United States
Environmer.tal Protection
Agency
Office of Water Regulations
and Standards
EPA 44C 1 89 1 CO
September 1989
Preliminary Data
Summary for the
Hazardous Waste
Treatment Industry
-------
PRELIMINARY DATA SUMMARY
FOR THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT INDUSTRY
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Office of Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
September 1989
-------
PREFACE
This is one of a series of Preliminary Data Summaries
prepared by the Office of Water Regulations and Standards of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Summaries contain
engineering, economic and environmental data that pertain to
whether the industrial facilities in various industries discharge
pollutants in their wastewaters and whether the EPA should pursue
regulations to control such discharges. The summaries were
prepared in order to allow EPA to respond to the mandate of
section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act, which requires the Agency
to develop plans to regulate industrial categories that
contribute to pollution of the Nation's surface waters.
The Summaries vary in terms of the amount and nature of the
data presented. This variation reflects several factors,
including the overall size of the category (number of
dischargers), the amount of sampling and analytical work
performed by EPA in developing the Summary, the amount of
relevant secondary data that exists for the various categories,
whether the industry had been the subject of previous studies (by
EPA or other parties), and whether or not the Agency was already
committed to a regulation for the industry. With respect to the
last factor, the pattern is for categories that are already the
subject of regulatory activity (e.g., Pesticides, Pulp and Paper)
to have relatively short Summaries. This is because the
Summaries are intended primarily to assist EPA management in
designating industry categories for rulemaking. Summaries for
categories already subject to rulemaking were developed for
comparison purposes and contain only the minimal amount of data
needed to provide some perspective on the relative magnitude of
the pollution problems created across the categories.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Preparation of this Preliminary Data Summary was directed by
Donald F. Anderson, Project Officer, of the Industrial Technology
Division. Joseph Yance, Analysis and Evaluation Division, and
Alexandra Tarnay, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
were responsible for preparation of the economic and
environmental assessment analyses, respectively. Support was
provided under EPA Contract Nos. 68-03-3509, 68-03-3366, and 68-
03-3339.
Additional copies of this document may be obtained by writing to
the following address:
Industrial Technology Division (WH-552)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Telephone (202) 382-7131
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1 • FOREWORD -L
2. SUMMARY 2
3. INTRODUCTION 10
3.1 SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS 10
3.1.1 Regulation of Hazardous and Solid Waste Landfills... 12
3.1.2 Regulation of Hazardous Waste and PCB Incinerators . 14
3.1.3 Regulation of Commercial Aqueous Waste Treatment
Facilities 15
3 .2 DISCUSSION OF WQA REQUIREMENTS 16
3.2.1 Regulation of Direct Discharges to Surface Water ... 16
3.2.2 Regulation of Indirect Discharges to
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works 18
3 . 3 INDUSTRY GROWTH POTENTIAL 19
4. HWT INDUSTRY PROFILE 20
4.1 DEFINITIONS OF THE HWT INDUSTRY 21
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE HWT INDUSTRY 21
4.2.1 Landfills and Leachate Collection and Treatment .... 22
4.2.2 Incinerators and Scrubber Wastewater 23
4.2.3 Aqueous Hazardous Waste Treaters 24
4.2.4 Integrated Facilities 25
4.3 NUMBER OF HWT FACILITIES 26
4.3.1 Landfills 26
4.3.2 Incinerators and Scrubbers 31
4.3.3 Aqueous Hazardous Waste Treaters 35
4.4 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE HWT INDUSTRY 38
4.5 HWT INDUSTRY SIZE ESTIMATE SUMMARY 38
4.6 FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMERCIAL FACILITIES 38
4.7 COMMERCIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PRICE 41
4.8 SUMMARY 41
5. RAW WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 45
5.1 POLLUTANT ANALYSIS, RECOVERY, AND QUANTIFICATION 45
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
5.2 LEACHATE 47
5.2.1 Sources of Raw Data 47
5.2.2 Pollutants in the Raw Leachate 48
5.2.2.1 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants 48
5.2.2.2 Toxic Pollutants 57
5.2.3 Leachate Flow Generation Rates 71
5.2.4 Summary 71
5.3 INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WASTEWATERS 75
5.3.1 Sources of Incinerator Scrubber Wastewater Data .... 75
5.3.2 Pollutants in the Incinerator Scrubber Wastewaters . 75
5.3.2.1 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants 75
5.3.2.2 Toxic Pollutants 76
5.3.3 Scrubber Wastewater Flow Rates 80
5.3.4 Summary 83
5.4 AQUEOUS HAZARDOUS WASTE 83
5.4.1 Sources of Raw Waste Data 83
5.4.2 Pollutants in the Raw Aqueous Hazardous Waste 84
5.4.2.1 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants 84
5.4.2.2 Toxic Pollutants 84
5.4.3 Aqueous Hazardous Waste Flow Rates 88
5.4.4 Summary 88
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 93
6.1 LEACHATE TREATMENT 93
6.1.1 Sources of Data 93
6.1.2 Subtitle D and Subtitle C Facilities 94
6.1.3 Preliminary Treatment 94
6.1.3.1 Treated Effluent Data 94
6.1.3.2 Residuals Data 97
6.1.4 Biological Treatment 97
6.1.4.1 Treated Effluent Data 97
6.1.4.2 Residuals Data 99
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
6.1.5 Advanced Treatment 103
6.1.5.1 Treated Effluent Data 103
6.1.5.2 Residuals Data 106
6.1.6 Other Control and Treatment Technologies 106
6.1.7 Summary 108
6.2 SCRUBBER WASTEWATER TREATMENT 108
6.2.1 Sources of Data 108
6.2.2 TSCA Versus RCRA Facilities 109
6.2.3 Physical/Chemical Treatment 109
6.2.3.1 Treated Effluent Data 109
6.2.3.2 Residuals Data 112
6.2.4 Advanced Treatment 112
6.2.4.1 Treated Effluent Data 114
6.2.4.2 Residuals Data 117
6.2.5 Other Treatment and Disposal Methods 117
6.2.6 Summary of Scrubber Wastewater Treatment 120
6.3 AQUEOUS HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT 120
6.3.1 Sources of Data 121
6.3.2 Physical/Chemical Treatment 121
6.3.2.1 Treated Effluent Data 121
6.3.2.2 Residuals Data 125
6.3.3 Advanced Treatment 128
6.3.3.1 Treated Effluent Data 128
6.3.3.2 Residuals Data 132
6.3.4 Conclusions 134
7. COST OF WASTEWATER CONTROL AND TREATMENT 136
7.1 AQUEOUS TREATERS SUBCATEGORY 139
7.2 LEACHATE TREATMENT SUBCATEGORY 139
7!3 SCRUBBER WASTEWATER SUBCATEGORY 146
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
7.4 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND COST EFFECTIVENESS 146
7.4.1 Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment 146
7.4.2 Cost-Effectiveness 150
7.4.2.1 Scrubber Wastewater Systems 150
7.4.2.2 Leachate Treatment Systems 152
7.4.2.3 Aqueous Hazardous Waste Treaters 152
7 . 5 SUMMARY 158
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 159
8 . 1 METHODOLOGY 159
8.1.1 Direct Discharge Analysis 159
8.1.2 Indirect Discharge Analysis 160
8.2 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 160
8.2.1 Landfill Leachate Subcategory 160
8.2.1.1 Direct Dischargers 160
8.2.1.2 Indirect Dischargers 162
8.2.2 Scrubber Wastewater Subcategory 164
8.2.2.1 Direct Dischargers 164
8.2.2.2 Indirect Dischargers 165
8.2.3 Aqueous Hazardous Waste Subcategory 167
8.2.3.1 Direct Dischargers 167
8.2.3.2 Indirect Dischargers 168
8.3 NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 170
8.3.1 Air Pollution 170
8.3.2 Solid Waste 171
8.3.3 Energy Requirements 171
REFERENCES 172
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
4 1 Estimates of the Number of Hazardous Waste and
Subtitle D Landfills 27
4-2 Leachate Management at Subtitle D Landfills 29
4-3 Leachate Treatment/Disposal Practices - Summary
of Available Data 30
4-4 Estimate of the Number of Hazardous Waste Incinerators 32
4-5 Management of Incinerator Scrubber Wastewater -
Summary of Available Data 34
4-6 Estimates of the Number of Agueous Hazardous Waste Treaters .. 36
4-7 Disposal of Wastewaters by Facilities Managing Agueous Hazardous
Wastes - Summary of Available Data 37
4-8 HWT Industry Profile 39
4-9 Statistics of Selected Financial Ratios for the HWT Industry . 40
4-10 Statistics of Selected Financial Ratios for the Selected Firms
in the HWT Industry 42
4-11 Comparison of Hazardous Waste Management Prices (per Gallon)
Quoted by all Firms in 1983, and 1985a/ 43
5-1 Contaminant Concentration Ranges in Leachate Reported in the
Literature 49
5-2 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants and Metals Summary
in Raw Leachate - HWT Study Sampling Results 50
5-3 Overall Summary from the Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste
Leachates in Wisconsin 52
5-4 Most Commonly Occurring Conventionals, Nonconventionals, and
Metals in Leachate Samples - CLP Database, 1980-1983 Data .... 53
5-5 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants and Metals in
Miscellaneous Subtitle D Landfill Leachates 54
5-6 Pollutants in Hazardous Waste Landfill Leachates -
ORD/HWERL Study 55
5-7 Pollutants in Hazardous Waste (Subtitle C) Landfill
Leachates - NEIC Study 56
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE
5-8 Organic Compounds Found in Raw Leachate 58
5-9 Organic Compounds Found in Raw Leachate
Composite of Data Sources 65
5-10 Most Frequently Found Organic Compounds in Leachates 70
5-11 Organic Compounds Found at the Highest Concentrations
in Leachate 72
5-12 Leachate Generation, Wisconsin Study 73
5-13 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants in Raw Scrubber
Wastewaters 77
5-14 Metals in Raw Scrubber Wastewater 78
5-15 Organics in Raw Scrubber Wastewater 79
5-16 Scrubber Wastewater Slowdown Rates 81
5-17 Summary of Hazardous Waste Incinerator Types and Capacities .. 82
5-18 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants in
Aqueous Hazardous Wastes - Summary 85
5-19 Metals in Aqueous Hazardous Wastes - Summary 86
5-20 Pollutants in Aqueous Hazardous Wastes - Summary 89
6-1 Concentrations of Pollutants in Preliminary Treatment System
(Aerated Lagoon) Effluents - Leachate Subcategory 95
6-2 Concentrations of Pollutants in Preliminary Treatment System
Sludge - Leachate Subcategory 98
6-3 Concentrations of Pollutants in Biological Treatment System
Effluents - Leachate Subcategory 100
6-4 Concentrations of Pollutants in Biological Treatment System
Sludge - Leachate Subcategory 102
6-5 Concentrations of Pollutants in Advanced Treatment System
Effluents - Leachate Subcategory 104
6-6 Concentrations of Selected Pollutants in Advanced Treatment
System Sludges - Leachate Subcategory 107
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE
PAGE
6 7 Concentrations of Pollutants in Physical/Chemical Treatment
System Effluents - Scrubber Wastewater Subcategory 110
6-8 Concentrations of Pollutants in Physical/Chemical Treatment
System Sludges - Scrubber Wastewater Subcategory 113
6-9 Concentrations of Pollutants in Advanced Treatment System
Effluents - Scrubber Wastewater Subcategory 115
6-10 Concentrations of Pollutants in Advanced Treatment System
Sludges - Scrubber Wastewater Subcategory 118
6-11 Concentrations of Pollutants in Physical/Chemical Treatment
Systems - Aqueous Treaters Subcategory 122
6-12 Concentrations of Pollutants in Physical/Chemical Treatment
System Sludges - Aqueous Treaters Subcategory 126
6-13 Concentrations of Pollutants in Advanced Treatment System
Effluents - Aqueous Treaters Subcategory 129
6-14 Concentrations of Pollutants in Advanced Treatment System
Sludges - Aqueous Treaters Subcategory 133
7-1 Design Basis for Treatment System Cost Estimates 137
7-2 Model Aqueous Treatment System Costs 143
7-3 Model Leachate Treatment System Costs 144
7-4 Model Scrubber Treatment System Costs 145
7-5 Model Facilities and Costing 147
7-6 Model Plants of Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities and
Control Cost to Revenue Comparison 149
7-7 Cost-Effectiveness Calculation for Scrubber Wastewater
Treatment Systems 151
7-8 Cost-Effectiveness Calculation for Leachate Treatment Systems 153
7-9 Cost-Effectiveness Calculation for Aqueous Treatment Systems . 156
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
5-1 Leachate Flow Rates in Wisconsin ............................. 74
7-1 Model Aqueous Waste Treatment System ......................... 140
7-2 Model Leachate Treatment System .............................. 141
7-3 Model Scrubber Wastewater Treatment System ................... 142
-------
1. FOREWORD
The Industrial Technology Division (ITD) of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted a study of the
hazardous waste treatment industry as a result of findings from
the Domestic Sewage Study. The purpose of this study is to
develop information to characterize the hazardous waste treatment
industry as to the scope of the industry, its operations, its
dischargers to the Nation's waters, and identification and
quantification of the pollutants discharged to the Nation's
waters.
The Agency collected data and information from a variety of
sources from which conclusions were drawn. The information
gathering efforts of the Agency were supplemented by efforts of
the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the Office of Solid
Waste (OSW), local governments, and the states. Wastewater
sampling was conducted at twelve sites and the data collected
represent the best available for characterizing the industry.
Analyses were conducted for over 400 conventional,
nonconventional, priority, and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) pollutants.
Since this report was initially prepared, the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards has continued to obtain information about
the industry, particularly through analysis of responses to the
National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,
and Recycling (TSDR) Facilities conducted by the U.S. EPA Office
of Solid Waste. The TSDR Survey data provides a good deal of new
information on wastewater treatment and the other processes used
to manage hazardous waste, including counts of facilities carrying
out the various hazardous waste management processes and data for
the volume of liquid residuals. As this new material is
considered, the scope of the Agency's rulemaking efforts for
hazardous waste treatment facilities will be determined.
-------
2. SUMMARY
The hazardous waste treatment (HWT) industry was divided into
three subcategories:
Landfills with leachate collection and treatment
facilities
Incinerators with wet scrubbers
Aqueous hazardous waste treaters
The number of facilities in each subcategory was estimated
as follows:
Subcategory Number of Facilities
Landfills with leachate systems 911
Incinerators with wet scrubbers 273
Aqueous hazardous waste treaters 725
The most common method of wastewater disposal for the
landfill and aqueous hazardous waste treater subcategories
was indirect discharge to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs). Incinerators with scrubbers were more commonly
direct dischargers. The breakdown of each subcategory by
discharge method was estimated to be:
Number of Facilities
Direct Indirect Other
Leachate 173 355 383
Wet Scrubbers 137 27 109
Aqueous Treaters 87 515 123
Other discharge included deep well injection, incineration,
off-site disposal, land application, and solidification and
reburial.
EPA Regions V and VI had the largest number of hazardous
waste landfills and incinerators. The largest number of
aqueous waste treatment facilities were in EPA Region V.
-------
Observations made concerning raw landfill leachates include:
Some leachates contained very high concentrations
(>100,000 jug/1) of toxic organic compounds.
The analytical methods used to identify and quantify
organic pollutants in leachate may have a significant
effect on which organics are identified and on the
concentrations found.
Raw leachates were characterized by high concentrations
of BOD5, COD, and TOC.
Volatile organics frequently were found in leachates,
while non-volatile compounds may be present but were not
readily detected.
Hazardous waste landfill leachates appeared to contain
more toxic organic compounds than leachate from Subtitle
D landfills, but this observation may be due to the list
of analytes and/or analytical methodology problems. In
terms of COD and TOC, however, there was no apparent
difference between hazardous waste and Subtitle D
landfills.
- Leachate flow rates varied widely due in part to climatic
and geological conditions, but were not related to the
size of the landfill. Leachate flowrate was estimated
to be 30,000 gpd for an "average" landfill and the
reported range of flow was 0 to 94,000 gpd.
Leachates generally contained high concentrations of
aluminum, iron, manganese, and boron, while the
concentrations of toxic metals varied from below
detection to over 100 mg/1.
Leachates from hazardous waste landfills appeared to
contain higher concentrations of toxic metals than
leachate from Subtitle D landfills.
Raw wastewaters from the incinerator wet scrubber subcategory
were characterized as follows:
Chemical characteristics of raw scrubber wastewaters were
a function of the scrubber system operation. High
ammonia concentrations were found in systems that use
ammonia to neutralize acids. TSS concentrations were
high in systems that did not use lime precipitation.
Raw scrubber wastewaters were characterized by low pH,
high TDS, and high chlorides.
-------
Scrubber wastewaters contained high concentrations of
metals. The metals detected at the highest
concentrations include aluminum, iron, lead, zinc,
mercury, and copper.
Scrubber wastewaters contained very few organic
pollutants.
The average scrubber wastewater discharge was
approximately 93,000 gpd, although flowrates could range
as high as 350,000 gpd.
Observations regarding the pollutants in raw aqueous hazardous
wastes were as follows:
- Aqueous hazardous wastes contained high concentrations
of BOD5, COD, and TOC.
Both metal and organic compounds were found in a wide
range of concentrations and, in some cases, at very high
concentrations.
The organics found most frequently and at the highest
concentrations were industrial solvents (e.g., acetone,
2-butanone, methylene chloride, benzene, and toluene).
The metals found at the highest concentrations and most
frequently were chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, iron,
aluminum, boron, and manganese.
The wide range of concentrations of the toxic pollutants
in the raw waste samples can be attributed to the high
variability of wastes received and treated by these
facilities.
Flowrates at facilities treating aqueous hazardous waste
averaged 45,500 gpd and ranged from 13,600 to 117,000
gpd.
A wide range of treatment technologies was employed for
leachate treatment, including treatment and discharge,
recirculation, solidification and reburial, deep well
injection, and contract hauling.
Advanced leachate treatment systems that involved biological
treatment and physical/chemical effluent polishing processes
were capable of achieving up to 90 percent removal of BOD5_,
COD, TOC, ammonia, and TKN. These systems had achieved
effluent BOD5. concentrations of 10 mg/1 or less. Even with
advanced treatment systems, iron and boron effluent
concentrations average over 1,000 Mg/1- Treated leachate
concentrations of other toxic metals were usually below 500
-------
Mg/1, frequently less than 100 pg/1. Significant metals
removal occurred during the biological treatment process, as
evidenced by the elevated concentrations of metals in the
sludges. The metals with the highest concentrations in the
sludges were those with high concentrations in the raw
leachate (i.e., iron, manganese, aluminum). Boron, whose
concentrations were frequently high in raw leachate,
demonstrated relatively poor removal with high effluent
concentrations and relatively low sludge concentrations.
Scrubber wastewater treatment systems consisted of
technologies designed for the removal of inorganic pollutants.
Chemical precipitation/sedimentation provided metals removal,
and filtration and carbon adsorption were used if necessary
to polish portions of the effluents to meet permit limits.
Consequently, no significant reduction in COD occurred, but
effluent concentrations were relatively low. Even with
advanced treatment, effluent concentrations of iron,
manganese, boron, molybdenum, and zinc were above 1,000 M9/1-
Effluent concentrations of the heavy metals were below 100
In addition to treatment and disposal systems, other methods
of scrubber wastewater disposal included landfill,
evaporation, and contract hauling.
Scrubber wastewater treatment system sludges were found to
contain a large number of dioxin/furan isomers, some at
extremely high concentrations. Dioxins/furans were relatively
insoluble in water and tended to adsorb onto particulates.
Although the treatment system effluents were not analyzed for
dioxins/furans, these compounds may be discharged to POTWs or
surface waters by way of the suspended solids in the treated
effluents. Further analysis of treated effluents is needed
to determine if the treatment technologies in-place were
effectively removing dioxins/furans.
Aqueous hazardous waste treatment systems ranged from
precipitation/sedimentation units to advanced secondary and
tertiary systems.
Precipitation/sedimentation units at aqueous hazardous waste
treaters achieve large reductions in heavy metals; however,
toxic organics receive limited treatment and pass through the
treatment system.
Advanced treatment systems at aqueous hazardous waste treaters
are more effective in removing organic compounds; however,
high effluent concentrations of organic compounds are common
even with advanced treatment. This conclusion is supported
by high effluent concentrations of indicator pollutants such
as BOD5, TOC, and COD, which show relatively poor removals.
-------
The relatively poor removal of TOC and BOD5 by advanced
treatment systems employing biological treatment and/or
carbon adsorption indicates the potential for discharges of
poorly treated hazardous wastes to POTWs or surface waters.
Advanced treatment systems demonstrated metals removal
efficiencies and effluent concentrations similar to those
achieved by physical/chemical treatment systems.
Many of the toxic organic pollutants accepted by aqueous
hazardous waste treatment facilities are not effectively
removed by physical/chemical or advanced treatment systems.
Effluent concentrations of individual organic compounds can
exceed 10,000 M9/1/ even with advanced treatment technologies,
such as carbon adsorption. Biological treatment is also
relatively ineffective in the treatment of some organic
compounds.
High concentrations of a large number of isomers were found
in the treatment sludges of aqueous waste treaters. However,
the effluent samples were not tested for dioxins/furans.
Dioxins/furans are relatively insoluble in water and tend to
adsorb on particulates. High effluent TSS concentrations were
found from both physical/chemical and advanced treatment
systems, which indicates the potential for the discharge of
these isomers. Sampling and testing of treatment system
effluents for dioxins/furans is necessary to establish the
concentrations of these compounds in treated effluent and the
effectiveness of various treatment systems for their removal.
Treatment costs were developed based on treatment technologies
that correspond to common, typically sized, facilities
operating in the HWT industry. Cost estimate developed for
a typically sized facility in each subcategory are:
Operating Cost, Annualized
Subcategory Investment. $ $/yr Cost. $/yr
Leachate Treatment 806,000 286,000 542,500
Scrubber Wastewater 1,501,000 381,000 854,300
Aqueous Treaters 767,000 325,000 569,600
Leachate treatment could increase municipal landfill tipping
fees.
Implementation of the model wastewater treatment technologies
would result in a net decrease in air emissions and increases
in the amount of solid wastes generated and energy consumed.
Air emissions potentially could be reduced by 39.6 million
pounds of volatile pollutants per year. The amount of
additional sludge generated could be as high as 380,000 metric
-------
*•
tons per year. The amount of increased energy consumed as a
result of possible regulations could total 91,000 barrels of
No. 2 fuel per year. These conservative estimates assume that
no treatment is currently in-place.
The cost of implementing the model technologies was modest
compared to average revenues for the HWT industry- The
average incinerator would be required to increase revenues by
4.7 percent to cover control costs. A municipal landfill and
hazardous waste landfill would increase tipping fees by 35.5
and 3.8 percent, respectively. An aqueous treater would be
required to increase revenues by 3.0 percent to cover control
costs.
The toxic organic raw waste loads and metals raw waste loads
for each subcategory, based on the total number of facilities
in each subcategory, were estimated to be:
Raw Waste Load, Ib/vear
Subcategory Total Toxic Organic Total Metals
Leachate 50,090,000 35,500,000
Wet Scrubbers 353,000 26,940,000
Aqueous Treaters 23,680,000 406,150,000
The raw waste loads for the regulated community (direct and
indirect discharges only) were estimated to be:
Raw Waste Load. Ib/yr
No. of Facilities Total Toxic
Subcategory Direct Indirect Orqanics Total Metals
Leachate 173 355 29,030,000 20,580,000
Wet Scrubbers 137 27 212,000 16,180,000
Aqueous Treaters 87 515 19,660,000 337,250,000
Environmental impacts of the leachate subcategory, based on
the combined data base from six independent studies, found of
the total 215 pollutants detected, 111 were at levels that
may be harmful to human health and/or aquatic life if
discharged untreated directly into surface waters. Of the
111 pollutants (with exceedances), 70 would exceed human
health criteria (41 for carcinogenicity protection, 29 for
toxicity protection), 39 would exceed acute or short-term
aquatic criteria/toxicity levels, and 87 would exceed chronic
or long-term aquatic criteria/toxicity levels. In addition,
32 pollutants in untreated leachates would exceed
existing/proposed EPA drinking water criteria. Most of these
111 pollutants have both human health and aquatic life
impacts.
-------
Indirect discharges of untreated leachates, based on projected
discharge to a model 1 MGD POTW, may cause POTWs to exceed
human health criteria for 24 pollutants (23 of these are
carcinogens) , drinking water criteria for 2 pollutants, and
acute and chronic aquatic criteria/toxicity levels for 7 and
10 pollutants, respectively- In addition, 4 pollutants may
have detrimental impacts on POTWs (4 causing POTW treatment
inhibition, 1 causing sludge contamination problems).
However, this analysis was based on limited POTW inhibition
data and sludge criteria.
Environmental impacts of the scrubber subcategory were
evaluated using 1986-1987 EPA-ITD sampling data. This
subcategory discharges 30 pollutants, of which 27 were
detected at levels that would be harmful to human health
and/or aquatic life if discharged untreated directly into
surface waters. Of these 30 pollutants, 13 would exceed human
health criteria (5 for carcinogenicity protection, 8 for human
toxicity protection) , 9 pollutants would exceed acute or
short-term aquatic criteria/toxicity levels. In addition, 11
pollutants in untreated wastewaters are discharged at levels
projected to exceed EPA existing/proposed drinking water
criteria. Most of the 27 pollutants with exceedances are
projected to impact both human health and aquatic life.
Indirect discharges of untreated wastewater, based on
projected discharge to a model 1 MGD POTW, may cause POTWs to
exceed human health criteria for 3 pollutants and acute and
chronic aquatic criteria toxicity levels for 6 and 7
pollutants, respectively. Six pollutants were projected to
have detrimental impacts on POTWs (4 may cause inhibition, 6
may cause sludge contamination problems), based on limited
inhibition data and sludge criteria.
The environmental impacts of the aqueous subcategory, based
on data from both the EPA-ITD and OSW studies, found the total
number of pollutants with exceedances, as well as the number
of human health, drinking water, and/or aquatic life
exceedances for most of the pollutants, projected for direct
discharges of untreated wastewater was 55. Of these 55
pollutants, 31 would exceed human health criteria (21 for
carcinogenicity protection, 10 for toxicity protection), 22
would exceed existing/proposed EPA drinking water criteria,
17 would exceed acute or short-term aquatic life
criteria/toxicity levels, and 36 would exceed chronic or
long-term aquatic life criteria/toxicity levels.
Indirect discharges of untreated wastewater, based upon
projected discharge to a model 1 MGD POTW, may cause POTWs to
exceed human health criteria for 12 pollutants (10 for
carcinogenicity protection), acute aquatic life
8
-------
criteria/toxicity levels for 7 pollutants, chronic aquatic
life criteria/ toxicity levels for 10 pollutants, and drinking
water criteria for 4 pollutants in their receiving streams.
In addition, six pollutants may have detrimental impacts on
POTWs (6 causing POTW treatment inhibition, 6 causing sludge
contamination problems).
-------
3. INTRODUCTION
The study of hazardous waste treatment facilities is being
conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) with assistance from Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC) under Contract No. 68-03-5309. The purpose of
the study was to develop information to characterize the hazardous
waste treatment (HWT) industry's scope, operations, and discharge
to the Nation's waters, and to identify and quantify the pollutants
in the discharge.
This study of the HWT industry was conducted under authority
of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Water Quality
Act (WQA). In addition to regulations for designated industry
categories, Section 307(a) of the WQA required promulgation of
effluent standards applicable to all dischargers of toxic
pollutants.
For the purposes of this study, the HWT industry has been defined
as follows:
Landfills with leachate collection and treatment
facilities. In this study, the term leachate was used
to describe all aqueous discharges from landfills. This
discharge can include both leachates collected from the
bottom of the landfill and any groundwater recovered at
the site.
Incinerators with wet scrubbers.
Aqueous hazardous waste treaters.
3.1 SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) of 1976 directed EPA to promulgate regulations to protect
human health and the environment from the improper management of
hazardous wastes. Based on this statutory mandate, the goal of
the RCRA program is to provide comprehensive, "cradle-to-grave"
management of hazardous waste. Key statutory provisions in RCRA
Subtitle C include:
Section 3001 - requiring the promulgation of regulations
identifying the characteristics of
hazardous waste and listing particular
hazardous wastes
10
-------
Section 3002 - requiring the promulgation of standards
(e.g., manifesting, recordkeeping, etc.
applicable to generators of hazardous
wastes
Section 3003 - requiring the promulgation of standards
(e.g., manifesting, recordkeeping, etc.)
applicable to transporters of hazardous
wastes
Section 3004 - requiring the promulgation of performance
standards applicable to the owners and
operators of facilities for the
treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous wastes
Section 3005 - requiring the promulgation of regulations
requiring each person owning or operating
a treatment, storage, or disposal
facility (TSDF) to obtain a permit issued
pursuant to Section 3005.
In 1980, EPA began promulgating regulations to implement these and
other statutory directives contained in RCRA.
Under RCRA, waste management requirements are initially
triggered by a determination that a waste is hazardous as defined
in RCRA hazardous waste identification and listing regulations (40
CFR Part 261). Any party producing a hazardous waste is termed a
generator under RCRA. A generator must provide notification to
EPA and obtain an EPA identification number. Subsequent
transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of the wastes is
subject to waste tracking requirements (i.e., manifesting
requirements) and numerous other management requirements under
RCRA. Any party, including the original generator, that treats,
stores, or disposes of a hazardous waste also must provide
notification to EPA and obtain an EPA identification number. These
facilities, typically referred to as treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs), are subject to extensive RCRA
performance standards pertaining to the management of these wastes.
Existing RCRA regulations contain performance standards for various
types of treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) units, including
containers, tanks, surface impoundments, waste piles, land
treatment units, landfills, and incinerators (40 CFR Parts 264 and
265) . Moreover, TSDFs are required to obtain RCRA permits, known
as Part B permits, to ensure their compliance with all applicable
performance standards. Where a hazardous waste is transported off-
site from a generator's premises, the transporter also is regulated
by the hazardous waste management system and must comply with
manifesting requirements to ensure delivery of the hazardous waste
to an approved TSDF.
11
-------
In interpreting relevant statutory provisions of RCRA, EPA has
granted broad exemptions from RCRA requirements in areas relating
to wastewater management. The three key wastewater exemptions
include:
Domestic sewage exclusion - excludes from regulation as
either a solid or hazardous waste any mixture of domestic
sewage and other wastes that passes through a sewer
system to a POTW for treatment. Based on current Agency
interpretation, the exemption begins when the waste first
enters a sewer system that will mix it with sanitary
wastes prior to POTW storage or treatment, but does not
exclude' industrial wastewaters while they are being
collected, stored, or treated prior to discharge to a
POTW.
Direct discharge exclusion - excludes from regulation as
either a solid or hazardous waste any industrial
wastewater dischargers that are point source dischargers
subject to regulation under WQA Section 402. This
exemption begins when the wastewater is first discharged
to surface waters, but does not exclude industrial
wastewaters while they are being collected, stored, or
treated prior to discharge to surface waters.
Wastewater treatment exemption - exempts wastewater
treatment units from TSDF performance standards and
permitting requirements. A wastewater treatment unit is
defined as a device that is part of a wastewater
treatment facility subject to regulation under WQA
Sections 402(a) or 307(b); treats or stores influent
wastewaters or wastewater treatment sludges that are
hazardous; and meets the definition of tank contained in
40 CFR Part 260. The term "tank" is defined as a
stationary device constructed primarily of nonearthen
materials (e.g., wood, concrete, steel, plastic) that
provides structural support.
The basic rationale for these exemptions rests in the belief
that most aspects of wastewater management systems can be
adequately regulated under existing National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and pretreatment provisions. Certain
treatment units such as surface impoundments are nonetheless fully
regulated under RCRA because of their potential effects on other
environmental media, especially groundwater.
3.1.1 Regulation of Hazardous and Solid Waste Landfills
Landfill units currently are regulated under either Subtitle
C or Subtitle D of RCRA, depending on the regulatory status of
wastes managed at the landfill. RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste
12
-------
regulations apply, with certain exceptions, to landfills that
presently accept hazardous wastes or have accepted hazardous waste
at any time after November 19, 1980. Technical standards for
interim status hazardous waste landfills are contained in 40 CFR
Part 265, Subpart N, while RCRA-permitted landfills are regulated
under provisions contained in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart N. These
standards apply equally to on-site landfills maintained by
hazardous waste generators, and off-site or commercial landfills
that accept hazardous waste from generators on a commercial basis.
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA
significantly strengthened controls on hazardous waste landfills
by establishing minimum technology requirements. These provisions
require the installation of double liner and leachate collection
systems at new landfills, new landfills at existing facilities,
replacements of existing units, and lateral expansion of existing
units. While these provisions do not mandate costly retrofitting
of existing portions of these landfills with liners and leachate
collection systems, most hazardous waste landfills that retained
interim status following the November 8, 1987, deadline for
groundwater monitoring and financial responsibility certifications
(i.e., the so-called loss of interim status certifications) already
have installed leachate collection systems. Widespread
installation of leachate collection systems at active hazardous
waste landfills probably reflects a concern on the part of these
facilities that any releases to groundwater from these units are
likely to be detected by groundwater monitoring and may require
expensive cleanup under RCRA corrective action provisions.
The extent of leachate collection by landfill units that lost
interim status on November 8, 1986 is far less certain. While
these landfills will be required to perform groundwater monitoring
to comply with RCRA closure requirements, they are not specifically
required to install leachate collection systems as a condition for
unit closure. Nonetheless, where these units are found to be
contaminating groundwater, installation of leachate collection
systems may be necessary to provide long-term control of unit
releases to groundwater. HSWA also imposed severe restrictions on
the types of hazardous waste that may be disposed of in landfill
units. For example, the Agency has restricted the land disposal
of specific hazardous wastes as necessary to protect human health
and the environment. In accordance with a schedule mandated by
HSWA, EPA currently is reviewing all hazardous wastes for possible
land disposal restrictions, and establishing Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT) treatment standards to control the land
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Landfills managing nonhazardous wastes currently are regulated
under the RCRA Subtitle D program. Subtitle D landfills include
municipal/commercial landfills used for the management of municipal
refuse, incinerator ash, sewage sludge, and a range of industrial
wastes, as well as private industrial landfills used for on-site
13
-------
management of industrial wastes. Current Subtitle D criteria for
classification (40 CFR Part 257) state that a landfill is
considered to be an open dump if it contaminates an underground
drinking water source. However, current regulations do not impose
design or operational standards such as leachate collection
requirements on the Subtitle D landfills. Nonetheless, as
evidenced by existing data on Subtitle D facilities, some of these
landfills already have installed leachate collection systems to
prevent off-site releases to groundwater.
Under HSWA, EPA roust revise Subtitle D criteria that apply to
facilities receiving household hazardous wastes or small quantity
generator (SQG) wastes by March 31, 1988. These revisions must
include groundwater monitoring requirements and corrective action,
where appropriate. Imposition of groundwater monitoring and
corrective action requirements on these facilities will likely
result in increased use of leachate collection systems to control
re leases to groundwater. EPA also must evaluate other Subtitle
D land disposal facilities to determine whether the existing
criteria are adequate to protect human health and the environment
from groundwater contamination.
Landfills that closed prior to the effective date of the
Agency's hazardous waste regulation (October 30, 1980) and
nonhazardous waste landfills may be regulated under RCRA Subtitle
C corrective action requirements when located at RCRA treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. Under 1984 corrective action
amendments, EPA may require corrective action for releases from
solid waste management units, including nonhazardous waste
landfills that could include collection of leachate and/or
groundwater pumping discharges.
3.1.2 Regulation of Hazardous Waste and PCS Incinerators
Hazardous waste incinerator units currently are regulated
under RCRA Subtitle C. Technical standards for interim status and
RCRA-permitted incinerators are outlined in 40 CFR Part 265,
Subpart 0 and 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O, respectively. These
standards apply equally to on-site incinerators operated by
hazardous waste generators, and off-site or commercial incinerators
that accept hazardous waste from generators on a commercial basis.
Current RCRA standards for permitted incinerators require
99.99 percent destruction and removal efficiency (ORE) for
principal organic hazardous constituents (POHC) and 99.9999 ORE
for dioxins and furans in the waste feed to the incinerators.
Permitting standards also control incinerator emission rates of
hydrogen chloride and particulates. Although RCRA interim status
standards do not directly regulate emission rates, many interim
status incinerators already are equipped with air pollution control
devices to control emission of gases and particulates. Facilities
14
-------
will generate scrubber liquids and sludges that require treatment
and disposal when wet systems such as venturi scrubbers are used
for the control of incinerator emissions. Because scrubbers may
be used to control both gases (i.e., hydrogen chloride) and
particulates, in contrast with dry systems such as bag houses,
which control only particulates, generation of scrubber wastewaters
by hazardous waste incinerators will likely increase as incinerator
permitting progresses.
Several ongoing regulatory and programmatic developments are
likely to create a shortfall in hazardous waste incineration
capacity, and may result in the construction and permitting of new
incinerators. For example, the land disposal ban program will
curtail land disposal of certain wastes and will require selection
of alternative treatment and disposal methods for these wastes.
Incineration already has been designated as BOAT for a range of
non aqueous solvent wastes, and will likely be defined as BDAT for
numerous organic wastes considered in the future.
Also, EPA recently proposed the regulation of Subtitle C
industrial boilers and furnaces managing hazardous waste, and is
considering the imposition of emission controls on organics,
hydrogen chloride, and metals for these units. If these
restrictions are promulgated, some industrial facilities may choose
to transfer these wastes from boilers and furnace units to on-site
or off-site incinerators instead of retrofitting existing boilers
or furnaces to comply with new controls. Wastes generated by
facility clean-ups undertaken in response to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA)/RCRA corrective criteria and state cleanup programs also
will increase the demand for hazardous waste incineration capacity.
