF) to represent the effect of fate and
transport processes in a ground-water system.
(6) Portray the full range of waste concentrations, environmental settings, and exposure
conditions at facilities managing TC wastes by dividing the distribution of risks posed by
consumption of leachate by the DAF distribution to yield a predicted risk distribution at
exposure wells across all facilities.
(7) To simulate the post-regulatory scenario, reset the leachate concentration in Step 1 with
the universal standard concentrations. Replace the DAF distribution for Subtitle C
facilities (from Step 5) with a DAF distribution for Subtitle D facilities, because the
treated TC residues will not need to be managed as hazardous wastes. Recalculate risks
to estimate the incremental risk reduction between the baseline and post-regulatory levels.
The following discussion is keyed to the steps listed above.
Step 1. Develop concentration data from the TC survey to represent waste
concentrations. The TC capacity database covers several hundred wastestreams, each containing
one or more constituents, disposed of at nearly 100 facilities. To develop the analytical sample,
-------
*
Page 5-4
EPA dropped wastestreams with insufficient data or not subject to regulation as TC
nonwastewaters. The following wastestreams were deleted:
wastestreams that only include wastewater,
wastestreams with no TC volume information,
wastestreams that include listed wastes (F-, K-, P-, or U-codes),
wastestreams with no useful constituent information,
wastestreams that are nonwastewater and not regulated by Phase n,
wastestreams that do not exceed TC levels for D018-D043.
After these wastestreams were dropped, the final sample of facilities that disposed of TC
nonwastewaters contained 36 facilities. Benefits from this set of facilities were extrapolated to the
universe of facilities managing nonwastewaters, i.e., 47 facilities.
EPA's guidance for conducting risk assessments1 calls for development of both a central
tendency risk estimate and a high-end risk estimate.. The central tendency estimate is intended to
produce an estimate that is based on most likely values of all component parameters. The high-
end estimate is intended to correspond to the high-end portion of the risk distribution, i.e., it is
, based on conservative values for input parameters. For this RIA, one of the factors that is most
important in determining risk is constituent concentration in the waste, and there is considerable
uncertainty in the concentrations reported in the TC Survey. For this reason, the Agency
developed central tendency and high-end estimates of ground-water risk based on varying the
constituent concentrations in the waste.
Hj-S.EPA. Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors. EPA Risk Assessment
Memorandum dated February 26,1992.
Comgw
-------
Benefits Page 5-5
The central tendency and high-end estimates differ in two ways.
One of the survey questions called for information on waste concentrations, and
did not specify whether respondents should report bulk concentration or
concentration in the TCLP extract. Based on the concentration values and the
units that were reported, it appeared that many respondents reported bulk (total)
concentrations. For the central tendency estimate, EPA interpreted-based on the
units and the concentrations that were reportedthat some of the responses
applied to bulk concentrations . For the high-end estimate, EPA assumed that all
responses are in terms of TCLP concentration.
The survey asked for average, minimum, and maximum concentrations. For the
central tendency, EPA used average concentrations where they were reported, and
maximum concentration divided by 2 otherwise. For the high end, EPA used the
maximum concentration where reported, and average concentration otherwise.
Each of the two sets of waste concentration estimates were carried through the remaining steps of
the risk analysis (note that step 2 pertains only to the central tendency estimate).
Step 2. Where respondents reported total concentrations, rather than TCLP
concentrations, use the OLM to predict leachate concentrations. EPA assumed that the TCLP
accurately predicts long-term leaching behavior of wastes in the environment, i.e., that the TCLP
leachate concentration is equal to the long-term average leachate concentration. For the central
tendency scenario, in situations where EPA believed that survey responses were probably in terms
of total (bulk) waste concentration rather than TCLP concentrations, EPA used the OLM to
predict leachate concentrations. EPA has used this technique in a variety of other applications,
including the delisting program and several other RIAs. The OLM equation may be represented
as
-------
Page 5-6 Be
enefits
L = C°-m x S03n x 0.00211
where L is the leachate concentration [mg/I], C is the bulk waste concentration [rag/kg], and S is
the constituent water solubility [mg/!].
Appendix G provides the calculated leachate concentrations for each constituent at each
of the sample facilities, under the central tendency scenario.
Step 3. Calculate the mean concentration of each constituent at each facility, weighted
across the tonnage of all TC wastes managed at that facility. EPA assumed that, at each facility,
all TC wastes would be managed in the same landfill unit, and that the average concentration for
the unit would be the weighted average across all of the TC wastes. Note that in some cases TC
wastes are co-disposed with other wastes; nevertheless, for purposes of this analysis, EPA did not
attempt to evaluate complex interactions with non-TC wastes.
Step 4. Calculate the risk that would be posed by consumption of leachate, for both
cancer and non-cancer effects, at each facility. EPA assembled values for oral toxicity from its
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), for both cancer and non-cancer effects. Using
standard assumptions for body weight (70 kg), water intake (2 liters per day), and exposure
duration (nine years), EPA calculated the cancer risk that would be posed by drinking undiluted
leachate at each facility. For non-carcinogens, the Agency calculated the hazard index, i.e., the
ratio of exposure dose to the reference dose. Within each facility, EPA summed the cancer risk
across constituents, and the hazard index across constituents. This yielded values for risk, at the
facility level, prior to any accounting for fate and transport processes.
In general, for each facility, one constituent dominated all others in terms of risk. Exhibit
5-1 presents the principal constituents posing cancer risk in the central tendency baseline for each
of the 36 sample facilities. It also provides their post-regulatory leachate concentrations (i.e., the
universal standard). Central tendency concentrations for all constituents are provided in
Appendix G. Note that at 25 of the 36 faculties (70 percent), the risk-driving constituent is
benzene. No other constituent appears more than twice as the principal risk-driver. Exhibit 5-2
-------
Benefits
Page 5-7
EXHIBIT 5-1
BASELINE (CENTRAL TENDENCY) AND POST-REGULATORY LEACHATE
CONCENTRATIONS FOR CANCER RISK DRIVERS
FACILITY
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
, 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
CONSTITUENT
VINYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BENZENE
U-DICHLORO-
ETHYLENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
U-DICHLORO-
ETHANE
BENZENE
BENZENE
H-DINTTRO-
TOLUENE
U-DICHLORO-
ETHYLENE
POLY-
CHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS
BENZENE
BENZENE
PENTACHLORO-
PHENOL
BENZENE
U-DICHLORO-
ETHYLENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(n*l)
10.097
3298
24.912
0301
42.202
983.903
0.624
56.067
1.157
1.400
3.634
11.197
37.199
0.691
16.542
6.151
0346
1.274
POST-
REGULATORY
CONCENTRATION
(ng")
0.140
0.160
0.160
0.130
0.160
0.160
0.160
0210
0.160
0.160
0.880
0.130
0.003
0.160
0.160
0.022
0.160
0.130
FACHITY
NUMBER
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
CONSTITUENT
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
DICHLOROETHYL
ETHER
CARBON
TETRACHLORIDE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
LZ-DICHLORO-
ETHANE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
-------
Page 5-8 Bei
presents similar information for the constituents dominating non-cancer risk. Only 16 of the 36
sample facilities had constituents contributing to non-cancer risks; the remaining 20 facilities were
assumed to have no non-cancer risks. At two of the 16 facilities, the non-cancer risk-driver was
an inorganic metal (e.g., nickel). At two other facilities, the risk-driver was an organic chemical
that was not regulated under the TC rule (toluene, ethylbenzene).
Step 5. Use a dilution/attenuation factor (DAT) to represent the effect of fate and
transport processes in a ground-water system. In this step, EPA divided the facility risk by the
DAF distribution to yield a frequency distribution of predicted risks at exposure wells. The DAF
distribution used in this analysis was determined by scaling the DAF distribution used in the TC
rule2 to reflect the effect of Subtitle C containment, after some level of system failure.
There are several important timing assumptions that are implicit in the use of the DAF
distribution. First, as previously mentioned, the releases are assumed to occur at some point in
the future when the containment systems fail; this is likely to be at least 30 years after installation
of the cover and liner. Second, the approach assumes that the releases occur after ground-wa
monitoring and corrective action have ceased; otherwise, these activities would be likely to reduce
the baseline risk at most facilities. Third, the DAF distribution was developed using a steady-state
model; the model predicts concentrations at a downgradient well, assuming that there is an
infinite source of contaminant in the waste. The model predicts equilibrium concentrations at the
well, i.e., concentrations after the constituent has had sufficient time to travel downgradient. The
time needed to attain this equilibrium can vary from months to millennia, depending on ground-
water velocity, distance to the exposure well, and the retardation factor of the contaminant (i.e.,
the velocity of the contaminant relative to the ground water that is carrying it). The benefit
analysis is oriented to long-term benefits; as this discussion makes clear, the baseline risks may be
posed over a period of decades to centuries. Nevertheless, for the TC rule the infinite source and
steady-state assumptions were deemed reasonable by the Agency for purposes of regulating TC
constituents, and for the Phase n LDR RIA they are reasonable for estimating the potential
benefits due to related ground-water contamination in the long term.
2This distribution is based on the facility, environmental, and exposure characteristics of municipal (Le., Subtitle'
landfills. .
-------
Benefits
Page 5-9
EXHIBIT 5-2
BASELINE (CENTRAL TENDENCY) AND POST-REGULATORY
LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS FOR NON-CANCER RISK DRIVERS
FACILITY
NUMBER
4
5
6
8
10
11
12
13
15
16
18
23
24
30
31
32
CONSTITUENT
CHLOROBENZENE
PYRTOINE
TOLUENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
NICKEL
NITROBENZENE
CHLORDANE
PYRTOINE
CHLORDANE
NICKEL
NITROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(mg/I)
43.7
0.96
9038.8
33
2.0
23
0.16
3.8
0.010
1019.2
1.5
13.6
0.55
0.060
2.9
50.0
POST-REGULATORY
CONCENTRATION
(ms/i)
0.070
0.72
0.11
0.084
5.0
0.21
0.00068
0.72
0.00068
5.0
0.21
0.21
0.084
0.046
0.066
Z5
Note: Data presented in this exhibit have been computer generated and contain non-significant
figures.
-------
Page 5-10
Ber^^
To account for the effect of Subtitle C containment (e.g., cover and liners), EPA assumed
that in any environmental setting, the DAF is inversely proportional to the infiltration rate. For
the Corrective Action RIA, EPA developed a set of estimates of the effectiveness of caps and
liners. The Agency estimates that about 30 years after installation a Subtitle C cap is about 80
percent effective and a liner is about 85 percent effective. Thus, the liner would be the limiting
factor for net infiltration through the landfill. Using the figure of 85 percent effectiveness, the
percentage of infiltration passing through the landfill would be 100 percent less 85 percent, or 15
percent Thus, multiplying calculated infiltration by 0.15 would reflect the effect of Subtitle C
containment that is no longer at peak effectiveness. This approach assumes that after about 30
years after the operating period ends, the owner/operator no longer inspects the cap; nor does
anyone replace or repair the cap.
The table below displays the upper quartile of the DAF distribution used in this analysis,
including both the set of DAFs developed for the TC rule (which addressed management of
wastes in Subtitle D facilities), and the adjusted set used for this RIA (i.e., the values from the
TC rule divided by a factor of 0.15 to account for the effectiveness of a Subtitle C containme
system over the very long term). The set of DAFs used to simulate baseline conditions at Subtitle
C units are higher than those for the Subtitle D units, indicating a higher level of protection in
the Subtitle C units than in the Subtitle D units.
Dilution/Attenuation Factors (DAFs) Used in the RIA.
Percentile
99
95
90
85
80
75
Original DAF (from TC rule)
2.6
12
47
134
329
830
Adjusted DAF
17
82
315
900
2,200
5,560
Additionally, to estimate distributions of individual risks, EPA assumed that 23 percent of
the facilities have downgradient exposure wells. This is based on Subtitle C data from the
-------
Benefits Page 5-11
Corrective Action RIA database,3 which covers facility-specific information collected for a
stratified random sample of 79 facilities. The data indicate that 23 percent of treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities had downgradient private or public wells in the direction of ground-water
flow.4 To account for this, EPA scaled its risk estimates by assuming that the DAFs apply only
at 23 percent of the facilities, and at all others there is no human exposure via ground water.
Step 6. Portray the full range of waste concentrations, environmental settings, and
exposure conditions at facilities managing TC wastes by dividing the distribution of risks posed
by consumption of leachate by the DAF distribution to yield a predicted risk distribution at
exposure wells across all facilities managing untreated TC wastes. This step was conducted by
using SAS software to combine DAF and facility leachate risk distributions to generate a
nationwide distribution of ground-water risks associated with facilities managing TC
nonwastewaters. (See Exhibit 5-3 for a graphic representation of this step). The DAF
distributions were not sampled randomly (e.g., with a Monte Carlo approach) but rather at
predetermined intervals, i.e., at two percent intervals across the entire frequency distribution.
These were combined with each of the discrete facility-specific leachate risk values to produce
1,800 risk estimates (i.e., 36 leachate risks divided by 50 DAFs each). These values were used to
generate an intermediate individual risk output distribution covering the full range of DAFs and
waste characteristics reported at faculties. Note that these individual risk distributions represent
risks to a hypothetical receptor, and not to real people.
As discussed under Step 5, the Agency assumed that only 23 percent of the facilities were
expected to have down-gradient wells. However, the facilities without down-gradient exposures
(i.e., 77 percent) could not be identified on a site-specific basis because the available data on
downgradient wells provided only the overall percentages. To account for this when calculating
probability distributions for individual risk, EPA assumed that the intermediate distribution
derived from all 36 faculties applied only to the upper 23 percent of the final distribution. In
3Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units,
Office of Solid Waste, March 1993.
*This figure excludes facilities where large surface water bodies or other ground-water divides are likely to prevent a
contaminant plume moving off-site from reaching a well.
-------
Exhibit 5-3
Organization of Individual Risk Analysis
R,
R2
R3
R4
R5
/
R6
Facility-specific
Risks
DAF
Distribution
Individual
Risk Distributi^i
-------
Benefits Page 5-13
other words, all individual risks below the 77th percentile of the Goal distribution were assumed to
be zero (because of no exposures), the first percentile value from the intermediate distribution
corresponds to (approximately) the 78th percentile of the final distribution, and the 100th
percentile of the intermediate distribution would be equivalent to the 100th percentile of the final
distribution.
t
Step 7. Using the same framework as for the baseline calculations, develop a
distribution of risks for facilities managing TC wastes for the post-regulatory scenario. The
post-regulatory scenario assumes that all hazardous constituents will be treated to universal
standards, and that the wastes will be disposed of in Subtitle D landfills following treatment.
EPA assumed that the post-regulatory leachate concentration would be equal to the
universal treatment standard (UTS). For each constituent, EPA determined the UTS. If the
UTS was lower than the baseline concentration, the UTS was used as the leachate concentration.
These post-regulatory leachate concentration values were divided by their toxicity benchmarks and
summed by facility, as described earlier for step 4, to calculate risks that would correspond to
drinking leachate at each facility.
These risks were then combined with a DAF distribution to generate a distribution of risks
at exposure wells. As discussed earlier, the DAF distribution for the baseline analysis was
calculated by adjusting the DAF distribution used in the TC identification rule to reflect the
effect of Subtitle C containment. Because post-treatment disposal would not be in a Subtitle C
unit, EPA used the TC rule's DAF distribution when calculating post-regulatory exposure
concentrations.
For the post-regulatory scenario, there is no difference in the central tendency estimate
and the high-end estimate, i.e., they both use the same sets of waste concentrations.
Population Risks .
EPA's approach for estimating population risks involves nine steps:
(1-5) Develop concentration data from the TC survey to represent waste concentrations and
calculate the risk posed by consumption of the leachate, and use a dilution/attenuation
-------
Page 5-14 . Ben
Benefits
factor (DAF) to represent the effect of fate and transport processes in a ground-water
system. These steps are identical to the first five steps used to calculate individual risks.
(6) Calculate the population exposed to ground water at each of the 36 facilities.
(7) Integrate the risk level over the exposed population and DAF distribution to calculate
population risks for each facility.
(8) Calculate total population risks for the affected universe of facilities.
(9) . Calculate total population risks under for the post-regulatory scenario and develop
incremental benefit estimates for the rule..
As noted, the first five steps are identical to those use to calculate individual risks. The
following discussion details steps six through nine.
Step 6. Calculate the population exposed to ground water at each of the 36 facilities.
Although EPA bad population density data for the Phase n LDR sample facilities, data on
populations exposed to ground water were not available. However, EPA had both population
density and exposed population data for sample facilities included in the Corrective Action RIA.
EPA combined these data sources, as shown in Exhibit 5-4, to estimate the population exposed to
ground water at each facility, using the following three steps:
(1) Using data in the GEMS database, EPA calculated the local (i.e., within 3 km)
population density for each of the 36 facilities.
(2) Using data collected for the Corrective Action RIA, EPA examined the
relationship between the local population density and the population exposed to
ground water. For each of 52 facilities included in the Corrective Action RIA
sample, EPA determined the local population density within 2 km (population
-------
Exhibit 5-4
Availability of Population Density and
Ground-water Exposure Data
Corrective Action Sample Facility
Data available for population
density and exposed population.
Population density based
on 2 km radius
Exposed population based on
number of people using wells
within downgradient sector.
Phase II LDR Sample Facility
Data available only for population
density.
Population density based
on 3 km radius
-------
Page 5-16
density data was not available to 3 km) and the total exposed population. The
total exposed population was determined by identifying all public and private wells
located in a 90 degree sector in the direction of ground-water flow within a two
mile radius of the facility. For many faculties, the exposed population was zero.5
Based on these data, EPA determined an average ratio of exposed population to
total population within the 90 degree ground-water exposure sector for low-density
(less than 1,000 people per square kilometer) and high-density (more than 1,000
people per square kilometer) settings. For each case, the average exposed
population was calculated by averaging all exposed population values (including
zero exposure values). Similarly, the average total population was calculated by
averaging the facility-specific populations (calculated as the product of the density
and the sector area). For low-density settings, EPA estimated that the population
exposed via ground water would be approximately 0.4 times the total population.^
' For high-density settings, EPA estimated that the population potentially exposd^H
via ground water would be approximately 0.05 times the total population. The
exposed population in high-density areas is less than in low-density areas because
these areas are more likely to use public water supplies drawing from sources
sufficiently distant from the contaminant source to not be impacted.
(3) . EPA multiplied the facility-specific total populations within the ground-water
exposure sector for the 36 sample facilities by the exposure ratios to estimate the
hypothetical exposed population for each facility.
Step 7. Integrate the risk level over the exposed population and DAF distribution to
calculate population risks for each facility. For all facilities, EPA sampled the DAF distribution
over 100 intervals (i.e., at each percentile) to generate a series of 100 DAF values. Then, for
each facility, EPA multiplied the leachate risk level by the DAF and the incremental population
*The method for estimating individual risk accounts for situations where there are. no downgradient wells by adjusting
the DAF distribution (see step 5, above). For estimating population risks, facilities with no downgradient wells are
included in the computation of average well-using population density.
-------
Benefits ._ ' ' Page 5-17
(i.e., l/100th of the total population) and summed over all increments to calculate the total
population risk level. (See Exhibit 5-5 for a graphic representation of this step).
Step 8. Calculate total risks for the affected universe. EPA estimated cancer and non-
cancer effects for the affected universe based on the facility-specific risk levels, using the
following approach:
For cancer risks, EPA first summed the 36 facility-specific values. This value was
then multiplied by (47/36) to scale from the 36 modeled facilities to the 47
facilities in the affected universe.
For non-cancer effects, EPA examined the DAF-adjusted ratio of the exposure
concentration to the appropriate threshold value for each of the 36 facilities. If
the ratio exceeded unity, EPA assumed the entire population to be exposed;
otherwise, EPA assumed the exposed population to be zero. EPA then summed
these populations and scaled up the total to represent 47 facilities.
Step 9. Calculate risks for the post-regulatory scenario and calculate incremental
benefit estimates. Using the same approach used to, calculate baseline risks, EPA calculated post-
regulatory risks using the same assumptions used for the individual-risk analysis. Note that
because the effectiveness of containment is assumed to be less in the post-regulatory case
(Subtitle D) than in the baseline case (Subtitle C), post-regulatory risks may actually rise if
treatment does not significantly decrease the leachate concentration. The post-regulatory risk was
then subtracted from the baseline scenarios to estimate the incremental benefit
5.1.2 Results
This section presents results for the baseline risks (under both central tendency and high-
end assumptions) and the post-regulatory scenario. For each case, distinct results for individual
cancer and non-cancer risk are presented. The section concludes with population risk estimates.
-------
Exhibit 5-5
I
Organization of Population Risk Analysis
Rl
K2
R3
R4
R5
R6
I
i
i
i
i
1
Facility-specific
Risks
Facilityrspecific
Populations
DAF
Distribution
Integrate to Determine
Facility-specific
Population Risks
to Df»tf»rminp
-------
Benefits . Page 5-19
Individual Risks
Exhibit 5-6 presents the estimates of the baseline and post-regulatory individual cancer
risk across all facilities. The results are presented in terms of a cumulative frequency distribution
indicating the percentile level associated with an individual risk level across all facilities. These
individual risk values represent the 1,800 different combinations of facilities and DAFs that were
statistically combined for this analysis, which have been compressed over the top 23 percent of the
distribution to account for facilities with no downgradient wells. As the exhibit shows, the high-
end baseline risk estimate is between one and two orders of magnitude higher than the central
tendency estimate across the distribution. About ten percent of the individual risk values indicate
baseline lifetime excess individual cancer risk exceeding 10"6 under high-end assumptions, with
almost Gve percent exceeding 10"4. About six percent of the individual risk values exceed 10"6 in
the baseline using central tendency assumptions, including about two percent which exceed 10*4.
In the post-regulatory case, about five percent of the individual risk values indicate excess cancer
risks above 10"*, and about one percent of the risk values exceed 10*4. A single-value (i.e., not a
distribution) estimate for central tendency risk may be estimated as the 50th percentile of the
central tendency curve, i.e., zero because most facilities are not expected to have downgradient
wells. Similarly, a single-value estimate for high-end risk may be estimated as the 90th percentile
of the high end curve, i.e., approximately 2.0 x 10"7.
Exhibit 5-7 presents the estimated baseline and post-regulatory non-cancer risk. Using
central tendency assumptions, the 99th percentile baseline exposure level is less than the
reference dose. Under high-end assumptions, about two percent of the distribution exceeds a
hazard index of unity, indicating the potential for adverse non-cancer effects. Post-regulatory
non-cancer risk, however, is insignificant.
i
Population Risks
Population cancer risks are presented in Exhibit 5-8. The estimated baseline population
cancer risk is 0.24 cases per year for the central tendency scenario. The post-regulatory
population cancer risk is about 0.022 cases per year. In other words, the rule reduces 0.22 cancer
-------
EXHIBIT 5-6
Cancer Risk
Via the Ground-Water Pathway
1E+00
1E-01
a- iE-°2
8- 1E-03
1E-04
IE-OS
IE-06
1E-07
u
CO
s
X
Ǥ
IE-OS
High End Baseline Risk
Central Tendency Baseline Risk
Post-Regulatory Risk
80%
85%
Percentil
90% 95%
ndividual Risk Values
100%
-------
EXHIBIT 5-7
Non-Cancer Risk
Via the Ground-Water Pathway
1E+03
1E+02
g 1E+01
G
I
2 1E-KX)
3"
*-»
o
1E-01
S
1E-02
1E-03
1E-04
High End Baseline Risk
Central Tendency Baseline Risk
Post-Regulatory Risk
I
80%
85% 90%
Percentile of Individual Risk Values
95%
-------
EXHIBIT 5-8 - POPULATION GROUND-WATER CANCER RISKS
CANCER RISK
. TOTAL
EXPOSED
FACILITY ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
10
11 .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
10
20
21
22
23
34
25
26
27
28
20
30
31
32
33
34
35"
38
INCREMENTAL
POPULATION CEN. TEN. HIGH END POST-REG CEN. TEND. HIGH END
864
3113
744
1418
615
1315
2250
601
1442
1442
2462
0
507
53
647
246
13163
577
1550
1158
0
1599
884
1199
2377
0
578 .
1745
918
817
2909
759
827
1002
503
soa
TOTAL
SCALED
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.13
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
ooo
fcffc
43M
0.01
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
233
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.10
0.23
0.01
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.02
0.02
o.bo
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.00
000
V
4.0*
&2»
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
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
ooo
£
4,02
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.03
-0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.13
-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
ooo
AW
.482
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
2.33
-0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
. 0.53
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.10
0.23
001
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.01
o.op
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.00
oop
$.99
5,21
Note: Data presented In this exhibit have been computer generated;
otaln non-significant figures.
-------
Benefits Page 5-23
cases per year with respect to the central tendency baseline, that is, 92 percent of the baseline
cancer cases. Note that for some specific facilities, the post-regulatory risks are higher than in the
baseline. This is because the reduction in risk effected by treatment was less than the increase in
risk associated with Subtitle D, rather than Subtitle C, disposal.
Population risks for non-cancer effects are presented in Exhibit 5-9. Two of the 36
facilities had exposure-to-threshold ratios above unity in the baseline case, resulting in a total
scaled population of 2,038. In the post-regulatory scenario, however, no facilities exceeded a ratio
value of unity. Therefore, all of the non-cancer baseline risk is eliminated.
5.2 HUMAN HEALTH RISK REDUCTIONAIR PATHWAY
Constituents contained in TC waste, soil, and debris may be emitted to air through
volatilization or dust entrainment. Reducing the concentrations of TC constituents according to
the Phase II LDR treatment standards would significantly reduce the potential for air emissions,
and the risks posed by those air emissions. The goal of the air pathway risk analysis is to
characterize baseline risk and the reduction in baseline risk resulting from the Phase n LDR rule.
This analysis focuses on the benefits in average or expected situations. In more extreme cases
(e.g., catastrophic meteorological conditions or emissions from explosions) the benefits of the rule
would be greater.
5.2.1 Approach
The Agency's approach employed seven steps:
(1) Develop bulk waste concentration data from the TC capacity database to represent waste
concentrations.
(2) In cases where respondents reported TCLP concentrations, rather than bulk
concentrations, use the Organic Leaching Model (OLM) to back-calculate bulk
concentrations.
-------
EXHIBIT 5-9 - POPULATION GROUND-WATER NON-CANCER EFFECTS
NON-CANCER RISK
FACILITY ID
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
IB
20
21
22
23
34
25
28
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
38
EXPOSED
POPULATION
864
3113
744
1418
615
1315
2250
.601
1442
1442
2462
0
597
53
647
246
13163
577
1550 .
1158
0
1599
684
1199
2377
0
578
1745
916
817
2909
759
827
1002
503
503
RATIOS
CEN. TEND.
0
0
0
0.18
0.05
2.45
0
0.39
0
0.01
0.33
0.25
0.19
0
0.01
2.86
0
0.26
0
0
0
0
0.07
0.10
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
AFFECTED POPULATION
HIGH END
0
0
0
0.18
0.08
2.45
0
0.88
0
0.16
11.66
0.47
0.35
0
0.49
17.28
0
181.11
0
0
0
0
0.07
12.78
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.02
0.08
0
0
0
0
POST REQ
0
0
0
0.20
0.24
0.05
0
0.09
0
0.08
0.30
0.02
0.25
0
0.02
0.14
0
0.20
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.19
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.01
0.00
0
0
0
0
CEN. TEND.
0
0
0
''. o
0
1315
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
246
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
TOTAL t66t
SCALED .. . ,{039
HIQH END
0
0
0
0
0
1315
0
0
0
0
2462
0
0
0
0
246
0
577
0
0
0
0
0
1199
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
8799
7571
POST REQ
0
0
0
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: Data presented In this exhibit have been computer genera!;
intaln non-significant figures.
-------
Benefits Page 5-25
(3) Calculate the mean concentration of each constituent at each facility, weighted across the
volume of all TC wastes managed at that facility.
(4) Calculate the unit area where TC wastes are managed.
(5) Estimate emissions due to volatilization and dust entrainment for each constituent at each
facility.
(6) Using an integrated atmospheric dispersion/exposure/risk model, evaluate atmospheric
transport for each constituent Estimate exposures for each constituent at a series of
downwind points corresponding to potential exposure locations. Calculate individual and
population cancer and non-cancer risk.
(7) Simulate the post-regulatory scenario.
The following discussion is keyed to the steps listed above.
Steps 1 through 3. Calculate constituent concentrations. The approach for these steps is
essentially identical to that described for the ground-water risk analysis in section 5.1.1, except
that EPA used total concentrations rather than TCLP concentrations in the air analysis. Exhibit
5-10 presents the facility-averaged waste concentrations for each constituent at each facility, for
both the baseline and post-regulatory scenarios.
Step 4. Calculate the unit area where TC wastes are managed. EPA assumed that (1)
nonwastewater TC wastes are managed in landfills, (2) landfills have a working depth of 4 m, and
(3) the working area can be calculated by dividing annual waste volume (in m3) by 4 m. Unit
area is an input to the emission calculations and dispersion calculations in steps 5 and 6,
\
respectively.
-------
Page 5-26
Step 5. Estimate emissions due to volatilization and dust entrainment for each
constituent at each facility. EPA used the volatilization algorithms first described in Hwang and
Falco (1986)6 and subsequently adopted in the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS) and MMSOILS model. This volatilization model is based on a mass balance of the
chemical that is transported by diffusion in the vapor phase where the vapor phase and soil
adsorbed phases of the chemical are assumed to be in equilibrium. The model is. generally used
for uncovered sites where the contaminant is adsorbed to the soil. The emission rate, N, is
calculated as the average emission rate over a time interval, from time equals 0 to t, as
2 Di 94y3 fj Cs
N - ' x x W
vW Kd XF1
The effective diffusion parameter is calculated as
n «4/3
a
t
" rs\ w / f7
n
The definitions and values of parameters are as follows:
Cs = adsorbed chemical concentration in soil (1,000 rug/kg)
DJ = diffusion coefficient of compound in air (0.1 cm2/s)
H = Henry's law constant (0.2294 dimensionless)
Kg = soil-water partition coefficient (7.0 ml/g)
(using fog of 0.02 and Y^ of 347.6664 ml/g)
N = mass flux (g/s/cm2) (calculated)
R = gas constant (8.2E-05 [atm m3]/[mol K]),
t = time (sec) (scenario dependent)
*Hwang, S.T. and Falco, J.W., "Estimation of Multimedia Exposures Related to Hazardous Waste Facilities,"
Pollutant in a Multimedia Environment, Y. Cohen (ed.), Plenum Press, 1986.
