United Stale* Office of May 199C
Environmental Protection Solid Wast*
Agency Wa*Wngton, DC 20460
Solid Waste
&EPA Background Document For
Third Third Wastes To
Support 40 CFR Part 268
Land Disposal Restrictions
Final Rule
Third Third Waste Volumes,
Characteristics, and Required and
Available Treatment Capacity
Volume I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
-------
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR
THIRD THIRD WASTES TO SUPPORT 40 CFR
PART 268 LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
FINAL RULE
THIRD THIRD WASTE VOLUMES, CHARACTERISTICS,
AND REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE TREATMENT CAPACITY
Volume I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
May 1990
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section No.
Volume I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . E-l
1. INTRODUCTION . ... . 11
1.1 Legal Background 11
1.1.1 General Requirements Under HSWA 11
1.1.2 Schedule for Developing Restrictions .... 11
1.1.3 Variance from the Schedule . . 1-2
1.2 Summary of Previous Land Disposal Restrictions ... 13
1.2.1 Solvents and Dioxins ... 1-3
1.2.2 California List 1-5
1.2.3 First Third Wastes .... . . . 1-6
1.2.4 Underground Injected Wastes .... . . 17
1.2.5 Second Third Wastes (surface disposed and
underground injected wastes) .... . 1-9
1.3 Introduction to the Third Third Final Rule 1 10
1.3.1 Surface-Disposed Wastes 1-10
1.3.2 Deepwell-Disposed Wastes . 1-11
1.3.3 Soil and Debris 1 11
1.3.4 Mixed Radioactive Wastes . . 1 11
2. CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS 2-1
2.1 General Methodology . . 2-1
2.1.1 Data Set Development . . .... . . 2-2
2.1.1.(1) National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Treatment. Storage. Disposal, and
Recycling Facilities ... . 2-2
2.1.1.(l)(a) Background 2-2
2.1.1.(l)(b) Schedule and status . . 2-3
2.1.1.(l)(c) Technology capacity
information ... . ... 2-4
2.1.1.(l)(d) Waste volumes land
disposed . . 2-5
2.1.1.(l)(e) Overview of data
handling, technical
review, and quality
assurance . . . 2-6
2.1.1.(l)(f) Chemical Waste
Management - Emelle
Alabama . . 2-7
2.1.1.(2) National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators 2-9
2.1.1.(2)(a) Background . . 2-9
2.1.1.(2)(b) Schedule and status 2-9
2.1.1.(2)(c) Uses 2-9
-------
Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
2.1.1.(3) Multi-Source Leachate Data Sources
2.1.1.(4) Mixed Radioactive Waste Data Sources
2.1.1.(5) Other Data Sources . . ...
2.1.2 Capacity Analysis Methodology
2.1.2.(1) Required Capacity
2.1.2.(2) Available Capacity
2.2 Results Z~L^
2.2.1 All RCRA Wastes 2-15
2.2.2 Solvents 2-17
2.2.3 Nonsolvent RCRA Wastes Containing
Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOCs) 2-19
2.2.4 First Third Wastes 2-26
2.2.4.(1) All First Third Wastes 2-26
2.2.4.(2) First Third Wastes for Which Formal
Treatment Standards have been
Promulgated 2-26
2.2.4.(3) Soft Hammer Wastes from the First
Third Final Rule 2-31
2.2.5 Underground Injected Solvent Wastes 2-32
2.2.6 Underground Injected California List Wastes . 2-34
2.2.6.(1) Free Cyanides 2-34
2.2.6.(2) Metals 2-34
2.2.6. (3) Chromium Wastes 2-34
2.2.6.(4) Corrosives 2-36
2. 2.6. (5) Halogenated Organic Compounds 2-36
2.2.6.(6) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) .... 2-37
2.2.7 Underground Injected First Third Wastes ... 2-37
2.2.7 (1) K062 Wastes . 2-37
2.2.7.(2) K049, K050, K051, and K052 Wastes .... 2-37
2.2.7.(3) K104 Wastes 2-39
2.2.7.(4) K071 Wastes 2-39
2.2.7.(5) K016 Wastes 2-39
2.2.7.(6) K019 Wastes 2-40
2.2.7.(7) K030 Wastes 2-40
2.2. 7. (8) K103 Wastes 2-40
2.2.8 Second Third Wastes 2-40
2.2.8.(1) Overview '.'.'. 2-41
2.2.8.(2) All Second Third Wastes . ...'.'.'.'. 2-41
2.2.8. (3) Second Third Wastes for Which Formal
Treatment Standards Have Been
Promulgated ... ... 2-41
2. 2.8. (4) Surface Disposed Second Third
Promulgated Wastes 2-44
2. 2.8.(5) Underground Injected Second Third
Promulgated Wastes 2-46
2. 2. 8. (6) First and Second Third Soft Hammer
Wastes 2-48
2.2.9 Determination of Available Capacity for the
Third Third Proposed Rule 2-50
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Section No.
2.2.9.(1) Effects of Previous Land Disposal
Restrictions .... 2-50
2.2.9 (2) Impacts of Third Third Final Rule
on California List HOCs . 2-51
2.2 10 Third Third Promulgated Wastes ... 2-51
2.2.10.(1) Overview 2-51
2.2.10.(2) Surface Disposed Third Third Wastes 2-53
2. 2.10.(3) Underground Injected Wastes Included
in Third Third Rule .... 2-55
2.2.10.(4) Soil and Debris 2-59
2.2.10.(5) Mixed Radioactive Wastes . . . . 2-62
3. Waste Code Specific Capacity Analysis for Third Third
Promulgated Wastes . 3-1
3.1 Characteristic Wastes . 3-13
3.1.1 D001 Ignitable Wastes 3-13
3.1.2 D002 Corrosive Wastes 3-17
3.1.3 D003 Reactive Wastes ... 3-20
3.1.4 EP Toxic Pesticides (D012-D017) . . . . 3-25
3.2 Metal Wastes 3-34
3.2.1 Arsenic Wastes 3-34
(D004, K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, P011,
P012, P036, P038, U136)
3.2.2 Barium Wastes (D005, P013) 3-42
3.2.3 Cadmium Wastes (D006) . 3-44
3.2.4 Chromium Wastes (D007 and U032) . . . . 3-47
3.2.5 Lead Wastes 3-50
(D008, P110, U144, U145, U146, (K069, K100)
3.2.6 Mercury Wastes 3-58
(D009, K071, K106, P065, P092, U151)
3.2.7 Selenium Wastes . . 3-65
(D010, P103, U204, U205)
3.2.8 Silver Wastes 3-68
(D011, P099, P104)
3.2.9 Thallium Wastes . 3-70
(P113, P114, P115, U214, U215. U216, U217)
3.2.10 Vanadium Wastes . . 3-74
(P119 and P120)
3.3 Treatment Standards for Remaining F and K Wastes . . 3-77
3.3.1 F002 and F005 . . 3-77
3.3.2 F006 and F019 .... 3-79
3.3.3 F024 ... ... 3-85
3.3.4 F025 . 3-87
3.3.5 K001 and U051 . . 3-88
3.3.6 Waste from Pigment Production . . 3-90
K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, and K008
3.3.7 Acrylonitrile production wastes K011, K013 and K014 3-97
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section
3.3.8 Benzyl chloride distillation Wastes K015 . . 3-101
3.3.9 K017 and K073
3.3.10 K021 . ....
3.3.11 K022, K025, K026, K035, K083
3.3.12 K028, K029, K095, and K096 }
3.3.13 K032, K033, K034, K041, K097, and K098 .... 3-112
3.3.14 Disulfoton Production Wastes K036 and K037 . 3-115
3.3.15 K042, K085, and K0105 3-116
3.3.16 K044, K045, K046, K047 3-120
3.3.17 K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 Petroleum
Refining wastes . 3-121
3.3.18 Coking operations wastes K060 3-129
3.3.19 Electric furnace steel production
Wastes K061 3-130
3.3.20 Ink Production Wastes K086 3-131
3.4 Treatment Standards for U and P Wastewaters and
Nonwastewaters Excluding Metal Salts and
Organo-metallics 3-133
3.4.1 Halogenated Aliphatics 3-133
(U044, U074, U076, U077, U078, U079, U080, U083,
U084, U131, U184, U208, U209, U210, U211, U226,
U227, U228, U243)
3.4.2 Halogenated Pesticides and Chlorobenzenes . 3-152
(P004, P037, P050, P051, P059, P060, P123,
U036, U037, U038, U060, U061, U070, U071,
U072, U127, U128, U129, U130, U132, U142,
U183, U185, U207, U207, U240, U247)
3.4.3 Halogenated Phenolics 3-177
(U039, U048, U081, U082)
3.4.4 Brominated Organics 3-182
(P017, U029. U030, U066, U067, U068, U225)
3.4.5 Miscellaneous Halogenated Organics 3-189
(P016, P023, P024, P026, P027, P028, P057,
P058, P095, P118, U006, U017, U020, U024.
U025, U026, U027, U033, U034, U041, U042,
U043, U045, U046, U047, U049, U062, U073,
U075, U097, U121, U138, U156, U158, U192
U222)
3.4.6 Aromatics and Other Hydrocarbons 3-218
(U019, U055, U056, U186, U220, U239)
3.4.7 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons .... 3-225
(U005, U016, U018, U022, U050, U063
U064, U094, U120, U137, U157, U165)'
3.4.8 Phenolics . . . . 3-232
(P020, P034, P047, P048, U052, U101 U170
U188, U201)
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Section NO.
3.4.9 Oxygenated Hydrocarbons and Heterocyclics 3-242
(P001, P003, P005, P088, P102, U001, U002,
U004, U008, U031, U053, U057, U085, U108,
U112, U113, U117, U118, U122, U123, U124,
U125, U126, U140, U147, U154, U159, U161,
U166, U182, U197, U213, U248)
3 4.10 Organo-Nitrogen Compounds . . 3-275
(1) Nitrogen Heterocyclic Compounds (POOS,
P018, P054, P067, U011, U148, U179,
U180, U191, U196)
(2) Amine and Amide Compounds (P046, P064,
U007, U012, U092, U110, U167, U168,
U194, U238)
(3) Aminated Diphenyls and Biphenyls (U014,
U021, U091, U093, U095, U236)
(4) Nitriles (P069, P101, U003, U009, U149.
U152)
(5) Nitro Compounds (P077, U105, U106, U169,
U171, U181, U234)
(6) Nitroso Compounds (P082, P084. Ulll,
U172, U173, U174, U176, U177, U178)
3.4.11 Organo-Sulfur Compounds 3-312
(P002, P014, P022, P045, P049. P066, P070,
P072, P093, P116, U114, U116, U119, U153, U193,
U218, U219, U244)
3.4.12 Additional Organic Wastes--Pharmaceuticals . . 3-326
(P007, P042, P075, P108, U010, U015, U035,
U059, U089, U090, U141, U143, U150, U155, U163,
U164, U187, U200, U202, U203, U206, U237)
3.5 Potentially Reactive P and U Wastes ... . 3-334
3.5.1 Incinerable Reactive Organics and Hydrazine
Derivatives ... .... . 3-334
(P009, P068, P081, P105, P112, U023, U086, U096, U098,
U099, U103, U160, U109. U133)
3.5.2 Incinerable Inorganics (P006, P096, P122,
U135, U189. U249) . 3-342
3.5.3 Fluorine Compounds (P056, U134) . ... 3-346
3.5.4 Recoverable Metallics (P015, P073, P087) . . 3-349
3.6 Gases . . 3-353
(P076, P078, U115)
3.7 U and P Cyanogens . . . 3-355
(P031, P033, U246)
3.8 Contaminated Soils . ... ... 3-357
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section
4 CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
4.1 Determination of Required Treatment Capacity
4.1.1 Waste Volumes Affected
4.1.1.(1) Data Sources
4.1.1.(2) Identification of Waste Volumes
4.1.1.(3) Determination of Affected Volumes
4.1.2 Treatability Analysis
4.1.2.(1) Waste Characterization
4.1.2.(2) Treatability Grouping/Assigning
Alternative Treatment
4.1.2.(3) Treatment Residuals
4.1.2.(4) Previous Management
4.2 Determination of Available Treatment Capacity ....
4.2.1 Determination of Combustion Capacity ....
4.2.1.(1) Introduction
4. 2.1.(2) Approach and Methodology for
the Original Combustion Data Set
Used for the Proposed Rule . . .
4.2.2 Determination of Other Treatment System
Capabilities ....
4.2.2.(1) Unit Process Capacity
4.2.2.(2) Hazardous Waste Treatment/Recovery
System Identification
4.2.2.(3) Determination of System Capacity
4.2.2.(4) Projections of Available Capacity
4.2.3 Development of the Treatment Capacity Data
Set and Results
4.2.3.(1) Incineration/Reuse-as-Fuel Data Set
Results
4.2.3.(2) Development of the Data Set for
Other Treatment Systems
4.2.3.(3) Treatment Capacity Data Set Results
4.3 Capacity Analysis (Comparison of Required and
Available Treatment Capacity)
Volume II
APPENDICES
Appendix A Leachate
Appendix B Mixed Radioactive Waste
Appendix C Available Capacity Analyses for Each Rule and
Addition of Recent ChemWaste Management Data . .
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-5
4-5
4-8
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-12
4-12
4-15
4-19
4-19
4-22
4-25
4-32
4-33
4-33
4-37
4-39
4-43
A-l
B-l
C-l
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Section No.
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis for Third Third Promulgated
Wastes . . . D-l
Appendix E Capacity Analysis for Contaminated Soil Wastes . E-l
Appendix F Documentation of Waste Volumes for Waste Codes
Addressed in Previous Rules F-l
Appendix G Documentation for California List HOCs ... G-l
Appendix H - Bibliography for the Third Third Land Disposal
Regulations ... ... . . . ... . H-l
Appendix I Memorandum on Availability of Surveys . I 1
Appendix J Analysis of Commercial Alkaline Chlorination
Capacity . ... ... ... J-l
Appendix K Analysis of Commercial Sludge/Solid Combustion
Capacity . . K-l
Appendix L - Miscellaneous Phone Logs . . . L-l
Appendix M Analysis of Large Volume Underground Injected
P and U Coded Wastes .... . M-l
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1
Table ES-2
Table ES-3
Table ES-4
Table ES-5
Table ES-6
Summary of National Capacity Variances for Surface
Land-Disposed Wastes ... .
Summary of Two-Year National Capacity Variances
Underground Injected Wastes .
for
Determination of Available Commercial Capacity for
Third Third Wastes (million gal/yr)
Required Alternative Commercial Treatment/Recycling
Capacity for Surface-Disposed Wastes (million gal/yr)
Required Alternative Commercial Treatment/Recycling
Capacity for Deepwell-Disposed Wastes (million gal/yr)
Required Alternative Commercial Treatment/Recycling
Capacity For Soil and Debris Wastes (million gal/yr)
Table ES-7 Summary of Capacity Analysis for Mixed Radioactive
Wastes ....
Table ES-8 Summary of Capacity Analysis for Third Third Wastes
by Waste Code [includes all wastes regulated under
Third Third]
Table 1 1 Third Third Final Rule Wastes by Waste Code . . .
Table 2-1 Overview of All Surface Disposed RCRA Hazardous
Wastes (revised based on ChemWaste Data)
Table 2-2 Overview of Surface Disposed Solvent Wastes
(revised based on ChemWaste) ... .
Table 2-3 Solvent Capacity Analysis (revised based on new
ChemWaste Management Numbers)
Table 2-4 Overview of Surface Disposed Potential California
List Wastes Containing Halogenated Organic
Compounds
Table 2-5 Overview of Surface Disposed First Third
Promulgated Wastes Containing Halogenated
Organic Compounds
Table 2-6 Overview of All Other Surface Disposed Wastes
Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds . ...
Table 2-7 Capacity Analysis for HOC Wastes (Excluding First
Third and Third Third Promulgated HOCs)
Page
No.
E-8
E-9
E-13
E-15
E-18
E-19
E-20
E-22
1 12
2-16
2-18
2-20
2-21
2-22
2-23
2-25
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 2-8 Overview of All S.urface Disposed First Third
Wastes . . ... . .
Table 2-9 Overview of Surface Disposed First Third
Promulgated Wastes . ....
Table 2-10 Capacity Analysis for First Third Promulgated
Wastes . . . ......
Table 2-11 Capacity Analysis for Underground Injected
Solvent Wastes ...
Page
No.
2-27
2-28
2-30
2-33
Table
Table
Table
Table
2
2
2
2
-12
-13
-14
-15
Capacity Analysis for Underground Injected
California List Wastes . . ...
Capacity Analysis for Underground Injected First
Third Wastes ... ....
Overview of Second Third Promulgated Wastes
Overview of Surface Disposed Second Third
Promuleated Wastes
2-35
2-38
2-42
2-43
Table 2-16 Capacity Analysis for Surface Disposed Second
Third Promulgated Wastes
Table 2-17 Capacity Analysis for Underground Injected
Second Third Promulgated Wastes . ...
Table 2-18 Soft Hammer Wastes from the First Third and
Second Third Final Rules
Table 2-19 Determination of Available Commercial Capacity
for Third Third Wastes
Table 2-20 Overview of Third Third Promulgated Wastes
Table 2-21 Summary of Capacity Analysis for Third Third
Promulgated Wastes
Table 2-22 Summary of Capacity Analysis for Underground
Injected Third Third Promulgated Wastes
Table 2-23 Summary of Capacity Analysis for Third Third
Promulgated Soil and Debris Wastes . .
Table 2-24 Summary of Capacity Analysis for Mixed
Radioactive Wastes
2-45
2-47
2-49
2-52
2-54
2-56
2-58
2-60
2-63
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 3-1 Capacity Analysis. Tables for Each Waste Code
(Use Exhibit 3-1 Index)
Page
No.
3-15
3-360
Table 3-237 Volume of Contaminated Soils Land Disposed
Table 3-238 Summary of Capacity Analysis for Third Third
Promulgated Soil and Debris Wastes (Soil
and Debris only) 3-361
Table 3-239 Capacity Analysis for Each Waste Code (Soil and Debris) 3-362
Figure 4-1 Process Codes ^'20
Figure 4-2 Flow Diagram of a Simple System 4-23
Figure 4-3 Flow Diagram of Systems with Unit Process
Capacities U-2k
Figure 4-4 Flow Diagram of One System with Two Units
Conducting the Same Process . ' 4-26
Figure 4-5 Flow Diagram With Unit Capacities 4-28
Table 4-1 Summary of Commercial Hazardous Waste
Incineration Capacity 4-35
Table 4-2 Summary of Commercial Capacity for Reuse of
Hazardous Waste as Fuel 4-36
Table 4-3 Summary of Commercial Treatment System
Capacities 4-40
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document supports the final rule for the Third Third of the wastes
scheduled for restriction from land disposal under section 3004(m) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) It presents the estimates of the
quantities of wastes that will require alternative treatment and recovery
prior to land disposal. It also presents estimates of alternative treatment
and recovery capacity available to manage wastes restricted from land
disposal, taking into account the demands already placed on that capacity by
previous land disposal restrictions.
To date, the Land Disposal Restriction Program has promulgated final
rules on the land disposal (treatment or storage in waste piles; treatment,
storage, or disposal in surface impoundments; and disposal in landfills, land
treatment units, and underground injection) of solvent and dioxin-containing
wastes, California list wastes, and wastes from the First Third and Second
Third of the "scheduled" wastes. This final rule provides land disposal
restrictions for waste codes not regulated under the previous rules.
Legal Background
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA, enacted on
November 8, 1984, set basic new priorities for hazardous waste management.
Land disposal, which has been the most widely used method for managing
hazardous waste, is now the least preferred option. Under HSWA, the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must promulgate regulations restricting
the land disposal of hazardous wastes according to a strict statutory
schedule. As of the effective date of each regulation, land disposal of
untreated wastes covered by that regulation is prohibited unless it can be
demonstrated that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from
the disposal unit for as long as the waste remains hazardous.
HSWA's schedule divided hazardous wastes into three broad categories
The first category, which contained wastes restricted under regulations issued
on November 7, 1986, includes generic solvent and dioxin wastes. The second
category, whose final rule was issued on July 8, 1987, covers wastes
E-l
-------
originally listed by the State of California and adopted intact within HSWA.
The "California list" comprises the following classes of wastes: liquid
hazardous wastes with a pH of less than or equal to 2.0 (acidic corrosive
wastes); all liquid hazardous wastes containing free cyanides, various metals,
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) exceeding statutory concentration levels;
and all wastes (liquid, sludge, or solid) containing halogenated organic
compounds (HOCs) in concentrations greater than or equal to specified
statutory levels. All other hazardous wastes fall into the last category,
referred to as "scheduled" wastes. HSWA requires EPA to promulgate
regulations for these wastes on a timetable that would restrict at least
one-third of them by August 8, 1988, at least two-thirds of them by June 8,
1989, and the remainder by May 8, 1990, i.e., the First, Second, and Third
Third scheduled wastes, respectively.
Under the Land Disposal Restriction Program, EPA must identify levels or
methods of treatment that substantially reduce the toxicity of a waste or the
likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste. Where
possible, EPA prefers to define treatment in terms of performance (i.e.,
levels of treatment, expressed as a concentration of hazardous constituents in
residuals from treatment) rather than in terms of specific treatment methods.
HSWA requires, however, that levels specified in the regulations be
demonstrated and available. Accordingly, EPA's standards are generally based
on the performance of the best demonstrated available technology (BOAT), as
documented by treatment data collected at well-designed and well-operated
systems using that technology, or are based on data derived from the treatment
of similar wastes that are as difficult or more difficult to treat.
The land disposal restrictions are effective immediately upon
promulgation unless the Agency grants a national variance from the statutory
date because of a lack of available capacity. For every waste group, EPA
considers, on a national basis, both the capacity of commercially available
treatment or recovery technologies and the quantity of restricted wastes
currently sent to land disposal for which on-site capacity is not available.