The Agency projects a shortage of incineration capacity as a result
of the land disposal restrictions (51 FR 40614).
Disposal of wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
currently is regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). Technical standards for PCB disposal, including
incineration and burning in boilers and furnaces, are contained in
40 CFR Part 761. In instances where PCBs are constituents of a
hazardous waste (e.g., solvents), a permitting official would apply
the more stringent of the RCRA or TSCA rules in regulating the
incinerator operation.
3.1.3 Regulation of Commercial Aqueous Waste Treatment Facilities
Commercial aqueous waste treatment facilities use numerous
physical, chemical, and biological processes (e.g., neutralization,
chemical precipitation, and biological treatment) for the treatment
of aqueous hazardous waste from off-site generators. Presently,
the treatment processes themselves are not directly regulated under
RCRA Subtitle C unless the hazardous wastewater treatment
15
-------
operations are conducted in surface impoundments rather than tanks.
Surface impoundments are regulated as hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal (TSD) units under RCRA Subtitle C, and must
comply with stringent technical standards (e.g., liner
requirements, groundwater monitoring) designed primarily to prevent
the release of waste constituents to groundwater. RCRA technical
standards do not, however, regulate effluents discharged from these
units to surface waters or POTWs.
RCRA technical standards also may apply to ancillary waste
management operations such as storage or other TSD units (i.e.,
incinerators or landfills) where the aqueous hazardous waste
treatment operation is part of an integrated hazardous waste
facility. Where a commercial aqueous hazardous waste treatment
facility has at least one regulated TSD unit on-site, the facility
becomes RCRA-regulated TSDF and accordingly is subject to RCRA
corrective action requirements. Under RCRA corrective action, the
facility may be required to address releases from regulated TSD
units and solid waste management units (SWMUs), including
wastewater treatment units, located at the site.
3.2 DISCUSSION OF WQA REQUIREMENTS
3.2.1 Regulation of Direct Discharges to Surface Water
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), direct discharges to surface
waters are controlled through the imposition of effluent
limitations contained in NPDES permits issued by authority of CWA
Section 402. Effluent limits developed by a permit writer may be
based on the following guidelines promulgated by authority of CWA
Sections 301 or 306:
Best practicable control technology currently available
(BPT) - intended to provide an initial set of discharge
controls on the discharge of conventional pollutants from
existing sources.
Best available technology economically achievable (BAT)
intended to provide additional controls on the
discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
Best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) -
intended to provide additional controls on the discharge
of conventional pollutants (i.e., BOD, TSS, pH, fecal
coliform, and oil/grease).
New source performance standards (NSPS) - intended to
provide discharge controls for new sources.
16
-------
The current framework for control of toxic pollutants is contained
? .a settlement a9reement negotiated in 1976 between EPA and
plaintiff environmental groups. This agreement required EPA to
develop a program and adhere to a schedule for promulgating BAT
effluent guidelines, pretreatment standards (for indirect
dischargers), and new source performance standards for 65
pollutants and pollutant classes potentially discharged by 21 major
industries [see Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train. 8 ERC
2120 (D.D.C.)]. The basic elements of the NRDC consent decree
subsequently were codified in the 1977 CWA amendments.
While addressing most major manufacturing industries, the
consent decree currently does not encompass waste management
facilities such as landfills, incinerators, and aqueous waste
treatment facilities. As a result of longstanding RCRA exemptions
for hazardous wastes disposed of and treated in wastewater systems
(both direct and indirect) as well as expected additional demands
by hazardous waste handlers on the use of wastewater systems due
to RCRA regulatory actions and decreased disposal capacity for
CERCLA wastes, the Office of Water (OW) is reviewing the need for
developing additional wastewater discharge limitations. In part,
this OW response is based on Section 3018 (b) of RCRA, which
requires that the Agency promulgate additional wastewater treatment
requirements for indirect dischargers, as the Administrator deems
necessary as a result of the findings of the 3018(b) Report to
Congress.
The U.S. EPA's "Report to Congress on Hazardous Waste
Discharges to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works" determined that POTWs
were handling significant quantities of hazardous constituents
discharged by categorical industries, improvements to the
pretreatment programs would result in enhancing POTW capability to
control such discharges, and that further study was necessary,
particularly with respect to the rates and effect of those
pollutants. The report did not address the quantity, type, fate,
and effects of hazardous waste constituents discharged by direct
dischargers; however, existing data on the practices of hazardous
waste handlers suggest that direct discharge wastewater systems are
used for hazardous constituent treatment.
EPA has not yet promulgated effluent guidelines to assist
permit writers in formulating NPDES permits for hazardous waste
treatment facilities. In the absence of these guidelines, permit
writers must rely wholly on their own best professional judgment
(BPJ) in setting limits for discharges by these facilities. This
process requires a permit writer to make complex, site-specific
determinations, often evaluating factors such as wastewater
characteristics, pollutant concentrations, available pollution
control technologies, and water quality constraints.
New source performance standards (NSPS) may have particular
importance for the HWT industrial sector, due to increasing
17
-------
restrictions on certain waste management practices (e.g., land
disposal). Some industrial facilities may choose to send wastes
off-site to commercial facilities in lieu of pursuing on-site
management options. These trends will increase the demand for
commercial treatment and disposal capacity, and result in the
siting and construction of new commercial facilities. Applicable
discharge controls are likely to represent a key consideration in
the design and construction of these facilities.
Wastewaters generated by on-site hazardous waste treatment
units such as landfills and incinerators are not addressed
specifically by effluent guidelines for specific industrial
categories covered by the NRDC consent decree. For example,
effluent guidelines do not establish process-specific limits for
scrubber wastewaters from on-site hazardous waste incinerators or
leachate from on-site industrial landfills. Existing permit limits
may not offer adequate control in instances where hazardous
residuals contain different pollutants (e.g., dioxins, furans) or
pollutants in greater concentrations than other plant wastewaters.
Again, where effluent guidelines do not specifically cover a
certain wastewater generated by an individual facility, the permit
writer must exercise BPJ in developing appropriate limits for these
waste streams. Nonetheless, where pollutants contained in these
wastewaters are identified as similar to pollutants contained in
other regulated waste streams, the NPDES permit limits should
provide some control of constituents contained in residuals from
hazardous waste treatment units.
3.2.2 Regulation of Indirect Discharges to Publicly-Owned
Treatment Works
Under the CWA, discharges to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) are controlled through the imposition of pretreatment
standards promulgated by authority of CWA Section 307. These
standards apply to wastewater discharged by an industrial facility
to a POTW collection system. Certain types of pretreatment
standards, referred to as national categorical standards, apply
uniformly to all facilities determined to be within the scope of
the regulated industrial category. Categorical standards include:
Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) -
intended to pro vide controls on pollutant discharges by
existing sources.
Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) - intended
to provide controls on pollutant discharges by new
sources.
As mandated by the NRDC consent decree and 1977 CWA amendments, EPA
is required to promulgate categorical pretreatment standards for
the 21 major industries enumerated in the consent decree.
18
-------
General prohibitions prevent the discharge of pollutants that
interfere with POTW treatment processes or pass through the POTW,
causing water quality violations. Other specific prohibitions
?J K dlschar
-------
4. HWT INDUSTRY PROFILE
The hazardous waste treatment (HWT) industry includes those
facilities that generate and discharge wastewaters to surface
waters or Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) as a result of
RCRA-regulated activities involving the storage, treatment, or
disposal of toxic wastes. This industry can produce wastewaters
by the following methods:
Treatment and discharge of aqueous liquid hazardous
wastes.
Discharge of air pollution scrubber wastewaters from
incinerator operations.
Leachates from landfills. For the purpose of this study,
the term leachate refers to all landfill aqueous
discharges.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the discharge of these wastewaters
to surface waters and POTWs is not regulated by RCRA, nor is it
covered by other categorical standards.
Although the HWT industry has been studied extensively for its
management of hazardous wastes, there are limited data on the
generation and disposal of wastewaters from these facilities. EPA
has not yet undertaken a detailed and comprehensive study of the
wastewater generated by the HWT industry; therefore, a definitive
profile of this industry is not available. However, current data
bases and the literature have been reviewed and evaluated; a
telephone verification of information supplied by TSDFs to EPA
under authority of RCRA was undertaken for a small segment of the
industry; and EPA regional and State environmental files were
reviewed to help to profile this industry. This effort has resulted
in a preliminary profile, which is presented in this Section and
includes:
The types of facilities and their operations
The number of facilities
The geographic distribution of the industry
Their methods of discharge.
20
-------
4.1 DEFINITION OF THE HWT INDUSTRY
For the purpose of this study, the HWT industry is defined as
follows: '
Commercial HWT facilities, including commercial
incinerators, landfills, and aqueous treaters
Incinerators at on-site generators that discharge
scrubber wastewater
Landfills at on-si,te generators that collect and dispose
of leachate
Municipal landfills that collect and dispose of leachate
Subtitle D landfills that collect and dispose of leachate
On-site generators not regulated by categorical standards
that discharge wastewater associated with their TSD
operations.
As a result of this definition, the HWT industry consists primarily
of noncategorical facilities (e.g., facilities not currently
regulated by categorical discharge standards); however, a number
of facilities regulated by categorical discharge standards are also
commercial HWT facilities, and therefore are included in this
definition. An example of such a facility is the DuPont Deepwater,
New Jersey facility, which is an organic chemicals manufacturing
plant (OCPSF category) that accepts aqueous hazardous waste from
the entire United States for comingling and treatment.
Noncategorical on-site generators are an ill-defined group of
facilities. Included in this grouping are Paragraph 8 industries
and Federal facilities such as Army depots and Department of Energy
government owned and contractor operated (GOCO) facilities.
Although included in the HWT industry, the data available for
noncategorical on-site generators are limited.
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE HWT INDUSTRY
The HWT industry can be divided into three major subcategories
for the purpose of this study:
Leachate treatment facilities - provide collection and
treatment of aqueous discharge from on-site, commercial,
municipal, private, hazardous waste, industrial, and/or
Subtitle D landfills. These discharges can include
leachate collected at the bottom of the landfill and any
groundwater removed from the water table.
21
-------
Incinerator scrubber wastewater treatment facilities -
limited to those facilities treating only incinerator
scrubber wastewater or on-site generators of incinerator
scrubber wastewater that combine the incinerator scrubber
wastes with other wastewaters for treatment.
Aqueous hazardous waste treatment facilities - provide
physical, chemical, and/or biological treatment of
hazardous and nonhazardous wastewaters, including
leachate from on-site and off-site landfills and process
wastewaters from on-site and off-site manufacturing
operations. Whereas leachate treatment facilities only
handle on-site generated wastewaters, commercial aqueous
treaters handle a variety of wastewaters, including
leachate.
4.2.1 Landfills and Leachate Collection and Treatment
Landfills commonly are described by the types of wastes that
they accept or by their design. Some of the terms used to describe
types of landfills are municipal, sanitary, chemical, industrial,
secure, RCRA, hazardous waste, Subtitle C, and Subtitle D. Although
municipal landfills do not knowingly accept hazardous wastes, they
can contain these wastes due to disposal practices that occurred
prior to RCRA. The HWT industry includes all landfills that
discharge leachate.
As a result of past design practices, most Subtitle D
landfills do not have leachate collection systems or liners. These
landfills were designed with the intent of using the natural soils
and groundwater flow system to attenuate the leachate generated by
the wastes. The difficulty in finding appropriate sites and the
growing concern that the contaminant loadings generated exceeded
the attenuative capacity of even the most suitable sites led to
the concept of containment designs. Containment landfills have
clay or synthetic liners along with leachate collection systems.
Depending on the design of the landfill, higher groundwater flows
into the site may result in higher leachate generation rates.
Most Subtitle C landfills that retained interim status after
November 7, 1985, have liners and leachate collection; however,
only new landfills and expansions and replacements of interim
status landfills are required to have a double liner with leachate
collection under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) to RCRA. Loss of Interim Status (LOIS) landfills continue
to generate leachate, although they no longer accept wastes and
are undergoing closure.
As a result of past practices and regulations (both RCRA and
state), leachate collection is limited to a small percentage of
the landfills existing in the United States. Current design
22
-------
practices and regulations have resulted in the installation of
liners and leachate collection systems in the new cells as they
are opened at Subtitle C landfills. The result is an increasing
volume of leachate that requires treatment and disposal.
Subtitle C and some Subtitle D landfills presently screen
incoming wastes. Screening can range from spot checks of municipal
refuse trucks to extensive sampling and quality assurance (QA)
procedures, which can result in the barring of trucks carrying
banned wastes. Screening by Subtitle D facilities is important,
since RCRA regulations require that Subtitle D facilities only
accept nonhazardous wastes. A list of excluded wastes often is
posted at Subtitle D facilities and is provided to regular users
of the facility.
Subtitle C facilities are required to obtain a detailed
physical and chemical analysis of a representative sample of wastes
accepted for burial. In addition, RCRA prohibits the landfilling
of bulk or noncontainerized liquids, nonhazardous liquids in
Subtitle C landfills and liquids adsorbed in materials that
biodegrade or release liquids when compressed, and some solvents.
These prohibitions are fairly recent (since 1984, and in some cases
November 1986), and consequently, existing hazardous waste
(Subtitle C) landfills contain the prohibited wastes, having
accepted these wastes in the past.
4.2.2 Incinerators and Scrubber Wastewater
The most common type of incinerator in hazardous waste service
is liquid injection, representing 64 percent of the incinerators
in 1981. Liquid injection incinerators can burn only liquid
wastes. The next most common types of incinerators are the fixed
hearth and the rotary kiln. Both of these will dispose of solids
and/or liquid wastes, including containerized wastes and drums.
RCRA regulations require that permitted hazardous waste
incinerators achieve 99.99 percent destruction for each principal
organic hazardous constituent designated in the facility's permit
for each waste feed. Incinerators permitted to burn dioxins and
furans are required to achieve 99.9999 percent destruction.
Incinerators burning polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are regulated
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), not RCRA. Interim
status facilities are not required to meet any performance
standards.
RCRA requires that permitted hazardous waste incinerators
control hydrogen chloride gas (HCl) and particulates in their stack
emissions. Most facilities, including those with interim status,
are equipped with at least one air pollution control device. These
devices include venturi scrubbers, ionizing wet scrubbers,
baghouses, and electrostatic precipitators. The venturi and
ionizing wet scrubbers remove both gases and particulates,
23
-------
generating scrubber wastewaters for treatment and disposal; the
baghouses, which are dry, remove only particulates. Electrostatic
precipitators can be either wet or dry.
Commercial hazardous waste incineration facilities screen the
wastes that they accept to ensure compliance with their interim
status RCRA or final RCRA permit requirements. Screening
procedures include analyses of representative waste samples, spot
checks of incoming shipments, or bans on specific waste types. For
example, only TSCA incinerators will accept PCB-containing wastes.
Some facilities also refuse to accept certain wastes because of
limitations in their air emissions permit or local limits in their
wastewater (pretreatment) permit.
Presently, there are less than six incinerators that are
permitted by TSCA to burn PCB-containing wastes. It is believed
that only a few years remain in the PCS incineration market due to
declining generation of PCB liquids and the preferred method of
chemical destruction of these wastes rather than incineration. PCB
incinerators then will be used to destroy other RCRA wastes or
PCB-contaminated solids.
4.2.3 Acrueous Hazardous Waste Treaters
Aqueous hazardous waste treaters provide treatment of wastewaters
containing high concentrations of toxic or hazardous pollutants.
Aqueous treaters include both on-site generators that are not
regulated by categorical discharge standards but treat process
wastewater, and commercial hazardous waste treaters. Commercial
treaters provide a service to other facilities that cannot provide
treatment on-site. Facilities that transport wastes to commercial
aqueous hazardous waste treaters include:
Landfills that choose not to provide treatment on-site
or do not have an acceptable receiving stream or sewer
line available
On-site operators who find it more cost-effective to
contract haul their waste to a commercial facility.
Commercial hazardous waste treaters differ from centralized
treatment systems in that centralized treatment facilities are
designed to treat one type of waste, and usually only accept waste
from a fixed number of clients. For example, a number of
electroplaters in one community may use one central treatment
facility for treatment of their common wastewaters. Commercial
aqueous hazardous waste treaters handle a range of hazardous wastes
and will accept any wastes that pass their screening procedures.
Treatment provided at the commercial waste treaters may
include pretreatment of specific waste types (e.g., cyanide
24
-------
destruction), physical/chemical treatment, biological treatment,
and tertiary treatment. The attraction of aqueous hazardous waste
treatment is that the treated effluent is excluded from RCRA
regulations, which only regulate the storage and handling of the
wastes before and during treatment [40 CFR 261.4(a)(2)]. No RCRA
performance standards exist for these treatment systems, although
the final effluent must meet either National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit limitations or pretreatment
standards. Wastes treated by these facilities include:
Pesticides • PCBS
• Plating baths . Paints and inks
Cyanides . Metal bearing wastes
Flammable wastes • Halogenated organics
Acidic wastes • Nonhalogenated organics
Caustics . Reactives
Oily wastes • Halogenated solvents
Commercial chemical products • Nonhalogenated solvents
Leachate from hazardous waste landfills
Commercial aqueous hazardous waste treaters also are required
to screen the wastes that they receive. RCRA regulations require
a chemical/physical analysis of a representative sample. In
addition, some commercial facilities limit the types of waste that
they will accept for treatment due to restrictions in their
operating permit, limitations in the capabilities of their
treatment systems, and/or effluent limitations in their NPDES or
pretreatment permits.
4.2.4 Integrated Facilities
The HWT industry includes a number of large, complex
facilities that offer a variety of hazardous waste management
services at a single facility- These facilities can include an
incinerator, an aqueous treatment system, and a landfill. Although
presently there are only a few of these integrated facilities, a
survey of the RCRA Part B applications indicated that a large
number of the commercial facilities are planning to expand into
integrated facilities by offering additional services at existing
sites.
Currently, many commercial facilities serve as brokers for
their customers. That is, a commercial facility will accept wastes
from a customer even though it is unable to treat it at its own
facility- However, the commercial facility will arrange to have
the waste treated at another commercial facility. In this way, a
generator does not have to search for and ship each unique waste
to a different commercial facility.
25
-------
4.3 NUMBER OF HWT FACILITIES
The following sections present estimates of the number of HWT
facilities by subcategory. The estimates reflect data gathered
from numerous sources, which have been used to develop a best
estimate of the number of facilities in each subcategory.
4.3.1 Landfills
Table 4-1 presents an estimate of the number of hazardous
waste and Subtitle D landfills in the United States using data
collected from numerous sources. The Office of Solid Wastes (OSW)
February 1987 report lists 49 commercial hazardous waste landfills,
which corresponds closely to a 1985 publication (Ref. 8) that
includes 43 facilities. The OSW count includes one facility whose
permit was denied. While both of these sources report only active
landfills, the Hazardous Waste Data Management System (HWDMS) data
base includes landfills undergoing closure. The February 1987 OSW
report listed 18 landfills undergoing closure, including 11 that
have not submitted a closure plan. The remaining discrepancy
between HWDMS and the OSW counts is probably due to the fact that
HWDMS includes five or six protective filers and a few landfills
that subsequently have been reclassified as waste piles or surface
impoundments.
Environmental Information's (E.I.'s) Directory contains 34
landfills, which is the smallest number of commercial hazardous
waste landfills. This directory is a sourcebook for generators in
search of a commercial firm to serve their needs. Commercial
facilities are listed in the directory based on response to a
questionnaire distributed by E.I.
For the purpose of this analysis, the number of commercial
hazardous waste landfills was estimated to be 67. This number
represents the sum of the active (49) and closure (18) facilities
taken from OSW's report. Facilities undergoing closure were
included in the estimate because leachate generation does not
necessarily cease with the closure of a site.
The HWDMS data base estimates 155 hazardous waste landfills
at categorical generators and an additional 146 landfills at
generators not regulated by categorical discharge standards. The
146 includes 15 municipal waste landfills. EPA data indicated that
approximately 20 percent of the active TSD facilities in the HWDMS
data base lost interim status and were required to close by
November 8, 1985. Since the breakdown of these facilities with
and without leachate collection systems is not available, it was
assumed that the loss of interim status (LOIS) facilities do not
have leachate collection; therefore, the number of hazardous waste
landfills at on-site generators with leachate collection as
required by RCRA was estimated at 240 (e.g., 80 percent of 301).
26
-------
TABLE 4-1. ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
AND SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS
Estimated Number of HW Landfills
Commercial Noncommercial* Categorical
Facilities Facilities Industries Total
OSW Report on
RCRA Permit Activities8
49
"Hazardous Waste Consultant" Listb 43
E.I.'s Directory of Industrial and
Hazardous Waste Management Firmsc 34
HWDMS Data Base
75
146
155
376
* Other than commercial facilities
a Reference 1
b Reference 2
0 Reference 3
Source of Data
Estimated Number of Subtitle D Landfills
Active Subtitle D Landfillsd
Municipal Waste
Industrial Waste
Demolition Debris
Other
16,416
9,284
3,511
2,591
1,030
Reference 4
27
-------
All of these facilities are expected to have leachate collection
systems, resulting in wastewater discharge.
OSW's Subtitle D Study Phase I report estimated that there
were 16,416 active Subtitle D landfills in 1984. Of these, 57
percent are municipal, 21 percent were industrial, and 16 percent
were demolition debris landfills. The report also concluded that
53 percent of all municipal landfills receive small quantity
generator (SQG) hazardous wastes.
In this EPA-ITD study, only landfills with leachate collection
or groundwater recovery are considered part of the industry.
Therefore, an estimate of the number of facilities that discharge
leachate is necessary. Table 4-2 presents such an estimate. This
table shows that of the 16,416 Subtitle D landfills, only 604 had
leachate collection, while 4,927 rely on the underlying soils to
provide leachate treatment. Approximately half of the 604 leachate
collection systems provide treatment for the discharge.
Method of Discharge
Table 4-3 presents a summary of the available data regarding
the treatment and disposal of leachate. The table includes data
from both hazardous waste and Subtitle D facilities. These results
do not represent an unbiased, independent survey of landfills and
should not be interpreted as such. The data were collected as part
of an effort to locate potential sampling candidates, and therefore
may be biased toward leachate collection and treatment. However,
based on this information, a preliminary breakdown of the leachate
subcategory, by discharge type, is 19 percent direct, 40 percent
indirect, and 41 percent other dischargers. Most facilities in the
other category claimed to be zero dischargers, however, it is
anticipated that most of these facilities will have occasional
discharges due to maintenance, shutdowns, etc.. Applying these
percentages to the estimated number of landfills with leachate
systems (911, see Table 4-8), results in 173 direct dischargers,
355 indirect dischargers and 383 other.
Discharge to a POTW appeared to be the most common leachate
treatment/disposal method, which is a reflection of several
factors. First, municipalities tend to send leachate from their
landfills to their POTW rather than incur the expense of either
constructing and operating a leachate treatment plant at the
landfill or opting for some other disposal method. Leachates
either are trucked or sewered to the POTW. In most cases, the
leachate volume represents a small fraction of the flow to the
POTW. Privately operated Subtitle D landfills also tend to use
POTWs, since they provide convenient and relatively inexpensive
leachate treatment/disposal. In addition, some commercial
landfills (both hazardous waste and Subtitle D) provide on-site
leachate treatment, but discharge the treated leachate to a POTW.
28
-------
TABLE 4-2. LEACHATE MANAGEMENT AT SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS
(1)
Landfill Type
Municipal 3,677
Industrial 657
Demolition Debris 541
Other 52
Total 4,927
Leachate Leachate
Collection Treatment Leachate
Systems Systems Recirculation
481 245 205
112 69 27
5 10
6 20
604 317 232
Source: Reference 5
NOTE:
(1) Landfills that do not have leachate collection systems or
liners.
29
-------
TABLE 4-3. LEACHATE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL PRACTICES -
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA
Number of
Facilities
Leachate Disposal Practice Supplying Data*
Discharge to NPDES Outfall 19
Discharge to POTW 39
Solidify and Rebury 6
Off-site Disposal at a Commercial Treater 14
Deep Well Injection 7
Surface Impoundment 7
Incineration 2
Land Application 1
No Leachate Generated 3
Total 98
* Includes both hazardous waste and Subtitle D landfills
Sources:
1) SAIC verification study
2) SAIC 1986 and 1987 sampling efforts
3) Data from state agencies
4) Reference 6
5) Reference 7
30
-------
This arrangement may reflect limited on-site treatment
technologies, liability considerations, permitting and regulatory
issues, or the location of the landfills near a sewered
metropolitan area.
The second most common disposal practice appeared to be direct
discharge through an NPDES outfall, followed closely by off-site
disposal at a commercial treater. Both hazardous waste and
Subtitle D landfills located in unsewered areas most frequently
discharge to surface waters, although they might truck their
effluent to a POTW for treatment.
Contract hauling of leachate to commercial aqueous waste
treaters is also a common practice at hazardous waste landfills.
In addition, several hazardous waste landfills have become
commercial aqueous hazardous waste treaters. These landfills have
taken advantage of their extensive leachate treatment systems by
accepting off-site-generated aqueous hazardous wastes for treatment
in their facility along with their leachate.
Solidification and reburial is a practice used by several
facilities. This option is popular when leachate volumes are
small. Deep well injection was common among landfills in Alabama,
Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. Landfills in the arid West either
do not generate leachate or use surface impoundment (i.e.,
evaporation) for the disposal of the small volumes of leachate
generated.
In summary, the size of the leachate subcategory was estimated
at 911 facilities. This included all of the commercial hazardous
waste landfills (67) plus the Subtitle D and hazardous waste
landfills with leachate collection systems (604 and 240,
respectively).
4.3.2 Incinerators and Scrubbers
Table 4-4 presents estimates of the number of hazardous waste
incinerators. The data in the table have been compiled from
several sources. Both the HWDMS data base and EPA's directory
estimated the number of commercial hazardous waste incinerators to
be 42. E.I.'s directory includes 40 commercial incinerators.
Three sources provided estimates of the total number of
incinerators that burn hazardous waste. The HWDMS data base
estimated this number at 376, which included 164 at categorical
industries and 170 at noncategorical facilities (not including
commercial industries). Mitre Corporation's survey of incinerator
manufacturers reported a total of 342 incinerators sold for
hazardous waste use since 1969, or 34 less than the HWDMS. Units
sold prior to 1969 may account for the difference between the HWDMS
and Mitre estimates.
31
-------
TABLE 4-4. ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATORS
Estimated Number
Commercial Noncategorical* Categorical
Source of Data Facilities Facilities Industries Total
OSW Report on RCRA
Permit Activities" — — — 230
EPA's Directory of
Commercial Facilities" 42
Mitre Corporation Survey
of Manufacturers0 — — — 342
HWDMS Data base 42 170 164 376
E.I.'s Directory of
Industrial and Hazardous
Waste Management Firms" 40
Average 316
* Does not include commercial facilities
Reference 1
Reference 8
c Reference 9
Reference 3
32
-------
OSW's February 1987 report estimated the total number of
hazardous waste incinerators at 230, which is considerably below
the other estimates. Part of the discrepancy may be due* to
reclassification of many of these incinerators as boilers and
industrial furnaces. As boilers and industrial furnaces, the
facilities are no longer TSDFs and are not subject to RCRA permit
and interim status regulations, even though they may be burning
hazardous wastes.
For the purpose of this study, the number of incinerators was
estimated to be 316, which is the average of the three estimates
shown in Table 4-4.
Method of Discharge
Mitre Corporation's survey indicated that all incinerators in
hazardous waste service have been equipped with at least one air
pollution control device. Table 4-5 presents a summary of
available data showing the treatment/disposal of the scrubber
wastewaters. This table presents data only for known facilities
and cannot be considered as a cross-section of the industry- The
data in Table 4-5 indicate that the majority of the incinerators
have wet scrubbers. This is expected, since RCRA-permitted
incinerators are required to control stack emissions of hydrogen
chloride gas, necessitating the use of a wet scrubber. Table 4-5
also shows that the majority (50 percent) of scrubber wastewaters
are discharged to surface waters. This occurs because a relatively
large number of hazardous waste incinerators are located at
facilities that discharge wastewater generated from process
sources. These facilities comingle the scrubber wastewaters with
their process wastewaters in their on-site treatment systems,
resulting in discharge of the scrubber wastewaters through NPDES
outfalls. The large commercial incinerators treat their scrubber
wastewaters in a dedicated treatment system prior to discharge to
a POTW or NPDES outfall, depending on the location of the facility.
Only incinerators with small volumes of scrubber wastewater are
expected to use off-site treatment/disposal methods. Of the four
facilities reporting no scrubber wastewater, two have baghouses and
the remaining two report that they have no air pollution control
system in-place. Based on the information presented in Table 4-
5, the breakdown of the scrubber subcategory by discharge method
is estimated to be 137 direct dischargers, 27 indirect dischargers
and 109 other dischargers.
RCRA regulations required wet scrubbers for only the 230
facilities that are in the process of obtaining RCRA permits.
Other incinerators, probably reclassified as boilers or industrial
furnaces, may or may not have wet scrubbers. No data are available
for these incinerators. Therefore, the number of incinerators
generating scrubber wastewaters ranged from a minimum of 230 to a
maximum of 316 (i.e., the estimate of the total number of
33
-------
TABLE 4-5. MANAGEMENT OF INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WASTEWATER -
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA
Number of Facilities
Scrubber Wastewater Disposal Method Supplying Data
Discharge to NPDES Outfall* 10
Discharge to POTWs 2
Off-site Disposal at a Commercial Treater 2
Landfill 2
Surface Impoundment/Evaporation 1
No Scrubber Wastewater 4
* Includes incinerators at on-site generators that combine
scrubber wastewater with process wastewaters for treatment and
discharge
Sources:
1) SAIC verification study
2) SAIC 1986 and 1987 sampling efforts
34
-------
incinerators burning hazardous wastes). Averaging the two numbers
(230 and 316) produces an estimate of 273 facilities generating
scrubber wastewaters.
4.3.3 Aqueous Hazardous Waste Treaters
Estimates of the number of aqueous hazardous waste treaters
are presented in Table 4-6. The HWDMS data base estimates that
there are 154 commercial aqueous treaters. In the foreword to its
1987 directory, E.I. indicated that over 150 firms were deleted
from its 1986 edition in compiling the 1987 version as a result of
closure or nonresponse to E.I.'s inquiries. At the same time,
other facilities were added. This suggests that the HWDMS data
base and EPA Directory, dated 1985 and 1986, respectively,
estimates may be outdated. The 1986 National Survey that used HWDMS
for its mailing list may have resulted in the elimination of some
commercial firms due to closure, but may not have added newer
firms/ resulting in an underestimate of the commercial aqueous
hazardous waste treatment facilities.
For the purpose of this study, an average of all four data
bases has been used to estimate the size of the industry- This
resulted in a total count of 125 for commercial aqueous hazardous
waste treatment facilities.
Only HWDMS and the 1986 National Survey provided estimates of
the noncategorical aqueous hazardous waste treaters. The two
estimates, 913 and 280 facilities, respectively, are vastly
different. An average of the two values provided an estimate of
approximately 600 noncategorical facilities treating aqueous
hazardous wastes.
Method of Discharge
Table 4-7 summarizes the available data regarding the fate of
aqueous hazardous wastes. The data were collected as part of an
effort to locate potential sampling candidates and therefore may
be biased toward treatment and discharge. Based on these data, the
breakdown of the aqueous treater subcategory by discharge method
was estimated to be 86 direct dischargers, 515 indirect dischargers
and 124 other dischargers.
Discharge to a POTW was the most common aqueous hazardous
waste disposal method. The prevalence of this method was a
function of location; most POTWs are located in metropolitan areas
near the industries that they serve. Other facilities serving
large regions of the country are located near convenient
transportation routes that may or may not be in metropolitan
sewered areas, resulting in some discharging through NPDES
outfalls.
35
-------
TABLE 4-6. ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF
AQUEOUS HAZARDOUS WASTE THEATERS
Estimated Number
Commercial Noncategorical* Categorical
Facilities Facilities Industries Total
EPA's Directory of
Commercial Facilities* 134 —
E.I.'s Directory of
Industrial and Hazardous
Waste Management Firms6 120
HWDMS Data base 154 913
1986 National Survey of HW
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities0 91 280 — 1023
Average 125 597
* Other than commercial facilities
* Reference 8
b Reference 3
c Reference 10
36
-------
TABLE 4-7. DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATERS BY FACILITIES MANAGING
AQUEOUS HAZARDOUS WASTES - SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA
Number of Facilities
Wastewater Disposal Method Supplying Data
Discharge to NPDES Outfall 5
Discharge to POTW 30
Off-site Disposal at a Commercial Facility 3
Deep Well Injection 2
Incineration 1
Off-site Disposal at a Landfill 1
Sources:
1) SAIC verification study
2) SAIC 1986 and 1987 sampling efforts
3) USEPA, ORD, HWERL reports
4) Published literature
5) Data from state agencies
37
-------
4.4 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE HWT INDUSTRY
EPA Regions V and VI have the largest number of hazardous
waste landfills and incinerators; Texas has the largest number of
these facilities. Among the Subtitle D landfills, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and Texas had the largest number, with approximately
1,200 in each state. Texas also had the largest number of Subtitle
D municipal landfills, followed closely by .Wisconsin. These two
states each accounted for 10 percent of the total. Pennsylvania
had by far the largest number of Subtitle D industrial landfills,
accounting for 30 percent of the total as reported by an EPA study
(Ref. 4).
EPA Region V also had the largest number of hazardous waste
incinerators; Texas has the largest number of these facilities.
In addition, EPA Region V has the largest number of aqueous
waste treatment facilities. Region III is a distant second. A
large number of categorical industries were treating on-
site-generated aqueous hazardous waste. Assuming that the
industries have not constructed dedicated hazardous waste treatment
systems, the aqueous hazardous wastes were comingled and treated
with the process wastewater at these facilities. The categorical
industries (OCPSF, inorganic chemicals, metal finishing, petroleum
refining, and electrical and electronic components) reported the
largest numbers of facilities treating aqueous hazardous wastes.
4.5 HWT INDUSTRY SIZE ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Estimates of the number of facilities potentially included in
the HWT industry are summarized in Table 4-8. The table presents
the estimates by subcategory and type of facility for each
subcategory. The industry size was estimated at facilities based
on currently available data. The future size of this industry will
be affected by current and proposed RCRA regulations.
4.6 FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
EPA has collected financial data on some firms operating
commercial hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities.
These data allow the calculation of financial ratios to provide a
picture of some financial characteristics of the industry. The
data available for the ratio calculation are: net income, cash
flow, net worth and total assets. Two financial ratios are
presented in Table 4-9: net income to total assets and cash flow
to total assets. As shown on the upper part of the table, the
average of the net income to total assets is 8.9 percent for
publicly-owned firms and 5.1 percent for privately held firms.
Similarly, the average of the cash flow to total assets ratio is
13.4 percent and 11.4 percent for public and private firms,
38
-------
TABLE 4-8. HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT INDUSTRY PROFILE
Number of Facilities
Subcategory Name
Landfills
Conner ica I
Non- commercial
Subtitle D Landfill
Total
Incinerators
Comercial
Non-commercial
Total
Aqueous waste treaters
Conner ica I
Non-commerical
Total
Facility Prod.
Total Waste Water
67
301
16,416
16,784
42
274
316
125
600
725
67
240
604
911
273
125
600
725
Direct Discharge Handled Other
Discharger to POTW by Hauling Discharge
173 355 128 255
19% 39% 14% 28%
137 27 27 82
50% 10% 10% 30%
87 515 51 72
12% 71% 7% 10%
39
-------
TABLE 4-9. STATISTICS OF SELECTED FINANCIAL RATIOS
FOR THE HWT INDUSTRY
Net Income/Total Assets Cashflow/Total Assets
Finanical Ratio (%) (%)
Public Private Public Private
No. of Firms in Sample
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Standard Deviation
10
8.9
2.0
17.1
4.6
230
5.1
-20.6
51.2
5.6
10
13.4
3.1
17.1
6.4
177
11.4
-9.7
71.6
10.4
Statistics of Complete Sample (Public - Private)
Net Income/Total Assets Cashflow/Total Assets
Finanical Ratio (%) (%)
No. of Firms in Sample 240 187
Average 5.3 11.5
Minimum -20.6 -9-7
Maximum 51.2 71.6
Standard Deviation 5.7 9.5
40
-------
respectively. These estimates inherit considerable dispersion
shown by wide range of values and large standard deviation, thus
the average ratios of the public firms cannot be shown to be
statistically different from those of private firms. The lower
part of the table presents the calculated ratios for the entire
sample with the public and private firms.
A smaller group of 18 firms has been selected by EPA to be
surveyed annually as commercial hazardous waste treatment firms
(Ref. 11) . This group is the best representation of firms whose
major business is the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste.
Financial data are available for 14 of the 18 firms. Financial
ratios for these firms have been calculated and are presented in
Table 4-10. The average ratios appear to be higher than those of
Table 4-9, but again the differences are not statistically
significant.
4.7 COMMERCIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PRICE
Table 4-11 presents the range of service prices for several
waste management technologies. The general ranking of fees of the
treatment and disposal processes are, from high to low:
incineration; chemical treatment (aqueous treatment); hazardous
waste landfill; and municipal landfill. However, within each type
of treatment or disposal, prices vary considerably in relation to
waste composition, form of the waste, and so on. In 1985,
incineration costs ranges from $0.10-4.17 per gallon for typical
liquids, and in the range of $2.10-8.30 per gallon for highly toxic
liquids. The low end of the range was for liquids with a high BTU
content, which helps in the incineration process. Chemical
treatment cost ranged from $0.12 to $6.00 per gallon, with
relatively low fees for acid/alkaline wastes and high fees for
highly toxic wastes. Hazardous waste landfill charges ranged from
$69-140/ton ($0.29 to 0.58 per gallon) for bulk waste, and $50-137
per drum ($0.91 to 2.50 per gallon) for containerized waste.