-------
Benefits Page 5-27
XF1 = units conversion factor (106 rag/kg per g/g),
a = effective diffusion parameter (0.00072 cm2/s) (calculated)
6 = porosity (0.437)
ps = particle density of soil (2.65 g/cm3).
-------
Page 5-28
Bei
EXHIBIT 5-10
WASTE CONCENTRATIONS USED FOR AIR CALCULATIONS
FACILITY
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
WASTE VOLUME
<«>)
1,215
6,879
11,400
23,770
2,004
871
CONSTITUENT
BENZENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
BENZENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,4-DICHLOROETHANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
NITROBENZENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(at/kg)
168.1
186451
8612
46629
1699336
24.89
10.61
0.44
0.0021
3533
2535
81616.73
334.05
25.12
10521.67
3.17
2133
0.0007
36975.11
316.02
100000
594.01
274.52
100000
2.69
POST-REGULATORY
CONCENTRATION
(afkS)
10
6
10
6
10
6
6
0.44
0.0021
10
6
6
6
10
36
3.17
6
0.0007
10
6
10
6
6
10
2.69
-------
Benefits
Page 5-29
EXHIBIT 5-10 (cont.)
WASTE CONCENTRATIONS USED FOR AIR CALCULATIONS
FACILITY
NO.
7
8
9
10
WASTE VOLUME
(in*)
725
345
1,984
2,792
CONSTITUENT
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORTOE
CHLOROFORM
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADffiNE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
NITROBENZENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLQROETHYLENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
BENZENE
CHLORDANE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(««*«)
93.41
246943
1223.08
93173
79.86
21232
48.53
369.43
12.04
183.62
28.36
039
0.03
469.44
0.09
5161.79
560.82
111.43
2951.75
2971.53
480.68
4858
886.09
POST-REGULATORY
CONCENTRATION
(ng/k()
6
6
6
6
10
5.6
30
6
6
10
6
039
0.03
14
0.09
6
6
6
10
026
10
36
6
-------
Page 5-30
Bei
Beiwftis
EXHIBIT 5-10 (cont.)
WASTE CONCENTRATIONS USED FOR AIR CALCULATIONS
FAOLTTY
NO.
11
12
13
WASTE VOLUME
<»?)
10,769
1,590
\
6,359
CONSTITUENT
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
BENZENE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
NITROBENZENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
BENZENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORDANE
CHLOROFORM
HEPTACHLOR
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
METHYL CHLOROFORM
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
TOLUENE
TF ; CHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENES (MDCED)
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(os/kg)
0.12
692.12
17,24
9383.89
68.82
0.0001
100000
85.94
0.7
1.76
9289.93
0.19
23.93
0.00007
031
2.19
1.56
0.001
0.6
221
6.94
2.07
5.81
POST-REGULATORY
CONCENTRATION
<>«*«)
0.12
6
6
10
36
0.0001
6
10
0.7
1.76
10
0.19
026
0.00007
0.07
2.19
156
0.001
0.6
237
6
2.07
5.81
-------
Benefits
Page 5-31
EXHIBIT 5-10 (cont.)
WASTE CONCENTRATIONS USED FOR AIR CALCULATIONS .
. FAOLTTY
NO.
14
15
16
17
WASTE VOLUME
889
629
634
96^47
CONSTITUENT
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLENE DffiROMIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NICKEL
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENES (MIXED)
BENZENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORDANE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEPTACHLOR
METHYL CHLOROFORM
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
NITROBENZENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENES (MDCED)
BENZENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(og/kt)
0.01
3190.63
10.81
2020.78
0.07
104.74
1.4
20384.11
11652.1
516.16
24937.63
30.%
209.08
358.72
377.02
21.22
102.81
16.54
25.44
0.13
0.0001
274.82
247.69
109.13
67.86
2237
147.87
POST-REGULATORY
CONCENTRATION
(ng*«)
0.01
10
6
10
0.07
36
1.4
100
10
6
30
10
6
6
io
6
026
6
10
0.07
0.0001
36
14
10
6
2237
10
-------
Page 5-32
Ben
EXHIBIT 5-10 (com.)
WASTE CONCENTRATIONS USED FOR AIR CALCULATIONS
FAOLTTY
NO.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WASTE VOLUME
(»*>
17
4,837
824
780
1,322
103
1,067
CONSTITUENT
BENZENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
U-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORTOE
CHLOROFORM
DICHLOROETHYL ETHER
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADffiNE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORTOE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM
NITROBENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(nsftg)
106.6
0.21
195.05
0.47
0.01
2936.03
11.44
1.02
0.001
0.003
0.21
118.6
88.04
0.05
7815
8.61
30.%
1984.76
172.91
100000
POST-REOULATORY
CONCENTRATION
(BS*C)
10
0.21
6
0.47
0.01
6
6
1.02
0.001
0.003
021
10
6
0.05
6
8.61
10
10
10
10
-------
Benefits
Page 5-33
EXHIBIT 5-10 (cont.)
WASTE CONCENTRATIONS USED FOR AIR CALCULATIONS
FACILITY
NO.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
WASTE VOLUME
(m3)
9342
384
90
11,015
12,000
500
1,279
CONSTITUENT
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENES (MIXED)
BENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
NICKEL
TOLUENE
XYLENES (MIXED)
BENZENE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(Bg/kg)
1317.12
1613.72
0.88
0.92
. 0.01
83.85
884.84
256759
.1.22
255032
1168.4
8041.19
4529.6
355.63
1590.75
51.61
4421.79
POST-REGULATORY
CONCENTRATION
(mgfcg)
6
10
0.88
0.92
0.01
30
10
10
1.22
10
30
10
'36
10
10
10
10
Note: Data presented in this exhibit have been computer generated and contain non-significant figures.
-------
Page 5-34
To predict dust entrainment from wind erosion and vehicular traffic, EPA also used
approaches adopted for the MMSOILS model.7 The equation used to represent the wind
erosion of inhalable particulates, PM10, is
PM10 . = 0.036 (l-VG )
wind
w
F (x) ASXF2
U
t
The empirical equation used to represent the emission factor for particulates, E^ (kg/VKT),
from an uncovered landfill per vehicle kilometers traveled per hour, VKT, is
Emv = 0.36 (1.7) JL x ()°-7 ft0- (5)
mv ' 12 48 ^2.T V 365
The average hourly emission due to vehicle traffic is then estimated as
= 1,000 (glkg) *EmvxVKT (6)
Definitions of parameters used in these equations follow:
AS = area of site (hectares),,
E,^ = emission factor from an unpaved road per vehicle- kilometer of travel (kg/VKT),
F(x) = plotted function (dimensionless),
PM10wind = emission rate for inhalable particulates, less than 10 urn, (g/hr), from wind
erosion
PM 10veb = emission rate for particulates less than 10 urn, (g/hr), from vehicle traffic
7The approach for wind erosion is taken from Cowherd, C. et al., Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Paniculate
Emissions from Surface Contamination, prepared for EPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, 1985. The
source of the approach for dust from vehicular traffic (e.g., trucks unloading washes on a landfill area) is CompUati
Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 4 edl, USEPA/OAQPS, 1985.
-------
Benefits Page 5-35
pe = number of days per year with at least 0.01 inches of precipitation (daysfyear),
S = mean vehicle speed (km/hr),
s = percent silt content of road surface (percent),
uw = mean annual wind speed (m/s),
ut = threshold velocity at 7 m height (m/s), . ,
VG = fraction of contaminated surface with vegetative cover (dimensionless),
VKT = average vehicle kilometers of travel per hour on unpaved road, (# veh. x km/hr),
W = mean vehicle weight (Mg),
w = mean number of wheels per vehicle (#),
x = dimensionless ratio (x=0.886 ut/u),
XF2 = units conversion factor (104 m2/ha).
EPA employed a mass balance check to assure that, on an annual basis, the mass emitted
through volatilization and paniculate entrainment does not exceed the mass disposed of. The
Agency limited emissions due to volatilization based on a simple vapor pressure constraint.
Specifically, EPA back-calculated the emission rate that would be sufficient to produce vapor
saturation given an air flow corresponding to an assumed mixing height of 2 cm, wind velocity of
2.25 m/sec, and unit width calculated as the square root of the unit area. This rate was never
limiting; even if the mixing height is reduced to 2 mm, it would limit emissions for only two
constituent/facility combinations.
EPA used concentrations from the TC Survey database as input for its calculations on
paniculate entrainment EPA assumed that all wastes are similar to soils in terms of properties
relevant to volatilization and wind erosion.
Step 6. Evaluate atmospheric transport, exposure, and risk. For this step, EPA relied
on GAMS (the Graphical Exposure Modeling System [GEMS] Atmospheric Modeling Subsystem)
to evaluate atmospheric transport for each constituent, estimate exposures for each constituent at
a series of downwind points corresponding to potential exposure locations, and calculate
individual and population cancer and non-cancer risk. The following discussion summarizes the
-------
Page 5-36
approach for this step; for a more detailed discussion of GEMS and GAMS, along with an
example of the input specifications and model output for a sample facility, see Appendix H.
GAMS provides an automated link between the location of a facility and the meteorologic
and population data sets needed to estimate atmospheric dispersion and population risk,
respectively. It is based the Industrial Source Complex Model - Long Term (ISCLT) and other
widely accepted and frequently applied atmospheric dispersion and risk assessment models.
GEMS is housed on the VAX Cluster of computers at EPA's National Computer Center (NCC).
GAMS estimates annual average concentrations, annual exposure, and lifetime and annual
cancer risk. For this RIA, EPA modeled the source as a square-shaped area source, with
estimated site-specific area as calculated in step 4. Other methods and assumptions include
Meteorological data. EPA used the facilities' zip codes, as reported in the TC
Survey, as the basis for specifying facility locations. GAMS contains data on the
centroid of each zip code; for this analysis, EPA assumed that facilities are loca
at these centroids. The model can identify all nearby "stability array" meteoroL
stations for which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has
logged data. EPA used meteorological data from the closest available station.
The data cover wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and related
factors.
Exposure assumptions. The Agency assumed that the receptor height is 2 meters
above ground level. For most other exposure-related factors, EPA employed the
default assumptions used in the model's exposure algorithms, i.e., body weight is 70
kg, inhalation rate is 20 m3/day, exposure occurs 24 hours per day, indoor air
concentrations are equal to outdoor concentrations, and receptors are exposed for
the full duration of their lives (70 years). EPA calculated exposures for each
constituent at each facility.
Toxicity data. For carcinogenic constituents, EPA combined the estimated
exposures with cancer potency factors to calculate cancer risk (as a probability).,
-------
Benefits . Page 5-37
For non-carcinogens, EPA calculated the ratio of the predicted dose to the
reference dose (RfDs) the result is termed the "non-cancer risk ratio." For each
site, the Agency summed the cancer risk across all carcinogenic constituents, and
the non-cancer ratio across all non-carcinogens.
Site-specific population data. The Agency used the GEMS Geodata Handling
procedure to obtain 1990 census data within the area circumscribed by a radius of
50 kilometers from the facility centerpoint The 50-km circle is subdivided into
160 sectors, as defined by 16 wind vectors and 10 distances from the source.
GAMS calculates the mean annual average concentration for each sector, and, by
using the exposure assumptions and risk calculation method described above,
estimates the individual risk for receptors in the sector. The model stores
information on the geographic centroid of each census tract; the entire population
of that tract is assumed to bear the risk for the air modeling sector in which the
census tract centroid is located. In this way, EPA calculated the estimated cancer
cases (incremental to the background cancer rate due to other causes) for each
census tract, and summed across these tracts for each facility. For non-
carcinogens, EPA tabulated, for each facility, the number of people with a non-
cancer risk ratio exceeding one.
High-end individual. GAMS employs an algorithm to identify the location with the
highest annual average concentration within the modeling boundary (i.e., within 50
km from the source). For ground-level, ambient-temperature sources such as the
landfills modeled for this RIA, this distance tends to be on the order of 20 to 40
meters from the source8, along the wind vector where the atmosphere is stable
most frequently. EPA calculated the individual risk for a hypothetical receptor at .
this location for each facility.
'The reason it is not closer is that the receptor height is assumed to be 2 m above the ground.
-------
Page 5-38
EPA extrapolated the risks from the 35 (facility-specific results are presented for only 31
facilities because 4 of the facilities were determined to not be generating affected wastes in 1995)
modeled facilities to the universe of 47 facilities managing TC nonwastewaters and soils.
Uncertainty is introduced by this extrapolation; the risks at the 12 facilities that were not modeled
may be higher or lower than risks at the facilities that were modeled.
Step 7. Simulate the regulatory alternatives. In this step, EPA reset the bulk
concentrations in steps 1 through 3 with concentrations that would leach at the universal
treatment standard concentrations. EPA then recalculated risks; the incremental risk reduction
between the baseline and the post-regulatory scenario is the human health benefit, for the
atmospheric pathway, for the regulation.
5.2.2 Results
Exhibits 5-11 and 5-12 provide results for the air pathway, for the baseline and post- ^^
regulatory scenario. In the baseline, 26 of the 35 modeled faculties (74 percent) have individil^B
cancer risks exceeding 10"6 at the high-end individual location: 16 have risks between 10"6 and 10*
4, and 10 facib'ties have risks greater than 10"4. The highest value is 5 x 10"3.
For the high-end individual location, the non-cancer risk ratio exceeds one at only one
facility.
The final regulation effectively reduces individual cancer risk. At the high-end individual
location, eight facilities have risks exceeding 10"6; the highest individual risk is 8 x 10*6. Doses of
all non-carcinogens are well below reference doses.
Exhibit 5-13 presents total population risks for cancer and non-cancer affects, and Exhibit
5-14 presents facility-specific cancer risks. As with the high-end individual, the regulation
effectively reduces virtually all of the baseline population risk of cancer and non-cancer effects.
The Agency conducted some sensitivity analysis on emission rates, which directly affect
estimated risks. Based on the work EPA did on the proposed and final rule RIAs, the Agency
has determined that estimated risks are more sensitive to underlying estimates of volatilization
release rates. The emission rate for volatilization far exceeds the rate for release via dust
-------
EXHIBIT 5-11
Lifetime High-end Individual Cancer Risk via Air Inhalation Pathway
CO
fc
1E-01
IE-02
1E-03
§ 1E-04
u
13
o 1E-°5
I
A IE-06
g
IE-08
1E-09
I
.1.
I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Facilities
70%
80%
90%
100%
Baseline Post-Regulatory
-------
EXHIBIT 5-12
High-end Individual Non-Cancer Risk Ratio via Air Inhalation Pathway
I
2
1E402
1E+01
1E+00
!"
u
c
IE-01
1E-02
!2 IE-03
>
1E-04
IE-OS
I
I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Facilities
70%
80%
90%
100%
Baseline Post-Regulatory
-------
Benefits
Page 5-41
EXHmiT 5-13
POPULATION RISK VIA AIR INHALATION PATHWAY
1
Baseline Risk
Post-regulatory Risk
Risk Reduction: Baseline .
minus post-regulatory risk
. Estimated Annual Cancer
Cases
3.7E-02
1.8E-04
3.6E-02
Estimated Population
Exposed Above Reference
Dose
768
0
768
entrainment for almost all constituents in this analysis, and thus the sensitivity analysis focuses on
volatile emissions.
Subtitle C permits usually require daily cover for land disposal units. The analysis assumed
all units were uncovered, overstating the rate of volatilization. On the other hand, EPA also
assumed that the waste is deposited in the landfill only one time per year, at the beginning of the
year, rather than being replenished periodically. In the volatilization algorithm used in this
analysis, the time-weighted average emission rate is inversely proportional to the square root of
the duration of the averaging period. In other words, the shorter the time period of interest, the
higher the emission rate for that period, all else being equal. The assumptions on cover and
frequency of waste deposition interact in a complex way, and to some extent may offset each
other.
Exhibit 5-15 shows the relationship between volatilization rate and (1) the frequency with
which waste is placed and (2) the duration for which the waste is left uncovered. The first row
shows the conditions used in the analysis (i.e., waste deposited once per year and left uncovered);
subsequent rows show how emissions would vary under different assumption!; on how frequently
the waste is placed and how lor., waste is left uncovered For purposes of calculating relative
emission rates in this table, emissions while the waste is covered are assumed to be zero. Note
that this sensitivity analysis assumed that the active area of the waste disposal unit does not
-------
EHHIBIT5-14
FACILITY-SPECIFIC CANCER AIR RISK RESULTS
Annual Cancer Cases in Sample
Annual Cancer Cases In Universe:
-------
Benefits
Page 5-43
change, but that the depth bf the waste does. In cases of very frequent waste disposal, this
assumption becomes lass and less realistic, as the depth of waste would get thinner and thinner.
EXHIBIT 5-15
VOLATILIZATION RATES
Frequency of Waste Placement
(times per year)
1
250
52
33
12
4
250
52
33
12
4
Duration Wastes are Uncovered
(per placement)
1 vear
8 hours
8 hours
8 hours
8 hours
8 hours
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
Emission Rate Relative to Rate
Used in the Analysis
1.0
15
1.6
1.0
036
0.12
53
1.1
, 0.71
0.26
0.09
In the TC Survey, EPA did not collect information on the frequency of waste deposition
and the duration waste is uncovered. As the table shows, as the waste is placed more frequently
and left uncovered for longer periods, the emission rate is higher and thus the baseline risks (and
benefits of the rule) are higher. If waste is placed every operating day, and is left uncovered for 4
to 8 hours (or longer), then the baseline risks and benefits would be higher than those described
earlier in this section. At a waste placement frequency of about once per week, if the wastes are
uncovered for about 4 to 8 hours, the baseline risks are roughly the same as those described
above. If the wastes are placed less frequently, (e.g., quarterly or monthly), then the baseline
risks and benefits may have been overstated in the results described above.
In addition to the general analytic limitations described in section 5.4.2, one caveat 'is
particularly important for the sensitivity analysis on volatile emissions. The algorithm used to
estimate emissions is based on an assumption that there is an infinite depth of contaminated soil
which acts as the source of volatilization. Holding the area of the waste management unit and
the volume of waste annually deposited in the unit constant, as the frequency of waste deposition
-------
Page 5-44 Ben
increases, the layer of contaminated waste becomes thinner^and thinner, and .the infinite depth
assumption becomes less and less valid. As a result, applying the algorithm to the scenarios with
frequent waste deposition (e.g., 250 times per year) is a less valid application than those for less
frequent waste deposition, and the estimated emission rates for the high-frequency scenarios may
overstate emissions.
S3 EFFECT OF LDRs ON PROPERTY VALUES
This section discusses another potential benefit of treating toxicity characteristic (TC)
nonwastewaters. Treating these wastes may allow them to be disposed of in Subtitle D (non-
hazardous) waste facilities rather than in Subtitle C (hazardous) waste facilities, and may reduce
the total number of hazardous waste sites required. Both kinds of waste sites are disamenities;
they impose costs on the surrounding residents, including health risks and nuisance effects like
noise, odor, and traffic. However, since hazardous waste sites are perceived by the public as
riskier than non-hazardous sites, the costs they impose are higher. Replacing hazardous waste
sites with non-hazardous waste sites would then produce a benefit for residents, near these si
EPA has conducted a preliminary analysis of these potential benefits, described in this
section. The costs imposed by waste sites have been estimated in numerous studies through their
effect on surrounding residential property values. Property values reflect the effects of
surrounding amenities and disamenities and can be used to estimate the values of these effects to
residents. EPA has based its analysis of the potential property value benefits of TC waste
treatment on a review of these studies.
53.1 Methodology
The studies EPA reviewed use hedonic analysis to estimate the effect of waste sites on
property value. The premise of hedonic property value analysis is that housing prices are
determined by a range of attributes of the house, its site, and its neighborhood. The technique
uses multiple regression analysis to determine the separate effects of each factor on housing price.
If one attribute included in the analysis is an environmental characteristic, the effect of that
characteristic on price can be used to estimate the benefits from changes in the level of that
characteristic (e.g. a change in the level of air pollution or in the distance to a waste site).
-------
Benefits ' Page 5-45
One of the attributes captured in a bedonics study is how the level of potential personal
health risk affects housing prices. In capturing health risk as an attribute that affects housing
prices, the study double-counts potential benefits quantified for health risk from the ground-water
and air pathways. Therefore, the study presented in the RIA is a supplemental benefits analysis,
not meant to be added to other beneGts quantified for the Phase n rule.
Many analyses exist on the.effect of waste sites on property value. Some have studied
hazardous waste sites and some non-hazardous waste sites. However EPA is aware of only one
study, by Thayer et al.,9 that explicitly compares the effects of these two kinds of sites. EPA has
therefore based its analysis on this study. Thayer et al. use the hedonic method to determine the
effect of distance from hazardous and non-hazardous waste sites on housing purchase prices.
They use a data set from Baltimore, Maryland, containing 2,323 observations of housing
transactions. Data on waste facilities are from EPA records of treatment, storage and disposal
facilities. The authors first estimate the effect of all waste sites on housing value, measured in
dollars per mile. They then use dummy variables to distinguish the effects of hazardous and non-
hazardous waste sites.
The basic results of the Thayer study are comparable to those of other studies. As
distance from any waste site (hazardous or non-hazardous) increases, housing value increases, all
other factors held constant. Thayer et al. estimate an increase of $1,300 to $1,700 per mile
(depending on the functional form of the regression equation). Other hedonic property value
studies that EPA reviewed showed estimates in the range of $2,000 to $5,000 per mile for
hazardous and non-hazardous waste sites. Given the inherent variation in the results of bedonic
property value studies, Thayer et al.'s findings are similar to those of other authors. The fact that
they are somewhat lower than the other studies surveyed suggests that EPA's use of the Thayer
study may yield conservative estimates of the property value benefits of hazardous waste
treatment
EPA defined a specific scenario to evaluate the potential benefits of treating TC
nonwastewaters. Using information from the TC Survey, EPA identified 47 facilities expected to
generate TC nonwastewaters, soil and debris in 1995. EPA eliminated the 17 commercial facilities
*Tbayer, Mark, Heidi Alters, and Morteza Rahraatian, The Benefits of Reducing Exposure to Waste Disposal Sites:
A Hedonic Housing Value Approach," unpublished paper. .
-------
Page 5-46 Be\
(including CBI facilities) from this group, assuming that commercial facilities would continue to
manage a variety of wastes, including hazardous wastes. The remaining 30 facilities were
industrial sites, likely to be managing fewer wastestreams on site. For the purpose of estimation,
EPA assumed that each of these 30 Subtitle C sites would be replaced with or convert to a
Subtitle D facility. In effect, this approach assumes that the Thayer et al. study's hazardous waste
facilities can be equated with Subtitle C land disposal facilities.
The results of the Thayer study suggest that, for each owner-occupied house within a one-
mile radius of a facility, replacing the Subtitle C site with a Subtitle D site would result in a
benefit of $517 dollars. The mean value of houses in the study sample was $105,600, so this
benefit is equivalent to 0.49 percent of the Value of each house. Using U.S. Census Bureau
data,10 EPA estimated the value and density (i.e., houses per square mile) of owner-occupied
houses in the region in which each site is located. From these data, EPA calculated the expected
number of houses within one mile of each site, the expected benefit per household for each site,
and total benefits for each site. For example, one facility in the TC Survey is located in Port
Arthur, Texas. EPA estimates that the average density of houses in EPA's Region VI is 425
per square mile, or 1,335 houses within a circle with a one-mile radius. An estimate of the
average value of a house in Region VI is $72,000; 0.49 percent of this value (the expected benefit
per household) is $350. Thus, the total estimated benefit for this facility is about $470,000. The
sum of benefits across all 30 sites produced an estimate of the total property value benefit of
treating the TC wastes.
53.2 Results
Exhibit 5-16 shows the results of this preliminary analysis. EPA estimates benefits per
house of TC waste treatment ranging from $320 to $450 for houses near the 27 facilities, and
benefits per facility ranging from $470,000 to $1.1 million. The total benefits, summed across
facilities, are estimated to be about $20 million (1993 dollars).
"U-S. Department of Commerce, US. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey.
for numbers of owner-occupied houses in U.S. cities (data from 1987 through 1990 used); U.S. Department of
Commerce, County and City Data Book: 1983. for land area of corresponding cities. Dollars convened from year of
. survey dollars to 1993 dollars using the bousing price index reported in U, £..Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business. I
-------
Benefits Page 5-47
EXHIBIT 5-16
ANALYSIS OF PROPERTY VALUE
EFFECTS OF TC WASTE TREATMENT
Measure
House Density
(Houses per Square Mile)
House Value ($)
Benefit Per House ($)
Benefit Per Facility
($ million)
TOTAL BENEFITS
($ million)
Value
430-1,100
64,000 - 92,000
320 - 450
0.47-1.1
20
5.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS
This analysis is subject to many limitations, some of which tend to understate benefits,
others to overstate benefits, and some introducing uncertainty, but having no clear bias either
way. Below, EPA lists some of the principal limitations of the analysis, and notes the likely
direction of bias where it is known. .
5.4.1 Ground Water Risk Analysis
Factors that overstate benefits:
The DAF distribution used to estimate baseline risks was determined by beginning
with the Subtitle D DAF distribution derived for the TC rule and adjusting it to
represent a Subtitle C landfill with some degree of failure. The failure
assumptions used simplify an extremely complex set of phenomena and have the
effect of applying a scaling factor to the DAFs. EPA considers it likely that the
assumptions tend to underestimate the true effectiveness of Subtitle C
containment. This assumption tended to overestimate the baseline risks, while the
-------
Page 5-48
post-regulatory risks were not affected. Thus the total ground-water benefits were
probably overstated.
The infinite source and steady-state assumptions used to develop the original
DAFs for the TC rale are conservative. In reality, there may not be sufficient
mass of constituent to act as an infinite source of contaminant. (A related point is
that although the Agency did provide a mass balance check within the air risk
pathway, it did not design the analysis to produce an inter-media mass balance
check, i.e., it did not constrain mass so that the sum of air emissions and leachate
releases must be less than the total mass of constituents disposed). Moreover, it
may take centuries or millennia to attain equilibrium concentrations in a ground-
water system, so the baseline risks may not occur until some point in the very
distant future.
The approach does not account for ground-water monitoring and corrective
in the baseline. Existing regulations require that hazardous waste land disposal
units conduct monitoring during the operating, closure, and post-closure periods.
If containment systems fail while the monitoring is underway, and contamination is
detected in ground water, this would trigger corrective action. The corrective
action program would reduce risks, thus reducing the baseline risk level. Thus, the
benefits of the LDRs are overstated to the extent that the baseline risks are
reduced by corrective action.
The approach does not take into account the effect of taste or odor thresholds, or
water supply monitoring, which can alert receptors to the presence of
contaminants and can lead to a halt in exposures. Therefore, the approach
calculates risks for cases where exposure is unlikely to occur (i.e., the contaminant
would be detectable by routine public water supply monitoring, and so the water
would not be consumed). This effect will be more significant in the baseline case
because the concentrations are higher. Therefore, the baseline risks may tend
-------
Benefits Page 5-49
be overestimated and the approach may tend to overestimate the benefits of the
rule.
Approximately 72 percent of the estimated ground-water population cancer risk
comes from a wastestream that is approximately 95 percent PCBs. As PCB
isomers have a high soil-water partition coefficient, and thus cannot be expected to
migrate any appreciable distance in ground water, the use of a generic DAF (i.e.,
not a constituent-specific DAF) would result in an over-estimation of the benefits
for this wastestream, and thus for the rule. However, the Agency does have
reason to believe that PCBs migrate in soil when they are in the presence of
solvents, and the remaining five percent of this particular wastestream does contain
solvents.
The central tendency estimate for the groundwater pathway has been overstated by
employing an assumption of two liters per day rather than using 1.4 liters per day.
The DAF distribution used in the RIA was not mathematically corrected to extend
from the one mile distance used in the TC analysis to the two miles used for this
analysis. Therefore, EPA performed a sensitivity analysis reanalyzing the ground-
water risk, considering only wells within a one-mile radius. The alterations and
results of this analysis are provided in Appendix K of the RIA. In summary, the
revision changed the central tendency cancer cases per year from 0.22 to 0.18, and
changed the non-cancer exposed population from 2,038 to 1,136.
Factors that understate benefits:
One assumption in estimating the post-regulatory risks was that the leachate
concentration could be represented by the universal standard for each constituent.
Because the universal standard represents a maximum allowable concentration in
the post-regulatory case, it is possible that safety factors in the treatment process
-------
Page 5-50
9eyj^
or treatment of other constituents may reduce constituent concentrations to below
the universal standards for some constituents. In these cases, our approach will
underestimate the benefits of the rule.
The TC capacity database did not provide comprehensive data for each of the
regulated facilities. Because EPA's approach focused on the highest-risk
constituent for each facility, additional information on relatively low-level
constituents would not be significant However, the exclusion of high-
concentration or more toxic constituents would tend to underestimate baseline
risks and thus underestimate benefits.
Factors with an indeterminate effect on benefits:
Leachate concentrations in the environment are assumed to be equal to TCLP
concentrations reported in the TC survey. It is not clear how closely the
simulates actual long-term leaching behavior.
The EPACML model used to calculate the DAF distribution assumes steady-state
ground-water flow in a homogeneous, isotropic medium. Because exposures to
contaminated ground water may be time sensitive, and because actual
hydrogeologic conditions are often complex, this approach is limited in its ability to
account for these factors. The steady-state assumption tends to overstate actual
exposure concentrations; the direction of bias associated with assuming
homogeneous, isotropic media is not known.