If EPA determines that adequate alternative treatment or recovery capacity is
available for a particular waste or waste group, the land disposal restriction
goes into effect immediately If not, EPA establishes an alternative
E-2
-------
effective date based on the earliest date on which adequate treatment or
recovery capacity will be available, or two-years, whichever is less.
Summary of Capacity Analyses for Previous Rules
Estimates of the need for, and availability of, alternative hazardous
waste management capacity for previous land disposal restrictions rules are
described below.
Solvents and Dioxins
EPA promulgated the first rule under the Land Disposal Restriction
Program on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572). This rule established treatment
standards expressed as concentrations in waste extracts for spent solvent
wastes (F001-F005) and wastes contaminated with dioxin (F020-F023 and
F026-F028). It prohibited land disposal of wastes in these categories unless
they contain less than the specified concentrations.
EPA's original capacity analysis for solvent wastes, based on the RIA
Mail Survey, indicated shortfalls in available capacity for wastewater
treatment and incineration. The Agency therefore granted a two-year national
capacity variance for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) wastes and RCRA corrective action wastes, small
quantity generator wastes, and all wastes containing less than 1 percent total
F001-F005 solvent constituents. When the initial analysis was later
reevaluated using TSDR Survey data, however, EPA found that capacity was
adequate for these wastes.
The original capacity analysis for dioxin-containing wastes showed that
there was no available incineration capacity for these wastes. The November
7, 1986, rule, therefore, also granted a two-year national capacity variance
for these wastes. Current capacity estimates for these wastes are unchanged.
California List Wastes
The California list defines wastes in terms of general characteristics
rather than waste codes. It covers classes of wastes originally listed by the
E-3
-------
State of California and adopted intact within HSWA, including all liquid
hazardous wastes with a pH of less than or equal to 2.0 (acidic corrosive
wastes), all liquid hazardous wastes containing free cyanide, metals, or PCBs
in concentrations greater than or equal to limits specified in HSWA, and all
hazardous wastes (liquid, sludge, or solid) containing HOCs in amounts greater
than or equal to limits specified in HSWA.
EPA promulgated its final rule on the California list wastes on July 8 ,
1987 (52 FR 25760). For HOC wastes, EPA specified incineration as the
required treatment and did not set a concentration-based limit for treatment.
For PCB wastes, the Agency specified thermal treatment in accordance with 40
CFR 761.60 as the treatment standard. For acidic corrosive wastes, the Agency
prohibited all land disposal of wastes with a pH of less than or equal to 2.0,
but did not specify a treatment standard. The final rule did not establish
prohibition levels for metal or cyanide wastes, so the prohibition limits
specified in the statute took effect.
The capacity analysis for the California list rule was originally based
on the RIA Mail Survey, which indicated that incineration capacity for HOC
wastes was inadequate. The Agency had therefore granted a two-year national
variance for HOC wastes. Capacity was found to be adequate for all other
California list wastes. The HOC variance was rescinded on November 8, 1988,
however, because the later capacity analysis using the TSDR Survey found
incineration capacity to be adequate and the variance unnecessary.
First Third Wastes
EPA promulgated the final rule for First Third wastes on August 17,
1988. The capacity analysis conducted for First Third wastes indicated that
adequate treatment capacity exists for all First Third wastes except the
following:
Petroleum refining wastes (K048, K049, K050, K051,
K052), for which BOAT is sludge incineration or solvent
extraction;
High zinc (greater than of equal to 15 percent zinc)
electric arc furnace dust (K061), for which BOAT is high
temperature metals recovery; and
E-4
-------
Mercury cell chlorine production waste (K071), for which
BOAT is acid leaching.
The Agency therefore granted two-year national capacity variances to all
these wastes. In the case of high zinc K061 wastes, however, it required
these wastes to be treated to meet the standard for low zinc wastes based on
stabilization during the variance period.
Underground Injected Wastes
EPA has promulgated three final rules restricting the underground
injection of certain wastes. The first final rule, promulgated on July 26,
1988, addressed solvent and dioxin wastes. Using the TSDR Survey data, EPA
found that capacity was adequate for underground injected solvent wastes
containing greater than or equal to 1 percent total F001-F005 solvent
constituents, for which the BOAT technology was incineration; thus, no
variance was granted to these wastes.
On the other hand, the TSDR Survey data indicated that alternative
treatment capacity is inadequate for underground injected solvent wastes
containing less than or equal to 1 percent total F001-F005 solvent
constituents, for which the BDAT technology is wastewater treatment. The
Agency therefore granted a national capacity variance for these wastes until
August 8, 1990.
In addition, the Agency also found that no dioxin-containing wastes are
being underground injected, so no alternative treatment capacity is required
for these wastes, and they were not granted a capacity variance
The second final rule, promulgated on August 16, 1988 (53 FR 30908),
addressed underground injection of California list wastes and certain First
Third wastes (K049-K052, K062, K071, and K104). This analysis showed
inadequate alternative treatment capacity for almost all underground injected
California list wastes, the only exceptions being for liquid wastes containing
greater than 50 ppm PCBs and liquid and nonliquid wastes containing greater
than 1,000 ppm of HOCs, all of which require incineration. It also found that
alternative treatment capacity is inadequate for all underground injected
First Third wastes covered by the rule. EPA therefore granted national
E-5
-------
capacity variances until August 8, 1990, for all underground injected First
Third wastes and all underground injected California list wastes for which
treatment capacity is inadequate.
On June 14, 1989 (54 FR 25416), EPA published its regulatory approach
for underground injected First Third wastes not included in the August 16
rule. Where BOAT standards had been promulgated under the First Third final
rule (August 17, 1988), the approach proposed to adopt those standards by
reference.
In the case of dilute K016 (<1 percent) wastewaters, EPA found that
insufficient capacity- exists for treatment and therefore granted a national
capacity variance. In all other cases, adequate treatment capacity exists for
all underground injected First Third wastes for which BDAT treatment standards
have been promulgated and EPA did not grant any other variances.
Second Third Wastes
EPA published the final rule for Second Third wastes on June 23, 1989.
The capacity analysis conducted for this rule showed that sufficient capacity
exists to treat all wastes that are currently land disposed in surface units.
However, in order to allow time, if needed, for modifications to treatment
systems, EPA delayed implementation of the cyanide standards for the
electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, and F009) for 30 days. In addition,
for heat treating wastes (F011 and F012), EPA delayed implementation of the
cyanide standards until December 8, 1989. to allow time for generators to
segregate these wastes for proper treatment. Between July 8, 1989, and
December 8, 1989. however, heat treating wastes were subject to the cyanide
standards applicable to electroplating wastes.
For underground injected Second Third wastes, the capacity analysis
showed that capacity shortages exist for wastes requiring liquids combustion,
steam stripping followed by biological treatment, and alkaline chlorination
and chemical precipitation. Consequently, EPA granted a two-year national
capacity variance to underground injected F007 wastes requiring alkaline
chlorination and chemical precipitation; K009 wastes requiring steam stripping
followed by biological treatment; and K011, K013, and K014 wastes requiring
E-6
-------
liquids combustion. Furthermore, in order to allow time, if needed, for
modifications to treatment systems, EPA delayed implementation of the cyanide
standards for the electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, and F009) for 30
days. In addition, for heat treating wastes (F011 and F012), EPA delayed
implementation of the cyanide standards until December 8, 1989, to allow time
for generators to segregate these wastes for proper treatment. Between July
8, 1989, and December 8, 1989, however, heat treating wastes will be subject
to the cyanide standards applicable to electroplating wastes.
Third Third Rule
EPA is promulgating the Third Third rule of land disposal restrictions
(LDRs) to set treatment standards for all Third Third wastes, including all
First Third and Second Third wastes that were "soft hammered," soil and
debris, multi-source leachate, and mixed radioactive wastes.
For surface-disposed wastes, the capacity analysis showed that
alternative capacity shortages exist for certain wastes requiring acid
leaching followed by chemical precipitation, combustion of sludges and solids,
mercury retorting, thermal recovery, and vitrification. For deepwell-disposed
wastes, alternative capacity shortages exist for certain wastes requiring acid
leaching followed by chemical precipitation, alkaline chlorination, biological
treatment followed by chemical precipitation, chemical oxidation followed by
chemical precipitation, chemical oxidation followed by chromium reduction and
chemical precipitation, chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation,
mercury retorting, neutralization, and wet-air oxidation. The comprehensive
lists of surface-disposed and deepwell-disposed wastes receiving variances are
found in Table 1 and Table 2.
For soil and debris, there is not enough treatment capacity for wastes
whose BOAT is based on incineration, inorganic solids debris treatment,
mercury retorting and vitrification. Therefore, EPA is granting a national
capacity variance for all soil and debris whose BDAT is based on these
technologies.
E-7
-------
Table 1 - Summary of National Capacity Variance for
Surface Land-Disposed Wastes1
Required Alternative Treatment
Technology
Waste Code/Physical Form
Acid Leaching and Chemical Precipitation D009
K106
P065
P092
U151
Combustion of Sludge/Solids
Mercury Retorting
Secondary Smelting
Storage Area
Thermal Recovery
Vitrification
Low Mercury
Low Mercury
Low Mercury
Low Mercury
Low Mercury
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
F0392
K048
K049
K050
K051
K052
D009
K106
P065
P092
U151
D008
P087
D004
K031
K084
K101
K102
P010
P011
P012
P036
P038
U136
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
High Mercury Nonwastewater
High Mercury Nonwastewater
High Mercury Nonwastewater
High Mercury Nonwastewater
High Mercury Nonwastewater
Lead-Acid Materials
Secondary Smelting
Before
Wastewater/Nonwastewater
Nonwas tewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwas tewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwas tewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
EPA is granting these wastes a two-year national capacity variance except
for K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 petroleum-refining nonwastewaters EPA is
granting K048 to K052 petroleum-refining nonwastewaters a six month national
capacity variance. This tables does not include mixed radioactive wastes, which
are receiving a national capacity variance for all treatment technologies.
2 Multi-source leachate.
E-!
-------
Table 2 - Summary of Two-Year National Capacity Variance
for Underground Injected Wastes
Required Alternative Treatment
Technology
Waste Code/Physical Form
Acid Leaching Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Alkaline Chlorination
Chemical Oxidation Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Chemical Oxidation Followed By
Chromium Reduction Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Chromium Reduction Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Mercury Retorting
Neutralization
Wet-Air Oxidation
Wet-Air Oxidation Followed By
Carbon Adsorption, Followed By
Chemical Precipitation; Biological
Treatment Followed By Chemical
Precipitation
D009 Low Mercury Nonwastewater
D0031 Wastewater/Nonwastewater
D0032 Wastewater/Nonwastewater
D0033 Wastewater/Nonwastewater
D007 Wastewater/Nonwastewater
D009 High Mercury Nonwastewater
D002A Wastewater/Nonwastewater
K011 Wastewater
K013 Wastewater
K01A Wastewater/Nonwastewater
F0395 Wastewater
1 D003 (Cyanides).
2 D003 (Sulfides).
3 D003 (Explosives, Water Reactives, Other Reactives).
4 Deepwell injected D002 liquids with a pH less than 2.0 must meet the
California list treatment standards on August 8, 1990.
5 Multi-Source Leachate.
E-9
-------
For multi-source leachate, the capacity analysis shows that there is a
lack of capacity for the promulgated treatment technologies for surface-
disposed nonwastewaters and deepwell-disposed wastewaters containing organics
(i.e., combustion of sludge/solids, wet air oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption followed by chemical precipitation, and biological treatment
followed by chemical precipitation). EPA is granting a national capacity
variance to surface-disposed multi-source leachate organic nonwastewaters and
deepwell-disposed multi-source leachate wastewaters.
For mixed radioactive wastes, EPA is granting a national capacity
variance for all wastes being surface-disposed. EPA is not granting a
variance for mixed radioactive wastes that are underground injected, because
EPA currently has no information on these wastes.
Data Sources for the Current Capacity Analysis
TSDR Survey
The TSDR Survey was originally mailed to approximately 2,400
RCRA-permitted or interim status facilities in August 1987. Since that date,
an additional 225 new or previously overlooked facilities have been included.
To date, over 2,500 surveys have been received, reviewed for completeness and
accuracy, and analyzed.
Generator Survey
The National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators (the Generator Survey)
was designed to gather data on waste generation and exempt hazardous waste
treatment and recovery capacity, and it includes detailed hazardous waste
characterization data. For this final rule, these data were used primarily to
verify generation of some large volume wastes and unique waste mixtures
reported as land disposed.
Leachate Data
The Agency used two primary data sources to perform the capacity analysis
for multi-source leachate: the TSDR Survey and the Generator Survey. The
E-10
-------
Agency analyzed data on the volumes of multi-source leachate generated and
managed, including data on the facility schematics. In addition to data
included in the surveys, the Agency used additional data from the hazardous
waste management industry submitted as part of the leachate study plan.
(Appendix A describes these data sources in further detail.)
Radioactive Waste Data
The Department of Energy (DOE) provided data on the generation and
treatment of mixed radioactive wastes at 21 DOE facilities. Information
sources for non-DOE mixed radioactive wastes included the TSDR Survey,
Generator Survey, published studies of mixed radioactive wastes, surveys and
reports for states and interstate compacts for managing low-level mixed
radioactive wastes, and telephone contacts with government representatives and
industry officials. (Appendix B describes these data sources)
Methodology for Capacity Analysis
To evaluate the adequacy of alternative treatment capacity for specific
waste categories, EPA first puts restricted wastes into "treatability groups"
that require similar treatment or management practices; for instance, all
wastes requiring sludge incineration would be placed in the same treatability
group. Where wastes present particular problems in treatment, the Agency may
identify "treatment trains" of multiple technologies operating in sequence.
Volumes of wastes in each treatability group are adjusted to reflect the
November 1988 deadline regarding minimum technology requirements for surface
impoundments. The net total volume of currently land disposed hazardous waste
requiring alternative treatment capacity becomes the required capacity for
that treatability group. EPA then assigns the volumes of waste in each
treatability group to treatment technologies or treatment trains.
Determinations of available capacity take several factors into account.
Some treatment processes will generate various treatment residuals, which then
have to be assigned to, and accounted for within, other treatability groups.
Available capacity--the difference between currently utilized capacity and the
total capacity of the treatment system--must take into account the commercial
status of each facility managing waste within a treatability group:
E-ll
-------
Available treatment capacity at on-site facilities used
exclusively by the waste generator cannot be considered
available to other generators;
All commercially available capacity at commercial
facilities is considered fully available to any generator
Capacity analysis begins at the facility level and aggregates upward
toward the national level, assigning available excess capacity by observing
the above rules. For example, available capacity at private treatment systems
applies only to wastes currently land disposed at the same site. Remaining
wastes are assigned to commercial capacity.
The analysis for each regulation within the Land Disposal Restriction
Program accounts for the sequential and cumulative effects of all previous
regulations and for projected capacity changes after 1986, as reported in the
TSDR Survey. Solvents and dioxins were considered first, followed by
California list wastes, First and Second Third promulgated wastes, and
finally, Third Third wastes. Available capacity has been assigned first to
all affected surface disposed wastes and then to all underground injected
wastes. EPA sets this priority because it believes that land disposal in
surface units may represent a greater threat to human health and the
environment than does underground injection.
Results of the Capacity Analysis
For the types of treatment and recovery needed to meet Third Third rule
standards, Table 3 shows the commercial capacity remaining to manage all Third
Third wastes. This takes into account the capacity already allocated to other
wastes under all previous land disposal restrictions. Remaining capacity for
Third Third wastes is estimated by subtracting requirements for previously
restricted wastes from the capacity currently available. This table
represents the most current data available to the Agency.
In the Third Third proposed rule, EPA determined that 25 million gallons
of First Third Wastes required alkaline chlorination followed by chemical
precipitation. This estimate was based on an analysis performed for the
E-12
-------
TABLE 3 DETERMINATION OF AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL CAPACITY FOR THIRD THIRD WASTES*
(MILLIONS OF GALLONS/YEAR)
TECHNOLOGY
Acid leaching followed by chemical precipitation
Alkaline chloruution
Alkaline chlorination followed by chemical precipitation
Biological treatment
Biological treatment followed by chemical precipitation
Chemical oxidation followed by chemical precipitation
Chemical oxidation followed by chromium
reduction followed by chemical precipitation
Chemical precipitation
Chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation
Corabiubon of liquid*
Combustion of sludge/solid*
Mercury retorting
Neutralization
Secondary lead melting
Stabilization
Thermal recovery
Thermal recovery of cadmium batteries
Vitrification
Wet-air oxidation
Wet-air oxidation followed by carbon adsorption
1990
AVAILABLE
CAPACITY
0
7
17
47
14
28
2
339
142
328
81
<1
36
37
750
0
<1
0
<1
-------
Second Third final rule to determine the volume of generated F006 wastes that
may exceed the promulgated cyanide standards and therefore require treatment
for cyanides. An analysis o'f the TSDR Survey data for the Second Third final
rule, showed that only 4 percent of F006 wastes that were genreated at TSDR
facilities may, as a worst-case scenario, contain cyanide concentrations above
the revised standards. Generator Survey data indicated that less than 2
percent of the volume of F006 at generator facilities have a cyanide
concentration above the treatment standard or had unknown concentration
levels. In addition to analyzing the TSDR and Generator Survey data set, EPA
also reviewed F006 data submitted by several commenters during the public
comment period for the Second Third rule. One commenter submitted data
indicating that only 9 percent of 88 waste stream samples from a variety of
generators had total cyanide concentrations above the revised treatment
cyanide. The second commenter's data showed that only 4 percent (2 out of 47
samples) had cyanide concentrations above the revised treatment standard.
Based on this data, EPA assumed for a worst-case analysis, for the Second
Third final rule and the Third Third proposed rule, that approximately ten
percent of cyanide waste streams would require treatment. For the Third Third
final rule, EPA has revised the baseline estimate from ten percent to four
percent. Consequently, the volume of First Third wastes requiring alkaline
chlorindation followed by chemical precipitation capacity has been revised.
Using the remaining capacity for Third Third wastes as a baseline,
Table 4 shows the capacity needs for all Third Third wastes that are not
underground injected (including leachate). contaminated soils or debris, or
mixed radioactive wastes. This table shows that insufficient capacity
currently exists for some volumes of surface disposed Third Third wastes
Insufficient capacity exists for the following technologies: acid leaching
followed by chemical precipitation, sludge/solid combustion, mercury
retorting, thermal recovery, and vitrification.1 Consequently, EPA is
granting variances to the following surface-disposed wastes: D009, K106,
P065, P092, and U151 low mercury nonwastewaters; F039 multi-source leachate
nonwastewaters; K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 nonwastewaters; D009, K106,
Volumes of wastes assigned to these technologies have either technology-
based or concentration-based treatment standards. Although wastes with
concentration-based standards can be treated with other technologies, for
capacity analysis purposes, volumes were assigned to these BDATs.
E-14
-------
Table 4
Required Alternative Commercial Treatment/Recycling
Capacity for Surface-Disposed Wastes1
(millions of gallons/yr.)
Technology
Available
Capacity
Required
Capacity
Variance
Acid Leaching Followed by Chemical
Precipitation
Alkaline Chlorination
Alkaline Chlorination Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Biological Treatment
Biological Treatment Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Chemical Oxidation Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Chemical Oxidation Followed By
Chromium Reduction and Chemical
Precipitation
Chemical Precipitation
Chromium Reduction Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Combustion of Liquids
Combustion of Sludge/Solids
0
7
6
47
14
28
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
339
96
237
41
25
85
16
213
NO
NO
NO
YES
1 This table does not include mixed radioactive wastes, which are receiving
national capacity variance for all applicable treatment technologies.
E-15
-------
Table 4 (continued)
Required Alternative Commercial Treatment/Recycling
Capacity for Surface-Disposed Wastes
(millions of gallons/yr.)
Available Required
Technology Capacity Capacity Variance
Mercury Retorting <1 3 YES
Neutralization 36 22 NO
Secondary Lead Smelting 37 2 NO
Stabilization 478 158 NO
Thermal Recovery2 0 <1 YES
Thermal Recovery of Cadmium Batteries <1 <1 NO
Vitrification 0 22 YES
Excluding Secondary Smelting of lead wastes.
E-16
-------
P065, P092, and U151 high mercury nonwastewaters; D008 lead acid batteries in
storage areas prior to secondary smelting; P087 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters; and D004, K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, P011, P012, P036,
P038, and U136 nonwastewaters. EPA is not granting a national capacity
variance for any other surface-disposed Third Third wastes.
Table 5 allocates capacity to underground injected Third Third wastes
after removing capacity for surface-disposed wastes that are not receiving a
variance. The table shows shortfalls in available capacity for acid leaching
followed by chemical precipitation, alkaline chlorination, biological
treatment followed by chemical precipitation, chemical oxidation followed by
chemical precipitation, chemical oxidation followed by chromium reduction and
chemical precipitation, chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation,
mercury retorting, neutralization, and wet-air oxidation. As a result, EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity variance to the following underground
injected wastes: D003 cyanide wastewaters and nonwastewaters; D003 sulfide
wastewaters and nonwastewaters; D003 explosive/reactive wastewaters and
nonwastewaters; D007 wastewaters and nonwastewaters; D009 nonwastewaters; D002
wastewaters and nonwastewaters; K011 and K013 wastewaters, and K014
wastewaters and nonwastewaters; and F039 multisource leachate wastewaters
EPA is not granting a national capacity variance to any other underground
injected Third Third wastes.
Table 6 allocates capacity to Third Third soil and debris wastes after
removing capacity for both surface-disposed and underground-injected wastes.
The table shows shortfalls in available capacity for incineration, inorganic
solids debris treatment, mercury retorting, and vitrification. As a result,
EPA is granting an extension of the effective date for certain First,
Second,and Third Third contaminated soil and debris for which the treatment
standards today are based on incineration, inorganic solids debris treatment,
mercury retorting or vitrification.