Municipal landfill fees range from $2.05 to 37.37/ton. All prices
have increased between 1983 and 1985, with incinerator and chemical
treatment having the largest percentage increases, and deep well
injection having the smallest increase. With the short supply of
incinerator capacity, these price increases are likely to continue.
4.8 SUMMARY
The HWT industry was divided into three subcategories:
Landfills with leachate collection and
treatment facilities
41
-------
TABLE 4-10. STATISTICS OF SELECTED FINANCIAL RATIOS FOR THE
SELECTED FIRMS IN THE HWT INDUSTRY
Net Income/Total Assets Cash flow/Total Assets
Financial Ratio (%) (%)
No. of Finns in Sample 14 13
Average 7.6 18.0
Minimum 2.0 11.4
Maximum 17.1 23.3
Standard Deviation 4.3 4.1
Source: Ref. 11
42
-------
TABLE 4-11.
COMPARISON OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PRICES (PER GALLON)
QUOTED BY ALL FIRMS IN 1983, AND 1985 a/
Price ($ per gallon unless otherwise indicated)
Waste Management
Technology
Landfill
Land Treatment/Solar
Evaporation
Incineration
Chemical Treatment
Resource Recovery
Deep Well Injection
Transportation
Type or Form of Waste
o 55-gallon drum
o Bulk
All
o Clean liquids,
high Btu value
o Liquids, low Btu
o Sludges and solids
o Highly toxic liquids
o PCB liquids
o PCB solids
o Acids/alkalines
o Cyanides
o Highly toxic wastes
o Heavy metals
o Organics
o Oil
o Oily wastewaters
o Toxic rinse waters
0
1983
25-60/drum
25-90/ton
0.02-0.09
(0.05)c/-0.25
0.35-1.00
1.50-3.10
0.06-0.55
0.50-3.10
0.14-1.30
0.05-0.15
0.50-1.10
.08-0.17/ton-mi.
1984
25-100/drum
40-150/ton
0.02-0.09
(0.05)c/-0.35
0.30-1.25
1.30-4.20
0.06-0.85
0.85-6.00
(0.06)c/-3.00
0.07-0.28
0.50-1.20
0.14-0.20/ton-mi.
1985
50-137/drum
69-140/ton
0.33-0.83
0.10-1.93
1.33-4.17
2.75-4.25
2.10-8.30
2.50-3.50
4.50-12.50
0.12-2.00
0.50-0.90
2.80-6.00
0.20-1.00
(0.25)-3.00b/
0.00-0.42
0.08-0.50
0.50-1.20
0.18-0.22/ton-mi.
2. 70-4. 50/loaded
Percentage change in
1986 relative to 1985
*10-25%
*10-20%
*15%
•15-50X
*15-50%
*15-50%
*15-20%
*10-20%
No change
*10%
*10-20%
*10-25%
*30%
*30%
*10-25%
*10-25%
mile (20 tons per load)
a/ Interviews conducted in April 1983, Hay-July 1984, August 1985, and August-September 1986.
b/ Range for mixed halogenated solvents is $2.20 - $4.20 per gallon.
c/ Some cement kilns, light aggregate manufacturers, and steel mills pay for wastes used as fuel.
d/ High end of range can be as much as $6.00 per gallon if reactives are included.
Sources: Booz, Allen and Hamilton Inc. for 1983 figures.
ICF Incorporated for 1984 and 1985 figures.
-------
Incinerators with scrubber wastewaters
Aqueous hazardous waste treaters.
The number of facilities in each subcategory was
estimated as follows:
Subcategory Number of Facilities
Landfills with leachate systems 911
Incinerators with scrubber wastewaters 273
Aqueous hazardous waste treaters 725
The most common method of wastewater disposal for the
landfill and aqueous hazardous waste treaters
subcategories is to POTWs. Incinerators with scrubbers
are more commonly direct dischargers. The breakdown by
discharge method of each subcategory was estimated as
follows:
Number of Facilities
Direct Indirect Other
Leachate 173 355 383
Wet Scrubber 137 27 109
Aqueous Treaters 87 515 123
Other dischargers include deep well injection,
incineration, off-site disposal, land application, and
solidification and burial.
EPA Regions V and VI have the largest number of hazardous
waste landfills and incinerators. The largest number of
aqueous waste treatment facilities is in EPA Region V.
44
-------
5. RAW WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
This section characterizes and analyzes the raw wastes found
in each of the hazardous waste treatment (HWT) industry
subcategories: leachate, scrubber wastewater, and aqueous
hazardous waste. The data presented in this section have been
compiled from three sources: (1) sampling activities at 12 sites
during 1986 and 1987, (2) data compiled from other U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) studies and sampling
programs, and (3) the scientific literature. This section also
presents a discussion of analytical methodology and factors
affecting the recovery of pollutants and their quantification.
5.1 POLLUTANT ANALYSIS, RECOVERY, AND QUANTIFICATION
In order to interpret fully analytical data, quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) information must first be
evaluated. This is especially true for the analysis of organic
pollutants. Of particular concern in organics analysis is percent
recovery. For example, if 100 nq/1 of a compound is reported, but
the percent recovery is 50 percent, the real concentration could
range from 100 to 200 M9/1- Conversely, if the recovery is 1,000
percent, the real concentration could be 10 M9/1* Expected
recoveries for organic compounds using Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP) protocols are 60 to 150 percent and for pesticides the
recovery is 60 to 200 percent. The percent recovery for a compound
becomes increasingly important when concentrations are low (i.e.,
near their detection limits).
The detection limits for the various organics in the HWT
industry sampling effort ranged from 10 to 5,000 nq/l, depending
on the compound and the sample. Several potential reasons include:
A sample extract containing a large amount of organics
can overload the gas chromatograph/mass spectrophotometer
(GC/MS) . Consequently, the full-strength extract cannot
be run, making dilutions necessary and resulting in high
detection limits.
Some detection limits are high, even in "clean water."
For example, the detection limit for some organics in
reagent water is 10 M9/1/ while in others it is 250 M9/1-
High concentrations of a few compounds can swamp
everything else. In this case, it may be necessary to
use large dilutions to quantify the compounds present in
high concentrations, thereby diluting those found in low
concentrations. When the full strength extract is rerun
to detect and quantify the low concentration compounds,
the high concentration compounds mask their presence.
45
-------
A study conducted for the Office of Research and
Development/Hazardous Waste Environmental Research
Laboratory (ORD/HWERL) on landfill leachate has shown
that less than 5 percent of the TOC in leachate can be
identified using EPA's GC/MS methods. Part of the
problem is that leachate contains complex organic acids
(humic and fulvic materials), which are not identifiable
using GC/MS methods.
Some polar compounds (such as organic acids) are readily
soluble in water, and are hard to separate and analyze
with a GC. Furthermore, some polar compounds do not
extract well during the extraction procedure. Some
analytical chemists believe that less than 5 percent of
the phenols, benzoic acid, and other organic acids found
in leachates are actually extracted.
Analytical problems such as these were experienced by the
laboratories used during the 1986-87 sampling programs, which
resulted in pollutants not being found in samples, when high
concentrations of these pollutants had been found in similar
wastewaters in other samples. Therefore, the data collected from
other sources are critical to the analysis presented in this
section. Future Industrial Technology Division (ITD) sampling and
analysis efforts will be designed to correct these problems.
Currently, EPA programs use two sets of analytical methods for
toxic organics analysis. The Office of Water, including ITD, uses
the 1600 and 600 Series methods (40 CFR Part 136) , while the Office
of Solid Waste (OSW) uses the 8000 Series analytical methods and
the 3000 and 5000 Series sample preparation methods (40 CFR Part
261). For the most part, the methods are identical; however, two
critical differences exist between the methods:
The 600 and 1600 Series methods (e.g., the "water
methods") include specific QC acceptance criteria that
must be met in order for the analyses to be valid.
Limited acceptance criteria were specified for the 8000,
3000, and 5000 Series methods (e.g., the "RCRA methods")
in the second edition of SW-846, the test methods manual.
The analyst ran QA/QC checks and reported the QA/QC
results along with the analyses, but the QA/QC results
did not have to fall within critical ranges. In the
third edition of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) methods, published in November 1986 (Ref. 12),
acceptance criteria and critical ranges are specified;
however, data obtained prior to November 1986 using the
RCRA methods do not have as stringent QA/QC as data
obtained with the water methods.
46
-------
The water methods require that the analyst follow a set
procedure, step by step, regardless of the wastewater
sample. The RCRA methods allow the analyst more
flexibility to adjust for sample matrix. That is, the
analyst can cleanup a sample to reduce matrix
interferences if necessary and to the extent necessary
prior to analysis. In the second edition of the RCRA
methods, as long as the QA/QC checks were run through
the same cleanup and analytical procedures, the results
were acceptable. The third edition of the RCRA methods
formalizes the cleanup procedures as the 3000 Series
methods, but allows the analyst the choice of cleanup
procedure on a sample-by-sample basis.
As a result of the flexibility in the RCRA methods and the
cleanup procedures available to reduce sample matrix interferences,
data obtained using these methods show higher concentrations of
pollutants and the presence of more pollutants. These observations
will be apparent in the following sections, which present data from
sources other than this EPA-ITD study., including two studies using
RCRA methods.
Variability inherent in the methods used to analyze
conventional and nonconventional pollutants also must be evaluated
in order to interpret analytical data. For example, EPA-ITD
analytical results for BOD5. are only accurate to + 30 percent
within a 95 percent degree of confidence. Consequently, dissolved
BOD5_, a fraction of total BOD5, can be reported within method
accuracy limits, to be 60 percent greater than total BOD5. A
similar circumstance exists for ammonia, a fraction of total
Kjeldahl nitrogen. The levels of precision and accuracy reported
by EPA-ITD are for analyses conducted on natural water samples, not
the complex matrices found in samples collected during this study.
Furthermore, precision and accuracy data are not available for
parameters such as COD and solids.
5.2 LEACHATE
The following sections summarize the pollutants found in raw
leachate. Data were obtained from numerous sources as indicated on
the data tables. Individual listings of the data are presented in
Appendix A.
5.2.1 Sources of Raw Waste Data
The most recent source for analytical data characterizing the
raw leachate is the 1986-1987 EPA-ITD study sampling effort. Six
landfills with leachate collection were sampled during this
program. The landfills sampled contained municipal refuse,
47
-------
industrial wastes, and hazardous wastes. The ITD sampling data
are supplemented by analytical data obtained from:
ORD/HWERL sampling efforts at 13 hazardous waste
landfills in 1985
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources sampling
efforts at 20 municipal landfills containing municipal,
industrial, and hazardous wastes during 1983
EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) Statistical data base, "Most
Commonly Occurring Analytes in 56 Leachate Samples,"
1980-1983 data
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)
sampling program conducted for the Hazardous Waste
Groundwater Task Force during 1985
Subtitle D leachate data for miscellaneous Subtitle D
landfills, compiled by OSW.
The data vary in the pollutants reported (i.e., conventionals,
nonconventionals, metals, toxics, organics); the number of samples
collected at each facility; and the data guality- QA/QC data are
available only for the ITD and ORD/ HWERL sampling efforts.
5.2.2 Pollutants in the Raw Leachate
5.2.2.1 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants
Tables 5-1 through 5-7 summarize the conventional,
nonconventional, and inorganic toxic pollutant data collected from
the previously discussed sources. The data show that leachates
contain high concentrations of BOD5_, COD, and TOC. These
pollutants are indicators that there are high concentrations of
both inorganic and organic compounds in leachates.
The fact that leachates are high-strength wastes also is
reflected in the presence of other pollutants, specifically TSS,
TDS, chloride, TKN, and ammonia. These pollutants were found in
a wide range of concentrations. Studies have shown that leachate
strength is affected by a number of factors, including landfill
design, precipitation and runoff, types of wastes landfilled,
landfill age, groundwater infiltration, geographic location, and
geologic conditions. Under these circumstances, it may be expected
that hazardous waste landfills that are the most secure (i.e.,
synthetically lined to exclude precipitation and groundwater) would
48
-------
TABLE 5-1.
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION RANGES IN LEACHATE
REPORTED IN THE LITERATURE
Parameter
PH
Alkalinity
Acidity
Total Solids
TDS
George
(1972)
(Ref. 27)
3.7-8.5
0-20850
0-42276
Total Suspended Solids 6-2685
Specific Conductance
BOD
COD
TOC
Bicarbonate
Hardness
Chlorides
Fluorides
Sulfates
Sulfide
Total-K-Nitrogen
NH3 -Nitrogen
Organic Nitrogen
NO3-Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Ortho-Phosphorus
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Total Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
9-54610
0-89520
0-22800
34-2800
1-1826
0-1416
0-1106
0-1300
1-154
5-4080
0-9.9
0.2-5500
0-5.0
16.5-15600
0.06-1400
2.8-3770
0-7700
0-1000
Chi an
DeWalle
(1977)
(Ref. 28)
3.7-8.5
0-20850
0-59200
584-44900
10-700
2810-16800
81-33360
40-89520
256-28000
0-22800
4.7-2467
1-1558
0-1106
0.2-10.29
0-130
6.5-85
0.03-17
60-7200
0-9.9
0-2820
<0. 10-2.0
17-15600
0.09-125
28-3770
0-7700
0-370
Metry
Cross
(1977)
(Ref. 29)
3.7-8.5
310-9500
100-51000
13-26500
100-1200
2200-720000
800-750000
3260-5730
35-8700
47-2350
20-1370
0.2-845
2.4-550
4.5-18
0.3-136
240-2570
0.12-1700
64-547
13
28-3800
85-3800
0.03-135
Cameron
(1978)
(Ref. 30)
3.7-8.5
0-20900
0-9590
0-42300
9-55000
0-9000
0-22800
34-2800
0-2.13
0-1826
0-0.13
0-1106
0-154
0-122
0-11.6
0-5.4
0-0.3
0.3-73
0-0.19
5-4000
0-33.4
0-10
0-0. 11
0.2-5500
0-5.0
16.5-15600
0.06-1400
0-0 . 064
0-0 . 52
0 . 01-0 . 8
2.8-3770
0-7700
0-5.0
0-1.4
0-1000
Note: All concentrations in mg/1 except pH (standard units) and
specific conductance (umhos/cm)
49
-------
TABLE 5-2. CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS AND METALS
SUMMARY IN RAW LEACHATE EPA-ITD STUDY SAMPLING RESULTS
Ranae of Concentrations (1)
Pollutant
BOD5, mg/1
COD, mg/1
TOC, mg/1
TSS, mg/1
TDS, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
O&G, mg/1
Ammonia-N, mg/1
TKN, mg/1
NO2 and NO3-N, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
pH, SU
Phenols, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
TVO, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Boron
Barium
Molybdenum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Minimum
24
36
63
5
1,554
72
<1.0
14
14
—
<0.1
<0.1
6.7
<0.05
<0.01
—
43
39
87
20
6,800
450
170
57
—
<10
<5
<1
<5
<10
6.6
<2
<50
<0.2
33
<5
—
<10
<13
15
4.4
<10
4.1
Maximum
5040
17,300
5,500
4187
13,800
1839
552
350
479
—
8.7
0.75
8.66
1.95
0.07
—
1,600
335
1,520
3,300
718,000
59,300
13,000
975
—
<10
63
2
<5
214
217
46
<50
<0.2
200
<5
—
<10
<13
100
92
64
26,600
Mean (2)
1001
3225
912
1467
5,245
855
69
154
165
— —
1.2
0.21
— -"
0.76
0.04
— —
346
137
623
1,300
134,700
11,800
4,980
366
18
<10
32
2
<5
74
70
36
<50
<0.2
174
<5
7.0
<10
<13
59
41
42
4,380
Percent of Samples
Where Pollutant
Was Detected (3)
100
100
100
100
100
100
67
100
100
™" ^
33
17
~~
75
67
— —
100
100
100
92
100
100
100
100
8
0
75
17
0
92
67
50
0
0
83
0
8
0
0
75
67
33
100
50
-------
TABLE 5-2. CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
AND METALS SUMMARY IN RAW LEACHATE
EPA-ITD STUDY SAMPLING RESULTS (Continued)
NOTES:
(1) All concentrations expressed in y.g/1, unless otherwise noted.
(2) Mean concentrations were calculated based on all the analyses
in the EPA-ITD Sampling program where the pollutant
concentration was higher than the detection limit.
(3) Data presented are based on a total of 12 samples. Percent
of samples where pollutant was detected reflects the number
of samples where the pollutant was detected above the
detection limit. For example, molybdenum was detepted ;Ln one
sample, or 8% (1/12 x 100%) of the samples.
-------
TABLE 5-3. OVERALL SUMMARY FROM THE ANALYSIS OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LEACHATES IN WISCONSIN
Parameter Overall Range*
TDS
Specific Conductance
Total Suspended Solids
BOD
COD
TOC
PH
Total Alkalinity (CaCO3)
Hardness (CaCO3)
Chloride
Calcium
Sodium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Iron
Potassium
Magnesium
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Sulfate
Aluminum
Zinc
Manganese
Total Phosphorus
Boron
Barium
Nickel
Nitrate-Nitrogen
Lead
Chromium
Antimony
Copper
Thallium
Cyanide
Arsenic
Molybdenum
Tin
Nitrite-Nitrogen
Selenium
Cadmium
Silver
Beryllium
Mercury
584-50430
480-72500
2-140900
ND-195000
6.6-97900
ND-30500
5-8.9
ND-15050
52-225000
2-11375
200-2500
12-6010
2-3320
ND-1500
ND-2800
120-780
ND-1200
ND-1850
ND-85
ND-731
ND-31.1
ND-234
0.87-13
ND-12.5
ND-7 . 5
ND-250
ND-14.2
ND-5.6
ND-3.19
ND-4.06
ND-0.78
ND-6
ND-70.2
0.01-1.43
ND-0.16
ND-1.46
ND-1.85
ND-0.4
ND-1.96
ND-0.36
ND-0.01
Typical Range
(range of Number of
site medians)* Analyses
2180-25873
2840-15485
28-2835
101-29200
1120-50450
427-5890
5.4-7.2
960-6845
1050-9380
180-2651
200-2100
12-1630
47-1470
2.1-1400
ND-1375
120-780
26-557
8.4-500
ND-85
ND-54
0.03-25.9
0.3-117
1.19-12.3
ND-5
ND-1.65
ND-1.4
ND-1.11
ND-1.0
ND-0.56
ND-0.32
ND-0.31
ND-0.25
ND-0.225
0.034-0.193
0.16
ND-0.11
ND-0.09
ND-0.07
ND-0.024
ND-0.008
ND-0.001
172
1167
2700
2905
467
52
1900
328
404
303
9
192
156
416
19
9
263
154
9
158
67
454
15
73
133
88
142
138
76
138
70
86
112
7
3
20
121
158
106
76
111
Note: ND = not detected
*A11 concentrations in mg/1 except pH (standard units) and specific
conductance (umhos/cm)
52
-------
TABLE 5-4. MOST COMMONLY OCCURRING
CONVENTIONALS, NONCONVENTIONALS, AND
METALS IN LEACHATE SAMPLES — CLP DATABASE,
1980-1983 DATA
Ranae of Concentrations*
Pollutant
Ammonia, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Boron
Barium
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Minimum
17.0
—
0.033
92.2
29.7
40.8
300
160
270
0
227
—
0
0
3.3
21
24
36
10
0
60
0
0
0
40
Maximum
51.0
—
2.50
109
68.7
84.9
2,700,000
4,300,000
650,000
4,500
160,000
—
1,900
59
2,100
22,400
5,400
100,000
75,000
70
12,000
40
72
5,900
320,000
Mean
34.0
0.4
1.266
62.6
43.1
69.6
364,501
458,514
100,149
1,486
19,798
—
392
25
426
3,649
1,052
16,761
8,536
26
2,362
20
36
1,215
19,177
Number of
Analyses
2
1
2
3
3
3
12
18
13
10
9
1
6
4
5
9
6
6
9
4
6
2
2
5
18
All concentration expressed in
unless otherwise noted.
53
-------
TABLE 5-5. CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
AND METALS IN MISCELLANEOUS SUBTITLE D
LANDFILL LEACHATES
Range of Concentrations(l) Number of Samples
Where Pollutant
Pollutant Minimum Maximum Mean Was Detected
COD, mg/1
TOC, mg/1
BOD5 , mg/ 1
TSS, mg/1
TDS, mg/1 1
Ammonia as N,
mg/1
TKN, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Total Cyanide, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Beryllium
Copper
Iron 1
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Antimony
Silver
Thallium
Cobalt
440
<5
7
29
,400
11.3
66
120
0.12
0.004
8
183
96
76
<1
200
<0.1
1
5
3
,700 1,
<1
260
<0.1
40
<1
<10
470
<10
80
* —
15,820
6,880
9,044
310
10,100
1,200
938
5,475
0.79
0.02
346
929
516
927
80
500
40
180
10
150
300,000
1,050
43,000
6.0
1,070
20
67,000
1,100
50
80
— ~
3,689
2,115
2,275
218
5,696
290
477
785
0.42
0.012
98
480
248
225
30
327
16
57
7.5
69
214,000
188
11,190
2.0
346
10
8,440
785
30
80
40
16
8
8
3
9
17
3
18
4
2
12
6
5
7
7
6
9
10
2
10
17
12
9
7
9
7
15
2
5
2
1
NOTE:
(1) All concentrations expressed in ng/1, unless noted otherwise,
54
-------
TABLE 5-6. POLLUTANTS IN HAZARDOUS WASTE
LANDFILL LEACHATES - ORD/HWERL STUDY
Range of Detected
Constituentm (2)
Parameter
Minimum
Maximum
Percent of Sites
Where Pollutant
Mean Was Detected
COD (mg/1)
TOC (mg/1)
Total Cyanide (mg/1)
pH (SU)
Eh (volts)
Conductivity (micromhos/cm)
Temperature (°C)
Silver
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
1,950
195
0.01
7.1
-0.343
4,250
19.9
0.3
458
0.2
0.7
0.2
2.3
0.045
17.3
0.3
13
221
9.4
5.12
23,300
11,750
55
9.3
-0.093
20,000
32
32.8
129,600
7.4
102
1,734
17,030
39.3
67,110
1006
5240
3488
156
24,510
10,217
3,097
9.9
—
-0.226
14,694
26.7
6.6
13,097
0.81
18.7
281
1,885
5.0
6,417
116
522
1,168
36.9
2,513
100
100
69
—
100
100
100
100
77
46
100
100
100
92
100
100
85
100
85
100
NOTES:
(1) All concentrations expressed in ug/1, unless otherwise noted.
(2) Data presented are the results of sampling efforts at 13 sites,
Data collected from each site are summarized in Appendix A-l,
Table 7.
55
-------
TABLE 5-7.
POLLUTANTS IN HAZARDOUS WASTE (SUBTITLE C)
LANDFILL LEACHATES - NEIC STUDY
Range of Concentrations(I)(2)
Pollutant
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Percent of Sites
Where Pollutant
Was Detected
TOC, mg/1 11
TVO, mg/1
Ammonia as N,
mg/1
Cyanides, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Bromide, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Nitrate, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron 1
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
NOTES :
,410
470
8.
0.
0.
1.
460
25
32
20
53
68
24
149
220
63
270
29
23
59
23
40
,100
64
345
1.
243
90
33
488
220
61
305
30,400
810
7 5,000
013 77.1
14 370
5 24
37,000
970
11,000
460
25,000
4,950
906
929,000
1,700
1,600,000
6,230
56
841,000
102,000
12,300
2,800
4,080,000
11,600
131,000
1 14
38,900
3,820
35
2,080
25,400
2,160
38,800
(1) All concentrations expressed in /xg/1
(2) Data presented
repr
esents the res
20,905
640
1,328
8.9
93.4
8.8
13,460
417
2,833
124
6,420
832
248
166,580
712
125,620
1,441
42
117,800
7,859
1,305
603
495,030
1,374
16,514
4.0
7,767
762
34
1,284
6,598
484
7,367
, unless noted
ults of the l
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
100
100
71
100
100
100
73
58
86
59
10
50
64
59
86
100
50
100
36
95
41
13
14
50
77
95
otherwise.
NEIC Studv
sampling at 6 sites. Appendix A-5 contains the sampling data
used to prepare this table.
56
-------
have the highest concentrations of conventional, nonconventional,
and toxic pollutants. However, when the municipal landfill
leachate data (Tables 5-2 through 5-5) and the hazardous waste
landfill leachate data (Tables 5-6 and 5-7) were compared, this
hypothesis was found to be invalid. A likely explanation is that
the high COD, BOD5, TOC, TSS, TDS, chloride, ammonia, and TKN
concentrations found in municipal landfill leachate are the result
of anaerobic decomposition of paper and paperboard products. High
organic concentrations (COD, BOD, TOC) also might be attributed
to leachate contact with sugars and starches found in municipal
landfills.
5.2.2.2 Toxic Pollutants
Metals
Metals data for leachate samples are summarized in Tables 5-1
through 5-7. These data show that:
Leachates contain almost all of the metals, ranging in
concentration from below detection limits to hundreds of
milligrams per liter
• Subtitle D landfills contain metals at concentrations
equivalent to hazardous waste landfills.
Generally, leachates have been found to contain high concentrations
of boron, aluminum, iron, manganese, and zinc.
Toxic metals, such as arsenic, barium, copper, chromium, lead,
mercury, nickel, and zinc, are found at a wide range of
concentrations and in many cases at very high concentrations. For
example, arsenic ranged from not detected (ND) to 70.2 mg/1 in
Wisconsin leachate samples (Table 5-3), and from 63 jug/1 to 1,260
mg/1 in NEIC leachate samples (Table 5-7). Antimony, beryllium,
cadmium, molybdenum, selenium, silver, and tin generally were found
at low concentrations.
Organic Compounds
Data for organic pollutants from six studies are summarized
in Table 5-8. In some studies a given compound may not be reported
because the leachate was not tested for that compound, not because
the compound was not present in the leachate. The information from
the EPA-ITD Study, CLP data base, Wisconsin Study, and from other
miscellaneous Subtitle D landfills in Table 5-8 present the organic
compounds found in primarily Subtitle D landfill leachates, using
57
-------
TABLE 5-8 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN RAW LEACHATE
(POLL
«
44
25
11
87
23
7
10
13
27
85
30
26
6
14
32
20
16
552
R138
88
15
46
45
R366
29
50
86
HC250
55
4
38
V074
904
81
POLLUTANT NAME
Methylene Chloride
Dich I orobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
Chlorobenzcne
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Ddichloroethane
1 , 4 - D f ch I orobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trans,-1,2-Dichloroethytene
1 , 3 - T r i ch I orobenzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,1,2-Trlchloroethane
1 ,2-D
-------
TABLE 5-8 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN RAW LEACHATE (CONTINUED)
POLL.
#
77
56
78
1
39
84
72
74
75
76
557
569
930
65
944
943
947
34
POLLUTANT NAME
1-Ethyl-2-Methyl Benzene
Acenaphthylene
Tetramethyl Benzene , Isomer
Propyl Benzene
Nitrobenzene
1,3- Dimethyl benzene
Anthracene
Acenaphthene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
BenzoC a ) Anth racene
Benzo(b) F I uoranthene
Benzo( k) F I uoranthene
Chrysene
Aniline
H,N-Dimethyt Acetamide
4-ChXoroaniline
1-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidinone
Isoquinoline
Azepin-2-One, Hydro-, 2H-
Pyridine
2-Chloro-Pyridine
4-Methyl Benzenesulfonamide
Phenol
4-(P-Cresol )Methylphenol
Benzoic Acid
Butanoic Acid
2-Methyl-Propanoic ^cid
Pentanoic Acid
Alkanoic Acid
Hexanoic Acid
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Phenytacetic Acid
4-(Methylthio)-Phenol
Octanoic Acid
2-Methyl-ButBnoic Acid
EPA I TO STUDY
No. Mi n Max Mean
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
.0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
J» 0 0 0
H) 0 0 0
CLP Database
No. Min Max Mean
1 15 15 15
1 10 10 10
1 4600 4600 4600
4 16 25 20
3 45 45 45
3 10 60 28
3 8 53 25
2 13 16 14
2 11 11 11
2 11 11 11
2 16 16 16
1 74 74 74
9 59 2200 467
4 6 6700 1792
2 36 1600 818
1 2300 2300 2300
Z 22 72 22
1 63 «5 63
| Wisconsin Study
No. Min Max Mean
23 0 120 27
22 0 11300 1713
20 10 2828 24
Misc. Subtitle D
No. Min Max Mean
7 0 28800 5357 |
1
1
_
ORD/HWERL Study
|No. Min Max Mean
1 346 346 346
1 150 150 150
1 255 255 255
1 176 176 176
0000
3 14200 56000 33733
1 13800 13800 13800
2 12000 15500 13750
3 360 14400 6150
1 3020 3020 3020
1 7410 7410 7410
1 11500 11500 11500
2 3880 6200 5040
5 202 6020 1720
13 2400 110000 21590 j
12 110 47000 12300 j
8 3090 20600 11560 j
4 2400 49400 19900
4 3660 17000 8380
3 4180 21500 13990
2 1120 50100 25610
2 3600 39700 21650^
9 30 12000 3817
5 1660 6400 3740
1 770 770 770
1 9440 9440 9440
3 510 2610 1820
NEIC Study
JNo. Min Max Mean |
2 10 50 30
1 12 12 12
5 1200 820000 330840
0000
0000
0000
0 0 0 fl
18 140 140000 41434
10 12 46000 10087
11 1000 520000 1451B2
6 77 15000 3186
0000
-------
TABLE 5-8 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN RAW LEACHATE (CONTINUED)
(POLL.
«
31
64
21
R132
531
24
22
SB
516
514
564
545
550
POLLUTANT NAME
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trimethyl-Phenol
Phenotpropanoic Acid
Pentach I oropheno I
2,2-Oimethyl-Propanoic Acid
4-Chloro-Benzoic Acid
2 , 4 , 6- T r i chl oropheno I
(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)-Acetic Acid
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,5-Oichlorophenol
1-Napthalene Carboxytic Acid
4-4'-Methylenebis-Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
4-<1,1-Diethyl-ethyl)-Benzoic Acid
4-Methoxy-Phenylacetic Acid
3,4-Dichloro-Benzoic Acid
3-<1,1-Dfmethylethyt)-Phenol
1,2-Dicarboxytic Acid Benzene
2,5-Dimethyl Phenol
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Benzeneacetic Acid
Butanoic Acid, Ethyl Ester
Butanoic Acid, Methyl Ester
2-Methyl Hexanoic Acid
| EPA ITD STUDY
(No. Min Max Mean
0000
6 0 14 11
0000
Acetone |12 0 1671 253
2-Butanone |12 0 7855 1825
Benzyl Alcohol 9 0 63 16
4-Methyl-2-Pentanol
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanol
2-Methyl Cyclopentanol |
1,1'-Oxybis(2-Methoxy-) Ethane |
2-Butoxy-Ethanol I
4-Methyl-2-P«nt«none 0000
2-(Z-Butoxy»thoxy)-Ethanol |
CLP Database
No. Min Max Mean
4 3 470 381
2 4 350 177
1 23 23 23
1 12 12 12
1 480 480 480
4 630 850 727
2 960 2400 1680
1 3800 3800 3800
2 130 580 355
3 150 380 265
Wisconsin Study | Misc. Subtitle D
No. Min Max Mean | No. Min Max Mean
23 0 470 46
1 17 17 17
ORD/HWERL Study
No. Min Max Mean
4 87 2900 1529
1 5720 5720 5720
4 27 2230 890
1 1900 1900 1900
1 228 228 228
1 8220 8220 8220
1 3860 3860 3860
1 898 898 898
1 3440 3440 3440
1 2760 2760 2760
1 618 618 618
1 5540 5540 5540
1 1790 1790 1790
1 675 675 675
1 710 710 710
1 1210 1210 1210
1 525 525 525
1 33 33 33
1 318 318 318
1 36 36 36
0 0 0 0 | 13 344 77500 23200
| 12 62 42900 14710
j 6 1740 68000 24120
I
| 13 17 17200 4610
j 2 2450 33000 17720
j 2 1130 17800 9460
j 2 540 16600 8570
j 2 1560 3740 2650
NEIC Study
No. Min Max Mtan
2 80 440 260
3 10 130 62
15 100 1E+06 292273
12 6000 390000 190042
1 15000 15000 15000
4 3000 24000 12750
0000
|11 9 3790 915 |12 240 71000 16636
| 3 940 10800 5580 j
-------
TABLE 5-8 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN RAW LEACHATE (CONTINUED)
POLL.
#
54
68
66
71
69
19
43
17
70
67
510
POLLUTANT NAME | EPA ITD STUDY | CLP Database
|No. Min Max Mean |No. Min Max Mean
Cyclohexanone
Benzene-1,2-Dicarboxylic Acid Anhyd.
H,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-Pentanediol
Isophorone
2,2-Dimethyl-1,3-Propanediol
Tributylester Phosphoric Acid
2-Ethyl-1-Hexanol
1-<2-Methoxy-1-Methylethoxy)-2-Propanol
1,2,4,6-Tetrathiepane
1-(2-Butoxyethoxy)-Ethanol
2,2'-Thiobis-Ethanol
4-Hydroxy-3Methoxy Benzaldehyde
1,3(2H)-Dione,1H-Isoindote
Napthol(1,8-CD)Pyran-1,3-Dione,1H,3H
Sulfonybis-Methane
2-Methyl-2,4-Pentanediol
Di-n-Butylphthalate
2- [2-(2-Ethoxy-ethoxy)Ethoxy] -Ethanol
9,10-Anthracenedione
Isoindole-1f3(2h)-Dionef3Af4,7,7A-Tetrah
Triphenyl-Phosphineoxide
2-Phenyl-2-01-Propan
1,2-Dicarboxylic Acid Anhydride Cyclohex
Alcanol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Methyl Acetophenone
D-n-Octyl Phthalate
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane
Bis(Chloromethyl) Ether
Diethyl Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
2-Ethyl-1,4-Diroethyl-Benzene
Styrene
1,3-Diamino-4-Methyl Benzene
10 0 2396 255
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
8 0 38 14
0000
2 5 110 58
0000
Wisconsin Study | Misc. Subtitle D
No. Min Max MeanJNo. Min Max Mean
23 0 16000 970
23 0 150 25
14 12 3700 768 |23 0 150 33
2 26 26 26 |21 0 55 17
I
I
|19 0 1100 70
1 13 13 13 |20 0 25 11
1 250 250 250
7 25 84 45
23 0 330 101
0 0 0 0 |23 0 150 27
I
I
I
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
| ORD/HUERL Study
|No. Min Max Mean
3 1650 3930 3067
3 1020 6720 3970
2 810 5490 3150
1 15000 15000 15000
2 588 2440 1510
1 18200 18200 18200
3 434 1860 960
2 112 1550 830
1 3020 3020 3020
2 1230 8860 5040
1 3930 3930 3930
1 770 770 770
1 1490 1490 1490
2 31 692 360
1 1560 1560 1560
1 2660 2660 2660
9 23 996 312
1 1560 1560 1560
1 750 750 750
1 1630 1630 1630
1 2390 2390 2390
2 226 402 314
1 1030 1030 1030
1 1020 1020 1020
1 1480 1480 1480
1 820 820 820
1 131 131 131
1 31 31 31
0000
0000
1 965 965 965
1 637 637 637
1 2480 2480 2480
| NEIC Study
j No. Min Max Mean
I
0000
6 10 1500 710
2 10 31 21
5 65 10000 2372
1 2200 2200 2200
0000
1 13 13 13
1 2100 2100 2100
1 490 490 490
3 180 43000 14627
-------
TABLE 5-8 ORGANIC CONFOUNDS FOUND IN RAW LEACHATE (CONTINUED)
|POU
*
585
91
112
2
515
8
571
509
506
513
936
554
523
18
580
578
502
POLLUTANT NAME
1,4-Diamino-Benzene
1, 2 -Oi ami no- Benzene
Benzamide
4-Hydroxy-4-Methyl -2-Pentanone
Ethanol
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Ethane
1,1'-Oxybis-2-Ethoxy Ethane
Methane, Thiobis
N.N-Ofemethyl Foramide
2,4-Diemethyl Heptane
2,3,5-Trimethyl Hexane
4-Ethyl-2-Methyl Hexane
Chlordane
PCB-1016
MCPP
TEPP
Acrolein
Ethyl Ether
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
0-Cresol
Alpha-Terpineol
N-Dodecane
P-Cymene
Thioxanthone
Vinyl Acetate
N-Tetracosane
Bis(2-Chloroethylether)
1,2,3,4-Diepoxybutane
2, 3-D ichloro-Ani 1 trie
2-Amino Naphthalene
2-Methoxy Aniline
2-Methyl Benzenesulfonamide
2-Pyridinanrin«
4-Ethyl-Morpholine
1,1.7-Trimethyl Bycyclo(2.2,1)Hept-2-ene
n-Alkanes(c>*
EPA ITD STUDY
No. Min Max Mean
0000
1666
2 665 1193 929
0000
12 0 1795 243
0000
9 25 12
8 0 121 36
8 0 62 17
8 0 17 11
9 0 286 50
12 0 17 11
8 0 153 28
8 0 12 10
10 0 338 43
CLP Database
No. Min Max Mean
2 710 76000 38355
1 42 42 42
1 13 13 13
1 460 460 460
1 47 47 47
1 15000 15000 15000
1 150 150 150
1 29 29 29
1 160 160 160
1 200 200 200
1 629 629 629
2 80 80 80
3 5 360 140
0000
1000
Wisconsin Study
No. Min Max Mean
1 270 270 270
Misc. Subtitle D
No. Nin Max Mean
ORD/HWERL Study
No. Min Max Mean |
1 1940 1940 1940
1 835 835 835
1 1500 1500 1500
0000
10 94 24000 5300
1 1150 1150 1150
1 942 942 942
1 515 515 515
1 114 114 114
1 560 560 560
1 520 520 520
1 17300 17300 17300
1 9540 9540 9540
NEIC Study
No. Min Max Mean
9 180 3E+06 541542
2 3000 14000 8500
3 580 29000 16193
6 14 21000 3582
I
I
-------
TABLE 5-8 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN RAW LEACHATE (CONTINUED)
ON
W
POLL.