The DAF distribution used in this analysis was calculated by examining the
environmental and exposure parameters associated with Subtitle D landfills. While
the DAF was adjusted to account for the increased effectiveness of a Subtitle C
landfill to limit leachate flow, the distribution was still fundamentally based on
Subtitle D data. Differences in location and surrounding land use between
-------
Benefits Page 5-51
Subtitle D and Subtitle C landfills may result in differences to the DAF
distribution. The direction and magnitude of the effects of these differences is
uncertain.
5.4.2 Air Risk Analysis
Factors that overstate benefits:
This analysis assumed that all constituent mass was available for volatilization. In
reality, only a portion of the mass would volatilize because some would leach into
ground water or be transported by surface runoff.
EPA did not estimate the air emissions and risks attributable to the treatment of
waste in the post-regulatory alternatives. '
EPA assumed that indoor air concentration are equal to outdoor concentrations.
In some situations, indoor air concentrations are not equal to outdoor air
concentrations. This can occur when (1) there is an indoor source of pollutant in
which case concentrations are higher indoors, .(2) the pollutant is extremely
reactive (e.g., ozone) and degrades rapidly indoors, and (3) the pollutant is from
an outdoor source, and is associated with particulates. In the latter case,
concentrations are often lower indoors than outdoors. Most of the emissions of
concern for the Phase H LDR RIA are volatile emissions. None of the
constituents is extremely reactive, and the source is not indoors. Thus, it is
reasonable to assume that indoor air concentrations are equal to outdoor air
concentrations. Nevertheless, this assumption may slightly overstate baseline risks
and benefits.
EPA assumed continuous exposures over a seventy-year period. Over the course
^
of the period, many people would spend much of their time away from home, and
-------
Page 5-52
many others would move to a different location. Thus, this assumption would
overstate baseline risk (and risk reduction benefits) for these people.
One of the facilities modeled to estimate air benefits includes a large wastestream
generated from the clean-out of a surface impoundment. Because this stream is
not expected to be generated in 1995, benefits associated with emissions from the
stream will tend to overestimate the benefits of the rule.
Factors that understate benefits:
The analysis assumes one wastestream per facility. To compute constituent
concentrations for this one wastestream, EPA averaged the concentrations of each
constituent across all TC wastestreams at the facility. This generally decreased the
A
concentration of a given constituent, often below TC regulatory levels, because
concentrations were averaged across even those wastestreams that do not cont
the constituent.
Factors with an indeterminate effect on benefits:
The population risks were linearly extrapolated from the 35 facilities modelled to
the 47 facilities known to exist in the universe. Risks at the 12 facilities not
modelled might be over- or understated, depending on how well the sample
represents their waste volumes, constituent concentrations, and other factors.
Approximately one-half of the TC wastes are sludges or debris, and these materials
will volatilize organics differently than soil. However, EPA simulated air emissions
by modeling all waste material as soil. For some sludges this is a reasonable
assumption, while for other sludges and debris the assumption is less valid.
-------
Benefits Page 5-53
The volatilization model assumes an infinite depth of contamination. Although the
mass balance check in the analysis prevents more mass from volatilizing than is
*
present in the unit, the limitations inherent to the volatilization model apply to the
analysis.
Unit area was assumed to equal the annual volume of waste managed divided by a
depth of four meters. Unit areas are therefore likely to have been over- and
underestimated. The area is a key variable in the analysis, especially for the dust
entrainment computation.
EPA simulated air risks by assuming facility-specific population distributions and by
assuming on-site. landfill disposal. However, the Agency determined that
approximately 47 percent of the TC nonwastewaters were being managed in
surface impoundments according to the 1992 TC survey. Because most of these
impoundments are expected to close, these wastes are likely to be send to off-site
locations for landfill disposal. The Agency, therefore, examined the benefit results
for the air pathway for 95 percent of the volume that was assigned to surface
impoundment management by the 1C Survey. This volume was responsible for
approximately 4 percent of the incremental benefits for the air pathway.
Therefore, given available data, EPA believes that the uncertainty with regard to
disposal location has no practical effect on the air benefits pathway results.
The Agency 11 modeled land treatment units as landfills to calculate air emissions.
This may either under- or over-state the risks from these facilities.
-------
Page 5-54
Ben^u
5.4.3 Property Value Analysis
As discussed in section 5.3, this is a preliminary analysis and EPA presents it to illustrate
the scale of potential property value benefits from TC waste treatment, rather than to measure
these benefits precisely. The analysis has the following specific limitations:
Factors that overstate benefits:
A major assumption in the analysis is that it assumes that the effect of the LDRs
for TC wastes can be represented as a conversion of Subtitle C to Subtitle D sites.
Estimates of the numbers of houses near.facilities were based on estimates of
house density in metropolitan areas. For sites in small towns or rural areas, these
estimates may overstate the actual numbers of houses affected.
Factors that understate benefits:
The distance beyond which waste sites have no significant effect on housing prices
is uncertain. This analysis assumes no effect occurs beyond one mile from sites;
other assumptions could significantly increase estimates of benefits.
Factors with an indeterminate effect on benefits:
The analysis is based on one study using data from one city, Baltimore, Maryland.
The hedonic method itself produces uncertain results. Though it is widely used
and accepted, practitioners recognize that its results may vary significantly
-------
Benefits Page 5-55
depending on the data and analytical methods used, residents' perceptions of
environmental effects, and other factors.11
Housing density and value data were not available for each town or city where
facilities were located. Instead, EPA used data for major cities reported in the
American Housing Survey since 1987, and averaged these data for this analysis.
llSee for example Pearce, David W. and Anil Markandya, Environmental Policy Benefits: Monetary Valuation. Paris:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1989.
-------
APPENDIX A
TC SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWI Y-iOENTIFIED
ORGANIC WASTES EXHIBITING THE TOXICITY CHAHACTERISTIC
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Survey
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is currently
developing regulations that will restrict the land
disposal of certain wastes exhibiting the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) (i.e., newly-
identified organic TC wastes: RCRA codes
0018 through 0043). In preparation for the
land disposal restrictions (LDRs) of these
wastes, OSW is conducting a capacity analysis
to identify 1) the volume of newly-identified
organic TC wastes that will require treatment
as a result of the LORs, and 2) the availability
of treatment/recovery systems to manage
newly-identified organic TC wastes to meet
treatment standards. The results of this
analysis will be used to support EPA's
determination on whether to grant a national
capacity variance from the statutory date of the
LORs for newly-identified organic TC wastes.1
To estimate the quantity of newly-identified
organic TC wastes that are currently land
disposed and, therefore, may require treatment
upon promulgation of the LDRs, OSW is
conducting a focused data collection effort
This effort consists of a questionnaire for
facilities with land disposal units that are
permitted or have interim status to land
dispose the newly-identified organic TC
wastes. [NOTE: LAND DISPOSAL UNITS REFER
TO UNITS USED TO TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE
HAZARDOUS WASTES IN OR ON THE LAND.
LAND DISPOSAL UNITS INCLUDE LANDFILLS,
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, LAND TREATMENT
UNITS, WASTE PILES, AND UNDERGROUND
INJECTION WELLS.] Under Section 3007 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), 42 USC 6927, you are required to
provide EPA with the information requested in
this questionnaire.
The purpose of this data collection effort is
to determine 1) the volumes of newly-identified
organic TC wastes that will require treatment
as a result of the LDRs. and 2) the availability
of on-site treatment and recovery systems to
manage newly-identified organic TC wastes.
(EPA is undertaking a separate effort to
evaluate the commercial availability of
treatment and recovery systems to manage
newly-identifjf 3 ar^snic TC wastes.)
How We P|«n to Collect thi* Information
We have prepared this questionnaire as a
guide for data collection. The questions in
each section of the questionnaire suggest a
format to present the answers. We expect
respondents to provide the data in the most
convenient means available. Examples of
alternative ways to answer the questionnaire
include sending computer printouts or copies
of internal records and downloading electronic
data -
We are providing contractor support to
assist facilities in responding to the
questionnaire and we plan to work closely with
you. Prakash Ramaswamy of ICF Incorporated
has already contacted your facility and will
serve as your primary contact. After you have
read through the questionnaire, but before you
begin to assemble the information, we
encourage you to contact Prakash
Ramaswamy at (703) 934-3426. Also, please
feel free to call Bengie Carroll or Pan Lee, U.S.
EPA, Capacity Programs Branch at (703) 308-
8440.
Who Should Respond
' "
Only facilities that have managed the newly-
identified organic TC wastes in land disposal
1The LDRs are effective when promulgated unless the Administrator grants a national capacity variance from
me otherwise applicable date and establishes a different date (not to exceed two yeairs bayond the statutory
deadline) based on...the earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity which
protects human health and the environment will be available (RCRA Section 3004(h)(2)). Case-by-case extensions
of the variance may also be granted to facilities demonstrating that there is a binding contractual commitment to
construct or otherwise provide alternative capacity but due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control,
alternative capacity cannot reasonably be made available by the effective date (RCRA Section 3004(n)(3)).
-------
units in 1991, including TC-corttaminated soil
and detoris,, sftoukJ complete this
questionnaire. Newty-tdentjfied organic TC
wastes are defined as those wastes that have
an EPA hazardous waste code of DOIB
through 0043 in 40 CFR 261.24. Each waste
code corresponds to an organic constituent
determined by the-Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to exceed the
promulgated regulatory level. The codes and
corresponding constituents are listed in
Appendix A.
Facilities that do not land dispose newly-
identified organic TC wastes (Le., do not
dispose, store, or treat newly-identified organic
TC wastes in landfills, surface impoundments,
land treatment units, waste piles, or
underground injection wells) only need to
complete Section I of this questionnaire.
When to Return this Questionnaire
Please plan to complete the questionnaire
within three weeks of receipt and mail it back
in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.
Where to Return this Questionnaire
In the event that the enclosed envelope is
misplaced, the address you should return the
questionnaire to is:
ICF incorporated. Room 815
9300 Lee Highway
Fairfax, Virginia 22031-1207
Fax:(703)934-9740
Ann: Prakash Ramaswamy
Organization of the Questionnaire .
This questionnaire is organized into five
sections and four appendices:
Section I General Fadfitv Information:
General information on your facility;.
Section II Land Disposal Unas: Information
on existing land disposal units used
in 1991 to manage newly-identified
organic TC wastes;
Section HI Newlv-ldentified Organic TC Waste
Streams Managed in Land Disposal
Units: Information on wastes
exhibiting a newly-identified organic.
TC that are managed in on-srte
land disposal units;
tem^c
Section IV Treatment or Recovery SysterrTTFor
Managing Newly-Identified Organic
TC Wastes: Information on
treatment or recovery systems that
are used or could be used to
manage newly-identified organic TC
wastes, including soil and debris;
Section V Additional Information: Information
on future changes in the generation
and management of newly-
identified organic TC wastes;
Appendix A Newly-Identified Organic TC
Hazardous Waste Codes and
Their Constituents:
Appendix B . Potential Organic TC Treatment
or Recovery Systems:
Appendix C Debris Types: and
Appendix D Sample Block Diagrams. .
Confidentiality
The information that you provide in'
questionnaire will be handled in accordance
with RCRA Section 3007(b). 40 CFR Part 2,
and 40 CFR Part 260.2 which establish EPA's
general policy regarding public disclosure of
information. Information may be submitted as
Confidential Business Information (CBI) in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 2.203(b).
Information covered by a claim of CBI will be
treated in accordance with the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. However.
information not covered by a CBI claim may be
made available to the public without prior
notice to the business.
If you wish to submit information as CBI.
please send your response to at the following
address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.. Mail Code OS-312
Washington, D.C. 20460
Ana: Margaret Lee, Room SE-264
Thank you for your help.
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ID* 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section I. GENERAL FACILITY INFORMATION
1. Facility Name
2, Facility EPA ID Number
3. Facility Mailing Address
City, town, etc.
State
Zip Code
County
4. Facility Location (if different).
City, town, etc.
State
Zip Code
County
5. Person to contact regarding responses to this questionnaire
Name
Title
Phone .
6. During 1991, did the facility place any newly-identified organic TC wastes (i.e., wastes
having the EPA hazardous waste codes of D018 through 0043) in a land disposal unit?1
LJ Yes: Go to question 7.
\
LJ No: Return the questionnaire. Thank you for your cooperation.
1Land disposal units refer to units used to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes in or on
the land. Land disposal units include landfills, surface impoundments, land treatment units, waste
piles, and underground injection wells.
Pagel
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ID* 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section I. GENERAL FACILITY INFORMATION (corrUnuwJ)
7. Provide simple block diagrams (i.e., schematics) of relevant systems relating to the
generation and/or management of wastes exhibiting an organic toxicity characteristic (TC):
Indicate any operations or processes that involve newly-identified organic TC wastes (e.g.,
generation, handling, treatment, and disposal). The block diagrams are a tool to organize
data collection and allow us to understand, at a glance, your faculty's operations. (Please
refer to Appendix D for sample block diagrams.)
Page 2
-------
Form Approved
OMfi No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |Q» Q121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILTTTES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section II. UNO DISPOSAL UNITS
This section requests information on the land disposal units at your facility. For the capacity
analysis, we compare the total volume of wastes that are placed in or on the land prior to the effective
date of the standard with the total national capacity capable of meeting the LOR treatment standards.
The data you provide will be used to determine the volumes of wastes that are placed in or on the
land. We will use your responses on specific units to determine whether the volumes managed in the
units will be included in the demand for needed treatment as a result of the LDFts. For example,
volumes of wastes disposed in units with approved no-migration petitions can continue to be
managed in the land disposal unit and will not require treatment as a result of the LDRs. Whereas,.
the volumes of TC wastes disposed untreated in landfills wffl require treatment
Copy and complete the relevant part of Section II for each land disposal unit that was used in 1991 to
manage organic TC wastes: A) Landfills; B) Land Treatment Units; C) Surface Impoundments; D) Waste
Piles; and E) Underground Injection Wells. Assign a unique number to each unit and indicate the
number on each page. Please note that throughout this section, the term TC wastes refers to the
newly-identified organic TC wastes.
8. Type of land disposal units at your facility used to manage wastes exhibiting the newly-
identified organic TC: (Check all that apply and complete the relevant sections)
LJ Landfill (Complete Section A lor each landfill)
LJ Land Treatment Unit (Complete Section Bfor each land treatment unit)
LJ Surface Impoundment (Complete Section C for each surface impoundment
LJ Waste Pile (Complete Section D for each waste pile)
LJ Underground Injection Well (Complete Section E for each underground injection welt)
Page 3
-------
Form Ap rjved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |Q» 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section II. LAND DISPOSAL UNYTS {continued)
A. Landfills
Landfill Unit No.
Answer the following questions for each active hazardous waste landfill at the site that received
newtv-identified organic TC wastes during 1991.
9. Commercial status of the landfill: (Check all that apply)
LJ The landfill is only available for management of hazardous waste generated on site.
Lj The landfill is available only to firms owned by the same company.
LJ The landfill is available to a limited group of establishments for commercial hazardous
waste management
LJ The landfill is available to any firm or establishment for commercial hazardous waste
management.
lO.a) Total quantity of hazardous wastes disposed in 1991:
Quantity: tons gallons (circle one)
b) Permitted capacity remaining after December 31,1991:
Quantity: : tons gallons (circle one)
Page 4
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY !D# 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEW.Y-*tgtfii. 9 ORGANIC TC WASTiS
Section II. LAND DISPOSAL UNITS (continued)
B. Land Treatment. Unite
Land Treatment Unit No.
Answer the following questions Jor each land treatment unit at the site that received newly-
identified organic TC wastes during 1991.
11. Commercial status of the land treatment unit: (Check all that apply)
LJ The land treatment unit is only available for management of hazardous waste generated
on site.
The land treatment unit is available only to firms owned by the same company.
LJ The land treatment unit is available to a limited group of establishments for commercial
hazardous waste management
LJ The land treatment unit is available to any firm or establishment for commercial
hazardous waste management
12. No-migration petition status for this unit: (Specify one of the following categories)
LJ A no-migration petition has not been submitted for this unit and there are no plans to
do so.
LJ Date no-migration petition was submitted:
a) What is the status of the petition? (Check one)
Approved.
Rejected or withdrawn.
Pending.
bX Does the approved or pending no-migration petition allow for management of TC
wastes in this unit?
Yes.
No.
LJ Facility" intends to submit a no-migration petition for this unit but has not done so at the
present time.
a) Expected submission date of the petition:
b) Does the approved or pending no-migration petition allow for management of TC
wastes in this unit?
Yes.
No. .
Page 5
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ID» 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FAOUT7ES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIEO ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section II. UNO DISPOSAL UNITS (continued)
C. Surface Impoundments
Surface Impoundment No._
Answer the following questions for each surface impoundment at the site that received newty-
identified organic TC wastes during 1991.
13. Type of surface impoundment: (Check all that appty)
LJ Storage
LjTreatment (specify the type Of treatment using Appendix B codes or by describing
system):
CD Disposal
14. Commercial status of the surface impoundment: (Check all that apply)
LjTne surface impoundment is only available for management of hazardous waste
generated on site.
LjTne surface impoundment is available only to firms owned by the same company.
LJThe surface impoundment is available to a limited group of establishments for
commercial hazardous waste management
LJTne surface impoundment is available to any firm or establishment for commercial
hazardous waste management
Page 6
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |p» Q121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section II. LAND DISPOSAL UNITS (continued)
C. Surface Impoundments (continued) ' '
Surface Impoundment No..
15. Status of surface impoundment with respect to minimum technological requirements:
(Check all that applfi -
LJ Meets minimum technological requirements. (Proceed to next land disposal unit)
LJ Retrofitted to meet minimum technological requirements on (provide date).
(Proceed to next land disposal unit)
LJWill be retrofitted to meet minimum technological requirements.
Date when retrofitting wfll be completed: (Proceed to next land disposal
unit)
LjHas applied for a waiver from retrofitting. What is the status of the application?
Pending
Rejected
(Proceed to next land disposal unit)
LjHas received a waiver from retrofitting. Provide basis for waiver:
(Proceed to next land disposal unit)
LjPlan to close prior to effective date of minimum technological requirements (i.e., March
25, 1994). (Proceed to next land disposal unit)
CHwas closed by end of 1991.
What was the date of closure? _ ; _ '. _ ; _
(Continue to question 16)
be closed by 1995.
What is the expected date of dosure?
(Continue to question 16)
be closed after 1995.
What is the expected date of dbsure?
(Continue to question 16)
Page?
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Form Apr >" 3
OMB No.
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ID* 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WAST"
Section II. LAND DISPOSAL UNITS (continued)
D. Waste Piles
Waste Pile No.
Answer the following questions for each waste pile unit at the site that received newly-identified
organic TC wastes during 1991.
18. Type of waste pile:
tJ Storage
LJ Treatment (specify by using Appendix B codes or written description)
19. Commercial status of the waste pile: (Check all that apply)
LJ The waste pile is only available for management of hazardous waste generated on site.
LJ The waste pile is available only to firms owned by the same company.
LJ The waste pile is available to a limited group of establishments for commercial
hazardous waste management
LJ The waste pile is available to any firm or establishment for commercial hazardous waste
management
20. No-migration petition status for this unit: (Specify one of the following categories)
LJ A no-migration petition has not been submitted for this unit, and there are no plans to
. do so.
LJ Date no-migration petition was submitted:
a) Status of the petition: (Check one)
Approved.
" Rejected or withdrawn.
Pending.
b) Does the approved or pending no-migration petition allow for management of TC
wastes in this unit?
._Yes.
No. .
LJ Facility intends to submit a no-migration petition for this unit, but has not done so at the
present time. .
a) Expected submission date of the petition:.
b) Does the approved or pending no-migration petition allow for management of TC
wastes in this unit?
Yes.
No.
Pane 9
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |Q» 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section IL LAND DISPOSAL UNITS (continued)
E. Underground Infection Wells
Underground Injection Well No._
Answer the following questions-for each underground injection well at the site that received
newly-identified organic TC wastes during 1991;
21. Commercial status of the well: (Check all that apply)
LJ The wen is only available for management of hazardous waste generated on site.
LJ The well is available only to firms owned by the same company.
LJ The well is available to a limited group of establishments for commercial hazardous
waste management
LJ The wefl is available to any firm or establishment for commercial hazardous waste
management
22. No-migration petition status for this unit: (Specify one of the following categories)
LJ A no-migration petition has not been submitted for this unit and there are no plans to
do so.
LJ Date no-migration petition was submitted:
a) Status of the petition: (Check one)
Approved
Rejected or withdrawn
. Pending.
b) Does the approved or pending no-migration petition allow for management of TC
" wastes in this unit?
_: Yes,
: No.
D\ ' . .
Facility intends to submit a no-migration petition for this unit but has not done so at the
present time.
'a) Expected submission date of the petition:
b) Does the approved or pending no-migration petition allow f or management of TC
wastes to tftis unit?
Yes, .- . '
No.
Page 10
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ID* 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section III. NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTE STREAMS MANAGED IN LAND
DISPOSAL UNITS (LANDFILLS, LAND TREATMENT UNITS- SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS, WASTE PILES, AND UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELLS)
* ' _
This section requests information on the waste streams managed in your facility's land disposal
units. We will use this information and the proposed LDR treatment standards for TC wastes to assign
each waste stream to an appropriate treatment train such that the waste will meet the proposed
treatment standards. Although we use facility specific information to estimate the national demand for
treatment as a result of the LDRs, this assignment is for analytical purposes only. We are not making
any a priori judgements on how your facility wHI actually respond to the LDRs.
Copy and complete Section III for each waste stream managed on site that exhibits a newly-
identified organic TC, including residuals generated as a result of on-site treatment and TC-
contaminated soil and debris. This section is to be completed for each waste stream managed at
your facility, including wastes received from off site and one-time wastes produced from on-site
closures of unfa Do not report waste streams that are shipped off site. All responses are to reflect
management in the 1991 calendar year. Assign a unique number to each waste stream and indicate
the number. If applicable, indicate the EPA ID number of the off-site generator from whom you
received the waste.
A. Waste Description
Waste Stream No._
EPA ID No. of Off-site Generator (If applicable) ~
23. Indicate waste origin.
LJ Generated and managed on site. (Go to question 25)
LJ Received from off site. (Continue to question 24)
24. Indicate the forms in which you receive waste stream. (Check all that apply)
CD Roll-off bin CD Rigid tote
LJRail car LJ Carboy
CDlanker trucks . D Pallet
LJ Steel drum, specify sizes
drum, specify sizes '
Fiber drum, specify sizes '
D
LjBag or other flexible container, specify sizes
LJOther, specify
*A wast* stream can be mixture of wast**; conMqu«ntfy. n*wty-«d*ntfft*d organic TC, wast* stream can b* 1) one or
more 0018 through 0043 waste* (!-. mixture of only newly-identified organic TC wastts) or 2) on* or more 0018 through
0043 wastes mixed with other ACRA-defined hazardous waste* or non-hazardous waste*.
Page 11
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ID* 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section m. NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTE STREAMS MANAGED IN LAND
DISPOSAL UNITS (LANDFILLS, LAND TREATMENT UNITS, SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS, WASTE PILES, AND UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELLS)
(continued)
A. Waste Description (continued)
Waste Stream No.
EPA ID No. of Off-she Generator (If applicable)
25. Waste description. Provide a short narrative citing source (e.g., type of production process,
closure of unit) and generic chemical name or primary organic and hazardous constituents.
(For residuals, describe the management procedures resulting in generation of the
residual)
26. List all EPA hazardous waste codes (including newly-identified organic TC wastes and other.
wastes) contained in the waste stream:
27. Which of the following categories best describes the physical form of the waste?
D Liquid: (Check one of the following)
Wastewater (Contains < 1 % total organic carbon and < 1 % total suspended solids)
Non-wastewater (Afl liquids not meeting the wastewater definition)
Qpumpabte Sludge
L-JNorvpumpabte Sludge
CD Solid -
. Dsoil
O Debris: Type (Use Appendix C codefs) or specify type)
Pace 12
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
10*0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOB FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section III. NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTE STREAMS MANAGED IN LAND
DISPOSAL UNITS (LANDFILLS, LAND TREATMENT UNITS, SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS, WASTE PILES, AND UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELLS)
(continued)
A. Waste Description (continued)
28. Ic
A
a
tr
29. ic
«
ir
P
Waste Stream No.
EPA ID No. of Off-site Generator 01 applicable)
Jentify each newty-kJentified organic TC constituent contained in this waste stream (see
ppendix A for a listing of all constituents). If more than five constituents, provide
dditional information on a separate page. EPA win use this information for assessing
re potential treatability of the wastes.
NEWLY-IDENTIFIED
ORGANIC TC CONSTITUENT
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
CONCENTRATION (INCLUDE UNITS)
AVERAGE
RANGE
lentify constituents, other than those mentioned above, that affect the treatability or
rcovery of this waste stream. If more than five constituents, provide additional
(formation on a separate page. EPA wiH use this information for assessing the
otentia) treatability of the wastes.
- OTHER CONSTITUENT
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
CONCENTRATION (INCLUDE UNITS)
AVERAGE
RANGE
. '
Page 13
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |Q« Q121
QUEST10NNA/HE FOR FACILITIES THAT UNO DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section III. NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTE STREAMS MANAGED IN LAND
DISPOSAL UNITS (LANDFILLS, LAND TREATMENT UNITS, SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS, WASTE PILES, AND UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELLS)
(continued)
A. Waste Description (continued)
30. Provide data on the
recovery of the was
pH level
. Flash point
Waste Stream No.
EPA ID No. of Off-site Generator (If applicable)
» chemical composition of the waste that affects the treatability or
fte stream. Potentially relevant characteristics are provided below.
._ BTU content
Viscosity
Solubility fin water) Water content
Total organic
content ___ Total solids content
Total suspended solids ___ Solubility fin solvent): Provide solvent name:
Chlorides (ppm) Organic and inorganic content
, Cyanide (ppm) _ Sulfur
' Sodium (ppm) Potassium (ppm)
Bromines (pp
Oilandgreas
How will the propei
stream?
im) Total organic halogen
-e content Other
ties that you have indicated above affect the treatability of this waste
31. Type of waste gere
U Routine (e.g., c
LJ Sporadic (e.g..
ration for wastewaters and nonwastewaters (excluding soil and debris):
ontinuous industrial activity).
periodic cleaning of tank bottoms).
[jRemediaf. Provide the type of remedial action conducted:
RCRA
State program
Voluntary private party clean-up
Page 14
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Approveo
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section III. NEWLY-IOEWWIED ORGANIC TC WASTE STREAMS MANAGED IN LAND
DISPOSAL UNITS (LANDFILLS, LAND TREATMENT UNITS, SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS, WASTE PILES, AND UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELLS)
(continued)
A. Waste Description (continued)
Waste Stream No.
EPA ID No. of Off-site Generator (If applicable) ~
32. Type of waste generation for soil and debris streams;
LJ Routine (e.g., spills, fillers, PPE).
LJ Sporadic (e.g., periodic tank cleaning, building decommissioning, plamt retrofitting).
LJ Remedial. Provide the type of remedial action conducted:
CERCLA State program
_ Voluntary private party dean-up
RCRA
33. Quantity managed in on-sfte land disposal units in 1991:
Quantity of TC wastes (excluding soil and debris):
Quantity of TC-contaminated soil:
Quantity of TC-contaminated debris:
tons gallons (circle one)
tons gallons (circle one)
tons gallons (circle one)
B. Waste Management
34. For this waste stream, indicate in the table below 1) how the waste stream is being
managed in land disposal unit (e.g., storage, disposal, treatment or recovery [see Appendix
_ B for system codes]), 2) the type of land disposal unit the waste stream is being managed
in (i.e., landfill, land treatment unit, surface impoundment, waste pile, or underground
injection well) and 3) the quantity of the waste stream being managed within each land
disposal unit in either tons or gallons. If the waste stream is managed in multiple types of
land disposal units, indicate each type of unit and the volume of the waste stream being
managed in each land disposal untt.
Type of Management
Land Disposal Unit
Quantity
-
Unto
Page 15
-------
form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ID* 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section III. NEWLY-JDENTtFVSn ORGANIC TC WASTE STREAMS MANAGED IN LAND
DISPOSAL UNITS (LANDFILLS, LAND TREATMENT UNITS, SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS, WASTE PILES, AND UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELLS)
(continued)
C. Waste Minimization
Only complete this section for waste streams generated on site.
Waste Strei
im No.^
35. Do you plan to begin waste minimization activities or expand existing waste minimization
activities that may, in the future, result in a decrease in the waste stream?
LJ Yes: Answer questions 36 41. (Use your best judgement)
UNO: Proceed to next waste stream.
36. Indicate type of activity:
Equipment or technology modification/substitution
Process or procedure nwdifkation/substitution
Reformulation or redesign of product
Modification/substitution of raw material
Improved efficiency of operations
Waste stream segregation
Recycling or recovery for reuse
Closed loop recycling
Other.
37. Provide a brief description of the activity:
38. Provide date when activity wffl begin.
39. Provide ah estimate of the annual reduction in the generation of waste as a r
activity. Quantity: Unit of measure: tons gallons (c/rc/e
40. Describe any changes in the physical and/or chemical characteristics of the r
organic TC-waste stream as a result of this activity:
V
Bsuttofthis
tone).
wwty-RJentified
41.. Will these changes rest* in Ihe waste stream no longer being:
O A newly-identified organic TC hazardous waste?
LJ A RCRA hazardous waste?
Page 16
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . 10*0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section IV. TREATMENT OR RECOVERY SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING NEWLY-IDENTIFIED
ORGANIC TC WASTES
Did the facility treat or recover newly-identified organic TC wastes, including TC-contaminated
soil and debris, in 1991 or does the facility have plans to treat or recover newly identified TC
wastes, including TC-contaminated soil and debris, during 1992 to 1995? *
LJ Yes: Copy and complete Section IV for each treatment or recovery system used for or
planned to be used for managing the newfy-identified organic TC wastes. For
planned uses of a particular system, onfy indicate those treatment or recovery
systems, that in your judgement, are,appropriate for managing organics and are
capable of treating the wastes to the characteristic levels. Assign a unique number
to each system and indicate the number on each page.