Table 7 shows available treatment capacity for mixed radioactive wastes
and the quantities requiring treatment. The table shows shortfalls for
available capacity for stabilization, surface deactivation followed by
encapsulation, combustion, incineration followed by ash stabilization,
E-17
-------
Table 5
Required Alternative Commercial Treatment/Recycling
Capacity for Deepwell-Disposed Wastes
(millions of gallons/yr.)
Technology
Available Required
Capacity Capacity
Variance
Acid Leaching Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Alkaline Chlorination
Alkaline Chlorination Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Biological Treatment
Biological Treatment Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Chemical Oxidation Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Chemical Oxidation Followed By
Chromium Reduction and Chemical
Precipitation
Chemical Precipitation
Chromium Reduction Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Combustion of Liquids
Mercury Retorting
Neutralization
Stabilization
Wet-Air Oxidation
Wet-Air Oxidation Followed By
Carbon Adsorption
<1
YES
1
4
47
13
48
<1
2
15
YES
NO
NO
YES
21
<1
1,684
195
YES
YES
314
9
219
:.01
14
305
<1
<1
119
239
54
<.02
1,638
4
1,027
<1
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
E-18
-------
Table 6
Required Alternative Commercial
Treatment/Recycling Capacity for Soil and Debris Wastes
(millions of gallons/yr.)
Available Required
Technology Capacity Capacity Variance
Alkaline Chlorination <1 <1 NO
Beryllium Recovery <1 <1 NO
Chemical Oxidation Followed By <1 <1 NO
Chromium Reduction and
Chemical Precipitation
Chromium Reduction and 4 2 NO
Chemical Precipitation
Incineration of Sludge/Solids 0 8 YES
Inorganic Solids Debris Treatment 0 5 YES
Mercury Retorting <1 4 YES
Neutralization 14 <1 NO
Secondary Smelting 35 <1 NO
Stabilization 301 12 NO
Vitrification 0 <1 YES
E-19
-------
Table 7
Summary of Capacity Analysis for Mixed Radioactive Wastes
Available
Capacity
Technology (million gal/yr)
Stabilization
Macroencapsulation
Combustion
Liquids
Sludge/solids
Neutralization
Vitrification
Alkaline Chlorination
Alkaline Chlorination
and Chemical Precipitation
Alkaline Chlorination
and Stabilization of Metals
Treatment of Reactives
Metals Recovery
Amalgamation
Chromium Reduction
and Chemical Precipitation
Chemical Precipitation
Sulfide Precipitation
Soil and Debris
2.8
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Required
Capacity
(million gal/yr)
63.6
<0.2
<0.1
1.6
26.2
14
0.8
0.5
8.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
51.6
193
Variance
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
E-20
-------
neutralization, vitrification, alkaline chlorination, alkaline chlorination
followed by chemical precipitation, alkaline chlorination followed by
stabilization of metals, treatment of reactives, metals recovery, amalgamation
with zinc, chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation, chemical
precipitation, sulfide precipitation, and treatment of soil and debris
contaminated with mixed radioactive wastes. As a result, EPA is promulgating
a two-year national capacity variance to all surface-disposed mixed
radioactive wastes. Because EPA has no information on the underground
injection of mixed radioactive wastes, EPA is not promulgating a national
capacity variance to those mixed radioactive wastes that are underground
injected.
Table 8 further summarizes the results of Tables 4 and 5 by waste code,
indicating the capacity needs for each surface disposed or underground
injected waste, and whether or not available capacity is adequate.
E-21
-------
Table 8. Suwary of Capacity Analysis for Third Third Wastes by Waste Code
Waste
Code
DOOIa
D001b
D002c
D002d
D003e
D003f
D003g
D004
0005
D006h
D006i
0007
0008 j
0008k
0009
0010
0011
0012
0013
0014
0015
0016
0017
F002
F005
F0061
F006m
F006n
F019
F024
F025
F039o
K002
K003
K004
K005
K006
K007
K008
K011
K013
K014
K015
K017
K021
K022
K025
K026
K028
K029
K031
K032
K033
K054
C035
IC036
<037
K041
K041
K042
K044
K045
IC046
Surface disposed
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(mi 1 1 ion gal/yr)
19.6
<0.1
25.5
0
1.4
6.7
1.2
12.8
16.4
16.3
<0.1
118.4
72.5
0.6
4.1
2.0
2.5
0.5
0.4
1.9
<0.1
0.2
0.4
0
0
1.6
0
18.8
12.6
<0.1
0
46.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Waste streams
Adequate alternative
capacity avai I able
(yes/no)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
VAC
yes
yes
VAC
7 ta
ves
7 '^
VAC
7 ta
yes
yes
other than soil and debris
Underground injected
volume requiring Adequate alternative Total
alternative capacity capacity avai lable (million)
(million gal/yr)
6.9
0
1,924.5
0
54.6
1,593.5
97.6
10.0
1.3
1.6
0
201.2
3.7
0
1.2
95.2
0.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
0
0
0.5
3.0
1.5
<0.1
0
0
15.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
433.2
407.2
131.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i i
i . i
<0 1
^U . I
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
(yes/no)
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
VAC
7 CO
VAC
7ca
VAC
7CO
VAC
yea
yes
VPQ
yea
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
gal/yr)
26.5
<0.1
1,950.0
0
56.0
1,600.2
98.8
22.8
17.7
17.9
0
319.6
75.7
0.6
5.2
97.3
2.8
2.8
2.8
4.3
2.3
2.6
2.8
0
0
2.1
3.0
20.3
12.6
<0.1
0
61.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0
433.2
407.2
131.0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
o
0
o
0
1 .7
<0. 1
0
0
rf-rr 1
-------
Table 8 (continued). Suavary of Capacity Analysis for Third Third Wastes by Waste Code
Waste streams other than soil and debris
Waste
Code
K042
K044
K045
K046
K047
K048
K049
K050
K051
K052
K060
K061
K069
K071
K073
K083
K084
K085
K086
K095
K096
K097
K098
K100
K101
K102
K105
K106p
K106q
P001
P002
P003
POM
POOS
P006
P007
P008
P009
P010
P011
P012
P013
P014
P015
P016
P017
P018
P020
P022
P023
P024
P026
P027
P028
P031
P033
P03A
P036
P037
Surface disposed
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(mi llion gal/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
37.0
31.8
11.8
78.2
12.5
0
0
<0.1
0
<0 . 1
<0. 1
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0.4
0
<0.1
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0 . 1
<0 . 1
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
<0. 1
<0 . 1
<0. 1
0
<0.1
0
0
<0 . 1
<0. 1
0
0
0
<0.1
Adequate alternative
capacity available
(yes/no)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
Underground injected
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(million gal/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
5.1
0
0
0.2
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adequate alternative
capacity available
(yes/no)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
-
-
-
-
-
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Total
(mi 11 ion)
gal/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
37.0
31.7
11.8
78.2
12.5
0
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
5.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0.4
0
<0.1
-------
Table 8 (continued). SuMry of Capacity Analysis for Third Third Wastes by Waste Code
Waste streams other than soil and debris
Waste
Code
P038
P042
P045
P046
P047
P048
P049
P050
P051
P054
P056
P057
P058
P059
P060
P064
P065
P066
P067
P068
P069
P070
P072
P073
POTS
P076
POTT
POTS
P081
P082
P084
P08T
P088
P092
P093
P095
P096
P099
P101
P102
P103
P104
P105
P108
P110
P112
P113
P114
P115
P116
P118
P119
P120
P122
P123
U001
U002
U003
0004
Surface disposed
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(million gal/yr)
0
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Adequate alternative
capac i ty ava i I ab I e
(yes/no)
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Underground injected
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(million gal/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0.4
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0.5
0.1
0
0
Adequate alternative
capacity available
(yes/no)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes-
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Total
(million)
gal/yr)
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0.1
0
0.4
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0.1
<0. 1
<0.1
E-24
-------
Table 8 (continued). SuMry of Capacity Analysis for Third Third Wastes by Waste Code
Waste streams other than soil and debris
Waste
Code
U005
U006
U007
U008
U009
U010
U011
U012
UOU
U015
U016
U017
U018
U019
U020
U021
U022
U023
U024
U025
U026
U027
U029
U030
U031
U032
U033
U03A
U035
U036
U037
U038
U039
U041
U042
UOA3
U044
U045
U046
UCK7
U048
U049
U050
U051
U052
U053
U055
U056
U057
U059
U060
U061
U062
U063
UOM
U066
U067
U06fl
U070
Surface disposed
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(mi llion gal/yr)
<0 1
<0.1
<0.1
<0 . 1
-------
Table 8 (continued). SuaBary of Capacity Analysis for Third Third Wastes by Waste Code
Waste streams other than soil and debris
Waste
Code
U071
U072
U073
U074
U075
U076
U077
U078
U079
U080
U081
U082
U083
U084
U085
U086
U089
U090
U091
U092
U093
U094
U095
U096
U097
U098
U099
U101
U103
U105
U106
U107
U108
U109
U110
U111
U112
U113
U114
U115
U116
U117
U118
U119
U120
U121
U122
U123
U124
U125
U126
U127
U128
U129
U130
U131
U132
U133
U134
Surface disposed
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(mi 11 ion gal/yr)
<0 1
0.2
<0.1
0
<0 . 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
2.7
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0. 1
<0. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
0
<0. 1
<0 . 1
0
0
0
0
^0 1
-------
Table 8 (continued). SuBMary of Capacity Analysis for Third Third Wastes by Waste Code
Waste streams other than soil and debris
Surface disposed
volume requiring Adequate alternative
Waste alternative capacity capacity available
Code (million gal/yr) (yes/no)
U135
U136
U137
U138
U140
U141
U142
U143
U144
U145
U146
U147
U148
U149
U150
U151r
U151S
"52
J153
U154
U155
U156
U157
U158
U159
U160
U161
U162
U163
U164
U165
U166
U167
U168
U169
U170
U171
U172
U173
U174
U176
U177
U178
U179
U180
U181
U182
U183
U184
U185
U186
U187
U188
U189
U191
U192
U193
U194
U196
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0. 1
<0. 1
0
<0.1
0
0
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
0.3
<0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
<0 . 1
<0. 1
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0.2
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Underground injected
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(million gal/yr)
0
0
0
0.1
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
0.1
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0.1
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0.1
0
<0.1
0
Adequate alternative Total
capacity avai I able (million)
(yes/no) gal/yr)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
0
0
0
0.1
1.0
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
<0 . 1
<0 . 1
<0 . 1
<0 . 1
0
0.1
0
0
0
0.4
0
<0.1
0.1
0.3
-------
Table 8 (continued). SuHary of Capacity Analysis for Third Third Wastes by Waste Code
Waste streams other than soil and debris
Surface disposed
volume requiring
Waste alternative capacity
Code (million gal/yr)
U197 0
U200 0
U201 <0.1
U202 <0.1
U203 0
U204 <0 . 1
U205 0
U206 0
U207 0
U208 <0.1
U209 <0.1
U210 <0.1
U211 <0.1
U213 <0.1
U214 <0.1
U215 0
U216 0
U217 <0.1
U218 <0.1
U219 <0.1
U220 0.1
U222 0
U225 <0.1
U226 <0.1
U227 2.7
U228 <0.1
U234 <0.1
U236 0
U237 <0.1
U238 <0.1
U239 0.2
U240 <0.1
U243 0
U244 <0.1
U246 0
U247 <0.1
U248 <0.1
U249 <0.1
a - D001 igni tables
b - D001 reactive, oxidizers
c D002 acids and alkalines
d - D002 other corrosives
e - D003 cyanides
f D003 sul fides
Adequate alternative
capacity available
(yes/no)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
k - D008
1 - F006
m - F006
n F006
o - F039
p - K106
g - D003 explosives, react ives q - K106
h - 0006 cadmium
r U151
i - D006 nickel cadmium batteries s - u151
j - 0008 lead nonbetteries
Underground injected
volume requiring
alternative capacity
(million gal/yr)
0.1
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0. 1
<0«1
0
0
0.1
2.7
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
lead acid batteries
cyanides and metals
Adequate alternative
capacity available
(yes/no)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Total
(million)
gal/yr)
0.1
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
0
0
n i
<0.1
1 .0
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
0
<0.1
0.1
5.3
<0. 1
<0. 1
0
<0. 1
<0. 1
0.4
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0 . 1
treated cyanides and metals
chrome
multi -source leachate
high concentration mercury
low concentration mercury
high concentration mercury
low concentration mercury
Note: Although data indicates that K101, K102, P036, P038, P065, U136, U151 surface disposed wastes are not currentl)
being land disposed, these waste codes are being generated. Because no capacity exist for these wastes under
their appropriate BOAT, EPA is granting a variance to those codes.
E-28
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This section contains a brief summary of the legal background on the Land
Disposal Restriction Program, a summary of the results of capacity analyses to
support prior restrictions, and an introduction to the capacity analysis for
those wastes analyzed for this final Third Third rule.
Section 2 contains the detailed results of the capacity analysis for the
Third Third final rule. Section 3 includes a capacity analysis for each waste
code. Section 4 details the Agency's capacity analysis methodology Section
5 lists the references used to prepare this document.
1.1 Legal Background
1.1.1 General Requirements Under HSWA
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), enacted on
November 8, 1984, amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
1976 in several significant ways. Among other initiatives, the amendments
require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations
restricting the land disposal of hazardous wastes according to a strict,
detailed schedule. This effort is generally referred to as the Land Disposal
Restriction Program.
1.1.2 Schedule for Developing Restrictions
HSWA set a strict schedule for establishing treatment standards, based
generally on priorities related to the volume and intrinsic hazards of
different types of wastes. Two groups received early attention: (1) solvent
and dioxin wastes, to be regulated within 24 months of HSWA's passage, and (2)
the so-called "California list" wastes, to be regulated within 32 months The
solvent/dioxin waste group identified in HSWA includes those solvent wastes
covered under waste codes F001, F002, F003, F004, and F005, as well as the
dioxin-containing wastes covered under waste codes F020, F021, F022, and F023
(RCRA section 3004(e)) The final dioxin regulation also established
treatment standards for F026, F027, and F028.
1-1
-------
The California list wastes, a group of wastes originally listed by the
State of California and adopted intact within HSWA, include liquid hazardous
wastes containing metals, free cyanides, PCBs, acidic corrosives (pH of less
than or equal to 2.0), and any liquid or nonliquid hazardous waste containing
halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) above 0.1 percent (1,000 ppm) by weight.
Priorities for all other hazardous wastes listed under RCRA section 3001
were established separately, based on considerations of volume and intrinsic
hazard, in a formal schedule submitted to Congress on November 8, 1986 (RCRA
section 3004(g)(l)). This schedule requires all final land disposal
restrictions to be in place by May 8, 1990. Consistent with the requirements
of HSWA, EPA divided all other listed hazardous wastes into three groups (the
"Thirds"), to be regulated in successive stages over a period of 66 months
from the passage of HSWA on November 8, 1984.
The overall schedule for the Land Disposal Restriction Program is as
follows:
Solvents and dioxins: Final standards promulgated on
November 7, 1986.
California list wastes: Final standards promulgated on
July 8, 1987.
"First Third" scheduled wastes: Final standards
promulgated on August 8, 1988.
"Second Third" scheduled wastes: Final standards
promulgated on June 8, 1989.
"Third Third" scheduled wastes: Final standards
promulgated on May 8, 1990.
1.1.3 Variance from the Schedule
The land disposal restrictions are effective when promulgated unless the
Administrator grants a national capacity variance and establishes a different
date, not to exceed two years beyond the statutory deadline, based on "the
earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment or recovery capacity
which protects human health and the environment will be available" (RCRA
section 3004(h)(2)). In addition, case-by-case extensions can be granted by
EPA for up to one year (renewable once) from a ban effective date if
1-2
-------
applicants demonstrate alternative capacity is not available, and that they
have entered into a binding contract to construct or otherwise provide
alternative capacity
1.2 Summary of Previous Land Disposal Restrictions
Capacity analyses to support previous land disposal restrictions were
performed using the best data available at the time to develop national
estimates of both the amount of waste land disposed and the available
alternative commercial treatment and recovery capacity. Analyses of affected
wastes considered the combination of waste code, physical/chemical form, and
type of restricted management practice to determine the amount of alternative
capacity required.
1.2.1 Solvents and Dioxins
The Land Disposal Restrictions Program began with the promulgation of the
solvents and dioxins rule on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572). The final rule
included spent solvent wastes (F001-F005) and dioxin-containing
wastes (F020-F023 and F026-F028), and established treatment standards
expressed as concentrations in the waste extract. The rule prohibits land
disposal of solvent and dioxin wastes unless the wastes contain less than the
specified concentrations of hazardous constituents.
Initially. EPA used the 1981 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Mail
Survey1 to identify the volume of land disposed solvent wastes subject to the
restrictions. Although EPA did not establish required treatment technologies
for these wastes, EPA used the physical and chemical characteristics that were
reported for each waste stream to identify the technology or technologies that
EPA assumed would be used to meet the treatment standards. The waste volumes
were distributed among the applicable technologies as shown below:
1 USEPA. 1984. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment. Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Under RCRA in 1981. EPA/530-SW-005, GPO Pub. #5/N055-000-00239-8.
1-3
-------
Applicable treatment and
Waste stream recovery technologies
Solvent-water mixtures Wastewater treatment
Organic liquids . Distillation
Fuel substitution
Incineration
Organic sludges Fuel substitution
' Incineration
Inorganic sludges or solids Incineration
After identifying the required alternative capacity for solvent wastes,
EPA analyzed the available commercial capacity for these technologies.
Analysis of available commercial capacity (supply) and required capacity
(demand) showed shortfalls in available capacity for wastewater treatment and
incineration. Consequently, EPA granted a two-year national capacity variance
to CERCLA and RCRA corrective action wastes; small quantity generator (SQG)
wastes; and all wastes containing less than 1 percent total F001-F005 solvent
constituents, i.e., solvent-water mixtures, solvent-containing sludges, and
solvent-contaminated soil (40 CFR 268.30 and the Background document for
solvents final rule).2
EPA determined the volume of dioxin-containing waste generated annually
and affected by the restrictions. Incineration capacity for these dioxin
wastes was determined to be inadequate; therefore, a two-year national
capacity variance was granted (51 FR 40617).
The final rule for the First Third Wastes, published on August 17, 1988
(53 FR 31138), included a reanalysis of available and required treat-
ment capacity for solvent wastes using data from EPA's new data set based on
the results of EPA's National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (the TSDR Survey). The results of this
USEPA. 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Background Document for Solvents to Support 40 CFR Part 268. Land
Disposal Restrictions. Final Rule. EPA Contract No. 68-01-7053. Washington,
D.C.: U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
1-4
-------
reanalysis demonstrated that adequate capacity exists for solvent wastes EPA
therefore allowed the capacity variances to expire on November 8, 1988
1.2.2 California List
Unlike the solvents and dioxins rule, the California list rule is not
waste code specific. The California list includes all liquid hazardous waste
with a pH of less than or equal to 2.0 (i.e., acidic corrosive waste); all
liquid hazardous wastes containing free cyanide, metals, or polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in concentrations greater than or equal to those specified in
40 CFR 268.32; and all hazardous wastes (liquid or nonliquid) containing
halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) in amounts greater than or equal to the
levels specified in 40 CFR 268.32.
The California list final rule was promulgated on July 8, 1987
(52 FR 25760). This rule required the use of specific technologies rather
than the establishment of performance-based standards for California list PCB
wastes and certain California list HOC wastes. 'Specifically, the rule
requires incineration in accordance with 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart 0, or Part
265, Subpart 0, for HOC wastes (except HOC wastewaters) and thermal treatment
in accordance with 40 CFR 761.60 or 761.70 for PCB wastes. EPA codified the
statutory prohibition level (RCRA section 3004(d)(2)) for acidic corrosive
wastes (those with a pH of <2.0), but did not promulgate a treatment standard
for these wastes. The final rule did not establish prohibition levels for
metal or cyanide wastes; therefore, upon promulgation, the RCRA section
3004(d)(2) statutory levels became effective.
EPA originally used data from the 1981 RIA Mail Survey3 to determine the
maximum potential volume of land disposed waste subject to the California list
restrictions. To determine the required alternative treatment capacity for
these waste volumes, EPA identified those technologies that it believed would
generally be used to treat California list wastes. EPA then determined the
commercially available alternative treatment capacity for these wastes.
3 USEPA. 1984. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment. Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Regulated Under RCRA in 1981. EPA/530-SW-005, GPO Pub. #5/N055-000-00239 8.
1-5
-------
A comparison of required and available treatment capacity for the
California list wastes for which a BDAT has been established showed that
incineration capacity for HOC wastes was inadequate. Consequently, EPA
granted a two-year national capacity variance to HOC wastes requiring
incineration. On the other hand, EPA determined that adequate capacity for
PCS wastes did exist and thus did not grant a variance for these wastes. EPA
believes that acidic corrosive, cyanide, and metal wastes can be treated to
below the California list statutory levels by tank treatment methods including
neutralization, cyanide oxidation, chromium reduction, and chemical
precipitation. Furthermore, since the rule applies only to liquid wastes,
they may still be land disposed after being rendered non-liquid.
Consequently. EPA believed that adequate capacity for these wastes exists and
did not grant a capacity variance for them.'1
The final rule for the First Third wastes, however, included a reanalysis
of required and available treatment capacity for California list HOC wastes
based on the TSDR Survey data. The results indicated significant changes in
waste management practices and capacity, specifically, substantial increases
in commercial incineration capacity. As a result, EPA determined that
capacity variances were no longer needed for HOC wastes, except for
HOC-contaminated soils, and therefore rescinded the California list HOC
variance effective November 8, 1988.
1.2.3 First Third Wastes
On August 17, 1988, the Agency published the final rule for the First
Third wastes. This final rule promulgated treatment standards for some of the
First Third wastes. The remaining First Third wastes for which treatment
standards were not established were covered by the soft hammer requirements.