#
106
107
538
9
12
52
933
R071
921
48
533
505
80
547
3
527
104
102
POLLUTANT NAME
2,2,4,6,6-Pentamethyl-Heptane
Heptadecane
n-Alkanes(A)*
n-Alkanes(D)*
n-Alkanes(B)*
2-Propenyl idene-Cyclobutane
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
Tet rahydrof uran
1,2-Dibromoethane
2-Methyl-2-Butanol
2-Butanol
Hexach lorobenzene
Hexach loroethane
Hexach lorobutadiene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
P-Chloroaniline
Pentac 1 orobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodi ch loromethane
Carbon Disulfide
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Isobutyl Alcohol
Acrylonitrile
1,4-Dioxane
Gamma-BHC
Alpha-BHC
2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy) Ethanol
EPA ITD STUDY | CLP Database
No. Min Max Mean (No. Min Max Mean
Wisconsin Study | Misc. Subtitle D
No. Min Max MeanJNo. Min Max Mean
| ORD/HWERL Study
(No. Min Max Mean
1 4760 4760 4760
2 575 5440 3010
1 3380 3380 3380
1 3740 3740 3740
1 2700 2700 2700
1 75 75 75
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
1 1210 1210 1210
NEIC Study
j No. Min Max Mean
3 300 240000 86767
1 700 700 700
8 4000 600000 137875
3 2200 19000 9733
1 71000 71000 71000
4 20000 490000 148000
1 10000 10000 10000
1 10000 10000 10000
1 30000 30000 30000
1 10000 10000 10000
1 1600 1600 1600
1 20000 20000 20000
1 1E+05 130000 130000
1 360 360 360
3 40 2500 1147
2 11 32 22
2 13 38 26
1 1000 1000 1000
2364
6 400 80000 23717
1 7800 7800 7800
1 5400 5400 5400
0000
NOTES:
(1)- All units in ug/l
(2)- Zero <0) indicates pollutant was analyzed for and not detected
(3)- No value indicates pollutant was not analyzed
(*). percent of Sites where pollutant was detected
-------
the Water Program's analytical methods. Because the data were
collected from several sources, there may be a few samples of
leachate from hazardous waste landfills, either active or inactive,
included in Table 5-8. It also is possible that RCRA analytical
methods may have been used for a few samples; however, the vast
majority of the leachates are from Subtitle D facilities and were
analyzed using the Water Program methods. The data from the
ORD/HWERL and NEIC studies in Table 5-8 present the organic
compounds found in solely hazardous waste (Subtitle C) landfills,
using the RCRA analytical methods. Table 5-9 is a composite of the
6 studies listed in Table 5-8.
According to the data in Table 5-8, the toxic organic portion
of the ORD/HWERL leachates were composed primarily of base/neutral
extractable compounds and organic acids, both in terms of the
number of compounds and their concentrations, although some
volatile compounds were found at very high concentrations. The
Wisconsin leachates contained primarily volatile compounds (both
halogenated and aromatics) as did the leachates from the
miscellaneous Subtitle D landfills; however, the predominance of
volatile compounds in the results of these two studies may be due
to analytes dominated by volatile compounds. Both the CLP data
base and the EPA-ITD study leachates showed a fairly even mix of
volatile, base/neutral extractable, and acid extractable compounds.
Although the list of analytes for the EPA-ITD study leachates
included all of the Appendix IX organics, few organic compounds
were found and at relatively low concentrations. The NEIC study
leachates were evenly divided between volatile and base/neutral
organic compounds.
One hundred and sixty-two organic compounds were found in the
ORD/HWERL and NEIC studies, which sampled hazardous waste landfill
leachates using RCRA analytical methods, compared to 97 organic
compounds in the Subtitle D landfill leachates using Water Program
analytical methods. The concentrations of individual compounds
also were significantly higher in the hazardous landfill leachates.
This suggests that leachates from hazardous waste landfills contain
more toxic organic compounds and at higher concentrations than
Subtitle D landfill leachates. However, the use of different
analytical methods also may have contributed to the difference in
analytical results. Another factor is that the list of analytes
differed for each study; however, the EPA-ITD study, which used the
most extensive list of analytes, found both the fewest organic
compounds in the leachates and some of the lowest concentrations.
Table 5-10 lists the most frequently found organic compounds
in leachates (i.e., those found in at least 50 percent of the
leachates sampled). These data show that approximately 25 toxic
organic compounds are found frequently in landfill leachates.
Three compounds (i.e., methylene chloride, toluene, and benzene)
were found in 50 percent or more of the leachate samples from four
or more of the studies reported in Table 5-8.
64
-------
TABLE 5-9 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN RAW LEACHATE
COMPOSITE OF DATA SOURCES
POLL.
#
44
25
11
87
23
7
10
13
27
85
30
26
6
14
32
20
16
552
R138
88
15
46
45
R366
29
50
86
HC250
55
4
38
V074
904
81
77
56
78
1
39
84
72
POLLUTANT NAME
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Tr ichl or oethy 1 ene
Chloroform
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1, 1-Ddichloroethane
1 , 4 -Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trans, -1 , 2-Dichloroethylene
1 , 3-Trichlorobenzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane
1 , 2 -Dichloropropane
2-Chloronapthalene
Chloroethane
Trichlorofluoroethane
1 , 3-Dichloropropylene
Vinyl Chloride
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Fluorotrichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoroethane
Chloromethyl-Oxirane
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Naphthalene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Trimethyl Benzene (Isomer)
2-Methylnaphthalene
1,2, 3 -Trimethyl Benzene
Phenanthrene
1 -Ethyl -2 -Methyl Benzene
Acenaphthylene
Tetramethyl Benzene , Isomer
Propyl Benzene
Nitrobenzene
1,3-Dimethyl benzene
Anthracene
Acenaphthene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) Anthracene
OVERALL-COMPOS ITE
Min. Max. Mean
0 620000
0 46000
0 100000
0 300000
0 55000
0 70000
0 57000
0 6300
0 9000
0 210000
0 6900
0 990
0 70000
0 70000
0 260
0 46
0 860
0 110
0 30
0 2700
0 500000
0 170
0 170
11 33
0 380
0 369
0 100
0 510000
0 370000
0 35000
0 6900
0 100000
143 300
15 3400
2240 2240
0 300
346 346
0 150
255 255
176 176
0 120
4600 4600
0 25
0 45
0 60
0 53
0 16
21673
9191
2955
5124
2538
1724
5433
355
1501
3947
390
285
5278
7184
84
23
31
19
11
179
27417
57
57
19
96
189
50
8393
16916
1323
508
3133
222
952
2240
92
346
49
255
176
1 *%
12
4600
10
23
*l f\
10
13
65
-------
TABLE 5-9
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN RAW LEACHATE
COMPOSITE OF DATA SOURCES (CONTINUED)
POLL.
#
74
75
76
557
569
930
65
944
943
947
34
31
64
21
R132
531
24
22
58
POLLUTANT NAME
Benzo (b) Fluoranthene
Benzo (k) Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Aniline
N,N-Dimethyl Acetamide
4-Chloroaniline
1-Methy 1-2 -Pyrrol idinone
Isoquinoline
Azepin-2 -One , Hydro- , 2H-
Pyridine
2-Chloro-Pyridine
4 -Methyl Benzenesulfonamide
Phenol
4 - ( P-Cresol ) Methy Iphenol
Benzoic Acid
Butanoic Acid
2-Methyl-Propanoic Acid
Pentanoic Acid
Alkanoic Acid
Hexanoic Acid
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Phenylacetic Acid
4- (Methylthio) -Phenol
Octanoic Acid
2 -Methyl -Butanoic Acid
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2,4, 6-Trimethyl-Phenol
Phenolpropanoic Acid
Pentachlorophenol
2,2-Dimethyl-Propanoic Acid
4-Chloro-Benzoic Acid
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
( 2, 4-Dichlorophenoxy) -Acetic Acid
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
2 , 5-Dichlorophenol
1-Napthalene Carboxylic Acid
4-4 ' -Methylenebis-Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
4-(l,l-Diethyl-ethyl) -Benzoic Acid
4-Methoxy-Phenylacetic Acid
3,4-Dichloro-Benzoic Acid
3- ( 1 , 1-Dimethylethyl ) -Phenol
1,2-Dicarboxylic Acid Benzene
2 , 5-Dimethyl Phenol
4 -Chloro-3 -Methy Iphenol
4 -Ni trophenol
OVERALL-COMPOSITE
Min . Max . Mean
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3020
7410
0
3880
202
0
0
1000
36
3660
4180
1120
0
0
1660
770
0
63
87
5720
27
0
228
8220
3860
80
3440
2760
618
5540
10
675
710
1210
525
33
318
0
0
11
11
16
820000
13800
15500
14400
3020
7410
11500
6200
6020
140000
47000
520000
49400
17000
21500
50100
39700
15000
6400
770
9440
2610
2900
5720
2230
1900
228
8220
3860
898
3440
2760
618
5540
1790
675
710
1210
525
33
318
36
17
6
6
8
91162
6900
6875
3075
3020
7410
5750
5040
1720
11760
6045
78371
10359
8380
13990
25610
7983
1410
3740
770
4720
942
1529
5720
890
582
228
8220
3860
579
3440
2760
618
5540
926
675
710
1210
525
33
318
24
9
66
-------
TABLE 5-9
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN RAW LEACHATE
COMPOSITE OF DATA SOURCES (CONTINUED)
POLL.
#
516
514
564
545
550
54
68
66
71
69
19
43
17
POLLUTANT NAME
Benzeneacetic Acid
Butanoic Acid, Ethyl Ester
Butai}oic Acid, Methyl Ester
2 -Methyl Hexanoic Acid
Acetdne
2-Butanone
Benzyl Alcohol
4-Methyl-2-Pentanol
2-Hexanone
4-Met3hyl-2-Pentanol
2 -Methyl Cyclopentanol
l,l'-Oxybis(2-Methoxy-) Ethane
2 -Butoxy-Ethanol
4 -Methy 1-2 -Pentanone
2- (2-Butoxyethoxy) -Ethanol
Cyclohexanone
Benzene-l,2-Dicarboxylic Acid Anhyd.
2,2,4 -Trimethyl-1 , 3-Pentanediol
Isophorone
2,2-Dimethyl-l, 3-Propanediol
Tributylester Phosphoric Acid
2-Ethyl-l-Hexanol
l-(2-Methoxy-l-Methylethoxy) -2-Propanol
1,2,4, 6-Tetrathiepane
1- (2-Butoxyethoxy) -Ethanol
2,2' -Thiobis-Ethanol
4-Hydroxy-3Methoxy Benzaldehyde
1,3 (2H) -Dione, IH-Isoindole
Napthol (1, 8-CD) Pyran-1, 3-Dione, 1H, 3H
Sul f onyb i s -Methane
2-Methyl-2 , 4-Pentanediol
Di-n-Butylphthalate
2 - [ 2 - ( 2 -Ethoxy-ethoxy ) Ethoxy ] -Ethanol
9 , 10-Anthracenedione
Isoindole-1, 3 (2h) -Dione, 3A, 4,7, 7A-Tetrah
Triphenyl-Phosphineoxide
2-Phenyl-2-01-Propan
1,2-Dicarboxylic Acid Anhydride Cyclohex
Alcanol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Methyl Acetophenone
D-n-Octyl Phthalate
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
Bis ( 2 -Chloroethoxy) Methane
Bis(Chloromethyl) Ether
OVERALL-COMPOSITE
Min. Max. Mean
4
23
12
480
0
0
0
130
17
2450
1130
540
0
0
940
0
1020
810
0
588
18200
434
112
3020
1230
3930
770
1490
31
1560
2660
0
1560
750
1630
2390
226
1030
1020
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
350
23
12
480
1000000
390000
68000
580
17200
33000
17800
16600
3740
71000
10800
3930
6720
5490
16000
2440
18200
1860
1550
3020
8860
3930
770
1490
692
1560
2660
996
1560
750
1630
2390
402
1030
1020
10000
2200
131
31
1100
25
250
177
23
12
480
63291
52064
9312
355
9805
15235
9460
8570
1325
4454
5580
1534
3970
3150
2832
1510
18200
960
830
3020
5040
3930
770
1490
360
1560
2660
60
1560
750
1630
2390
314
1030
1020
776
511
66
22
35
8
125
67
-------
TABLE 5-9
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN RAW LEACHATE
COMPOSITE OF DATA SOURCES (CONTINUED)
POLL.
#
70
67
510
585
91
112
2
515
8
571
509
506
513
936
554
523
18
580
578
502
POLLUTANT NAME
Diethyl Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
2 -Ethyl-1, 4 -Dimethyl -Benzene
Styrene
l,3-Diamino-4-Methyl Benzene
1 , 4-Diamino-Benzene
1 , 2-Diaxnino-Benzene
Benzamide
4 -Hydroxy-4 -Methyl -2 -Pentanone
Ethanol
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Ethane
1, l'-Oxybis-2-Ethoxy Ethane
Methane, Thiobis
N,N-Diemethyl Foramide
2 , 4 -Diemethyl Heptane
2,3, 5-Trimethyl Hexane
4-Ethyl-2-Methyl Hexane
Chlordane
PCB-1016
MCPP
TEPP
Acrolein
Ethyl Ether
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
0-Cresol
Alpha-Terpineol
N-Dodecane
P-Cymene
Thioxanthone
Vinyl Acetate
N-Tetracosane
Bis (2-Chloroethylether)
1,2,3, 4-Diepoxybutane
2 , 3-Dichloro-Aniline
2-Amino Naphthalene
2-Methoxy Aniline
2 -Methyl Benzenesulfonamide
2-Pyridinamine
4 -Ethyl -Morphol ine
1, 1,7-Trimethyl Bycyclo(2 , 2 , l)Hept-2-ene
n-Alkanes(c) *
2,2,4,6, 6-Pentamethyl-Heptane
Heptadecane
n-Alkanes(A) *
n-Alkanes(D) *
n-Alkanes (B) *
OVERALL-COMPOSITE
Min . Max . Mean
0
0
965
180
2480
1940
835
1500
710
42
13
460
47
0
150
29
160
200
629
6
665
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1150
942
515
114
560
520
17300
9540
4760
575
3380
3740
2700
2100
490
965
43000
2480
1940
835
1500
76000
42
13
460
47
15000
150
29
160
200
629
6
1193
3000000
14000
29000
24000
121
62
17
286
17
153
12
338
1150
942
515
114
560
520
17300
9540
4760
5440
3380
3740
2700
377
103
965
7632
2480
1940
835
1500
38355
42
13
460
47
7500
150
29
160
200
629
6
929
180604
4372
4068
2259
18
9
11
50
11
28
10
43
1150
942
515
114
560
520
17300
9540
4760
3010
3380
3740
2700
68
-------
TABLE 5-9
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN RAW LEACHATE
COMPOSITE OF DATA SOURCES (CONTINUED)
POLL.
#
106
107
538
9
12
52
933
R071
921
48
533
505
80
547
3
527
104
102
POLLUTANT NAME
2 -Propeny 1 idene-Cyclobutane
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
Tetrahydrofuran
1 , 2-Dibromoethane
2-Methyl-2-Butanol
2-Butanol
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachl or oethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
P-Chloroaniline
Pentaclorobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon Disulfide
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Isobutyl Alcohol
Acrylonitrile
1,4-Dioxane
Gamma-BBC
Alpha-BHC
2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy) Ethanol
OVERALL-COMPOSITE
Min. Max. Mean
75
300
700
4000
2200
71000
20000
0
0
0
10000
1600
20000
1E+05
0
0
0
0
1000
3
400
7800
5400
0
75
240000
700
600000
19000
71000
490000
10000
10000
30000
10000
1600
20000
130000
360
2500
32
38
1000
6
80000
7800
5400
1210
75
86767
700
137875
9733
71000
148000
5000
5000
15000
10000
1600
20000
130000
180
574
11
13
1000
4
23717
7800
5400
605
NOTES:
(1)- All units in ug/1
(2)- Zero (0) indicates pollutant was analyzed for and not detected
(3)- No value indicates pollutant was not analyzed
(*)- Percent of Sites where pollutant was detected
69
-------
TABLE 5-10. MOST FREQUENTLY FOUND ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS IN LEACHATES
No,
Pollutant
ORD/HWERL
Detects/No.
Wisconsin
Study
Samples(1)
EPA-ITD NEIC
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Benzene
13/13
13/13
12/13
20/24
22/24
18/24
4/12
5/12
2/12
11/13
16/18
12/18
Ethylbenzene 10/13
Phenol 13/13
Acetone 13/13
Butanone, 2- 12/13
Methyl-2-Pentanone, 4- 11/13
Trichloroethene 11/13
Total Xylenes 11/13
Hexanone, 2- 13/13
Methylphenol, 4- 12/13
O-Cresol (2-Methylphenol) 10/13
Chloroform 10/13
Dimethylphenol,2,4- 9/13
Di-N-Butyl Phathalate 9/13
Benzoic Acid 8/13
Tetrachloroethylene 7/13
Diethyl Phthalate 0/13
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene 5/13
Dichloroethane, 1-1 4/13
Alpha-Terpineol
Isophorone 1/13
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 1/13
Chlorobenzene 6/13
14/24
17/24
12/24
6/24
2/24
4/24
9/24
17/24
14/24
14/24
12/24
6/24
5/24
4/12
0/12
3/12
4/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
1/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
1/12
2/12
1/12
4/12
5/12
0/12
0/12
13/18
18/19
14/16
11/15
16/20
12/18
8/10
6/8
4/5
1/1
6/15
1/6
9/19
2/4
2/8
3/9
3/6
3/17
1/7
4/8
NOTE:
(1)
Data shows the pollutant frequency of occurrence, the number
of times the pollutant was detected per the number of samples
for which that pollutant was analyzed. Dashes (-) mean either
the pollutant was not analyzed for or data was not available
for this analysis. Sampling data used to prepare this table
are contained in Appendix A.
70
-------
The organic compounds found at the highest concentrations in
each study are summarized in Table 5-11. The NEIC and ORD/HWERL
lists are composed of compounds found in concentrations greater
than 100,000 jug/1 and 20,000 ng/1, respectively, while the other
studies list compounds found in concentrations greater than 1,000
Mg/1. The compounds with the highest concentrations (i.e., in the
ORD/HWERL and NEIC studies) include volatiles, base/neutral
extractables, and acid extractables. With the exception of phenol
and isophorone, all of the high-concentration compounds in the
Wisconsin study are volatile chlorinated compounds. This analysis
shows that at certain landfills, extremely high concentrations of
toxic materials can be expected in the leachate.
5.2.3 Leachate Flow Generation Rates
Numerous studies have attempted to correlate the rates of
leachate generation to landfill size (volume of wastes or surface
acreage), climatic factors (net precipitation) , geographic
location, and landfill design. Generally, these efforts have been
unsuccessful as is demonstrated by data from the Wisconsin Study
presented in Table 5-12, and as illustrated in Figure 5-1.
Studies indicate that leachate generation rates at a given
landfill vary greatly from day to day, primarily due to weather
conditions. One landfill with flow monitoring reported volumes
ranging from 800 to 70,000 gallons per day (gpd) . Such variations
coupled with the lack of flow monitoring at most landfills makes
any estimate of leachate volumes difficult. In lieu of predictions
based on landfill size, actual leachate collection ranges from 0
to 94,000 gpd. Volumes less than 100 gpd are insignificant and
probably represent intermittent flows. Two landfills reported
leachate rates of less than 1,000 gpd (0 and 270 gpd). If these
low values are eliminated, 26,500 gpd is the calculated average
leachate generation rate. Since these volumes generally are based
on estimates rather than actual measurements, 30,000 gpd was
assumed to be the average leachate generation rate for an "average"
landfill.
5.2.4 Summary
In summary, the following observations can be made about
landfill leachate:
Landfill leachates can contain very high concentrations
(>100,000 /ig/1) of toxic organic compounds.
The analytical methods used to identify and quantify
organic pollutants in leachate may have an effect on the
quantification of the organics found.
71
-------
TABLE 5-11. ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND AT THE
HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATE
ORD/HWERL Study
(cone. > 20,000 M9/1)
NEIC Study
(cone. > 100,000
CLP Database
(cone. > 1,000 M9/1)
Phenol
Methylphenol, 4-
Benzoic Acid
Butanoic Acid
Pentanoic Acid
O-Cresol (2-Methylphenol)
Alkanoic Acid
Hexanoic Acid
Acetone
Butanone, 2- (MEK)
Benzyl Alcohol
Pentanol, 4-Methyl,2-
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Toluene
Aniline
Phenol, 2,6-bis(l,l-
dimethyl-ethyl)-4-
Methyl-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Tetrahydro furan
Butanone, 2- (MEK)
Total Xylenes
Acetone
Acrolein
Butanol, 2-
Phenol
Benzoic Acid
Aniline
PCB 1242
Bromochloromethane
Phenol
Methylphenol, 4-
Butanoic Acid
Hexanoic Acid
Butanone, 2- (MEK)
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
Hydroxy-4-Methyl -
2-Pentanone, 4-
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Benzene, 1,3-
Dimethyl
Formamide, N,N-
Dimethyl
EPA-ITD Study
(cone. > 1000 M9/1)
Wisconsin Study
(cone. > 1000
Misc. Subtitle D
(cone. > 1000 M9/1)
Acetone
Butanone, 2- (MEK)
Isophorone
Diethyl Ether
Methylene Chloride
TEPP
Ethyl Ether
Phenol
Isophorone
Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether, 2-
Methylene Chloride
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethene
Chloroform
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
Toluene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Phenol
Methylene Chloride
72
-------
TABLE 5-12. LEACHATE GENERATION WISCONSIN STUDY
Leachate Removal
Landfill Size Rate
Landfill Type Landfill ID (acres) (gal/acre/day) Qal/Landfill
Nat. Attenuation 2680 49 0 0
Zone-of-Saturation 572 82 351 28,782
611 94 1000 94,000
1099 96 387 3^,152
1678 166 287 47,642
2484 47 304 14,288
2822 18 15 270
Clay-lined 2569 30 88 2,640
2821 24 215 5,160
2892 10 176 1,760
2895 29 204 5,91f?
Retrofit 652 38 875 33,250
73
-------
«
(0 •*•
tt Q
(0 "-
§<£
C Q)
* 0
Leachate 1
(Gallon//*
1,000-
900-
800-
700-
600-
500-
400-
300-
200-
100-
n
•
.
*
.
• ^
in on on A n en en ~tr\ on on 1 nn 1 1 n 1 on i on i -in 1 en i/?n nn
Landfill Size (Acres)
Figure 5-1. Leachate Flow Rates in Wisconsin
(Source: Wisconsin Study, Ref. 7)
-------
Raw leachates are characterized by high concentrations
of BOD5, COD, and TOC.
Volatile organics frequently are found in leachates,
while nonvolatile compounds, if present, are not readily
detected.
Hazardous waste landfill leachates appear to contain more
toxic organic compounds than leachate from Subtitle D
landfills, but this observation may be due to the list
of analytes and/or analytical methodology problems. In
terms of COD and TOC, however, there is no apparent
difference between hazardous waste and Subtitle D
landfills.
Leachate flow rates vary widely due, in part, to climatic
and geological conditions, but are not related to the
size of the landfill. An average leachate flowrate is
estimated to be 30,000 gpd for an "average" landfill.
Leachates generally contain high concentrations of
aluminum, iron, zinc, manganese, and boron, while the
concentrations of toxic metals vary from below detection
to over 100 mg/1.
5.3 INCINERATOR SCRUBBER WASTEWATERS
5.3.1 Sources of Incinerator Scrubber Wastewater Data
The characterization of raw incinerator scrubber wastewaters
is based solely on the data obtained from the EPA-ITD study
sampling efforts. The EPA-ITD study sampled scrubber wastewaters
at two incinerators burning RCRA wastes and one incinerator burning
both Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)-regulated (PCB) wastes
and RCRA wastes. Data listings for each facility are presented in
Appendix B.
5.3.2 Pollutants in the Incinerator Scrubber Wastewaters
5.3.2.1 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants
Chemical characteristics of raw scrubber wastewaters are
partially a function of the operation of the scrubber water
system. Manufacturers of wet scrubbers indicate that the amount
of scrubber water that can be recirculated depends on the amount
of solids being removed from the gas stream. In one type of
scrubber operation, TSS is maintained between 6,000 and 10,000
ppm, or TDS less than 10 percent. Ammonia often is added to the
75
-------
recirculating water to neutralize the acids from the gases being
scrubbed. At other operations, scrubber effluent is treated using
lime precipitation prior to recycle. This results in a low TSS
concentration in the recirculating scrubber water.
These two different types of operations result in different
chemical characteristics of raw scrubber wastewaters, as summarized
in Table 5-13 and presented in Appendix B. TSS concentrations
range from 2 to 58,000 mg/1; the higher concentrations were
associated with systems that operated without lime precipitation.
Ammonia concentrations range from 0.1 to 3,100 mg/1. The higher
concentrations were the result of ammonia used to neutralize the
acids. The pH of most raw scrubber wastewaters is low due to the
hydrogen chloride gases generated by burning wastes and removed by
the wet scrubbers.
High TDS and chlorides are characteristics of all scrubber
wastewaters. The high TDS is caused by the removal of gases
containing chloride and SO2 (producing sulfate in water), the
addition of chemicals to neutralize the acids in the stack gases,
and the dissolution of solids in the particulates removed by the
scrubbers.
5.3.2.2 Toxic Pollutants
Tables 5-14 and 5-15 summarize the metals and organic
pollutants in raw scrubber wastewaters. These data indicate that
scrubber wastewaters contain high concentrations of metals, but
few organic pollutants.
Metals
Table 5-14 shows that scrubber wastewaters can contain high
concentrations of aluminum, iron, lead, zinc, mercury, and copper
(i.e., 20,000 to 500,000 Mg/1)- Manganese, boron, molybdenum, tin,
titanium, and nickel occur in significant (over 1 mg/1) but lesser
concentrations. Potential sources of the metals are the wastes
and waste containers being incinerated and the materials that
comprise the incinerator and scrubbers. The presence of titanium,
which is a corrosion-resistant metal used in scrubber construction,
is one example.
The metals concentrations are also a function of the operation
of the scrubber water system, with the high concentrations
occurring at the facility that recirculates a high TSS and TDS load
in the water. The data suggest that a large portion of the metals
are associated with the solids being recirculated (i.e., metals
contained in the fly ash), but this may not be the case. Since
this scrubber water is not treated (i.e., chemical precipitation
76
-------
TABLE 5-13.
CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS IN
RAW SCRUBBER WASTEWATERS
Pollutant
Range of Detected Pollutantm(2)
Minimum Maximum Mean
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
TDS
Chloride
O&G
Ammonia-N
TKN
NO2 and N03-N
Fluoride
Sulfide
pH (S.U.)
Phenols
Cyanide
TVO
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
18
110
17
2
4,007
2,400
1.0
0.1
1.6
0.25
2.75
0.1
1.2
0.05
0.01
0.1
440
5.16
150
300
760
630
58,000
11,700
9,000
1.8
3,100
200
3.9
400
0.1
7.3
0.22
0.02
0.1
3,410
320
500
88
410
195
12,700
6,710
5,550
1.1
733
56
1.7
100
0.1
0.12
0.01
0.1
1,660
203
330
NOTES:
(1) All concentrations expressed in mg/1, except pH
Units).
(Standard
(2) Data presented are the results of the EPA-ITD sampling effort
of three incinerator scrubber wastewaters. All sampling data
for these three facilities are contained in Appendix B.
77
-------
TABLE 5-14. METALS IN RAW SCRUBBER WASTEWATER
Metal
Range of Detected Metal(I]
Minimum Maximum Mean
Percent of Samples
Where Metal
Was Detected
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Boron
Barium
Molybdenum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
2,130
3,400
269
260
190
130
28
6
<1
12
45
<4
84
88
0.26
78
<5
2
<10
<13
59
4
<10
350
170,000
520,000
12,000
18,000
6,000
12,000
4,420
3,460
14
2,000
2,800
860
23,000
75,000
318
8,300
13
58
17
4,900
8,300
110
42
660,000
48,100
164,000
3,420
4,980
2,070
3,580
1,500
1,040
4.2
600
970
282
6,430
21,200
71
2,310
6.6
35
11
1,580
2,790
46
18
159,000
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
67
100
100
67
100
100
100
100
20
100
17
83
100
100
33
100
NOTES:
(1) All concentrations expressed in M9/1-
(2) Data presented are the results of the EPA-ITD sampling effort
of three incinerator scrubber wastewaters. All sampling data
for these three facilities are contained in Appendix B.
78
-------
TABLE 5-15. ORGANICS IN RAW SCRUBBER WASTEWATER(l)(2)
Number of Samples
Where Compound
Compound Concentration (1) Was Detected
Acetone
Benzene
Bromoform
Fluoranthene
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
Pyrene
Thioxanthone
65
61
15
109
907
326
4,067
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NOTES:
(1) All concentrations expressed in
(2) Data presented are the results of the EPA-ITD sampling effort
of three incinerator scrubber wastewaters. All sampling data
for these three facilities are contained in Appendix B.
79
-------
and clarification) prior to recirculation, a significant amount of
dissolved metals may accumulate in the scrubber water.
Organic Compounds
The absence of all but a few organic pollutants in the raw
scrubber wastewaters is expected if the RCRA and TSCA incinerators
are achieving the required destruction levels. The TOC data
support the relative absence of organics except at one facility.
In this facility, which recirculates high TSS concentration
scrubber water, the TOC concentrations are relatively high;
however, the high TOCs may be due to carbon particles in the TSS
from fly ash rather than organic compounds, because carbon
particles can produce a positive TOC test. None of the raw
wastewaters were analyzed for dioxin and furan isomers, but the
presence of these toxic organics in the scrubber sludges suggests
their presence in the raw scrubber wastewaters. Further discussion
of dioxins and furans is presented in Section 6.2.
5.3.3 Scrubber Wastewater Flow Rates
Data for scrubber wastewater discharge (i.e., blowdown from
the recirculating scrubber water system) was compiled from four
facilities (three facilities sampled during the EPA-ITD sampling
program and information obtained from a fourth facility during an
engineering visit). Manufacturers recommended that blowdown be
controlled by the amount of TSS or TDS in the scrubber water.
However, the scrubber systems sampled during this study show a wide
range of wastewater blowdown rates and water used for scrubbing as
shown in Table 5-16.
These data show an average scrubber blowdown rate of 1.76
gal/lb of waste incinerated. In addition to being affected by the
amount of fly ash particulates (TSS) and acid (as TDS) removed from
the stack gases, the blowdown rate depends on the level of TSS
maintained in the scrubber water system (Section 5.3.2), the
chemicals used for scrubber water treatment, and the operation of
the scrubber wastewater (blowdown) treatment system, if one is
in-place.
Manufacturers' data compiled by Mitre Corporation (Ref. 9) for
hazardous waste incinerator types and capacities are summarized in
Table 5-17.
The weighted average is 2,200 Ib/hour or 53,000 Ib/day, based
on a 24-hour operating day- Coupled with the average scrubber
wastewater blowdown rate (1.76 gal/lb waste), the average scrubber
wastewater discharge per facility is estimated to be 93,000 gpd.
80
-------
TABLE 5-16. SCRUBBER WASTEWATER SLOWDOWN RATES (1)
Blowdown
% of recirculating flow gal/lb. waste incinerated
Site G
Site H
Site I
Site X
....
9.6
2.2
15
0.65
3.90
0.46
2.02
Note: Sites G, H, and I were sampled during the EPA-ITD
sampling program. An engineering site visit was
conducted at Site X.
81
-------
TABLE 5-17. SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR TYPES
AND CAPACITIES (1)
Incinerator
Type
Liquid Injection
Fixed Hearth
Rotary Kiln
Fluidized Bed
Average or Median
Capacity
rib/hr)
1,600
810
1,600
31,000
Number of
Units
93
48
34
_5
180
NOTE:
(1) Data supplied by Mitre Corporation (Reference 9).
82
-------
Three of the four facilities that provided data during this
study are large incinerators. Their average flow is 350,000 gpd,
which is well above the projected industry average of 93,000 gpd.
5.3.4 Summary
In summary, the following observations can be made about raw
incinerator scrubber wastewaters:
Chemical characteristics of raw scrubber wastewater are
partially a function of the scrubber system operation.
High ammonia concentrations are found in systems that
use ammonia to neutralize acids. TSS concentrations are
high in systems that do not use lime precipitation.
Raw scrubber wastewaters are characterized by low pH,
high TDS, and high chlorides.
Scrubber wastewaters contain high concentrations of
metals. The metals detected at the highest
concentrations include aluminum, iron, lead, zinc,
mercury, and copper.
Scrubber wastewaters contain few organic pollutants.
An average scrubber wastewater discharge is estimated to
be 93,000 gpd based on flow measurements and
manufacturers' data.
5.4 AQUEOUS HAZARDOUS WASTE
The following sections summarize the pollutants found in raw
aqueous hazardous wastes. Data were obtained from two sources, as
indicated in the summary tables. Individual listings of the data
are presented in Appendix C.
5.4.1 Sources of Raw Waste Data
The primary source for analytical data characterizing aqueous
hazardous wastes is the 1986-87 EPA-ITD study sampling effort.
Four aqueous hazardous waste treatment facilities were sampled
during this program. The aqueous treaters accepted and treated
inorganic industrial wastes (plating baths, pickle liquors);
organic wastes (food and pharmaceutical manufacturing, solvent
reclaiming, detergent manufacturing); oil wastes; tank washings;
leachates (hazardous and Subtitle D landfills); brines; scrubber
wastewaters; miscellaneous waste acids; and caustics.
83
-------
The EPA-ITD study sampling data are supplemented by analytical
data obtained from two aqueous treaters sampled during an OSW study
to support OSW's Land Disposal Restriction Rules. While the
EPA-ITD study analyzed the wastewaters for the Appendix IX
pollutants in addition to conventionals and nonconventionals, the
OSW samples were only analyzed for 15 toxic metals, 29 volatile
organic compounds, 29 extractables, and selected conventional and
nonconventional pollutants. QA/QC data are available for both the
EPA-ITD and OSW sampling efforts.
5.4.2 Pollutants in the Raw Aqueous Hazardous Waste
5.4.2.1 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants
Table 5-18 summarizes the conventional and nonconventional
pollutant data from the previously discussed sources. The data
show that aqueous hazardous wastes contain high concentrations of
BOD5_, COD, and TOC (mean concentrations of BOD5_, COD, and TOC are
in the range of 1,500 to 15,000 mg/1). These data indicate that
these facilities have a wide range of concentrations for these
pollutants. In addition, the individual sample data presented in
Appendix C show that the concentrations of these pollutants vary
widely from day to day. This is due to variations in waste types
being processed by these facilities.
The fact that the raw wastes treated at aqueous hazardous
treatment facilities are high-strength wastes also is reflected in
the presence of other pollutants, specifically TSS, TDS, total
solids, ammonia, TKN, oil and grease, and cyanides. As with BOD5_,
COD, and TOC, the concentrations of these pollutants are highly
variable, and the overall mean concentrations are high.
5.4.2.2 Toxic Pollutants
Metals
Metals data for the raw aqueous hazardous wastes are
summarized in Table 5-19. Like the conventional and
nonconventional pollutant data, the metals data show a wide range
of concentrations among facilities and from day to day. Metals,
including aluminum, iron, (Jaoron, copper, zinc, chromium, lead,
cadmium, nickel, and manganese, were found at concentrations as
high as 11,000 mg/1. Copper, chromium, cadmium, lead, nickel, and
zinc are common metals with numerous industrial uses, which
accounts for their presence in all raw waste samples. Aluminum,
iron, boron, and manganese are also present in many industrial
wastewaters. Less commonly used industrial metals such as
beryllium, selenium, silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, cobalt,
arsenic, and yttrium were found at lower concentrations.
84
-------
TABLE 5-18. CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS IN
AQUEOUS HAZARDOUS WASTES - SUMMARY(1)
Pollutant
BOD5
COO
TOC
Total Solids
TDS
TSS
Chloride
O&G
Total Organic Hal ides
Ammonia(2)
TKN(2)
N02 and NOj-N
Fluoride
Sulfide
Phenols
Cyanide
Silica
TVO
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
NOTES:
Minimum
330
4,160
450
--
2,700
130
300
4.2
--
8.1
2.5
2.3
1.4
0.1
--
59
5.0
527
EPA-ITD
Maximum
3,720
14,100
1,600
--
Study
Mean
2,000
8,360
985
--
70,400 23,400
9,240
11,500
1,390
--
1,000
1,210
500
18.7
5.0
--
711
136
6,500
(1) All concentrations expressed in mg/l
(2) Evidence of the
analytical problems
1,570
4,720
385
--
475
382
138
8.64
1.18
--
389
48
2,270
, except
discussed
No. of
Samples Minimum
8
8 11
7
200
8 10
8 46
8
8 2
--
8
8
8
8
8
--
8
8
8
total organic
in Section 5.