LJ No: Proceed to Section V.
This section requests information on on-site treatment or recovery systems mat are being used or
could be used to manage organic TC wastes. Following promulgation of the LDRs for TC wastes,
some on-site systems will be used to treat wastes that are currently being managed in land disposal.
units. We will use the information in this section to determine the availability of on-site treatment
systems for managing TC wastes requiring treatment following promulgation of the LDRs. Therefore,
based on this information, we will adjust the total national volumes of TC waste that wfll require off-site
commercial treatment Although we use facility-specific information for the capacity analysis, we are
not making any judgements on how your facility will actually manage wastes following promulgation of
the LDRs (i.e., our use of the information is for analytical purposes only).
For each treatment or recovery system, Questions 42 through 53 request information on the
operational status of the system, the types and quantities of wastes being managed, and the
limitations and potential obstacles in the use of the system for TC wastes. Questions 54 through 56
address whether the system can treat newly-identified organic TC wastes to or below the
characteristic levels.
Page 17
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ID* 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section IV. TREATMENT OR RECOVERY SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING NEWLY-IDENTIFIED
ORGANIC TC WASTES
j Syttem No..
42. General description of the system.1 (Include a description of the processes in this system)
43. System type: (Use Appendix B codes or specify system)
44. Is this system subject to RCRA permit requirements?
LJ No: This system is exempt from RCRA permit requirements.
LJ Yes: An or part of this system is subject to RCRA permit requirements.
Describe the parts requiring a RCRA permit: '
45. Current operational status:
LJ Operational (includes routine downtime for standard operating procedures, slack
demand, and normal maintenance).
LJ Temporarily idle (e.g., non-routine downtime such as major repair).
LJ Under construction. Expected completion date:;
LJ Planned, not yet under .construction. Expected completion date:
LJ Permanently dosed. .
1A system is one or more processes linked together to treat or recover hazardous wastes
Appendix 8 for examples).
Dana 1ft
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _ ID»0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section IV. TREATMENT OR RECOVERY SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING NEWLY-IDENTIFIED
ORGANIC TC WASTES (continued)
System No.
46. Commercial status of system: (Check all that apply) :
LjThe system is or win be available only for management of hazardous waste generated
on site.
LJlhe system is or will be available only to firms owned by the same company.
LJThe system is or will be available to a limited group of establishments for commercial
hazardous waste management Percent available commercially:
LjThe system is or will be available to any firm or establishment for commercial hazardous
waste management
LJ Other. Please describe: .
47. List all RCRA waste codes entering the system in 1991: {Leave blank ff system is in
planning stages or is not currently being used for newly identified organic TC wastes.)
48. Quantity of wastes entering system in 1991. Units: tons gallons (circle one)
(Leave blank if system is in planning stages.)
Total1: ^ ' RCRA Total: - _,
Liquids: ; Liquids:
Solids/sludges2: . Solid/sludges2:
Soil: _. Sofl: .___
Debris: ' Debris:
. »
49. Maximum'operational capacity (same units as above):
Total1: RCRA Total: _
Liquids: ._ Liquids:
Solid/sludges2: Solid/sludges2:
Soil: ~ Soft
Debris: N' : Debris: ,
1 Total includes both RCRA hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
2 Quantity should include both solids and sludges, but not include soil and debris.
Page 19
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . ID* 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT UNO DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section IV. TREATMENT OR RECOVERY SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING NEWLY-IDENTIFIED
ORGANIC TC WASTES (continued)
System No._
SO. Physical forms of wastes that the system is capable of treating or recovering: (Check all that
Dwastewater ID Soil
ONonwastewater D Debris
51 . Do you plan to make any changes in the operational capacity of this system during 1992-
1995 (including changes in operational status)?
DNO
LjYes: Please provide year of changes and description of changes, including any change
HI the maximum operational capacity.
52. Are there any special limitations of the system (e.g.. seasonally of operation, pumpability of
waste being managed, water content of waste)?
DNO.
Lives: Please provide a brief description.
53. Are there any special materials handling problems in managing contaminated soil or debris
in this system (e.g., is grinding or shredding required prior to treatment)?
DNO
LjYes: Please provide a brief description.
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY JD*
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section IV. TREATMENT OR RECOVERY SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING NEWLY-IDENTIFIED
ORGANIC TC WASTES (continued)
System No..
EPA is examining two approaches for setting treatment standards for newly-identified organic
TC wastes: 1) treatment standard levels would be at the characteristic level for the TC
constituent; and 2) treatment standards may be .below the characteristic level for the TC
constituent (e.g., at the concentration levels for F039 wastes).
54. Can the system, as currently operating or planned, treat newly-identified organic TC wastes
TO the characteristic levels (CFR 261.24)?
D
D
D
Yes
No
Not sure
55. In general, can the system treat newly-identified organic TC wastes BELOW the
characteristic levels? (Use your best judgement and, for the purpose of this question,
consider the "lower than characteristic levels' to be those for F039 wastes.)
UYes (Proceed to the next system)
LJNo (Continue to question 56)
LJ Not sure (Continue to question 56)
56. Please list the specific waste codes whose treated levels may be above those for F039
wastes. (Use your best judgement)
57. Please indicate the types of modifications, 9 any, that could be made to the system such
that the wastes could be treated to below the characteristic levels. Also include an estimate
of the time'required to complete the modifications and obtain necessary permits.
Page 21
-------
Form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ID» 0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FAOUmES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TO WASTES
.*
Section V. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
58. In the Federal Register notice of October 24,1991 (56 Federal Register 55160) EPA has
indicated plans to develop land disposal restrictions (LDRs) for newly-identified organic TC
wastes. Please describe any unique factors at your facility that could potentially affect the
. generation or management of these wastes after the LDRs are effective. Also please
provide any additional information that you want to be considered in EPA's evaluation of the
capacity impacts of the LDR rute.
Page 22
-------
form Approved
OMB No. 2050-0119
Expires 12/31/92
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ID*'0121
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACILITIES THAT LAND DISPOSE NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC WASTES
Section V. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (continued)
59. Please provide information, on any changes you foresee in the future generation or
management of newly-identified organic TC wastes (e.g., wastes generated as a result of
future corrective actions). Please focus on any changes that will likely occur before the end
of 1995.
60. Would you like to receive information summarizing the results of EPA's data collection
effort?
DYes
DNO
Page 23
-------
APPENDIX A '
NEWLY-IDENTIFIED ORGANIC TC HAZARDOUS WASTE CODES AND THEIR CONSTITl^fc
EPA Hazardous Waste Cod*
D018
0019
D020
0021
D022
D023
D024
D025
D026
D027
D028
D029
D030
D031
D032
D033
D034
DOSS
0036
0037
0038
-D039
0040
0041
"0042
0043
Constituent
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride .
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
o-Cresol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Cresol
1 .4-Dichk>robenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 . 1-Dichloroethy lene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Hefptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachloroethane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenoi
Pyridine
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
2.3.5-Trichlorophenol
Z4.6-Trichloropnenoi
Vinyl Chtoride
Source: 40 CFR 26V24
-------
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL ORGANIC TC TREATMENT OR RECOVEBV SYSTEMS
Code
Treatment or Recovery System
Combustion Systems
01
Boiler
02
Industrial furnace
03
Incinerator
Wastewater Treatment Systems
04
Air flotation
05
Biological Treatment
06
Carbon Adsorption
07
Chemical Oxidation
08
Evaporation
09
Filtration
10
Oil Skimming
11
Wet Air Oxidation
12
Other Oxidation
13
Sludge Oewatering
14
Air stripping
15
Steam stripping
Organic* Recovery Systems
16
Solvent Extraction
17
Thin Film Evaporation
18
Distillation (batch or fractional)
19
Other organics recovery, specify:
Other Wastewater Treatment Systems
20
Biological Treatment and Chemical Precipitation
21
Chemical Precipitation and Carbon Adsorption
22
Chemical Oxidation and Chemical Precipitation
23
Biological Treatment and Carbon Adsorption
-------
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL ORGANIC TC TREATMENT OR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Code
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Treatment or Recovery System
Soil Treatment Systems
Chemical Extraction
Soil Washing
Dechtorination
Low-Temperature Thermal Oesorption
High-Temperature Distillation
Thermal Destruction
Stabilization
Vitrification
-------
APPENDIX C
DEBRIS TYPES
Cod*
01
02
03
04
OS
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Debris Type
Asbestos
Intact Batteries
Battery Cases
Bricks. Refractory
Bricks, Other
Ceramics
Cloth
Concrete
Electrical Wires. Switches. Etc.
Electronic Components
Equipment and Structures
Filter Cartridges
Glass
Metallic*
Paper or Cardboard
Personal Protection Equipment
Plastics. Not Otherwise Specified
PVCPipe
Rock or Other Non-Soil Geologic Material
Rubber Objects
Slag
Wood
-------
APPENDIX 0
SAMPLE BLOCK DIAGRAMS
f C-CONTAMINATED SOIL AND DEBRIS MANAGM^
ROUTINE GENERATION
TC WASTE
STREAM
SPILL
TCCOKT.
ISOL* I
SPILL
CLEANUP
I
TCCOKT.
SOL*
DEBRIS
TCCOKT.
SOB.*
DEBUS
MON-TC
TREATMENT
DEBUS
SUBTITLED
LANDFILL
SUBTITLE C
LANDFILL
SPORADIC AND REMEDIAL GENERATION
REMEDIATION-
DERIVED
WASTES
INSFTU
TREATMENT
ON-SITE
PLANT RETROFITTING
DECOMMISSIONING
MAINTENANCE
OTHER
.
r
B»
^
TREATMENT
OFF-SITE
TREATMENT
SUBTITLE C
SUBTITLED
LANDFILL
-------
TC WASTE STREAM
APPENDIX 0
SAMPLE BLOCK DIAGRAMS
TC PROCESS WASTE
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
TC WASTE STREAM
EXEMPT NPDES
DISCHARGE
SUBTITLE C
LANDFILL
TC WASTE STREAM.
SLUDGE DEWATERWO
IN SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
TC WASTE STREAM.
UNDERGROUND
INJECTION
WELL
fON-TC
SUBTITLED
LANDFILL
-------
APPENDIX
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREAHS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
DBS
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DBS
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
MS
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
DBS.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
CAS
NUMBER
75150
108941
67561
95501
71556
76131
79005
67641
71432
56235
108907
99900016
141786
100414
60297
78831
78933
108101
75092
71363
98953
95487
110861
127184
108883
79016
75694
1330207
CAS
NUMBER
7440439
7440473
7439921
7440020
7440224
57125
57125
CAS
NUMBER
7440439
7440473
7439921
7440020
7440224
57125
57125
CAS
NUMBER
7440439
7440473
7439921
7440020
7440224
57125
57125
w
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CARBON DISULFIDE
CYCLOHEXANONE
NETHANOL
(0)1.2rDICHLOROBENZENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1.2-TRICHLORO-1,2.2-TRIFLU
1 . 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
ACETONE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOR08ENZENE
CRESOLS (N AND P ISOMERS)
ETHYL ACETATE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYL ETHER
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
NETHYLENE CHLORIDE
N-BUTYL ALCOHOL
NITROBENZENE
0-CRESOL (2-METHYLPHENOL)
PYRIDINE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRI CHLOROMONOFLUOROMETHANE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
NICKEL
SILVER
CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
NICKEL
SILVER
CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT .
NAME
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
NICKEL
SILVER
CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
BT_CODE»F001-F005
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 4.800
E 0.750
E 0.750
W 6.200
W 5.600
W 28.000
W 7.600
W 160.000
W 3.700
W 5.600
W 5.700
W 3.200
. W 33.000
W 6.000
W 160.000
W 170.000
W 36.000
W 33.000
W 33.000
W 2.600
W 14.000
W 5.600
W 16.000
W 5.600
W 28.000
U 5.600
U 33.000
U 28.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.066
E 5.200
E 0.510
E 0.320
E 0.072
W 30.000
W 590.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.066
E 5.200
E 0.510
E 0.320
E 0.072
W 30.000
W 590.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.066
E 5.200
E 0.510
E 0.320
E 0.072
W 30.000
W 590.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
6.000
30.000
6.000
160.000
10.000
6.000
6.000
3.200
33.000
10.000
160.000
170.000
36.000
33.000
30.000
2.600
14.000
5.600
16.000
6.000
10.000
6.000
30.000
30.000
UTS
STANDARD
0.190
0.330
0.370
5.000
0.300
30.000
590.00(
UTS
STANDARD
0.190
0.330
0.370
5.000
0.300
30.000
590.000
UTS
STANDARD
0.190
0.330
0.370
5.000
0.300
30.000
590.000
UTS TO I*-*T
."AT 10 (LW>
»
0.01
0.03
0.03
-0.10
0.00
0.43
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.22
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.45
0.03
-0.04
0.03
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.46
-1.20
0.14
1,19
0.62
0.00
0.00
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.46
-1.20
-0.14
1.19
0.62
0.00
0.00
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.46
1.20
0*14
1.19
0.62
0.00
0.00
REMARK
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING '
"STAHDARO PEJ»!«S
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE .
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREANS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
OBS
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
CAS
NUMBER
7440439
7440473
7439921
7440020
7440224
57125
57125
CDNSTITiSBT
WM£
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
NICKEL
SILVER
CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CAS CONSTITUENT
OBS
57
OBS
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
OBS
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
OBS
72
73
74
OBS
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
NUMBER NAME
57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CAS
NUMBER
7440439
7440473
7439921
7440020
7440224
57125
57125
CAS
NUMBER
7440439
7440473
7439921
7440020
7440224
57125
57125
CAS
NUMBER
7440473
57125
57125
CAS
NUMBER
58902
95954
88062
99900004
99900003
99900006
99900007
87865
99900010
99900009
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
NICKEL
SILVER
CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
NICKEL
SILVER
CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
-- UST.CODE-F009
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.066
E 5.200
E 0.510
E 0.320
E 0.072
W 30.000
W 590.000
jinf f^vtc«CA4A ~
UTS
STANDARD
0.190
0.330
0.370
5.000
0.300
30.000
590.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.46
1.20
-0.14 .
1.19
0.62
0.00
0.00
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGI
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
W 1.500 590
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.066
E 5.200
E 0.510
E 0.320
E 0.072
W 9.100
W 110.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.066
E 5.200
E 0.510
E 0.320
E 0.072
W 9.100
W 110.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E i 5.200
W 30.000
CYANIDE (TOTAL) W 590.000
CONSTITUENT WASTE/ BOAT
NAME
2.3.4.6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2.4.5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4.6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAMS
PENTACHLORDIBENZO-P-OIOXINS
PENTACHLOROOIBEHZarUBANf
PENTABttQROPHSWL
TETRAOtUMDIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
TETRACW.ORODIBENZOFURANS
.000
UTS
STANDARD
0.190
0.330
0.370
5.000
0.300
30.000
590.000
UTS
STANDARD
0.190
0.330
0.370
5.000
0.300
30.000
590.000
UTS
STANDARD.
0.330
30.000
590.000
UTS
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD
0.050
0.001
0.050
0*001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.010
0.001
0.001
REMARK
2.59 SIGNIF. LESS STRINC
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.46
1.20
-0.14
1.19
0.62
0.52
0.73
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.46
-1.20
0.14
1.19
0.62
0.52
0.73
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOO)
1.20
0.00
0.00
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
1
REMARK
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
"w
REMARK
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
MODERATE CHANS
REMARK
MODERATE CHANS
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
.REMARK
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING
STANDMBjkJENDING
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
i
^»s
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
DBS
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
08S
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
OBS
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
CAS CONSTITUENT
.NUMBER NAME
7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
7440020 NICKEL
75343 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
107062 1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
78875 1.2-DICHLOROPROPANE
126998 2-CHLORO-1.3-BUTADIENE
107051 3-CHLOROPROPENE
117817 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
10061026 C1S-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
67721 HEXACHLOROETHANE
10061015 TRANS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
79005 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
56235 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
67663 CHLOROFORM
118741 HEXACNLOROBENZENE
87683 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
67721 HEXACHLOROETHANE
75092 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
79016 TRICHLOROETHENE
75014 VINYL CHLORIDE
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
79005 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
75354 1,1-DlCHLOROETHYLENE
107062 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
56235 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
67663 CHLOROFORM
75092 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
79016 TRICHLOROETHENE
75014 VINYL CHLORIDE
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
7440020 NICKEL
120127 ANTHRACENE
56553 BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
71432 BENZENE
50328 BENZO(A)PYRENE
117817 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
218019 CHRYSENE
57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
84742 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
100414 ETHYL BENZENE
91203 NAPHTHALENE
85018 PHENANTHRENE
108952 PHENOL
129000 PYRENE
108883 TOLUENE
1330207 XYLENES (TOTAL)
WST_CODE=FU« - ' .-...«....
WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) REMARK
E 0.073 0.330 0.66 MODERATE CHANGE
E 0.088 5.000 1.75 SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
W 0.014 6.000 2.63 SIGNIF. LESS STRIKGENT
U 0.014 6.000 2.63 SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
U 0.014 18.000 3.11 SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
U 0.280 . . STANDARD PENDING
U 0.280 30.000 2.03 SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
W 1.800 28.000 1.19 MODERATE CHANGE
U 0.014 18.000 3.11 SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
U 1.800 30.000 1.22 MODERATE CHANGE
U 0.014 18.000 3.11 SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) REMARK
U 6.200 6.000 -0.01 MODERATE CHANGE .
U 6.200 6.000 -0.01 MODERATE CHANGE
W 6.200 6.000 -0.01 MODERATE CHANGE
W 37.000 10.000 -0.57 MODERATE CHANGE
U 28.000 5.600 -0.70 MODERATE CHANGE
U 30.000 30.000 0.00 UNCHANGED
U 31.000 30.000 -0.01 MODERATE CHANGE
W 5.600 6.000 0.03 MODERATE CHANGE
V 33.000 6.000 -0.74 MODERATE CHANGE
WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) REMARK
U .200 6.000 -0.01 MODERATE CHANGE
U .200 .OOC -0.01 MODERATE CHANGE
W .200 .OOC -0.61 MODERATE CHANGE
U .200 .000 -0.01 MODERATE CHANGE
W .200 .OOC -0.01 MODERATE CHANGE
U 31.000 30.000 -0.01 MODERATE CHANGE
W 5.600 .000 0.03 MODERATE CHANGE
W 33.000 .000 -0.74 MODERATE CHANGE
WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) REMARK
E 1.700 . . STANDARD PENDING
E 0.200 5.000 1.40 SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
U 28.000 3.400 -0.92 MODERATE CHAKSE
U 20.000 3.400 -0.77 MODERATE CHANGE
U 14.000 10.000 -0.15 MODERATE CH4HSS
W 12.000 3.400 -0.55 MODERATE ew^-l
U 7.300 28.000 0.58 MODERATE fctA. :}
U 15.000 3.400 -0.64 MODERATE CHANS2
U 1.800 590.000 2.52 SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
U 3.600 28.000 0.89 MODERATE CHANGE
W 14.000 10.000 -0.15 MODERATE CHANGE
W 42.000 5.600 -0.88 MODERATE CHANGE
W 34.000 5.600 -0.78 MODERATE CHANGE
U 3.600 6.200 0.24 MODERATE CHANGE
U 36.000 8.200 -0.64 MODERATE CHANGE
W 14.000 10.000 -0.15 MODERATE CHANGE
W 0.320 30.000 1.97 SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
DBS
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
DBS
145
146
147
148
149
150 .
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
CAS
NUMBER
7440473
7440020
71432
50328
117817
218019
57125
84742
100414
91203
85018
108952
129000
108883
1330207
CAS
NUMBER
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440439
7440473
7439921
7439976
7440020
7782492
7440224
541731
95501
106467
630206
71556
79345
76131
79005
75343
75354
96184
95943
120821
96128
106934
107062
78875
123911
100254
58902
93765
95954
88062
94757
120832
105679
51285
121142
87650
606202
53963
91587
95578
88857
107051
56495
101144
534521
101553
100027
208968
83329
67641
309002
CONSTITUENT
IMME
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
NICKEL
BENZENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXVL)PHTHALATE
CHRYSENE
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
ETHYL BENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PYRENE
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
(M)1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
(0)1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
(P ) 1 .4-DI CHLOROBENZENE
, ,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
, ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
, ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
, ,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLU
, ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
,2-D I BROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4 - DIOXANE
1,4-DINITROBENZENE
2.3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,4,5- (T) TRICHLOROPHENOXYA
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6- TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4- (D) DICHLOROPHENOXY ACE
2.4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2.4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
2- ACETYLAM I NOFLUORENE
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-SEC-BUTYL-4,6-DINITROPHENO
3-CHLOROPROPENE
3-METHVLCHOLANTHRENE
4,4'-METHYLENE-BIS-(2-CHU»0
4,6-DINITRO-O-CRESOt
4-BROMOPHENYL PflEHTl ETHER
4-N1TROPHEN01
ACENAPKT«M.ENE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACETONE
ALORIN
--- WST_CCX
WASTE/
EXTRACT
E
E
U
U
W
U
U
w
U
U
U
w
U
U
lEcFOJB
BOAT
STANDARD
t.700
0.200
14.000
12.000
7.300
15.000
1.800
3.600
14.000
42.000
34.000
3.600
36.000
14.000
U 22.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
U
U
U
w
U
w
U
U
U
w
U
U
w
w
U
w
U
U
w
w
w
w
w
U
w
w
U
w
U
w
U
w
w
II
w
. If
It
(f
w
U
w
U
U
w
STANDARD
0.230
5.000
52.000
0.066 .
5.200
0.510
0.025
0.320
5.700
0.072
6.200
6.200
6.200
42.000
5.600
42.000
28.000
5.600
7.200
33.000
28.000
19.000
19.000
15.000
15.000
7.200
18.000
170.000
2.300
37.000
7.900
37.000
37.006
10.000
14.000
14.000
160.000
140.000
14.000
28.000
140.000
5.600
5.700
2.500
28.000
15.000
35.000
160.000
15.000
29.000
3.400
4.000
160.000
0.066
UTS
STANDARD
s'.ooo
10.000
3.400
28.000
3.400
590.000
28.000
10.000
5.600
5.600
, 6.200
8.200
10.000
30.000
UTS
STANDARD
2.100
5.000
7.600
0.190
0.330
0.370
0.009
5.000
0.160
0.300
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
30.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
30.000
14.000
19.000
15.000
15.000
6.000
18.000
170.000
2.300
7.400
7.900
7.400
7.400
10.000
14.000
14.000
160.000
140.000
14.000
28.000
140.000
5.600
5.700
2.500
30.000
15.000
30.000
160.000
15.000
29.000
3.400
3.400
160.000
0.066
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
l!*0
-0.15
-0.55
0.58
-0.64
2.52
0.89
-0.15
-0.88
-0.78
0.24
-0.64
-0.15
0.13
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.96
0.00
-0.84
0.46
-1.20
-0.14
-0.44
1.19
-1.55
0.62
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.85
0.03
-0.85
0.03
0.03
-0.08
-0.74
0.03
-0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00,
-0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.70
0.00
-0.70
-0.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 .
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
-0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.07
0.00
0.00
REMARK
STANDARD PENDING
SIGNIF. LESS STRINI
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. LESS STRINI
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. MORE STRINI
MODERATE CHANGE
NODERAT^ftuSE
MOOERAT^Hpi
MOOERATB^KI
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGEB^
iiuruiiur^NNNNk
UNCHANO^M
NOOERATmGlGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREANS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
WST CODE=F039 -
(continued)
oes
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
2U
215
216
217
218
219
220 .
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
^231
^l '
^B
VR
^35
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
*
CAS
NUMBER
319846
62533
120127
56553
71432
50328
205992
191242
207089
319857
111911
111444
39638329
117817
75274
74839
85687
56235
57749
108907
124481
75003
67663
74873
218019
10061026
1319773
57125
319866
84742
117840
621647
53703
74953
75718
60571
84662
131113
298044
939988
33213065
1031078
72208
7421934
141786
100414
107120
60297
97632
52857
206440
86737
58899
76448
1024573
118741
87683
77474
99900004
99900003
67721
1888717
193395
74884
78831
465736
120581
143500
108394
126987
91805
72435
78933
108101
80626
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ALPHA - BHC
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
BENZO(K)FLUROANTHENE
BETA - BHC
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BROMOD I CHLOROMETHANE
BROMOMETHANE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORDANE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROD I BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CHRYSENE
CIS-1 ,3-OICHLOROPROPENE
CRESOLS
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
DELTA - BHC
01 -N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-PROPYLNITROSAMINE
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE
01 BROMOMETHANE
D I CHLOROD I FLUOROMETHANE
DIELDRIN
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DISULFOTON
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN II
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDR1N
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ETHYL ACETATE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL ETHER
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
FAMPHUR
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADlENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAD I ENE
HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
HEXACHLOROOI8ENZOFURANS
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
INDENO(1.2,3-CD)PYRENE
IODOMETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
ISOORIN
ISOSAFROLE
KEPONE
N-CRESOL
METHACRYLONITRILE
NETHAPYRILENE
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTVL KETONE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
WASTE/
EXTRACT
U
U
U
U
W
U
U
U
W .
U
U
U
W
U
V
W
U
U
U
U
U
U
W .
U
W
U
W
W
U
W
W
W
U
U
U
U
U
U
W
U
U
U
W
W
U
W
U
U
W
U
U
U
W
U
W
U
W
V
W
W
U
W
U
W
W
W
U
W
W
W
W
U
W
V
U
BOAT
STANDARD
0.066
14.000
4.000
8.200
36.000
8.200
3.400
1.500
3.400
0.066
7.200
7.200
7.200
28.000
15.000
15.000
7.900
5.600
0.130
5.700
15.000
6.000
5.600
33.000
8.200
18.000
3.200
1.800
0.066
28.000
28.000
14.000
8.200
15.000
7.200
0.130
28.000
28.000
6.200
0.066
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
33.000 .
6.000
360.000
160.000
160.000
15.000
8.200
4.000
0.066
0.066
0.066
37.000 '
28.000
3.600
0.001
0.001
28.000
28.000
8.200
65.000
170.000
0.066
2.600
0.130
3.200
84.000
1.500
0.180
36.000
33.000
160.000
UTS
STANDARD
0.066
14.000
3.400
3.400
10.000
3.400
6.800
1.800
6.800
0.066
7.200
6.000
7.200
28.000
15.000
15.000
28.000
6.000
0.260
6.000
15.000
6.000
6.000
30.000
3.400
18.000
590.000
0.066
28.000
28.000
14.000
8.200
15.000
7.200
0.130
28.000
28.000
6.200
0.066
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
33.000
10.000
360.000
160.000
160.000
15.000
3.400
3.400
0.066
0.066
0.066
10.000
5.600
2.400
0.001
0.001
30.000
30.000
3.400
65.000
170.000
0.066
2.600
0.130
5.600
84.000
1.500
0.180
36.000
33.000
160.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.00
0.00
-0.07
-0.38
-0.56
0.38
0.30
0.08
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.03
0.30
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.38
0.00
2.52
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
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.38
-0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.70
-0.18
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
REMARK
UNCHANGED
USKiJWJCED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
STANDARD PENDING
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UaCHAUS2D
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE .CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCiiA£G
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
WASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
' (continued)
OBS
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
OBS
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
OBS
330
331
CAS
NUMBER
298000
75092
71363
924163
55185
10595956
59982
100754
930552
91203
98953
53190
3424826
789026
95487
72548
72559
50293
59507
106478
106445
100016
56382
99900006
608935
99900007
82688
87865
62442
85018
108952
298022
23950585
129000
110861
94597
93721
99900010
99900009
127184
108883
8001352
156605
10061015
75252
79016
75694
75014
1330207
CAS
NUMBER
7439921
91203
87865
85018
129000
108883
1330207
CAS
NUMBER
7440473
7439921
CONSTI7UEMT
NAME
METHYL PARATHION
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
N- BUTYL ALCOHOL
N-NITROSODI -N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMORPHOLINE
N-NITROSOPIPERIDINE
N-NITROSOPYRROLIDINE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
0,P' ODD
O.P1 DDE
0,P' DDT
0-CRESOL (2-METHYLPHENOL)
P.P' DDD
P.P1 DDE
P.P1 DDT
P-CHLORO-M-CRESOL
P-CHLOROANILINE
P-CRESOL
P-NITROANILINE
PARATHION
PENTACHLORDIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROD I BENZOFURANS
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENACETIN
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PHORATE
PRONAMIDE
PYRENE
PYRIDINE
SAFROLE
SILVEX (2,4.5-TP)
TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
TETRACHLOROD I BENZOFURANS
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
TOXAPHENE
TRANS-1.2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE
TR1CHLOROETHENE .
TRICHLOROHONOFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENES (TOTAL) !
. CONSTITUENT
NAME
LEAD
NAPHTHALENE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
.TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
WASTE/
EXTRACT
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
U
W
W
U
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
BDAT
STANDARD
4.600
33.000
2.600
17.000
28.000
2.300
2.300
35.000
35.000
3.100
14.000
0.087
0.087
0.087
5.600
0.087
0.087
0.087
14.000
16.000
3.200
28.000
4.600
0.001
37.000
0.001
4.800
7.400
16.000
3.100
6.200
4.600
1.500
8.200
16.000
22.000
7.900
0.001
0.001
5.600
28.000
1.300
33.000
18.000
15.000
5.600
33.000
33.000
W 28.000
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT
E
W
W
W
W
W
If
WST.COOE-W
WASTE/
..EXTRACT
E
E
STANDARD
0.510
1.500
7.400
1.500
1.500
28.000
33.000
BDAT
STANDARD
,0.094
0.370
UTS
STANDARD
4.600
30.000
2.600
17.000
28.000
2.300
2.300
35.000
35.000
5.600
14.000
0.087
0.087
0.087
5.600
0.087
0.087
0.087
14.000
16.000
5.600
28.000
4.600
0.001
10.000
0.001
4.800
7.400
16.003
5.600
6.200
4.600
1.500
8.200
16.000
22.000
7.900
0.001
0.001
6.000
10.000
2.600
30.000
18.000
6.000
30.000
6.000
30.000
, UTS
STANDARD
0.370
5.600
7.400
5.600
8.200
10.00C
30.000
UTS
STANDARD
0.330
0.370
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.00
-0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
-0.45
0.30
-0.04
0.00
0.03
-0.04
-0.74
0.03
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.14
0.57
0.00
0.57
0.74
-0.45
-0.04
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.55
0.00
REMARK
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHAJMBK
UNCHa^^^A
UNCHJ^^^V
UNCHASBT
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED .
STANDARD PENDING
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
. MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MOOj^^CHANGE
UNCV^B
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
VST COOE*KG03
DBS
332
333
CAS
NUMBER
7440473
7439921
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
UASTE/
EXTRACT
E
E
BOAT
STANDARD
0.094
0.370
UTS
STAN9ARO
0.331
0.370
UTS TO BOAT
IRATIO (LOG)
0.55
0.00
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
CAS CONSTITUENT
OBS NUMBER NAME
334 7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
335 7439921 LEAD
UST_CODE«K004
WASTE/
EXTRACT
E
E
BOAT
STANDARD
0.094
0.370
UTS
STANDARD
0.330
0.370
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.55
0.00
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UST_CODE«K006 (ANHYDROUS)
OBS
336
337
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
7439921 LEAD
UASTE/
EXTRACT
E
E
BOAT
STANDARD
0.094
0.370
UTS
STANDARD
0.330
0.370
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.55
0.00
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UST_CODE«K006 (HYDRATEO)
OBS
338
CAS
NUMBER
CONSTITUENT
NAME
7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
WASTE/
EXTRACT
BDAT
STANDARD
5.200
UTS .
STANDARD
0.330
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-1.20
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
OBS
339
340
CAS
NUMBER
7440473
7439921
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ft
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
VST CODE4C007
UASTE/
EXTRACT
E
E
BOAT
STANDARD
0.094
0.370
UTS.
STANDAf
0.330
0.37C
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.55
0.00
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UST CODE«K008
OBS
341
342
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
7439921 LEAD
UASTE/
EXTRACT
E
E
BDAT
STANDARD
0.094
0.370
UTS
STANDARD
0.330
0.370
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.55
0.00
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UST CODE«K011
OBS
343
344
345
346
347
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
75058 ACETONITRILE
79061 ACRYLAMIDE
107131 ACRYLONITRILE
71432 BENZENE
57125 CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
UASTE/
EXTRACT
U
U
U
U
U
BDAT
STANDARD
1.800
23.000
1.400
0.030
57.000
UTS
STANDARD
84.000
10.000
30.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.78
2.52
-0.28
REMARK
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING
S1GNIF. LESS STRINGENT
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
MODERATE CHANGE
UST CODE-K013
OBS
348
349
350
351
352
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
75058 ACETONITRILE
79061 ACRYLAMIDE
107131 ACRYLONITRILE
71432 BENZENE
57125 CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
UASTE/
EXTRACT
U
U
U
U
U
BDAT
STANDARD
1.800
23.000
1.400
0.030
57.000
UTS
STANDARD
84.000
10.000
30.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.78
2.52
0.28
REMARK
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
MODERATE CHANGE
-------
APPENDIX 6
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
UST CODE*KOU
OBS
353
354
355
356
357
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
75058 ACETONITRILE
79061 ACRYLAMIDE
107131 ACRYLONITRILE
7U32 BENZENE
57125 CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
WASTE/
EXTRACT
U
U
U
U
U
BOAT
STANDARD
1.800
23.000
1.400
0.030
57.000
UTS
STANDARD
84.000
10.000
30.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.78
2.52
0.28
REMARK
STANDARD PENDING
STANDARD PENDING
SIGNIF. LESS STRIN
SIGNIF. LESS STRIN
MODERATE CHANGE
UST CODE-K015
CAS CONSTITUENT WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
t»S NUMBER NAME EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
358 7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) E 1.700 0.330 -0.71
359 7440020 NICKEL E 0.200 5.000 1.40
360 120127 ANTHRACENE U 3.400 3.400 0.00
361 98873 BENZAL CHLORIDE U 6.200 6.000 -0.01
362 85018 PHENANTHRENE U 3.400 5.600 0.22
363 99900012 SUM OF BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE U 3.400
364 108883 TOLUENE U 6.000 10.000 0.22
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. LESS STRIN
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
STANDARD PENDING
MODERATE CHANGE
UST CODE-K016
OBS
365
366
367
368
369
OBS
370
371
372
CAS CONSTITUENT
.NUMBER NAME
118741 HEXACHLOROBENZENE
87683 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
77474 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
67721 HEXACHLOROETHANE
127184 TETRACHLOROETHENE
WASTE/
EXTRACT
W
W
W
W
W
BDAT
STANDARD
28.000
5.600
5.600
28.000
6.000
WST CODE-K017
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
96184 1,2,3-TRiCHLOROPROPANE
78875 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
111444 BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
WASTE/
EXTRACT
W
W
W
BDAT
STANDARD
28.000
18.000
7.200
UTS
STANDARD
10.000
5.600 .
2.400
30.000
6.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.45
0.00
-0.37
0.03
0.00
UTS
STANDARD
30.000
18.000
6.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.03
0.00
0.08
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG!
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANG
MODERATE CHANG
UNCHANGED
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANG!
UST_CODE«K018
CAS CONSTITUENT WASTE/
OBS NUMBER NAME EXTRACT
373 71556 1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE W
374 75343 1.1-DICHLOROETHANE W
375 107062 1.2-DICHLOROETHANE W
376 75003 CHLOROETHANE W
377 118741 HEXACHLOROBENZENE W
378 87683 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE W
379' 67721 HEXACHLOROETHANE W
380 76017 PENTACHLOROETHANE W
BDAT
STANDARD
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
28.000
5.600
28.000
5.600
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
10.000
5.600
30.000
6.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.03
0.03
REMARK
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANG
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANG
MODERATE CHANG!
WST.CODE-K019
CAS CONSTITUENT WASTE/
OBS NUMBER NAME EXTRACT
381 71556 1.1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE W
382 120821 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE W
383 107062 1.2-DICHLOROETHAHE W
384 111444 BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETKER W
385 108907 CHLOROBENZENE. W
386 67663 CHLOROFORM W
387 67721 NEXACtaOMETHANE . W
388 91203 NAPHTHALENE ' W
389 85018 PHENANTHRENE W
390 127184 TETRACHLOROETHENE W
BOAT UTS
STANDARD STANDARD
6.000 6.000
19.000 19.000
6.000
5.600
6.000
6.000
28.000 31
5.600
5.600
6.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.600
.600
.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.00
0.00
JO.OO
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
REMARK
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANG
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANG
UNCjm&ED
UN|^B
UNB^B
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREANS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
WST CODE«K020
DBS
391
392
393
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
79345 1,1.2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
107062 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
127184 TETRACHLOROETNENE
WASTE/
EXTRACT
U
U
W
BOAT .
STANDARD
5.600
6.000
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
6.000
6.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.03
0.00
0.00
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
OBS
394
395
396
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7440360 ANTIMONY
56235 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
67663 CHLOROFORM
WST_CODE*K021
WASTE/
EXTRACT
E
W
W
BOAT
STANDARD
0.230
6.200
6.200
UTS
STANDARD
2.100
6.000
6.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.96
-0.01
0.01
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
WST CODE«K022
CAS CONSTITUENT WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
OBS NUMBER NAME EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
397 7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) E 5.200 0.330 -1.20
398 7440020 NICKEL E 0.320 5.000 1.19
399 98862 ACETOPHENONE W 19.000 9.700 -0.29
400 108952 PHENOL W 12.000 6.200 -0.29
401 99900013 SUM OF DIPHENYLAMINE AND DIP W 13.000
402 108883 TOLUENE W 0.034 10.000 2.47
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
STANDARD PENDING
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
WST CODE4C028
OBS
CAS CONSTITUENT WASTE/
NUMBER NAME EXTRACT
7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) E
7439921 LEAD E
7440020 NICKEL E
630206 1.1,1.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE W
71556 1.1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE W
79345 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE W
79005 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE W
75343 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE W
87683 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE W
67721 HEXACHLOROETHANE W
76017 PENTACHLOROETHANE W
127184 TETRACHLOROETHENE W
BOAT
STANDARD
0.073
0.021
0.088
5.600
6.000
5.600
6.000
6.000
5.600
28.000
5.600
6.000
I
ST/
(
(
i
3
rrs
WDARD
>.330
1.370
i.OOO
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.600
.000
.000
.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.66
1.25
1.75
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
l«C»AHGED
(^CHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
CAS CONSTITUENT
'OBS NUMBER NAME
415 95943 1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
416 120821 1.2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
417 87683 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
418 67721 HEXACHLOROETHANE
419 1888717 HEXACHLOROPROPENE
420 608935 PENTACHLOROBENZENE
421 76017 PENTACHLOROETHANE
422 127184 TETRACHLOROETHENE
WST COOE«K030
WASTE/
EXTRACT
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
BDAT
STANDARD
14.000
19.000
5.600
28.000
19.000
28.000
5.600
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
14.000
19.000
5.600
30.000
30.000
10.000
6.000
6.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.20
-0.45
0.03
0.00
REMARK
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
OBS
423
CAS
NUMBER
CONSTITUENT
NAME
7440382 ARSENIC
WST_COOE«K031
WASTE/
EXTRACT
BDAT
STANDARD
5.600
UTS
STANDARD
SoOOO
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.05
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
-------
APPENDIX 8
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREANS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
DBS
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
US CONSTITUENT
NUMBEt MANE - -
83329 ACENAPHTNW5
120127 ANTHRACENE
56553 BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
50328 BEMZO(A}PYRENE
218019 CHRYSEHE
53703 DIBEN2(A,H)ANTHRACENE
206440 FLUORANTHENE
86737 FLUORENE
193395 INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
91203 NAPHTHALENE
85018 PHENANTHRENE
129000 PYRENE
WSTJX»E«K035
WASTE/
EXTRACT
W
U
W
U
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
BDAT t
STANDARD ST/
3.400
3.400
3.400
3.400
3.400
3.400
3.400
3.400
3.400
3.400 !
3.400 !
8.200 1
JTS
UffiARD
.400
.400
.400
.400
.400
.200
.400
.400
.40C
8.600
i.600
1.200
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG) RE
0.00 UN
0.00 UN
0.00 UN
0.00 . UN
0.00 UN
0.38 MC
0.00 UN
0.00 UN
0.00 UN
0.22 MC
0.22 NO
0.00 UN
REMAW
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHAN!
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANt
MODERATE CHANl
UNCHANGED
OBS
436
CAS
NUMBER
CONSTITUENT
NAME
298044 DISULFOTON
WST COOE»K036
WASTE/
EXTRACT
BDAT
STANDARD
0.100
UTS
STANDARD
6.200
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.79
REMARK
SIGNIF. LESS STIII
WST CODE4C037
OBS
437
438
CAS
NUMBER
298044.
108883
CONSTITUENT
NAME
DISULFOTON
TOLUENE
WASTE/
EXTRACT
W
W
BDAT
STANDARD
0.100
28.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.200
10.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.79
0.45
REMARK
SIGNIF. LESS STtll
MODERATE CHANGE
OBS
439
CAS
NUMBER
298022
CONSTITUENT
NAME
PHORATE
WST CODE«K038
WASTE/
EXTRACT
BDAT
STANDARD
0.100
UTS
STANDARD
4.600
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.66
SIGNIF:
STRII
OBS
440
CAS
NUMBER
CONSTITUENT
NAME
298022 PHORATE
WST CODE-K040
WASTE/
EXTRACT
BDAT
STANDARD
0.100
UTS
STANDARD
4.600
UTS TO BDAT
R .TIO (LOG)
1.66
REMARK
SIGNIF. LESS STRII
OBS
441
442
443
444
445
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
95501 (0)1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
106467 (P)1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
95943 1.2.4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
120821 1.2.4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
608935 PENTACHLOROBENZENE
WST_CODE«K042
WASTE/
EXTRACT
W
W
W
W
W
BDAT
STANDARD
4.400
4.400
4.400
4.400
4.400
UTS
STAND ARU
6.000
6.000
14.000
19.000
10.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.13
0.13
0.50
0.64
0.36
REMARK
MODERATE CHANt
MODERATE CHANt
MODERATE CHANt
MODERATE CHANt
MODERATE CHANt
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREANS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
OBS
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
OBS
459
OBS
460
461
462
463
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
OBS
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
95954 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
88062 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
120832 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
87650 2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
99900004 HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
99900003 HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURANS
99900006 PENTACHLORDIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
99900007 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
87865 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
99900010 TETRACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
99900009 TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
127184 TETRACHLOROETHENE
99900011 TETRACHLOROPHENOLS-TOTAL
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7439921 LEAD
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
7440020 NICKEL
71432 BENZENE
50328 BENZO(A)PYRENE
117817 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
218019 . CHRYSENE
57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
84742 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
100414 ETHYL BENZENE
91203 NAPHTHALENE
85018 PHENANTHRENE
108952 PHENOL
129000 PYRENE
108883 TOLUENE
1330207 XYLENES (TOTAL)
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
7440020 NICKEL
120127 ANTHRACENE
71432 BENZENE
50328 BENZO(A)PYRENE
117817 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
218019 CHRYSENE
57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
100414 ETHYL BENZENE
91203 NAPHTHALENE
85018 PHENANTHRENE
108952 PHENOL
129000 PYRENE
108883 TOLUENE
1330207 XYLENES (TOTAL)
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 8.200
W 7.600
W 0.380
W 0.340
W 0.001
W 0.001
W 0.001
W 0.001
W 1.900
W 0.001
W 0.001
W 1.700
W 0.680
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.180
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 1,700
E 0.200
W 14.000
W 12.000
W 7.300
W 15.000
W 1.800
W 3.600
W 14.000
W 42.000
W 34.000
W 3.600
W 36.000
W 14.000
W 22.000.
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 1.700
E 0.200
W 28.000
W 14.000
W 12.000
W 7.300
W 15.000
W 1.800
W 14.000
W 42.000
W 34.000
W 3.600
W 36.000
W 14.000
. W 22.000
UTS
STANDARD
7.400
7.400
14.000
14.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
7.400
0.001
0.001
6.000
UTS
STANDARE
0.370
UTS
STANDARD
siooo
10.000
3.400
28.000
3.400
590.000
28.000
10.000
5.600
5.600
6.200
8.200
10.000
30.000
UTS
STANDARD
slooo
3.400
10.000
3.400
28.000
3.400
590.000
10.000
5.600
5.600
6.200
8.200
10.000
30.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.04
-0.01
1.57
1.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.59
0.00
0.00
0.55
UTS TO K)l
> RATIO (LOI
0.31
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
l!40
-0.15
-0.55
0.58
-0.64
2.52
0.89
-0.15
-0.88
-0.78
0.24
-0.64
-0.15
0.13
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
.
1.40
-0.92
-0.15
-0.55
0.58
-0.64
2.52
-0.15
-0.88
-0.78
0.24
-0.64
-0.15
0.13
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
STANDARD PENDING
IT
3) REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
STANDARD PENDING
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT '
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
STANDARD PENDING
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
-------
APPENDIX 8
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
WASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
065
490
491
492
493
494
CAS
NUMBER
7440473
7440020
50328
57125
108952
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
NICKEL
BENZO(A)PYRENE
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
PHENOL
- VSIJMO
WASTE/
EXTRACT
E
E
W
V
W
E'KU30
BDAT
STANDARD
1.700
0.200
12.000
1.800
3.600
UTS
STANDARD
5.000
3.400
590.000
6.200
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.40
0.55
2.52
0.24
REMARK
STANDARD PENDING
SIGNIF. LESS STRIN
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. LESS STRIN
MODERATE CHANGE
DBS
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
DBS
512
513
514
515
516
517
.518
519
520
521
522
CAS
NUMBER
7440473
7440020
120127
56553
71432
50328
117817
218019
57125
84742
100414
91203
85018
108952
129000
108883
1330207
CAS
NUMBER
7440473
7440020
57125
100414
91203
95487
106445
85018
108952
108883
1330207
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
NICKEL
ANTHRACENE
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
CKKVSENE
CTAHIDE (TOTAL)
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
ETHYL BENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PYRENE
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
NICKEL
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
ETHYL BENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
0-CRESOL (2-NETHYLPHENOL)
P-CRESOL
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT
E
E
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
STANDARD
1.700
0.200
28.000
20.000
14.000
12.000
7.300
15.000
1.800
3.600
14.000
42.000
34.000
3.600
36.000
14.000
W 22.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT
E.
E
W
W
W
W
W
W
1 U
W
W
STANDARD
1.700
0.200
1.800
14.000
42.000
6.200
6.200
34.000
3.600
14.000
22.000
UTS
STANDARD
5.000
3.400
3.400
10.000
3.400
28.000
3.400
590.000
28.000
10.000
5.600
5.600
6.200
8.200
10.000
30.000
UTS
STANDARD
5.000
590.000
10.000
5.600
5.600
5.600
5.600
6.200
10.000
30.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.40
-0.92
-0.77
-0.15
-0.55
0.58
-0.64
2.52
0.89
-0.15
-0.88
-0.78
0.24
-0.64
-0.15
0.13
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.40
2.52
-0.15
-0.88
-0.04
-0.04
-0.78
0.24
-0.15
0.13
REMARK
STANDARD PENDING
SIGNIF. LESS STRIN
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. LESS STRIN
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
...........
^PBtK
STANDARD PENDING
SIGNIF. LESS STRIN
SIGNIF. LESS STRIM
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
. MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
-.MODERATE CHAMGE
OBS
523
524
525
526
527
CAS
NUMBER
71432
50328
57125
91203
108952
CONSTITUENT
NAME
BENZENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
NAPHTHALENE
PHENOL
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT
W
W
W
W
W
STANDARD
0.071
3.600
. 1.200
3.400
3.400
UTS
STANDARD
10.000
3.400
590.000
5.600
6.200
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
2.15
-0.02
2.69
0.22
0.26
REMARK
SIGNIF. LESS STRIN
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. LESS STRIH
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
WASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
;CAS
NUMBER
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
7440439
7440473
7439921
7439976
7440020
7782492
7440224
7440280
7440666
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
THALLIUM
ZINC
WST_d
WASTE/
EXTRACT
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
'KUOl
BOAT
STANDARD
2.100
0.055
7.600
0.014
0.190
0.330
0.370
0.009
5.000
0.160
0.300
0.078
5.300
uiv
STANDARD
2.100
5.000
7.600
0.014
0.190
0.330
0.370
0.009
5.000
0.160
0.300
0.078
5.300
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.00
1.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
REMARK
UNCHANGED
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UST COOE«K069
OBS
541
542
CAS
NUMBER
7440439
7439921
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CADMIUM
LEAD
WASTE/
EXTRACT
E
E
BOAT
STANDARD
0.140
0.240
UTS
STANDARD
0.190
0.370
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.13
0.19
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
OBS
543
CAS
NUMBER
CONSTITUENT
NAME
7439976 MERCURY
OBS
544
545
546
547
548
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
71556 1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
56235 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
67663 CHLOROFORM
67721' HEXACHLOROETHANE
127184 TETRACHLOROETHENE
W>l_WJUt«*.UM
WASTE/
EXTRACT .!
E
WASTE/
EXTRACT !
W
W
W
W
W
BOAT
STANDARD
0.025
BOAT
STANDARD
6.200
6.200
6.200
30.000
6.200
UTS
STANOAk .
0.009
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
6.000
6.000
30.000
6.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
'-0.44
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.01
0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.01
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
WST CODE«K083
OBS
549
550
551
552
553
554
CAS
CONSTITUENT
NAME
7440020 NICKEL
62533 ANILINE
71432 BENZENE
98953 NITROBENZENE
108952 PHENOL
99900013 SUM OF DIPHENYLAMINE AND DIP
WASTE/
EXTRACT
E
W
W
W
W
W
BOAT
STANDARD
0.088
14.000
6.600
14.000
5.600
14.000
UTS
STANDARD
5.000
14.000
10.000
14.000
6.200
«.
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.75
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.04
REMARK
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
STANDARD PENDING
OBS
555
CAS
NUMBER
CONSTITUENT
NAME
7440382 ARSENIC
WST COOE4C084
WASTE/
EXTRACT
BOAT
STANDARD
5.600
UTS
STANDAI
5.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.05
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
WASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
DBS
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
OBS
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
OBS
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
OBS
603
604
605
606
, 607
608
609
, CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
11096825
11097691
11104282
11141165
12672296
12674112
53469219
541731 (M)1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
95501 (0)1,2-01 CHLOROBENZENE
106467 (P)1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
95943 1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
120821 1, 2, 4-TRt CHLOROBENZENE
71432 BENZENE
108907 CHLOROBENZENE
118741 HEXACHLOROBENZENE
608935 PENTACHLOROBENZENE
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7440473 CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
7439921 LEAD
95501 (0)1,2-D1CHLOROBENZENE
71556 1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
£7641 ACETONE
98862 ACETOPHENONE
117817 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
85687 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
84742 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
117840 DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
84662 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
131113 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
141786 ETHYL ACETATE
100414 ETHYL BENZENE
78933 METHYL ETHYL KETONE
108101 METHYL ISOBUTVL KETONE
75092 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
71363 N- BUTYL ALCOHOL
91203 NAPHTHALENE
98953 NITROBENZENE
108883 TOLUENE
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7439921 LEAD
208968 ACENAPHTHALENE
71432 BENZENE
218019 CHRYSENE
206440 FLUQRANTHENE
193395 INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
91203 NAPHTHALENE
85018 PHENANTHRENE
108883 TOLUENE
1330207 XVLENES (TOTAL)
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
630206 1rt,1.2-1E1RACNLOROETHME
79345 t.t,2.2-TETRAO»LOROETHANE
79005 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
67721 NEXACHLOROETNANE
76017 PENTACHLOROETHANE
127184 TETRACHLOROETHENE
79016 TRICHLOROETHENE
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
V 1.800
W 1.800
U 0.920
U 0.920
U 0.920
U 0.920
U 0.920
U 4.400
U 4.400
U 4.400
U 4.400
U 4.400
U . 4.400
W 4.400
U 4.400
U 4.400
UASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.094
E 0.370
W 6.200
W 5.600
U 160.000
U 9.700
U 28.000
U 7.900
W 28.000
W 28.000
U 28.000
W 28.000
U 33.000
U 6.000
U 36.000
U 33.000
U 33.000
W 2.600
W 3.100
W 14.000
U . 28.000
UASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.510
U 3.400
U 0.071
U 3.400
U 3.400
W 3.400
W 3.400
W 3.400
U 0.650
U 0.070
UASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 5.600
U 5.600
.- U 6.000
U 28.000
U 5.600
U 6.000
U 5.600
UTS UTS TO BOAT
STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
f
<
9
.
i
6.00U
6.000
6.000
14.000
19.000
10.000
6.000
10.000
10.000
UTS
STANDARD
0.330
0.370
6.000
6.000
160.000
9.700
28.000
28.000
28.000
28.000
28.000
28.000
33.000
10.000
36.000
33.000
30.000
2.6'.;
5.600
14.000
10.000
UTS UTS
'
9
B
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.50
0.64
0.36
0.13
0.36
0.36
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.55
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
-0.04
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.45
TO BOAT
STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
0.370
3.400
10.000
3.400
3.400
3.400
5.600
5.600
10.000
30.000
UTS
STANDARD
.000
.000
.000
30.000
.000
.OOC
.OOC
0.14
0.00
2.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.22
1.19
2.63
REMARK
STANDARD PENDINC
STANDARD PENDINC
STANDARD PENDINC
STANDARD PENDINC
STANDARD PENDINC
STANDARD PENDINC
STANDARD PENDINC
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
SIGNIF. LESS STRING
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. LESS STRING
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG) REMARK.
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.03
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODEEytZE CHANGE
MOOj^HCHANGE
mKJB^B^BB
NOoMrCHANGE
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREANS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
WST CODE«K096
CAS CONSTITUENT
DBS NUMBER NAME
610 541731 (M)1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
611 630206 1,1,1.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
612 79345 1.1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
613 79005 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
614 120821 1,2,4-TRICNLOROBENZENE
615 76017 PENTACHLOROETHANE
616 127184 TETRACHLOROETHENE
617 79016 TRICHLOROETHENE
WASTE/
EXTRACT
U
V
U
U
U
W
U
U
BOAT
STANDARD
5.600
5.600
5.600
6.000
19.000
5.600
6.000
5.600
UTS
STANDARD
.000
.000
.000
.000
1
.000
.000
.000
.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
CAS CONSTITUENT
DBS NUMBER NAME
618 94757 2,4- (D) DICHLOROPHENOXY ACE
619 99900004 HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
620 99900004 HEXACHLORCOIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
621 99900006 PENTACHLORDIBENZO-P-DIOX1NS
622 99900007 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
623 99900010 TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
624 99900009 TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
WST CODE-K099
WASTE/
EXTRACT
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
BOAT
STANDARD
1.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
UTS
STANDARD
10.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED
WST CODE«K100
DBS
625
626
627
CAS
NUMBER
7440439
7440473
7439921
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
LEAD
WASTE/
EXTRACT
E
E
E
BOAT
STANDARD
0.066
5.200
0.510
UTS '
STANDARD
0.190
0.33C
0.37C
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.46
-1.20
-0.14
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
OBS
628
629
CAS
NUMBER
7440382
99900014
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ARSENIC
O-NITROANILINE
WST_COOE*K101
WASTE/
EXTRACT
E
W
BDAT
STANDARD
5.600
14.000
UTS
STANDARD
5.000
14.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.05
0.00
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
WST CODE-K102
OBS
630
631
CAS
NUMBER
7440382
99900015
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ARSENIC
0-NITROPHENOL
WASTE/
EXTRACT
E
W
BOAT
STANDARD
5.600
13.000
UTS
STANDARD
5.000
13.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.05
0.00
REMARK
KOOERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
WST CODE4C103
OBS
632
633
634
635
636
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
51285 2,4-DINITROPHENOL
62533 ANILINE
71432 BENZENE
98953 NITROBENZENE
108952 PHENOL
WASTE/
EXTRACT
W
W
W
W
W
BDAT
STANDARD
5.600
5.600
6.000
5.600
5.600
UTS
STANDARD
160.000
14.000
10.000
14.000
6.200
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.46
0.40
0.22
0.40
0.04
REMARK
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
WST CODE4C104
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
51285 2,4-DINITROPHENOL
62533 ANILINE
71432 BENZENE
57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
98953 NITROBENZENE
108952 PHENOL
WASTE/
EXTRACT
W
W
W
W
W
W
BDAT
STANDARD
5.600
5.600
,6.000
1.800
5.600
5.600
UTS
STANDARD
160.000
14.000
10.800
590.000
14.000
6.200
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.46
0.40
0.22
2.52
0.40
0.04
REMARK
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
WASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
OBS
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
OBS
651
OBS
652
OBS
653
OBS
654
655
656
OBS
657
658
659
OBS
660
661
662
OBS
663
CAS
NUMBER
95501
106467
95954
88062
95578
71432
108907
108952
CAS
NUMBER
7439976
CAS
NUMBER
7439976
CAS
NUMBER
7440020
CAS
NUMBER
106934
74839
67663
CAS
NUMBER
106934
74839
67663
CAS
NUMBER
106934
74839
67663
CAS
NUMBER
7440382
CONSTITUENT
NAME ,
i
(0)1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
(P)V.4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPMENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOl
2-CHLOROPHENOL
BENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
PHENOL
CONSTITUENT
NAME
MERCURY
CONSTITUENT
NAME
MERCURY
CONSTITUENT
NAME
NICKEL
CONSTITUENT
.MANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
BRONOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CONSTITUENT
NAME
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CONSTITUENT
NAME
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CONSTITUENT
NAME
Aftsanc
....... M5T_CUDE«K7l»
WASTE/ BJU
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 4.400
W 4.400
W 4.400
W 4.400
W 4.400
W 4.400
W 4.400
W 4.400
WST_COOE*K106 (NOT RESIDUES) -
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.025
- w»i_wjue«Muo iKcaiuucaj --
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.020
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.320
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 15.000
W 15.000
W 5.600
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 15.000
W 15.000
W 5.600
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 15.000
W 15.000
W 5.600
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 5.600
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
6.000
7.4
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
WASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
DBS
664
DBS
665
DBS
666
667
668
DBS
669
670
OBS
671
672
OBS
673
674
OBS
675
OBS
676
OBS
677
CAS
NUMBER
7440382
CAS
NUMBER
7440382
CAS
NUMBER
7440393
57125
57125
CAS
NUMBER
57125
57125
CAS
NUMBER
57125
57125
CAS
NUMBER
57125
57125
CAS
NUMBER
7440382
CAS
NUMBER
7440382
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ARSENIC
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ARSENIC
CONSTITUENT
NAME
BARIUM
CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ARSENIC
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ARSENIC
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
298044 OISULFOTON
WST_CODE*P011
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 5.600
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 5.600
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 52.000
W 9.100
W 110.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 9.100
W 110.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 9.100
W 110.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 9.100
W 110.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 5.600
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 5.600
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 0.100
UTS
STANDAR
5.000
UTS
STANDARD
5.000
UTS
STANDARD
7.600
30.000
590.000
UTS
STANDARD
30.000
590.000
UTS
STANDARD
30.000
590.000
. UTS
STANDARD
30.000
590.000
UTS
STANDARD
5.000
UTS
STANDARD
5.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.05
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.05
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.84
0.52
0.73
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.52
0.73
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LSfi>
0.52
0.73
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.52
0.73
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.05
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.05
UTS UTS TO BOAT
STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
6.200
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
1.79 SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
WASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
OBS
678
679
OBS
680
OBS
681
OBS
682
OBS
683 .