EPA used the TSDR Survey data set to determine affected waste volumes
requiring alternative capacity and available commercial treatment/recovery
capacity Required alternative capacity was then compared with available
USEPA. 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Wasce- Background Document for California List Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part 268
Land Disposal Restrictions Final Rule. EPA Contract No. 68-01-7053.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1-6
-------
commercial treatment/recovery capacity. This comparison showed adequate
capacity for all First Third wastes except petroleum refining wastes (K048,
K049, K050, K051, and K052) for which BOAT is sludge incineration or solvent
extraction; high zinc (greater than or equal to 15 percent zinc) electric arc
furnace dust (K061) for which BOAT is high temperature metals recovery; and
mercury cell chlorine production waste (K071) for which BOAT is acid leaching.
Consequently, EPA granted a two-year national capacity variance to K048-K052
and K071 wastes. EPA also granted a two-year national variance from the high
temperature metals recovery-based standards to high zinc K061 wastes, but in
the interim required these wastes to meet the standard for low zinc K061 based
on stabilization.5
1.2.4 Underground Injected Wastes
EPA has promulgated three final rules restricting the underground
injection of certain wastes. The first of these rules, published on July 26,
1988 (53 FR 28118), restricted solvent and dioxin wastes. For this final
rule, EPA used the results of the TSDR Survey to perform an analysis of
required and available treatment/recovery capacity. The results of the
analysis showed inadequate capacity for the volume of underground injected
solvent wastes containing less than 1 percent total F001-F005 solvent
constituents for which the BOAT standard is based on wastewater treatment
(steam stripping, biological treatment, wet-air oxidation, or carbon
adsorption) Consequently, EPA granted a two-year national capacity variance
from the treatment standard until August 8, 1990, to underground injected
solvent wastes containing less than 1 percent total F001-F005 solvent
constituents that are disposed of by injection in Class I wells.
Conversely, the analysis also showed that adequate capacity did exist for
he volume of solvent wastes containing greater than or equal to 1 percent
total' F001-F005 solvent constituents for which the BDAT standard is based on
incineration. Consequently, these wastes were restricted from underground
injection on August 8, 1988. Furthermore, available data showed that no
5 USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Background Document for First Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part 268
Land Disposal Restrictions. Final Rule. EPA Contract No. 68-01-7053
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1-7
-------
dioxin wastes are being injected, and thus the Agency did not grant a variance
from the August 8, 1988, effective date for restricting the underground
injection of these wastes.
The second final rule (53 FR 30908) restricted the underground injection
of California list wastes and certain First Third wastes, specifically K062,
K049-K052, K071, and K104. For this rule, the Agency used data from the
Hazardous Waste Injection Well Data Base (HWIWDB) and the TSDR Survey to
perform a capacity analysis for these wastes. This analysis showed inadequate
capacity for all underground injected California list wastes except for those
containing greater than 50 ppm polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) requiring
thermal treatment and wastes containing HOCs greater than 1,000 ppm requiring
incineration or reuse as fuel. Furthermore, the analysis identified
insufficient capacity for all the First Third wastes subject to the rulemaking
(K062, K049-K052, K071, and K104). EPA granted a two-year national capacity
variance to underground injected California list wastes (except PCB wastes
greater than 50 ppm and HOC wastes greater than 1,000 ppm) and K049-K052,
K062, K071, and K104 wastes.
EPA published its approach for the remainder of the underground
injected First Third wastes on June 14, 1989 (54 FR 25416).
EPA established effective dates for those underground injected First
Third wastes for which BOAT has been established but were not addressed in the
August 16, 1988, final rule for underground injection wastes discussed
previously EPA determined that sufficient capacity exists for K019 and K030
wastes for which BOAT is biological degradation, and for concentrated K016
wastes (>1 percent) and K103 wastes for which BDAT is liquid incineration.
However, for dilute K016 (<1 percent) wastes for which BDAT is biological
treatment followed by wet-air oxidation, EPA determined that sufficient
capacity does not exist. Consequently, for K019, K030, K103, and concentrated
K016 (>1 percent) underground injected wastes, EPA did not grant a national
capacity variance. For dilute K016 (<1 percent) underground injected wastes,
however, EPA did grant a national capacity variance until August 8, 1990.
-------
1.2.5 Second Third Wastes
On June 23, 1989, EPA finalized treatment standards for some of the
Second Third wastes, for some of the First Third wastes previously subject to
the soft hammer provisions, and also for some of the wastes that were
originally Third Third wastes.
For the Second Third final rule (54 FR 26594), EPA used the TSDR Survey
to estimate the volume of affected wastes requiring alternative capacity and
the amount of available commercial capacity. The results of this analysis
showed that adequate commercial capacity does exist for all Second Third
wastes currently surface disposed (i.e., treatment or storage in waste piles;
treatment, storage, or disposal in surface impoundments; and disposal by land
treatment and in landfills). However, in order to allow time for facilities
to adjust existing cyanide treatment processes to operate more efficiently,
EPA decided to grant a 30-day extension for F006 nonwastewaters and for F007 ,
F008, F009, F011, and F012 wastes (both wastewaters and nonwastewaters).
In addition, because F011 and F012 heat treating wastes are often
commingled with F006, F007, F008, and F009 electroplating wastes, EPA expects
that they will have to be segregated and treated separately. To allow some
time to adjust processes to segregate these heat treating (F011, F012) and
electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, and F009), EPA deferred the total and
amenable cyanide standards for F011 and F012 heat treating wastes until
December 8, 1989. However, between July 8, 1989, and December 8, 1989, these
wastes will be subject to the same cyanide standards as the electroplating
wastes (F006, F007, F008, and F009).
The analysis also showed that inadequate commercial capacity existed for
the volume of underground injected wastes requiring liquid incineration or
reuse as fuel, cyanide destruction, and wastewater treatment for organics.
Consequently, EPA granted a two-year national capacity variance to underground
injected K011, K013, and K014 nonwastewaters, for which BOAT is incineration;
to underground injected K009 wastewaters, for which BOAT is steam stripping
1-9
-------
and/or biological treatment; and to underground injected F007 wastes, for
which BOAT is cyanide destruction.6
In addition, as previously mentioned, EPA granted a thirty day variance
from the cyanide standards to F006 nonwastewaters and F007, F008, and F009
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPA deferred the cyanide standards for F011
and F012 until December 8, 1989. However, between July 8, 1989, and December
8, 1989, F011 and F012 wastes will be subject to the same cyanide standards as
the electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, and F009).
1.3 Introduction to the Third Third Final Rule
Today the Agency is promulgating treatment standards for a major part of
the Third Third wastes as well as for First Third wastes and Second Third
wastes which were previously under soft hammer restrictions. These wastes
include contaminated soils and some California list HOCs. In addition to the
three Thirds, this final rule also accounts for multi-source leachate and
mixed radioactive wastes. These wastes, hereafter referred to as Third Third
promulgated wastes are listed in Table 1-1 along with their designation of the
Third group in which each individual waste was originally scheduled.
1.3.1 Surface-Disposed Wastes
In the case of non-soil wastes, the analysis determined that available
capacity is less than required capacity for some surface-disposed wastes and
underground injected wastes. Five treatment technologies fail to meet the
capacity requirements of surface disposed non-soil wastes: acid leaching
followed by chemical precipitation; combustion of sludge/solids; mercury
retorting; thermal recovery; and vitrification. Consequently, EPA is granting
a national capacity variance for the following surface-disposed wastes: D009,
K106, P065, P092, and U151 low mercury nonwastewaters; F039 raulti-source
leachate nonwastewaters and K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052 nonwastewaters;
D009, K106, P065, P092, and U151 high mercury nonwastewaters; D008 lead acid
USEPA. 1988. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste- BackEround Document for Second Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part 268
Land Disposal Restrictions. Proposed Rule £?A Contract No. 68-01 7053
Washington, D.C.: U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
1-10
-------
batteries in storage areas prior to secondary smelting; P087 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters; and D004, K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, P011, P012, P036,
P038, and U136 nonwastewaters. EPA is granting these wastes a two-year
national capacity variance, except for K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052
petroleum-refining nonwastewaters. EPA is granting K048-K052 petroleum-
refining nonwastewaters a six-month national capacity variance.
1.3.2 Deepwell-Disposed Wastes
Nine commercial technologies also have less than the required capacities
for underground injected wastes. EPA is granting a two-year national capacity
variance for the following wastes: D003 cyanide wastewaters and
nonwastewaters; D003 sulfide wastewaters and nonwastewaters; D003
explosive/reactive wastewaters and nonwastewaters; D007 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters; D009 nonwastewaters; D002 wastewaters and nonwastewaters; K011
and K013 wastewaters and K014 wastewaters and nonwastewaters; and F039 multi
source leachate wastewaters.
1.3.3 Soil and Debris
In the case of contaminated soils, the capacities of four treatment
technologies did not meet the capacity needs of the waste volumes requiring
treatment. EPA is promulgating today an extension of the effective date for
certain First, Second, and Third Third contaminated soil and debris for which
the treatment standards promulgated today are based on incineration, inorganic
solids debris treatment, mercury retorting, or vitrification.
1.3.4 Mixed Radioactive Wastes
In the analysis of mixed radioactive wastes, EPA determined that there is
currently a treatment capacity shortfall for all mixed radioactive wastes that
are surface-disposed. Consequently, EPA is granting a two-year national
capacity variance for all surface-disposed mixed radioactive wastes. EPA has
no information on the deepwell-disposal of mixed radioactive wastes and,
therefore, is not granting a national capacity variance for these wastes.
1-11
-------
Table 1-1
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Wast.e Code
Waste Code
D001
D002
D003
D004
D005
D006
D007
D008
D009
D010
D011
D012
D013
D014
D015
D016
D017
F002a
F005a
F006b
F019
F024C
Description
Ignitable Wastes
Corrosive Wastes
Reactive Wastes
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxyclor
Toxaphene
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP Silvex
Spent halogenated solvents
Spent non-halogenated solvents
Electroplating Wastes
Aluminum coating wastes
Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon pro
Original
Rule or Third
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Solvents/Dioxins
Solvents/Dioxins
1
1
duct ion 2
wastes
1-12
-------
Table 1 1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
Description
Original
Rule or Third
F025
F039
K002
K003
K004d
K005e
K006
K0076
K008d
K011b
K013b
K014b
K015
K017
K021d
K022b
Condensed light ends, spent filters and filter
aids, and spent dessicant wastes from the
production of certain chlorinated aliphatics.
Multi-source leachate.
Chrome yellow and orange pigment production
wastes.
Molybdate orange pigment production wastes.
Wastewater treatment sludge from the production
of zinc yellow pigments.
Wastewater treatment sludge from the production
of chrome green pigments.
Chrome oxide green production wastes.
Wastewater treatment sludge from the production
of iron blue pigments.
Oven residue from the production of chrome oxide
green pigments.
Bottom stream from wastewater stripper in the
production of acrylonitrile.
Bottom stream from acetonitrile column in the
production of acrylonitrile.
Bottoms from acetonitrile purification column
in the production of acrylonitrile.
Still bottoms from the production of benzyl
chloride.
Heavy ends (still bottoms) from the purification
column in the production of epichlorohydrin.
Aqueous spent antimony catalyst waste from
fluoromethanes production.
Distillation bottom tars from the production of
phenol/acetone from cumene.
1-13
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
Description
Original
Rule or Third
K025d
K026
K029b
Distillation bottoms from the production of
nitrobenzene by the nitration of benzene.
Methyl ethyl pyridines production wastes.
Waste from the product steam stripper in the
2
3
2
K031
K032-K034
K035
K036f
K0378
K041
K042
K044h
K045h
K0461
K047h
K048J
K049J
production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
By-product salts generated in the production 1
of MSMA and cacodylic acid.
Chlordane production wastes. 3
Wastewater treatment sludges generated in the 1
production of creosote.
Still bottoms from toluene reclamation 1
distillation in the production of disulfoton.
Wastewater treatment sludge from the production 1
of disulfoton.
Wastewater treatment sludge from the production 2
of toxaphene.
Heavy ends or distillation residues from the 2
distillation of tetrachlorobenzene in the
production of 2,4,5-T.
Wastwater treatment sludges from the manufacturing 1
and processing of explosives.
Spent carbon from the treatment of Wastewater 1
containing explosives.
Wastewater treatment sludges from the 1
manufacturing formulation, and loading of lead-
based initiating compounds.
Pink/red water from TNT operations. 1
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the 1
petroleum refining industry.
Slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum 1
refining industry.
1-14
-------
Table 1 1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
Description
Original
Rule or Third
K05QJ
K051J
K052j
K060b
K061b
K069*
K071f
K073
K083k
K08A
K085
K0861
K095b
K096h
Heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the
petroleum refining industry.
API separator sludge from the petroleum refining
industry.
Tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining
industry
Ammonia still lime sludge from coking operations.
Emission control dust/sludge from the primary
production of steel in electric furnaces.
Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead
smelting.
Brine purif cation muds from the mercury cell
process in chlorine production, where separately
prepurified brine is not used.
Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste from the
purification step of the diaphragm cell process
using graphite anodes in chlorine production.
Distillation bottoms from aniline production.
Wastewater treatment sludges generated during
the production of veterinary pharmaceuticals
from arsenic or organo-arsenic compounds.
Distillation or fractionation column bottoms
from the production of chlorobenzenes.
Solvent washes and sludges, caustic washes and
sludges, or water washes and sludges from the
cleaning of tubs and equipment used in the
formulation of ink from pigments, driers,
soaps, and stabilizers containing chromium and
lead.
Distillation bottoms from the production of
1,1,1-trichloroethane.
Heavy ends from the heavy ends column from the
production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
1-15
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
Description
Original
Rule or Third
K097
K098
K100"
K101m
K102m
K105
K106
P001
P002
P003
P004
P005
P006
P007
POOS
P009
P010
P011
Vacuum stripper discharge from the chlordane
chlorinator in the production of chlordane.
Untreated process wastwater from the production
of toxaphene.
Waste leaching solution from acid leaching of
emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead
smelting.
Distillation tar residues from the distillation
of anilene-based compounds in the production of
veterinary pharmaceuticals from arsenic or
organo- arsenic compounds.
Residue from the use of activated carbon
for decolorization in the production of
veterinary pharmaceuticals from arsenic or
organo-arsenic compounds.
Separated aqueous stream from the reactor product
washing step in the production of chlorobenzenes.
Wastewater treatment sludge from the mercury
cell process in chlorine production.
Warfarin, when present at concentration > 0.3%
1-Acety1- 2 -thiourea
Acrolein
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aluminum phosphide
5-(Aminoethyl)-3-isoxazolol
4 -Arainopyridine
Ammonium picrate
Arsenic acid
Arsenic (V) oxide
1-16
1
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
1
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Was.te Code
Waste Code
P012
P013n
P014
P015
P016
P017
P018
P020
P022
P023
P024
P026
P027
P028
P031
P033
P034
P036
P037
P038
P042
P045
P046
P047
Description
Arsenic (III) oxide
Barium cyanide
Benzenethiol (Thiophenol)
Beryllium dust
Bis(chloromethyl) ether
Bromoacetone
Brucine
Dinoseb
Carbon disulfide
Chloro - acetaldehyde
p-Chloroaniline
1 - ( o - Chloropheny 1 ) thiourea
3 - chloropropionitr ile
Benzyl chloride
Cyanogen
Cyanogen chloride
4 , 6 - Dini tro - 2 - cyclohexylphenol
Dichlorophenylarsine
Dieldrin
Diethylarsine
Epinephrine
Thiofanox
Alpha , alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine
4 , 6-Dinitro-o-cresol and salts
1-17
Original
Rule or Third
1
3
2
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rul-e Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
P048
P049
P050
P051
P054
P056
P057
P058
P059
P060
P064
P065
P066
P067
P068
P069
P070
P072
P073
P075
P076
P077
P078
P081
Description
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
2 ,4-Dithiobiuret
Endosulfan
Endrin
Aziridine
Fluorine
Flouracetamide
Flouracetic acid, sodium salt
Heptachlor
Isodrin
Isocyanic acid, methyl ester
Mercury fulminate
Me thorny 1
2-Methylaziridine
Methyl Hydrazine
Methyllactonitrile
Aldicarb
Alpha-Naphthylthiourea (ANTU)
Nickel Carbonyl
Nicotine and salts
Nitric oxide
P-Nitroaniline
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitroglycerine
1-18
Original
Rule or Third
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
-------
Table 1 1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
P082
P084
P087
P088
P092
P093
P095
P096
P099"
P101
P102
P103
P104a
P105
P107
P108
P110
P112
P113
P114
P115
P116
P118
P119
Description
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
Osmium tetraoxide
Endothall
Phenylmercuric acetate
N-Phenylthiourea
Phosgene
Phosphine
Potassium silver cyanide
Propanenitrile
Propargyl alcohol
Selenourea
Silver cyanide
Sodium azide
Strontium sulfide
Strychnine and salts
Tetraethyl lead
Tetranitrome thane
Thallic oxide
Thallium (I) selenite
Thallium (I) sulfate
Thiosemicarbazide
Trichlorome thane thiol
Ammonium vanadate
1-19
Original
Rule or Third
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
-------
Table 1 1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Cods
Waste Code
P120
P122
P123
U001
U002
U003
U004
U005
U006
U007
U008
U009
U010
U011
U012
U014
U015
U016
U017
U018
U019
U020
U021
Description
Vanadium pentoxide
Zinc phosphide, when present at
concentrations > 10%
Toxaphene
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
2 - Acetylaminof luorene
Acetyl chloride
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Mitomycin C
Amitrole
Aniline
Auramine
Azaserine
Benz(c)acridine
Benzal chloride
Benz( a) anthracene
Benzene
Benzenesulfonyl chloride
Benzidine
Original
Rule or Third
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
1-20
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
U022
U023
U024
U025
U026
U027
U029
U030
U031
U032
U033
U034
U035
U036
U037
U038
U039
U041
U042
U043
U044
U045
U046
U047
Description
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo trichloride
Bis (2 -chloroethoxy) methane
Dichloroethyl ether
Chlornaphazine
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Methyl bromide
Benzene, l-bromo-4-phenoxy
n-Butanol
Calcium chromate
Carbonyl fluoride
Chloral
Chlorambucil
Chlordane , technical
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl - 4 - 4 - dichlorobenzilate
4-Chloro-ra-cresol
n-Chloro-2 , 3-epoxypropane
Vinyl ether 2-chloroethyl
Vinyl chloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Chloromethyl methyl ether
Beta-chloronaphthalene
1-21
Original
Rule or Third
1
2
3
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
U048
U049
U050
U051
U052
U053
U055
U056
U057
U059
U060
U061
U062
U063
U064
U066
U067
U068
U070
U071
U072
U073
U074
U075
Description
o-chlorophenol
4-Chloro-o-toluidine , hydrochloride
Chrysene
Creosote
Cresols
Crotonaldehyde
Cumene
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanone
Daunomycin
DDD
DDT
Diallate
Dibenz (a.h) anthracene
1,2,7, 8-Dibenzopyrene
1 , 2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
Ethylene , dibromide
Methane, dibromo
o - Dichlorobenzene
M-Dichlorobenzene
P- Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzidene , 3,3-
l,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Dichlorodif luorome thane
1-22
Original
Rule or Third
3
2
1
1
3
1
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
3
2
1
3
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
U076
U077
U078
U079
U080
U081
U082
U083
U084
U085
U086
U089
U090
U091
U092
U093
U094
U095
U096
U097
U098
U099
U101
U103
Description
Ethane, 1,1-dichloro
Ethane, 1 , 2 -dichloro-
Dichloroethylene , 1,1
1 , 2-Dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
2 ,4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 6-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane, 1,2-
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
2 , 2-Bioxirane
N , N - D ie thy Ihydraz ine
Diethylstilbestrol
Dihydrosafrole
3 , 3-Dimethoxybenzidine
Dimethylamine
Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Dime thy lbenz( a) anthracene ,7 ,12-
Dime thy Ibenzi dine ,3,3-
Alpha, alpha -Dime thy Ibenzylhydroxyperoxide
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
Dime thy Ihydraz ine , 1,1
Dime thy Ihydraz ine , 1,2-
Dimethylphenol , 2,4-
Dimethyl sulfate
1-23
Original
Rule or Third
3
1
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
U105
U106
U108
U109
U110
Ulll
U112
U113
U114
U115
U116
U117
U118
U119
U120
U121
U122
U123
U124
U125
U126
U127
U128
Description
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-
Dioxane, 1,4-
1,2,- Diphenylhydraz ine
Dipropylamine
Di-N-Propylnitrosamine
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylenebis- (dithiocarbamic acid
salts and esters)
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Fluoranthene
Trichloromonofluorome thane
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Fur an
Furfural
G lye idy lal dehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Original
Rule or Third
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
2
2
1-24
-------
Table 1 1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
U129
U130
U131
U132
U133
U134
U135
U136
U137
U138
U139
U140
U141
U142
U143
U144
U145
U146
U147
U148
U149
U150
U151
U152
Description
Lindane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroe thane
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
Hydrofluoric acid
Hydrogen sulfide
Cacodylic acid
Indeno (1 , 2 , 3-cd)pyrene
Methyl iodide
Iron dextran
Isobutyl alcohol
Isosaf role
Kepone
Lasiocarpine
Lead acetate
Lead phosphate
Lead subacetate
Maleic anhydride
Maleic hydrazide
Malononitrile
Melphalan
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
1-25
Original
Rule or Third
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
3
-------
Table 1 1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
U153
U154
U155
U156
U157
U158
U159
U160
U161
U162
U163
U164
U165
U166
U167
U168
U169
U170
U171
U172
U173
U174
U176
U177
Description
Methanethiol
Methanol
Methapyrilene
Methyl chlorocarbonate
3 -Methylcholanthrene
4,4-Methylenebis- (2-chloroaniline)
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
N-Methyl-N-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine
Methylthiouracil
Naphthalene
1,4- Naphthaquinone
1 , naphthylamine
Napthylamine, 2-
Nitrobenzene
p-Nitrophenol
Nitropropane, 2-
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitroso-diethanolamine
N-Nitroso-diethylamine
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
1-26
Original
Rule or Third
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
U178
U179
U180
U181
U182
U183
U184
U185
U186
U187
U188
U189
U191
U192
U193
U194
U196
U197
U200
U201
U202
U203
U204
U205
Description
N-Nitroso-N-methy lure thane
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o- toluidine
Paraldehyde
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroe thane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
1 , 3-Pentadiene
Phenacetin
Phenol
Phosphorus sulfide
2-Picoline
Pronamide
1,3- Propane sul tone
1-Propanamine
Pyridine
P - Benzoquinone
Reserpine
Resorcinol
Saccharin and salts
Safrole
Selenious acid
Selenium disulfide
1-27
Original
Rule or Third
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
2
3
2
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
U206
U207
U208
U209
U210
U211
U213
U214
U215
U216
U217
U218
U219
U220
U222
U225
U226
U227
U228
U234
U236
U237
U238
U239
Description
Streptozotocin
1,2,4, 5 -Tetrachlorobenzene
Terchloroe thane , 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane , 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrahydrofuran
Thallium (I) acetate
Thallium (I) carbonate
Thallium (I) chloride
Thallium (I) nitrate
Thioacetamide
Thiourea
Toluene
0-Toluidine hydrochloride
Bromotorm
Methylchlorofonn
Tr ichloroethane , 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene
Syra-Trinitrobenzene
Trypan blue
Uracil mustard
Ethyl carbamate
Xylene
1-28
Original
Rule or Third
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Waste Code
U240
U243
U244
U246
U247
U248
U249
Original
Description Rule or Third
2,4-D salts and esters
Hexachloropropene
Thiram
Cyanogen bromide
Methoxychlor
Warfarin, concentrations < 0.3 %
Zinc phosphide, when present at
concentrations of (less than or equal to) 10 %
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
a BDAT standards are being promulgated for new wastewater and nonwastewater
constituent; BDAT standards have been promulgated for all other wastewaters and
nonwastewaters.
b BDAT standards are being promulgated for soft hammered wastewaters;
nonwastewater BDAT standards have been promulgated.
