EPA/530-SW-88-031M
                    FINAL
BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (BOAT)

           BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR

                     K087
            James  R.  Berlow,  Chief
         Treatment Technology Section
                 Jose  Labiosa
               Project Manager
     U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency
            Office of Solid Waste
              401  M Street,  S.W.
           Washington, D.C.  20460
                 August 1988

-------
                             TABLE  OF  CONTENTS


Section                                                              Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 	      ix

1.  INTRODUCTION  	     1-1

1.1    Legal Background  	     1-1
       1.1.1    Requirements Under HSWA 	     1-1
       1.1.2    Schedule for Developing Restrictions 	     1-4
1.2    Summary of Promulgated BOAT Methodology 	     1-5
       1.2.1    Waste Treatability Groups 	     1-7
       1.2.2    Demonstrated and Available Treatment
                Technologies 	     1-7
       1.2.3    Collection of Performance Data 	    1-11
       1.2.4    Hazardous Constituents Considered and Selected for
                Regulation 	    1-17
       1.2.5    Compliance with Performance Standards	    1-30
       1.2.6    Identification of BOAT 	    1-32
       1.2.7    BOAT Treatment Standards for "Derived-From" and
                "Mixed" Wastes 	    1-36
       1.2.8    Transfer of Treatment Standards 	    1-40
1.3    Variance from the BOAT Treatment Standard 	    1-41

2.  INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION	     2-1

2.1    Industry Affected and Process Description 	     2-1
2.2    Waste Characterization	     2-4

3.  APPLICABLE/DEMONSTRATED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES	     3-1

3.1    Applicable Treatment Technologies	     3-1
3.2    Demonstrated Technologies 	     3-2
       3.2.1    Fuel Substitution	     3-5
       3.2.2    Incineration 	    3-20
       3.2.3    Chemical Precipitation 	    3-39
       3.2.4    Sludge Filtration	    3-51
       3.2.5    Stabilization	    3-55

4.  PERFORMANCE DATA BASE	     4-1

4:1    BOAT List Organics 	     4-1
4.2    BOAT List Metals	     4-2
       4.2.1    Wastewater 	     4-2
       4.2.2    Nonwastewater	     4-3

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued)


Section                                                              Page

5.  IDENTIFICATION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
    (BOAT)  	    5-1

5.1    BOAT List Organics 	'	    5-1
5.2    BOAT List Metals 	    5-3
       5.2.1     Wastewater 	    5-3
       5.2.2    Nonwastewater 	    5-4

6.  SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS	    6-1

6.1    Identification of BOAT List Constituents in the Untreated
       Waste	    6-1
6.2    Constituent Selection 	    6-3

7.  CALCULATION OF BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS 	    7-1

8.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  	    8-1

9.  REFERENCES  	    9-1

APPENDIX A  STATISTICAL METHODS 	    A-1

APPENDIX B  ANALYTICAL QA/QC	 .    B-l

APPENDIX C  DESIGN AND OPERATING DATA FOR ROTARY KILN INCINERATION
            PERFORMANCE DATA 	    C-1

APPENDIX D  DETECTION LIMIT TABLES FOR ROTARY KILN INCINERATION
            PERFORMANCE DATA 	    D-1

APPENDIX E  METHOD OF MEASUREMENT FOR THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY  	    E-l
                                    i n

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES


Table                                                              Page

2-1           Number of Coke Plants Listed by State 	   2-2

2-2           Number of Coke Plants Listed by EPA Region 	   2-3

2-3           Approximate Composition of K087 Waste 	   2-6

2-4           K087 Waste Composition  and Other Data 	   2-7

4-1           Analytical Results for  K087 Untreated Waste
              Collected Prior to Treatment by Rotary Kiln
              Incineration  	   4-5

4-2           Analytical Results for  Kiln Ash Generated by
              Rotary Kiln Incineration of K087 Waste 	   4-7

4-3           Analytical Results for  Scrubber Water Generated
              by Rotary Kiln Incineration of K087 Waste 	   4-9

4-4           Performance Data for Chemical  Precipitation and
              Sludge Filtration of a  Metal-Bearing Wastewater
              Sampled by EPA 	  4-11

4-5           Performance Data for Stabilization of F006 Uaste  ..  4-14

5-1           TCLP Performance Data for Stabilization of F006
              Waste After Screening and Accuracy-Correction of
              Treated Values 	   5-6

6-1           Status of BOAT List  Constituent Presence  in
              Untreated K087 Waste  	   6-7

6-2           Regulated Constituents  for K087 Waste 	  6-14

6-3           Characteristics of the  BOAT Organic Compounds in
              K087 Waste that may  Affect Performance in Rotary
              Kiln Incineration Systems	  6-15

7-1           Calculation of Nonwastewater Treatment Standards  for
              the Regulated Constituents Treated by Rotary Kiln
              Incineration  	   7-3

7-2           Calculation of Wastewater Treatment Standards for
              the Regulated Organic Constituents Treated by
              Rotary Kiln Incineration  	   7-4

                                      i v

-------
                         LIST OF  TABLES  (Continued)
Table                                                              Page

7-3           Calculation of Wastewater Treatment Standards for
              the Regulated Metal Constituents Treated by
              Chemical  Precipitation and Sludge Filtration 	   7-5

7-4           Calculation of Nonwastewater Treatment Standards
              for the Regulated Metal Constituents Treated by
              Stabilization	   7-6

B-l           Matrix Spike. Recovery Data for Kiln Ash Residuals
              from Rotary Kiln Incineration of K087 Waste 	   B-4

B-2           Accuracy-Corrected Analytical Results for Kiln Ash
              Generated by Rotary Kiln Incineration of K087 Waste   B-6

B-3           Matrix Spike Recovery Data for Scrubber Water
              Residuals from Rotary Kiln Incineration of
              K087 Waste	   B-8

B-4           Accuracy-Corrected Analytical Results for Scrubber
              Water Generated by Rotary Kiln Incineration of
              K087 Waste	   B-9

B-5           Accuracy-Corrected Data for Treated Wastewater
              Residuals from Chemical Precipitation and Sludge
              Filtration 	  B-ll

B-6           Matrix Spike Recovery Data for Metals in
              Wastewater 	  B-12

B-7           Matrix Spike Recovery Data for the TCLP Extracts
              from Stabilization of F006 Waste 	  B-13

B-8           Accuracy-Corrected Performance Data for F006 Waste   B-14

B-9           Analytical Methods for Regulated Constituents 	  B-16

B-10          Specific Procedures or Equipment Used .in
              Extraction of Organic Compounds When Alternatives
              or Equivalents Are Allowed in the SW-846 Methods  ..  B-17

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (Continued)


Table                                                              Page

B-ll          Specific Procedures or Equipment Used for
              Analysis of Organic Compounds When Alternatives or
              Equivalents Are Allowed  in the SW-846 Methods 	  B-19

B-12          Specific Procedures Used  in Extraction of Organic
              Compounds When Alternatives to SW-846 Methods Are
              Allowed by Approval of EPA Characterization and
              Assessment Division 	  B-21

B-13          Deviations from SW-846 	  B-22

C-l           Operating Data from the  K087 Test Burn 	   C-5

C-2           Summary of Intervals When Temperatures in the Kiln
              Fell Below Targeted Value of 1800°F 	   C-7

C-3           Summary of Intervals When Temperatures in the
              Afterburner Fell  Below Targeted Value of 2050°F ...   C-8

C-4           Flameout Occurrences Recorded by Operator 	   C-9

C-5           Occurrences of Oxygen and Carbon Monoxide Spikes  ..  C-10

D-l           Detection Limits  for Samples of K087 Untreated
              Waste Collected During the K087 Test Burn 	   D-2