OBS
684
685
686
OBS
687
!
OBS
688
OBS
689
OBS
690
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
57125 CYANIDE CANBUt&LE)
57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7439976 MERCURY
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7439976 MERCURY
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME .
298000 METHYL PARATHION
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7440020 NICKEL
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7440020 NICKEL
57125 CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
. 57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
I
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
56382 PARATHION
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7439976 MERCURY
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7439976 MERCURY
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
298022 PHORATE
WST_COOE»POW -
WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) REMARK
V 9.100 30.000 0.52 MODERATE CHANG!
V 110.000 590.000 0.73 MODERATE CHANGI
WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDAt RATIO (LOG) REMARK
E 0.025 0.009 -0.44 MODERATE CHANGI
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) REMARK
E 0.200 0.009 -1.35 SIGNIF. MORE STRINI
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) REMARK
W 0.100 4.600 1.66 SIGNIF. LESS STRINi
WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) REMARK
E 0.320 5.000, 1.19 MOj^fecHANG!
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STAND Ail RATIO (LOG) REMARK
E 0.320 5.001 1.19 MODERATE CHANGI
W 9.100 30.000 0.52 MODERATE CHANG!
W 110.000 590.000 0.73 MODERATE CHANG!
WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) ' REMARK
W 0.100 4.600 1.66 SIGNIF. LESS STRIN
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) REMARK
E 0.025 0.009 -0.44 MODERATE CHANG
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) REMARK
E 0.200 0.009 -1.35 SIGNIF. MORE STRIN
' ~ . ^^^
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT ^^B
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD *ATIO (LOG) ^KltK
W 0.100 4.600 1.66 SIGNIF. LESS STRIN
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
19
OBS
691 .
OBS
692
693
OBS
694
695
696
OBS
697
B^fe*8
699
700
OBS
701
702
OBS
703
OBS
704
OBS
^705
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
52857 FAMPHUR
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
57125 CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7440224 SILVER
57125 CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7782492 SELENIUM
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7440224 SILVER
57125 CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
57125 CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7439921 LEAD
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7782492 SELENIUM
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
57125 CYANIDE (AMENABLE)
57125 CYANIDE (TOTAL)
WST_CODE«PW7
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
REMARK
W 0.100 15.000 2.18 SIGNIF. LESS STRINGENT
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
W 9.100 30.000 0.52
W 110.000 590.000 0.73
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
E 0.072 0.300 0.62
W 9.100 30.000 0.52
W 110.000 590.000 0.73
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD- STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
E 5.700 0.160 -1.55 SIGNIF. MORE STRINGENT
tf 1 l^JWfcr ll^t
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
I 0.072 0.300 0.62
W 9.100 30.000 0.52
W 110.000 590.000 0.73
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
W 9.100 30.000 0.52
W 110.000 590.000 0.73
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
I 0.510 0.3-, -0.14
WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
E 5.700 0.160 -1.55 SIGNIF. MORE STRINGENT
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
W 9.100 30.000 0.52
W 110.000 590.000 0.73
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
WASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
DBS
707
DBS
708
OSS
709
OBS
710
OBS
711
OBS
712
OBS
713
OBS
714
OBS
715
OBS
716
CAS
NUMBER
8001352
CAS
NUMBER
75058
CAS
NUMBER
56553
CAS
NUMBER
71432
CAS
NUMBER
50328
CAS
NUMBER
111444
CAS
NUMBER
7440473
CAS
NUMBER
57749
CAS
NUMBER
108907
CAS
NUMBER
75014
CONSTITUENT
NAME
TOXAPHENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ACETONITRILE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
BENZENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
BENZO(A)PYRENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHLORDANE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHLOROBENZENE
COUSTITUENT
HAKE
VINYL CHLORIDE
U5T_CODE«P1£)
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 1.300
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 0.170
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 8.200
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 36.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 8.200
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 7.200
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.094
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 0.130
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 5.700
. WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 33.000
UTS
STANDARD
2.60r
UTS
STANDARD
UTS
STANDARD
3.400
UTS
STANDARD
10.000
UTS
STANDARD
3.400
UTS
STANDAft
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
0.330
UTS
STANDARD
0.260
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.30
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.38
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.56
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.38
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.08
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.55
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.30
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.02
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.74
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
STANDARD PENDIN
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MOOMJK CHANG
.....W......
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MODERATE CHANf
^EJgARK
MO^LB CHAN!
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARD
OBS
717
OBS
718
OBS
719
OBS
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
OBS
727
OBS
728
- OBS
729
OBS
730
OBS
731
CAS
NUMBER
67663
CAS
NUMBER
74873
CAS
NUMBER
218019
CAS
NUMBER
7439921
91203
87865
85018
129000
108883
1330207
CAS
NUMBER
95501
CAS
NUMBER
541731
CAS
NUMBER
106467
CAS
NUMBER
75343
CAS
NUMBER
107062
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHLOROFORM
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHLOROMETHANE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CHRYSENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
LEAD
NAPHTHALENE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
TOLUENE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
(0)1,2-01 CHLOROBENZENE
'
CONSTITUENT
NAME
(M)1, 3-D I CHLOROBENZENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
(P)1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
--- WST_CODE=UIM*
UASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
U 5.600
UASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
U 33.000
UASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
U 8.200
UASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.510
U 1.500
U 7.400
U 1.500
U 1.500
U 28.000
W 33.000
UASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
. U 6.200
UASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
U 6.200
UASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
U 6.200
UASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
U 7.200
UASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
U. 7.200
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
30.000
UTS
STAND ARO
3.400
UTS
STANDAKT
0.37C
5.600
7.400
5.600
8.200
10.000
30.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.03
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.04
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.38
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.14
0.57
0.00
0.57
0.74
-0.45
-0.04
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.01
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.01
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.01
/
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.08
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.08
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
UNCHANGED
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
OBS
. 732
OBS
733
OBS
734
OBS
735
OBS
736
OBS
737
OBS
738
OBS
739
740
741
742
OBS
743
OBS
744
CAS
NUMBER
75354
CAS
NUMBER
156605
CAS
NUMBER
75092
CAS
NUMBER
206440
CAS
NUMBER
75694
CAS
NUMBER
118741
CAS
NUMBER
87683
CAS
NUMBER
319846
319857
319866
58899
CAS
NUMBER
77474
CAS
NUMBER
67721
CONSTITUENT
NAME
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
TRANS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
FLUORANTHENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
TR I CHLOROMONOFLUOROMETHANE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ALPHA - BHC
BETA - BHC
DELTA - BHC
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
CONSTITUENT
NAME
HEXACHLOROCVttOF£«TM»IEK
CONSTITUENT
NAME
HEXACHLOROETHANE
- UST_CQDE«UUrO
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 33.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
U 33.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 33.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 8.200
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 33.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W ' 37.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 28.000
WASTE/ BOAT
- EXTRACT STANDARD
W 0.660
W 0.660
W 0.660
W 0.660
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
U 3.600
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 28.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
30.000
UTS
STANDARD
30.000
UTS
STANDARD
3.400
UTS
STANDS
30.0CC
UTS
STANDARD
10.UCO
UTS
STANDARD
5.600
UTS
STANDARD
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
UTS
STANDARD
2.400
UTS
STAHDAR:
30.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.74
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.04
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.04
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.38
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.04
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.57
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.70
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
1.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.18
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.03
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MODERATE CHANC
REMARK
MODERATE CHANC
ft
^F
REMARK
MODERATE CHANC
REMARK
MODERATE CHANC
REMARK
MODERATE CHAN!
MODERATE CHAN!
MODERATE CHAN!
MODERATE CHAW
REMARK
MODERATE CHAN'
0,.
MODERATE CHAN
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
WASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
OBS
745
OBS
746
OBS
747
OBS
748
OBS
749
OBS
750
OBS
751
OBS
752
OBS
753
OBS
, 754
CAS
NUMBER
7440382
CAS
NUMBER
193395
CAS
NUMBER
7439921
CAS
NUMBER
7439921
CAS
NUMBER
7439921
CAS
NUMBER
7439976
CONSTITUENT
NAME
ARSENIC
CONSTITUENT
NAME
INDENO(1,2,3-CO)PYRENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
LEAD
CONSTITUENT
NAME
LEAD
CONSTITUENT
NAME
LEAD
CONSTITUENT
NAME
MERCURY
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
7439976 MERCURY
CAS
NUMBER
101144
CAS
NUMBER
91203
CAS
608935
CONSTITUENT
NAME
WST_CODE*U136
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 5.600
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
U 8.200
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.510
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.510
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.510
WST.CODE-U151 (NOT RESIDUES)
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
E 0.025
UTS
STAKOARS
5.000
UTS
STANDARD
3.400
UTS
STANDARD
0.370
UTS
STANDARD
0.37C
UTS
STANDARD
0.370
UTS
STANDARD
0.009
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.05
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.38
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.14
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.14
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.14
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.44
WASTE/ BDAT UTS UTS TO BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
E 0.200
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
4,4'-METHYLENE-BIS-(2-CHLORO U 35.000
CONSTITUENT
NAME
NAPHTHALENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 3.100
WASTE/ BDAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 37.000
0.009
UTS
STANDARD
30.000
UTS
STANDARD
5.600
UTS
STANDARD
10.000
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
1.35 SIGNIF. MORE STRINGENT
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.07
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.26
UTS TO BDAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.57
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
REMARK
MODERATE CHANGE
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
UASTESTREANS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
CAS CONSTITUENT
OBS NUMBER NAME
755 7782492 SELENIUM
OBS
CAS CONSTITUENT
NUMBER NAME
756 7782492 SELENIUM
OBS
757
OBS
758
OBS
759
OBS
760
OBS
761
OBS
762
OBS
763
OBS
764
CAS
NUMBER
95943
CAS
NUMBER
630206
CAS
NUMBER
79345
CAS
NUMBER
127184
CAS
NUMBER
56235
CAS
NUMBER
108883
CAS
NUMBER
75252
CAS
NUMBER
71556
CONSTITUENT
NAME
1 ,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
1,1,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
1 . 1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
TETRACHLOROETHENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
TOLUENE
\
CONSTITUENT
NAME
TRIBROMOMETHANE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
WASTE/ WAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG) REMARK
E 5.700 0.160 -1.55 SIGNIF. MORE STRIN
HA 1 UWC*"WtWJ
WASTE/ BOAT UTS UTS TO BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD STANDARD RATIO (LOG)
E 5.700 0.160
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 19.000
I WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 42.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 42.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 5.600
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 5.600
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 28.000
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
W 15.000
WASTE/ BOAT
' EXTRACT STANDARD
W 5.600
UTS
STANDARD
14.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDAft'.
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
10.000
UTS
STANDARD
UTS
STANDAR
6.000
REMARK
-1.55 SIGNIF. MORE STRIN
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.13
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.85
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
-0.85
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.03
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.03
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.45
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG)
0.03
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MOOE^tt CHANG
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
MODERATE CHANG
REMARK
STANDARD PENDIN
UHARK
MOC^^RCHANC
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF UTS IMPACTS
WASTESTREAMS WITH CHANGING TREATMENT STANDARDS
DBS
765
DBS
766
DBS
767
DBS
768
DBS
769
CAS
NUMBER
79005
CAS
NUMBER
79016
CAS
NUMBER
126727
CAS
NUMBER
1330207
CAS
NUMBER
1888717
CONSTITUENT
NAME
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
TRICHLOROETHENE
CONSTITUENT
NAME
TRIS(2,3-D1BROMOPROPYL) PHOS
CONSTITUENT
NAME
XYLENES (TOTAL)
CONSTITUENT .
NAME
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
WST_CODE=UZZ7
WASTE/ BOAT
EXTRACT STANDARD
' u
WST_COOE=U228
WASTE/
EXTRACT !
U -
WST_CODE«U235
WASTE/
EXTRACT SI
W
WST_CODE=U239
WASTE/
EXTRACT 5
W
WST_CODE*U243
WASTE/
EXTRACT !
W
5.600
BOAT
STANDARD
5.600
BOAT
rANDARD
0.100
BOAT
STANDARD
28.000
BOAT
STANDARD
28.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
6.000
UTS
STANDARD
UTS
STANDARI'
30.000
UTS
STANDARD
30.000
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG) .REMARK
0.03 MODERATE CHANGE
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG) REMARK
0.03 MODERATE CHANGE
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG) REMARK
STANDARD PENDING
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG) REMARK
0.03 MODERATE CHANGE
UTS TO BOAT
RATIO (LOG) REMARK
0.03 MODERATE CHANGE
-------
APPENDIX C
PERCENTAGE (BY VOLUME) OF TC WASTES ASSIGNED TO
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (Including Average)
Nonwastewaters
Incineration 28%
Thermal Desorption 25%
Incineration & Stabilization 23%
Average Cost Used 23%
Soils
Thermal Desorption 48%
Thermal Desorption & Stabilization , 5%
Incineration & Stabilization 1%
Incineration <1%
Average Cost Used 46%
Debris . ,
Incineration 38%
Thermal Desorption & Stabilization 8%
Thermal Desorption 7%
Extraction 3%
Incineration & Stabilization 1%
Average Cost Used 44%
-------
APPENDIX D
UNIT COSTS USED IN PHASE II RULE TC ANALYSIS
For TC Nonwastewaters
Biological/Chemical Treatment (off-site)
Organic Recovery/Extraction (off-site)
Stabilization (off-site)
Stabilization (on-site)
Thermal Desorption (off-site)
Thermal Desorption (on-site)
Incineration (off-site) >
*
Incineration (on-site)
For TC Hazardous Soils
Biological/Chemical Treatment (off-site)
Biological/Chemical Treatment (on-site)
Solvent Extraction (off-site)
Solvent Extraction (on-site)
Stabilization (off-site)
>
Stabilization (on-site)
Thermal Desorption/Soil Vapor Extraction (off-site)
Thermal Desorption/Soil Vapor Extraction (on-site)
Incineration (off-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Soil Washing (on-site)
Cost
$Aon
974
310
220 '
33
515
100
1570 (< 1000 tons)
1280 (1000 to 5000 tons)
1135 (> 5000 tons)
520
320
261
532
475
220
53
515
100
1470 (< 1000 tons)
1200 (1000 to 5000 tons)
1060 (> 5000 tons)
1150
100
Source
A
A
A
C
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
C
A
C
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
-------
For TC Hazardous Debris
Biological/Chemical Treatment (oh-site)
Extraction (off-site)
Extraction (on-site)
Stabilization (off-site)
Stabilization (on-site)
Thermal Desorption (off-site)
Thermal Desorption (on-site)
Incineration (off-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Sources:
A 1990 Survey of Selected Firms in the Hazardous Waste Management Industry. July 1992, U.S.
EPA Office of .Policy Analysis
B ' Cost and Economic Impact Analysis of Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly Listed Wastes^
Contaminated Debris (Phase I LDRs). June 1992, US. EPA Office of Solid Waste
75 B
390 B
350 B
550 B
53 B
55 B
55 B
2110 (< 1000 tons) C
1720 (1000 to 5000 tons) C
1525 (> 5000 tons) C
1720 B
Quotes from vendors collected for this analysis.
-------
APPENDIX E
Cost of Affected TC Waste by TC Code and Physical Form
TCCode
D018
D019
D020
D021
D022
D023
D024
D025
D026
D027
D028
D029
D030
D031
D032
D033
D034
D035
D036
D037
D038
D039
D040
D041
D042
D043
Total
Debris .
27,758^35.01
200,509.55
16,490.26
339,878.69
69^5127
58,74634
51332.05
62,014.22
2285,473.83
398,138.43
414,173.04
480389.71
112,984.26
13,39833
70,08339
106,156.02
29,88839
345215.65
89,21823
179,063.00
417,109.10
1,156,115.84
123624934
22,674.10
22,674.10
90392.40
36,026,855.15
Nonwastewater
69,983334.93
4,736^94.06
2,406,928.45
4,436,730.48
4,114,821.08
4,045,430.45
616,497.46
. 353,76139
1324,19427
1,445389.03
8,476,747.93
3,002,90127
586388.64
269360.90
3,097,175.76
467,63234
437,159.98
4,417,846.20
36538431
. 597,717.64
2272,178.72
6335,027.62
5230,936.14
145,918,41
15534132
15,435,045.14
144,957344.12
SoU
29,119,18429
92,437.86
147246.85
473,495.01
93223.16
9,453.91
9,148.94
9,148.94
40,451.08
477368.78
41'.. 750.12
53t.l3925
646.416.91
5,184.40
i>, 95437
18297.88
18297.88
118357.48
261,061.01
102,468.15
172,915.00
980,17130
930,014.81
5.184.40
5,184.40
23,642.87
34,731399.05
Total
126,860,854.23
5,029,841.47
2370,66536
5250,104.18
427739531
4,113,630.90
677,178.45
424,92435
3,650,119.18
2321,09624
9308,671.09
4,019,63023
1345,789.81
288,143.63
3,186213.72
592,086.44
485346.45
4,881,61933
715,86335
879248.79
2,862202.82
8,671314.76
7397200.29
173,776.91
183^99.82
15349280.41
215,715,79832
-------
APPENDIX F
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR ESTIMATING EMISSIONS
(HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS - AIR PATHWAY)
Listed below is the step-by-step approach, with example calculations, that was used for
calculating emissions in estimating benefits from the air pathway. For the sake of example, these
calculations are based on a hypothetical source scenario and use equations and parameter values
in the Phase n LDR benefits analysis, for all equations, the parameters are defined at the end of
this appendix.
Hypothetical Source Scenario
A waste containing benzene at a concentration of 1,000 ppm «- .c miration is being
managed at a Subtitle C landfill. The total waste volume managed in *iie landfill is 16,200 cubic
meters. Assuming a depth of 4 meters, the surface area of the landfill i about 4,050 square
meters.
Calculations Used to Estimate Total Emission Rates
The "total emission rate" is the sum of the volatilization emission and participate emission
rates. The only paniculate emissions considered in the analysis are those due to wind and
vehicular traffic. The emissions resulting from other mechanical disturbance!, such as loading and
unloading operations and daily spreading operations are ignored because they result in very low
emissions compared to volatilization emissions for TC constituents.
-------
F'2
A* Volatilization Emissions
The volatilization algorithm described by Hwang and Falco1 is used to calculate N, the
mass flux (g/s/cm2) from uncovered landfills.
H C,
N « x x - W
XF1
where a, the effective diffusion parameter, and Kj, the soil-water partitioning coefficient for
organics, are calculated as follows: .
**
Using the following parameter values, k^ a, and N are calculated as follows:
foe . - 0.02
koc = 347.664 ml/g (calculated from k^,, the octanol/water partition
coefficient)
1^ = 0.1 cm2^
H = 0.2294 (dimensionless)
1Hwang, S.T. and Falco, J.Wn "Estimation of Muftimetfia Exposure Related to Hazardous Waste Facilities,' in
Pollutants in a Multimedia Environment. Y. Cohen (ed.), Plenum Press, 1986. '
-------
F-3
9 = 0.437
ps = 2.65 g/cm3
Cs = 1,000 mg/kg
t = 31,536,000 sec (assuming 1 year operation)
XF1 = 106 mg/kg per g/g
Kd = 0.02 x 347.664 (4)
7.0ml/g
m 0.1 x Q.4374^
0.437 + 2.65 x (1 -0.437) x 7'°
v ' 0.22').*
a = 7.2E-4 cm2/s
xr 2 x 0.1 x 0.4374/3 0.2294 1000
N - __ x x
^ x 0.00072 x 31,536,000 7-° 106
N= 8.1E-9 e/s/cm2
-------
F-4
B. Estimate Particulate Emissions
The empirical equations described in Cowherd2 are used for estimating emissions due to
wind, and an EPA source3 is used for estimating emissions from vehicu «r traffic. Calculations
showing paniculate emissions from wind erosion and vehicular traffic are shown below.
B.1 Particulate Emissions due to Wind Erosion
The equation used to represent the wind erosion of inhalable particulates, PM10wind, is
lpr[V(i)X..XF2
w
B.2 Particulate Emissions due to Vehicle Traffic
The empirical equation used to represent the emission factor for particulates,
(kg/VKT), from an unpaved landfill per vehicle kilometers traveled per hour, VKT, is
<»>
The average hourly emission due to vehicle traffic, PM10veb, is then estimated as
- 1,000 fc/fc) x Emv x VKT (9)
2Cowberd, C, et aL, Rapid Assessment of Exposure! to Particulate Emissions from Sur
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, 1985.
*EPA, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I: 'Stationary Point; jc Area Sources. 4 ed..
EPA/OAQPS, 1985.
-------
F-5
Using the following input values, the paniculate emissions can be estimated as shown
below:
AS = 0.4050 hectares
F(x) = 133 (From MMSOILS model)
pe = 90 days/year
S = 24km/hr
s = 8 percent
uw = 3 m/s
U{ = 4.2 m/s
VG = 0
VKT = 3.12 # veh. x km/hr
W = 15 Mg
w =6
x = 0.886 Uj/u
XF2 = ^m^a
q = 0.001 g/g
PM1Q . = 0.036 x (1 -0) x (J-? x 1.33 x 0.4050 x 104 (10)
wma \*\,ij
71 g/hr
8Emv = 036 x (1.7) x x x ( x ( x (ID
= 0.63
-------
F-6
= 1,000 (glkg) x 0.6252 x 3.12
^ 2,000 g/hr
The total emission rate, N^, is calculated as the sum of the emission rates from
volatilization emissions and paniculate emissions from wind erosion and mechanical disturbances.
Note that the emission rate from volatilization is the product of mass flux (N) and unit area
Ntot = [N x AJ + [( PM10wind + PM10veh ) x q x (1/3600)]
= [8.1E-9 x (4.050 x 107)] + [(71 + 2,000) x (1E-3) x (1/3,600)]
= 33E-1 + 5.8E-4 g/s
= 033 g/s
DEFINITIONS OF PARAMETERS
1. Parameters used in the volatilization emission calculations
N = mass flux (g/s/cm2)
a = effective diffusion parameter (cm2/s)
Cf adsorbed chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)
D| = diffusion coefficient of compound in air (cm2/s)
H = Henry's law constant in concentration form (dimensi< a ss)
-------
F-7*
Kji = soil-water partition coefficient (ml/g)
t = time (sec)
XF1 = units conversion factor (106 mg/kg per g/g)
0 = porosity (dimensionless)
ps = particle density of soil (g/cm3)
f^c = fraction of organic carbon (dimensionless)
= adsorption coefficient on organic carbon (ml/g)
= area of site (hectares)
2. Parameters used in participate emission calculations
= emission factor from an unpaved road per vehicle- kilometer of travel (kg/VKT)
F(x) = plotted function from
-------
APPENDIX G
BASELINE AND POST-REGUIATORY LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR CARCINOGENIC CONSTITUENTS
FACILITY
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
CONSTITUENT
VINYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BENZENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
BENZENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
BENZENE
NEXACHLOROBENZENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHVLENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
<«0/l>
10.097
1.089
3.298
2.112
24.912
0.301
0.238
0.292
3.118
0.378
0.002
0.261
4.6t-04
42.202
983.903
2.920
2.024
2.729
0.064
RATIO
TO RSO
54.877.4
90.3
273.3
66.4
2,064.2
S16.1
88.6
76.0
S4.3
31.4
8.6
8.2
2.5
3,496.7
81,523.2
759.1
751.9
47.6
2.0
POST-REGULATORY SCENARIO
TREATMENT TO UNIV. STD.
CONCENTRATION
<«0/l>*
0.140
0.160
0.160
0.097
0.160
0.130
0.084
0.210
0.205
0.160
0.001
0.097
4.6t-04
0.160
0.160
0.210
0.084
0.205
0.064
RATIO
TO RSDb
760.870
13.257
13.257
3.045
13.257
222.985
31.204 .
54.602
3.573
13.257
6.809
3.045
2.490
13.257
13.257
54.602
31.204
3.573
2.020
-------
G-2
BASELINE AND POST-REGULATORY LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR CARCINOGENIC CONSTITUENTS
FACILITY
NUMBER
,7
8
9
10
11
CONSTITUENT
BENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-D1CHLOROETHYLENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
BENZENE
2,4-DINITROTOlUENE
2.6-DIN1TROTOLUENE
1,2-DlCHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(B/l)
0.624
56.067
0.331
0.738
3.303
6.255
1.803
0.123
0.004
0.126
1.157
1.400
3.634
2.175
0.569
0.014
RATIO
TO RSO
51.7
14,577.9
1.797.0
1,265.0
1,227.0
109.0
56.7
27.4
18.9
5.1
95.8
116.0
7,055.9
4,222.6
148.1
5.2
POST -REGULATORY SCENARIO
TREATMENT TO UNIV. STD. .
CONCENTRATION
(fl/D*
0.160
0.210
0.140
0.130
0.084
0.205
0.097
0.003
0.001
0.091
0.160
0.160
0.880
0.295
0.210
0.014
RATIO
TORSOb
13.257
54.602
760.870
222.985
31.204
3.573
3.045
0.745
6.809 I
'J
13.2^^
13.257
1,708.738
572.298°
54.602
5.240
-------
G-3
BASELINE AND POST-REGULATORY LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR CARCINOGENIC CONSTITUENT J
FACILITY
NUMBER
12
13
14
CONSTITUENT
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CHLOROANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
POLYCNLORINATEO BIPHENYLS
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
BENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
BENZENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(«B/l)
11.197
4.307
7.603
0.163
3.264
0.014
0.243
4.6e-04
37.199
459.451
16.656
4.968
0.008
0.069
0.691
RATIO
TO RSO
19.205.9
1.120.0
630.0
605.2
102.6
63.9
16.7
10.3
826.648.7
14,440.0
1,380.0
1,291.7
14.1
4.7
57.3
POST -REGULATORY SCENARIO
TREATMENT TO UNIV. STO.
CONCENTRATION
(0/t)'
0.130
0.210
0.160
0.001
0.097
0.001
0.036
4.6e-04
0.003
0.097
0.160
0.210
0.008
0.036
0.160
RATIO
TO RSDb
222.985
54.602
13.257
2.535
3.045
6.809
2.488
10.300b
62.222b
3.045
13.257
54.602
14.110
2.488
13.257
-------
G-4
BASELINE AND POST-REGULATORY LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR CARCINOGENIC CONSTITUENTS
FACILITY
NUMBER
15
16
17
CONSTITUENT
BENZENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
HEPTACHLOR
TRICNLOROETHYLENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
2.4-DINITROTOLUENE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
ETHYLENE D I BROMIDE
BENZENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(0/D
16.542
0.100
0.027
0.006
0.086
5.0e-0t
0.122
0.009
3.6e-04
0.001
6.151
0.007
8.015
2.263
0.134
0.097
0.346
RATIO
TO RSD
1.370.7
545.1
45.6
23.0
22.5
6.4
3.8
3.2
1.7
1.4
2.108.6
1,830.2
664.1
71.1
49.7
2.1
28.7
POST-REGULATORY SCENARIO
TREATMENT TO UNIV. STD.
CONCENTRATION
<«0/l>'
0.160
0.100
0.027
0.001
0.086
0.000
0.097
0.009
3.6e-04
0.001
0.022
0.007
0.160
0.097
0.084
0.097
0.160
RATIO
TO RSOb
13.257
545.120
45.610
2.535
22.460
2.260
3.045
3.220
1.650
1.830.17^
13.257
3.045
31.204
2.070
13.257
-------
G-5
BASELINE AND POST-REGULATORY LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR CARCINOGENIC CONSTITUENTS
FACILITY
NUMBER
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONSTITUENT
1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACNLORIDE
CHLORDANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
HEPTACHLOR
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
DICHLOROETHYL ETHER
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(HB/t)
1.274
3.182
1.884
0.211
0.017
0.572
2.8e-04
0.999
0.800
0.500
2.553
0.354
2.105
13.611
0.012
0.020
0.555
5.548
0.860
0.346
5.809
1.110
2.000
RATIO
TO RSO
2,184.4
827.3
156.1
78.5
61.9
18.0
3.6
82.8
66.3
41.4
211.6
1.113.5
547.3
237.2
20.0
1.7
206.1
96.7
71.3
28.7
481.4
92.0
165.7
Pt>ST-REGULATORY SCENARIO
TREATMENT TO UNIV. STD.
fr
CONCENTRATION
(Q/l)'
0.130
0.210
0.160
0.084
0.001
0.097
0.000
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.220
0.210
0.205
0.012
0.020
0.084
0.205
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
RATIO
TO RSOb
222.985
54.602
13.257
31.204
2.535
3.045
2.260
13.257
13.257
13.257
13.257
691.824b
54.602
3.573
19.960
1.670
31.204
3.573
13.257
13.257
13.257
13.257
13.257
-------
G-6
BASELINE AND POST-REGULATORY LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR CARCINOGENIC CONSTITUENTS
FACILITY
NUMBER
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
CONSTITUENT
BENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BENZENE
BASELINE
CONCENTRATION
(B/l)
187.630
7.685
5.049
0.003
3.359
15.000
1.811
5.000
0.489
10.000
RATIO
TO RSO
15,546.5
1,998.1
418.3
17.7
278.4
1,242.9
150.0
414.3
40.5
828.6
I
POST-REGULATORY SCENARIO
TREATMENT TO UNIV. STD.
CONCENTRATION
(0/1)'
0.160
0.210
0.160
0.003
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
RATIO
TO RSOb
13.257
54.602
13.257
17.740
13.257
13.257
13.257
13.257
13.2jJ
»n
Note: Data presented in this appendix have been computer generated and contain non-significant figures.
a. The Phase II rule Mill set treatment standards for TC wastes at "universal standard" levels. For
organics, universal standards will be based on totals analysis (i.e., ng/kfl), and for BetaIs
universal standards will be based on leechate analysis (i.e., «g/l). Post-regulatory concentrations
for organics in this appendix have been calculated by applying the Organic Leachate Model (OLN) to
the totals concentrations in drafts of the Phase II LDRs rule.
b. The risk specific doses (RSDs) in this appendix are based on 10 excess lifeline cancer risk.
c. If treatment is required only for TC constituents, the post-regulatory concentration for this
constituent nay be different than indicated.