0 Additional BDAT standards are being promulgated for new nonwastewater
constituent; BDAT standards have been promulgated for all wastewater forms.
d Revisions to promulgated BDAT standards for nonwastewater form are being
promulgated; BDAT standards are being promulgated for soft hammered wastewater
form.
e Revisions to promulgated BDAT standards for nonwastewater form are being
promulgated; BDAT standards for wastewater form are being promulgated (not
soft hammered).
f Revisions to promulgated BDAT standards for the nonwastewater form are being
promulgated; wastewater forms have been promulgated.
8 Revisions to promulgated BDAT standards for the wastewater form are being
promulgated; BDAT standards for the nonwastewater form have been promulgated.
h Revisions to promulgated BDAT standards for both the wastewater and
nonwastewater forms are being promulgated.
1-29
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
Third Third Final Rule Wastes By Waste Code
Original
Waste Code Description Rule or Third
1 BOAT standards have been promulgated for the nonwastewater subcategory; BOAT
standards for the remaining soft hammered nonwastewaters subcategory and the
soft hammered wastewaters are being promulgated.
J Revisions to promulgated BDAT concentration standards for nonwastewaters are
being promulgated; additional BDAT standards are being promulgated for the
wastewaters because of new constituent restrictions.
k Revisions to promulgated BDAT standards for a nonwastewater subcategory are
being promulgated; standards are being promulgated for the remaining soft
hammered nonwastewater subcategory and the soft hammered wastewaters.
1 Revisions to promulgated BDAT standards for nonwastewater and a wastewater
subcategory are being promulgated; BDAT standards are being promulgated for
two soft hammered subcategories for wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
m Revisions to promulgated concentration standards are being promulgated for
wastewaters; revisions to the BDAT technology for one nonwastewater
subcategory are being promulgated and BDAT standards are being promulgated for
the other soft hammered nonwastewater subcategory.
n Additional BDAT standards are being promulgated for a new wastewater
constituent; BDAT standards have been promulgated for all other wastewaters
and nonwastewaters.
1-30
-------
2. CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS
This section presents general discussions of the source(s) of data and
the methodology used for the capacity analyses in support of the final Third
Third rule. Also presented are the results of the analyses of required and
available capacity conducted for this rule, as well as for previous land
disposal restrictions.
2.1 General Methodology
To evaluate the adequacy of alternative treatment capacity for specific
waste categories, EPA first puts restricted wastes into "treatability groups"
that require similar treatment or management practices; for instance, all
wastes requiring sludge incineration would be placed in the same treatability
group. Where wastes present particular problems in treatment, EPA may
identify "treatment trains" of multiple technologies operating in sequence.
Volumes of wastes in each treatability group are adjusted 3 reflect the
November 1988 deadline regarding minimum technology requirements for surface
impoundments. The net total volume of currently land disposed hazardous waste
requiring alternative treatment capacity becomes the required capacity for
that treatability group. EPA then assigns the volumes of waste in each
treatability group to treatment technologies or treatment trains.
Determinations of available capacity take several factors into account,
some treatment processes will generate various treatment residuals, which then
have to be assigned to, and accounted for within, other treatability groups.
Available capacity--the difference between currently utilized capacity and the
total capacity of the treatment system--must take into account the commercial
status of each facility managing waste within a treatability group:
Available treatment capacity at onsite facilities used exclusively
by the waste generator cannot be considered available to other
generators .
All commercially available capacity at commercial facilities is
considered fully available to any generator
2-1
-------
Capacity analysis begins at the facility level and aggregates upward
toward the national level, assigning available excess 'capacity by observing
the above rules. For example, available capacity at private treatment systems
applies only to wastes currently land disposed at the same site. Remaining
wastes are assigned to commercial capacity.
Each regulation within the Land Disposal Restriction Program accounts for
the sequential and cumulative effects of all previous regulations and for
projected capacity changes after 1986, as reported in the TSDR Survey.
Solvents and dioxins were considered first, followed by California list
wastes, First Third promulgated wastes, Second Third promulgated wastes, and
Third Third promulgated wastes. Available capacity has been assigned first to
all affected surface-disposed wastes, (including surface-disposed multisource
leachate and residuals from their treatment), then to all underground injected
wastes (including underground injected multisource leachates and residuals
from their treatment), and finally to soil and debris wastes. EPA sets this
priority because it believes that land disposal in surface units may represent
a greater threat to human health and the environment than does underground
injection. Mixed radioactive wastes are considered separately because only
select facilities handle this type of waste.
2.1.1 Data Set Development
(1) National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storage. Disposal, and
Recycling Facilities
(a) Background. To improve the quality of data used for capacity
analyses of hazardous waste volumes and management practices in support of the
land disposal restrictions, EPA conducted the National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (the TSDR
Survey). The TSDR Survey was designed as a census of RCRA-permitted or
interim status treatment, disposal, and recycling facilities, with no
weighting factors for statistical extrapolations to project national
estimates. The survey also included a sample of storage-only facilities. The
survey results thus provide a comprehensive source of data on waste volumes
land disposed and treatment, recovery, and disposal capacity.
2-2
-------
Receipt of the completed surveys was followed by extensive technical
review and detailed analysis of the facility responses, including facility
contact when necessary. Certain facility responses and data elements derived
from the facility-level analysis were then incorporated into a specialized
capacity data base (a series of data sets) developed on land disposal
facilities and commercial treatment and recovery facilities. (See Section 4
for a detailed discussion of the capacity data base.)
(b) Schedule and status. The TSDR Survey was originally mailed to
over 2,400 facilities in August 1987. Facilities were allowed 60 days to
complete and return the surveys. Since August 1987, an additional 225
facilities that either were initially overlooked or are new have been
identified and sent the TSDR Survey. Over 2,500 facilities had returned their
surveys by the deadline for review and analysis of data to support this final
rule .
A total of 475 facilities reported onsite land disposal/land placement
(surface disposal and underground injection) of 63 billion gallons of RCRA
hazardous wastes during 1986, the baseline year for the survey. All data were
reviewed and have been included in the data set used to support this final
rule.
A total of 236 facilities with commercial treatment/recovery technologies
in 1988 have completed and returned surveys, accounting for a maximum of 11.4
billion gallons per year of commercial hazardous waste alternative capacity in
1988. Some of these facilities also reported land disposal onsite and are
included among the 475 facilities noted above.
One hundred and ninety-five facilities reported having commercial
processes in 1988 other than combustion, mostly wastewater treatment capacity.
that may be applicable as alternative treatment/recovery of Third Third
promulgated wastes, accounting for a maximum capacity of 8.7 billion gallons
of commercial noncombustion treatment/recovery capacity in 1988.
Sixty facilities reported commercial combustion processes (incineration
or reuse as fuel) that may be applicable for burning hazardous waste currently
being land disposed, accounting for a maximum capacity of 499 million gallons
2-3
-------
of commercial liquid combustion capacity and 68 million gallons of commercial
sludge and solid combustion capacity in 1988.
A total of 15 commercial treatment/recovery facilities have not returned
their surveys to date. To fill known data gaps, these late facilities were
contacted to gather critical capacity information; where available, other data
sources were also used.
(c) Technology capacity information. The TSDR Survey was designed
to provide comprehensive information on all current and planned hazardous
waste treatment, disposal, and recycling processes at all RCRA-permitted and
interim status facilities, including information on exempt processes at these
facilities (e.g., recycling, wastewater treatment).1 The baseline year for
the survey was 1986. Information was requested on any planned changes to
existing processes, including closures, and any new processes planned prior to
1992.
The survey included the following information on treatment and recycling
processes, including those taking place in land placement units:
General categories
(including new or planned
processes)
Key parameters
Waste types
Capacity
Type of process
Operating status
Commercial status
RCRA permit status (exempt,
interim status, final)
Feed rates (by physical form)
Operating hours
Pollution controls
Waste codes managed in 1986
Restrictions or specifications
for waste managed (for commercial
facilities only)
Maximum capacity (by physical
form)
Utilization rate for 1986
Planned changes through 1992
Exceptions include totally enclosed treatment facilities (TETFs) and
closed loop recycling (CLR), which were not required to be reported. Also, the
TSDR Survey did not gather information on facilities having exempt processes
only.
2-4
-------
Residuals Quantities generated (by physical
form, percent hazardous)
Further management
Equipment Tanks
(type of unit) . Containers
Thermal treatment units
Land placement units (i.e.,
surface impoundments, waste
piles)
For more details, refer to the complete set of questionnaires and
instructions in the RCRA docket.2
(d) Waste volumes land disposed. The TSDR Survey was also designed
to provide information on the types and quantities of all RCRA hazardous waste
managed, by specific land disposal/placement practices, at all RCRA-permitted
and interim status facilities. The survey provides limited but adequate
characterization data (refer to Subsection 4.1.2, Treatability Analysis) to
assess the treatability potential of the wastes and to identify applicable
alternative treatment/recovery technologies, including:
RCRA waste code (or codes, if more than one is applicable);
Waste description (physical/chemical form and qualitative
information on hazardous characteristics and constituents);
Industry description (general description of the industries that
generated each type of waste at a facility);
Quantity that entered land disposal/placement in 1986; and
Residual information (whether this waste was actually a residual
from onsite hazardous waste management operations).
The TSDR Survey also provides valuable detailed information on the
individual units in which land disposal/placement is occurring, including
plans for closures and upgrading/retrofitting to meet the minimum technology
requirements. Through review of the questionnaire responses and the facility
schematics, it is possible to track individual waste streams managed in more
2 USEPA, 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
Mariana! Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storage. Disposal, and Recycling
Facilities, OMB No. 2050-0070.
2-5
-------
Chan one type of land disposal unit or managed by more than one process
(treatment, storage, or disposal) in surface impoundments and waste piles, to
avoid double-counting of waste volumes. The information gathered included:
General categories - Type of process
Permit status (interim status, final)
Commercial status
Operating status
Closure plans
Key parameters - Liner type (plans for upgrading)
Pollution controls
Waste types Waste types and quantities managed in 1986
Restrictions or specifications for waste
managed (for commercial facilities only)
Capacity Design capacity
Utilization rate for 1986
Remaining capacity
Planned changes through 1992
Residuals - Quantities of effluents and dredged solids
Further management
For more details, refer to the set of questionnaires contained in the RCRA
docket.3
(e) Overview of data handling, technical review, and quality
assurance. Extensive technical review of TSDR Survey data was required to
ensure completeness, consistency, and accuracy on a per-facility basis. To
achieve this goal, the review process was designed to promote the consistent
and efficient identification and resolution of any errors, inconsistencies,
and omissions, including any required facility follow-up. The review
procedures were comprehensive and required the consideration and analysis of
the facility responses to essentially every question in the survey (if
applicable to that facility) , as well as the review of general and detailed
schematics of all onsite hazardous waste management operations. The detailed
3 US EPA, 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste, National Survey of Hazardous Waste, Treatment. Storage. Disposal, and
Recycling Facilities. OMB No. 2050-0070.
2-6
-------
review procedures are presented in the report Technical Review Procedures for
the TSDR Survey.*
All surveys from TSDR facilities with onsite land disposal/placement
(whether private or commercial) or commercial treatment/recovery operations
were considered critical for support of the land disposal restrictions.
Therefore, they were categorized as "priority" surveys and were given
immediate technical review and analysis, including facility contact to resolve
any major technical problems discovered in their responses. The required data
entry forms were completed for either land disposal/placement and/or
commercial treatment/recovery, and the survey package underwent a preliminary
quality control (QC) -review by the technical supervisors. As part of this
preliminary QC, the supervisor then worked with the reviewer to correct or
resolve any problems identified during the survey review. Every survey
underwent preliminary QC review. (See Technical Review Procedures for the
TSDR survey for details on the survey screening, distribution, and review
procedures . )5
Treatability assessments of each land disposed waste stream were then
conducted, as described in Subsection 4.1.2, Treatability Analysis to identify
potentially applicable alternative technologies.
The last step in the review process involved a detailed, or final, QC on
approximately 25 percent of the surveys. (See Quality Assurance Plan for the
TSDR survey for detailed information on QC procedures.)6 After QC, the
technical review/analysis was considered to be complete.
(f) Chemical Waste Management - Emelle Alabama. The TSDR Survey
originally submitted for the Chemical Waste Management facility at Emelle,
Alabama (CWM-Emelle) did not contain the necessary waste stream specific data
* Versar, 1988. Technical Review Procedures for the TSDR Survey. Prepared
for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
5 Ibid.
6 Versar, 1988. Quality Assurance Plan for the TSDR Survey. Prepared for
the Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
2-7
-------
on wastes land disposed at the site to include in the capacity analysis. The
facility indicated that records of 1986 were not available which could supply
the detailed information.
EPA requested additional information and CWM-Emelle responded by
providing data from their 1987 Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Facility Hazardous Waste Biennial Report and other statistical information on
management of hazardous waste at the facility. These data were included in
the TSDR Survey data base, and have been used to revise capacity analysis for
the prior rules and to prepare the capacity analysis for this final rule.
These data provide information on waste streams managed at the site in
1987, not 1986 as in the TSDR Survey. It is considered, however, to be the
best information available from the facility to estimate the required
capacity The data describe over 3,000 waste streams received or generated at
the facility, including a brief description of the waste, the handling method,
the applicable RCRA waste code(s), and the volume of the waste received or
generated.
The handling method represents the disposition of the waste stream as of
the end of 1987. The handling method in over 99 percent of the waste streams
received and/or generated was disposed in landfills. These waste streams
require alternative treatment. Other handling methods specified were for
storage and thermal treatment. Because these are not land placement methods,
these waste streams did not require alternative treatment.
The data for each waste stream were evaluated and a waste description
code was assigned to each waste stream reported to be landfilled. The main
source of information used to assign waste description codes was the
description of the waste stream and the RCRA waste codes. A detailed
discussion of this procedure may be found in Section 4.1. Treatability
assessments of each landfilled waste stream were then conducted, as described
in Subsection 4.1.2, to identify potentially applicable alternative
technologies.
2-8
-------
(2) National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
(a) Background. The primary purposes of the Generator Survey were
(1) to gather waste characterization data on hazardous waste streams generated
in the United States and (2) to gather information about exempt treatment and
recovery processes at generation facilities used to manage these wastes. Late
in 1987, Generator Surveys were sent to approximately 10,000 hazardous waste
generator facilities. Over 300 additional facilities were sent Generator
Surveys in a second mailing of surveys in early 1988. These facilities were
considered representative of the hazardous waste generators in their States
(based on the 1985 Biennial Report data). They included all facilities that
were sent a TSDR Survey as well as the largest (non-TSDR) hazardous waste
generators in each State, including the 1,000 largest generators in the U.S
(b) Schedule and status. The Generator Survey consisted of nine
questionnaires (Questionnaires GA through GI). Questionnaire GA requested
general facility information and information about waste minimization
practices, hydrogeology, and solid waste management units (SWMUs).
Questionnaire GB requested waste characterization and minimization data for
each hazardous waste stream generated at a facility, and Questionnaire GI
requested information on tanks used to manage hazardous waste. The remaining
questionnaires asked for information about specific exempt treatment and
recovery operations. As with the TSDR Survey, historical data for calendar
year 1986 activities and estimated data for planned (treatment and recovery)
activities through 1992 were requested.
(c) Uses. For this final rule, data from the Generator Survey were
used for two primary purposes (a report containing the Generator Survey data
used to support this rule is contained in the public docket).7 First, EPA
used Generator Survey data to authenticate some larger volume wastes reported
as land disposed. EPA used the Generator Survey data to compare the amount
generated vs. the amount reported as being land disposed in the TSDR Survey
The Generator Survey data were also used to determine if unusual mixtures
reported as being land disposed in the TSDR Survey were generated as mixtures
7 Versar. 1989. Analysis of Generator Survey Data For The Third Third
Wastes. Proposed rule. Prepared for the Office of Solid Waste. Washington,
D C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2-9
-------
(3) Multi-Source Leachate Data Sources
EPA used two primary data sources to perform the capacity analysis
for multi-source leachate: The TSDR Survey and the Generator Survey. EPA
analyzed data on the volumes of multi-source leachate generated and managed,
including data on the facility schematics. In addition to data included in
the surveys, EPA used additional data from the hazardous waste management
industry submitted as part of the leachate study plan (Appendix A describes
these data sources in further detail).
(4) Mixed Radioactive Waste Data Sources
Mixed radioactive waste data sources included data provided by the
Department of Energy (DOE), the TSDR Survey, Generator Survey, surveys and
reports for states and interstate compacts, published studies of mixed
radioactive wastes, and phone contacts with government representatives and
industry officials. Attachment B-l of Appendix B describes these data sources
in more detail. The DOE data provided information on mixed radioactive wastes
at 21 DOE facilities. Data on each waste included annual generation rates and
quantities of mixed radioactive wastes in storage. Also included is
information on DOE teatment units at each facility, including treatment
capacity and types of wastes handled.
The quantities of mixed radioactive wastes generated at DOE facilities
were determined to constitute a large portion of all mixed radioactive wastes
generated, based on an analysis of the DOE data set and the non-DOE mixed
radioactive waste information. Consequently, the capacity analysis focused
primarily on the data provided by DOE.
(5) Other Data Sources
Additional data sources were used when necessary to fill data gaps.
One such data source was the EPA Office of Drinking Water's (ODW's) Hazardous
Waste Injection Well Data Base (HWIWDB) . The HWIWDB was used to estimate the
volume of some underground injected wastes for which the TSDR Survey did not
have data.8 Other data were obtained from published literature (as. described
in Subsection 4.1.2).
Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. 1987. Findings on Class I hazardous wells
affected by the land ban rules. Memorandum report to John Atcheson, Dave
Morganvalp, and Mario Salazar, USEPA, from TBS, December 15, 1987.
2-10
-------
For some critical elements of the capacity analysis, EPA updated the TSDR
Survey data. The amount of sludge/solid combustion capacity was one such
update. In the TSDR Survey, facilities were asked to provide data on planned
hazardous waste treatment systems, including combustion systems. Using data
obtained from EPA headquarters and regional personnel and from facility
contacts, EPA determined which units were now on-line, which were experiencing
delays, which were not going to be built, etc. In addition, using data
obtained from facility contacts, EPA updated data on certain P and U-coded
waste streams reported in the TSDR Survey as being land disposed in large
volumes. EPA gathered data on the current volume, physical/chemical
characteristics, generating source(s), and management of these wastes. These
updated data were used to adjust the capacity analyses for these wastes
2.1.2 Capacity Analysis Methodology
This section presents a brief description of EPA's capacity analysis
methodology. A detailed explanation of the methodology is contained in
Section 4.
EPA assesses capacity requirements by comparing "required" capacity with
"available" capacity. The following sections briefly describe how required
and available capacities were determined.
(1) Required Capacity
Required capacity, or capacity demand, consists of those volumes of
wastes currently land disposed that will require alternative treatment or
recovery when they are restricted from land disposal, and also includes the
residuals generated by treatment of these wastes. The waste streams
potentially affected by the land disposal restrictions were identified by type
of land disposal, including treatment, storage, or disposal in a surface
impoundment; treatment or storage in a waste pile; disposal by land treatment;
and disposal in a landfill or an underground injection well. Unlike the
previous land disposal restrictions in which underground injected wastes were
considered under a separate rule, both surface disposed and underground
injected wastes are included in the Second Third and Third Third Final rules.
2-11
-------
Salt dome formations, salt bed formations, and underground mines and
caves are additional methods of land disposal that are affected by this
rulemaking. Since insufficient information is available to document the
volume of wastes disposed of by these three methods, they are not addressed in
the analysis of volumes and required alternative capacity.
The volumes of waste reported in the TSDR Survey as land disposed in 1986
that require alternative treatment/recovery capacity were adjusted to reflect
the fact that treatment in surface impoundments after November 1988 may be
conducted only in impoundments meeting minimum technological requirements.