D-2           Detection Limits  for K087 Kiln Ash  	   D-8

D-3           Detection Limits  for K087 Scrubber  Effluent Water  .  D-15

-------
                              LIST OF FIGURES


Figure                                                             Page

2-1           Schematic Diagram of K087 Waste Generating
              Process 	    2-5

3-1           Liquid Injection Incinerator 	   3-24

3-2           Rotary Kiln Incinerator 	   3-25

3-3           Fluidized Bed Incinerator 	   3-27

3-4           Fixed Hearth Incinerator 	   3-28

3-5           Continuous Chemical Precipitation 	   3-42

3-6           Circular Clarifiers 	   3-45

3-7           Inclined Plate Settler	   3-46

C-l           Temperature Trends for Sample Set #1 	   C-12

C-2           Temperature Trends for Sample Set #2 	   C-14

C-3           Temperature Trends for Sample Set #3 	   C-16

C-4           Temperature Trends for Sample Set #4 	   C-17

C-5           Temperature Trends for Sample Set #5 	   C-18

C-6           Oxygen Emissions for Sample Set #1 	   C-20

C-7           Oxygen Emissions for Sample Set #2 	   C-21

C-8           Oxygen Emissions for Sample Sets #3, #4, and #5 ...   C-23

C-9           Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Sample Set #1 	   C-25

C-10          Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Sample Set #2 	   C-26

C-ll          Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Sample Sets #3, #4,
              and #5	   C-28

C-12          Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #1 	   C-30
                                    vii.

-------
                        LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)





Figure                                                             Page



C-13          Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #2  	  C-31



C-14          Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #3  	  C-33



C-15          Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set #4  	  C-34



C-16          Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Sample Set £5  	  C-35



E-.l           Schematic Diagram of the Comparative Method  	   E-2
                                    vm

-------
                             EXECUTIVE SUMMARY







                     BOAT Treatment Standards for K087







    Pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)  enacted



on November 8, 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency is establishing



best demonstrated available technology (BOAT) treatment standards for the^



listed waste identified in 40 CFR 261.32 as K087.  Compliance with these



BOAT treatment standards is a prerequisite for placement of the  waste in



units designated as land disposal units according to 40 CFR Part 268.



These treatment standards become effective as of August 8,  1988.



    This background document provides the Agency's rationale and technical



support for selecting the constituents to be regulated in K087 waste and



for developing treatment standards for those regulated constituents.  The



document also provides waste characterization information that serves as



a basis for determining whether treatment variances may be warranted.



EPA may grant a treatment variance in cases where the Agency determines



that the waste in question is more difficult to treat than the waste upon



which the treatment standards have been established.



    The introductory section, which appears verbatim in all the  First



Third background documents, summarizes the Agency's legal authority and



promulgated methodology for establishing treatment standards and



discusses the petition process necessary for requesting a variance from
                                     IX

-------
the treatment standards.  The remainder of the document presents

waste-specific information — the number and locations of facilities

affected by the land disposal restrictions for K087 waste, the waste

generating process, waste characterization data, the technologies used to

treat the waste (or similar wastes), and available performance data,

including data on which the treatment standards are based.  The document

also explains EPA's determination of BOAT, selection of constituents to

be regulated, and calculation of treatment standards.

    K087 waste is decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations.  The

Agency estimates that 36 facilities in the coking industry potentially

generate K087 waste.  These facilities fall under the Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Code 3312.

    The Agency is regulating nine organic constituents and one metal

constituent in both nonwastewater and wastewater forms of K087 waste.

(For the purpose of determining the applicability of the BOAT treatment

standards, wastewaters are defined as wastes containing less than
                                               *
1 percent (weight basis) total suspended solids  and less than

1 percent (weight basis) total organic carbon (TOC).  Wastes not meeting
* The term "total suspended solids"  (TSS) clarifies EPA's previously used
  terminology of "total solids" and  "filterable solids."  Specifically,
  total suspended solids  is measured by method 209C (Total Suspended
  Solids Dried at 103-105°C)  in Standard Methods for the Examination
  of Water and Wastewater. Sixteenth Edition.

-------
this definition, must comply with the treatment standards for



nonwastewaters.)  The treatment standards for the organic constituents in



both nonwastewater and wastewater are based on performance data from



rotary kiln incineration.  For the metal constituent,  the treatment



standards for wastewater are based on performance data from chemical



precipitation followed by sludge filtration, while the treatment



standards for nonwastewater are based on performance data from



stabi1ization.



    The following table lists the specific BOAT treatment standards for



K087 nonwastewater and wastewater.  For the BOAT list organic



constituents, treatment standards reflect the total  constituent



concentration.  For the BOAT list metal constituents,  treatment standards



in the nonwastewater reflect the concentration of constituents in the



leachate from the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and



treatment standards in the wastewater reflect the total constituent



concentration.  The units for the total constituent  concentration are



mg/kg (parts per million on a weight-by-weight basis)  for the



nonwastewater and mg/1 (parts per million on a weight-by-volume basis)



for the wastewater.  The units for the leachate concentration are mg/1.



Note that if the concentrations of the regulated constituents in the



waste, as generated, are lower than or equal to the  treatment standards,



then treatment is not required prior to land disposal.



    Testing procedures for all sample analyses performed for the



regulated constituents are specifically identified in Appendix B of this



background document.



                                     xi

-------
                     BOAT Treatment Standards for K087
                             	Maximum for any single grab sample

                             	Nonwastewater	    Wastewater
Constituent                      Total      TCLP leachate       Total
                             concentration  concentration   concentration
                                (mg/kg)        (mg/1)           (mg/1)
Volatile Orqanics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
0.071
0.65
0.070
NA
NA
NA
0.014
0.008
0.014
Semivolatile Orqanics
Acenaphthalene                 3.4             NA             0.028
Chrysene                       3.4             NA             0.028
Fluoranthene                   3.4             NA             0.028
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene         3.4             NA             0.028
Naphthalene                    3.4             NA             0.028
Phenanthrene                   3.4             NA             0.028

Metals
Lead                          NA                0.51          0.037
NA = Not applicable.
                                     XI 1

-------
                              1.   INTRODUCTION



    This section of the background document presents a summary of the



legal authority pursuant to which the best demonstrated available



technology (BOAT) treatment standards were developed, a summary of EPA's



promulgated methodology for developing the BOAT treatment standards, and,



finally, a discussion of the petition process that should be followed to



request a variance from the BOAT treatment standards.



1.1      Legal Background



1.1.1    Requirements Under HSWA



    The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), which were



enacted on November 8, 1984, and which amended the Resource Conservation



and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), impose substantial new responsibilities



on those who handle hazardous waste.  In particular, the amendments



require the Agency to promulgate regulations that restrict the land



disposal of untreated hazardous wastes.  In its enactment of HSWA,



Congress stated explicitly that "reliance on land disposal should be



minimized or eliminated, and land disposal, particularly landfill and



surface impoundment, should be the least favored method for managing



hazardous wastes" (RCRA section 1002(b)(7), 42 U.S.C. 6901(b)(7)).



    One part of the amendments specifies dates on which particular groups



of untreated hazardous wastes will be prohibited from land disposal



unless "it has been demonstrated to the Administrator, to a reasonable



degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous
                                    1-1

-------
constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the



wastes remain hazardous"  (RCRA section 3004(d)(l),  (e)(l),  (g)(5),



42 U.S.C. 6924 (d)(l),  (e)(l), (g)(5)).



    For the purpose of  the restrictions,. HSWA defines land  disposal  "to



include, but not be limited to, any placement of ...  hazardous waste in



a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection  well, land



treatment facility, salt  dome formation, salt bed formation, or



underground mine or cave"  (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C.  6924(k)).