-------
APPENDIX H
GEMS/GAMS MODELING ANALYSIS
This appendix presents a brief description of the GEMS/CAMS model, print-outs showing
example "sessions" of a GEMS/GAMS run. and site-specific and chemical-specific model inputs
used in the air benefits analysis. Attachment H-l provides an overview of the GEMS/GAMS
model. An example session using GEMS/GAMS is provided in Attachment H-2. Attachment H-
3 provides site-specific information used in the analysis. Chemical-specific information is provided
in Attachment H-4.
-------
H-2
Attachment H-l
Overview of the GEMS/GAMS Model
i
The Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS) is a computerized information
management tool designed to allow quick analysis of environmental problems. GEMS has
evolved, since its development in 1981, into a system that combines the power of over 40 different
modeling and statistical analytical tools into one easy-to-use system. GEMS ties together several
previously discrete analysis tools into a coordinated system that allows for multiple types of
analysis. It facilitates the extraction and manipulation of data from several component databases
and models. GEMS is used primarily to assess the fate of chemicals released to the environment
and to determine the extent of hunian exposure and resultant risk. GEMS allows the user to:
Estimate chemical properties:
Assess the fate of chemicals in receiving environments:
Model resulting chemical concentrations;
Determine the number of people potentially exposed; and
Estimate the resultant human exposure and risk.
GEMS is housed on the VAX Ouster of computers at the National Computer Center
(NCC). Once an account with the NCC has been opened. GEMS can be accessed using a
personal computer and a modem by dialing into the mainframe. The system uses several
environmental models to simulate the migration of chemicals through air. soil, groundwater. and
surface water. The fate of a chemical can be evaluated using a model for one media or
multimedia. The key steps involved in using GEMS are: (1) choosing a model; (2) data inp
running the model: and. (4) viewing output tables.
GEMS provides four different models to estimate concentrations of chemicals released
into the air. These four models are: GEMS Atmospheric Modeling Subsystem (GAMS).
INtegrated PUFF (INPUFF), PoinT PLUme (PTPLU), and BOXMOD. In general. BOXMOD
and PTPLU are used as screening-level models and GAMS and INPUFF are used for more
refined analysis. For the current modeling task. GAMS was selected as the atmospheric model
since it is the only non-screening model that estimates annual average concentrations, annual
exposure, and lifetime and annual cancer risk. In addition, GAMS incorporates the Industrial
Source Complex Long-Tenn (ISCLT) model. Furthermore, GAMS can consider up to twenty
source categories with up to nine emission type entries within each category for an unlimited
number of source locations for modeling.
ISCLT is EPA's state-of-the-art atmospheric model that combines and enhances various
dispersion model algorithms into a computer program that can be used to assess the air quality
impact of emissions from a wide variety of sources associated with an industrial source complex
ISCLT may be used as either a screening or a detailed model to estimate atmospheric
concentration or deposition values. It is possible to estimate the population exposed to various
'The information in this attachment is summarized from 'GEMS User's Guide,' Office of Toxic
Substances, U.S. EPA, March 1989 and 'GAMS Version 3.0 User's Guide,' Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances. U.S. EPA, June 1990. ' .
-------
H-3
levels of pollutant concentration through the integration of ISCLT within GAMS. ISCLT is
implemented in GAMS to estimate annual average concentrations around each source on a polar
coordinate system. Concentration estimates are calculated at three points along the centerline of
each sector segment. ISCLT accepts stack, area, and volume source types: for the Phase II LDR
RIA. EPA simulated area sources.
The GAMS Exposure and Risk Estimation (GAMSERE) procedure is used to generate
exposure and risk estimations* based on the results of ISCLT modeling. Two basic types of
GAMS reports. Comptabs and Digests, can be generated from GAMSERE. The Comptabs are
comprehensive tables of results that can be tabulated by a combination of source category and
emission type, by source category, by emission type, and across all source categories and emission
types. The exposure and dosage tables give cumulative population exposed by concentration
level, and the risk tables give population exposed; order of magnitude risk levels, and excess cases
of cancer.
The Digests contain total results compiled by source category. An Exposure Digest
contains the maximum, minimum, and weighted average estimated concentrations: the total
modeled population: and the total exposure by source category. The Risk Digest contains
population at risk by order of magnitude risk levels and by source category. The Cases Digest
contains the modeled population, the weighted average individual risk, the total number of
estimated lifetime excess cancer cases, annual incidence, the maximum exposed individual risk, and
the number of persons exposed at the maximum risk by source category. For further information
on GEMS/GAMS, refer to "GEMS User's Guide." Office of Toxic Substances. U.S. EPA, March
1989 and "GAMS Version 3.0 User's Guide," Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
EPA. June 1990.
-------
H-4
Attachment 2
Example Session of GEMS/CAMS Mode!
GEMS
**»**«»*-«*
GEMS
GEMS can now be used on the VAX scratch pack. To use GENS there
be sure to set default to WORK PACK:[SCRATCH]. You can use a sub
directory under [SCRATCH] for your work «n fact it's recaanended)
and GEMS should work fine.
Current NEWS Bulletins
Bulletin Description
NEW PROC New versions of TRIA1R, SUPERPOP, SITERET t CENSUS.
TRIAIR TRIA1R has been removed from GEMS. There is a new
version which is available in TGEMS for testing.
»*»********»**»***********
MENU: Terminal Type Specification
1. VTIOO-compatible terminal 2. Tektronix 4010 terminal
3. VT100 with TEK4010 emulator 4. Tektronix 40U terminal
5. 80 column ASCII terminal 6. Tektronix 4105 terminal
7. 132 column ASCII terminal 8. Tektronix 4106 terminal
9. LA120 OECwriter terminal 10. Tektronix 4107 terminal
11. Tektronix 4125 terminal 12. Tektronix 4325 terminal
Please identify your terminal type by number
? 7
GRAPHICAL EXPOSURE MODELING SYSTEM
version 10.0
developed by
GENERAL SCIENCES CORPORATION
for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
A series of HELP information is available by entering HELP or TUTOR conmand.
Use the PR procedure in the Utilities operation to report problems in GEMS.
MENU: Graphical Exposure Modeling System
1. Estimation (ES)
2. Modeling - (NO)
3. Geodata Handling (GH)
4. File Management (FM)
5. Statistics ' (ST)
6. Graphics GAMS ' .
-------
H-5
MENU: GAMS SELECTION MENU
1. Set up atmospheric modeling (GAMSATMOSET)
2. Run atmospheric modeling (GAMSATMORUN)
3. Exposure and risk estimation (GAMSERE)
4. GAMS Graphics (GAMSGRAPN)
5. Estimate size of GAMS run ' (GAMSRUNEST)
6. GAMS Utilities - (GAMSUTIL)
7. Clean up a GAMS Study (GAMSCLEAN)
Enter an option number or a procedure name (in parentheses)
or a command: HELP, HELP option. BACK, CLEAR, EXIT, TUTOR
GEMS> 1
MENU: Study Name and Type
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. STUDY Name of study (10 chars)
2. STUDYTYP Type of study (NEW/OLD) NEW
3. SESSION Name of session (10 chars)
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 1 SITE73. 3 FIRST .
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Study Models and Title .
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. STDYMOOL Study models (ISCLT,TOXBOX.BOTH)
2. STDYT1TL Title for study (80 chars)
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 1 ISCLT, 2 POST-REGULATORY SCENARIO AT DOW CHEMICAL -
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Concentration / Deposition Option
ref parmname . parameter description parameter value index
1. 1SW1 Concentration or Deposition (C/D) C
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP.NEXT.BACK,END.CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: ISCLT Single Site Node
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. ONLYSITE Single site study (T/N) NO
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl vatuel. ref2 value2, ...] or a conmand: HELP,NEXT.BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
-------
H-6
MENU: Modeled Chemicals
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. CHEMNAME Chemical name (60 chars)
2. STATE State of chemical (G/P) GAS
3. DECAY Decay coefficient 0
t ,
Enter one or more combinations of: leference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...I or a command:' HELP,NEXT.BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 1 1.1-01CHLOROETHYLENE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
frefl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP.NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Modeled Chemicals
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. CHEMNAME Chemical name (60 chars)
2. STATE State of chemical (G/P) GAS
3. , DECAY Decay coefficient 0
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and-value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...) or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 1 1.2-D1CHLOROETHANE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, refZ value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Modeled Chemicals
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. CHEMNAME Chemical name (60 chars)
2. STATE State of chemical (G/P) GAS
3. DECAY Decay coefficient 0
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...1 or a conreand: HELP,NEXT.BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> 1 BENZENE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Modeled Chemicals
.ref parmname parameter description v parameter value - index
... ...» ...........*».» .....«.» t
1. CHEMNAME Chemical name (60 chars)
2. STATE State of chemical (G/P) GAS
3. DECAY Decay coefficient 0
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl valuel, ref2 value2. ...1 or a connand: HELP.NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 1 CHLOROFORM
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and vatue(s)
[refl valuel. ref2 value2, ...1 or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
-------
H-7
MENU: Modeled Chemicals
ref panrname parameter description parameter value index
1. CNEMNAME Chemical name (60 chars)
2. STATE State of chemical (G/P) GAS
3. DECAY Decay coefficient . 0
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl valuel, ref2 valueZ, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 1 DJCHLOROETHYL ETHER
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 velue2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EX IT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Modeled Chemicals
ref parmname parameter description ' parameter value index
1. CHEMNAME Chemical name (60 chars)
2. STATE State of chemical (G/P) GAS
3. DECAY Decay coefficient _ 0
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
trefl valuel. ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 1 TR1CHLOROETHYLENE
*
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
trefl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Modeled Chemicals
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. CHEMNAME Chemical name (60 chars)
2. STATE State of chemical (G/P) GAS
3. DECAY Decay coefficient .0
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter-name and value(s)
trefl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE . '
MENU: ISCLT Regulatory Switch Option
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. ISU22 Regulatory Default Option (Y/N) Y
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and valued)
trefl valuel. ref2 value2, ...) or a coflwend: HELP,NEXT,BACK.END.CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: ISCLT Regulatory Switch Option
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. 1SW23 Modeling Sulfur Dioxide (Y/N) N
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and vatue(s)
(refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...1 or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
-------
H-8
MENU: ISCLT Site Description
ref pamname parameter description parameter value index
1. SITENAHE Name of site (24 chars)
2. LOCNETN Geographic Location Method , LLDMS
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 vatueZ, ...] or a conmand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END.CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 1 DOW CHEMICAL TEXAS, 2 2IPCOOE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 valu*2, ...] or a conrnind: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
i , .
MENU: ISCLT Site Location and Meteorology - Site : DOW CHEMICAL - TEXA
ref parnrane parameter description parameter value index
1. ZIPCODE Zip code of the location
2. ISW9 Rural/Urban! option' RURAL
3. SITEMET Site specific Met data (Y/N) N
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
fref! valuel, ref2 value2, .,.] or a conmand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEHS> 1 77541, 2 URBAN3
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
{refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
STAR Station Selection : DOW CHEMICAL TEXAS
MAN PERIOD OF DISTANCE
NUMBER STATION NAME LATITUDE LONGITUDE RECORD (km)
12923 GALVESTON/SCHOLES TX 29.2667 94.8667 1956-1960 F 58.9
12906 HOUSTON/ELLINGTON TX 29.6167 95.1667 1966-1970 E 76.1
12918 HOUSTON/HOBBY TX 29.6500 95.2833 1964-1968 77.9
12960 HOUSTON/1NTCONT TX 29.9833 95.3667 1981-1985 114.6
12912 VICTORIA/FOSTER TX ' 28.8500 96.9167-1965-1974 152.3
12917 PRT ARTHUR/JEFFERSON CO TX 29.9500 94.0167 1981-1985 170.5
12926 CORPUS CHRISTI TX 27.7000 97.2667 1965-1969 233.0
Enter the UBAN number of your selected star station
Default « 12923 .
GEMS>
MENU: ISCLT Site Description
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. SITENAME Name of sit* (24 chars)
2. LOCMETH Geographic Location Method ZIPCODE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...) or a conmand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
6EMS> NE
Tour eastern most site is DOW CHEMICAL -TEXAS
Mith a longitude of 95.3550 degree
Will this be the eastern most site in your study
GEMS> YES
-------
H-9
MENU: ISCLT Receptor Options
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. SAMEGRIO All sites same grid (Y/N) YES
2. ISU4 Receptor terrain (Y/N) NO
3. 1SW25 Receptor heights above ground (Y/N) NO
Enter one of more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEHS> 3 YES
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
fref! valuel. ref2 value2, ...] or a comnand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: ISCLT Polar Grid Type - All Sites -
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. GRIDTYPE standard or Special Polar grid syste STANDARD
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK.END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Flagpole receptor heights option
1. Use the same height at each receptor
2. Use different heights at each receptor
Enter an option number or a command: HELP,BACK,END,CLEAR,EX IT
? 1
MENU: Receptor heights entry DOW CHEMICAL TEXAS
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. RHTALL Flagpole receptor height (m) 0
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 12
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
trefl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> REVIEW
MENU: Receptor heights entry - DOW CHEMICAL TEXAS
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. RHTALL Flagpole receptor height («) 2
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(c)
[refl valuel. ref2 value2, ...I or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END.CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
MENU: Type of Source Data
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
-------
H-10
1. SPECIFIC Site specific source data (T/N) YES
2. GENERIC Generic sourer data (T/N) NO
Enter one or note confeinations of: reference or parameter name arid value(s)
[refl vatuel, refZ valoeZ, ...1 or a command: HELP, NEXT .BACK, END, CLEAR, EX IT
CEMS> NE
MENU: Specific Source : Release 1 at Site DOW CHEMICAL - TEXAS
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. SOURNAME Source category name ( vhen done)
2. EMISNAME Emission type name (12 chars)
3. TYPE Source type (stack,volume,area)
4. CHEMNAME Name of chemical released
.Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl value!, ref2 valueZ, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 1 LANDFILL, 2 FUGITIVE, 3 AREA, 4 1.1-OICHLOROETHYLENE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END.CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> REVIEW
MENU: Specific Source : Release 1 at Site OOW CHEMICAL - TEXAS
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. SOURNAME Source category name ( when done) LANDFILL
2. EMISNAME Emission type name (12 chars) FUGITIVE
3. TYPE Source type (stack,volume,area) AREA
4. CHEMNAME Name of chemical released 1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT.BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Source Characterization - Area
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. ox Cartesian X-coord (m) 0
2. DY Cartesian Y-coord (m) 0
3. H Height of emission (n)
i>. XO Width of area source (m)
5. 0 Source emission (see HELP for units)
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl valuel,- ref2 valueZ, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR.EXIT
GEMS> 3 0. 4 34.77, 5 1E-8 /
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or'parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 valueZ, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK.END,CLEAR.EXIT
GEMS> REVIEW
MENU: Source Characterization - Area
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. OX Cartesian X-coord (>) . 0
2. OY Cartesian Y-coord () .0
3. H Height of emission (m) 0
4. XO Width of area source (n) 34.77
5. 0 Source emission (see HELP for units) 0.1E-07
-------
H-ll
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
frefl veluel. ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR.EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Specific Source : Release 2 at Site DOW CHEMICAL TEXAS
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. SOURNAME Source category name (* when done) LANDFILL
2. EMISNAME Emission type name (12 chars) FUGITIVE
3. TYPE Source type (stack,volume.area) AREA
4. CHEMNAME Name of chemical released 1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Enter one or more.combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, refZ value2, ...] or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 4 1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, refZ value2, ...] or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Source Characterization - Area
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
DX
DY
H
XO
0
Cartesian X-coord (m)
Cartesian Y- coord (m)
Height of emission (m)
Width of area source (m)
Source emission (see HELP for units)
0
0
0
34.77
0.1E-07
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
Irefl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT.BACK,END,CLEAR,EX IT
GEMS> 5 2.08E-7
Enter one or more combinations of: reference, or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Specific Source : Release 3 at Site DOW CHEMICAL TEXAS
ref parmname. parameter description parameter value index
1. SOURNAME Source category name ( uhen done) LANDFILL
2. EMISNAME Emission type name (12 chars) FUGITIVE
3. TYPE Source type (stack,volume,area) AREA
4. CHEMNAME Name of chemical released 1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and vatue(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 vatue2, ...1 or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACKEND,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 4 BENZENE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 vatue2, ...] or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END.CLEAR.EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Source Characterization Araa
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. DX , Cartesian X-coord (») 0'
2. DY Cartesian Y-coord (m) 0
3. H Height of emission () 0 -.
4. XO Width of area source (m) 34.77
5. 0 Source emission (see HELP for units) 0.0000002
-------
H-12
Enter one or wore combinations, of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl valuel, ref 2 value2, ...I or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> 5 3E-8
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl value!, ref2 valueZ, ...3 or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GENS> NE
MENU: Specific Source : Release 4 at Site DOW CHEMICAL TEXAS
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. SOURNAME Source category name ( when done) LANDFILL
2. EMISNAME Emission type name (12 chars) FUGITIVE
3. TYPE Source type (stack,volume,area) AREA
4. CHEMNAME Name of chemical released BENZENE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl value!, ref2 value2. ...] or a command: HELP.NEXT,BACK.END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 4 CHLOROFORM
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and yalue(s)
[refl value!, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT.BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Source Characterization -.Area
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. DX Cartesian X-coord (m) 0
2. DT Cartesian Y-coord (m) 0
3. H Height of emission (m) 0
4. XO Width of area source (m) 34.77
5. 0 Source emission (see HELP for units) 0.3E-07
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl value!, ref2 vaiue2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT.BACK,END.CLEAR.EXIT
GEMS> 5 2.7E-7
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl value!, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP.NEXT,BACK.END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Specific Source : Release 5 at Site DOW CHEMICAL TEXAS
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. SOURNAME Source category name ( when done) LANDFILL
2. EMISNAME Emission type name (12 chars) FUGITIVE
3. TYPE Source type (stack,volume,area) AREA
4. CHEMNAME Name of chemical released CHLOROFORM
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl value!, ref2 vatue2. ...) or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END.CLEAR.EXIT
GEMS> 4 DICHLOROETHVL ETHER
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and valued)
[refl value!, ref2 valueZ, ...] or a command: HELP.NEXT,BACK.END,CLEAR.EXIT
6EMS> NE
MENU: Source Characterization Area
ref parmname / parameter description parameter value index
1. DX Cartesian X-coord () '0
-------
H-n
2. DY Cartesian Y-coord (m) 0
3. H Height of emission (m) 0
*. XO .Width of area source (m) 54.77
5. 0 Source emission (see HELP for units) 0.0000003
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and velue(s)
(refl vatuel, ref2 valueZ, ...] or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 5 1.52E-8
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and vatue(s)
.[ref! value!, ref2 value2, ...] or a comwnd: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLfAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
MENU: Specific .Source : Release 6 at Site DOW CHEMICAL TEXAS
ref parmname parameter description . parameter value index
-- «.......^*.. ........................ .................... .....
1. SOURNAME Source category name (* when done) LANDFILL
2. EMISNAME Emission type name (12 chars) fUGITIVE
3. TYPE Source type (stack,volume,area) AREA
4. CHEMNAME Name of chemical released D1CHLOROETHYL ETHER
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel. ref2 value2, ...] or a"command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 4 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a connand: HELP.NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> HIE
MENU: Source Characterization - Area
ref parmname parameter, description parameter value index
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
DX
DY .
H
XO
0
Cartesian X-coord (m)
Cartesian Y- coord (m)
Height of emission (m)
Width of area source (m)
Source emission (see HELP for units)
0
0
0
34.77
0.152E-07
Enter one or more.combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a cormand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 5 9.92E-9
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
MENU: Specific Source : Release 7 at Site DOW CHEMICAL TEXAS
-
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1 . SOURNAME
2. EMISNAME
3. TYPE
4. CHEMNAME
Source category name ( when done)
Emission type name (12 chars)
Source type (stack, volume, area)
Name of chemical released
LANDFILL
FUGITIVE
AREA
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl valuel, ref 2 value2. ...] or a connand: HELP. NEXT, BACK, END. CLEAR, EX IT
6EMS> 1
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
{refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...1 or a connand: HELP, NEXT. BACK, END. CLEAR, EX IT
G£MS> NE
-------
H-14
MENU: ISCLT Output Specifications
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. TITLE Page heading label (40 chars)
2. 1SU6 Print input data option SOURCE
3. ISW10 Maxinjn 10 print option. YES
4. SAVE Save ISCLT model output (Y/N) YES
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name arid velue(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ] or a command: HELP.NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEHS> 1 OOW CHEMICAL - TEXAS
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
GAMSATMOSET completed, files created.
MENU: GAMS SELECTION MENU ' .
1. Set up atmospheric modeling (GAMSATMOSET)
2. Run atmospheric modeling (GAMSATMORUN)
3. Exposure and risk estimation (GAMSERE)
4. GAMS Graphics (GAMSGRAPH)
5. Estimate size of GAMS run (GAMSRUNEST)
6. GAMS Utilities (GAMSUTIL)
7. Clean up a GAMS Study (GAMSCLEAN)
Enter an option number or a procedure name (in parentheses)
or a connand: HELP, HELP option, BACK, CLEAR, EXIT, TUTOR
GEMS> 2
MENU: Run GAMS study
ref parmrtame parameter description parameter value index
1. STUDYNAM The studyname of the GAMS run file
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(c)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...} or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> 1 SITE73
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl valuel, refZ value2, ...} or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
Job GAMS (queue NORM_BATCH, entry 101) started on NORMJIYDRA
MENU: GAMS SELECTION MENU
1. Set up atmospheric modeling (GAMSATMOSET)
2. Run atmospheric modeling (GAMSATMORUN)
3. Exposure and risk estimation (GAMSERE)
4. GAMS Graphics (GAMSGRAPH)
5. Estimate size of GAMS run (GAMSRUNEST)
6. GAMS Utilities > (GAMSUTIL)
7.. Clean up a GAMS Study (GAMSCLEAN)
Enter an option number or a procedure name (in parentheses)
or a command: HELP, HELP option, BACK, CLEAR, EXIT, TUTOR
CEMS>
G'GJob GAMS (queue NORM_BATCH, entry 101) completed
Enter an option number or a procedure name (in parentheses)
or a connand: HELP. HELP option. BACK, CLEAR, EXIT. TUTOR
GEMS> 3
-------
H-15
MENU: CMS Exposure Risk Estimation
ref par-name parameter description value index
1. COMPTAB Generate COMPTAB Tables (Y/«l) NO
2. DIGEST Generate DIGEST Tables (Y/N) NO
Enter orfe oTmore combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl valu«1. ref2 value2. ...3 or a command: HELP.NEXT,BACK,END.CLEAR,EXIT
GENS> 1 YES '
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...1 or a conmand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: GAMS Postprocessing CompTab Procedure
ref parmname
1 . CHEHS
2. CONCCOMP
3. DOSECOMP
4. RISKCOMP
5. COMPPOP
parameter description
Chemical (s) for CompTab
Concentration CompTab (Y/N)
Reference Dosage CompTab (Y/N)
Risk CompTab (Y/N)
CompTab population
parameter value
NO
NO
NO
1990
, index
(1)
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and vatue(s')
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a conmand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 1
Enter CHEMS(I) GEMS> 1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Enter CHEMSC2) GEHS> 1.2-D1CHLOROETHANE
Enter CHEMS(3) GEMS> BENZENE
Enter CHEMSC4) GENS> CHLOROFORM
Enter CHEMS(S) GEMS> DICHLOROETHYL ETHER
Enter CHEMS(6) GEMS> TRICHLOROETHYLENE -
MENU: GAMS Postprocessing - CompTab Procedure
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. CHEMS Chemical(s) for CompTab TRICHLOROETHYLENE (6)
2. CONCCOMP Concentration CompTab (V/N) NO
3. DOSECOMP Reference Dosage CompTab (Y/N) NO
4. RISKCOMP Risk CompTab (Y/N) NO
5. COMPPOP CompTab population 1990
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[ref! valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a commend: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 2 YES, 4 YES
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2. ...] or a command: HELP.NEXT>BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> REVIEW
MENU: GAMS Postprocessing - CompTab Procedure
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. CHEMS Chemical(s) for CompTab TRICHLOROETHYLENE (6)..
-------
H-16
2. CONCCOMP Concentration CompTab (Y/N) YES
3. DOSECOMP Reference Dosage CoopTab (Y/N) NO
4. RISKCOMP Risk CompTab (Y/N) YES
5. COMPPOP CompTab population 1990
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl valuel, ref2 vatueZ, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Risk CompTab Calculation Method
ref parmname , parameter description parameter value index
1, ANNUL IFE Annual Incidence or Lifetime Cases L
Enter.one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HEUP,NEXT.BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
MENU: CompTab Specifications
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. ISCLTLEV ISCIT Model-Wide CompTab level (1) -
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
(refl valuel, refZ value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK.END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> 1 IL4
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
MENU: Dosage and Risk Parameters 1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE *
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. AB Fraction absorbed through lung 1
2. OSTAR Potency slope factor
3. BW Body weight (kg) 70
4. !R Daily Inhalation Volume Rate («3/d) 20
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 2 1.8E-1
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel. ref2 value2. ...1 or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Dosage and Risk Parameters - 1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. AB Fraction absorbed through lung 1
2. OSTAR Potency slope factor
3. BW Body weight (kg) 70
4. IR Daily Inhalation Volume Rate («3/d) 20
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...1 or a command: *ELP,NEXT.BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> 2 9.1E-2
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or-'parameter name and value(s)
trefl valuel, ref2 vatue2, ...) or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
-------
H-17
CEMS> HI
MENU: Dosage and Risk Parameters - BENZENE
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. AB Fraction absorbed through lung 1
2. OSTAR Potency slope factor
3. BW Body weight (kg) 70
4. IR Daily Inhalation Volume Rate 2 2.9E-2
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
Crefl valuel. ref2 value2. ...] or a command: HELP.NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
MENU: Dosage and Risk Parameters CHLOROFORM '
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. AB Fraction absorbed through lung 1
2. OSTAR Potency slope factor
3. BW Body weight (kg) 70
4. IR Daily Inhalation Volume Rate (m3/d) 20
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 value2, ...3 or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 2 8.1E-2
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
trefl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE ,
MENU: Dosage and Risk Parameters DICHLOROETHYL ETHER
ref parmname parameter description parameter value index
1. AB Fraction absorbed through lung 1
2. OSTAR Potency slope factor
3. BW Body weight (kg) 70
4. IR Daily Inhalation Volume Rate (m3/d) 20
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
trefl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a command: HELP,NEXT,BACK.END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> 2 1.1
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
trefl valuel, ref2 value2, ...I or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GEMS> NE
MENU: Dosage and Risk Parameters TRICHLOROETHYLENE
ref permname parameter description parameter value index
1. AB Fraction absorbed through lung . 1
2. OSTAR Potency slope factor
3. BW Body weight (kg) 70
4. IR Daily Inhalation Volume Rate («3/d) 20
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
trefl valuel, ref2 value2, ...] or a connand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> 2 1.7E-2
-------
H-18
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl value!, ref2 value?, ....] or a comnand: HELP,NEXT,BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
GENS> NE -
MENU: CAMS Source Category Combinations
ref parmname parameter description
1. NUCOMBO New source category combinations
parameter value
NO
index
Enter one or more combinations of: reference or parameter name and value(s)
[refl valuel, ref2 valueZ, ...] or a command: HELP.NEXT.BACK,END,CLEAR,EXIT
CEMS> NE
Job GAMSPOST (queue NORM_BATCH, entry 113) started on NORM_HYDRA
MENU: GAMS SELECTION MENU
1. Set up atmospheric modeling
2. Run atmospheric modeling
3. Exposure and risk estimation
4. GAMS Graphics
5. Estimate size of GAMS run
6. GAMS Utilities
7. Clean up a GAMS Study
Enter an option number or a procedure name (in parentheses)
or a command: HELP, HELP option, BACK, CLEAR, EXIT, TUTOR
GEMS>
G'GJob GAMSPOST (queue NORM.BATCH, entry 113) completed
(GAMSATMOSET)
(GAMSATMORUN)
(GAMSERE)
(GAMSGRAPH)
(GAMSRUNEST)
(GAMSUTIL)
(GAMSCLEAN)
Enter an option number or a procedure name (in parentheses)
or a command: HELP, HELP option, BACK, CLEAR, EXIT, TUTOR
GEMS> EXIT
Type YES to confirm the EXIT command; type NO to restart GEMS
GEMS> YES
Temporary data created in the current session
Dataset: SITE73 C01 SITES
SITE73~C04~SITES
SITE73 C02 SITES
SITE73~C05~S1TES
SITE73 C03 SITES
SITE73~C06~SITES
Press RETURN to delete them, or enter "ALL" to save them, or
enter only names of those temporary data to be saved.
? ALL
S OIR VPOUT;1
Directory UORKJ>ACK1:(SCRATCH.SITE73J
C01_SITE73_CC01.POUT;1
C01_SIT£73_CR01.POUT;1
C02_SITE73_CC01.POUT;1
C02_SITE73_CR01.POUT;1
C03_SITE73_CC01.POUT;1
C03_SITE73_CR01.POUT;1
C04_SITE73_CC01.POUT;1
C04_SITE73_CR01.POUT;1
C05_SITE73.CC01.POUT;1
3 6-APR-1994 15:59:55.42 (RWED.RUED,RE,)
3 6-APR-1994 15:59:57.82 (RUED.RWED.RE.)
3 6-APR-1994 16:00:00.47 (RWEO.RWED.RE.)
3 6-APR-1994 16:00:02.32 (RWED.RWED.RE.)
3 6-APR-1994 16:00:04.71 (RWED.RWED.RE.)