,000
52
,000
,000
,000
--
,600
0
20
--
--
19
--
<20
0.4
--
--
--
~ ~
OSW Study
Overa 1 1
Maximum Mean
..
70,000 39
19,000 4
250,000 223
170,000 107
240,000 115
--
18,000 11
0.36
100
--
--
52
--
450
1.32
--
--
--
~ ~
ha I ides (weight %),
..
,300
,180
,000
,000
,000
--
,200
0
52
--
--
35
--
235
0
--
--
--
" ~
and
1 can be seen here were
No. of
Samples
._
3
14
3
3
3
--
3
.144 15
3
--
--
3
--
2
.81 3
--
--
--
~ ~
silica (weight
Mean
2,000
16,800
3,115
223,000
46,200
32,500
4,720
3,330
0.144
360
382
110
8.64
48
0.81
389
48
2,270
%).
ammonia is reported higher
No. of
Samples
8
11
21
3
11
11
8
11
15
11
8
11
8
10
3
8
8
8
than TKN.
-------
Table 5-19. Metals in Aqueous Hazardous Wastes - Summary(1)
o\
Pollutant
Aluminuum
Iron
Manganese
Boron
Barium
Molybdenum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Chromium, hex.
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Minimum
730
3,780
380
8,800
205
608
22
<25
<1
16
108
--
<50
296
<200
1.1
252
<5
2.2
--
<40
<50
47
<10
334
EPA- 1 TO
Maximum
63,400
11,200,000
68,400
63,500
1,100
2,290
2,140
1,051
16
1,190
99,900
--
1,310
969,000
17,100
92
93,700
3,270
525
<10
3,520
2,280
641
430
6,570,000
Study
OSW Study
X
Mean Detected
(2) (3)
29,300
2,560,000
16,900
26,300
522
1,080
477
248
14
363
35,600
--
547
221,000
6,940
25
22,500
685
177
--
2,000
806
227
206
1,330,000
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
86
25
100
100
--
62
100
75
100
100
62
62
0
50
75
75
38
100
Minimum
--
--
<10,000
--
<10,000
--
--
3,900
12,000
50
--
72,000
1,100
--
4,300
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
3,900
Maximum
--
--
12,000
--
40,000
<1,000
<2,000
225,000
2,581,000
893,000
--
1,500,000
212,000
<1,000
16,330,000
<10,000
<2,000
<10,000
--
--
--
--
1,700,000
X
Mean Detected
(2) (4)
--
--
(5)
--
(5)
--
--
58,800
1,205,000
408,000
--
294,000
60,900
--
1,992000
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
194,000
--
--
8
--
8
0
0
53
100
100
--
100
67
0
100
0
0
0
--
--
--
--
100
Overall
No. of
Mean Samples
(6) (7)
29,300
2,560,000
16,900
26,300
1,800
1,080
4,870
248
14
29,600
798,000
408,000
547
269,000
25,000
25
1,307,000
685
177
0
2,000
806
227
206
589,000
8
8
8
8
9
8
9
6
2
16
23
12
5
23
16
8
23
5
5
0
4
6
6
3
23
-------
Table 5-19. Metals in Aqueous Hazardous Wastes - Summary(1) (Continued)
NOTES:
(1) All concentrations expressed in fig/1.
(2) Mean of detected values; values reported less than the detection limit not included in mean calculation
(3) % detected in the EPA-ITD Study based on sampling data from four sites (total of 8 samples). All sampling data are contained in Appendix C.
(4) % detected in the OSW Study was based on sampling results from two facilities. The number of samples for which a given pollutant was analyzed
ranged from 12 to 15. Sampling data are contained in Appendix C.
(5) Mean not presented when the pollutant was measured at higher than the detection limit in only one sample.
(6) The overall mean was calculated using the mean concentrations from the two studies using the following formula:
Overall mean = Z (mean x n)
Z n
(7) Total number of samples in the combined studies in which the pollutant was detected.
00
-------
Organic Compounds
Table 5-20 summarizes the organic pollutants found in the raw
aqueous hazardous wastes. Like the other pollutants, the organic
compounds are found in a wide range of concentrations and in many
cases, at high concentrations. Common organic solvents such as
acetone, 2-butanone (MEK), methylene chloride, benzene, 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane, and toluene were found in the highest
concentrations. These compounds were also among the most
frequently detected organic pollutants (i.e., found in 38 to 75
percent of the samples taken in the HWT study. In addition,
several extractable organics: thioxanthone, 2-chloronaphthalene,
alpha-terpineol, phenol, and 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, were found
in high concentrations (i.e., as high as 28,000 jug/I) , but usually
in less than half of the samples. The most commonly found
extractable compound was di-n-butyl phthalate, which was detected
in 63 percent of the samples tested. Phenol was detected in two
of the three OSW study samples, but in only two of eight EPA-ITD
study samples.
5.4.3 Aqueous Hazardous Waste Flow Rates
Flow data for aqueous hazardous waste treatment facilities
were compiled from numerous sources. The HWT study sampling
efforts, presampling visits, and telephone contacts yielded flow
rates from 12 facilities. These ranged from 13,600 to 117,000
gpd, with an average of 59,400 gpd. The "1985 Survey of Selected
Firms in the Hazardous Waste Management Industry" (Ref. 11)
indicated that 34 chemical/biological treatment facilities treated
1,567,000 wet metric tons of hazardous wastes in 1985. Assuming
300 days/year of operations and 8.34 Ib/gal, the average flow rate
is 40,600 gpd. If these two estimates are combined, a flow
weighted average of 45,500 gpd is calculated for a typical aqueous
hazardous waste treatment facility.
5.4.4 Summary
In summary, the following observations can be made about the
toxic pollutants in raw aqueous hazardous wastes and industry flow
rates:
Aqueous hazardous wastes contain high concentrations of
BOD5, COD, and TOC.
Both metals and organic compounds were found in a wide
range of concentrations and, in some cases, at very high
concentrations.
88
-------
TABLE 5-20. ORGANIC POLLUTANTS IN AQUEOUS HAZARDOUS WASTES - SUMMARY(1)
00
Pollutant Minimum
Volatiles
Acetone <50
Benzene <10
Butanone, 2- (MEK) <50
Carbon Tetrachloride <10
Chlorobenzene <10
Chloroform <10
Dichloroethane, 1,1- <10
Dichloroethane, 1,2- <10
Dichloroethene, 1,1- <10
Di ethyl Ether <50
Dibromoethane, 1,2- (EDB) <10
Ethyl benzene <10
Hexanone, 2- <10
Methylene Chloride <10
Tetrachloroethane,
1,1,2,2- <10
Tetrachloroethene <10
Toluene <10
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <10
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- <10
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- <10
Trichloroethene <10
Vinyl Acetate <10
Extractables
Alpha-Terpineol <10
Isophorone <10
N-Dodecane (N-C12) <10
EPA ITD
Maximum
1,719,690
17,171
156,973
329
650
1,151
839
263
1,517
81
20
934
200
4,094
108,716
3,043
115,068
190
4,163
332
5,060
814
5,701
2,372
47
Study
OSW Study Overall
Mean Detected
(2) (3)
254,177
2,241
48,225
54
94
285
150
62
198
54
11
378
57
1,388
13,635
407
16,281
55
1,063
52
673
111
1,446
501
19
63
75
63
25
25
38
25
38
13
13
13
63
25
75
38
25
75
38
75
25
63
13
38
38
13
Minimum Maximum Mean Detected Mean
(2) (4) (6)
22,000 (5) 33 228,380
2,241
48,225
54
94
<10 110 18 8 125
<10 340 64 27 98
62
198
54
11
<10 200 49 40 181
57
<10 63,000 6,875 20 4,966
13,635
<10 2,300 200 33 279
<10 2,300 298 47 6,110
<10 25 11 8 29
<10 9,400 1,182 40 1,139
<10 46 13 8 29
<10 1,100 123 20 333
111
1,446
501
19
No. of
Samples
(7)
9
8
8
8
8
20
20
8
8
8
8
20
8
23
8
21
22
20
22
20
21
8
4
6
4
-------
TABLE 5-20. ORGANIC POLLUTANTS IN AQUEOUS HAZARDOUS WASTES - SUMMARY(1) (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Minimum
N-Hexadecane (N-C16) <10
N-Docosane (N-C22) <10
Benzoic Acid <10
P-Cresol <10
0-Cresol <10
Thioxanthone <10
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate <10
Pentachlorophenol <50
Phenol <24
Chlorophenol, 2- <10
Chloronaphthalene, 2- <10
Chloro-3-Methylphenol, 4- <10
Benzyl Alcohol <10
Hexanoic Acid <10
Isobutyl Alcohol <10
Methyl Methacrylate <10
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate <10
Fluorene <10
Naphthalene <10
Styrene <10
Diphenylhydrazine, 1,2- <10
Dini trotoluene, 2,4- <10
Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether <10
Diphenylamine <10
Hexachloro-1,3-Butadiene <10
Hexach I orobenzene <10
Hexach I oroe thane <10
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- <10
Methylnaphthalene, 2- <10
EPA I TO
Maximum
2,969
5,056
1,129
64
1,703
28,625
1,059
117
4,442
10
16,480
3,397
2,601
2,443
187
12
380
20
285
1,003
26
192
1,391
22
599
14
132
106
2,444
Study
OSW Study
X X
Mean Detected Minimum Maximum Mean Detected
(2) (3) (2) (4)
869
1,019
540
24
222
7,996
220
67
1,560
10
3,519
1,322
795
928
35
10
129
13
75
224
19
57
286
13
157
11
41
34
358
25
13
25
25
13
25
63
13
75 3,900 4,400 4,150 67
13
25
25 -- 3,100 (5) 33
38
38
25
13
38
13
25
38
13
25
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Overs 1 1
Mean
(6)
869
1,019
540
24
222
7,996
220
67
2,208
10
3,519
1,678
795
928
35
10
129
13
75
224
19
57
286
13
157
11
41
34
358
No. of
Samples
(7)
5
5
4
4
8
7
5
4
8
4
6
5
8
5
8
8
6
4
5
6
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
7
-------
TABLE 5-20. ORGANIC POLLUTANTS IN AQUEOUS HAZARDOUS WASTES - SUMMARY(1) (CONTINUED)
Pollutant
EPA ITD Study
Minimum Maximum
Mean
(2)
Detected
(3)
OSW Study
Minimum Maximum
Mean
(2)
Detected
(4)
Overall
Mean
(6)
No. of
Samples
(7)
N-Octadecane (N-C18) <10 449 98 20
N-Decane (N-C10) <10 670 208 33
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate <10 785 165 20
Nitrophenol, 2- <20 202 66 25
N-Nitrosodi-N-
Butylamine <10 200 37 14
P-Cresol <10 64 24 50
98
208
165
66
37
24
5
6
5
4
7
4
NOTES:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
All concentrations expressed in fig/1.
Mean of detected values; values reported less than the detection limit not included in mean calculation.
% detected in the EPA-ITD Study based on sampling data from four sites (total of 8 samples). All sampling data are contained in Appendix C.
% detected in the OSU Study was based on the sampling results from two facilities. The number of samples for which a given pollutant was analyzed
ranged from three to fifteen. Sampling data are contained in Appendix C.
Mean not presented when the pollutant was measured at higher than the detection limit in only one sample.
The overall mean was calculated using the mean concentrations from the two studies using the following formula:
Overall mean = 2 (mean x n)
2 n
(7)
Total number of samples in the combined studies in which the pollutant was detected.
-------
The metals found the most frequently and at the highest
concentrations were chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, iron,
aluminum, boron, and manganese.
The organics found the most frequently and at the highest
concentrations were industrial solvents.
The wide range of concentrations of the toxic pollutants
in the raw waste samples can be attributed to the high
variability of wastes received and treated by these
facilities.
Flow rates at facilities treating aqueous hazardous waste
averaged 45,500 gpd.
92
-------
6. CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
This section discusses the control and treatment technologies
employed in each of the hazardous waste treatment (HWT) industry
subcategories. The information presented in this section has been
complied from several sources. The effluent and residuals data
corresponding to specific treatment systems were obtained from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Industrial Technology
Division (EPA-ITD) study, as well as other EPA sampling efforts.
Discussions of other treatment and disposal methods employed by the
industry were obtained from presampling visits, telephone contacts,
and published reports.
Because of the variability in the strength of the raw wastes
and the long detention times of the treatment systems, it is
difficult to estimate percent pollutant reductions, especially with
only two consecutive days of samples. Therefore, the percent
reduction data presented in this section cannot be considered
accurate. Many data pairs actually showed negative removals. In
these instances, the percent removals were assumed to be zero.
6.1 LEACHATE TREATMENT
Leachate treatment systems are composed of various
combinations of unit processes, each highly individualized to meet
the regulatory requirements imposed by the receiving Publicly-Owned
Treatment Works (POTW) or the NPDES permitting authority- For
example, some POTWs only require aeration to oxygenate the
leachate, while other POTWs require, in addition to aeration,
combinations of biological treatment, air stripping, and carbon
adsorption prior to discharge. These extremes reflect the
diversity in approaches to the treatment of leachate found in the
HWT industry.
6.1.1 Sources of Data
The primary source of data regarding leachate treatment
technologies and the only source of effluent data is the EPA-ITD
study effort, which included six leachate treatment facilities.
Telephone contacts supplied information on other discharge
technologies such as recirculation, solidification, and contract
hauling. Only facilities that provide treatment and discharge of
leachate actually were visited and/or sampled.
93
-------
6.1.2 Subtitle D and Subtitle C Facilities
Little information is available at this time regarding the
differences in treatment technologies employed for treatment of
leachate from hazardous versus Subtitle D landfills; however, of
the 10 hazardous waste landfills for which information is available
(6 landfills from the EPA-ITD sampling program and 4 from telephone
contacts), 5 have on-site wastewater treatment plants, 3 contract
haul their leachate to a commercial aqueous treater, 1 deep well
injects, and 1 solidifies and reburies the leachate. Of the 5
with on-site wastewater treatment systems, two also serve in a
commercial aqueous hazardous waste treater capacity.
Discharge to a POTW or hauling to a commercial aqueous treater
are the primary leachate management methods for Subtitle D
landfills. As mentioned previously, the treatment technologies
employed by those discharging to a POTW range from aeration to
sophisticated advanced treatment systems. Specific leachate
treatment systems, their technologies, and effluent quality will
be discussed in the following sections.
6.1.3 Preliminary Treatment
6.1.3.1 Treated Effluent Data
Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants
Three landfills included in the EPA-ITD study provided only
aeration of their leachate prior to discharge to POTWs. The
landfills were municipal landfills and aeration was employed to
protect the sewers from hydrogen sulfide and methane gas buildup
rather than to provide biological treatment. Consequently, little
BODI5 and COD reduction were observed at two of the facilities. The
third facility has an aerated lagoon, which provided a 45 percent
reduction in BOD5 and 50 percent reduction in COD. Some TOC and
ammonia reduction was observed in all of the systems. The average
effluent concentrations from these three landfills are summarized
in Table 6-1.
Metals
Aluminum, iron, manganese, boron, and zinc were found in
concentrations higher than 1,000 ng/I in the raw leachate feed to
the aeration ponds. Mean reductions' of these metals ranged from
0 to 46 percent. The metals showing the highest average percent
reductions were iron, aluminum, and zinc.
94
-------
TABLE 6-1. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN PRELIMINARY
TREATMENT SYSTEM (AERATED LAGOON) EFFLUENTS -
LEACHATE SUBCATEGORY
Effluent Concentration
Pollutant Units
BODS
COD
TOC
TSS
Ammonia
TKN
Oil & Grease
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Boron
Zinc
Nickel
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Molybdenum
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Antimony
Arsenic
Mercury
Acetone
Alpha-Terpineol
Benzyl Alcohol
Bromoform
Diethyl Phthalate
Isophorone
Methylene Choride
Butanone, 2- (MEK)
Hexanone, 2-
Carbon Tetrachloride
Methyl Methane-
sulfonate
Dimethyl Sulfone
Benzene
Diethyl Ether
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Mg/i
Mg/l
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Minimum
180
992
270
16
39
50
4.
<100
10,700
5,130
1,220
338
67
153
<5
15
75
<25
<200
<100
<50
<50
<50
<20
45
<0.
<50
65
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
Maximum
2,520
7,860
3,670
3,080
197
301
1 498
1,720
205,000
19,300
5,070
3,660
298
271
<5
87
91
41
<200
<100
81
<50
<50
<20
56
2 <0.
7,772
367
64
62
26
245
17
6,600
57
23
557
12
<10
<50
Mean %
Mean Removal (1)
1,270
3,890
1,120
658
118
163
98
745
70,000
10,200
2,710
1,050
184
210
<5
45
83
28
<200
<100
55
<50
<50
<20
50
2 <0.2
2,564
154
24
19
14
70
11
2,070
18
12
119
10
<10
<50
15
18
18
23
25
19
44
46
45
22
19
39
13
24
(2)
37
20
1
(2)
(2)
15
13
5
(2)
23
(2)
29
6
0
0
8
51
64
49
0
0
0
0
27
60
95
-------
TABLE 6-1. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN PRELIMINARY
TREATMENT SYSTEM (AERATED LAGOON) EFFLUENTS -
LEACHATE SUBCATEGORY (Continued)
Effluent Concentration Mean %
Pollutant Units Minimum Maximum Mean Removal(1)
Ethylbenzene »«/i
-------
Organic Pollutants
As discussed in Section 5, there is evidence to indicate that
the analytical methods used for the analysis of organic compounds
may not detect and identify and/or completely quantify many of the
Appendix IX organics. Whether this problem also occurs in leachate
after treatment is not known because there are no treated leachate
data from other studies for comparison. However, the organic
compounds detected in treated leachate may represent only a portion
of the Appendix IX compounds actually present.
Although the majority of the toxic organic compounds
identified in the raw and aerated leachate were volatiles, it is
difficult to determine the extent of treatment provided by the
aerated lagoons. The reasons are again the variable influent
concentrations and the detention times, which make it difficult to
pair treated and untreated concentrations. Table 6-1 presents the
average effluent concentrations for the three aerated lagoons.
Both acetone and 2-butanone are present in the treated effluent in
concentrations exceeding 1,000 M9/1-
In summary, it appears that little treatment is achieved in
preliminary treatment systems. The only metals that show
significant reductions in concentration are aluminum, zinc, and
iron. This is a result of only limited precipitation/sedimentation
of the balance of metals occurring in the aerated lagoons. Acetone
and 2-butanone are present in aerated lagoon effluents with mean
concentrations exceeding of 1,000 /xg/l.
6.1.3.2 Residuals Data
Table 6-2 summarizes data for metals and organics found in the
sludge from the one aerated lagoon at which a sample could be
collected. Aluminum and iron, the metals with the highest percent
removals, were also the metals with the highest concentrations in
the sludge. Only one organic compound, acetone, was detected in
the sludge; however, only one sludge sample was collected compared
to six treated effluent samples. Therefore, this single sludge
may not be representative of organic compounds found in aerated
lagoon sludges.
6.1.4 Biological Treatment
6.1.4.1 Treated Effluent Data
One facility sampled during the EPA-ITD study provided
biological treatment for leachate. The raw leachate to this
activated sludge system was of low strength due to dilution by
groundwater.
97
-------
TABLE 6-2.
CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
SYSTEM SLUDGE - LEACHATE SUBCATEGORY(1)
Pollutants
Acetone
Units(2)
Mg/1
Sludge Sample
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Tin
Titanium
Zinc
Antimony
Arsenic
Mercury
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
4640
35
6
1
16
6
16
14,900
11
169
<5
21
7
317
225
<2
35
0.4
161
NOTES:
(1) Preliminary treatment in the leachate subcategory is aerated
lagoons. Sludge sample collected from aerated lagoon.
(2) Mg/kg reported on a wet sludge basis.
98
-------
Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants
The activated sludge system included the addition of powdered
activated carbon. No reduction in BOD5_, COD, or TOG was observed.
The effluent BOD5 concentration averaged 39 mg/1, as shown in Table
6-3. Small reductions in the ammonia and TKN concentrations were
observed.
Metals
The only two metals that were found in the raw leachate in
concentrations greater than 1,000 jug/1 were iron and manganese.
Average reductions of these and other metals ranged from 0 to 69
percent (for iron) . Only the effluent concentration of iron
remained over 1,000 M9/1/ while the average effluent concentrations
of all other metals except manganese, aluminum, and boron were
below 100
Organic Pollutants
No organic pollutants were detected in the activated sludge
system effluent; however, only two compounds, bis (2-chloroethyl)
ether and thioxanthone, were found in the raw leachate and at very
low concentrations.
In summary, the performance of biological systems for
treatment of leachate cannot be adequately evaluated due to: (1)
having data from only one treatment system employing biological
treatment, and (2) the low strength of the raw leachate treated
by the system. Further, employing solely biological treatment is
not a common practice for leachate. Section 6.1.5 discusses the
more advanced leachate treatment systems.
6.1.4.2 Residuals Data
Table 6-4 lists the metals that were found to be concentrated
in the sludge waste from the biological system. Although lead,
copper, chromium, arsenic, molybdenum, tin, and cobalt were present
in the raw leachate and effluent at concentrations that averaged
below 100 M9/1/ tne treatment system provided significant removal
of metals as evidenced by their high concentrations in the sludge.
Aluminum, iron, and manganese, which were among the metals showing
the highest percent reductions, also were present in high
concentrations in the sludge. The poor removal of boron also was
demonstrated by a relatively low sludge concentration. The
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) results showed
that manganese, zinc, and boron have the highest concentration in
the TCLP extract. Two dioxins/furans also were detected in the
sludge, but at very low concentrations.
99
-------
TABLE 6-3. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
SYSTEM EFFLUENT - LEACHATE SUBCATEGORY
Effluent Concentration Mean %
Pollutant Units Minimum Maximum Mean Removal(1)
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Ammonia
TKN
Oil & Grease
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
•» MB
74
66
14
14
15.8
1.9
__
110
69
27
14
17
9.5
39
92
68
20
14
16
5.7
0
0
3
0
17
6
0
Aluminum M9/1 300 490 395 34
Iron Mg/1 3,900 5,400 4,650 69
Manganese Mg/1 400 590 495 44
Boron Mg/1 220 250 235 0
Lead Mg/1 <50 <50 <50 (2)
Vanadium Mg/1 23 36 30 0
Barium Mg/1 43 49 46 33
Cadmium Mg/1 <5 <5 <5 (2)
Molybdenum Mg/1 <10 <10 <10 29
Cobalt Mg/1 4 7.2 5.6 60
Chromium Mg/1 49 100 74 29
Copper Mg/1 37 96 66 0
Nickel Mg/1 41 45 43 0
Titanium Mg/1 23 26 24 0
Zinc Mg/1 31 43 37 0
Arsenic Mg/1 15 21 18 33
Antimony Mg/1 <10 <10 <10 (2)
Mercury Mg/1 0.6 0.8 0.7 0
Tin Mg/1 <13 <13 <13 (2)
Bis(2-Chloro-
ethyl) Ether Mg/1 <10 <10 <10 17
Thioxanthone Mg/1 <10 <10 <10 80
NOTES :
(1) Mean % removal was calculated using the EPA-ITD sampling data
from the landfill with biological treatment of leachate. The
formula used to calculate the % removal was:
n
Mean % Removal = V~l (mean influent - mean effluent^ x 100
^ + mean influent
i __ _ _
n
100
-------
TABLE 6-3. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
SYSTEM EFFLUENT - LEACHATE SUBCATEGORY (Continued)
NOTES: (Continued)
Mean influent refers to the influent to the biological
treatment systems, mean effluent is the clarified plant
effluent. This sampling data is contained in Appendix A (Site
C).
n = 1, the number of landfills with biological treatment on
the EPA-ITD sampling program.
For those pollutants where effluent concentrations were
reported less than the detection limit (for example,
thUoxanthone, <10 M9/1), the detection limit (10 M9/1) was
us,ed in the calculation.
i
(2) % removal has not been reported for these pollutants since
both influent and effluent concentrations are below the
detection limit.
101
-------
TABLE 6-4.
CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
SYSTEM SLUDGE - LEACHATE SUBCATEGORY(1)
Pollutant
Total HpCDF
OCDF
Sludge Sample
(nig/kg) (2) (ppt)
Results of TCLP
(Mg/1)(3)
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Boron
Lead
Copper
Chromium
Arsenic
Molybdenum
Tin
Cobalt
Vanadium
Barium
Cadmium
Nickel
Titanium
Zinc
Antimony
Mercury
17,600
206,000
1,520
450
909
3,790
4,150
864
450
460
227
400
450
73
181
350
481
114
3.60
607
623
4,400
1,330
<200
235
88
<20
<100
106
107
<50
598
<10
164
<50
1,660
<20
<0.2
0.07
0.31
NOTES:
(1) The biological treatment system sampled was an activated
sludge plant. The sludge sample was dewatered sludge from the
activated sludge system.
(2) mg/kg reported on a wet basis.
(3) TCLP = toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
102
-------
6.1.5 Advanced Treatment
6.1.5.1 Treated Effluent Data
Two facilities sampled during the EPA-ITD study provided
advanced treatment for landfill leachate. One facility used
biological treatment and clarification followed by filtration, air
stripping, and two-stage carbon adsorption. Discharge was to a
POTW. The other facility used aerated equalization, lime
precipitation and clarification, ammonia stripping, activated
sludge biological treatment, clarification, sand filtration, and
chlorination prior to direct discharge to surface waters.
Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants
Table 6-5 summarizes effluent data for selected pollutants.
The advanced treatment systems provided 54 to 78 percent removal
of BOD5, COD, and TOC. Effluent BOD5_ concentrations averaged 8.2
mg/1, typical of advanced wastewater treatment system performance.
Ammonia and TKN also showed significant reductions (90 to 92
percent), averaging 14 mg/1 in the effluent.
Metals
Aluminum, iron, manganese, andQborpii were the only metals
found in raw leachate at concentrations higher than 1,000 M9/1-
Average reductions of these metals ranged from 36 to over 90
percent; however, the effluent concentrations of boron and iron
averaged over 1,000 M9/1- Effluent concentrations of other toxic
metals (i.e., cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, arsenic,
etc.) were below 100 M9/1-
Organic Pollutants
Six toxic organic compounds and one pesticide were detected
in the effluents after advanced treatment as shown in Table 6-5.
None of the organics found in the effluents were detected in the
raw leachate. Seven different organic pollutants found in the raw
leachate were below their detection limits in the effluent. This
apparent anomaly may be due to the detention time of the treatment
systems. Consequently, no conclusions regarding the effectiveness
of advanced treatment systems for removal of toxic organics can be
made from the limited sampling data.
In summary, the advanced treatment systems provide
significantly higher reductions of conventional and nonconventional
pollutants and metals as compared to preliminary or solely
biological treatment systems. Long-term sampling is needed to
103
-------
TABLE 6-5. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN ADVANCED
TREATMENT SYSTEM EFFLUENTS - LEACHATE SUBCATEGORY(2)
Effluent
Pollutant Minimum
BODS, mg/1
COD, mg/1
TOC, mg/1
TSS, mg/1
Ammonia, mg/1
TKN, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Boron
Zinc
Barium
Nickel
Arsenic
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Vanadium
Cadmium
Molybdenum
Tin
Cobalt
Antimony
Titanium
Mercury
Benzidene
B i s ( 2 -chl oroethoxy ) Methane
Dibenzofuran
Dimethyl Phthalate
N-Dodecane (N-C12)
N-Octacosane (N-C28)
TEPP
MCPP
Toluene
Chloro-3-Methylphenol, 4-
Thioxanthone
Acetone
Alpha-Terpineol
Isophorone
N-Tetracosane (N-C24)
Vinyl Acetate
Dibenzothiophene
1
176
52
1582
5.2
9.8
<1
94
310
53
4,700
20
74
<12
6.2
5.6
7
<50
<2
<5
<10
<13
4.5
<10
12
<0.2
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
1946
<5
<10
<10
<10
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Concentration ( 1) Mean %
Maximum
17
464
87
3280
19
19
1.3
220
2,820
1,070
7,100
300
708
88
7.6
16
15
<50
6
<5
<10
<13
15
<10
50
<0.2
198
114
203
39
85
51
223e
<5
<10
<10
<10
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
92
Mean Remova 1(3)
8
271
72
2289
14
14
1.1
144
1,408
599
5,505
155
473
64
7.1
9.5
11
<50
3
<5
<10
<13
8.3
<10
25
<0.2
87
36
58
17
42
20
208e
<5
<10
<10
<10
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
30
78
54
63
33
92
90
2
47
92
79
32
0
32
45
47
32
66
(4)
78
(4)
(4)
(4)
55
(4)
30
(4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
9
13
8
46
23
19
16
44
13
A. *•*
0
104
-------
TABLE 6-5. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN ADVANCED
TREATMENT SYSTEM EFFLUENTS - LEACHATE SUBCATEGORY(2) (Continued)
& = estimated value
NOTES:
(1) All concentrations expressed in M9/1, unless otherwise noted.
(2) Data presented in this table reflects the two landfills in the
EPA-ITD sampling data base with advanced treatment. These
landfills are Site A, which has biological treatment,
clarification, filtration, air stripping, and carbon
adsorption; and Site B, which has equalization, lime
precipitation and clarification, ammonia stripping, activated
sludge, clarification, filtration and chlorination.
(3) Mean % removal was calculated using EPA ITD sampling data from
landfills with advanced leachate treatment systems. The
formula used to calculate the % removal was:
n
Mean % Removal = > (mean influent - mean effluent) x 100
L—i mean influent
i
n
Where mean influent and mean effluent concentrations were
calculated for each landfill with advanced treatment (Sites
A and B) using the data in Appendix A. Influent reflects raw
leachate quality and effluent is final treatment plant
effluent sampled downstream of all treatment units.
n = 2, the number of landfills in the EPA-ITD sampling data
base with advanced treatment.
For those pollutants where effluent concentrations were
reported less than the detection limit (for example, toluene,
<10 M9/1) / the detection limit was used in the calculation (10
(4) Mean % removal is not reported for those pollutants where both
influent and effluent concentrations were below the detection
limit.
105
-------
evaluate the effectiveness of the advanced systems for removal of
specific toxic organic pollutants from leachates.
6.1.5.2 Res iduals Data
Selected metals and toxic organics found in the advanced
treatment system sludges are summarized in Table 6-6. Iron,
aluminum, and manganese, found in the raw leachate in high
concentrations and significantly reduced by advanced treatment,
also were found in high concentrations in the sludge. On the other
hand, chromium and vanadium were not present in high concentrations
in the raw leachate; however, the advanced treatment system was
highly effective in removing these metals and concentrating them
in the sludge. The TCLP results showed that manganese, boron, and
barium have the highest concentrations in the TCLP extract.
Relative to its sludge concentration, molybdenum was readily
leached from the sludge in the TCLP test.
Approximately 50 percent of the organics detected in the
sludges were not found in either the raw leachates or the treated
effluent. Again, this may be partially due to detention times in
the treatment system in addition to sludge age and sludge wasting
rates. Only one sludge sample was analyzed for dioxins/furans.
The isomer, OCDD, was detected at a concentration of 101 ppt.
6.1.6 Other Control and Treatment Technologies
In addition to treatment and discharge, the HWT industry
manages leachate by recirculation, solidification and reburial,
deep well injection, and contract hauling to aqueous hazardous
waste treaters. Recirculation involves spraying collected leachate
back onto open landfill cells to enhance evaporation of the
leachate. This practice is not limited to arid areas of the United
States. Solidification and reburial is practiced when leachate
volumes are relatively small. Raw leachate is mixed with lime or
other chemical fixation materials to a consistency that passes the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) test for a solid
(i.e., no free liquid) and reburied in the landfill. Deep well
injection also is used by facilities with small volumes of
leachate. This practice is limited to areas where injection wells
are common, such as Texas and Louisiana. Hauling of leachate to
an aqueous hazardous waste treater is a common, yet expensive
option. In some cases, this practice is used as the last resort
after a POTW rejects the leachate; in other cases, landfill owners
prefer sending the leachate to a commercial aqueous treater for
liability reasons.
106
-------
TABLE 6-6. CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED POLLUTANTS IN
ADVANCED TREATMENT SYSTEM SLUDGES - LEACHATE SUBCATEGORY
Sludge Sample
Pollutant
Units(2) Minimum Maximum Mean
Results of TCLP (ug/l)(3)
Minimum Maximum Mean
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Boron
Zinc
Barium
Arsenic
Molybdenum
Nickel
Antimony
Vanadium
Titanium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Tin
Mercury
Acetone
Benzidine
Ethylbenzene
Isophorone
N-Octacosane (N-C28)
N-Eicosane (N-C20)
N-Hexacosane (N-C26)
N-Tetracosane (N-C24)
Toluene
Butanone, 2- (MEK)
Isobutyl Alcohol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
OCDD
NOTES:
(1) Data presented
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Mg/l
Mg/l
M9/1
/ig/l
/tg/l
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
PPt
is from
2,080 4,
1.910 396,
48 35,
113 1,
13 1,
<17 7,
<4
39
6
--
<9
85
20
18
<10
<5
--
<17
--
<50
<50
<10
<10
<10
<22 2,
<22 5,
<10
<10
<50 2,
<10
<22 2,
--
sludge analyses
880
000
600
930
380
880
407
105
102
--
141
200
35
124
64
127
--
84
--
72
252
12
390
81
807
645
--
39
070
12
704
--
of
3,480
199,000
17,800
1,020
696
3,950
206
72
54
<4
75
142
28
71
37
66
225
50
<0.2
61
151
11
200
46
1,415
2,834
<22
24
1,060
11
1,363
101
landfills with
<200
--
<15
666
46
--
<20
--
--
--
<50
<50
<10
--
<50
<25
<200
<100
<0.2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
advanced
<200
--
12,500
4,860
730
--
<20
--
--
--
<50
<50
<10
--
<50
<25
<200
<100
<0.2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
treatment
<200
250
6,260
2,760
388
4,240
<20
223
57
51
<50
<50
<10
80
<50
<25
<200
<100
<0.2
--
--
--
--
101
142
156
--
<10
--
(Sites A
(2)
(3)
EPA-ITD sampling data base. The Site A sludge sample (treatment consists of biological treatment,
clarification, filtration, air stripping, neutralization, and carbon adsorption) was collected from
the bottom of the clarifier. The Site B sludge sample (treatment consists of equalization,
flocculation, clarification, ammonia stripping, activated sludge, filtration and chlorination) was
taken from the filter press which dewaters both clarifier bottoms and wasted sludge from the activated
sludge unit.
Metals concentrations in mg/kg reported on a wet sludge basis, organics in ftg/l, and dioxins/furans
in ppt, as indicated.
All TCLP concentrations are in /tg/l. TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
Not tested.
107
-------
6.1.7 Summary
A wide range of leachate treatment technologies are employed,
depending on the requirements of the receiving POTW or NPDES
permit. In addition to treatment and discharge, the HWT industry
manages leachate by recirculation, solidification and reburial,
deep well injection, and contract hauling to aqueous hazardous
waste treaters.
Advanced leachate treatment systems that involve biological
treatment and physical/chemical effluent polishing processes are
capable of achieving up to 90 percent removal of BOD5, COD, TOC,
ammonia, and TKN. These systems have achieved effluent BOD5
concentrations of 10 mg/1 or less. Even with advanced treatment
systems, iron and boron effluent concentrations average over 1,000
Mg/1. Raw leachate concentrations of other toxic metals are
usually below 500 /ig/1 and frequently less than 100 M9/1- Some
metals removal occurs during the biological treatment process, as
evidenced by the concentrations of metals in the sludges. The
metals with the highest concentrations in the sludges are those
with high concentrations in the raw leachate (i.e., iron,
manganese, aluminum). Boron, whose concentrations are frequently
high in raw leachate, demonstrates relatively poor removal with
high effluent concentrations and relatively low sludge
concentrations.
Several organic compounds were detected in the effluents from
the advanced systems. With the exception of one pesticide, the
concentrations averaged less than 100 ^g/1- More organic compounds
were detected in the sludge from the biological process, including
2-butanone, whose concentration averaged over 1,000 jj.q/1. Whether
or not difficulties with the analytical methods have any effect on
the organics data for treated leachate cannot be determined because
there are no data from other studies for comparison.
6.2 SCRUBBER WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Scrubber wastewater treatment systems are either chemical
precipitation/sedimentation processes or chemical precipitation/
sedimentation with filtration and activated carbon. Chemical
precipitation/sedimentation systems are used to treat recirculating
scrubber wastes and scrubber blowdown. When regulatory agencies
impose more stringent limits on the blowdown discharge, the
blowdown portion of the scrubber wastewaters, is treated further
with filtration and activated carbon.
6.2.1 Sources of Data
All data regarding treatment technologies and effluent data
were obtained from the EPA-ITD study sampling and presampling
108
-------
efforts. Telephone contacts supplied information on other scrubber
wastewater management practices.
6.2.2 TSCA versus RCRA Facilities
Both Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and permitted RCRA
incineration facilities are required to control the stack emissions
of hydrogen chloride gases. This requires wet scrubbers.
Consequently, both TSCA and RCRA incinerators generate scrubber
wastewater. The chloride content of PCB-burning TSCA scrubber
wastewaters is normally higher because of the larger amounts of
chlorinated wastes burned compared to RCRA facilities. No
differences between TSCA and RCRA facilities were found in the
technologies employed for scrubber wastewater treatment prior to
discharge. If additional treatment of the blowdown stream
occurred, it was in response to state or local permit conditions.
For example, a TSCA facility in Region V discharging to a POTW used
filtration and activated carbon to polish their effluent, while a
TSCA facility in Region VI discharged the blowdown from a chemical
precipitation/sedimentation system directly to surface waters
without further treatment.