Volumes of waste that were reported as undergoing treatment in impoundments
meeting these requirements in 1988, or in impoundments being replaced by tank
systems by 1988, were dropped from further analysis. Residuals from the
treatment of these wastes in minimum technology impoundments or tanks were
assumed to require further treatment prior to land disposal and therefore are
included in the capacity analysis for this final rule. The waste volumes
requiring alternative capacity were identified by RCRA waste code(s) and by
their land disposal ban regulatory status (i.e., solvents and dioxins, First
Third, Second Third, Third Third, and California list). A detailed discussion
of this methodology is presented in Subsection 4.1.1.
To determine the type of alternative capacity required by the affected
wastes, a "treatability analysis" was performed on each waste stream. Wastes
were placed into "treatability groups" using the waste code, the physical/
chemical form data, and information on prior management and the type of land
disposal, and then considering the identified BDAT technologies. For example,
all wastes requiring liquid incineration would be placed in the same
treatability group. The physical/chemical form data were provided by the
facility using qualitative technical criteria, not regulatory definitions.
For example, liquid wastes were identified as "highly fluid" rather than as
"wastes failing the Paint Filter Liquids Test."
Waste groups (i.e., waste streams described by more than one waste code)
present special treatability concerns because they often contain constituents
requiring different types of treatment (e.g., organics and metals). To treat
these wastes, a treatment train must be developed that can treat all waste
types in the group. A more detailed description of the treatability analysis
2-12
-------
methodology, including treatment train development, is presented in
Subsection 4.1.2.
A number of the treatment technologies to which wastes have been assigned
create treatment residuals that will require further treatment prior to land
disposal (e.g., stabilization of incinerator ash) In these
cases, EPA has estimated the amount of residuals that would be generated by
treatment of the original volume of waste and has included these residuals in
the volumes requiring treatment capacity. A more detailed description of the
determination of residual volumes is presented
in Subsection 4.1.2(4).
For a number of wastes, BDAT includes treatment of incinerator scrubber
water. Based on TSDR Survey responses, the RCRA-permitted incinerators have
adequate air pollution control devices (APCDs) (including scrubber water
treatment at those facilities with wet scrubbers), and therefore no additional
analysis of the volume of scrubber water was made. However, if the resultant
scrubber water treatment sludge would likely require further treatment (e.g.,
stabilization) , these residuals were included in the volumes requiring
treatment capacity.
(2) Available Capacity
To obtain estimates of available capacity that could be compared
with the capacity requirements of affected wastes, a "systems" approach was
taken. A system is defined as one or more different processes used together
in one or more different units to treat or recover hazardous waste. The
capacity of the treatment/recovery system may be limited by the capacity of
one or more of the unit processes within the system. The available capacity
of the system is determined by subtracting the utilized capacity of the system
from the maximum capacity of the system. A detailed discussion of system
capacity determination can be found in Subsection 4.2.2.
Comparing required capacity with available capacity begins at the
facility level and moves to the national level, as dictated by the available
capacity and commercial status of applicable treatment/recovery systems. The
available capacity of systems identified as private is considered only when it
is BDAT, and only for the wastes reported as being land disposed at that
2-13
-------
facility Waste volumes assigned to onsite BDAT technologies are not
considered in the national totals of required commercial capacity.
The remaining volumes of waste still requiring treatment capacity are
added to determine the national demand for commercial capacity of each
alternative technology Consequently, all estimates of capacity presented
in this document represent commercially available (not private) capacity.
By comparing the required capacity with the available commercial
capacity, EPA can identify capacity shortfalls and make determinations
concerning variances. The comparative capacity analysis accounts for the
sequential and cumulative effects of previous land disposal restrictions,
capacity variances, and projected capacity changes after 1986 (the baseline
year). Solvents and dioxin wastes were assigned to available capacity first,
followed by California list HOCs (other than those that are also First Third
or Third Third promulgated wastes), First Third promulgated wastes, Second
Third promulgated wastes, and finally Third Third promulgated wastes. In
addition, available capacity was first assigned to all affected wastes land
disposed in "surface" units (i.e., waste piles, surface impoundments,
landfills, and land treatment), and then to underground injected wastes. EPA
believes that land disposal in surface units may represent a greater threat to
human health and the environment than does the underground injection of
wastes.
2.2 Results
The following subsections present the results of the capacity analyses
conducted for this final rulemaking and previous rulemakings. All land
disposed hazardous wastes, including those capable of being treated onsite in
BDAT systems and wastes stored only in land disposal units, are included in
the overview tables. As mentioned earlier, land disposed wastes capable of
being treated onsite in a BDAT system have not been included in the national
estimates of required capacity; therefore, only commercially available
capacity is presented in this document. In addition, the amount of commercial
capacity available for each rulemaking always considers the amount used by
previous rulemakings.
2-14
-------
2.2.1 All RCRA Wastes
Table 2-1 presents estimates of the volumes of RCRA wastes that are
surface land disposed annually. These volumes were compiled by adding all
waste stream volumes managed by treatment, storage, or disposal in surface
land disposal units. Separate waste volumes are shown for storage and
treatment in waste piles; treatment, storage, and disposal in surface
impoundments; and disposal in landfills and land treatment units. The
baseline data for determining the volumes in Table 2-1 were the 1986 data from
responses to the TSDR Survey. These reported 1986 volumes were adjusted by
subtracting the volumes of waste managed in treatment surface impoundments
that have undergone closure and have been replaced by tanks or that have been
retrofitted to meet minimum technology requirements. (Data reported in tons
were converted to gallons (using the conversion factor of 240 gallons/ton,
based on the density of water), to allow comparisons to available capacity in
a standard unit).
To avoid double-counting of wastes that underwent more than one
management operation in the same type of unit (e.g., storage and treatment in
a waste pile) , the following procedures were used:
In tabulating volumes of waste managed in surface
impoundments and waste piles, any wastes that underwent
treatment in an impoundment or waste pile were reported in
the "treatment" volume.
Wastes stored in a surface impoundment or waste pile that
never underwent treatment in the impoundment or waste pile
were reported in the "storage only" volumes.
In tabulating surface impoundment volumes, wastes that
were disposed of in surface impoundments but not also
treated in the impoundment were included among "disposal"
surface impoundment volumes.
Not represented in the estimates in Table 2-1 are volumes of surface land
disposed waste from facilities that did not return their TSDR Surveys before
April 1989 or did not provide sufficient data on land disposal. Based on the
limited information provided by these facilities, EPA estimates that these
facilities accounted for approximately 8 million gallons of land disposed
waste in 1986. This represents less than 1 percent of the reported 1988
2-15
-------
Table 2-1 Overview of All Surface Disposed
RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Surface disposed volume
Surface Land Disposal Practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles 92
Surface impoundments <1
Treatment
Waste piles 63
Surface impoundments 345
Disposal
Landfills 662a
Land treatment 83
Surface impoundments 218
Total 1,463
a Since the Second Third Final Rule, an additional 62 million gallons of
waste has been reported by Chemical Waste Management. These waste quantities
were regulated under the following rules: Solvents Rule (2), First Thirds (41),
Second Thirds (1), Third Thirds (10), and soils (8).
2-16
-------
adjusted volume of surface land disposed hazardous waste. Sufficient data
were not available to determine specific management practices and RCRA waste
codes associated with these volumes.
2.2.2 Solvents
For the First Third final rule promulgated August 8, 1988, EPA performed
a reanalysis of required and available treatment capacity for surface land
disposed solvent wastes.9 This subsection summarizes the results of that
analysis. The capacity analysis for underground injected wastes was performed
for a separate rulemaking.
Table 2-2 presents estimates of the volume of solvents that are surface
land disposed annually, by management practice and by type of land
disposal unit. The same procedures described for the analysis of all RCRA
wastes were used for estimating solvent volumes. The entire volume of any
waste stream, for both single waste streams and waste groups (waste described
by more than one waste code), was considered if the waste stream
contained any solvent wastes.
The volume of surface land disposed solvent wastes requiring alternative
commercial treatment capacity is less than the volume of solvents land
disposed. This is because EPA has assumed that the 13 million gallons of
solvent wastes that were only stored in impoundments or waste piles do not
require alternative treatment capacity (although they may require alternative
storage capacity) because they are treated or disposed of elsewhere.
Furthermore, the facility-level waste treatability and technology capacity
analyses conducted on solvent wastes being land disposed determined that 34
million gallons of these wastes either had already been treated using the BOAT
technology or could be treated onsite, and therefore were not included in the
volumes requiring alternative commercial treatment/recovery capacity. Based
on this, EPA estimates that 52 million gallons of solvent wastes will require
alternative treatment/recovery capacity on a commercial basis. This volume
9 USEPA, 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Background Document for First Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part 268 Land
Disposal Restrictions. Proposed Rule. EPA Contract No. 68-01-7053. Washington
D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2-17
-------
Table 2-2 Overview of Surface
Disposed Solvent Wastes
Surface disposed volume
Surface Land Disposal Practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
Waste piles 2
Surface impoundments 11
Treatment
Waste piles 3
Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
Landfills 57
Land treatment <1
Surface impoundments 26
Total 99
2-18
-------
includes 25 million gallons of soil; therefore, it is estimated that only
27 million gallons of nonsoil solvent wastes will require alternative
commercial treatment capacity.10 Finally, EPA estimates that treatment of
this 27 million gallons will generate 4 million gallons of waste residuals
that will also require additional alternative treatment capacity
Table 2-3 presents the estimates of available commercial capacity for the
alternative technologies that are applicable to solvent wastes. Also
presented are the estimates of annual surface land disposed waste volumes that
require alternative commercial capacity based on the facility-level
treatability and capacity analyses (not including contaminated soils or
underground injected wastes) As evident from the table, EPA determined that,
based on the new data available from results of the TSDR Survey, there was
adequate capacity for all of the solvent wastes that will require alternative
capacity.u
2.2.3 Nonsolvent RCRA Wastes Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds
(HOCs)
For the First Third final rule, EPA performed a reanalysis of required
and available treatment capacity for California list HOCs.12 This subsection
summarizes the results of that analysis. The capacity analysis for
underground injected wastes was performed for a separate rulemaking.
Tables 2-4 through 2-6 present estimates of annual surface land disposed
volumes for nonsolvent RCRA wastes that are potential California list wastes
containing HOCs at concentrations of 1,000 mg/kg or greater. Separate tables
are presented for total HOC wastes, HOC wastes that are also First Third
10 Note: Originally an additional 16 million gallons of solvent -
contaminated wastewater treatment sludge was deemed to require incineration. The
sludge, however, results from the treatment of multisource leachate and
consequently is evaluated under this final rule and is not now subject to the
solvents rule.
11 USEPA, 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid.
Background Document for First Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part 268 Land
Disposal Restrictions. Final Rule. EPA Contract No. 68-01 7058. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
12 Ibid.
2-19
-------
Table 2-3 Solvent Capacity Analysis3
Technology
Available
capacity
(million gal/yr)
Required
capacity
(million gal/yr)
Combustion
Liquids
Sludges/solids
Stabilization of
incinerator ash
Wastewater treatment
Cyanide oxidation, chemical
precipitation, and
settling/filtration
Steam stripping,
carbon adsorption,
biological treatment, or
wet-air oxidation
Chromium reduction and
chemical precipitation
Carbon adsorption, chromium
reduction, and chemical
precipitation
340
44
751
41
57
125
31
2
23
4
<1
<1
<1
Based on 1988 TSDR Survey data.
2-20
-------
Table 2-4 Overview of Surface Disposed Potential
California List Wastes Containing
Halogenated Organic Compounds
Surface disposed volume
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
Waste piles 1
Surface impoundments <1
Treatment
Waste piles 7
Surface impoundments 6
Disposal
Landfills 20
Land treatment <1
Surface impoundments <1
Total 34
2-21
-------
Table 2-5 Overview of Surface Disposed
First Third Promulgated Wastes Containing
Halogenated Organic Compounds
Surface disposed volume
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles 1
Surface impoundments <1
Treatment
- Waste piles 7
Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
- Landfills 8
Land treatment <1
Surface impoundments <1
Total 16
2-22
-------
Table 2-6 Overview of All Other Surface Disposed Wastes
Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds
Surface disposed volume
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Treatment
Waste piles <1
- Surface impoundments 6
Disposal
Landfills 12
Land treatment <1
Surface impoundments <1
Total 18
2-23
-------
promulgated wastes, and all other HOC wastes. The same procedures used for
tabulating all RCRA wastes apply to HOC volumes. However, the total volume
for each management practice in Tables 2-4 through 2-6 represents the sum of
all single HOC waste streams (in that table's regulatory group) and all waste
groups containing at least one potential HOC waste (in that table's regulatory
group) but containing no solvents.
The volume of land disposed HOC wastes requiring alternative commercial
treatment capacity is less than the volume of HOC wastes land disposed. This
is because the facility-level treatability and capacity analyses conducted on
the HOC wastes being land disposed determined that 3 million gallons of these
wastes could be treated onsite and therefore were not included in the volume
requiring alternative commercial treatment capacity. Based on this, EPA
estimates that 18 million gallons of HOC wastes will require alternative
treatment capacity on a commercial basis. This volume includes 6 million
gallons of soils (2 of the 6 million gallons of HOC soils were assigned to
onsite treatment); therefore, it is estimated that only 12 million gallons of
nonsoil HOC wastes will require alternative commercial treatment capacity.
Table 2-7 presents the results of the facility-level treatability and
capacity analyses for non-Third Third promulgated HOC-containing wastes (not
including underground injected waste volumes). To eliminate double-counting,
this table does not include wastes that contain First Third promulgated wastes
or solvents. In addition, those HOC wastes that are also Third Third
promulgated wastes have been included in the capacity analysis for Third Third
promulgated wastes and not here.
Based on the data from the TSDR Survey, EPA determined that adequate
capacity exists for the volume of HOC wastes requiring combustion.
Consequently, EPA rescinded the national capacity variance previously granted
to these wastes.13
13 USEPA, 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Background Document for First Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part 268
Land Disposal Restrictions. Final Rule. EPA Contract No. 68-01 7053.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2-24
-------
Table 2-7 Capacity Analysis for HOC Wastes
(Excluding First Third Promulgated and Third Third Promulgated HOCs)a
Available Required
capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
Sludges/solids 21 <1
a Based on 1988 TSDR Survey data.
2-25
-------
2.2.4 First Third Wastes
In support of the First Third final rule, EPA performed facility-level
treatability and capacity analyses on First Third waste streams.1'1 This
subsection documents the results of the capacity analysis for the First Third
wastes. As previously mentioned, the First Third final rule did not include
underground injected wastes.
(1) All First Third Wastes
Table 2-8 presents the estimates of all First Third wastes (as
listed in 40 CFR 268.10) that are surface land disposed annually, by
management practice and by type of disposal unit. The total volume for each
category in Table 2-8 represents the sum of all single First Third waste
streams and all waste groups containing at least one First Third waste but no
solvents. This prevents double-counting of multiple waste streams that
contain both First Third wastes and solvents.
(2) First Third Wastes for which Formal Treatment Standards have been
Promulgated
Table 2-9 presents estimates of the annual volume of First Third
wastes surface land disposed for which treatment standards were promulgated,
by management practice and by type of disposal unit. These wastes are
referred to hereafter as First Third promulgated wastes. The same procedures
described for the analysis of all RCRA wastes were used for estimating First
Third promulgated waste volumes. The total volume for each category in Table
2-9 represents the sum of all single First Third promulgated waste streams and
all waste groups containing at least one First Third promulgated waste but no
solvents. This prevents double-counting of multiple waste streams that
contain First Third promulgated wastes and solvents.
14 USEPA, 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
Background Document for First Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part 268. Land
Disposal Restrictions. Final Rule. EPA Contract No. 68-01-7053. Washington
D.C.: U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
2-26
-------
Table 2-8 Overview of All Surface
Disposed First Third Wastes
Management practice
Surface disposed volume
(million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles
Surface impoundments
Treatment
Waste piles
Surface impoundments
Disposal
Landfills
Land treatment
Surface impoundments
Total
49
6
29
328
343
76
71
902
2-27
-------
Table 2-9 Overview of Surface Disposed
First Third Promulgated Wastes'
Land disposed volume
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
Waste piles 41
Surface impoundments A
Treatment
Waste piles 27
Surface impoundments 320
Disposal
Landfills 315
Land treatment 76
- Surface impoundments 70
Total 853
a First Third promulgated wastes are those wastes for which treatment
standards were finalized on August 8, 1988.
2-28
-------
The volume of land disposed First Third promulgated wastes requiring
alternative commercial treatment capacity is less than the volume of First
Third promulgated wastes land disposed. This is because EPA has assumed that
35 million gallons of the 45 million gallons that were only stored in
impoundments or waste piles do not require alternative treatment capacity
because they are treated or disposed of elsewhere (although they may require
alternative storage capacity). The 10 million gallons of "stored only" wastes
that do require alternative capacity were determined to have undergone
"long-term storage" and therefore would not have been reported elsewhere as
treated or disposed of. Furthermore, the facility-level waste treatability
and technology capacity analyses conducted on First Third wastes being land
disposed determined that 341 million gallons of these wastes either had
already been treated or could be treated onsite using the BDAT technology and
therefore do not require alternative commercial treatment capacity This
volume includes 290 million gallons of wastewater from one facility assigned
to onsite dewatering in tanks.
Table 2-10 presents estimates of available commercial capacity for the
alternative technologies applicable to the First Third promulgated wastes.
Also presented are the estimates of annual land disposed waste volumes
requiring alternative commercial capacity, excluding First Third promulgated
wastes that are underground injected or soils contaminated with First Third
promulgated wastes which were granted a two-year capacity variance. In most
cases, adequate capacity was available to treat all of the First Third
promulgated wastes and mixed waste groups containing a First Third promulgated
waste.
As Table 2-10 shows, four technologies had required capacity exceeding
the available capacity: acid leaching of sludges, high temperature metals
recovery, solvent extraction, and combustion of sludges/solids.
BDAT for K071 was identified as acid leaching of the sludge. Because of
the shortfall of acid leaching capacity, EPA granted a two-year national
capacity variance for K071 wastes.
2-29
-------
Table 2-10 Capacity Analysis for
First Third Promulgated Wastes
Required
Available commercial
; capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
- Liquids 338
-------
High temperature metals recovery (HTMR) was identified as the BOAT for
"high zinc" K061 (i.e., K061 containing >15 percent zinc). Because of the
shortfall of HTMR capacity, EPA granted a two-year capacity variance to the
HTMR standard for high zinc K061. However, during this two-year variance
period, EPA is requiring that high zinc K061 meet the standard for low zinc
K061, which is based on stabilization. Therefore, 63 million gallons of K061
waste have been "double-counted" on Table 2-10 under both stabilization and
HTMR.
The required capacity for the combustion of sludges/solids was divided
into two numbers: the total amount of waste that requires sludge/solid
combustion, 162 million gallons, and the amount of First Third promulgated
waste other than K048-K052 waste that requires sludge/solid combustion,
8 million gallons. The BOAT standard for K048-K052 was also based on solvent
extraction, however, and thus the required capacities for these technologies
are presented as ranges on Table 2-10. The total volume of K048-K052 wastes
requiring capacity has been determined to be 154 million gallons.
Consequently, because of a shortfall of sludge/solid incineration and solvent
extraction capacity, EPA granted a two-year national capacity variance for
K048-K052 wastes.
(3) Soft Hammer Wastes from the First Third Final Rule
The First Third soft hammer wastes for which treatment standards
were not promulgated in the First Third final rule (i.e., "soft hammer" First
Third wastes) include F006 wastewaters, F019, K004, K008, K011 wastewaters,
K013 wastewaters, K014 wastewaters, K017, K021 wastewaters, K022 wastewaters,
K031, K035, K046, K061 wastewaters, K069 wastewaters, K073, K084,K085, K086
nonwastewaters, K101, K102 nonwastewaters K106, P001, P004, POOS, P010, P011,
P012, P015, P016. P018, P020, P036, P037, P048, P050, P058, P059, P068, P069,
P070. P081, P082, P084, P087, P092, P102, P105, P108, P110, P115, P120, P122,
P123, U007 nonwastewaters, U009, U010, U012, U016, U018, U019, U022, U031,
U036, U037, U041, U043, U044, U046, U050, U051, U053, U061, U063, U064, U066,
U067, U074, U077, U078, U086, U089, U103, U105, U108, U115, U122, U124, U129,
U130, U133, U134, U137, U151, U154, U155, U157, U158, U159.U177, U180, U185,
U188, U192, U200. U209, U210, U211, U219, U220, U226, U227, U228, U237, U238,
U248, and U249 wastes. Treatment standards for some of the soft hammer wastes
2-31
-------
from che First Third final rule were promulgated in the Second Third final
rule. Treatment standards for the remainder are being promulgated in today's
final rule.
2.2.5 Underground Injected Solvent Wastes
On July 26, 1988 (53 FR 28118), EPA published the final rule regulating
underground injection of F001-F005 solvents and of F020-F023 and F026-F028
dioxin wastes. The results of the capacity analysis for these wastes are
presented in Table 2-11.
EPA used the data resulting from the TSDR Survey to estimate the amount
of required alternative commercial treatment capacity. For this rule, EPA
estimated that 317 gallons of solvent wastes are underground injected
annually. The TSDR Survey does not contain detailed data on the concentration
of contaminants in wastes; however, based on waste descriptions, EPA estimated
that at least 260 million gallons were solvent-water mixtures containing less
than 1 percent total F001-F005 solvent constituents at the point of
generation. The appropriate treatment for these wastes was identified as
wastewater treatment for organics (steam stripping, carbon adsorption,
biological treatment, or wet-air oxidation). Using the TSDR Survey, EPA
identified only 55 million gallons of available commercial wastewater
treatment for organics. Consequently, EPA granted a national capacity
variance for solvent-water mixtures with less than 1 percent total F001-F005
solvent constituents until August 8, 1990.
EPA estimated that the remaining 57 million gallons of underground
injected solvent wastes contained F001-F005 constituents in concentrations
greater than or equal to 1 percent at the point of generation. The BOAT
standard for these wastes is based on the performance of liquid combustion.
Using the TSDR Survey, EPA identified 338 million gallons of available liquid
combustion capacity. EPA, therefore, did not grant a national capacity
variance to those wastes.