Although HSWA defines land disposal to include injection wells, such



disposal of solvents, dioxins, and certain other wastes, known as -the



California List wastes, is covered on a separate schedule (RCRA section



3004(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (f)(2)).  This schedule requires that EPA



develop land disposal restrictions for deep well injection  by



August 8, 1988.



    The .amendments also require the Agency to set "levels or methods of



treatment, if any, which  substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste



or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous



constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to



human health and the environment are minimized" (RCRA section 3004(m)(l),



42 U.S.C. 6924 (m)(l)).   Wastes that satisfy such levels or methods of



treatment established by  EPA, i.e., treatment standards, are not



prohibited from being land disposed.



    In setting treatment  standards for listed or characteristic wastes,



EPA may establish different standards for particular wastes within a



single waste code with  differing treatability characteristics.  One such





                                    1-2

-------
characteristic is the physical  form of the waste.   This frequently leads



to different standards for wastewaters and nonwastewaters.



Alternatively, EPA can establish a treatment standard that  is applicable



to more than one waste code when, in EPA's judgment,  a particular



constituent present in the wastes can be treated to the same



concentration in all the wastes.



    In those instances where a generator can demonstrate that the



standard promulgated for the generator's waste cannot be achieved, the



amendments allow the Agency to grant a variance from a treatment standard



by revising the treatment standard for that particular waste through



rulemaking procedures.  (A further discussion of treatment  variances is



provided in Section 1.3.)



    The land disposal restrictions are effective when promulgated unless



the Administrator grants a national variance and establishes a different



date (not to exceed 2 years beyond the statutory deadline)  based on "the



earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or



disposal capacity which protects human health and the environment will be



available" (RCRA section 3004(h)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (h)(2)).



    If EPA fails to set treatment standards by the statutory deadline for



any hazardous waste in the First Third or Second Third waste groups (see



Section 1.1.2), the waste may not be disposed in a landfill  or surface



impoundment unless the facility is in compliance with the minimum



technological requirements specified in section 3004(o) of  RCRA.  In
                                    1-3

-------
addition, prior to disposal, the generator must certify to the

Administrator that the availability of treatment capacity has been

investigated, and it has been determined that disposal in a landfill or

surface impoundment is the only practical alternative to treatment

currently available to the generator.  This restriction on the use of

landfills and surface impoundments applies until EPA sets treatment

standards for the waste or until May 8, 1990, whichever is sooner.  If

the Agency fails to set treatment standards for any ranked hazardous

waste by May 8, 1990, the waste is automatically prohibited from land

disposal unless the waste is placed in a land disposal unit that is the

subject of a successful "no migration" demonstration (RCRA section

3004(g), 42 U.S.C. 6924(g)).  "No migration" demonstrations are based on

case-specific petitions that show there will be no migration of hazardous

constituents from the unit for as long as the waste remains hazardous.

1.1.2    Schedule for Developing Restrictions

    Under section 3004(g) of RCRA, EPA was required to establish a

schedule for developing treatment standards for all wastes that the

Agency had listed as hazardous by November 8, 1984.  Section 3004(g)

required that this schedule consider the intrinsic hazards and volumes

associated with each of these wastes.  The statute required EPA to set

treatment standards according to the following schedule:

    1.   Solvent and dioxin wastes by November 8,  1986;

    2.   The "California List" wastes by July 8, 1987;

    3.   At least one-third of all listed hazardous wastes by
         August 8, 1988 (First Third);
                                    1-4

-------
    4.   At least two-thirds of all listed hazardous wastes by
         June 8, 1989 (Second Third); and

    5.   All  remaining listed hazardous wastes and all  hazardous wastes
         identified as of November 8, 1984, by one or more of the
         characteristics defined in 40 CFR Part 261 by May 8, 1990 (Third
         Third).

    The statute specifically identified the solvent wastes as those

covered under waste codes F001, F002, F003, F004, and F005; it identified

the dioxin-containing hazardous wastes as those covered under waste codes

F020, F021, F022, and F023.

    Wastes collectively known as the California List wastes, defined

under section 3004(d) of HSWA,  are liquid hazardous wastes containing

metals, free cyanides, PCBs, corrosives (i.e., a pH less than or equal to

2.0), and any liquid or nonliquid hazardous waste containing halogenated

organic compounds (HOCs) above 0.1 percent by weight.  Rules for the

California List were proposed on December 11, 1986, and final rules for

PCBs, corrosives, and HOC-containing wastes were established

August 12, 1987.  In that rule, EPA elected not to establish treatment

standards for metals.  Therefore, the statutory limits became effective.

    On May 28, 1986, EPA published a final rule (51 FR 19300) that

delineated the specific waste codes that would be addressed by the First

Third, Second Third, and Third Third land disposal restriction rules.

This schedule is incorporated into 40 CFR 268.10, 268.11,  and 268.12.

1.2    Summary of Promulgated BOAT Methodology

    In a November 7, 1986, rulemaking, EPA promulgated a technology-based

approach to establishing treatment standards under section 3004(m).
                                    1-5

-------
Congress indicated in the legislative history accompanying the HSWA that



"[t]he requisite levels of  [sic] methods of treatment established by the



Agency should be the best that has been demonstrated to be achievable,"



noting that the intent  is "to require utilization of available



technology" and not a "process which contemplates technology-forcing



standards"  (Vol. 130 Cong. Rec. S9178 (daily ed., July 25, 1984)).  EPA



has interpreted this legislative history as suggesting that Congress



considered the requirement  under section 3004(m) to be met by application



of the best demonstrated and achievable (i.e., available) technology



prior to land disposal  of wastes or treatment residuals.  Accordingly,



EPA's treatment standards are generally based on the performance of the



best demonstrated available technology (BOAT) identified for treatment  of



the hazardous constituents.  This approach involves the identification  of



potential treatment systems, the determination of whether they are



demonstrated and available, and the collection of treatment data from



wel1-designed and wel1-operated systems.



    The treatment standards, according to the statute, can represent



levels or methods of treatment, if any, that substantially diminish the



toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration



of hazardous constituents.  Wherever possible, the Agency prefers to



establish BOAT treatment standards as "levels" of treatment



(i.e., performance standards), rather than to require the use of specific



treatment "methods."  EPA believes that concentration-based treatment
                                     1-6

-------
levels offer the regulated community greater flexibility to develop and



implement compliance strategies, as well as an incentive to develop



innovative technologies.



1.2.1    Waste Treatability Group



    In developing the treatment standards,  EPA first characterizes the



waste(s).  As necessary, EPA may establish  treatability groups for wastes



having similar physical  and chemical properties.   That is,  if EPA



believes that hazardous  constituents in wastes represented  by different



waste codes could be treated to similar concentrations using identical



technologies, the Agency combines the wastes into one treatability



group.  EPA generally considers wastes to be similar when they are both



generated from the same  industry and from similar processing stages.  In



addition, EPA may combine two or more separate wastes into  the same



treatability group when  data are available  showing that the waste



characteristics affecting performance are similar or that one of the



wastes in the group, the waste from which treatment standards are to be



developed, is expected to be most difficult to treat.



    Once the treatability groups have been  established, EPA collects and



analyzes data on identified technologies used to treat the  wastes in each



treatability group.  The technologies evaluated must be demonstrated on



the waste or a similar waste and must be available for use.



1.2.2    Demonstrated and Available Treatment Technologies



    Consistent with legislative history, EPA considers demonstrated



technologies to be those that are currently used on a full-scale basis to
                                    1-7

-------
treat the waste of interest or a waste judged to be similar (see 51 FR



40588, November 7, 1986).  EPA also will consider as demonstrated



treatment those technologies used to separate or otherwise process



chemicals and other materials on a full-scale basis.  Some of these



technologies clearly are applicable to waste treatment, since the wastes



are similar to raw materials processed in industrial applications.