6.2.3 Physical/Chemical Treatment
Two incineration facilities sampled during the EPA-ITD study
provided only chemical precipitation/sedimentation prior to
discharge. One facility was a TSCA incinerator, and both
facilities discharged directly to surface waters.
6.2.3.1 Treated Effluent Data
Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants
The precipitation/sedimentation treatment systems provided no
significant reduction of COD or TOC; however, the TOC data
indicated a relatively low concentration of TOC in the scrubber
wastewaters, as shown in Table 6-7. Only minimal reduction in TSS
was achieved, but the effluent concentrations averaged 51 mg/1.
Both high TDS and chloride concentrations were present in the
effluents as a result of the removal of hydrogen chloride gases by
the scrubbers. Effluent fluoride concentrations averaged 10.3
mg/1.
Metals
Aluminum, iron, boron, and zinc were found in concentrations
higher than 1,000 ng/l in the treatment system effluents. Mean
109
-------
TABLE 6-7. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEM EFFLUENTS - SCRUBBER WASTEWATER SUBCATEGORY(1)
Pollutant
COD
TOC
TSS
TDS
Chloride
Fluoride
Ammonia
TKN
Calcium
Magnesium
Aluminum
Iron
Zinc
Boron
Copper
Manganese
Tin
Lead
Barium
Cadmium
Molybdenum
Vanadium
Cobalt
Chromium
Nickel
Titanium
Arsenic
Antimony
Mercury
Acetone
Benzene
Benzo(b) fluoranthene
Thioxanthone
Bromoform
Effluent
Concentration
Units Minimum Maximum
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
Mg/i
129
14
32
4,060
2,300
0.65
<0.1
1.3
490
4.8
780
383
200
220
34
118
<13
72
180
6
130
2
<4
13
58
11
5
28
0.2
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
840
60
100
11,100
9,000
15
<0.1
5.9
3,790
390
1,130
1,900
1,490
1,550
794
400
<13
383
485
25
360
17
6.2
21
81
67
37
58
0.4
90
59
12
366
38
Mean %
Mean Removal ( 2 )
423
45
51
7,820
5,550
10.3
<0.1
3.2
2,110
182
1,020
1,030
676
710
288
240
<13
180
280
16
195
9
4.8
16
69
38
21
39
0.3
60
22
10
99
17
0
10
13
0
2
38
(3)
14
0
4
78
76
43
18
61
26
92
50
10
25
13
43
40
81
56
74
27
10
44
6
2
0
0
0
Heptachlor Epoxide Mg/1
-------
TABLE 6-7. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEM EFFLUENTS - SCRUBBER WASTEWATER SUBCATEGORY(1)
(Continued)
NOTES:
(1) Data presented are the results of the EPA-ITD sampling program
of the Scrubber subcategory with physical/chemical treatment
systems (Sites H and J).
(2) Mean % removal was calculated using the EPA-ITD sampling data
for the two scrubbers with physical/chemical treatment (Sites
H and J) using the following formula:
n
Mean % Removal = \ (mean influent - mean effluent) x 100
/ .1 mean influent
n
Where mean influent and mean effluent concentrations were
calculated for each of the scrubbers (Sites H and J) using the
data in Appendix B. Influent refers to raw scrubber wastewater
and effluent to the facilities final, treated wastewater.
n = 2, the number of scrubbers with physical/ chemical
treatment in the EPA-ITD sampling data base.
For those pollutants where effluent concentrations were
reported less than the detection limit (for example, tin, <13
Mg/1) the detection limit (13 Mg/1) was used in the
calculation.
(3) Mean % removal is not reported for pollutants where both
influent and effluent concentrations were below the detection
limit.
Ill
-------
reductions of these metals ranged from 18 to 78 percent, with boron
showing the lowest average percent removal and aluminum the
highest. Arsenic, cadmium, lead, tin, titanium, nickel, chromium,
antimony, and vanadium were found at effluent concentrations below
100 /ig/1- The treatment systems provided significant removals of
some of these metals.
Organic Pollutants
Five toxic organic pollutants and one pesticide were detected
in the treated effluent, but at relatively low concentrations. The
presence of only a few organics at low concentrations is expected
in scrubber wastewaters from properly operated incinerators. The
organics present may have been contaminants in the surface and well
waters that supply the scrubbers with make-up water.
6.2.3.2 Residuals Data
Selected metals, toxic organics, and dioxins/furans found in
the physical/chemical treatment system sludges are summarized in
Table 6-8. Thirteen metals were found at concentrations above
1,000 mg/kg in the sludges, including metals whose effluent
concentrations were below 100 Mg/1 (i-®-/ lead, tin, nickel,
titanium, chromium, and vanadium) . Copper, which averaged 288 p.q/1
in the effluent, was highly concentrated in the sludges. The TCLP
extracts showed little leaching potential for most metals except
boron, zinc, and barium.
Two toxic organics, acetone and bromoform, were detected in
the sludges. The concentration of acetone was relatively high.
Although not detected in the compositional analysis, three
additional organics were found in the TLCP extracts, but at
relatively low concentrations.
The most significant finding in the sludge analyses was the
presence of a large number of dioxin/furan isomers, some at high
concentrations. Neither the raw scrubber wastewaters nor the
treated effluents were tested for these pollutants, so the
effectiveness of physical/chemical treatment systems in the removal
of dioxins/furans is unknown. The presence of at least 10 isomers
in the sludges at concentrations in the ppb range indicates the
need for more extensive analyses, including analyses of the treated
effluents for dioxins/furans.
6.2.4 Advanced Treatment
Only one incineration facility sampled provided advanced
treatment of their scrubber wastewater prior to discharge. A
second facility, which was visited but not sampled, also provided
advanced treatment. Both advanced treatment systems followed
112
-------
TABLE 6-8. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEM SLUDGES - SCRUBBER WASTEWATER SUBCATEGORY(1)
Sludge Sample
Pollutant
Units(2) Minimum Maximum Mean
Results of TCLP (ug/l)(3)
Minimum Maximum Mean
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Boron
Zinc
Lead
Tin
Copper
Titanium
Nickel
Chromium
Barium
Vanadium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmi urn
Cobalt
Molybdenum
Mercury
Acetone
Bromoform
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Isobutyl Alcohol
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
OCDD
1,2, 3, 7,8-PCDF
2,3,4, 7,8-PCDF
Total PCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
OCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDF
NOTES:
(1) Data presented
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
M9/ 1
M9/ 1
M9/ I
M9/ 1
M9/ 1>
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
are based
20,600
11,500
575
4,740
732
239
217
116
359
86
64
92
22
--
--
19
--
96
--
<50
<10
--
--
--
<3.79
<3.79
4.69
42.8
84.6
117
22.6
155
<0.95
187
88.2
<3.38
261
559
61.2
on sludge
289,000
228,000
14,200
7,990
97,800
74,200
21,200
92,500
9,890
18,200
5,530
3,370
2,260
--
--
978
--
1,300
--
1,496
32
--
--
--
31
67
155
838
4,296
16,000
1,596
1,178
353
6,966
773
59
1,354
2,966
3,785
analyses
154,800
120,000
7,390
6,360
49,300
37,200
10,700
46,300
5,120
9,140
2,800
1,730
1,140
21
25
499
345
698
0.88
773
21
<10
<10
<10
.1 17.5
.0 35.4
79.7
441
2,177
8,058
809
666
177
3,576
431
.8 31.6
808
1,762
1,923
from the two
659 852
<100 108
182 189
1,510 2,180
1,400
--
169 193
26 127
--
<40 67
--
1,270 1,420
--
--
--
<10 54
--
226 491
<0.2 0.2
-.
--
--
--
incinerator scrubbers
756
104
186
1,840
--
275
181
76
<50
54
<50
1,340
<50
21
<20
32
<50
358
0.2
145
30
15
80
11
with phys-
treatment in the EPA-ITD sampling data base. The scrubber wastewater treatment systems at both of
these facilities (Sites H and I) consists of neutralization, clarification and cooling lagoons. Sludge
samples were taken from the clarifiers.
(2) Metals concentrations in mg/kg (wet basis), organics in /ig/l, TCLP in ng/\. and dioxins/furans in ppt.
(3)
TCLP = toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
113
-------
chemical precipitation/sedimentation with filtration and carbon
adsorption.
6.2.4.1 Treated Effluent Data
Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants
TSS reduction averaged over 99 percent and TOG reduction
averaged 89 percent by the advanced treatment system. However,
the percent reductions are misleading because this facility
recirculated its scrubber water with a high TSS load and treated
only the blowdown stream. Effluent TSS and TOC concentrations
averaged 88 and 45 mg/1, respectively (Table 6-9) which is
comparable to physical/chemical system effluents (Table 6-7). The
effluent fluoride concentrations were also similar for the two
types of treatment systems. Because the sampled facility
recirculated high TSS concentrations in its scrubber water and only
treated the blowdown, ammonia was added to the scrubber water to
neutralize the acid gases. As a result of this operational
procedure, high ammonia and TKN concentrations were found in the
treated effluent. Although the treatment system achieved a 50
percent reduction in the ammonia, its effluent concentrations
averaged 1,070 mg/1.
Metals
Sixteen metals were found in the raw scrubber wastewater at
concentrations higher than 1,000 M9/l« Recirculation of the
scrubber water and treatment of only the blowdown stream is the
reason for the high metals concentrations compared to the raw
scrubber water discussed in Section 6.2.3. Of these 16 metals,
aluminum, lead, chromium, copper, iron, titanium, zinc, tin, and
arsenic had removals of 99 percent or greater with the advanced
treatment system. Greater than 99 percent removal of mercury also
was achieved with an effluent concentration of <0.2 /ig/1. The
percent removals of vanadium, barium, molybdenum, cobalt, and
antimony were 90 percent or greater. Even with high percent
removals, the effluent concentrations of iron, manganese, boron,
and zinc were above 1,000 M9/1; however, the effluent
concentrations of aluminum, lead, tin, cobalt, chromium, titanium,
and arsenic averaged below 100 p.g/1.
Organic Pollutants
Six toxic organic pollutants were detected in the treated
effluent after carbon adsorption. Only thioxanthone also was found
in the raw scrubber wastewater. Three other organic compounds
found in the raw scrubber water were treated to below detection
level concentrations.
114
-------
TABLE 6-9. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN ADVANCED TREATMENT
SYSTEM EFFLUENTS - SCRUBBER WASTEWATER SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
COD, mg/1
TOG, mg/1
TSS, mg/1
TDS, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Ammonia-N(4) , mg/1
TKN(4) , mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Iron
Manganese
Boron
Molybdenum
Nickel
Zinc
Antimony
Aluminum
Lead
Vanadium
Barium
Cadmium
Tin
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Titanium
Arsenic
Mercury
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
N-Dodecane (N-C12)
N-Tetradecane (N-C14)
Chloronaphthalene, 2-
Chlorophenol , 2-
Thioxanthone
Fluoranthene
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
Pyrene
Effluent
Minimum
310
16
17
9,700
—
12
820
80
180
100
1,100
1,600
7,100
650
470
570
340
13
<50
<2
190
170
—
71
5
88
<10
6
<0.2
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<10
Concentrati
Maximum
380
74
160
9,800
—
15
1,320
270
410
130
1,100
1,800
12,000
1,200
600
3,000
545
45
<50
<2
210
210
--
86
15
130
<10
11
<0.2
15
28
15
48
10
392
<10
<20
<10
on(l)
Mean
345
45
88
9,750
4,000
14
1,070
175
295
115
1,100
1,700
9,550
925
535
1,780
442
29
<50
<2
200
190
<65
78
10
109
<10
8
<0
13
19
13
29
10
201
<10
<20
<10
Mean %
Removal (3)
25
89
99
0
0
94
51
0
75
79
99
82
28
91
89
99
90
99
99
98
97
89
99
91
99
99
99
99
.2 99
0
0
0
0
0
90
83
98
94
115
-------
TABLE 6-9. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN ADVANCED TREATMENT SYSTEM
EFFLUENTS - SCRUBBER WASTEWATER SUBCATEGORY (Continued)
NOTES:
(1) All concentrations expressed in ng/1, unless otherwise noted.
(2) Data presented are the results of the EPA-ITD sampling effort
at incinerators with advanced scrubber wastewater treatment
systems (Site G) . Site G treatment includes flocculation,
clarification, filtration, and carbon adsorption.
(3) Mean % removal was calculated from EPA-ITD sampling data for
the incinerator with advanced treatment of scrubber
wastewaters using the following formula:
n
Mean % Removal = X' (mean influent - mean effluent) x 100
L. ^ mean influent
i
n
Where mean influent and mean effluent concentrations were
obtained from Sites G sampling data contained in Appendix B.
Influent samples were raw scrubber wastewater and effluent
samples were final treated effluent from the carbon adsorption
units.
n = 1, the number of incinerators in the EPA-ITD sampling data
base with advanced treatment.
For those pollutants where effluent concentrations were
reported less than the detection limit (for example, lead <50
Mg/1), the detection limit (50 Mg/1) was used in the
calculation.
(4) Data reported are the unedited laboratory analytical results.
Analytical problems are evident here where ammonia is reported
higher than TKN. Possible explanations are discussed in
Section 5.1.
116
-------
In summary, the advanced treatment system provided high
removals of many toxic metals. Compared to physical/chemical
treatment, the advanced treatment system achieved significantly
lower effluent concentrations of aluminum and copper. In general
though, operation of the scrubber water system with a low TSS load
(i.e., treating the recirculating stream with chemical
precipitation/ sedimentation) produced lower metals concentrations
in the final effluent. Addition of ammonia for neutralization in
the high TSS mode of operation may affect metals removal due to
formation of chemical complexes that can lower metals removal
efficiencies.
6.2.4.2 Residuals Data
Table 6-10 summarizes concentrations of selected metals, toxic
organics, and dioxins/furans in the sludge from the advanced
treatment system. Although the advanced system includes additional
unit processes, sludge is only generated by the chemical
precipitation process. Eight metals were found at concentrations
above 1,000 mg/kg in the sludge, including metals whose effluent
concentrations were below 100 jug/1 (i.e., aluminum, titanium, and
lead). Zinc, whose concentration ranged over 1,000 ng/I in the
treatment system effluent, was highly concentrated in the sludge.
Zinc and aluminum also were found at high concentrations in the
TCLP extract. These results are in direct contrast to the zinc and
aluminum results for the sludges from the other physical/chemical
treatment system and also may be the consequence of ammonia
addition. Ammonia forms complexes with metals, which hinder their
removal by precipitation. These complexes may release metals more
readily than sludges without ammonia.
Only one toxic organic, thioxanthone, was detected in the
advanced treatment system sludge. Like the physical/chemical
system sludges, the advanced treatment system sludge contained a
large number of dioxin/furan isomers at high concentrations.
Neither the raw scrubber wastewater nor the treated effluent were
tested for dioxins/furans, but their presence in the sludge
indicates their presence in the raw wastewater and potential
presence in the treated effluent.
6.2.5 Other Treatment and Disposal Methods
Treatment and discharge, either directly or indirectly, are
the primary management practices for incinerators with scrubber
wastewater. Other means of disposal include landfills,
evaporation, and contract hauling. These methods are applicable
primarily to systems with small-volume discharges. Those
incinerators using contract hauling send scrubber wastewaters to
commercial aqueous hazardous waste treaters. Prior to landfilling,
scrubber wastewaters are solidified or chemically fixed. Lime and
117
-------
TABLE 6-10. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN ADVANCED
TREATMENT SYSTEM SLUDGE - SCRUBBER WASTEWATER SUBCATEGORY(1)
Pollutant
Aluminum
Iron
Lead
Barium
Molybdenum
Copper
Titanium
Zinc
Manganese
Nickel
Boron
Cadmium
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Cobalt
Tin
Mercury
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,3,7,8-TCCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PCDF
Total PCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PCDD
Total PCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDF
1,2, 3,4,7,8, 9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
OCDF
OCDD
Units(2)
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
PPt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
Sludge Sample
20,300
170,000
14,300
1,460
1,770
2,910
2,140
65,600
818
569
661
184
<145
13
486
121
792
17.6
27.78
16.86
20.15
249.85
694.28
14.69
223.59
117.08
69.88
687.99
26.24
351.35
310.74
49.95
581.53
133.92
297.78
3,722.38
2,209.40
Results of
TCLP(3) (Mg/1)
51,200
399
3,230
1,100
290
9,660
<50
642,000
11,300
2,110
4,790
1,730
325
48
49
626
1,040
<0.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— -
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
— —
—
— —
—
118
-------
TABLE 6-10. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN ADVANCED
TREATMENT SYSTEM SLUDGE - SCRUBBER WASTEWATER SUBCATEGORY(1)
(Continued)
NOTES:
(1) Data presented are the results of analyses of the sludge
sampled obtained from the one incinerator in the EPA-ITD
sampling data base with advanced scrubber wastewater treatment
(Site G). Treatment at this facility included flocculation,
clarification, filtration, and carbon adsorption. Settled
solids were sent from the clarifier to a vacuum sludge filter.
The sludge sampled was collected from the vacuum sludge filter
discharge.
(2) Metals concentrations in mg/kg, wet bases.
(3) TCLP = toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
119
-------
sometimes ash from the incinerator are used for this purpose.
Evaporation in surface impoundments is an option in arid climates
or in areas where land is inexpensive and readily available.
Finally, on-site generators such as industrial facilities may treat
the scrubber wastewaters along with their process wastes or
comingle the scrubber wastewaters with noncontact cooling water
for discharge.
6.2.6 Summary of Scrubber Wastewater Treatment
Scrubber wastewater treatment systems consist of technologies
designed for the removal of inorganic pollutants. Chemical
precipitation/sedimentation provides metals removal, and filtration
and carbon adsorption are used if necessary to polish the effluents
to meet permit limits. Consequently, no significant reduction in
COD occurred, but effluent concentrations were relatively low.
Even with advanced treatment, effluent concentrations of iron,
manganese, boron, molybdenum, and zinc were above 1,000 p.g/1.
Effluent concentrations of the toxic metals were below 100
The most significant result was the presence of a large number
of dioxin/furan isomers, some at extremely high concentrations, in
the scrubber wastewater treatment system sludges. Dioxins/furans
are relatively insoluble in water and tend to adsorb onto
particulates . Although the treatment system effluents were not
analyzed for dioxins/furans, these compounds may be discharged to
POTWs or surface waters by way of the suspended solids in the
treated effluents. Further analysis of treated effluents is needed
to determine if the treatment technologies in-place are effectively
removing dioxins/furans. Other methods of scrubber wastewater
disposal, besides the most common treatment and disposal methods,
include landfills, evaporation, and contract hauling.
6 . 3 AQUEOUS HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT
Aqueous hazardous waste treatment systems range from chemical
precipitation/sedimentation units designed to treat inorganic
industrial wastes to advanced treatment systems that may
incorporate biological treatment and tertiary treatment in addition
to chemical precipitation. Complex facilities accept a wide
variety of wastes for treatment, including leachates and inorganic
wastes. Treatment operations may be batch treatment, continuous
flow, or both. Some facilities segregate incoming wastes that
require specialized pretreatment (e.g., cyanide wastes, chromium
wastes), while other facilities use one waste to treat another
(e.g., mixing acid wastes with caustic wastes. Some facilities
combine all of the wastes prior to any treatment.
120
-------
6.3.1 Sources of Data
The two sources of data available to this study are the
EPA-ITD sampling effort at four aqueous hazardous waste treaters
and an Office of Solid Waste (OSW) sampling program at two other
facilities. The EPA-ITD study produced two consecutive days of
data (24-hour composites), while one of the OSW study facilities
was sampled for three consecutive days. Twelve batches were
sampled over a 4-day period at the second OSW sampling facility-
The list of analytes for the two studies also differed. At
one OSW sampling facility, the analytes were 15 metals, 29 volatile
organics, TCLP, and miscellaneous conventional and nonconventional
pollutants. At the other OSW sampling facility, the analytes were
35 volatile organics, 58 extractables, seven metals, TCLP, and
miscellaneous conventional and nonconventional pollutants. The
list of analytes for the EPA-ITD study included 27 metals, the
Appendix IX organics, pesticides/herbicides, dioxins/furans, TCLP,
and miscellaneous conventional and nonconventional pollutants.
6.3.2 Physical/Chemical Treatment
Three aqueous hazardous waste treaters operated pretreatment,
chemical precipitation, and solids removal technologies. The first
facility pretreated oily wastes prior to mixing with all other
incoming wastes. The combined wastes were treated by a potential
four-stage chemical precipitation reactor, flocculating clarifier,
and settling tank. The second facility used batch pretreatment
(only if necessary), oil-water-solids separation, chemical
precipitation, flotation, and coagulation. The third facility
employed cyanide oxidation and chromium reduction, using
iron-bearing wastes in the chromium reduction process. The
pretreated wastes were combined with other wastes for chemical
precipitation followed by vacuum filtration for solids removal.
6.3.2.1 Treated Effluent Data
Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants
Average effluent concentrations and percent removals of
conventional and nonconventional pollutants are summarized in Table
6-11. Relatively poor EOD5, TOG, and COD removals were achieved
by treatment technologies designed primarily for the treatment of
inorganic wastes. The high effluent BOD.5 and TOC concentrations
indicate that although the treatment systems are not designed for
removal of organic wastes, the wastes accepted at these facilities
contain a significant amount of organics. The treatment systems
provided significant TSS reductions (average 92 percent removal).
121
-------
TABLE 6-11. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEMS - AQUEOUS TREATERS SUBCATEGORY(2)
Effluent Concentration (I)
Pollutant
BOD5, mg/1
COD, mg/1
TOC. mg/1
TSS, mg/1
O&G, mg/1
Ammonia(4), mg/1
TKN(4) , mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Aluminum
Iron
Boron
Nickel
Zinc
Manganese
Barium
Molybdenum
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Copper
Lead
Titanium
Acetone
Alpha-Terpineol
Benzene
Benzidine
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
N-Decane (N-C10)
N-Dodecane (N-C12)
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethane ,
1,1,1-
Butanone, 2- (MEK)
Chloro-3-
Methyphenol, 4-
Benzyl Alcohol
Bichenvl
Minimum
189
3,360
13
2
34
10.8
60
0.62
0.24
0.6
31,800
4,760
16,000
169
60
42
25
<100
31
<5
100
<.2
32
<10
<10
<50
<10
<10
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Maximum
930
11,400
17,000
458
153
870
694
27.5
1.9
370
45,000
21,000
53,000
1,500
6,200
760
120
890
158
20
566
<.4
177
110
11
7,706
5,223
15,407
22,723
4,266
459
360
1,717
20,263
34,931
103
<10 759
<50 108,526
2,205
<10
<10
2,443
2,669
<10
Mean
514
7,180
2,070
79
71
436
223
12.3
1.1
185
36,600
10,050
34,400
456
905
343
61
687
82
10
223
<0. 3
136
23
11
3,760
1,748
3,884
7, 608
1,429
65
46
676
6,761
2,664
16
113
30,030
2,324
675
<10
Mean % Removal (3)
46
34
30
92
88
0
8
18
44
38
6
86
6
53
93
90
64
\J Tt
Of)
& \j
00
O £t
fta
o o
Q-J
O
-------
TABLE 6-11. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEMS - AQUEOUS TREATERS SUBCATEGORY(2) (Continued)
Effluent
Pollutant Minimum
Hexanoic Acid <10
Isobutyl Acid <10
Thioxanthone <10
Tripropyleneglycol
Methyl Ether <10
Vinyl Acetate <10
Isophorone <10
Methacrylonitrile <10
Naphtha 1 ene 39
Styrene <10
Dichloroethane, 1,1- <10
Dichloroethane, 1,2- <10
Dibromoethane ,
1,2- (EDB) <10
Diethyl Ether <50
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate <10
N-Docosane (N-C22) <10
Chloronaphthalene, 2- <10
Methylnaphthalene, 2- <10
N-Hexadecane (N-C16) <10
Hexanone, 2- <10
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4- <10
Diphenylhydraz ine
1,2- <20
Pentachlorophenol <50
Methyl Methacrylate <10
Fluorene <10
Tetrachloroethene <10
Chloroform <10
Trans , 1 , 2-Dichloro-
ethene <10
Trichloroethane ,
1,1,2- <10
P-Cresol <10
N-Nitrosomorpholine <10
Butyl Benzyl
Phthalate <10
Phenol <10
Nitrophenol, 2- 655
Benzoic Acid <50
N-Nitrosodi-N-
Butylamine <10
Concentration
(1)
Maximum Mean Mean '
85
82
35,060 8,
5,544 1,
1,230
354
30
162
917
23
37
24
98
520
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
393
162
<10
4,592 1,
1,693 1,
518
<10
48
28
772
394
315
181
15
119
308
11
12
14
62
180
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
202
48
<10
561
174
284
<10
fe Removal (3)
32
29
0
0
0
42
0
22
31
29
0
0
0
26
40
46
50
50
48
45
6
28
4
16
21
16
3
8
0
0
44
56
0
0
45
123
-------
TABLE 6-11. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
TREATHENT SYSTEMS - AQUEOUS THEATERS SUBCATEGORY(1) (Continued)
NOTES:
(1) All concentrations expressed in tig/I, unless otherwise noted.
(2) Information in this table is based on the sampling results
from three aqueous hazardous waste treaters with
physical/chemical treatment systems: Site J and L from the
EPA-ITD sampling effort and one site from the OSW sampling
program. All raw data from these sampling programs are
contained in Appendix C.
(3) Mean % removal was calculated based on sampling data from
aqueous treaters with physical/chemical treatment systems
using the following formula:
n
Mean % Removal = \ (mean influent - mean effluent) x 100
mean influent
n
Where mean influent is the raw waste water concentration
calculated individually for each site. Mean effluent is the
final treated site effluent.
n = 3, the number of aqueous hazardous waste treaters in the
data base with physical/chemical treatment.
For those pollutants where effluent concentrations were
reported less than the detection limit (for example, biphenyl,
<10 Mg/1) , the detection limit (10 p.q/1) was used in the
calculation.
(4) Data presented are the unedited laboratory analytical results.
Evidence of analytical problems can be seen here where ammonia
is reported higher than TKN. Possible explanations are
discussed in Section 5.1.
124
-------
The effluent TSS concentration averaged 79 mg/1, which is adequate
for facilities discharging to a POTW. High effluent oil and grease
concentrations were found as a result of the oily wastes accepted
at aqueous hazardous waste treaters. The chemical
precipitation/sedimentation systems provided little reduction of
ammonia, TKN, and phenol, which is typical of this technology- It
is concluded, therefore, that these facilities accept wastes
containing high concentrations of conventional and nonconventional
pollutants that are not treatable by the technologies in-place.
Metals
Aluminum, iron, boron, nickel, and zinc were found in
concentrations higher than 1,000 pq/l in the treated effluent.
Average reductions of these metals ranged from 6 percent for boron
to 93 percent for zinc. High percent removals were observed for
several heavy metals, including cadmium, copper, and lead. The
effluent,, concentrations of these metals were low as a result of
low concentrations in the raw waste and a high degree of reduction
in the treatment system.
Organic Pollutants
Sixteen toxic organic compounds were detected in the treatment
effluent at concentrations above 1,000 M9/1- Because the
physical/chemical treatment technologies in-place are not designed
for organics removal, the average percent removals were low,
ranging from 0 to 75 percent. The highest percent removals were
achieved for volatile compounds (acetone, ethylbenzene, 2-butanone) ,
which suggests that volatilization may have been one of the removal
mechanisms.
Fifteen compounds averaged zero percent reduction. Included
among these were compounds with raw waste concentrations below
detection limits but with higher effluent concentrations. Such
instances may be attributed to the detention times in the treatment
systems as well as the analytical difficulties discussed in Section
5. These factors make it difficult to estimate with accuracy the
removals of these and other compounds.
6.3.2.2 Residuals Data
Table 6-12 lists the metals, toxic organics, and
dioxins/furans that were found to be concentrated in the chemical
sludges from the physical/chemical treatment systems. Aluminum,
iron, nickel, chromium, zinc, and lead were found at concentrations
above 1,000 mg/kg in the sludges. Aluminum, iron, boron, and zinc
were found at high concentrations in the TCLP extracts; however,
the TCLP data are from a single sludge sample. Twenty-eight toxic
125
-------
TABLE 6-12. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEM SLUDGES - AQUEOUS TREATERS SUBCATEGORY(1)
Sludge Sample
Pollutant
Aluminum
Iron
Nickel
Chromium (total)
Boron
Zinc
Lead
Copper
Manganese
Barium
Molybdenum
Antimony
Cadmium
Yttrium
Mercury
Titanium
Silver
Arsenic
Beryllium
Calcium
Cobalt
Magnesium
Sodium
Selenium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Acetone
Alpha-Terpineol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Methylene Chloride
N-Docosane (N-C22)
N-Hexadecane (N-C16)
N-Octadecane (N-C18)
N-Triacontane (N-C30)
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Chloronaphthalene, 2-
Oichlorophenol, 2,4-
Oinitrotoluene, 2,4-
Chloro-3-Methylphenol, 4
Methylnaphthalene, 2-
Isophorone
Units(2)
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
rrg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/I
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
- M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
Minimum
1,690
2,450
274
344
54
443
63
158
19
33
18
18
10
<8
<0.2
<13
0.30
27
<1
2,040
12
303
1,290
<0.8
34
<1.6
12
<50
--
<2.8
<5.1
<2.8
.-
<3.2
<7.1
..
-.
..
-.
-.
165
<2.8
<2.8
..
..
--
.-
Maximum
15,100
21,300
2,564
6,509
362
1,890
2,680
478
313
1,300
24
30
66
84
101
472
12
45
2.0
61,100
22
2,650
14,200
5.0
47
5.0
27
8,411
289
12
9.9
470
304
__
13,811
8.9
540
--
Results
Mean Minimum
8,395
11,875
1,532
2,404
208
974
1,089
336
166
455
21
24
35
46
51
243
6.15
36.0
1.5
31,570
17
1,476
7,745
2.9
40
3.3
19
1 , 033
19,260
38 105
6.0
5.3
12,436
116
1,835
41
10,107
9,236
1 2 , 908
13,100
3,675
6,988
4.9
63
21 616
- — .fin
<1U
1 LLn
1 , HHU
4~,477 <10
20 835
tu i ojj ~ -
of TCLP Oig/l)
Maximum Mean
126,000
786,000
1,010
1,249
38,600
26,600
896
<25
871
423
337
<200
33
149
<0.2
<50
20
200
5
340,000
60
46,700
-- 2,540,000
20
100
?n
£U
50
12 Afi1
1 f- i HO 1
<10
333 219
1Pfl
1 C.\J
J*
C.O
180
-------
TABLE 6-12. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEM SLUDGES - AQUEOUS TREATERS SUBCATEGORY(1) (Continued)
Pollutant
Sludge Sample
Results of TCLP (ng/l)
Units(2) Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum Mean
P-Cymene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Butanone, 2- (MEK)
Hexanone, 2-
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Carbon Disul^ide
Xylenes (total)
1,2,3,7,8-PCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PCDF
Total PCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PCDD
Total PCDD
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCOD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCOF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
OCDF
OCDD
M9/1
M9/1
/ig/i
M9/1
M9/1
W3/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
M9/1
ppt
PPt
ppt
PPt
PPt
PPt
PPt
PPt
PPt
PPt
PPt
PPt
ppt
ppt
ppt
PPt
PPt
ppt
PPt
ppt
--
--
<2.8
<2.8
<3.2
<14
--
<2.8
<10
<3.2
<0.32
8.78
127.1
<6.14
37.6
<0.87
<0.91
180.8
36.5
<1.49
289.5
50.3
204.4
668.7
1,291
<0.53
113.0
<12.5
214.8
7,595 1
--
--
430
260
618
179
--
390
650
1,900
65.9
180.4
407.9
10.7
66.9
211.7
73.1
2,388 1,
2,542 1,
292.6
9,932 5,
2,742 1,
8,367 4,
82,636 41,
185,173 93,
112.2
146.7
115.4
1,701
,086,585 547,
..
-.
69
66
134
40
--
48
171
479
33.1
94.6
267.5
8.42
52.2
106.3
37.0
284
289
147.0
111
396
286
652
232
56.4
129.8
64.0
957.9
090
10
37
-.
149
28
..
103
--
--
- -
NOTES:
(1)
(2)
The sludge data presented are based on the sampling results of three aqueous hazardous waste treaters
with physical/chemical treatment: 2 sites. Sites J and L, in the EPA-ITD sampling effort and one site
in the OSW sampling program. All samples were collected at the discharge of sludge
thickening/dewatering facilities. One sludge sample was collected from each of the EPA-ITD sampled
sites, 11 sludge samples were collected in the OSU program. All sludge data is contained in Appendix
C.
Metals concentrations in mg/kg wet basis, organics in M9/1, and dioxins/furans in ppt, as indicated.
All toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) concentrations in
127
-------
organic compounds were detected in the sludges. Eight compounds
were found at concentrations above 10,000 ng/1, indicating
significant removal of some organics by chemical
precipitation/sedimentation technologies. Adsorption on the solids
is a probable removal mechanism. Acetone, a volatile compound that
showed a relatively high average percent removal, was found to be
concentrated in the sludge, showing that volatilization is not the
only removal mechanism for certain volatile pollutants.
The most significant item in the sludge analyses is the large
number and high concentration of dioxins/furans. Thirteen
individual isomers were identified at concentrations ranging from
<0.32 ppt to 1.087 ppm. The isomers included 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD, the
most toxic dioxin known. Its concentration in one sludge was 115
ppt, which is extremely high. No dioxins/furans analyses were
performed on the raw wastes or the treated effluents; however, most
dioxins are relatively insoluble and tend to adsorb on
particulates. Significant TSS concentrations in the treated
effluents discharged from aqueous hazardous waste treaters could
indicate the discharge of significant concentrations of
dioxins/furans.
6.3.3 Advanced Treatment
Three aqueous hazardous waste treaters operated advanced
wastewater treatment systems. Only one facility provides
reduction/oxidation followed by chemical precipitation,
clarification, sand filtration, carbon adsorption, biological
treatment, and polishing ponds before discharging directly to
surface water. At another facility, inorganic wastes are
pretreated with chemical precipitation and mechanical filtration
(filter press) prior to mixing with other wastes. The combined
wastes then undergo biological treatment, filtration, carbon
adsorption, and polishing in holding ponds prior to discharge to
a POTW. The third facility pretreats cyanide wastes prior to
combining them with other wastes for chemical precipitation,
mechanical filtration (filter press), sand filtration, and carbon
adsorption prior to discharge to a POTW.
6.3.3.1 Treated Effluent Data
Table 6-13 presents summary concentration and percent removal
data for pollutants found in the effluents of advanced treatment
systems. Even with biological treatment, relatively poor removals
of BOD5, COD, and TOC were found. Not only were the percent
removals of the pollutants poor, but high effluent concentrations
were the norm. The advanced treatment systems also provided poor
TSS removals with the effluent concentrations averaging 480 mg/1.
Intermediate data showed that the ponds did not contribute TSS to
the effluents. Poor reductions resulted in high effluent ammonia
128
-------
TABLE 6-13. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN ADVANCED
TREATMENT SYSTEM EFFLUENTS - AQUEOUS TREATERS SUBCATEGORY(2)
Pollutant
BOD5_, mg/1
COD, mg/1
TOC. mg/1
TSS. mg/1
Ammonia, mg/1
TKN, mg/1
O&G, mg/1
Pheno 1 s , mg/ 1
Cyanide, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Boron
Barium
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Nickel
Aluminum
Lead
Cadmium
Molybdenum
Tin
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Titanium
Silver
Arsenic
Antimony
Mercury
Vanadium
Acetone
Acrolein
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Trans-1 , 2 -Dichloro-
ethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Acetate
Dichloroethene , 1,1-
Effluent
Minimum
30
250
40
60
0.1
1.5
1.0
0.05
0.02
0.4
3,000
106
361
184
56
686
27
560
<5
66
<13
7.8
60
20
<10
<1
30
14
<0.2
3.2
<50
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
48
<10
Concentration (1)
Maximum
2,340 1,
5,820 2,
1,500
980
650
1,170
18.2
35.4
0.19
14
15,400 8,
1,090
3,550 1,
2,580 1,
1,600
2,200 1,
857
740
1,400
627
<40
7.8
120
870
<50
<5
124
77
6
3.4
160,000 76,
839
111
30,000 6,
28
12
407
16
Mean Mean 3
013
944
966
480
186
577
9.9
10
0.11
7.4
403
552
946
345
634
285
440
640
303
329
(4)
7.8
84
307
(4)
(4)
76
46
2.1
3.3
621
247
35
015
14.5
10.5
228
11.5
\ Removal (3)
57
63
53
54
57
48
84
48
80
57
43
28
63
50
75
79
50
85
68
56
50
53
82
84
50
50
57
64
88
50
33
0
50
58
68
94
0
49
129
-------
TABLE 6-13. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN ADVANCED
TREATMENT SYSTEM EFFLUENTS - AQUEOUS TREATERS SUBCATEGORY(2)
(Continued)
Effluent Concentration(1)
Pollutant Minimum Maximum Mean Mean % Removal(3)
Trichloroethane
1,1,2- <10
Tetrachloroe thane ,
1,1,2,2- <10
Dichloroethane ,
1,2- <10
Butanone, 2- (MEK) <50
Thioxanthone 222
Butyl Benzyl
Phthalate <10
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate <10
Trichloroethane ,
1,1,1- <10
Benzene <10
Carbon Tetrachloride <10
Chlorobenzene <10
Ethylbenzene <10
N-Dodecane (N-C12) <10
Tetrachloroethene <10
Toluene <10
Dichloroethane, 1,1- <10
Benzoic Acid <10
P-Cresol <10
Diethyl Ether <50
Isophorone
Phenol <10
Chloro-3-Methyl
Phenol, 4- <10
Alpha-Terpineol <10
0-Cresol <10
Hexanoic Acid <10
2-4-D <5
Aldrin <0.2
Endosulfan II <0.5
Heptachlor <0.2
556
241
78
5,437
293
100
120
1600
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
96
__
<100
<100
548
<10
<10
<5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.2
187
91
27
1,397
258
40
47
328
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
62
5.5
(4)
(4)
\ /
189
<10
<10
<5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.2
47
50
69
82
50
0
0
90
82
78
78
68
79
81
79
49
99
73
12
29
98
48
0
21
£* J.