2-32
-------
Table 2-11 Capacity Analysis for Underground
Injected Solvent Wastes*
Technology
Available Required
capacity capacity
(million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
liquids
Wastewater treatment
stream stripping,
carbon adsorption,
biological treatment,
or wet-air oxidation
338
55
57
260
a Based on 53 FR 28118-28155
2-33
-------
EPA determined that F020-F023 and F026-F028 dioxin wastes were not being
underground injected and that restricting them would have a negligible effect
on available treatment capacity; EPA, therefore, did not grant a two-year
capacity variance to these wastes.
2.2.6 Underground Injected California List Wastes
On August 16, 1988, EPA published its regulatory approach for underground
injected California list wastes. The results of the capacity analysis for
these wastes are shown on Table 2-12. This subsection summarizes the capacity
determinations for each California list waste type.
(1) Free Cyanides
For this rule, EPA determined that 1.36 billion gallons of cyanide
wastes are underground injected annually. EPA estimated that at least 170
million gallons of this waste exceeded the statutory prohibition level of
1,000 mg/1. Using the TSDR Survey, EPA identified only 16 million gallons of
available cyanide oxidation capacity. Consequently, EPA granted a national
capacity variance to underground injected California list cyanide wastes until
August 8, 1990.
(2) Metals
EPA estimated that 234 million gallons of waste exceeding the
California list standards for metals (other than chromium) are underground
injected annually. Using the TSDR Survey available at the time, EPA
identified 128 million gallons of available commercial chemical precipitation
capacity. Consequently, EPA granted a national capacity variance to
underground injected California list metal-bearing wastes until August 8,
1990.
(3) Chromium wastes
EPA identified 105 million gallons of wastes with chromium levels
exceeding the California list limits. EPA also identified an additional 237
million gallons of wastes that could potentially exceed the chromium levels.
Using the TSDR Survey, EPA determined that 79 million gallons of chromium
2-34
-------
Table 2-12 Capacity Analysis for Underground
Injected California List Wastes3
Available Required
capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
- liquids 281 b
Cyanide oxidation 16 >170
Chemical precipitation 364C 234
Neutralization 36 >1,000
Wastewater treatment
for organics (steam 55 245
stripping, carbon adsorption,
biological treatment,
or wet-air oxidation)
Chromium reduction, 79 105-342
chemical precipitation,
and settling or filtration
a Based on 53 FR 30908-30918.
b Exact volume is not known; determined to be "substantially less" than
available capacity.
c At the time the California list rule went into effect, the available
capacity for chemical precipitation was determined to be 128 million
gallons. As a result, 234 million gallons of waste requiring chemical
precipitation were granted a two-year national capacity variance. Since
promulgation of the California list rule, EPA has received additional
information. The 364 million gallons reported today is based on this
additional information.
2-35
-------
reduction, chemical precipitation, and settling or filtration capacity was
available to treat these wastes. Thus, EPA decided to grant a national
capacity variance to underground injected California list chromium wastes
until August 8, 1990.
(4) Corrosives
EPA identified over 1 billion gallons of underground injected acidic
corrosive (pH <2) wastes subject to the California list prohibitions. Using
the TSDR Survey, EPA identified only about 36 million gallons of available
commercial neutralization capacity. Consequently, EPA granted a national
capacity variance to underground injected California list corrosive wastes
until August 8, 1990.
(5) Halogenated Oreanic Compounds (HOCs)
EPA divided California list HOC wastes into two subgroups:
concentrated HOC wastes containing greater than or equal to 10,000 mg/1 (1
percent) HOC constituents, and dilute wastewaters with HOC concentrations
between 1,000 and 10,000 mg/1. In addition, wastes that qualify as both HOCs
and First Third promulgated wastes were included with the First Third
promulgated wastes and not with the HOCs to avoid double counting.
EPA determined that the volume of concentrated HOC wastes being
underground injected was substantially less than the amount of available
liquid combustion capacity (the specified BDAT for these wastes). EPA,
therefore, did not grant a national capacity variance to underground injected
California list wastes with HOC concentrations greater than or equal to 10,000
mg/1.
Using the TSDR Survey, EPA identified 245 million gallons of underground
injected dilute HOC wastewaters (HOCs between 1,000 and 10,000 mg/1). EPA
identified only 55 million gallons of available wastewater treatment capacity
applicable to these wastes (steam stripping, carbon adsorption, biological
treatment, or wet-air oxidation). Consequently, EPA granted a national
capacity variance to underground injected dilute California list HOC
wastewaters until August 8, 1990.
2-36
-------
(6) Polvchlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
EPA identified 25,000 gallons of underground injected PCBs; however,
EPA does not believe that these wastes exceed the statutory prohibition level
of 50 ppm. Furthermore, data from both the TSDR Survey and the RIA Mail
Survey indicate that treatment capacity for these wastes (liquid combustion)
substantially exceeds the volume injected. EPA, therefore, did not grant a
national capacity variance to underground injected California list PCB wastes.
2.2.7 Underground Injected First Third Wastes
EPA's regulatory approach for underground injected First Third wastes was
outlined in two parts. The first part, published on August 16, 1988 (53 FR
30908), covered underground injected K049-K052, K062, K071, and K104 wastes.
EPA's published regulations on the remaining underground injected First Third
wastes were published on June 14, 1989 (54 FR 25416). Table 2-13 summarizes
the capacity analyses for Underground Injected First Third wastes.
(1) K062 Wastes
EPA determined that between 128 and 148 million gallons of K062
wastes, spent pickle liquor, are underground injected each year The BOAT
standard for K062 wastes is based on chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, and sludge dewatering. Using the TSDR Survey, EPA identified
only 79 million gallons of available chromium reduction capacity.
Consequently, EPA granted a national capacity variance to K062 wastes until
August 8, 1990.
(2) K049. K05Q. K051. and K052 Wastes
K049-K052 are petroleum refining wastes. The BOAT standard for
these wastes is based on sludge incineration or solvent extraction followed by
stabilization. EPA determined that about 656,000 gallons of these wastes are
underground injected annually. Based on the limited treatment capacity
available, and the decision to allocate available treatment first to surface
disposed wastes, EPA granted a national capacity variance to underground
injected K049-K052 wastes until August 8, 1990.
2-37
-------
Table 2-13 Capacity Analysis for Underground
Injected First Third Wastes3
Available Required
capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
liquids 281 <1
Chromium reduction, chemical 79 128-148
precipitation, and settling
or filtration
Solvent extraction followed 1 57
by steam stripping and
carbon adsorption
Acid leaching followed 0 <1
by chemical oxidation,
dewatering of sludges,
and sulfide precipitation
Biological treatment 0 118
followed by wet-air
oxidation
Biological treatment 51 <1
Based on 53 FR 30908-30918 and 53 FR 40400-40408.
2-38
-------
(3) K104 Wastes
K104 wastes are wastewaters generated from production of
nitrobenzene and aniline. The BOAT standard for K104 wastes was based on
solvent extraction followed by steam stripping and carbon adsorption. The
TSDR Survey indicates that nearly 57 million gallons of K104 are being
underground injected each year. EPA, however, identified only 1 million
gallons of available solvent extraction capacity. Consequently, EPA granted a
national capacity variance to underground injected K104 wastes until August 8,
1990.
(4) K071 Wastes
K071 waste is brine purification muds from mercury cell production
of chlorine. The BDAT standard for K071 is based on acid leaching followed by
chemical oxidation, dewatering of sludges, and sulfide precipitation of metals
in the effluent. Although EPA determined that only about 45,000 gallons of
K071 waste is underground injected each year, EPA believes that there is
inadequate capacity to treat these wastes. Consequently, EPA granted a
national capacity variance to underground injected K071 wastes until August 8,
1990.
(5) K016 Wastes
K016 waste is heavy ends or distillation residues from the
production of certain halogenated hydrocarbons. The BDAT standard for dilute
(less than 1 percent) K016 wastes is based on biological treatment followed by
wet-air oxidation; for K016 wastes in concentrations equal to or greater than
1 percent, the BDAT standard is based on liquid combustion. Using the TSDR
Survey, EPA identified 118 million gallons of underground injected dilute
(less than 1 percent) K016 wastes. EPA did not identify any available
capacity for dilute K016 wastes. Consequently, EPA granted a national
capacity variance to underground injected dilute (less than 1 percent) K016
wastes until August 8, 1990.
Using the TSDR Survey, EPA identified only 170,000 gallons of underground
injected concentrated K016 wastes (greater than 1 percent) and 281 million
gallons of available liquid combustion capacity EPA, therefore, did not
grant a national capacity variance to underground injected concentrated
(greater than 1 percent) K016 wastes.
2-39
-------
(6) K019 Wastes
K019 is heavy ends or distillation residues 'from the production of
ethylene dichloride. EPA determined that only 65,000 gallons of relatively
dilute K019 wastes are being underground injected and that the most
appropriate treatment would be biological degradation. Using the TSDR Survey,
EPA identified 47 million gallons of available biological treatment capacity.
EPA, therefore, did not grant a national capacity variance to underground
injected K019 wastes.
(7) K030 Wastes
K030 is column bottoms and heavy ends from production of
trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene. Using the TSDR Survey. EPA
identified 30,000 gallons of underground injected K030. As with K019, EPA
determined that the underground injected K030 waste is relatively dilute and
is best treated by biological treatment. EPA, therefore, did not grant a
national capacity variance for underground injected K030 wastes.
(8) K103 Wastes
K103 wastes are residues from the production of aniline. EPA
determined that 31,560 gallons of K103 waste was being underground injected
annually. EPA believes that these wastes are relatively concentrated and
would therefore require liquid combustion. EPA identified 281 million gallons
of available liquid combustion capacity. EPA, therefore, did not grant a
national capacity variance to underground injected K103 wastes.
2.2.8 Second Third Wastes
In support of the Second Third final rule, EPA performed facility-
level treatability and capacity analyses on Second Third waste streams.15
This subsection documents the results of the capacity analysis for the Second
Third wastes.
15 USEPA. 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid
Waste. Background Document for Second Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part 268
Land Disposal Restrictions. Final Rule. Vols. I and II. EPA Contract No. 68-
01 7053 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2-40
-------
( 1) Overview
EPA finalized its regulatory approach for Second Third wastes on
June 8, 1989. 16 However, EPA did not set standards for all Second Third
wastes at that time, but instead allowed the soft hammer requirements to take
effect for those Second Third wastes for which standards were not promulgated.
In addition, EPA established treatment standards for some "soft hammer" First
Third wastes as well as some wastes that were originally Third Third wastes.
(2) All Second Third Wastes
Table 2-14 presents the estimates of all Second Third wastes (as
listed in 40 CFR 268.10) that are land disposed annually, by management
practice and by type of disposal unit. The total volume for each category in
Table 2-14 represents the sum of all single Second Third waste streams and all
waste groups containing at least one Second Third waste but no solvents or
First Third wastes. This prevents double -counting of multiple waste streams
that contain both Second Third wastes and solvents or First Third wastes.
(3) Second Third Wastes for Which Formal Treatment Standards Have Been
Promulgated.
Table 2-15 presents estimates of the volume of Second Third
promulgated wastes land disposed annually, by management practice and by type
of land disposal unit. These estimates include the entire volume of any waste
stream, for both single waste streams and waste groups, if the waste stream
contained any Second Third promulgated waste but no solvent, First Third waste
for which a standard has been finalized, or California list HOC wastes. The
estimates also include volumes for waste streams containing soft hammer First
Third wastes and Third Third wastes for which treatment standards were
promulgated in the Second Third rule.
The volume of land disposed Second Third promulgated wastes requiring
alternative commercial treatment capacity is less than the volume of Second
Third promulgated wastes land disposed. This is because EPA has assumed that
the 4 million gallons that were only stored in impoundments or waste piles do
not require alternative treatment capacity because they are treated or
Ibid.
2-41
-------
Table 2-14 Overview of Second Third Promulgated Wastes'
Land disposed volume
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
Waste piles 1
Surface impoundments 3
Treatment
Waste piles 5
Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
Landfills 11
Land treatment <1
Surface impoundments <1
Underground injection 604
Total 624
a Second Third promulgated wastes are those wastes for which treatment
standards were finalized in June 8, 1989.
2-42
-------
Table 2-15 Overview of Surface Disposed
Second Third Promulgated Wastes3
Surface disposed volume
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles 1
- Surface impoundments 3
Treatment
- Waste piles 5
- Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
Landfills 11
Land treatment <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Total 20
2-43
-------
Table 2-14 Overview of Second Third Promulgated Wastes*
Land disposed volume
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
Waste piles 1
- Surface impoundments 3
Treatment
Waste piles 5
- Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
Landfills 11
Land treatment <1
Surface impoundments <1
Underground injection 604
Total 624
a Second Third promulgated wastes are those wastes for which treatment
standards were finalized in June 8, 1989.
2-42
-------
Table 2-15 Overview of Surface Disposed
Second Third Promulgated Wastes-3
Surface disposed volume
Management practice (million gal/yr)
Storage only
- Waste piles 1
Surface impoundments 3
Treatment
Waste piles 5
- Surface impoundments <1
Disposal
Landfills 11
Land treatment <1
- Surface impoundments <1
Total 20
2-43
-------
disposed of elsewhere (although they may require alternative storage capacity
for more detail on "stored only" waste volumes see Subsection 4.1.1)
Furthermore, the facility-level waste treatability and technology capacity
analyses conducted on Second Third promulgated wastes being land disposed
determined that 22 million gallons of these wastes either had already been
treated or could be treated onsite using the BDAT technology and therefore do
not require alternative commercial treatment capacity.
Based on this analysis, EPA estimates that 598 million gallons of Second
Third promulgated wastes will require alternative commercial treatment
capacity. EPA estimates that treatment of the 598 million gallons will
generate 5 million gallons of waste residuals that will require additional
alternative treatment capacity.
(4) Surface Disposed Second Third Promulgated Wastes
Table 2-16 shows the estimates of the volume of surface land
disposed Second Third promulgated wastes that require alternative'commercial
treatment recovery capacity. These estimates are based on the results of the
TSDR Survey.
A comparison of required and available treatment/recovery capacity shows
adequate capacity for all surface disposed Second Third promulgated wastes.
However, in order to allow time for facilities to adjust existing cyanide
treatment processes to operate more efficiently, EPA determined to grant a
30-day variance from the cyanide standards for F006 nonwastewaters and F007,
F008, and F009 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
In addition, because F011 and F012 heat treating wastes are often
commingled with F006, F007, F008, and F009 electroplating wastes, EPA expects
that they will have to be segregated and treated separately. In order to
allow some time to adjust processes to segregate these heat treating (F011,
F012) and electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, F009), EPA deferred the
total and amenable cyanide standards for F011 and F012 heat treating wastes
until December 8, 1989. However, between July 8, 1989, and December 8, 1989,
these wastes were subject to the same cyanide standards as the electroplating
wastes (F006, F007, F008, F009).
2-44
-------
Table 2-16 Capacity Analysis for Surface Disposed
Second Third Promulgated Wastes"
Technology
Available
capacity
(million gal/yr)
Required
capacity
(million gal/yr)
Combustion
- Liquids
Sludges/solids
Wastewater treatment
Alkaline chlorination
and chemical precipitation
Eletrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline
chlorination
Carbon adsorption
Biological treatment
Steam stripping followed
by biological treatment
Chrome reduction and
chemical precipitation
Chemical precipitation
Stabilization
281
13
16
2
44
0
79
364
484
a Volumes do not include underground injected waste and soils/debris.
b These wastes have been included with the wastes requiring alkaline
chlorination.
2-45
-------
EPA did not grant a national capacity variance to any other surface
disposed Second Third promulgated wastes.
(5) Underground Injected Second Third Promulgated Wastes
Table 2-17 presents the amount of required and available commercial
treatment recovery capacity for underground injected Second Third promulgated
wastes. The amount of available commercial capacity presented is that amount
remaining after accounting for surface disposed Second Third wastes. The
amount of available commercial capacity and most of the required capacity were
estimated using the TSDR Survey. For some waste codes for which the TSDR
Survey did not contain data on the volume being underground injected, EPA used
the Office of Drinking Water's (ODW's) Hazardous Waste Injection Well Data
Base (HWIWDB) to estimate the volume of these wastes underground injected.17
The table shows shortfalls in available capacity for cyanide destruction,
incineration, and wastewater treatment of organics. Treatment standards based
on alkaline chlorination were promulgated for F007, F008, F009, F011, F012,
F019, P013, P021, P029, P030, P063, P074, P098, P099, P10A, P106, and P121
wastes. EPA estimates that about 126 million gallons per year of underground
injected Second Third promulgated wastes will require alkaline chlorination.
However, one F007 waste stream accounts for 126 million gallons per year of
the required capacity. Excluding this stream, adequate capacity exists to
treat the small volumes required for the remainder of these wastes.
Consequently, of the waste requiring alkaline chlorination, EPA granted a two-
year national capacity variance only for F007 wastes, which are underground
inj ected.
In addition, as previously mentioned, EPA granted a 30-day variance from
the cyanide standards to F006 nonwastewaters and F007, F008, and F009
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPA also deferred the cyanide standards for
F011 and F012 until December 8, 1989. However, between July 8, 1989, and
December 8, 1989, F011 and F012 wastes were subject to the same cyanide
standards as the electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, and F009).
17 Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. 1987. Findings on Class I hazardous wells
affected by the land ban rules. Memorandum report to John Atcheson, Dave
Morganvalp, and Mario Salazar, USEPA, from TBS, December 15, 1987.
2-46
-------
Table 2-17 Capacity Analysis for Underground
Injected Second Third Promulgated Wastes
Available Required
capacity capacity
Technology (million gal/yr) (million gal/yr)
Combustion
- Liquids 281 379
Wastewater treatment
Alkaline chlorination and 11 126
chemical precipitation
Electrolytic oxidation 0 <1
followed by alkaline
chlorination
- Carbon adsorption 2 <1
Biological treatment 44 <1
Steam stripping followed 0 79
by biological treatment
Stabilization 480 1
2-47
-------
The treatment standard for K009 nonwastewaters is ba=ad on incineration;
for wastewaters it is based on steam stripping followed by biological
treatment. In the capacity analysis for K009 wastes, only wastewaters were'
identified as requiring alternative treatment. Table 2-17 shows that
insufficient wastewater treatment capacity exists for the volume of K009 waste
that is underground injected. EPA therefore granted a two-year national
capacity variance to underground injected K009 wastewaters.
The treatment standard for K011 and K013 nonwastewaters is based on
incineration. Table 2-17 shows that insufficient capacity exists for the
volume of underground injected K011 and K013 nonwastewaters requiring
incineration. EPA therefore granted a national capacity variance to
underground injected K011 and K013 wastes.
EPA determined that sufficient capacity exists for the remainder of the
underground injected Second Third promulgated wastes. However, as previously
mentioned, to allow time (if any is needed) for facilities to adjust existing
cyanide treatment processes to operate more efficiently, EPA determined to
grant a 30-day variance from the cyanide standards for F006 nonwastewaters and
F007, F008, and F009 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
In addition, because F011 and F012 heat treating wastes are often
commingled with F006, F007, F008, and F009 electroplating wastes, EPA expects
that they will have to be segregated and treated separately. To allow some
time to adjust processes to segregate these heat treating (F011, F012) and
electroplating wastes (F006, F007, F008, F009), EPA deferred the total and
amenable cyanide standards for F011 and F012 heat treating wastes until
December 8, 1989. However, between July 8, 1989, and December 8, 1989. these
wastes will be subject to the same cyanide standards as the electroplating
wastes (F006, F007, F008, F009).
(6) First and Second Third Soft Hammer Wastes
Table 2-18 presents "soft hammer" First Third and Second Third
wastes. These are the First Third and Second Third wastes for which treatment
standards were not promulgated in the First or Second Third final rules.
2-48
-------
Table 2-18
Soft Hammer Wastes from the First
Third and Second Third Final Rules
First Third Soft Hammer
F006 wastewaters,
wastewaters, K015
K060 wastewaters,
K102, K106, P001,
P037, P048, P050,
P102, P105, P108,
U018, U019, U022,
U053, U061, U063,
U108, U115, U122,
U158, U159, U177,
U226, U227, U228,
F019, K004, K008, K011 wastewaters, K013
K017, K021 wastewaters, K022 wastewaters
K061 wastewaters, K069, K073, K083, K084,
P004, POOS, P010, P011, P012, P015, P016,
P058, P059, P068, P069, P070, P081, P082,
P110, P115, P120, P122, P123, U007, U009,
U029, U031, U036, U037, U041, U043, U044,
U064, U066, U067, U074, U077, U078, U086,
U124, U129, U130, U133, U134, U137, U151,
U180, U185, U188, U192, U200, U209, U210,
U237, U238, U248, and U249.
wastewaters,
, K031, K035
K085, K086,
P018, P020,
P084, P087,
U010, U012,
U046, U050,
U089, U103,
U154, U155,
U211, U219,
K014
, K046
K101,
P036,
P092,
U016,
U051,
U105,
U157,
U220,
Second Third Soft Hammer
K025
K098
P066
U015
U062
U106
U142
U169
U205
wastewaters ,
, K105, P002,
, P067, P072,
, U020, U021,
, U070, U073,
, U109. U110,
, U143, U144,
, U170, U171,
, U206, U208,
K029,
P003.
P107,
U023,
U080,
Ulll,
U146,
U172,
U213,
K041,
P007,
P112,
U025,
U083,
U114,
U147,
U173,
U214,
K042,
POOS,
P113,
U026,
U092,
U116,
U149,
U174,
U215,
K095
P014
P114
U032
U093
U119
U150
U176
U216
wastewaters ,
, P026, P027,
, U002, U003,
, U035, U047,
, U094, U095,
. U127, U128,
, U161, U162,
, U178, U179.
, U217, U218,
K096
P049
U005
U049
U097
U131
U163
U189
U239
wastewaters ,
, P054, P057,
, U008, U011,
, U057, U059,
, U098, U099,
, U135, U138,
, U164, U165,
, U193, U196,
, and U244.