    For most of the waste treatability groups for which EPA will



promulgate treatment standards, EPA will identify demonstrated



technologies either through review of literature related to current waste



treatment practices or on the basis of information provided by specific



facilities currently treating the waste or similar wastes.



    In cases where the Agency does not identify any facilities treating



wastes represented by a particular waste treatability group, EPA may



transfer a finding of demonstrated treatment.  To do this, EPA will



compare the parameters affecting treatment selection for the waste



treatability group of interest to other wastes for which demonstrated



technologies already have been determined.   (The parameters affecting



treatment selection and their use for this waste are described in



Section 3.2 of this document.)  If the parameters affecting treatment



selection are similar, then the Agency will  consider the treatment



technology also to be demonstrated for the waste of interest.  For



example, EPA considers rotary kiln incineration to be a demonstrated



technology for many waste codes containing hazardous organic
                                    1-8

-------
constituents, high total organic content, and high filterable solids



content, regardless of whether any facility is currently treating these



wastes.  The basis for this determination is data found in literature and



data generated by EPA confirming the use of rotary kiln incineration on



wastes having the above characteristics.



    If no full-scale treatment or recovery operations are identified for



a waste or wastes with similar physical or chemical characteristics that



affect treatment selection, the Agency will be unable to identify any



demonstrated treatment technologies for the waste, and, accordingly, the



waste will be prohibited from land disposal (unless handled in accordance



with the exemption and variance provisions of the rule).  The Agency is,



however, committed to establishing treatment standards as soon as new or



improved treatment processes are demonstrated (and available).



    Operations only available at research facilities, pilot- and bench-



scale operations, will not be considered in identifying demonstrated



treatment technologies for a waste.  Nevertheless, EPA may use data



generated at research facilities in assessing the performance of



demonstrated technologies.



    As discussed earlier, Congress intended that technologies used to



establish treatment standards under section 3004(m) be not only



"demonstrated," but also "available."  To decide whether demonstrated



technologies may be considered "available," the Agency determines whether



they (1) are commercially available and (2) substantially diminish the
                                    1-9

-------
toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration

of hazardous constituents from the waste.  These criteria are discussed

below.

    1.   Commercially available treatment.  If the demonstrated treatment
         technology is a proprietary or patented process that is not
         generally available, EPA will not consider the technology in its
         determination of the treatment standards.  EPA will consider
         proprietary or patented processes available if it determines
         that the treatment method can be purchased or licensed from the
         proprietor or is a commercially available treatment.  The
         services of the commercial facility offering this technology
         often can be purchased even if the technology itself cannot be
         purchased.

    2.   Substantial treatment.  To be considered "available," a
         demonstrated treatment technology must "substantially diminish
         the toxicity" of the waste or "substantially reduce the
         likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents" from the
         waste in accordance with section 3004(m).  By requiring that
         substantial treatment be achieved in order to set a treatment
         standard, the statute ensures that all wastes are adequately
         treated before being placed in or on the land and ensures that
         the Agency does not require a treatment method that provides
         little or no environmental benefit.  Treatment will always be
         deemed substantial if it results in nondetectable levels of the
         hazardous constituents of concern (provided the nondetectable
         levels are low relative to the concentrations in the untreated
         waste).   If nondetectable levels are not achieved, then a
         determination of substantial treatment will be made on a
         case-by-case basis.  This approach is necessary because of the
         difficulty of establishing a meaningful guideline that can be
         applied broadly to the many wastes and technologies to be
         considered.  EPA will consider the following factors in an
         effort to evaluate whether a technology provides substantial
         treatment on a case-by-case basis:

         • Number and types of constituents treated;

         • Performance (concentration of the constituents in the
           treatment residuals); and

         • Percent of constituents removed.
                                    1-10

-------
    EPA will only set treatment standards based on a technology that



meets both availability criteria.  Thus, the decision to classify a



technology as "unavailable" will have a direct impact on the treatment



standard.  If the best demonstrated technology is unavailable, the



treatment standards will be based on the next best demonstrated treatment



technology determined to be available.  To the extent that the resulting



treatment standards are less stringent, greater concentrations of



hazardous constituents in the treatment residuals could be placed in land



disposal units.



    There also may be circumstances in which EPA concludes that for a



given waste none of the demonstrated treatment technologies are



"available" for purposes of establishing the 3004(m) treatment



performance standards.  Subsequently, these wastes will be prohibited



from continued placement in or on the land unless managed in accordance



with applicable exemptions and variance provisions.  The Agency is,



however, committed to establishing new treatment standards as soon as new



or improved treatment processes become available.



1.2.3    Collection of Performance Data



    Performance data on the demonstrated available technologies are



evaluated by the Agency to determine whether the data are representative



of well-designed and well-operated treatment systems.  Only data from



well-designed and well-operated systems are considered in determining



BOAT.  The data evaluation includes data already collected directly by
                                    1-11

-------
EPA and/or data provided by industry.  In those instances where



additional data are needed to supplement existing information,  EPA



collects additional data through a sampling and analysis program.   The



principal elements of this data collection program are:  (1) the



identification of facilities for site visits, (2) the engineering  site



visit, (3) the sampling and analysis plan, (4) the sampling visit, and



(5) the onsite engineering report.



    (1)  Identification of facilities for site visits.  To identify



facilities that generate and/or treat the waste of concern, EPA uses a



number of information sources.  These include Stanford Research



Institute's Directory of Chemical Producers; EPA's Hazardous Waste Data



Management System (HWDMS); the 1986 Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facility



(TSDF) National Screening Survey; and EPA's  Industry Studies Data  Base.



In addition, EPA contacts trade associations to inform them that the



Agency is considering visits to facilities in their industry and to



solicit their assistance in identifying facilities for EPA to consider in



its treatment sampling program.



    After identifying facilities that treat  the waste, EPA uses this



hierarchy to select sites for engineering visits: (1) generators treating



single wastes on site; (2) generators treating multiple wastes together



on site;  (3) commercial treatment, storage,  and disposal facilities



(TSDFs); and (4) EPA  in-house treatment.  This hierarchy is based  on two



concepts:   (1) to the extent possible, EPA should develop treatment
                                    1-12

-------
standards from data produced by treatment facilities handling only a



single waste, and (2) facilities that routinely treat a specific waste



have had the best opportunity to optimize design parameters.  Although



excellent treatment can occur at many facilities that are not high in



this hierarchy, EPA has adopted this approach to avoid, when possible,



ambiguities related to the mixing of wastes before and during treatment.



    When possible, the Agency will evaluate treatment technologies using



full-scale treatment systems.  If performance data from properly designed



and operated full-scale systems treating a.particular waste or a waste



judged to be similar are not available, EPA may use data from research



facility operations.  Whenever research facility data are used,  EPA will



explain in the preamble and background document why such'data were used



and will request comments on the use of such data.



    Although EPA's data bases provide information on treatment for



individual wastes, the data bases rarely provide data that support the



selection of one facility for sampling over another.  In cases where



several treatment sites appear to fall into the same level of the



hierarchy, EPA selects sites for visits strictly on the basis of which



facility could most expeditiously be visited and later sampled if



justified by the engineering visit.