98
81
U ~L,
91
75
82
OCDF, ppt
0.15
130
-------
TABLE 6-13. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN ADVANCED
TREATMENT SYSTEM EFFLUENTS - AQUEOUS TREATERS SUBCATEGORY(2)
(Continued)
NOTES:
(1) All concentrations expressed in p.g/1, unless otherwise noted.
(2) Data presented are the results of sampling at three aqueous
hazardous waste treaters with advanced treatment systems:
Site K provided reduction/oxidation, chemical precipitation,
clarification, filtration, carbon adsorption, biological
treatment and polishing ponds; Site M treatment included pre-
treatment of inorganic wastes, biological treatment,
filtration, carbon adsorption, and polishing; and the OSW site
pretreated cyanide wastes, followed by chemical precipitation,
filtration, and carbon adsorption. All sampling data for these
three sites are contained in Appendix C.
(3) Mean % removal was calculated using the sampling data from all
three aqueous treaters with advanced treatment systems based
on the following formula:
n
Mean % Removal = \ ' (mean influent - mean effluent) x 100
mean influent
n
Where mean influent is the raw waste water concentration
calculated for each site. Mean effluent is the final treated
site effluent also calculated for each site. Influent and
effluent data for these sites are contained in Appendix C.
n = 3, the number of aqueous hazardous waste treaters with
advanced treatment in the data base.
For those pollutants whose effluent concentrations were
reported less than the detection limit (for example,
ethylbenzene <10 M9/1), the detection limit (10 M9/1) was used
in the calculation.
(3) Mean effluent concentrations are not presented for those
pollutants where all effluent concentrations were below the
detection limit and different detection limits were reported
for the three sites.
131
-------
and TKN concentrations, but none of the treatment systems were
designed specifically for removal of these pollutants.
Metals
Iron, manganese, boron, barium, nickel, and zinc were found
at concentrations above 1,000 nq/l in the treated effluent.
Average removals of these metals ranged from 28 percent for barium
to 79 percent for nickel. The advanced treatment system at the
first facility reported lower concentrations of aluminum,
manganese, barium, chromium, copper, iron, and nickel after
intermediate steps in the treatment system than in the final
effluent. Based on mean effluent concentrations, the
physical/chemical treatment systems discussed in Section 6.3.2
produced lower cadmium, mercury, copper, nickel, barium, and lead
concentrations. Mean effluent concentrations of zinc, aluminum,
chromium, iron, and boron were lower in the advanced treatment
systems.
Organic Pollutants
Nineteen organic pollutants were detected in the effluents
from the advanced treatment systems, but only 4 had concentrations
above 1,000 ^g/1 compared to 14 in the physical/chemical system
effluents. In addition, another 13 organic compounds detected in
the raw wastes were reported below detection levels in the
treatment system effluents. Average removal of these compounds
ranged from 8 to 98 percent. Although 8 of the 13 compounds are
volatiles, the average percent removals of the volatiles were lower
than those of the nonvolatiles, which indicates that removal
mechanisms other than volatilization are effective in the advanced
treatment systems.
Only five compounds averaged zero percent reduction through
the advanced treatment systems, including some with raw waste
concentrations below their detection limits. Such data may be the
result of detention times in the treatment systems and/or
analytical difficulties, both of which affect the estimates of
actual removals of organic pollutants in wastewater treatment
systems.
6.3.3.2 Residuals Data
The concentrations of pollutants reported in sludges from
advanced treatment systems, as shown in Table 6-14, are limited
to data from only one facility, the one with chemical
precipitation, filtration, and carbon adsorption. Consequently,
the sludges are chemical sludges rather than the
chemical/biological sludges generated by the other two advanced
treatment systems.
132
-------
TABLE 6-14. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN ADVANCED TREATMENT
SYSTEM SLUDGES - AQUEOUS TREATERS SUBCATEGORY(1)
Sludge Sample
Results of TCLP (/tg/l)(3)
Pollutant
Units(2) Minimum Maximum
Mean Minimum Maximum Mean
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
mg/kg
nig/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
2,900
0.068
380
790
1,400
4,000
12,000
23,000
50,000
1,300
9,300
35,000
7,200
11,700
39,300
973
5,700
17,700
Cyanide
mg/kg
400
950
667
Acetone
Methylene Chloride
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Naphthalene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Tetrachloroethene
Chloroform
NOTES:
(1) Data presented are
M9/1
M9/1 61,000
M9/1 73,000
Mg/l 290,000 1,
Mg/l 11,000
Mg/l 55,000
Mg/l 300,000
Mg/ i
Mg/l 22,000
M9/ I
M9/1 110,000
M9/1 74,000
M9/1
the results of sludge
--
79,000
400,000
400,000
34,000
110,000
720,000
12,000
200,000
15,000
160,000
100,000
—
samples
260,000
70,000
194,300
756,700
20,000
79,300
530,000
--
111,000
--
135,000
87,000
taken from
--
-- 2,800
-- 1,700
-- 7,200
240
520
-- 3,200
--
--
--
3,100
660
300
the OSU sampling facility wi
treatment. Treatment at this facility includes pretreatment of cyanide wastes prior to chemical
precipitation, filtration, and carbon adsorption. The sludge samples were collected from the sludge
filter press.
(2) Metals concentrations in mg/kg wet basis and organics in ;tg/l. All TCLP concentrations in M9/1.
(3) TCLP = toxicity leaching characteristic procedure.
133
-------
Cadmium, chromium, copper, and zinc were found at
concentrations above 10,000 mg/kg in the sludges. Sludge
concentrations of 12 organic compounds were also high. Because
the sludges only were tested for 6 metals and 93 organic compounds,
it is likely that other organics and metals also were present. In
addition, high detection limits resulted in only 12 of the 93
organics tested being found at reportable concentrations.
The TCLP concentrations of the organic compounds were
relatively low, considering the corresponding compositional
analyses. No dioxins/furans analyses were performed on the
sludges.
6.3.4 Conclusions
Aqueous hazardous waste treatment systems range from chemical
precipitation/sedimentation units to advanced secondary and
tertiary treatment systems.
Although the physical/chemical treatment technologies in-place
at aqueous hazardous waste treaters are designed for removal of
metals and other inorganic pollutants, the wastes accepted by these
facilities contain significant quantities of toxic organics that
pass through the treatment systems, receiving limited treatment.
The poor treatment received by organics is reflected in the BODf>,
TOC, and COD removals. Large reductions in heavy metals are
achieved by the treatment systems, even for metals found in low
concentrations in the raw wastes. Only five metals were found in
concentrations above 1,000 M9/1 in treated effluent.
Compared to the physical/chemical treatment systems in-place
at some aqueous hazardous waste treaters, the advanced treatment
systems are more effective in removing organic compounds; however,
high effluent concentrations of organic compounds are common even
with advanced treatment. This conclusion is supported by high
effluent concentrations of indicator compounds such as BOD5, TOC,
and COD, which show relatively poor removals. Advanced treatment
systems demonstrated metals removal efficiencies and effluent
concentrations similar to those achieved by physical/chemical
treatment systems.
Due to detention times in treatment systems and the limited
number of samples collected at each facility, it was difficult to
pair influent and effluent concentrations of pollutants to estimate
percent removals. In an attempt to overcome this obstacle,
influent and effluent concentrations were averaged, but even this
procedure resulted in negative percent removals in some cases.
Negative percent removals were assumed to be zero percent removal
when discussing the effectiveness of treatment technologies.
134
-------
Both physical/chemical and advanced treatment technologies
provided relatively poor removal of BOD5, TOC, COD, TSS, ammonia,
and TKN. High effluent concentrations of other pollutants also
were found. These results are typical for physical/chemical
treatment systems designed to remove inorganic pollutants,
primarily metals. The relatively poor removal of TOC and BOD5. by
advanced treatment systems using biological treatment and/or carbon
adsorption indicates the potential for discharge of poorly treated
hazardous wastes to POTWs or surface waters.
Based on the plants sampled, many of the toxic organic
pollutants accepted by aqueous hazardous waste treatment facilities
were not effectively removed by physical/chemical or advanced
treatment systems. Effluent concentrations of individual organic
compounds can exceed 10,000 M9/1/ even with advanced treatment
technologies such as carbon adsorption. Biological treatment was
also relatively ineffective in the treatment of some organic
compounds. However, better performance is expected from these
treatment technologies, and the poor performance observed in the
sampled plants is believed attributed to the small data base.
No significant differences between the effectiveness of
physical/chemical and advanced treatment technologies in removal
of metals was demonstrated by the treatment systems investigated.
The advanced treatment systems demonstrated better removals and
lower effluent concentrations for certain metals, while the
physical/chemical treatment systems were better for others. Whether
these results are indicative of the effectiveness of the types of
treatment technologies or the result of raw waste types and
concentrations of metals in them has not been established.
A critical question raised by the data presented in this
section is the potential for the discharge of dioxins/furans from
aqueous hazardous waste treaters to POTWs and surface waters. The
effluent samples were not tested for dioxins/furans, but extremely
high concentration of a large number of isomers were found in the
sludges. Dioxins/£uxans are relatively insoluble in water and tend
to adsorb on particulates. High effluent TSS concentrations were
found from both physical/chemical and advanced treatment systems,
which indicates the potential for the discharge of these isomers.
Sampling and testing of treatment system effluents for
dioxins/furans is necessary to establish the concentrations of
these compounds in treated effluent and the effectiveness of
various treatment systems for their removal.
135
-------
7. COST OF WASTEWATER CONTROL AND TREATMENT
This section presents estimates for the cost of implementation
of wastewater treatment control for each of the subcategories
included in the hazardous waste treatment (HWT) industry. The cost
estimates provided the basis for the determination of the probable
economic impact of regulation.
To arrive at the cost estimates presented in this section,
specific waste treatment technologies were selected that correspond
to the common types of facilities operating within the HWT industry
as found in Table 7-1. The raw wastewater characteristics selected
were based on the range of pollutant concentrations found during
sampling efforts. Wastewater flow rates used in sizing the
eguipment are typical rates found within treatment systems used
for costing.
The cost estimates include both investment and operating
costs. Investment costs were determined by estimating the costs
of individual unit operations. These estimates were derived from
development documents for industries treating similar wastes, other
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reference material,
textbooks, manufacturer's literature, and vendor quotations. A
piping cost for intercomponent piping, valves, and piping required
to transfer the wastewater to the treatment system was estimated
as a percentage (10%) of the total equipment cost.
As a part of the investment cost, it was assumed that a
building would be necessary to: (1) house the majority of the unit
operations, (2) house the system instrumentation, (3) store
treatment chemicals and other supplies, and (4) as a base for
operation and maintenance activities.
Several other cost elements were estimated as a percentage of
the total capital costs. An equipment, piping, and building
contingency of 10 percent was used to account for varied
requirements at specific locations. In addition, an engineering
design fee of 10 percent was included to account for the overall
design of the process and engineering supervision required during
installation and start-up of the equipment. Inspection fees (2%)
also were added to the total investment cost (TIC).
Operating costs were estimated by adding together the expected
annual costs for various operating cost elements. A labor estimate
was made based on expected requirements for the entire facility
rather than for individual units. An overhead rate of 50 percent
was added to the salaries to account for employee benefits and
employment costs (e.g., social security, medical benefits, and
unemployment tax) incurred by the facility. Energy costs were
calculated based on the expected requirements for each unit
136
-------
TABLE 7-1. DESIGN BASIS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES
Aqueous Hazardous Waste Treaters Subcategory
Design flow rate of 45,500 gpd (see Figure 7-1)
Facility operates 24 h/d, 5 d/wk, 260 d/y
no weekend operation
Waste volumes received are evenly divided into five types each
with an average flow of 10,000 gpd:
Chromate wastes
Metal wastes
Cyanide wastes
Oily wastes
• Organic wastes
The characteristics of each waste category are as follows:
chromate wastes cyanide waste
1297 mg/1 Cr +6 225 mg/1 CN
metal wastes oily waste unspecified
113 mg/1 Cd
753 mg/1 Cu organic waste
3,286 mg/1 Zn 1,000 mg/1 COD
1,577 mg/1 Ni
107 mg/1 Pb
Leachate Treatment Subcateaorv
Design flow of 30,000 gpd (see Figure 7-2)
Facility operates 24 h/d, 5 d/wk, 260 d/yr
no weekend generation
Weekend flow is stored in aerated equalization tank (Required
since leachate is continuously generated and only treated 5
days/week)
Raw waste characteristics are as follows:
pH = 7.0
COD = 500-25,000 mg/1
Total metals = 426 mg/1
137
-------
TABLE 7-1. DESIGN BASIS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES
(Continued)
Scrubber Wastewater Subcategory
Design flow of 900,000 gpd/93,000 gpd (see Figure 7-3)
Facility operates 24 h/d, 5 d/wk, 300 d/yr
no weekend operation
The waste volume of scrubber blowdown was 900,000 gpd
Raw waste characteristics are as follows:
pH = 0.1 to 2.0
TSS = 10,000 mg/1
Temp = 80°C
Total Metals = 424 mg/1
138
-------
operation considering hydraulic loading and air requirements.
Energy costs primarily include electrical requirements for pumps,
blowers, and mixers. Chemical and material costs also were
determined for each unit operation based on flow rate and waste
characteristics. Sludge disposal costs were based on calculated
sludge volumes, current average disposal rates for hazardous and
nonhazardous wastes, and a unit cost of $.27 per gallon. This unit
cost was on the low side of the wide range of reported sludge
disposal costs. Use of a low cost, for purposes of this study, is
appropriate since owners/operators of HWT facilities are likely to
dispose of the sludge on-site or choose a least-cost means of
disposal. Several other operating cost elements were included as
a percentage of the TIC, including administration (5%), laboratory
(2%), and taxes (1%).
All investment and operating costs were adjusted to 1987
(March) dollars using the CE plant cost index.
The three model treatment systems used as a basis for
estimating the cost of wastewater treatment for each of the
industry subcategories are presented in Figures 7-1 through 7-3.
A summary of the cost estimates is shown in Tables 7-2 through 7-4.
Assumptions used in estimating the treatment costs for each
subcategory are contained in Appendix D.
7-1 AQUEOUS THEATERS SUBCATEGORY
Unlike the other subcategories of the HWT industry, the
production facility cannot be separated from the wastewater
treatment system in the aqueous treaters subcategory.
Consequently, the pollution control and treatment technology costs
are the same as the costs for the actual production facility. For
an average size facility (45,500 gpd) as shown in Figure 7-1, the
investment cost was estimated at $767,000. Annual operating costs
are estimated at $325,000 per year.
7.2 LEACHATE TREATMENT SUBCATEGORY
Based on average flow of 30,000 gpd, the investment cost for
the model leachate treatment facility shown in Figure 7-2 was
estimated at $806,000. Annual operating costs were approximately
$286,000 per year. The model facility is designed to remove both
inorganic and organic BAT pollutants. Costs for less sophisticated
treatment systems can be estimated by eliminating individual unit
process costs from Table 7-3.
139
-------
Chrome-
Storage/
Equal
Chrome Wastes
10,000 gpd
Metals
Storage/
Equal.
Metal Wastes
10.000 gpd
Cyanide
Storage/
Equal.
Cyanide Wastes
10.000 gpd
Oily Waste
Storage
Equal.
•JF
»,«..-, | r-
Oils Wastes
10,000 gpd
NaOH
Chrome Reduction
Liquid Return
Neutralization/
Precipitation
Polymer
Organic Wastes
10.000 gpd
Organic
Storage/
Equal.
Cyanide Oxidation Oil Separator
Flocculation/
Clarification
Solids
Flotation
Settling Tank
Backwash
Solids
I '
Sludge Thickeninp
Solids
Filter Press
Dewatered Sludge
To Disposal
Wastewater
Discharge
Filtration
Carbon
Adsorption
Figure 7-1. Model Aqueous Waste Treatment System
-------
Raw Leachate Acid
30,000 gpd
Waste water
Discharge
Figure 7-2. Model Leachate Treatment System
-------
Make-up
Water
Scrubber
Wastewater
Discharge
93,000 gpd
Lime
900,000
Polymer
11
Neutralization
Backwash
Cooling Lagoon
Cooling Lagoon
Flocculation/
Clarification
Solids
Carbon
Adsorption
Filtration
Return to Neutralization
Solids
Thickener
-
\
u
Filter
— *• Press t
Neutra
z_A
,. 1 _^ Sludge to
84J "* Disposal
Figure 7-3. Model Scrubber Wastewater Treatment System
-------
TABLE 7-2. MODEL AQUEOUS TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS
Investment Cost
System Component Cost. 1987 $
Storage/Equalization (5-5,000 gal) 23,500
Chrome Reduction 19,600
Cyanide Oxidation 18,600
Neutralization/Precipitation 29,400
Flocculation/Clarification 39,200
Filtration 45,500
Carbon Adsorption 260,000
Sludge Storage/Thickening 21,700
Filter Press 51,450
Oil Separator 34,600
Equipment Subtotal > 543,550
Piping (10% of equipment) 54,355
Building (1,000 sq.ft. @ $75/sq.ft.) 75,000
Subtotal for Building and Equipment > 618,550
Contingency (10% of B&E subtotal) 61,855
Engineering Design (10% of B&E subtotal) 61,855
Inspection Fees (2% of B&E subtotal) 12,371
Administration/Legal Fees (2% of subtotal) 12,371
Total Investment Cost (TIC) > 767,002
Operating Cost
Operating Cost Element Annual Cost. 1987 $
O&M Labor (8,000 hrs @ $18/hr, include 50% OH) 91,900
Energy 5,100
Chemicals and Materials 103,600
Sludge Disposal 25,000
Administration (5% of TIC) 38,350
Laboratory (2% of TIC) 15,340
Equipment Replacement (5% of TIC) 38,350
Insurance and Taxes (1% of TIC) 7,670
Total Operating Cost > 325,310
143
-------
TABLE 7-3. MODEL LEACHATE TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS
Investment Cost
System Component Cost, 1987 $
Aerated Equalization 87,100
Mixing 22,500
Flocculation/Clarification 30,400
pH Adjustment 22,500
Air Stripping 29,890
Neutralization 22,500
Activated Sludge/Clarification 80,000
Filtration 33,500
Carbon Adsorption 135,300
Sludge Thickener 19,600
Filter Press 39,200
Equipment Subtotal > 522,490
Piping (10% of equipment) 52,249
Building (1,000 sq.ft. @ $75/sq.ft.) 75,000
Subtotal for Building and Equipment > 64,739
Contingency (10% of B&E subtotal) 64,974
Engineering Design (10% of B&E subtotal) 64,974
Inspection Fees (2% of B&E Subtotal) 12,995
Administrative/Legal Fees (2% of subtotal) 12,995
Total Investment Cost (TIC) > 805,676
Operating Cost
Operating Cost Element Annual Cost. 1987 $
O&M Labor (8,000 hrs @ $18/hr, include 50% OH) 144,000
Energy 16,100
Chemicals and Materials 6,700
Sludge Disposal 14,000
Administration (5% of TIC) 40,284
Laboratory (2% of TIC) 16,114
Equipment Replacement (5% of TIC) 40,284
Insurance and Taxes (1% of TIC) 8,057
Total Operating Cost > 285,538
144
-------
TABLE 7-4. MODEL SCRUBBER TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS
Investment Cost
System Component Cost. 1987 $
Neutralization/Clarification 571,000
Cooling Lagoons (2-3 ft deep x 142'x 142') 60,400
Fil'tration 65,700
Carbon Adsorption 335,000
Sludge Thickener 22,500
Filter Press 46,000
Equipment Subtotal > 1,032,100
Piping (10% of equipment) 103,210
Building (1,000 sq. ft. @ $75/sq. ft.) 75,000
Subtotal for Building and Equipment > 1,210,310
Contingency (10% of B&E subtotal) 121,031
Engineering design (10% of B&E subtotal) 24,206
Inspection Fees (2% of B&E subtotal) 24,206
Adirtinistration/Legal Fees (2% of subtotal) 24,206
Total Investment Cost (TIC) > 1,500,784
Operating Cost
Operating Cost Element Annual Cost. 1987 $
O&M Labor ($18/hr, including 50% OH) 144,000
Energy 13,800
Chemicals and Materials 9,500
Sludge Disposal 18,252
Administration (5% of TIC) 75,039
Laboratory (2% of TIC) 30,016
Equipment Replacement (5% of TIC) 75,039
Insurance and Taxes (1% of TIC) 15,008
Total Operating Cost > 380,654
145
-------
7.3 SCRUBBER WASTEWATER SUBCATEGORY
For the scrubber wastewater subcategory, two cost estimates
were calculated, as shown in Table 7-4. The first estimate
included the investment and operating cost for the entire scrubber
wastewater treatment system, including neutralization/
clarification, cooling lagoons, filtration, carbon adsorption,
sludge thickening, and filter press, as shown in Figure 7-3. These
system components, except for filtration and carbon adsorption,
were related to the water reclamation system of the industrial
process rather than the wastewater discharge system. Therefore,
the second cost estimate only considered the wastewater portion of
the facility.
The model scrubber wastewater treatment system assumed
approximately 10 percent blowdown rate with treatment prior to
discharge. Investment costs for the treatment system were
estimated to be $1,501,000 and annual operating costs were
estimated at $381,000 per year.
7.4 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
The purpose of this subsection is to assess the economic
impacts that possible regulations would have on the HWT industry.
An economic assessment is presented that compares the annualized
cost of possible regulations to revenues currently realized by
typical facilities in the industry. Cost-effectiveness was
determined to identify the incremental annualized cost of
subcategorical pollution control options per incremental pound
equivalent of pollutant removed by that control option.
For purposes of an economic evaluation, four model plants were
developed, representing an incinerator, a municipal landfill, a
hazardous waste landfill, and an aqueous waste treater. Since
detailed economic and technical data were not available at that
time, these models are only for preliminary economic assessment.
Capital and operating costs for typically sized model plants are
presented in Table 7-5. Capital and operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs were presented earlier in this section. The cost of
land was estimated at 20 percent of the capital costs, and annual
monitoring costs were estimated at $5,000. The annualized cost
equals the sum of O&M and monitoring costs, plus the annual portion
of capital and land costs, assuming a capital recovery factor of
0.26 (which corresponds to a discount rate of 10 percent and 5
years). These costs also are presented in Table 7-5.
7-4.1 Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment
Economic assessment impacts were measured by the ratio of
treatment costs to revenues. Using a high, low, and average fee,
146
-------
TABLE 7-5. MODEL FACILITIES AND COSTING*
Model Control Cost ($1,000)
Subcategory Capacity Investment Land O&M Monitor Annual**
Incinerator
Landfill
Municipal
Hazardous
Waste
Landfill
18,000 mt/y
62 acres
62 acres
Aqueous Treater 45,500 gpd
for 260 d/y
1501
806
806
767
300 381
161 286
161 286
153 325
854
542
542
569
* These model plant sizes are used for preliminary economic
analysis only-
** Capital recovery factor is 0.26.
147
-------
revenues were estimated for each model facility based on its
capacity as follows (Ref. 31):
Incinerator - $26 to $3,300 per metric ton, or an average
$1,000 per metric ton ($3.80 per gallon)
Aqueous waste treater - $0.12 to $6 per gallon, or an
average $1.60 per gallon
Hazardous waste landfill - $76 to $658 per metric ton,
or an average $120 per metric ton
Municipal landfills - $3 to $41 per metric ton, or an
average $13 per metric ton
Revenue and treatment cost estimates were calculated on an
annual basis for incinerators and agueous treaters. However, for
hazardous and municipal landfills, monitoring and treatment of
leachate must continue for some time after dumping, as long as
toxic leachate is generated. The cost of leachate treatment was
assumed to continue for 20 years after the initial dumping, even
if the site is closed. The revenue for the 62-acre model landfill
assumes that the landfill is filled to its lifetime capacity (62
acres times 12,100 metric ton per acre) in the initial year. The
present value of the lifetime leachate treatment costs include
initial capital and land costs of $967,000, as shown in Table 7-5,
plus the present value of O&M and monitoring for the next 20 years,
discounted at 10 percent.
Table 7-6 presents the estimates of treatment cost in relation
to revenues. For incinerators and aqueous treaters, the treatment
costs and revenues are in annual terms. While the average ratio
for incinerators was 4.7 percent, the ratio ranges from a low of
1.4 percent for incinerators charging the highest fees to 182.5
percent for incinerators charging the lowest fees. The impact of
aqueous treaters was smaller: the average ratio was 3.0 percent,
with a range from 0.8 percent for treaters charging high fees to
40.6 percent for treaters charging low fees.
For landfills, the revenue from landfilling a given amount of
material was compared to the lifetime cost of treatment. For
hazardous waste landfills, the ratio of the lifetime cost of
treatment to revenue ranges from 0.7 to 6.0 percent with a ratio
of 3.8 percent for a landfill charging average fees. Because of
the low tipping fees at municipal landfills, the ratio of leachate
treatment cost to revenues could be high, if such treatment is
needed. The ratio of lifetime treatment cost to revenue ranges
from 11.2 to 149.7 percent, with a cost to revenue ratio of 35.5
percent for those charging average fees.
148
-------
TABLE 7-6
MODEL PLANTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
AND CONTROL COST1 TO REVENUE COMPARISON
Subcategory
Incinerator
Capacity Service
18,000 mt/y High
($/mt)
Average
Landfill
Municipal
Hazardous
waste
landfill
Aqueous
Treater
Low
62 acres High
($/mt)
Average
Low
62 acres High
($/mt)
Average
Low
45,500 gpd High
($/g>
for 260d/y Average
Low
fee
3300
1000
26
41
13
3
658
120
76
6
1.6
0.12
Revenu
High
Average
Low
High
Average
Low
Control cost
($000) ($000)
0
0
0
30700
9700
2300
High 495630
Average
Low
High
Average
Low
90000
57000
71000
18900
1400
annually
annually 854
annual ly
life
life 3444
life
life
life 3444
life
annually
annually 569
annually
annually
annually
annually
life
life
life
life
life
life
annually
annually
annually
Control cost
as % of fee
(or revenue)
1
4
182
11
35
149
0
3
6
0
3
40
.4
.7
.5
.2
.5
.7
.7
.8
.0
.8
.0
.6
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Conparing life cycle cost with initial revenue (assuming a discount rate of 10 % in 20 years)
149
-------
These ratios were based on tentative data. The municipal
landfill results showed that only a small fraction (3.7 percent)
were expected to require leachate treatment. This analysis should
be further qualified because the wastewater treatment costs were
assumed to be independent of the types of hazardous waste treated,
so that for wastes having low disposal charges, the ratio of
wastewater treatment costs to revenue were high. This can be
misleading. For example, in the case of incinerators, scrubber
water from incinerating highly toxic wastes is more likely to
require treatment than scrubber water from incinerating high BTU
wastes.
Based on this model plant analysis, the cost of treatment
technologies appear to be modest in relation to revenue received
by commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities with average
fees. However, this is not the case for municipal landfills.
7.4.2 Cost-Effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness (CE) is defined as the incremental
annualized cost of a pollution control option in an industry or
industry subcategory per increments pound-equivalent of pollutant
removed by that control option. The analysis accounts for
differences in toxicity among the pollutants with toxic weighing
factors (TWF) based on water quality criteria to protect aquatic
and human health. Because concentration data are not always
available for many priority and nonpriority hazardous pollutants,
incremental removal may be underestimated in this preliminary CE
calculation. A CE analysis was presented for each subcategory,
based on performance data collected by EPA-ITD for the HWT
industry. No distinction was made regarding direct/indirect
discharge. The methodology for calculating cost effectiveness
follows that employed for the Organic Chemicals Plastics and
Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) category.
7.4.2.1 Scrubber Wastewater Systems
The control technology shown in Figure 7-3 consists of two
parts: (1) all units between neutralization and cooling pond
inclusive - physical/chemical treatment, and (2) units downstream
of the cooling pond-filtration/carbon adsorption. For 164
incinerators nationwide producing scrubber wastewater, the annual
wastewater flow was 3,966 million gallons. Table 7-7 shows the
data used and the step-by-step calculations for each pollutant.
The incremental annual per plant treatment cost of $854,000 applied
to each of the 164 plants gave an annual industry-wide treatment
cost of $140 million. After calculating the sum of incremental
removals (PE), a CE of $44.68 per pound equivalent removed was
calculated. After treatment, the scrubber wastewater can be
reused, thus avoiding costs incurred from obtaining new water.
-------
TABLE 7-7 COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION FOR
SCRUBBER WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Number of plants (N)
Wastewater flow (gpd) a each plant (q)
Number of days/year in operation (d)
Annual flow (mgy) for all plants N x
Organic Raw waste
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
pollutant name cone.
Acetone
Benzene
Bromoform
Fluoranthene
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
Pyrene
Thioxanthone
Sum 5
(ppb)
65
61
15
109
907
326
4067
,550
q x d
164
93,000
260
3,966
Advanced treatment
Weighted %
TWF cone. (ppb)
0
0.848
0.0357
0.104
0.452
0.146
0
Annual loading for all flow 184,000
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Metallic pollutant name
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
1500
1040
600
970
6430
Lead 21200
Nickel
2310
Zinc 159000
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Sum 193
Annual loading for all flow 6,385
=================================
Organics plus metals 6,569
Incremental removal (PE) for 164
Annualized costs for all plants
CE ($/PE)
3 each plant: investment ($)
71
6.6
11
,050
,000
0.0036
32.0295
5.09
0.0267
0.467
1.75
0.114
0.119
505.026
0.16
0.257
3,
0
51.7
0.5
11.3
410.0
47.6
0
521
17,000
5.4
33310.7
3054.0
25.9
3002.8
37100.0
263.3
18921.0
35856.8
1.1
2.8
95,683
164,000
removal
na
na
na
83
98
94
90
90
99
89
99
99
99
89
99
99
na
na
efflu. cone.
(ppb)
65
61
15
18.5
18.1
19.6
406.7
604
184,000
150.0
10.4
66.0
9.7
64.3
212.0
254.1
1590.0
0.7
6.6
11.0
2,357
78,000
wtd.
0
51.7
0.5
1.9
8.2
2.9
0.0
65
2,000
0.5
333.1
335.9
0.3
30.0
371.0
29.0
189.2
358.6
1.1
2.8
1,289
43,000
=====================================================
,000
plants
3,
1,
land costs (20% of above) ($)
O&M cost ($/y)
monitoring cost ($/y)
annual ized cost ($/y)
Credit in recycled scrubber water
CE ($/PE) with credit in recycled
a $1.
2 per 1000
181,000
501,000
300,200
381,000
5,000
854,312
gal Ions
scrubber water
45,000
3,136,000
140,107,000
44.68
35,818,000
33.26
Data sources: raw waste cone.(Tables 5-13 & 5-14), performance (Table 6-9).
na not analysed.
151
-------
With credit for water reuse, CE would be $33.26 per pound
equivalent. In the calculation, it was assumed that 700,000 gpd
of water from treatment are reused, with a value of $1.20 per 1,000
gallons.
7.4.2.2 Leachate Treatment Systems
Candidate control technology for the leachate treatment system
is air stripping before an activated sludge process, followed by
filtration/carbon adsorption. For 528 leachate collection systems
in the United States, the annual leachate flow was 4,114 million
gallons. Table 7-8 presents the data and calculations for the
system. It should be noted that the Table5-8 was calculated using
unedited data from Chapter 5. The data shown in Chapter 5 do not
include "non-detects."
Because many pollutants are not always present in all leachate
systems, a probability was used to represent the likelihood of the
occurrence of a pollutant in the leachate system. For example,
methylene chloride was observed in more than 50 percent of the
samples in five out of six studies; the occurrence probability was
5/6 or 0.83. The probability of occurrence for each pollutant is
also shown in Table 7-8.
This analysis incorporated the findings of the EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) by explicitly assigning
removal efficiencies of air stripping and aerated equalization for
removing VOCs (Ref. 32) . Organic priority pollutants were
classified into three groups; High-Henry's law constant, Medium
Henry's law constant, and Low-Henry's law constant (Appendix H).
The analysis assumed that the air stripping/aerated equalization
removed and captured 90 percent of the first group, 70 percent of
the second group, and none of the third group. The CE for this
control option was $7.66 per pound equivalent removed. If the
volatilized pollutants were not captured, then the CE was $71.60
per pound equivalent removed.
7.4.2.3 Aqueous Hazardous Waste Treaters
The model plant for aqueous waste treaters was composed of
processes treating five wastestreams, each contributing 20 percent
of the wastewater flow. Control option was pretreatment (including
chromium reduction, cyanide destruction, oil skimming, and peroxide
oxidation), followed by flocculation/clarification. For 602
aqueous hazardous waste treaters in the United States discharging
wastewater, the annual flow was 7,122 million gallons. Table 7-9
summarizes the data and the calculations. Using removal
efficiencies based on data collected for this analysis, the CE for
this control option was $11.17 per pound equivalent removed.
152
-------
TABLE 7-8 COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION FOR
LEACHATE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Number of plants (N)
Uastewater flow (gpd)
3 each plant (q)
Mumber of days/year in operation (d)*
Annual flow (mgy) for
No. Pollutant
01. CH2CL2 (METH)
02. DCB, 1,2-
03. TCA, 1,1,1-
04. TCE
05. Chloroform
06. Chlorobenz.
07. OCA, 1,2-
08. OCA, 1,1-
09. DCB, 1.4-
10. TetraCE
11. T,-1,2-DCE
12. DCB, 1,3-
13. CCL4
14. TCA, 1,1,2-
15. DCPP, 1,2-
16. Chloronapthal
17. Chloroethane
18. Vinyl chloride
19. TCA, 1,1,2,2-
20. Methyl bromide
21. Methyl chloride
22. DCE, 1,1-
23. DCDFM
24. Toluene
25. Napthalene
26. Benzene
27. Ethylbenzene
28. Phenanthrene
29. Acenaphthylene
30. Nitrobenzene
31. Anthracene
32. Acenaphthene
33. Fluoranthene
34. C-3-methylphen
35. Nitrophenol, 4-
36. Isophorone
37. Di-n-butylphthalate
38. Bis(2-eh) phthalate
39. Dimethyl phthalate
40. Di-n-oct phthalate
41. Pyrene
42. Benzo(a)anthracene
43. Benzo(b)fluoranthen
all plants = N x
Toxic
Weighting Proba-
Factor bility
2.9470000 0.83
0.0170000 0.15
0.0003000 0.15
0.2070000 0.15
2.9520000 0.15
0.0115000 0.15
0.5960000 0.15
0.0005600 0.15
0.0213000 0.15
0.7070000 0.15
0.0005000 0.15
0.0180000 0.15
1.4000000 0.15
0.9340000 0.15
0.0006900 0.15
0.3500000 0.15
0.0000000 0.15
0.2800000 0.15
3.2940000 0.15
2.9470000 0.15
2.9470000 0.15
16.9700000 0.15
0.0357000 0.15
0.0004000 0.83
0.0090300 0.15
0.8480000 0.83
0.0040000 0.5
0.0281000 0.15
0.0660000 0.15
0.0002830 0.15
0.2440000 0.15
0.9210000 0.15
0.1040000 0.15
0.1806000 0.15
0.0135000 0.15
0.0000100 0.15
0.0001650 0.15
2.1866700 0.15
0.0000179 0.15
0.8115900 0.15
0.1460000 0.15
56.3590000 0.15
26.0470000 0.15
528
30,000
260
q X d 4,118
Observed
sample
cone.
(PPb)
20135
7839
5051
8530
3769
3288
13990
394
1687
6873
387
410
7763
15898
54
46
57
189
114097
170
170
99
287
9552
1210
569
3769
69
56
15
20
45
24
14
17
1133
189
934
517
22
25
14
11
„ Advanced treatment inciuumy
modified air stripping and
Raw waste
Expected cone.
(ppm)
16712
1176
758
1280
565
493
2099
59
253
1031
58
62
1164
2385
8
7
9
28
17115
26
26
15
43
7928
182
472
1885
10
8
2
3
7
4
2
3
170
28
140
78
3
4
2
2
wtd.
49250
20
0
265
1669
6
1251
0
5
729
0
1
1630
2227
0
2
0
8
56375
75
75
252
2
3
2
400
8
0
1
0
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
306
0
3
1
118
43
aerated
Removal
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
na
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.92
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
na
na
0.7
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
equalization
effluent cone
(ppb)
5014
353
76
128
57
49
630
6
25
103
6
6
116
715
2
7
1
3
5134
3
3
1
4
634
54
47
188
3
3
2
3
2
4
2
3
170
28
140
78
3
4
2
2
wtd.