3 6-APR-1994 16:00:06.59 (RUED.RUED,RE,)
3 6-APR-1994 16:00:09.46 (RUED.RUED,RE,)
3 6-APR-1994 16:00:11.56 (RUED.RUED,RE,)
-------
H-19
3 6-APR-1994 16:00:13.92 (RUED,RUED,RE,)
COS SITE73 CR01.POUT;1
3 6-APR-1994 16:00:15.87 (RUED,RUED,RE,)
.C06 S1TE73 CC01.POUT;1 "
3 6-APR-1994 16:00:18.92 (RUED,RUED,RE,)
C06 SITE73 CR01.POUT;1
3 6-APR-1994 16:00:21.31 (RUED,RUED,RE.)
Total of 12 files, 36 blocks.
* TYPE «CR*.POUT;1
UORK_PACK1:[SCRATCH.SITE73]C01_SITE73_CR01.POUT;1
GAMSPOST 6-APR-94 15:59:53 SITE73
Population at Risk and Excess Cancer Cases
From: 1.1-DICHLOROETNYLENE
All Modeled ISCLT Source Categories
1990 Population Figures
POPULATION POPULATION AT RISK
RISK LEVEL (PERSONS) (X)
2.04E-09
1.00E-09
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
1.00E-12
2.04E-09
- V.OOE-09
- 1.00E-10
- 1.00E-11
- 1.00E-12
- 5.09E-13
1,477
0
5,626
11,955
78,197
26,019
1.20
0.00
4.56
9.70
63.43
21.11
LIFETIME
CASES (X)
3.01E-06
O.OOE+00
1.61E-06
3.26E-07
2.71E-07
2.28E-08
57.40
0.00
30.76
6.22
5.18
0.44
Total 123,274 100.00 5.24E-06 100.00
. Annual incidence: 7.48E-08 Cases/Year
Repeat interval: 1.34E+07 Years/Case
Max Calculated Risk: 1.04E-08
UORK_PACK1: [SCRATCH.SITE73]C02_SITE73_CR01.POUT;1
GAMSPOST 6-APR-94 15:59:53 SITE73
Population at Rick and Excess Cancer Cases
From: 1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
All Modeled ISCLT Source Categories
1990 Population Figures
POPULATION POPULATION AT RISK
RISK LEVEL (PERSONS) (X)
2.16E-08
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
2.16E-08
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
5.40E-12
1.477
0
5,626
12,108
95,040
9,023
1.20
0.00
4.56
9.82
77.10
7.32
LIFETIME
CASES (X)
3.19E-05
O.OOE+00
1.71E-05
3.48E-06
3.04E-06
6.91E-08
57.40
0.00
30.76
6.25
5.46
0.12
Total 123,274 100.00 5.56E-05 100.00
Annual incidence: 7.94E-07 Cases/Year
Repeat interval: 1.26E+06 Years/Case
Max Calculated Rick: 1.10E-07
WORK_PACK1: [SCRATCH.S1TE733C03_SITE73_C1I01.POUT;1
-------
H-20
GAMSPOST 6-APR-94 15:59:53 SITE73
Population at Risk and Excess Cancer Cases
from: BENZENE
Alt Modeled ISCLT Source Categories
1990 Population Figures
POPULATION POPULATION AT RISK
RISK LEVEL . (PERSONS) (X)
9.84E-10
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
1.00E-12
9.84E-10
- 1.00E-10
1.00E-11
- 1.00E-12
2.46E-13
1,477
3,565
5,858
58,287
54,087
1.20
2.69
' 47.'28
43.88
LIFETIME
CASES ' (X)
1.45E-06
6.44E-07
2.44E-07
1.61E-07
2.93E-08
57.40
25.45
9.65
6.35
1.16
Total 123,274 100.00 2.53E-06 100.00
Annual incidence: 3.62E-08 Cases/Year
Repeat interval: 2.77E»07 Years/Case
Max Calculated Risk: 5.03E-09
MORK_PACK1:[SCRATCH.SITE73]C04_SITE73_CR01.POUT;1
GAMSPOST 6-APR-94 15:59:53 SITE73
Population at Risk and Excess Cancer Cases
From: CHLOROFORM
All Modeled ISCLT Source Categories
1990 Population Figures
POPULATION POPULATION AT RISK
RISK LEVEL (PERSONS) (X)
2.47E-08
2.47E-08
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
1.00E-10
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
1.00E-11 6.18E-12
1,477
0
6,775
12.802
96,143
6,077
1.20
0.00
5.50
10.38
77.99
4.93
LIFETIME
CASES (X)
3.6SE-05
O.OOE+00
2.07E-05
3.00E-06
3.32E-06
4.93E-08
57.40
0.00
32.59
4.71
5.21
0.08
Total 123,274 100.00 6.36E-05 100.00
Annual incidence: 9.09E-07 Cases/Year
Repeat interval: 1.10E+06 Years/Case
Max Calculated Risk: 1.26E-07
UORK_PACK1:[SCRATCH.S1TE73]C05_SITE73.CR01.POUT;1
GAMSPOST 6-APR-94 15:59:53 SITE73
Population at Risk and Excess Cancer Cases
_ Fran: DICHLOROETHVL ETHER
All Modeled ISCLT Source Categories
1990 Population Figures
POPULATION POPULATION AT RISK
RISK LEVEL (PERSONS). (X)
2.49E-08
1.00E-08
1.00E-09 -
1.00E-10 -
2.49E-08
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
1.477
0
6,775
12.802
96.143
1.20
0.00
5.50
10.38
77.99
LIFETIME
CASES (X)
3.67E-05
O.OOE*00
2.09E-05
3.02E-06
3.34E-06
57.40
0.00
32.59
4.71
5.21
-------
H-21
1.006-11 - 6.226-12
Total
6,077 4.93
123.274 100.00
4.966-08 0.08
6.406-05 100.00
Annual incidence: 9.156-07 Cases/Year
Repeat interval: .1.096*06 Years/Case
Max Calculated Risk: 1.276-07
WORKJ>ACK1-"[SCRATCH. SI T673]C06_S I T673_CR01. POUT ;1
GAMSPOST 6-APR-94 15:59:53 SIT673
Population at Risk and Excess Cancer Cases
From: TRICHLOROETHYL6N6
All Modeled I SCUT Source Categories
1990 Population Figures
POPULATION
RISK LEVEL
POPULATION AT RISK
(PERSONS) (X)
LIFETIME
CASES (X)
1.91E-10
1.006-10
1.006-11
1.006-12 -
1.006-13
1.916-10
1.006-10
1.006-11
1.006-12
1.006-13
4.776-14
1.477
0
5.626
11.920
78,232
26,019
1.20
0.00
4.56
9.67
63.46
21.11
2.826-07
0.006+00
1.51E-07
3.056-08
2.546-08
2.14E-09
57.40
0.00
30.76
6.22
5.18
0.44
Total 123,274 100.00 4.91E-07 100.00
Annual incidence: 7.016*09 Cases/Year
Repeat interval: 1.43E+08 Years/Case
. Max Calculated Risk: 9.756*10
-------
Attachment 3: Input Data for GEMS/GAMS Modeling
Facflity
-Noli
Area of
Retetse
ChenwcaJ
Released
Basefine
1
'1$,
l';
"5
ii
7
3!
9
iff.-
ii
I?;
13
ii
"!?.'
HE
17
2,754
BIS
""'206'
"iMf
496
2,850
26
§R*
320
UPC
398
*«££:;$**
75
HP
jj,
Benzene
':_:: ;^wr:^.v::K«::X::::;s:j;::.>::Kwx»;:X';tx
^8en»ne}iiii||iiiig
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
'"\ ,2-Dichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Nitrobenzene
ITncftlorp^^yJene
Benzene
:Ofiri±tsrtr*lW
s^^iiiiisi
Benzene
:fi«nzeine|||I
Benzene
^ -:>:::::-:-.--. .-.- ::-v:->::::::::::::::>:
:B6rt25BII8iS>:iil
.-..:-;;.....-..- .>.v.v.-.-x->.vXv.*i
Benzene
il"-.K"X'-:v>.v:W>1aS₯a!S₯
Benzene::^!:;::;
'-.-:.-.;.:.;:...:. ..K-.vXwXvX-:
Benzene
*
Si^iiiiilKBPlii
BSB^HUI
w^^siiiiiii
Benzene
Vin|l Chloride
I^WiMii
jC^prdiFit
MethyJEtriylKetone
irV^toroeftfeiiii
2.30E-05
WOE^»;
7.70E-06
7.64E-06
1.00E-09
3.53E-05
1.40E-08
9.73E-07
3.39E-08
5.00E-10
7.58E-07
4.13E-09
1.10E-03
1.14E-05
2.01 E-06
2.87E-04"
5.57E-06
2^0E-06
1.S6E-03
1.50E-05
liziii
1.09E-05
1.25E-04
^|90Ei07i:
8SOE-07
6.48E-07
;||i8E^p7,
2.00E-09
6.49E-07
5.20E-07
8.50E-10
2.71 E-07
1.40E-08
2.09E-07
3.39E-08
5.00E-10
2.26E-08
4.136-09
6.48E-07
iHllfP
6.56E-07
iBl49.E^07-
6.48E-07
6.48E-07
6.51 E-07
ii06E-«Z!
iWJ'fxW'1-:::<:>«
iiipE-o?::
liictE-07-
iptE^Or
fc?^
6-56E-07
6.48E-07
4.01 E-07
liia»Mi
iliii^i
liili.iol
-------
Attachment 3: Input Data for GEMS/GAMS Modeling
Facility
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Area of
Release
fm-2>
1.209
2,692
1,720
222
159
. * ,x.
501
98,
"
Chemical
Released
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Chloroform
Dichloroethyl Ether
Trichloroethylene
1,2-Dichlofoe thane
1,4-D*chtoroberjzene
Benzene
Methyl Ethyl Katone
Trichforoetbytene , :
Benzene
Trichloroethylene
" X * v- *> ''jf
Benzene r * \ y
CarfeonTetrachlorjcte
Etnyfcerareae ' ,'\, ;;,
MethyJ Ethyl Ketone
MethyfeneCm»ide
Wckel - , 1
Toluene N :
Trfchtoroeftyfene %
Xyfenes (m&ted) ,
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes (mixed)
Bemww,;- 1
Benzene
Benzene " ,
Ethyfeenzeoe
Toluene , 5 >
Xyfenes ,77£-05
2.92E-05
Post-Regulatory
1.00E-08
2.08E-07
. 3.00E-08
2.70E-07
1.52E-08
9.92E-09
2XJ7E-07
5.09E-08
6.46E-07
6^6E-07
2.79E-07
6.48E-07
2.79E-07
^ '" %^8.49E-07
8J20E^07
\ 2JOE-07
e.SOE-D7
Ae.OOE-08
,^' '1.06E-08
3.82E-07
2.79E-07
7.46E-07
3.21 E-07
2.06E-07 .
6.49E-07
5.21 E-07
8.00E-11
1.02E-07
2.70E-07
6.61 E-07
2.40E-08
3.82E-07
2.79E-07
5.55E-07
7.00E-07
6.48E-07
"6.50E-07
2.7tE-07
. v 3.«SE-07
7.SOE-Q7
-------
Attachment 3: Input Data for GEMS/GAMS Modeling
Facfltty
No,
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Area of
Release
roe»»yJene
Xylenes {mixed) ,
Benzene
1,1-WcWc*oetnylene '.
t,2-Wchtoroethane
Benzene
CafbonTetrachtodde ,:
Hexachtoroethane
Methyl Ethyl KetcW
Toluene , ,< ^ ' ^ :
TricfitoroethyJene
Vinyl Chtorkte
Xytenes
-------
Attachment 4: Toxicity Data for Constituents Modeled at TC Facilities
Chemicals
Noddled
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dtehloroethane
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
2,4,6-lrichlorophenol
benzene
carbon tetrachlortde
chlordane
chlorobenzene
chloroform
dichloroethy! ether '
ethytbenzene
ethyiene dibromkte
heptachlor (and its epox)
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachloroethane
methyl chloroform
methyl ethyl fcetone
methylene chloride
nickel
nitrobenzene
toluene
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
xylenes (mixed)
CAS*
75354
107062
106467
88062
71432
56235
57749
108907
67663
lt*444
100414
106934
76448
t!874t
87683
87721
71556
78933
75092
7440020;
98953
108883
79016
750*4
1330207
RCHA
CODE
D029
O028
0027
O042
0018
0019
D020
O021
0022
0031
0032
0033
0034
0035
0036
0040
0043
RfD- inhalation
(mgfeo/day)
--
'SW» «»
--
» *^ ^
--
'
--
6.00E-03
--
_~ ' "
2.90E-01
*» .«» ;
--
««.
--
) «^
3.00E-01
2,90E-0*.
8.50E-01
s *r^»-
t Vf
6.00E-04
S.70E-0*
--
«
4.00E-01
SF- Inhalation
1/(n)8feo/day)
J.80E-01
8.10E-.02
1MOE^02
2.90E-02
S.30E-02
-4.30E+00
'
8.10E-02
1.40E+00
.. _
7.60E-01
4.50EfOO
1.60E+00
7.70E-02
1.40E-02
-.
s -.-A > ^
s ^v
1.60E-03
. ,8,40E-01
--
»«
1.70E-02
3.00E-01
--
UTS
(mgflcg)
6
6
6 '
.,^-;:;'7.4
10
'':::-x':'."':'6
0.26
6
6
6
10
15
0.066
to
5.6
30
6
^ 36
30
100
14
10
6
6
30
Note: RfD = Reference Dose; SF - Cancer Slope Factor
-------
Table 1. Comparison of High-end Individual Cancer Risks Between Proposed Rule and Final Rule
tto.
1
2
3
'4
5
7
9
0
11
13
H
15
'#
17
19
21
$
23
24
25
M
27
28
29
3d
31
Proposed ftula
1.49E-
fcfctfc
1.36E-
9.21 E-
9.85E
6.906
7.43E
mm
5.20E
&&
5.93E
**£
3.35E
2.15E
Afttf^^V
alTe
1.49E
gfctf
7.58E
i.$2£-
1.30E
1#«9^
1.35E
%99c
2.26E
4J^|
5.16E
i^^
2.80E
05
06
05
&
08
M
08
m
08
M
07
W
05
OS
04
04'
03
&
05
06
09
04
06
04
06
-04,
05
04
06
4.19E-07
9.17E-07
fc,$fe-08'
2.97E-08
1.91 E-08
^$9^-09
2.40E-08
6.06E-08
5.69E-06
6.65E-07
9.47E-07
1.10E-07
₯j»fe4^
7.11E-10
71698-08
1.49E-08
4.0^-07
7.29E-07
1.07E-06
3.24E-07
3.48E-09
*«' ^ ' /"''
Final Rute
1.07E-05
4.65E-06
5.59E-05
ttws-af
1.07E-07
UWM*
1.76E-07
^WB^
7.02E-08
9.28E-07
«''a
8.59E-05
7.21 E-04
ttofam
5.50E-03
8.80E-05
9.83E-09
:&m~$4
1.42E-06
1.10E-04
'm&m:
3.60E-04
Z52E-04
$,mm:
4.90E-06
3.01 E-07
&f0S«08
3.79E-06
3.47E-08
3.41 E-08
2.28E-08
7.46E-08
1.08E-07
I^WW
7.62E-06
1.07E-OC
1.55E-06
Wm~&
2.40E-06
^^8^«0?
6.33E-07
9.23E-10
£&&&
1.60E-08
WH&8;
5.99E-07
wmr.
1.63E-06
₯$$$$$
1.59E-06
6.12E-09
0.7
-'^.^
4.1
,. ^^
1.2
^ . iJWtffAl ^_
1.8
0.9
1.8
1.4
9»»
2.2
2.6
5.9
1.3
m
1.1
<44
0.8
»f»
1.6
'f₯
i*^
4.9
1.8
0.7
OJ
4.1
A i
-2^4
1.2
-1**
1.8
i*- j.
1.0
i ^
1.8
'£ j»
1.3
^'1
2.3
' AA
v-9
2.5
^
5.8
1.3
v^trjt
»*«
1.1
iV*
V-9
0.8
* A 4
1.5
A fa-
4.9
1.8
-------
Table 2. Comparison of High-end Individual Noncancer Risks Between Proposed Rule and Final Rule
No.
7
9
0
11
13
*4
15
17
19
20
21
**
23
25
27
29
3d
31
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
lUfefttt
O.OOE+00
6.13E+01
3.43E-04
8.58E-04
&
-------
_ 'V- I - '
Table 3. Comparison of Population Cancer Cases Between Proposed Rule and Final Rule
yfttmte Cancer Casas for
5.43E-04
1.21E-03
3.35E-06
3.58E-06
2.70E-06
1.89E-05
2.70E-03
%&«£&
1.22E-02
349&4P
7.84E-02
5.43E-04
2.76E-07
4.72E-05
4.92E-03
8.22E-03
Ii4$ew
2.35E-03
1.02E-04
1.53E-05
8.19E-05
1.08E-06
'isafil-^f
6.95E-07
8.73E-07
2.20E-06
2.59E-04
$3S&Bi*4&
2.42E-05
3.45E-05
3.99E-06
2.59E-08
5.41 E-07
2.65E-05
i.m-te
3.88E-05
i>9i^:
1.48E-05
8,731^
1.27E-07
2.10E-03
5.01 E-02
7.36E-05
1.09E-04
3.78E-04
4.28E-05
3.25E-02
3.90E-03
8.33E-01
7.94E-04
1.76E-06
5,$-3K-^2
1.35E-03
8.21 E-02
^62E^
2.95E-02
t4se,f
41.4
0 44.$
22.0
*;»* *'%# y w
30.4
f*t
140.0
^4^.
2.3
' «l
12.0
10.3
0.3
*.<
10.6
'M$
1.5
6.4
*> ' S.4
28.6
16.7
3.6
11.4
Mi"
22.4
3.9
?g.8
41.5
4$.0
22.0
30.4
19.1
140.9
2.3
11.1
0.3
fc.6
10.5
1.4
6.4
' 7 " ' ,5,4
28.1
^""*- ' a.e
16.9
? t:*/v--f fa
3.5
11.5
r
-------
~
-------
APPENDIX I
Waste Minimization Commercial TSD Analysis
The data in the spreadsheet were sorted by industry and 1995 quantity. The commercial
TSDs associated with the 15 lines with the largest 1995 quantity were then analyzed in the TCDMS
according to their potential for waste minimization.
One TSD reported receiving a sporadically generated 17,865 ton wastestream from
a chemical company with no waste description. Based on available physical
information (75 percent solids, 5 percent water, and 20 percent oil and grease values
reported in TCDMS) the waste minimization potential for this wastestream cannot
be determined.
Another TSD reported receiving a routinely generated 13,351 ton primary wastewater
treatment sludge from an unknown facility containing vinyl chloride left over from the
conversion to polyvinyl chloride. The only physical chemical data reported in TCDMS
was a TOC (total organic carbon) value of 15 percent and an EOX (extractable
organic halide) value of 640 ppm. The generating facility may have significant waste
minimization potential. However, the available information is insufficient to quantify
any savings.
A third TSD reported receiving three routinely generated wastestreams totaling
25,350 tons from a hazardous waste incinerator described as incinerator ash. Waste
codes D018, D022, D019, D021, D020, and D023 are associated with these
wastestreams. The waste minimization potential at a well operated hazardous waste
. incinerator is minimal. Last minute changes to the cost analysis data eliminated this
wastestream from the Phase n rule cost analysis because listed waste codes were
combined with TC codes in these streams.
This third TSD also reported receiving a routinely generated 3,670 ton wastestream
from a petroleum refinery described as an oil/water separator sludge with benzene and
polymers. No physical chemical property data was reported. However, a note was
made that the polymers affect the treatability of this wastestream. This wastestream
has significant potential for waste minimization; however, the available information
is insufficient to establish a case study to quantify the savings.
A fourth TSD reported receiving a routinely generated 10,222 ton wastestream from
a hazardous waste treatment facility described as "CHEM PAC, treatment of
hazardous and nonhazardous wastes." Because this waste appears to be a residual
from waste treatment operations, waste minimization potential is minimal.
These seven wastestreams account for 72 percent of the routinely generated, and 80 percent
of the sporadically generated, nonwastewater waste reported as received by TSDs.
An evaluation of the debris received by TSDs was attempted. Two TSDs account for 19,410
tons or 81.6 percent of the debris reported One hazardous waste landfill reports wastestream
number 1 as 9,245 tons. However, in the TCDMS no waste descriptions are provide for any
-------
wastestreams and no wastestream number 1 is reported. Another hazardous waste landfill accounts
for the remaining 10,165 tons. However, no wastestreams are present in TCDMS for survey number
2.
-------
. APPENDIX J
Summary of Waste Minimization Analysis Telephone Contacts
Presented below are the results of telephone contacts made as a follow-up to the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) waste survey conducted in 1992. Sixteen facilities were contacted for
information on waste management activities for newly listed TC waste subject to EPA's Phase n
rule-making. Exhibit J-l presents the protocol for the, telephone contacts.
Chemical Company A This facility indicated that it manages the following nonwastewater waste
streams affected by the TC rule: lube oil sludge; several liquid, solid, and byproduct streams, and
dirt contaminated with TC organics, i.e., D018. Waste minimization activities were being
conducted on several of the liquid and sludge byproduct streams. The waste minimization
activities consist of recycling two liquid TC wastes in one plant that would otherwise be
incinerated. The facility also removed one piece of equipment that generated a TC sludge that
was previously incinerated. The facility reported that approximately 1,050 tons of waste were
reduced as a result of waste minimization efforts. The facility stated that it saved approximately
$215,000 ($205/tbn) in 1993 by employing waste minimization on its waste streams.
Chemical Company A indicated that economic considerations were the overriding impetus for
waste minimization activities. The TC rule did play a minor role in driving the waste minimization
activities.
Petroleum Refinery A - This facility indicated that its crude tank bottoms (D018) are affected by
the TC rule. The major thrust of the waste minimization activities consists of source control.
Other efforts involve putting the crude tank bottoms through a centrifuge and extracting the
benzene and recycling it back to the refinery. A lime sludge (D018) is generated that is
dewatered and sent to a cement kiln as raw material substitute. The facility pays the kiln to
accept the waste and the waste's the transportation costs. The facility estimates that 12,000 tons
of lime sludge are reduced at the plant (the major portion due to source control). Shell estimates
that the economic benefit due to waste minimization is $250,000 per year.
\
Petroleum Refinery A indicated that the waste minimization efforts are strictly driven by
economics which is in turn driven by the TC rule that requires treatment of hazardous wastes to
LDR standards.
Petroleum Refinery B - This facility reported managing D018 streams that included catalysts (160
tons/1993), tank bottoms (206 tons/1993), and activated carbon (13 tons/1993). However, none of
these waste streams were reported on the 1992 survey. The facility reported that it found it
difficult to employ waste minimization on these wastes. D018 catalysts and activated carbon are
sent to offsite regeneration. However, the facility anticipated that the Phase n LDR standards
would make the vendors less likely to accept these materials.
The facility cited the Phase n LDR treatment standards as being the driving force behind
its waste minimization plans.
Chemical Company B This facility managed a D028 waste stream. Waste minimization activities
have been instituted since 1988. These include process changes and segregation of nonhazardous
and hazardous waste streams. The D028 generation in 1993 was 2,600 tons versus 5,550 tons in
-------
1988 for an annual cost savings of $304,000 (or about $100 per ton). Current plans include an
additional reduction of 80 percent by 1999 for an estimated future cost savings of $1,125,000 (or
about $500 per ton).
Hie facility stated that its primary reason for employing waste minimization activities were
economic, such as for product recovery, rather than the Phase n rule itself.
Petroleum Refinery C - This facility indicated that several of its waste streams are affected by the
TC rule. These waste streams are: butamen catalyst (D018); benzene organic sludge from tank
cleaning operations; butamen drier catalyst from alkylation of crude oil in gasoline refining;
benzene organic sludge from tank cleaning operations (600 tons); and, DAF and API sludge
(2,400 tons). Of-these waste streams, the benzene sludge was land farmed (this activity is
suspended until a permit is granted), and the DAF and API sludge is used as raw materials in the
coker feed. The estimated economic benefit from the land fanning of the D018 benzene sludge
was $570/ton. An additional savings of $600/ton for the DAF and API sludge is realized using
these materials as feedstock for the coker rather than disposing of these materials as wastes.
' ' . *
Chemical Company C This facility indicated that its wastes affected by the TC rule were
catalysts. By employing offsite regeneration, it eliminated this waste stream in 1993, a reduction
of 270 tons. However, this waste stream is not part of the 1992 survey information.
The facility cited the Phase n LDR treatment standards as being the driving force behind
its waste minimization plans.
Petroleum Refinery D - This facility indicated its D018 wastestream as tank bottoms. Waste
minimization activities attempted on these wastes have not been successful.
v ' . .
Petroleum Refinery E This facility reported the following D018 wastestreams: catalysts,
bottoms, and vessel sludges. No waste minimization activities have been attempted.
Petroleum Refinery F - EPA was unable to make contact with the appropriate person at the
facility.
Petroleum Refinery G - EPA was unable to make contact with the appropriate person at the
facility.
Petroleum Refinery H - EPA was unable to make contact with the appropriate person at the
facility.
Chemical Company D - This facility did not return any of our phone messages.
Chemical Company E This facility indicated that it does not manage any newty identified TC
nonwastewater streams.
Chemical Company F - This facility indicated that sludges from tank cleaning operations could
carry some of the new TC waste codes. The facility employs good operating practices in its tank
cleaning operations. The facility also indicated that it uses a centrifuge to minimize the amount
of sludge generated (estimated 75 percent reduction).
-------
Petroleum Refinery I This facility did not return any of our phone messages.
Petroleum Refinery J - This facility did not return any of our phone messages.
-------
EXHIBIT J-l
TELEPHONE CONTACT PROTOCOL
Facility:__ Contact:_
Phone No.:
Under contract to the U.S. EPA, we are assisting EPA with development of the final Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the TC wastes Phase 2 rule-making. I am calling as a follow-up to the TC
waste survey conducted in 1992. Do you have time to answer a few questions?
What nonwastewater waste streams does your facility manage that are affected by the TC rule?
On which of these nonwastewater streams are you employing waste minimization activities?
Were these waste minimization activities employed as a direct result of the TC rule or were other
factors involved?
What waste minimization activities are you undertaking/plan to undertake?
What is the amount/quantity of reduction (tons/gallons) of waste due to waste minimization?
Did you previously produce waste that, due to waste minimization, you no longer produce or have
realized a significant volume reduction?
Can we ask/phone back concerning the economic benefit derived from waste minimisation?
-------
APPENDIX K
Sensitivity Analysis of Ground-Water Population Risk Assumptions
This appendix details the sensitivity analysis performed on the radius used for the ground-
water benefits analysis. The DAF used in the analysis was first developed for the TC Rule RIA
and considered only those drinking water wells within one mile of a facility. For the Phase n
LDR RIA, the DAF distribution was applied to wells within two miles of a facility. The DAF was
not mathematically corrected to extend from the one mile distance used in the TC analysis to the
two miles used for this rule. Therefore, EPA performed a sensitivity analysis reanalyzing the
gfoundwater risk, considering only wells within a one-mile radius. This appendix is organized into
two sections: the first explains the approach and die second presents the results of the analysis.
,. *
Approach
As is explained in Step 6 of Section 5.1.1 of the RIA, EPA estimated exposed populations
by (1) determining the number of people exposed to contaminated ground-waiter via wells located
within two miles of facilities from the corrective action RIA sample, (2) using these numbers,
along with population density values for the corrective action sample facilities, to calculate ratios
of total to exposed populations, and (3) applying these ratios to the Phase n sample facilities.
EPA tested the sensitivity of the radius used to calculate exposed populations by
determining the number of people exposed to contaminated ground water via wells located within
one mile of facilities from the corrective action RIA sample. As a result of this change, the total-
to-exposed-population ratios also changed. The base analysis assumed that, for low-density
settings, 0.4 times the total population in the 90 degree, two-mile sector would be exposed, and
that 0.05 times the total population would be exposed in high-density settings.
Using estimates based on a one-mile radius, EPA calculated that, for low-density settings,
1.4 times the total population in the 90 degree, one-mile sector would be exposed, and that 0.1
times the total population would be exposed in high-density settings. The seemingly counter-
intuitive ratio for the low-density scenario (i.e., the exposed population is greater than the total
population) is caused by the effects of a large public supply well that is located within one mile of
one of the corrective action sample facilities. Under the two-mile approach, 10 of the 37 low-
density facilities had ground-water exposures, totalling 57,210 exposed people out of a total
population in the two-mile sectors of 91,240 people. Furthermore, of the 57,210 exposures,
52,500 were associated with a public well at one facility. Under the one-mile scenario, nine of the
facilities have exposures, totalling 56,780 people. As with the two-mile scenario, this total is
dominated by exposures from the same single facility. The total population under the one-mile
scenario, however, is only 22,810 (i.e., one-fourth of the two-mile scenario because the same
densities are assumed). Because the decrease of total exposed population is much less that the
decrease in the total potential population, the ratio is increased such that it exceeds unity. Note
that the final ratios used in the analysis represent the average of the facility-specific ratios, rather
that the ratio of the total exposed population to the total potential population. However, looking
at the totals helps to explain the general trend.
-------
Using these revised ratios, the Agency estimated total exposed populations for each of the
Phase II sample facilities. Note that while the ratios increase, the total affected populations
decrease because, assuming a uniform population density, the total population within one mile is
only one-fourth of the total population within two miles.
Results
Under the base approach (as was shown in RIA Exhibit 5-8), the rule reduces 0.22 cancer
cases per year with respect to the central tendency baseline or, in other words, 92 percent of the
baseline cancer cases. For non-cancer effects (as was shown in RIA Exhibit 5-9) two of the 36
facilities had exposures above threshold doses, totalling 2,038 exposed people.
The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that, under the one-mile approach, the rule
reduces 0.18 cancer cases per year with respect to the central tendency baseline or, in other
words, 91 percent of the baseline cancer cases. For non-cancer effects the same two facilities, had
exposures above threshold doses, now totalling 1,136 exposed people.
------- |