    (2)  Engineering site visit.  Once a treatment facility has  been



selected, an engineering site visit is made to confirm that a candidate



for sampling meets EPA's criteria for a well-designed facility and to
                                    1-13

-------
ensure that the necessary sampling points can be accessed to determine



operating parameters and treatment effectiveness.  During the visit, EPA



also confirms that the facility appears to be well operated, although the



actual operation of the treatment system during sampling is the basis for



EPA's decisions regarding proper operation of the treatment unit.  In



general, the Agency considers a well-designed facility to be one that



contains the unit operations necessary to treat the various hazardous



constituents of the waste, as well as to control other nonhazardous



materials in the waste that may affect treatment performance.



    In addition to ensuring that a system is reasonably well designed,



the engineering visit examines whether the facility has a way to measure



the operating parameters that affect performance of the treatment system



during the waste treatment period.  For example, EPA may choose not to



sample a treatment system that operates in a continuous mode, for which



an important operating parameter cannot be continuously recorded.  In



such systems, instrumentation is important in determining whether the



treatment system is operating at design values during the waste treatment



period.



    (3)  Sampling and analysis plan.  If after the engineering site visit



the Agency decides to sample a particular plant, the Agency will then



develop a site-specific sampling and analysis plan (SAP) according to the



Generic Quality Assurance Pro.lect Plan for the Land Disposal Restrictions



Program ("BOAT"). EPA/530-SW-87-011.  In brief, the SAP discusses where



the Agency plans to sample, how the samples will be taken, the frequency
                                    1-14

-------
of sampling, the constituents to be analyzed and the method of analysis,



operational parameters to be obtained, and specific laboratory quality



control checks on the analytical results.



    The Agency will generally produce a draft of the site-specific SAP



within 2 to 3 weeks of the engineering visit.  The draft of the SAP is



then sent to the plant for review and comment.   With few exceptions, the



draft SAP should be a confirmation of data collection activities



discussed with the plant personnel during the engineering site visit.



EPA encourages plant personnel to recommend any modifications to the SAP



that they believe will improve the quality of the data.



    It is important to note that sampling of a  plant by EPA does not mean



that the data will be used in the development of BOAT treatment



standards.  EPA's final  decision on whether to  use.data from a sampled



plant depends on the actual analysis of the waste being treated and on



the operating conditions at the time of sampling.  Although EPA would not



plan to sample a facility that was not ostensibly well designed and well



operated, there is no way to ensure that at the time of the sampling the



facility will not experience operating problems.  Additionally, EPA



statistically compares its test data to suitable industry-provided data,



where available, in its determination of what data to use in developing



treatment standards.  The methodology for comparing data is presented



later in this section.
                                    1-15

-------
    (Note: Facilities wishing to submit data for consideration in the



development of BOAT standards should, to the extent possible, provide



sampling information similar to that acquired by EPA.  Such facilities



should review the Generic Quality Assurance Pro.lect Plan for the Land



Disposal Restrictions Program ("BOAT"), which delineates all of the



quality control and quality assurance measures associated with sampling



and analysis.  Quality assurance and quality control procedures are



summarized in Section 1.2.6 of this document.)



    (4)  Sampling vi sit.  The purpose of the sampling visit is to collect



samples that characterize the performance of the treatment system and to



document the operating conditions that existed during the waste treatment



period.  At a minimum, the Agency attempts to collect sufficient samples



of the untreated waste and solid and liquid treatment residuals so that



variability in the treatment process can be accounted for in the



development of the treatment standards.  To the extent practicable, and



within safety constraints, EPA or its contractors collect all samples and



ensure that chain-of-custody procedures are conducted so that the



integrity of the data is maintained.



    In general, the samples collected during the sampling visit will have



already been specified in the SAP.   In some instances, however, EPA will



not be able to collect all planned  samples because  of changes in the



facility operation or plant upsets;  EPA will explain any such deviations



from  the SAP in its follow-up onsite engineering report.
                                    1-16

-------
    (5)  Onsite engineering report.  EPA summarizes all its data



collection activities and associated analytical results for testing at a



facility in a report referred to as the onsite engineering report (OER).



This report characterizes the waste(s) treated, the treated residual



concentrations, the design and operating data, and all analytical results



including methods used and accuracy results.  This report also describes



any deviations from EPA's suggested analytical methods for hazardous



wastes that appear in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid'Waste, SW-846,



Third Edition, November 1986.



    After the OER is completed, the report  is submitted to the waste



generator and/or treater for review.  This  review provides a final



opportunity for claiming any information contained in the report as



confidential.  Following the review and incorporation of comments, as



appropriate, the report is made available to the public with the



exception of any material claimed as confidential.



1.2.4    Hazardous Constituents Considered  and Selected for Regulation



    (1)  Development of BOAT list.  The list of hazardous constituents



within the waste codes that are targeted for treatment is referred to by



the Agency as the BOAT constituent list.  This list, provided as



Table 1-1, is derived from the constituents presented in 40 CFR Part 261,



Appendices VII and VIII, as well as several ignitable constituents used



as the basis of listing wastes as F003 and  F005.  These sources provide a
                                    1-17

-------
1521g
                     Table 1-1  BOAT  Constituent List
BOAT
reference
no.

222.
\.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
223.
/.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
224.
225.
226.
30.
227 .
31.
214.
32.
33.
228.
34.
Const ituent
Volat i le orqanics
Acetone
Acetonitri le
Ac role in
Acrylonitn le
Benzene
Bromod ich loromethane
Bromoniethane
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon tetrachlor ide
Carbon bisulfide
Chlorobenzene
2 -Chloro- 1.3- butadiene
Ch lorod i bromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Ch loromethane
3-Ch loropropene
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
0 ibromomethane
trans-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Dichlorodif luorocnethane
1 . 1-Oichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethy lene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
cis-1 ,3-Dich loropropene
1,4-Dioxane
2-Ethoxyethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methano 1
Methyl ethyl ketone
CAS no.

67-64-1
75-05-8
107-02-8
107-13-1
/1-43-2
75-27-4
74-83 9
71-36-3
56-23-5
75-15-0
108-90-7
126-99-8
124-48-1
75-00-3
110 75 8
67-66-3
74-87-3
107-05-1
96-12-8
106-93-4
74-95-3
110-57-6
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-60-5
78-87-5
10061-02-6
10061-01-5
123-91-1
110-80-5
141-78-6
100-41-4
107-12-0
60-29-7
97-63-2
75-21-8
74-88-4
78-83-1
67-56-1
78-93-3
                                    1-18

-------
1521g
                         Idble  1-1  (Continued)
UDA1
reference
no.

229.
35.
37.
38.
?30.
39.
40.
41 .
4?.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
231 .

50.
215.
?16.
217.

51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
218.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Const ituent
Volatile orqanics (continued)
Methyl isobuty) ketone
Hethyl methacry late
Methacrylonitri le
Methylene chloride
?-N i tropropane
Pyridine
1,1.1,2- letrachloroe thane
1 , 1 ,2.2-Ietrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
T r i bromcxnet hane
1 , 1 , 1- 1 r ich loroethdne
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
T rich loromonof luoromet hane
1 . 2. 3- I r icnloropropd.nl;
1 ,1.2-Trichloro 1 . 2 ,2-tr i f luoro-
ethane
Vinyl chloride
1.2-Xylene
1.3-Xylene
1 ,4 Xy lene
Semivo lat i le organ ics
Acenaphtha lene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acety lam inof luorenc
4-Aminobipheny 1
Aniline
Anthracene
Arami te
Benz ( a ) anthracene
Benzal chloride
Benzenethio 1
Deleted
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo( ghi )pery lene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
CAS no.