K097,
P060,
U014,
U060,
U101,
U140,
U168,
U203.
2-49
-------
2.2.9 Determination of Available Capacity for the Third Third Final Rule
This section presents EPA's determination of the amount of commercial
treatment capacity available for Third Third promulgated wastes.
(1) Effects of Previous Land Disposal Restrictions
Table 2-19 shows the effects of previous land disposal restrictions
on available capacity for the Third Third final rule. The table shows EPA's
latest estimate of available capacity for each technology. The table also
presents the amount of capacity required by each of the previous land disposal
restrictions in order of promulgation. The amount required by previous rules
is subtracted from the available capacity for each technology to determine the
amount remaining, and therefore available, for the Third Third promulgated
wastes.
The 1989 data included in the available capacity analysis of the proposed
Third Third rule were based on facility projections made in 1987 as reported
in the TSDR Survey and limited facility contacts. For the final rule, EPA
contacted facilities that anticipated additional available capacity for 1989
to verify projected capacities reported in the TSDR Survey. For alkaline
chlorination followed by chemical precipitation 1989 data have been adjusted
to reflect this new information.
In addition to the above mentioned revision EPA also revised the
available capacity estimate for combustion of sludge and solids. During the
public comment period for the proposed Third Third rule, EPA received several
comments on available sludge/solid combustion capacity. Commenters indicated
that EPA had omitted available units, included units that may not actually be
available, and incorrectly estimated capacity for some units. Sources of
suggested error included new operating parameters resulting from permits
issued since the TSDR Survey, and new hazardous fuel blending and burning
techniques that increase capacity for reusing sludges and solids as fuel.
Since the statutory deadline for incineration permit decisions passed in
November of 1989, EPA agreed that recent permits could have affected national
incineration capacity As a result, EPA has obtained updated information from
EPA regional and state environmental regulatory offices (and in a few cases
incineration facility's themselves) and has reevaluated available sludge/solid
combustion capacity based on these data.
2-50
-------
EPA also made revisions to available capacity estimates for four
technologies required for the final Third Third rule. These technologies
include: 1) alkaline chlorination, 2) biological treatment followed by
chemical precipitation; 3) chromium reduction followed by chemical
precipitation; and 4) chemical precipitation.
Due to a mathematics error in the Third Third proposed rule, EPA has
revised the available capacity estimate for combustion of liquids. This
revision had no effect on capacity variances for the final rule.
(2) Impacts of Third Third Final Rule on California List HOCs
The California list final rule for HOCs was not waste code specific,
but instead regulated all hazardous wastes containing HOCs above a specified
concentration. Consequently, EPA's capacity analysis for HOCs included some
Third Third wastes. Table 2-19 presents the available capacity for Third
Third Wastes including Third Third HOCs. However, today's final rule is waste
code specific and therefore some overlap exists between the California list
HOC final rule and the Third Third final rule. In addition, some of the
technologies to which Third Third wastes were assigned for the California list
final rule may not be appropriate as a result of today's final rule.
EPA has therefore decided to reanalyze all California list HOC wastes
subject to this proposal and has included these wastes in the estimates of
required capacity as a result of the Third Third final rule. In order to
avoid double counting these wastes, however, EPA has subtracted these wastes
from required capacity estimates for the California list HOC final rule
2.2.10 Third Third Promulgated Wastes
(1) Overview
EPA is today promulgating its regulatory approach for Third Third
wastes In addition, EPA is promulgating standards for "soft hammer" First
and Second Third wastes, as well as some wastes that were originally included
as California list HOCs. Those wastes for which EPA is today setting
treatment standards are listed in Table 1-1. These wastes will hereafter be
referred to as Third Third promulgated wastes. Waste code-specific capacity
analyses for the Third Third promulgated wastes are presented in Section 3.
2-51
-------
TABLE 2-19 DETERMINATION OF AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL CAPACITY FOR THIRD THIRD WASTES*
(MILLIONS OF GALLONS/YEAR)
TECHNOLOGY
Acid leaching followed by chemical precipitation
Alkaline chlorination
Alkaline chlorination followed by chemical precipitation
Biological treatment
Biological treatment followed by chemical precipitation
Chemical oxidation followed by chemical precipitation
Chemical oxidation followed by chromium reduction
followed by chemical precipitation
Chemical precipitation
Chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation
Combustion of liquid*
Combustion of sludge/solids
Mercury retorting
Neutralization
Secondary lead smelting
Stabilization
Thermal recovery
Thermal recovery of cadmium batteries
Vitrification
Wet-air oxidation
Wet-air oxidation foUood by carbon adsorption
Wet-air oxidation folloed by chemical precipitation
I«9O
AVAILABLE
cAMcmr
0
7
17
47
14
28
2
339
142
328
81
<1
36
37
750
0
<1
0
-------
Table 2-20 presents estimates of the volume of Third Third promulgated
wastes land disposed annually, by management practice and by type of land
disposal unit. These estimates include the entire volume of any waste stream,
for both single waste streams and waste groups, if the waste stream contained
any Third Third promulgated waste but no solvent, or First or Second Third
waste for which a standard has been finalized. The estimates also include
volumes for waste streams containing soft hammered First and Second Third
wastes for which treatment standards are being promulgated today, as well as
Third Third promulgated wastes previously restricted as California list HOCs
The volume of land disposed Third Third promulgated wastes requiring
alternative commercial treatment capacity is less than the volume of Third
Third promulgated wastes land disposed. This is because EPA has assumed that
the 77 million gallons that were placed in short-term storage in waste piles
do not require alternative treatment capacity because they are treated or
disposed of elsewhere (although they may require alternative storage capacity;
for more detail on the approach for "stored only" waste volumes, see
Subsection 4.1.1). Furthermore, the facility-level waste treatability and
technology capacity analyses conducted on Third Third promulgated wastes being
land disposed determined that 79 million gallons of these wastes either had
already been treated or could be treated onsite using the BOAT technology and
therefore do not require alternative commercial treatment capacity
Based on this analysis, EPA estimates that 5,546 million gallons of Third
Third promulgated wastes will require alternative commercial treatment
capacity. This volume includes 30 million gallons of soils, which are
discussed in a separate section of this document; therefore, it is estimated
that 5,516 million gallons of nonsoil Third Third promulgated wastes will
require alternative commercial treatment capacity. Finally, EPA estimates
that treatment of the 5,546 million gallons will generate 86 million gallons
of waste residuals that will require additional alternative treatment
capacity
(2) Surface Disposed Third Third Wastes
Table 2-21 presents the estimates of available commercial capacity
applicable to surface disposed Third Third promulgated wastes. The amount of
available commercial capacity presented is that amount remaining after
2-53
-------
Table 2-20 Overview of Third Third Promulgated Wastes
Volume
Land disposal method (million gallons/year)
Storage:
Waste piles 77
Surface impoundments 5
Treatment:
Waste piles 30
Surface impoundments 22
Disposal:
Landfills 349
Land treatment 81
Surface impoundments 52
Underground injected 5.086
5,701a
Numbers do not add exactly due to rounding.
2.-54
-------
accounting for previous land disposal restrictions (see Table 2-19) Table
2-21 also shows the estimates of the volume of surface disposed Third Third
promulgated wastes that will require alternative commercial treatment recover-.-
capacity as a result of this final rule (i.e., required capacity excluding
soil and debris).
A comparison of required and available treatment/recovery capacity shows
adequate capacity for most of the surface disposed Third Third promulgated
wastes. However, EPA has determined that insufficient capacity currently
exists for some volumes of surface-disposed Third Third promulgated wastes.
Insufficient capacity exists for the following technologies: acid leaching
followed by chemical precipitation, sludge/ solid combustion, mercury
retorting, thermal recovery, and vitrification. Consequently, EPA is
promulgating a national capacity variance for D009, K106, P065. P092, and U151
low mercury nonwastewaters; F039 multi-source leachate nonwastewaters; K048 ,
K049, K050, K051, and K052 nonwastewaters; D009, K106, P065, P092, and U151
high mercury nonwastewaters; D008 lead acid batteries in storage areas prior
to secondary smelting; P087 wastewaters and nonwastewaters; and D004, K031,
K084, K101, K102, P010, P011, P012, P036, P038, and U136 nonwastewaters. EPA
is granting these wastes a two-year national capacity variance, except for
K048-K052 nonwastewaters. EPA is granting K048-K052 petroleum-refining
nonwastewaters a six-month national capacity variance.
EPA is not promulgating a national capacity variance for any other
surface-disposed Third Third promulgated wastes. Section 3 1 contains a
detailed capacity analysis for each Third Third promulgated waste code.
(3) Underground Injected Wastes Included in Third Third Rule
Table 2-22 presents the amount of required and available commercial
treatment recovery capacity for underground injected Third Third promulgated
wastes. The amount of available commercial capacity presented is that amount
remaining after accounting for surface-disposed Third Third promulgated
wastes
!-55
-------
Table 2-21 Summary of Capacity Analysis for
Third Third Promulgated Wastes
(millions of gallons/yr.)a
Available Required
Technology Capacity Capacity Variance
Acid Leaching Followed by 0 3 Yesk
Chemical Precipitation
Alkaline Chlorination 7 6 No
Alkaline Chlorination Followed by 6 2 No
Chemical Precipitation
Biological Treatment 47
-------
Table 2-21 Summary of Capacity Analysis for
Third Third Promulgated Wastes
(millions of gallons/yr.)
(continued)
Technology
Mercury Retorting
Neutralization
Secondary Smelting"
Stabilization
Thermal Recovery*
Thermal Recovery of Cadmium
Available
Capacity
<1
36
37
478
0
<1
Required
Capacity
3
22
2
158
<1
<1
Variance
Yesd
No
No
No
Yes8
No
Batteries
Vitrification
<0
22
Yes1"
d EPA is granting a capacity variance to D009, K106, P065, P092, and U151 high mercury nonwastewaters
requiring mercury retorting.
c EPA is granting a two-year national capacity variance to lead-acid batteries in storage areas.
' Excluding secondary smelting of lead wastes.
g EPA is granting a capacity variance to P087 wastewasters and nonwastewaters requiring thermal recovery
h EPA is granting a capacity variance to D004, K031, K084, K101, K102, P010. P011. P012. P036. P038. and
U136 nonwastewaters requiring vitrification.
2-57
-------
Table 2-22 Summary of Capacity Analysis for
Underground Injected Third Third Promulgated Wastes
(millions of gallons/yr.)a
Available Required
Technology Capacity Capacity Variance
Acid Leaching Followed By 0 <1 Yes
Chemical Precipitation
Alkaline Chlorination <1 48 Yes
Alkaline Chlorination Followed By 4 <1 No
Chemical Precipitation
Biological Treatment 47 2 No
Biological Treatment Followed By 13 15 Yes
Chemical Precipitation
Chemical Oxidation Followed By 21 1,684 Yes
Chemical Precipitation
Chemical Oxidation Followed By <1 195 Yes
Chromium Reduction and Chemical
Precipitation
Chemical Precipitation
Chromium Reduction Followed By
Chemical Precipitation
Combustion of Liquids
Mercury Retorting
Neutralization
Stabilization
Wet-Air Oxidation
Wet-Air Oxidation Followed By
Carbon Adsorption
314 119
9 239
219 54
<.01 <.02
14 1,638
305 4
<1 1,027
<1 <1
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
a Volumes include First and Second Third soft hammer waste, and multi-source
leachate.
2-58
-------
The table shows shortfalls in available capacity for acid leaching
followed by chemical precipitation, alkaline chlorination, biological
treatment followed by chemical precipitation, chemical oxidation followed by
chemical precipitation, chemical oxidation followed by chromium reduction and
chemical precipitation, chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation,
mercury retorting, neutralization, and wet-air oxidation. As a result, EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity variance to D003 cyanide wastewaters and
nonwastewaters; D003 sulfide wastewaters and nonwastewaters; D003 explosive/
reactive wastewaters and nonwastewaters; D007 wastewaters and nonwastewaters;
D009 nonwastewaters; D002 wastewaters and nonwastewaters; K011 and K013
wastewaters and K014 wastewaters and nonwastewaters; and F039 multi-source
leachate wastewaters.
EPA is not granting a national capacity variance for any other
underground injected Third Third promulgated wastes.
(4) Soil and Debris
Table 2-23 presents the amount of required and available commercial
treatment recovery capacity for soil and debris wastes. The amount of
available commercial capacity presented is that amount remaining after
accounting for surface-disposed and underground injected Third Third
promulgated wastes.
The table shows shortfalls in available capacity for incineration,
inorganic solids debris treatment, mercury retorting, and vitrification. EPA
is therefore promulgating an extension of the effective date for certain
contaminated soil and debris for which the treatment standards promulgated
today are based on incineration, inorganic solids debris treatment, mercury
retorting, or vitrification. RCRA section 3004(h) (2) allows the
Administrator to grant an extension to the effective date based on the
earliest date on which adequate alternative capacity will be available, but
not to exceed two-years ". .after the effective date of the prohibition which
would otherwise apply under subsection (d), (e), (f), or (g)." For First
Third and Second Third wastes that have heretofore been subject to the "soft
hammer" provisions but for which treatment standards are being promulgated
today, EPA is interpreting the statutory language " .effective date of the
2-59
-------
Table 2-23 Summary of Capacity Analysis for Third Third
Promulgated Soil and Debris Wastes
(millions of gallons/yr.)a
Technology
Alkaline Chlorination
Beryllium Recovery
Chemical Oxidation Followed
Available Required
Capacity Capacity Variance
<1 <1 No
<1 <1 No
<1 <1 No
By Chromium Reduction and
Chemical Precipitation
Chromium Reduction and
Chemical Precipitation
47
No
Incineration of Sludge/Solids
Inorganic Solids Debris Treatment
Mercury Retorting
Neutralization
Secondary Smelting
Stabilization
Vitrification
0 8
0 2
<1 4
14 <1
35 <1
301 12
0 <1
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
a Volumes include First and Second Third soft hammer waste, and multi-source
leachate.
2-60
-------
prohibition that would otherwise apply" to be the date treatment standards are
promulgated for these wastes (i.e., May 8, 1990), rather than the date on
which "soft hammer" provisions took effect (i.e., August 8, 1988, and June 8,
1989, respectively). EPA finds this the best interpretation for two reasons
Extensions of the effective date are based on the available capacity of the
BDAT for the waste, so it is reasonable that such an extension begin on the
date on which treatment standards based on performance of the BDAT are
established. Furthermore, EPA does not intend, in effect to penalize
generators of First Third and Second Third wastes by allowing less time (i.e.,
28 months and 37 months, respectively) for the development of needed capacity,
while generators of Third Third wastes in the same treatability group are
allowed the maximum 48 months (assuming capacity does not become available at
an earlier date). The promulgated capacity extension would therefore commence
for First, Second, and Third Third wastes on May 8, 1990, and would extend (at
maximum) until May 8, 1992.
For the purpose of determining whether a contaminated material is subject
to this capacity extension, soil is defined as materials that are primarily
geologic in origin, such as silt, loam, or clay, and that are indigenous to
the natural geological environment. In certain cases, soils will be mixed
with liquids or sludges. EPA will determine on a case-by-case basis whether
all or portions of such mixtures should be considered soil (52 FR 31197,
November 8, 1986) .
Debris is defined as materials that are primarily non-geologic in origin
such as grass, trees, stumps, shrubs, and manmade materials (e.g., concrete,
clothing, partially buried whole or crushed empty drums, capacitors, and other
synthetic manufactured items)
Debris may also include geologic materials (1) identified as not
indigenous to the natural environment at or near the site, or (2) identified
as indigenous rocks exceeding a 9.5 mm sieve size that are greater than 10
percent by weight, or that are at a total level that, based on engineering
judgement, will affect performance of available treatment technologies. In
many cases, debris will be mixed with liquids or sludges. EPA will determine
on a case-by-case basis whether all or portions of such mixtures should be
considered debris.
2-61
-------
Analysis of the TSDR Survey data indicated that a volume of approximately
21 million gallons of soil contaminated with wastes subject to this proposal
were land disposed in 1986. However, the Superfund remediation program has
expanded significantly since that time. Plans for remediation at Superfund
sites indicate that the excavation of soil and debris requiring treatment
(including incineration and subsequent land disposal) will be far greater in
1990 than in 1986. Because of the major increase in the Superfund remediation
program, EPA believes that capacity is still not adequate for combustion of
Third Third contaminated soil and debris. In addition, the TSDR Survey
indicates that inadequate capacity exists for soils requiring incineration or
mercury retorting. A two-year extension of the effective date is promulgated
for Third Third contaminated soil and debris for which BDAT is incineration,
inorganic solids debris treatment, mercury retorting, or vitrification.
EPA notes that if soil and debris are contaminated with Third Third
prohibited wastes whose treatment standard is based on incineration and also
with other prohibited wastes whose treatment standard is based on a non-
combustion type of technology, the soil and debris would remain eligible for
the national capacity variance. This is because the contaminated soil and
debris would still have to be treated by some form of combustion technology
that EPA has evaluated as being unavailable at present. However, there is one
exception to this principle. If the soil and debris are contaminated with a
prohibited waste (or wastes) that is no longer eligible for a national
capacity extension, such as certain types of prohibited solvent wastes, then
the soil and debris would have to be treated to meet the treatment standard
for that prohibited waste (or wastes). Any other interpretation would result
in EPA's extending the date of prohibition beyond the dates established by
Congress, and therefore beyond EPA's legal authority.
(5) Mixed Radioactive Wastes
Table 2-24 presents the amount of required and available treatment
and recovery capacity for mixed radioactive wastes. The table shows
shortfalls in available capacity for stabilization, macroencapsulation,
combustion, stabilization, neutralization, vitrification, alkaline
chlorination, alkaline chlorination followed by chemical precipitation,
treatment of reactives, metals recovery, amalgamation, chromium reduction
2-62
-------
Table 2-24
Summary of Capacity Analysis for Mixed Radioactive Wastes
(millions of gallons/yr )
Technology
Stabilization
Macroencapsulation
Combustion
Liquids
Sludge/solids
Neutralization
Vitrification
Alkaline Chlorination
Alkaline Chlorination
Available
Capacity
2.8
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
Required
Capacity
63.6
<0.2
<0.1
1.6
26.2
14
0.8
0.5
Variance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Followed by Chemical
Precipitation
Alkaline Chlorination
Followed by Stabilization
of Metals
.1
Yes
Treatment of Reactives
Metals Recovery
Amalgamation
Chromium Reduction Followed
by Chemical Precipitation
Chemical Precipitation
Sulfide Precipitation
Soil and Debris
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1 Yes
0.2 Yes
<0.1
<0 . 1 Yes
<0 . 1 Yes
51.6 Yes
193 Yes
2-63
-------
followed by chemical precipitation, chemical precipitation, and sulfide
precipitation. The table also shows a capacity shortfall for soil and debris
contaminated with mixed radioactive wastes. EPA is therefore granting a two-
year national capacity variance for First Third, Second Third, and Third Third
mixed radioactive wastes.
EPA has defined a mixed radioactive as any matrix containing a RCRA
hazardous waste and a radioactive waste subject to the Atomic Energy Act (53
FR 37045, 37046, September 23, 1988). Regardless of the type of radioactive
constituents that these wastes contain (e.g., high-level, low-level, or
transuranic), they are subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulations, including
the land disposal restrictions.
Radioactive wastes that are mixed with spent solvents, dioxins, or
California list wastes are subject to the land disposal restrictions already
promulgated for those hazardous wastes. EPA has determined, however, that
radioactive wastes that are mixed with First Third and Second Third wastes,
will be included in the Third Third rulemaking (40 CFR 268.12(c)). Thus,
today's rule addresses radioactive wastes that contain First Third, Second
Third, and Third Third wastes.
The Department of Energy (DOE) provided data on the generation and
treatment of mixed radioactive wastes at 21 DOE facilities. Information in
Table 2-24 is based on the DOE data. Other sources for non-DOE mixed
radioactive wastes included the TSDR Survey, Generator Survey, published
studies of mixed radioactive wastes, surveys and reports for states and
interstate compacts for managing low-level mixed radioactive wastes, and
telephone contacts with government representatives and industry officials.
Appendix B describes these data sources in more detail.
Appendix B of this background document also provides a detailed
discussion of how these data were analyzed. In general, the first step in the
analysis was a DOE facility-by-facility analysis of mixed radioactive waste
generation. Generation numbers were developed in groups based on BDATs or
equivalent treatment technologies. For each treatment technology, the
quantity of mixed radioactive wastes requiring treatment included the annual
2-64
-------
generation rate and the amount of mixed radioactive waste in storage requiring
treatment.
Once generation numbers were developed, they were compared to available
DOE on-site treatment capacity to determine the net treatment capacity for
each technology at each DOE facility. With this step accomplished, aggregates
of net treatment capacity for each treatment technology were developed for all
of DOE, which indicated a capacity shortfall.
Analysis of non-DOE mixed radioactive waste generation could not be
performed in a detailed systematic manner, as data presentation and definition
varied greatly from source to source. Available data were analyzed to
determine the types and quantities of mixed radioactive wastes generated at
non-DOE facilities. As a result of this analysis, EPA determined that the
non-DOE generation of mixed radioactive wastes would have no significant
impact on the outcome of the capaacity analysis for the Third Third final
rule, as the quantity of non-DOE mixed radioactive wastes requiring treatment
is less than one percent of the quantity generated at DOE facilities. In
addition, RCRA waste codes found in non-DOE mixed radioactive wastes are also
found in DOE mixed radioactive wastes, so no additional treatability groups
had to be identified.
No significant non-DOE treatment capacity was identified in the analysis.
Consequently, there is currently a capacity shortfall for non-DOE mixed
radioactive wastes.
Because a capacity shortfall currently exists for DOE and non-DOE mixed
radioactive wastes, EPA is granting a national capacity variance for all
surface-disposed mixed radioactive wastes. EPA has no information on the
underground injection of mixed radioactive wastes. Consequently, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for mixed radioactive wastes that are
underground injected.
2-65
-------
|