14775
6
0
26
167
1
375
0
1
73
0
0
163
668
0
2
0
1
16913
8
8
25
0
0
0
40
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
306
0
3
1
118
43
153
-------
TABLE 7-8 COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION FOR
LEACHATE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (Continued)
44. flenzo(k)f luoranthen
45. Chrysene
46. Phenol
47. Dimethylpheool
48. DCPhenol, 2,4-
49. PentaCphenol
50. TCpheool, 2,4,6-
51. Chlorophenol, 2-
52. 2-ChloroEVE
53. Bis(2-CEOxy)methane
54. Bis(CM)ether
55. Diethyl phthalate
56. Butyl benzyl ph
57. Chlordane
58. PCB-1016
59. PCB-1242
60. PCB-1254
61. Acrolein
62. TCB, 1,2,4-
63. HCB
64. HCE
65. HCButadiene
66. BCMethane
67. Fluorene
68. Acryloni tri le
69. Toxaphene
70. Bis(2-CE)ether
71. Gama-BHC
72. Alpha-BHC
Sum (organic)
Pollutant weight in
3. Antimony
'4. Arsenic
5. Cadmium
6. Chromium
7. Copper
6. Lead
9. Nickel
0. Zinc
Sum
Pollutant weight in
2.3400000 0.15
0.1458000 0.15
0.0021900 0.33
0.0026000 0.15
0.0170000 0.15
1.7560000 0.15
0.4740000 0.15
0.2150000 0.15
0.0016000 0.15
0.0000000 0.15
304.3470000 0.15
0.0000006 0.15
0.0254500 0.15
2468.9920000 0.15
7488.6080000 0.15
7488.6080000 0.15
7488.6080000 0.15
0.2840000 0.15
0.0200000 0.15
777.8000000 0.15
0.3050000 0.15
0.6130000 0.15
2.9470000 0.15
0.1120000 0.15
0.8615300 0.15
1197.8930000 0.15
0.4120000 0.15
78.9600000 0.15
18.0650000 0.15
all flow
0.0036200 0.5
32.0290000 0.5
5.0900000 0.3
0.0267000 0.3
0.4670000 0.62
1.7500000 0.62
0.1140000 1
0.1190000 1
all flow
11
16
17390
2498
1240
445
3860
494
70
11
250
131
141
200
629
86767
700
487415
9748
10000
10000
30000
130000
26
4
1
10
5400
7800
1,035,000
35,500,000
396
15379
6623
1067
835
993
1202
25848
52,000
1,800,000
2
2
5739
375
186
67
579
74
11
2
38
20
21
30
94
13015
105
73112
1462
1500
1500
4500
19500
4
1
0
2
810
1170
180,000
6,200,000
198
7690
1987
320
518
616
1202
25848
38,000
1,300,000
4
0
13
1
3
117
274
16
0
0
11413
0
1
74070
706550
97464608
786304
20764
29
1166700
458
2759
57467
0
1
180
1
63958
21136
-
100,492,000
3,451,600,000
1
246287
10113
9
242
1077
137
3076
261,000
9,000,000
— ===-===-==-==
0.7
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
0.7
na
na
na
na
na
na
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
na
na
na
na
0
0.47
0
0.66
0.32
0
0.36
0
=======
0
2
5739
375
186
67
579
74
11
2
11
20
21
30
94
13015
105
21934
439
450
450
450
1950
1
0
0
2
810
1170
62,000
2,100,000 3
198
4075
1987
109
352
616
769
25848
34,000
1,200,000
==============
1
0
13
1
3
117
274
16
0
0
3424
0
1
74070
706550
97464608
786304
6229
9
350010
137
276
5747
0
0
180
1
63958
21136
99,517,000
418,200,000
1
130532
10113
3
164
1077
88
3076
145,000
5,000,000
==========*»=
154
-------
TABLE 7-8 COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION FOR
LEACHATE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (Continued)
Pollutant weight (organic and inorganic 37,300,000 7,500,000 3,460,600,000 3,300,000 3,423,200,000
Incremental removal (PE) for 528 plants 37,400,000
Annualized costs for all plants 286,400,000
CE ($/PE) 7.66
9 each plant: investment ($) 806,000
land costs (20% of abov (20% of above) ($) 161,200
O&M cost ($/y) 286,000
monitoring cost ($/y) 5,000
annualized cost for each plant ($/y) 542,472
CE ($/PE) without modified air stripping & aerated equalization 71.60
Data sources: raw waste cone.(Table 5-8 & 5-9), performance (Table 6-5 with Lucas1
modification of air stripping & aerated equalization), na = not analysed
* Allow for 365 days per year of leachate collection.
155
-------
TABLE 7-9 COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION FOR
AQUEOUS TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Number of plants (N)
Uastewater flow (gpd) a each plant (q)
Number of days/year in operation (d)
Annual flow (tngy) for all plants N x q x d
602
45,500
260
7.122
No. Pollutant Name
1 CH2CL2 (HETH)
2 OCB, 1,2-
3 TCA, 1,1,1-
4 TCE
5 Chloroform
6 Chlorobenz.
7 OCA, 1,2-
8 DCA, 1,1-
9 TetraCE
10 T,-1,2-DCE
11 CCU
12 ICA, 1,1,2-
13 Chloronapthalene
H TetraCA, 1,1,2,2-
15 Toluene
16 Napthalene
17 Benzene
18 Isophorone
19 Di-n-butytphthalate
20 Bis(2-eh> phthalate
21 Phenol
22 Butyl benzyl ph
23 HCB
24 HCE
25 HCButadiene
26 Fluorene
27 Bis(2-CE)ether
28 Mitrophenol,2-
29 Diphenythydrzn,1,2-
30 Dini trotoluene,2,4-
Sum (organic)
Annual loading in all
Toxic
weighting
factor
2.9470000
0.0170000
0.0003000
0.2070000
2.9520000
0.0115000
0.5960000
0.0005600
0.7070000
0.0005000
1.4000000
0.9340000
0.3500000
3.2940000
0.0004000
0.0090300
0.8480000
0.0000100
0.0001650
2.1866700
0.0021900
0.0254500
777.8000000
0.3050000
0.6130000
0.1120000
0.4120000
0.0017000
1.0000000
0.0615000
flow
Raw wastewater
concentration
Cppb)
4966
34
1139
333
125
94
62
98
279
29
54
29
3519
13635
6110
75
2241
501
220
129
2208
165
11
41
157
13
286
66
19
57
37,000
2,198,000 4,
wtd.
(Pf*)
14635
1
0
69
369
1
37
0
197
0
76
27
1232
44914
2
1
1900
0
0
282
5
4
8556
13
96
1
118
0
19
4
,
73,000
336,000
aqueous
treatment
system
effluent cone.
Removal
0.39
na
0.41
0.26
0.16
na
0.00
0.29
0.21
0.03
na
0.08
0.46
0.49
0.41
0.22
0.31
na
0.26
0.42
0.56
0.44
na
na
na
0.16
na
0
0
na
1
(ppb)
3029
34
672
246
105
94
62
70
220
28
54
27
1900
6954
3605
59
1546
501
163
75
972
92
11
41
157
11
286
21,000
,247,000
wtd.
8927
1
0
51
310
1
37
0
156
0
76
25
665
22906
1
1
1311
0
0
164
2
2
8556
13
96
1
118
43,000
2,554,000
156
-------
TABLE 7-9 COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION FOR
AQUEOUS TREATMENT SYSTEMS (Continued)
31 Antimony
32 Arsenic
33 Cadmium
34 Chromium
35 Copper
36 Lead
37 Nickel
38 Zinc
39 Si Iver
40 Mercury
41 Selenium
Sum (inorganic)
Annual loading in all
0.0036200
32.0290000
5.0900000
0.0267000
0.4670000
1.7500000
0.1140000
0.1190000
46.6670000
505.0260000
0.1600000
flow
4868
248
29582
798252
268609
40665
1306957
589130
177
25
685
3,039,000
180,500,000
18
7943
150572
21313
125440
71164
148993
70106
8260
12626
110
617,000
36,646,000
0.82
na
0.88
0.83
0.93
0.91
0.53
0.93
na
0.85
na
876
248
3550
135703
18803
3660
614270
41239
177
4
685
819,000
48,644,000
3
7943
18069
3623
8781
6405
70027
4907
8260
1894
110
130,000
7,721,000
Annual loading (organic and inorganic) 182,698,000 40,982,000
Incremental removal (PE) for 602 plants
Annualized costs for all plants
CE ($/PE)
3 each plant: investment ($)
land costs (20% of above) ($)
O&M cost ($/y)
monitoring cost ($/y)
annualized cost for each plant ($/y)
49,891,000 10,275,000
30,707,000
342,900,000
11.17
767,002
153,400
325,310
5,000
569,615
Data sources: raw waste cone.(Tables 5-16 & 5-17), performance (Table 6-11). na not analysed.
157
-------
7 . 5 SUMMARY
Treatment costs were developed based on treatment
technologies that correspond to the common type of
facilities operating in the HWT industry. Cost estimates
developed for each subcategory were:
Operating Costs, Annualized
Subcateaorv Investment. $ $/vr Cost, $/yr
Leachate Treatment 806,000 286,000 542,500
Scrubber Wastewater 1,501,000 381,000 854,300
Aqueous Treaters 767,000 325,000 569,600
Leachate treatment could increase municipal landfill
tipping fees.
Implementation of the model wastewater treatment
technologies would result in a net decrease in air
emissions and increases in the amount of solid wastes
generated and energy consumed. Air emissions potentially
could be reduced by 39.6 million pounds of volatile
pollutants per year. The amount of additional sludge
generated could be as high as 380,000 metric tons per
year. The amount of increased energy consumed as a
result of possible regulations could total 91,000 barrels
of No. 2 fuel per year. These conservative estimates
assumed that no treatment is currently in place.
The cost of implementing the model technologies is modest
compared to average revenues for the HWT industry. The
average incinerator would have to increase revenues by
4.7 percent to cover control costs. A municipal
landfill and hazardous waste landfill would increase
tipping fees by 35.5 and 3.8 percent, respectively. An
aqueous treater would be required to increase revenues
by 3.0 percent to cover control costs.
158
-------
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the environmental
impact of direct and indirect discharges of wastewater from the
hazardous waste treatment industry at raw and treated effluent
levels. Evaluations are on a subcategory basis for the three major
subgroups comprising the HWT industry: landfill leachate
treatment, scrubber wastewater, and aqueous waste.
The evaluations for subcategories are in two parts: direct
discharge and indirect discharge assessments. The direct discharge
analyses use average effluent concentrations and plant flow
information to provide a criteria comparison with effluent levels,
and an estimation of stream dilution required so as not to exceed
these instream criteria. Total pollutant loadings are also
calculated for comparison to other industries (primary and secondary
[304(m)]). The second part of these evaluations examine the effects
of HWT indirect discharges on publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs)
and the environment. These assessments evaluate three potential
impacts: (1) inhibition of POTW treatment processes; (2)
contamination of sludge (thereby limiting its use); and (3) plant
indirect discharge effects on surface waters. Additionally, total
pollutant loadings to POTWs are estimated.
8.1 METHODOLOGY
The potential environmental impact associated with the direct
and indirect discharge of wastewater from the hazardous waste
treatment industry was evaluated on a subcategory-wide basis using
raw and treated mean effluent concentrations, the number of plants,
and average plant flows provided by the Industrial Technology
Division (ITD). Both direct and indirect discharge analyses
evaluated priority and nonconventional pollutants. The direct
analyses employed a critical stream dilution/required stream flow
model; the indirect analyses used a POTW model to predict effects
due to discharge into POTWs and, ultimately, into receiving streams.
These evaluations provide a general indication of the extent to
which the receiving streams and POTWs could be affected by raw and
treated wastewater discharges from this industry.
8.1.1 Direct Discharge Analysis
The direct discharge analyses by subcategory, at both raw and
treated discharge levels, included: (1) a comparison of effluent
concentrations to acute criteria/toxicity levels; (2) the
calculation of ratios of detected effluent concentrations to chronic
aquatic life, human health (water & organisms), and drinking water
criteria/standards/toxicity levels; (3) the calculation of a
required stream flow using the largest ratio of
159
-------
concentration/criteria (critical stream dilution factor) and average
plant flow, indicating the stream flow required to dilute the
effluent concentrations to a level equal to the lowest
criteria/toxicity level (i.e., chronic, human health, drinking
water); and (4) the calculation of total pollutant loadings to
receiving waters for pollutants evaluated in the model (i.e.,
pollutants that had criteria for comparison).
8.1.2 Indirect Discharge Analysis
The indirect discharge analyses step of both raw and treated
discharges, through the use of a POTW/water quality model, included:
(1) the determination of potential inhibition of POTW treatment
process (determined by comparing calculated influent pollutant
levels with available inhibition levels); (2) an evaluation of
potential contamination of POTW sludge and thereby limiting its use
(determined through comparison of expected pollutant concentrations
in POTW sludge with sludge contamination levels); (3) the
determination of effects of the resultant POTW discharge on surface
waters (determined through comparison of calculated POTW effluent
concentrations with acute water quality criteria/toxicity levels for
aquatic life, and calculated instream concentrations under low
stream flow conditions with chronic aquatic life, human health, and
drinking water criteria/standards/toxicity levels; and (4) the
calculation of loadings of pollutants with criteria to POTWs.
Receiving stream characteristics and typical POTW flows used
in the indirect analyses were obtained from EPA's IFD and GAGE
files. These characteristics were based on the median POTW
receiving industrial discharges (1 MGD) and its corresponding median
low (7Q10) stream flow (12 MGD).
8.2 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
8.2.1 Landfill Leachate Subcategory
Landfill leachate treatment facilities provide collection and
treatment of aqueous discharge from on-site, commercial, municipal,
private, hazardous, industrial, and/or Subtitle D landfills. These
discharges can include leachate collected at the bottom of the
landfill and any groundwater removed from the water table. Detailed
results are compiled in Appendix E.
8.2.1.1 Direct Dischargers
Raw—The projected water quality impacts from untreated (raw)
wastewater discharges from landfill leachate treaters is significant
for all sizes of receiving streams. The most severe impact is from
PCB-1242, which would require a stream flow of roughly 33,000,000
million gallons per day (over 100 times greater than the flow of the
Mississippi River at New Orleans) to reduce the raw effluent
160
-------
concentration to a level less than EPA's human health criterion for
carcinogenicity protection (risk level of 10"6) . Of the 149
pollutants with human health and/or aquatic life criteria/toxicity
levels, 111 are discharged at levels greater than these levels:
70 pollutants (including 41 carcinogens) have projected
human health impacts for streams with flows of 33,000,000
MGD and less.
39 pollutants have projected short-term (acute) aquatic
life impacts in mixing zones of receiving streams with
exceedance factors ranging from 1 to 43,000.
4* • 87 pollutants have projected long-term (chronic) aquatic
life impacts for streams with flows of 186,000 MGD and
less.
3-2 pollutants have projected drinking water impacts from
streams with less than 59 MGD flow.
Treated—The current level of treatment for wastewaters from
the landfill leachate subcategory reduces the total toxic pollutant
loading from 109,000 to 70,700 Ib/day (35 percent). Of the 149
pollutants with criteria, 107 exceed at least one of the four types
of criteria/toxicity levels evaluated:
65 pollutants (including 41 carcinogens) have projected
human health impacts for streams with flows of 28,700,000
MGD and less.
*
-^ • 35 pollutants have projected short-term (acute) aquatic
life impacts in mixing zones of receiving streams with
exceedance factors ranging from 1 to 38,000.
76 pollutants have projected long-term (chronic) aquatic
life impacts for streams with flows of 162,000 MGD and
less.
31 pollutants have projected drinking water impacts from
streams with less than 59 MGD flow.
Pollutant Loadings to Water (Ibs/day)
Loading Category Raw Treated
Priority organics 16,168 7,886
Non-priority organics 54,470 47,162
Priority inorganics 2,979 2,316
Non-priority inorganics 35,080 13,310
Totals 108,697 70,674
161
-------
The following is a narrative comparison of the direct landfill
leachate subcategory priority pollutant loadings to other regulated
industries:
Priority Orcranics—The raw loading of over 16,000 Ibs/day is
comparable to the raw loading of the petroleum refining industry
(the fourth largest of the BAT industries). The loading under
existing treatment (7,886 Ibs/day) is greater than all of the
primary industrial loadings combined at BAT.
Priority Inorganics—The raw loading of 2,979 Ibs/day is
comparable to the aluminum forming raw loading (ranked in the lower
half of the BAT industries). The treated loading of 2,316 Ibs/day
is comparable to the iron and steel industrial loading at BAT (the
fifth largest of the BAT industries).
8.2.1.2 Indirect Dischargers
Indirect dischargers were evaluated based on projected
discharges to a model 1 MGD POTW and a 12 MGD receiving stream
(representing median sizes for POTWs receiving indirect discharges
from industrial sources).
v—The water quality impacts of untreated (raw) wastewater
to POTWs from this subcategory are less significant than those
projected for direct dischargers. Only 34 of the 149 pollutants
with criteria/toxicity levels exceeded one or more of these levels:
24 pollutants (including 21 carcinogens) have projected
human health impacts with exceedance factors of up to
2,700,000.
9 pollutants have projected short-term (acute) aquatic life
impacts in mixing zones of receiving streams with exceedance
factors ranging from 1 to 1,300.
14 pollutants have projected long-term (chronic) aquatic
life impacts with exceedance factors of up to 15,000.
4 pollutants are projected to cause drinking water impacts.
4 inorganic pollutants are projected to cause potential
inhibition of wastewater treatment process operations.
1 inorganic pollutant is projected to cause potential sludge
contamination.
Treated—Current treatment of indirect discharges reduces toxic
pollutant loadings by 35 percent (from 223,000 to 145,000 Ib/day)
Exceedances of water quality criteria and toxicity levels are also
reduced; however, not significantly:
162
-------
18 pollutants (including 17 carcinogens) have projected
human health impacts with exceedance factors of up to
2,600,000.
7 pollutants have projected short-term (acute) aquatic life
impacts in mixing zones of receiving streams with exceedance
factors ranging from 1 to 1,130.
10 pollutants have projected long-term (chronic) aquatic
life impacts with exceedance factors of up to 13,000.
2 pollutants are projected to cause drinking water impacts.
3 inorganic pollutants are projected to cause potential
inhibition of wastewater treatment process operations.
1 inorganic pollutant is projected to cause potential sludge
contamination.
An additional 84 pollutants were detected in discharges from
this subcategory, but do not have any toxic levels or criteria for
comparison.
Pollutant Loadings to Water (Ibs/day)
Loading Category Raw Treated
Priority organics 33,179 16,181
Non-priority organics 111,773 96,779
Priority inorganics 6,133 4,753
Non-priority inorganics 71,984 27,311
Totals
223,069 145,024
A narrative comparison of the indirect landfill leachate
priority pollutant loadings to regulated industries is presented
below:
Priority Organics—A raw loading of 33,179 Ibs/day is slightly
less than that of the metal finishing (the third largest of the
regulated industries indirect loadings). At treated levels, the
loading of 16,181 Ibs/day is comparable to the PSES loading of the
pulp and paper industry (the largest indirect loading from regulated
industrial categories).
Priority Inorganics—The raw loading of 6,133 Ibs/day is about
a third larger than that discharged by the aluminum forming industry
(ranked in the lower half in terms of raw loadings). Under existing
treatment, the loading of 4,753 Ibs/day is greater than any of the
163
-------
primary industrial PSES loadings, with the exception of the metal
finishing industry-
8.2.2 Scrubber Wastewater Subcateqory
Incinerator scrubber wastewater treatment facilities are limited
to those facilities treating only incinerator scrubber wastewater
or on-site generators of incinerator scrubber wastewaters that are
combined with other wastewater for treatment. Detailed results are
presented in Appendix F.
8.2.2.1 Direct Dischargers
I—Projected water quality impacts from direct discharges of
raw scrubber wastewater are significant from streams with flows less
than 44,000 MGD. Of the 29 pollutants with criteria or toxicity
levels, 27 of these exceed these levels (2 additional pollutants do
not have criteria/toxicity levels):
13 pollutants (including 5 carcinogens) have projected human
health impacts for streams with flows of 44,000 MGD and
less.
9 pollutants have projected short-term (acute) aquatic life
impacts in mixing zones of receiving streams with exceedance
factors ranging from 1 to 1,325.
20 pollutants have projected long-term (chronic) aquatic
life impacts for streams with flows of 616 MGD and less.
11 pollutants have projected drinking water impacts from
streams with less than 51 MGD flow.
Treated—After treatment, loadings from direct discharges are
reduced significantly from 45,700 to 1,040 Ib/day (almost 98
percent). While the total number of pollutants that exceed at least
one type of criterion/toxicity level is reduced only moderately
(from 27 to 19) , the magnitudes of these exceedances are reduced by
several orders of magnitude:
12 pollutants (including 5 carcinogens) have projected human
health impacts for streams with flows of 440 MGD and less.
5 pollutants have projected short-term (acute) aquatic life
impacts in mixing zones of receiving streams with exceedance
factors ranging from 2 to 16.
12 pollutants have projected" long-term (chronic) aquatic
life impacts for streams with flows of 16 MGD and less.
5 pollutants have projected drinking water impacts from
streams with less than 1.1 MGD flow.
164
-------
Pollutant Loadings to Water (Ibs/day)
Loading Category Raw Treated
Priority organics
Non-priority organics
Priority inorganics
Non-priority inorganics
151
439
20,539
24,547
14
50
254
722
Totals 45,676 1,040
The following is a narrative comparison of the scrubber
wastewater treatment priority pollutant loadings to other regulated
industries.
Priority Organics—The raw loading of 151 Ibs/day is comparable
to the raw loading of the plastics molding and forming industry
(ranked in the lower third of the primary industries). The loading
under existing treatment (14 Ibs/day) is comparable to the copper
forming industrial loading at BAT (which is also ranked in the lower
third).
Priority Inorganics—The raw loading of 20,539 Ibs/day is
comparable to the raw loading of the inorganic chemicals industry
(ranked in the upper half of the primary industries) , and the
treated loading of 254 Ibs/day is almost twice that of the
electrical components industry at BAT (ranked in the middle of the
primary industries).
8.2.2.2 Indirect Dischargers
Indirect dischargers were evaluated based on projected
discharges to a model 1 MGD POTW and a 12 MGD receiving stream
(representing median sizes for POTWs receiving indirect discharges
from industrial sources).
Raw—The water quality impacts of untreated (raw) wastewater to
POTWs from this subcategory are much less significant than those
projected for direct dischargers. Only 11 of the 29 pollutants with
criteria/toxicity levels exceeded one or more of these levels:
3 pollutants (including 2 carcinogens) have projected human
health impacts with exceedance factors of up to 2,230.
6 pollutants have projected short-term (acute) aquatic life
impacts in mixing zones of receiving streams with exceedance
factors ranging from 1 to 27.
7 pollutants have projected long-term (chronic) aquatic life
impacts with exceedance factors of up to 18.
165
-------
1 pollutant is projected to cause drinking water impacts.
4 inorganic pollutants are projected to cause potential
inhibition of wastewater treatment process operations.
6 inorganic pollutants are projected to cause potential
sludge contamination.
Treated—Current treatment of indirect discharges reduces toxic
pollutant loadings by almost 98 percent (from 9,000 to 205 Ib/day).
Exceedances of water quality criteria and toxicity levels are also
significantly reduced:
2 pollutants (both carcinogens) have projected human health
impacts with exceedance factors of 2 and 22.
No pollutants are projected to cause short-term (acute) or
long-term (chronic) aquatic life or drinking water impacts
in receiving streams.
1 inorganic pollutant is projected to cause potential
inhibition of wastewater treatment process operations.
1 inorganic pollutant is projected to cause potential sludge
contamination.
Pollutant Loadings to Water (Ibs/day)
Loading Category Raw Treated
Priority organics 30 3
Non-priority organics 87 10
Priority inorganics 4,048 50
Non-priority inorganics 4,837 142
Totals 9,002 205
A narrative comparison of the indirect priority pollutant
loading of the scrubber wastewater treatment subcategory with other
industries is presented below:
Priority Organics—A raw loading of 30 Ibs/day is less than any
of the primary raw organic industrial loadings with the exception
of the aluminum forming industry (3 Ibs/day) and industries
discharging essentially no organics. The treated loading of 3
Ibs/day is comparable to the copper forming industry at PSES (the
lowest of the primary industries with non-zero levels).
Priority Inorganics—The raw loading of 4,048 Ibs/day is
slightly less than that discharged by the aluminum forming industry
166
-------
(ranked in the middle in terms of inorganic loadings). Under
existing treatment, the loading of 50 Ibs/day is comparable to the
PSES loading of the foundries industry (also ranked in the middle
for inorganic loads at PSES).
8.2.3 Aqueous Hazardous Waste Subcategory
Aqueous hazardous waste treatment facilities provide physical,
chemical, and/or biological treatment of hazardous and nonhazardous
wastewaters, including leachate from on-site and off-site landfills
and process wastewaters from on-site and off-site manufacturing
operations. Whereas leachate treatment facilities handle only
wastewater generated on-site, commercial aqueous treaters handle a
variety of wastewaters, including leachates. Detailed results are
presented in Appendix F.
8.2.3.1 Direct Dischargers
Raw—Aqueous hazardous waste treatment facilities can adversely
impact receiving streams with flows less than 5,130 MGD, based on
the evaluation of untreated, or raw, discharges. Of the 77
pollutants with human health and/or aquatic life criteria/toxicity
levels that have been detected in the wastewater from this
subcategory, 55 are discharged at levels that cause exceedances (6
additional detected pollutants have no applicable criteria or
toxicity levels):
31 pollutants (including 21 carcinogens) have projected
human health impacts for streams with flows of 5,130 MGD and
less.
17 pollutants have projected short-term (acute) aquatic life
impacts in mixing zones of receiving streams with exceedance
factors ranging from 1 to 15,000.
36 pollutants have projected long-term (chronic) aquatic
life impacts for streams with flows of 1,224 MGD and less.
22 pollutants have projected drinking water impacts from
streams with less than 726 MGD flow.
Treated—After treatment, loadings from direct discharges are
reduced by almost 78 percent (from 198,000 to 44,400 Ib/day). While
the total number of pollutants that exceed at least one type of
criteria/toxicity level is similar to untreated discharges (53 and
55, respectively), the magnitudes of these exceedances are reduced
by more than 50 percent:
28 pollutants (including 21 carcinogens) have projected
human health impacts for streams with flows of 2,090 MGD and
less.
167
-------
16 pollutants have projected short-term (acute) aquatic life
impacts in mixing zones of receiving streams with exceedance
factors ranging from 1 to 1,044.
33 pollutants have projected long-term (chronic) aquatic
life impacts for streams with flows of 175 MGD and less.
21 pollutants have projected drinking water impacts from
streams with less than 124 MGD flow.
Pollutant Loadings to Water (Ibs/day)
Loading Category Raw Treated
Priority organics
Non-priority organics
Priority inorganics
Non-priority inorganics
1,283
9,635
99,880
87,181
737
2,951
26,994
13,716
Totals 197,979 44,398
The following is a narrative comparison of the aqueous waste
treatment priority pollutant loadings to other regulated industries.
Priority Organics—The raw loading of 1,283 Ibs/day is 1.5 times
the loading of the copper forming industry and 60 percent of the
foundries loading under raw discharge conditions (ranked eighth and
seventh, respectively). The treated loading of 737 Ibs/day is
comparable to the BAT loading of the textiles industry (ranked
third).
Priority Inorganics—The raw loading of 99,880 Ibs/day is
approaching the raw industrial loading of the organics/P&SF industry
(ranked fifth at 125,000 Ibs/day). The treated loading of 26,994
Ibs/day is greater than any reported primary BAT industrial loading,
and slightly greater than the total inorganic loading of POTWs
discharging to surface waters nationwide.
8.2.3.2 Indirect Dischargers
Indirect dischargers were evaluated based on projected
discharges to a model 1 MGD POTW and a 12 MGD receiving streams
(representing median sizes for POTWs receiving indirect discharges
from industrial sources).
Raw—The water quality impacts of Untreated (raw) wastewater to
POTWs from this subcategory are less significant than those
projected for direct dischargers. Only 22 of the 77 pollutants with
criteria/toxicity levels exceeded one or more of these levels:
168
-------
12 pollutants (including 10 carcinogens) have projected
human health impacts with exceedance factors of up to 260.
7 pollutants have projected short-term (acute) aquatic life
impacts in mixing zones of receiving streams with exceedance
factors ranging from 1 to 134.
10 pollutants have projected long-term (chronic) aquatic
life impacts with exceedance factors of up to 39.
4 pollutants are projected to cause drinking water impacts.
6 inorganic pollutants are projected to cause potential
inhibition of wastewater treatment process operations.
6 inorganic pollutants are projected to cause potential
sludge contamination.
Treated—Current treatment of indirect discharges reduces toxic
pollutant loadings by almost 78 percent (from 1,172,000 to 263,000
Ib/day). Exceedances of water quality criteria and toxicity levels
are also reduced; however, not as significantly:
11 pollutants (including 10 carcinogens) have projected
human health impacts with exceedance factors of up to 116.
5 pollutants have projected short-term (acute) aquatic life
impacts in mixing zones of receiving streams with exceedance
factors ranging from 1 to 16.
5 pollutants have projected long-term (chronic) aquatic life
impacts with exceedance factors of up to 9.
• 2 pollutants are projected to cause drinking water impacts.
• 5 inorganic pollutants are projected to cause potential
inhibition of wastewater treatment process operations.
• 5 inorganic pollutants are projected to cause potential
sludge contamination.
Pollutant Loadings to Water (Ibs/day)
Loading Category Raw Treated
Priority organics
Non-priority organics
Priority inorganics
Non-priority inorganics
7,593
57,035
591,246
516,073
4,361
17,469
159,791
81,193
Totals 1,171,947 262,814
169
-------
A narrative comparison of indirect priority pollutant
from the aqueous waste treatment subcategory to primary
is presented below.
Priority Orcranics—A raw loading of 7,593 Ibs/day is about 1.5
times that of the textiles industry at raw, and about 45 percent ot
the raw pulp and paper industrial loading (ranked fifth and rourtn,
respectively) . The treated loading of 4,361 Ibs/day is greater than
any reported raw primary industrial PSES loadings with the exception
of the pulp and paper industry -
Priority Inorganics—The raw loading of 591,246 Ibs/day is
comparable to the raw loading of the metal finishing industry
(ranked second). The treated loading of 159,791 Ibs/day is greater
than all primary PSES loadings combined.
8.3 NONWATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create
or aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections
304 (b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) require the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider nonwater quality
environmental aspects of certain regulations. In compliance with
these provisions, EPA has considered the effect of possible
regulations on air pollution, solid waste generation, and energy
consumption. The nonwater quality environmental aspects associated
with possible regulation are described below.
8.3.1 Air Pollution
Implementation of the model wastewater treatment technologies
would result in an overall reduction in air emissions. This is
largely due to the incorporation of effective air pollution controls
for the model leachate treatment technologies. For example,
existing leachate treaters are known to operate wastewater treatment
units, such as aerated equalization basins and aerated lagoons, that
are open to the atmosphere. The model technology requires air
stripping in a covered unit with venting to existing air pollution
control devices. Since the air stripper is located at the head of
the treatment train, the possibility of significant air emissions
from downstream units is minimized. The net effect would be a
reduction from current air emissions of 39.6 million pounds to 1.2
million pounds per year if the assumption is made that no treatment
is in-place prior to implementation of a possible regulation.
The technologies recommended for the aqueous and scrubber
subcategories are similar to those technologies currently used by
the hazardous waste treatment (HWT) industry. The Development
Document for Effluent Limitations and Standards for the Metal
Finishing Point Source Category associated no significant air
170
-------
emissions .with the unit operations recommended here as model HWT
technologies. However, the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) is developing regulations to require the enclosing
of hazardous waste storage and treatment units. Preliminary
information developed by OAQPS suggests that no significant changes
in air emissions would result from operation of aqueous and scrubber
subcategory technologies.
8.3.2 Solid Waste
EPA considered the effect possible regulations would have on the
production of solid waste, including hazardous waste defined under
Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
EPA estimates that the total solid waste, including hazardous waste,
resulting from a possible regulation would be significant for
facilities that do not have treatment in-place. For example, an
aqueous hazardous waste treater would generate 420 metric tons of
sludge (total sludge generated, dewatered to 20 percent solids)
annually as a result of implementing the model technology.
Similarly, a facility in the leachate subcategory would generate
240 metric tons (includes both primary and biological treatment
sludges, dewatered to 20 percent solids) annually. The model
technologies recommended for the scrubber subcategory would result
in no sludge generation. An inventory of treatment systems
currently in use by the HWT industry is not available. However, if
the assumption is made that no treatment is in-place, then a
possible regulation would result in 380,000 metric tons of sludge
generated annually.
8.3.3 Energy Recruirements
Implementation of the model wastewater treatment technologies
would increase energy consumption over present industry use. For
example, a typical aqueous treater would consume 37 barrels of No.
2 fuel oil per year over current levels if no treatment were
in-place. Similarly, facilities in the leachate and scrubber
subcategories would consume 127 and 12 barrels of No. 2 fuel oil
per year, respectively. An inventory of treatment systems currently
in use by the HWT industry is not available. However, if the
assumption is made that no treatment is in-place, then a possible
regulation would result in an increased consumption of 91,000
barrels of No. 2 fuel per year.
171
-------
9. REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA. 1987. "Summary Report on RCRA Permit Activities
for January 1987." OSW. February 17, 1987.
2. McCoy and Associates. 1985. "The Hazardous Waste
Consultant." Vol. 3, No. 2. March/April 1985.
3. Environmental Information Ltd., 1986. Industrial—jnd
Hazardous Waste Management Firms 1987. Minneapolis, Minesota.
4. U.S. EPA. 1986. "Census of State and Territorial Subtitle
D Nonhazard ous Waste Programs," EPA/530-SW-86-039. October
1986.
5. U.S. EPA. 1986. State Subtitle D Program Questionnaire Data.
6. Bramlett, J. , C. Furman, A. Johnson, and H. Nelson. 1985.
"Composition of Leachates from Actual Hazardous Waste Sites."
September 30, 1985.
7. McGinley, P.M., and P- Kmet. 1984. "Formation,
Characteristics, Treat ment, and Disposal of Leachate from
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills." Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. Special Report. August 1, 1984.
8. U.S. EPA. 1985. "Directory of Commercial Hazardous Waste
Treatment and Recycling Facilities," EPA/530-SW-85-019.
December 1985.
9. Keitz, E. , et al. 1984. "Profile of Existing Hazardous Waste
Incineration Facilities and Manufacturers in the United
States." EPA-600/2-84-052. Mitre Corporation. February 1984.
10. U.S. EPA. 1986. National Screening Survey of Hazardous
Waste-Wastewater Treatment Facilities Data.
11. U.S. EPA. 1986. "1985 Survey of Selected Firms in the
Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Industry." Final
Report, Office of Policy Analysis. November 6, 1986.
12. U.S. EPA. 1986. "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste."
Third Edition, SW-846. November 1986.
13. U.S. EPA. 1984. "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for
the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act."
Federal Register. Vol. 49, No. 20*9. October 26, 1984.
14. U.S. EPA. 1986. "Report to Congress on the Discharge of
Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment Works "
EPA/530-SW-86-004. February 1986.
172
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
15. McNabb, G.D., J.R. Payne, W. D. Ellis, J.A. Bramlett, and P.C.
Harkins. 1987. "Composition of Leachates from Actual
Hazardous Waste Sites." Presented at 13th Annual Research
Symposium, Land Disposal, Remedial Action Incineration and
Treatment of Hazardous Waste, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 6-8, 1987.
16. U.S. EPA. 1986. "Subtitle D Study Phase I Report."
EPA/530-SW-86-054, OSW. October 1986.
17. U.S. EPA. 1986. "Evaluation of SCA Chemical Services Model
City, N.Y." EPA-330/2-86-002, HWGWTF. April 1986.
18. U.S. EPA. 1986. "Evaluation of Wayne Disposal, Inc.,
Belleville, MI." EPA-330/2-86-008, HWGWTF. July 1986.
19. U.S. EPA. 1986. "Evaluation of GSX Services of South
Carolina, Inc. Genstar Corporation, Pinewood, SC."
EPA-330/2-86-009, HWGWTF. August 1986.
20. U.S. EPA. 1986. "Evaluation of Fondessy Enterprises, Inc.,
Oregon, OH." HWGWTF, EPA-700/8-87-007. December 1986.
21. U.S. EPA. 1986. "Evaluation of Rollins Environmental
Services (TX), Inc., Deer Park, Texas." HWGWTF,
EPA-330/2-86-010. July 1986.
22. U.S. EPA. 1986. "Evaluation of American Cyanamid, Milton,
FL." HWGWTF, EPA-700/8-87-004. November 1986.
23. U.S. EPA. 1986. "Onsite Engineering Report of Treatment
Technology Performance and Operation for Envirite Corporation,
York, PA." OSW. December 19, 1986.
24. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1986. "Final Facility Test Report for
Frontier Chemical Waste Process, Inc., Niagara Falls, NY."
October 1986.
25. U.S. EPA. 1986. Hazardous Waste Data Management System
(HWDMS) data retrieval. OSW. March 5, 1986.
26. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1984. Special
Report, August 1, 1984.
27. George, J.A. 1972. Sanitary landfill-gas and leachate
control, the national perspective. Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, U.S. EPA.
173
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
28. Chian, E.S.K. and F.B. De Walla. 1976. Sanitary landfill
leachates and their treatment. Journal ASCE 102
(EE2):411-421.
29. Metry, A.A. and F.L. Cross. 1975. Leachate Control and
Treatment. Vol. 7, Environmental Monograph Series, Technomic
Publishing Co., Westport, Connecticut.
30. Cameron, R.D. 1978. The effects of solid waste leachates on
receiving waters. Journal AWWA, March 1978:173-176.
31. ICF, Inc. 1986. "Survey of Selected Firms in the Commercial
Hazardous Waste Management Industry." Washington, D.C.
November 1986.
32. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Correspondence from Robert B. Lucas to Donald F. Anderson.
174
------- |