108-10-1
80-62-6
126-98-7
/5-09-2
79-46-9
110 86 1
630-20-6
79-34-6
127-18-4
108-88-3
75-25-2
/1-55-6
79-00-5
79-01 6
75-69-4 '
96-18-4
76-13-1

/5-01-4
97-47-6
108-38 3
106-44-5

208-96 8
83-32-9
96-86-2
53-96-3
92-67-1
62-53-3
120-12-/
140-57-8
56 55-3
98-87-3
108-98-5

50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
106-51-4
                                   1-19

-------
1521g
                         Table 1-1   (Continued)
BDAI
reference
no.

67.
68.
69.
70.
71 .
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
II.
78.
79.
80.
81.
8?.
23?.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
219.
Const i tuent
Semivolat i le organ ics (continued)
Bis(2-chloroethoxy (methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
B is(2-chloroisopropy 1 (ether
Bis(?-ethylhcxy l)phtha late
4 Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Buty 1-4 , 6-din i tropheno 1
p-Ch lorodni 1 ine
Chloroben/i late
p-Ch loro-m-creso 1
2-Ch loronaphtha lene
2-Ch loropheno 1
3-Chloropropionitri le
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Creso)
Cyc lohexanone
D i benz ( a. h) anthracene
Diben£o(a,e)pyrene
Dibenzo(a, i)pyrene
m Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-D ich lorobenzene
3.3'-D ichlorobenz id ine
2 . 4 -D ich loropheno 1
2. 6- D ich loropheno)
Diethyl phthalate
3.3 ' -Dimethoxyben/ idine
p Dimethylaminoazoben/tene
3.3' -Dimethylbenzidme
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Oi-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,4-Dinitrobenzene
4.6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2.4-Din itropheno 1
2.4-Dinitrotoluene
2.6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propy In itrosamine
Dipheny lamine
Dipheny In itrosamine
CAS no.

111-91 -1
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
101 55-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
106-47-8
510-15-6
59-50-7
91-58-7
95-57-8
542-76-7
218-01-9
95-48-7
106-44-5
108 94 1
53-70-3
192-65-4
189-55-9
541-73 1
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
120-83 2
87-65-0
84-66-2
119-90-4
60 11-7
119-93-7
105 67-9
131-11-3
84-74-2
100-25-4
534-52-1
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
11/-84-0
621-64-7
122-39-4
86-30-6
                                   1-20

-------
1521g
                         Table 1-1  (Continued)
BOA I
reference
no.

107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
11?.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.

36.
121.
122.
1?3.
124.
125.
126.
127.
1?8.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
220.
143.
144.
145.
146.
Const i tuent
Semivo lat i le orqanics (continued)
1 . 2-Dipheny Ihydraz ine
Fluoranthene
F luorene
Hexach loroben/ene
Hexach lorobutad iene
Hexach lorocyc lopentadiene
Hexach loroethane
Hexach lorophene
Hexach loropropene
1 ndeno( 1 . 2 . 3 -cd ) py rene
Isosaf ro le
Methapyr i lene
3-Methylcholanthrene
4.4' -Methy lenebis
(2 -eh loroan i 1 ine)
Methyl methanesu Ifonate
Naphthalene
1.4- Napht hoqu i none
1 -Naphthy lamine
?-Naphthy lamine
p-Nitroani line
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitropheno 1
N-Ni trosodi-n-buty lamine
N -Nitrosodiethy lamine
N - N 1 1 rosod itnet hy 1 am i ne
N-N i trosomethy le thy lamine
N - N i t rosomorpho line
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrol idine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pcntach lorobenzcne
Pentach loroethane
Pentach loron i t robenzene
Pentach loropheno 1
Phenacet in
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phlhalic anhydride
2-Picol ine
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorcinol
CAS no.

122-66-7
206-44-0
86-73-7
118-74-1
87-68 3
77-47-4
67-72-1
70-30-4
1888-71 -7
193-39-6
120-58-1
91-80-5
56 49-5

101-14-4
66-27-3
91-20 3
130-15-4
134-32-7
91-59-8
100-01 6
98-95-3
100-02-7
924-16-3
55-18-5
62-75-9
10595-95-6
59-89-2
100-75-4
930-55-2
99-65-8
608 93 5
76-01-7
82-68-8
87-86-5
62-44-2
85-01-8
108-95-2
85-44-9
109-06-8
23950-58-5
129-00-0
108-46-3
                                   1-21

-------
1521q
                         Table  1-1  (Continued)
BOAT
reference
no.

147.
148.
149.
150
151.
152.
153.


154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.

169.
170.
1/1.

172.
1/3.
174.
175.
Const ituent
Setnivolat i le orqanics (continued)
Saf role
1,2,4 ,5-Tetrach loroben/ene
2 , 3 , 4 . 6- Tet rach loropheno 1
1 . 2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2.4 . 5-1 rich loropheno 1
2. 4, 6- T rich loropheno 1
T r i s (.2 , 3-d i bromopropy 1 )
phosphate
Metals
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Tver
Thall ium
Vanad ium
Z inc
Inorganics other than metals
Cyanide
fluoride
Sulf ide
Orqanochlorine pesticides
Aldrin
a Ipha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
CAS no.

94-59-7
95-94-3
58-90-2
120-82-1
95-95-4
88-06-2

126-72-7

7440-36 0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
-
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22 4
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6

57-12-5
16964-48 8
8496-25-8

309-00-2
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
                                   1-22

-------
1521g
                        Table 1-1   (Continued)
BOAT
reference
no.

176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181 .
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.

192.
193.
194.

195.
196.
197.
198.
199.

200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
Const ituent
Orqanochlorine pesticides (continued)
ganma-BHC
Chlordane
ODD
DDE
DDI
Dieldrin
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan 11
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Isodrm
Kepone
Methoxyclor
Toxaphene
Phenoxyacet ic acid herbicides
2.4-Dich)orophenoxyacet ic acid
S i Ivex
2,4.5-T
Orqanophosphorous insecticides
Disu Ifoton
Famphur
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Phorate
PCBs
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
CAS no.

58-89-9
57-74-9
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
60-57-1
939-98 8
33213-6-5
72-20-8
7421-93-4
76-44-8
1024-57-3
465-73-6
143-50-0
72-43-5
8001-35-2

94-75-7
93-72-1
93-76-5

298-04-4
52 85-7
298-00-0
56-38-2
298-02-2

12674-11-2
11104 28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
                                  1-23

-------
1521g
                           Table  1-1   (Continued)
BOAT
reference      Constituent                               CAS no.
no.	

               Dioxins and furans

207.           Hexach lorodibenzo-p-dioxins
?08.           Hexachlorodibenzofurans
209.           Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
2)0.           Pentach lorodibenzofurans
211.           Tetrach lorodibenzo-p-dioxins
212.           Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
213.           2.3.7.8-Ietrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin      1746-01-6
                                     1-24

-------
comprehensive list of hazardous constituents specifically regulated under



RCRA.   The BOAT list consists of those constituents that can be analyzed



using methods published in SW-846, Third Edition.



    The initial BOAT constituent list was published in EPA's Generic



Quality Assurance Pro.iect Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program



("BOAT") in March 1987.  Additional constituents are added to the BOAT



constituent list as more key constituents are identified for specific



waste codes or as new analytical methods are developed for hazardous



constituents.  For example, since the list was published in March 1987,



18 additional constituents (hexavalent chromium, xylenes (all three



isomers),  benzal chloride, phthalic anhydride, ethylene oxide,  acetone,



n-butyl alcohol, 2-ethoxyethanol, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl



ether, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, 2-nitropropane,



1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane, and cyclohexanone) have been added



to the list.



    Chemicals are listed in Appendix VIII if they are shown in scientific



studies to have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on



humans or other life-forms, and they include such substances as those



identified by the Agency's Carcinogen Assessment Group as being



carcinogenic.  A waste can be listed as a toxic waste on the basis that



it contains a constituent in Appendix VIII.



    Although Appendix VII, Appendix VIII, and the F003 and F005



ignitables provide a comprehensive list of RCRA-regulated hazardous



constituents, not all of the constituents can be analyzed in a complex
                                    1-25

-------
waste matrix.  Therefore, constituents that could not be readily analyzed

in an unknown waste matrix were not  included on the initial BOAT

constituent list.  As mentioned above, however, the BOAT constituent list

is a continuously growing list that  does not preclude the addition of new

constituents when analytical methods  are developed.

    There are five major reasons that constituents were not included on

the BOAT constituent list:

    1.   Constituents are unstable.   Based on their chemical structure,
         some constituents will either decompose in water or will
         ionize.  For example, maleic anhydride will form maleic acid
         when it comes  in contact with water, and copper'cyanide will
         ionize to form copper and cyanide ions.  However, EPA may choose
         to regulate the decomposition or  ionization products.

    2.   EPA-approved or verified analytical methods are not available.
         Many constituents,  such as  1,3,5-trinitrobenzene, are not
         measured adequately or even  detected using any of EPA's
         analytical methods  published in SW-846 Third Edition.

    3.   The constituent is  a member  of a  chemical group designated in
         Appendix VIII  as not otherwise specified (N.O.S.).  Constituents
         listed as N.O.S., such as chlorinated phenols, are a generic
         group of some  types of chemicals  for which a single analytical
         procedure is not available.  The  individual members of each such
         group need to  be listed to  determine whether the constituents
         can be analyzed.  For each  N.O.S. group, all those constituents
         that can be readily analyzed are  included in the BOAT
         constituent list.

    4.   Available analytical procedures are not appropriate for a
         complex waste  matrix.  Some  compounds, such as auramine, can be
         analyzed as a  pure  constituent.   However, in the presence of
         other constituents, the recommended analytical method does not
         positively identify the constituent.  The use of high
         performance liquid  chromatography (HPLC) presupposes a high
         expectation of finding the  specific constituents of interest.
         In using this  procedure to  screen samples, protocols would have
         to be developed on  a case-specific basis to verify the identity
         of constituents present in  the samples.  Therefore, HPLC is
         usually not an appropriate  analytical procedure for complex
         samples containing  unknown  constituents.
                                    1-26

-------
    5.   Standards for analytical instrument calibration are not
         commercially available.  For several constituents,  such as
         benz(c)acridine, commercially available standards of a
         "reasonably" pure grade are not available.  The unavailability
         of a standard was determined by a review of catalogs from
         specialty chemical manufacturers.

    Two constituents (fluoride and sulfide) are not specifically included

in Appendices VII and VIII; however, these compounds are included on the

BOAT list as indicator constituents for compounds from Appendices VII and

VIII such as hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen sulfide, which ionize in

water.

    The BOAT constituent list presented in Table 1-1 is divided into the

following nine groups:

         Volatile organics;
         Semivolatile organics;
         Metals;
         Other inorganics;
         Organochlorine pesticides;
         Phenoxyacetic acid herbicides;
         Organophosphorous insecticides;
         PCBs; and
         Dioxins and furans.

The constituents were placed in these categories based on their chemical

properties.  The constituents in each group are expected to behave

similarly during treatment and are also analyzed, with the exception of

the metals and the other inorganics, by using the same analytical methods

    (2)  Constituent selection analysis.  The constituents that the

Agency selects for regulation in each waste are, in general, those found

in the untreated wastes at treatable concentrations.  For certain waste
                                    1-27

-------
codes, the target list for the untreated waste may have been shortened



(relative to analyses performed to test treatment  technologies)  because



of the extreme unlikelihood that the constituent will  be present.



    In selecting constituents for regulation, the  first step is  to



develop of list of potentially regulated constituents  by summarizing all



the constituents that are present or are likely to be  present in the



untreated waste at treatable concentrations.  A constituent is considered



present in a waste if the constituent (1) is detected  in the untreated



waste above the detection limit, (2) is detected in any of the treated



residuals above the detection limit, or (3) is likely  to be present based



on the Agency's analyses of the waste-generating process.  In case (2),



the presence of other constituents in the untreated waste may interfere



with the quantification of the constituent of concern, making the



detection limit relatively high and resulting in a finding of "not



detected" when, in fact, the constituent is present in the waste.   Thus,



the Agency reserves the right to regulate such constituents.



    After developing a list of potential constituents  for regulation.



EPA reviews this list to determine if any of these constituents can be



excluded from regulation because they would be controlled by regulation



of other constituents on the list.  This indicator analysis is done for



two reasons: (1) it reduces the analytical cost burdens on the treater



and (2) it facilitates implementation of the compliance and enforcement



program.  EPA's rationale for selection of regulated constituents for



this waste code is presented in Section 6 of this background document.
                                    1-28

-------
    (3)  Calculation of standards.  The final step in the calculation of



the BOAT treatment standard is the multiplication of the average



accuracy-corrected treatment value by a factor referred to by the Agency



as the variability factor.  This calculation takes into account that even



we!1-designed and well-operated treatment systems will  experience some



fluctuations in performance.  EPA expects that fluctuations will result



from inherent mechanical limitations in treatment control systems,



collection of treated samples, and analysis of these samples.  All  of the



above fluctuations can  be expected to occur at well-designed and



well-operated treatment facilities.  Therefore, setting treatment



standards utilizing a variability factor should be viewed not as a



relaxing of section 3004(m) requirements, but rather as a function  of the



normal variability of the treatment processes.  A treatment facility will



have to be designed to  meet the mean achievable treatment performance



level  to ensure that the performance levels remain within the limits of



the treatment standard.



    The Agency calculates a variability factor for each constituent of



concern within a waste  treatability group using the statistical



calculation presented in Appendix A.  The equation for calculating  the



variability factor is the same as that used by EPA for the development of



numerous regulations in the Effluent Guidelines Program under the Clean



Water Act.  The variability factor establishes the instantaneous maximum



based on the 99th percentile value.
                                    1-29

-------
    There is an additional step in the calculation of the treatment



standards in those instances where the ANOVA analysis shows that more



than one technology achieves a level of performance that represents



BOAT.  In such instances, the BOAT treatment standard for each



constituent of concern is calculated by first averaging the mean



performance value for each technology and then multiplying that value by



the highest variability factor among the technologies considered.   This



procedure ensures that all the technologies used as the basis for the



BOAT treatment standards will achieve full compliance.



1.2.5    Compliance with Performance Standards



    Usually the treatment standards reflect performance achieved by the



best demonstrated available technology (BOAT).  As such, compliance with



these numerical standards requires only that the treatment level be



achieved prior to land disposal.   It does not require the use of any



particular treatment technology.   While dilution of the waste as a means



to comply with the standards is prohibited, wastes that are generated in



such a way as to naturally meet the standards can be land disposed



without treatment.  With the exception of treatment standards that



prohibit land disposal or that specify use of certain treatment methods,



all established treatment standards are expressed as concentration levels.



    EPA is using both the total constituent concentration and the



concentration of the constituent  in the TCLP extract of the treated waste



as a measure of technology performance.
                                    1-30

-------
    For all organic constituents, EPA is basing the treatment standards



on the total constituent concentration found in the treated waste.  EPA



is using this measurement because most technologies for treatment of



organics destroy or remove organics compounds.   Accordingly, the best



measure of performance would be the total amount of constituent remaining



after treatment.  (NOTE:  EPA's land disposal restrictions for solvent



waste codes F001-F005 (51 FR 40572) use the TCLP extract value as a



measure of performance.   At the time that EPA promulgated the treatment



standards for F001-F005, useful data were not available on total



constituent concentrations in treated residuals, and, as a result, the



TCLP data were considered to be the best measure of performance.)



    For all metal constituents, EPA is using both total constituent



concentration and/or the TCLP extract concentration as the basis for



treatment standards.  The total constituent concentration is being used



when the technology basis includes a metal recovery operation.  The



underlying principle of metal recovery is that  it reduces the amount of



metal in a waste by separating the metal for recovery; total constituent



concentration in the treated residual, therefore, is an important measure



of performance for this technology.  Additionally,  EPA also believes that



it is important that any remaining metal in a treated residual waste not



be in a state that is easily Teachable; accordingly, EPA is also using



the TCLP extract concentration as a measure of  performance.  It is



important to note that for wastes for which treatment standards are based
                                    1-31

-------
on a metal recovery process, the facility has to comply with both the

total and the TCLP extract constituent concentrations prior to land

di sposing the waste.

    In cases where treatment standards for metals are not based on

recovery techniques but rather on stabilization, EPA is using only the

TCLP value as a measure of performance.  The Agency's rationale is that

stabilization is not meant to reduce the concentration of metal in a

waste but only to chemically minimize the ability of the metal to leach.

1.2.6    Identification of BOAT

    BOAT for a waste must be the "best" of the demonstrated available

technologies.  EPA determines which technology constitutes "best" after

screening the available data from each demonstrated technology, adjusting

these data for accuracy, and comparing the performance of each

demonstrated technology to that of the others.  If only one technology is

identified as demonstrated, it is considered "best"; if it is available,

the technology is BOAT.

    (1)  Screening of treatment data.    The first activity in

determining which of the treatment technologies represent treatment by

BOAT is to screen the treatment performance data from each of the

demonstrated and available technologies according to the following

criteria:

    1.   Design and operating data associated with the treatment data
         must reflect a well-designed, well-operated system for each
         treatment data point.  (The specific design and operating
         parameters for each demonstrated technology for the waste
         code(s) of interest are discussed in Section 3.2 of this
         document.)
                                    1-32

-------
    2.    Sufficient QA/QC data must be available to determine the true
         values of the data from the treated waste.  This screening
         criterion involves adjustment of treated data to take into
         account that the true value may be different from the measured
         value.  This discrepancy generally is caused by other
         constituents in the waste that can mask results or otherwise
         interfere with the analysis of the constituent of concern.

    3.    The measure of performance must be consistent with EPA's
         approach to evaluating treatment by type of constituents (e.g.,
         total  concentration data for organics,  and total concentration
         and TCLP extract concentration for metals from the residual).

    In  the absence of data needed to perform the screening analysis,  EPA

will make decisions on a case-by-case basis as to whether to use the  data

as a basis for the treatment standards.  The factors included in this

case-by-case analysis will be the actual treatment levels achieved, the

availability of the treatment data and their completeness (with respect

to the  above criteria), and EPA's assessment of whether the untreated

waste represents the waste code of concern.

    (2)  Comparison of treatment data.  In cases in which EPA has

treatment data from more than one demonstrated available technology

following the screening activity, EPA uses the statistical method known

as analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine if one technology performs

significantly better than the others.  This statistical method

(summarized in Appendix A) provides a measure of the differences between

two data sets.   Specifically, EPA uses the analysis of variance to

determine whether BOAT represents a level of performance achieved by  only

one technology or represents a level of performance achieved by more  than

one (or all) of the technologies.  If EPA finds that one technology

performs significantly better (i.e., is "best"), BOAT treatment standards
                                    1-33

-------
are the level of performance achieved by that best technology multiplied



by the corresponding variability factor for each regulated constituent.



If the Agency finds that the levels of performance for one or more



technologies are not statistically different, EPA averages the



performance values achieved by each technology and then multiplies this



value by the largest variability factor associated with any of the



technologies.



    (3)  Quality assurance/quality control.  This section presents the



principal quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures employed



in screening and adjusting the data to be used in the calculation of



treatment standards.  Additional QA/QC procedures used in collecting and



screening data for the BOAT program are presented in EPA's Generic



Quality Assurance Pro.lect Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program



("BOAT"), EPA/530-SW-87-011.



    To calculate the treatment standards for the land disposal restriction



rules, it is first necessary to determine the recovery value for each



constituent  (the amount of constituent recovered after spiking--which is



the addition of a known amount of the constituent — minus the initial



concentration in the samples, all divided by the spike amount added) for



each spiked  sample of the treated residual.  Once the recovery values are



determined,  the following procedures are used to select the appropriate



percent recovery value to adjust the analytical data:
                                    1-34

-------
    1.    If duplicate spike recovery values are available for the
         constituent of interest, the data are adjusted by the lowest
         available percent recovery value (i.e.,  the value that will
         yield the most conservative estimate of treatment achieved).
         However, if a spike recovery value of less than 20 percent is
         reported for a specific constituent, the data are not used to
         set treatment standards because the Agency does not have
         sufficient confidence in the reported value to set a national
         standard.

    2.    If data are not available for a specific constituent but are
         available for an isomer, then the spike recovery data are
         transferred from the isomer and the data are adjusted using the
         percent recovery selected according to the procedure described
         in (1) above.

    3.    If data are not available for a specific constituent but are
         available for a similar class of constituents (e.g., volatile
         organics,  acid-extractable semivolatiles), then spike recovery
         data available for this class of constituents are transferred.
         All spike recovery values greater than or equal to 20 percent
         for a spike sample are averaged and the constituent
         concentration is adjusted by the average recovery value.  If
         spiked recovery data are available for more than one sample, the
         average is calculated for each sample and the data are adjusted
         by using the lowest average value.

    4.    If matrix spike recovery data are not available for a set of
         data to be used to calculate treatment standards, then matrix
         spike recovery data are transferred from a waste that the Agency
         believes is similar (e.g., if the data represent an ash from
         incineration, then data from other incinerator ashes could be
         used).  While EPA recognizes that transfer of matrix spike
         recovery data from a similar waste is not an exact analysis,
         this is considered the best approach for adjusting the data to
         account for the fact that most analyses do not result in
         extraction of 100 percent of the constituent.  In assessing the
         recovery data to be transferred, the procedures outlined in (1),
         (2), and (3) above are followed.

    The analytical  procedures employed to generate the data used to

calculate the treatment standards are listed in Appendix B of this

document.  In cases where alternatives or equivalent procedures and/or

equipment are allowed in EPA's SW-846, Third Edition methods, the
                                    1-35

-------
specific procedures and equipment used are documented.  In addition, any

deviations from the SW-846, Third Edition methods used to analyze the

specific waste matrices are documented.  It is important to note that the

Agency will use the methods and procedures delineated in Appendix B to

enforce the treatment standards presented in Section 7 of this document.

Accordingly, facilities should use these procedures in assessing the

performance of their treatment systems.

1.2.7  BOAT Treatment Standards for "Derived-From" and "Mixed" Wastes

    (1)  Wastes from treatment trains generating multiple residues.  In a

number of  instances, the proposed BOAT consists of a series of

operations, each of which generates a waste residue.  For example, the

proposed BOAT for a certain waste code is based on solvent extraction,

steam stripping, and activated carbon adsorption.  Each of these

treatment  steps generates a waste requiring treatment — a

solvent-containing stream from solvent extraction, a stripper overhead,

and spent  activated carbon.  Treatment of these wastes may generate

further residues; for instance, spent activated carbon (if not

regenerated) could be incinerated, generating an ash and possibly a

scrubber water waste.  Ultimately, additional wastes are generated that

may require land disposal.  With respect to these wastes, the Agency

wishes to  emphasize the following points:

    1.   All of the residues from treating the original listed wastes are
         likewise considered to be the listed waste by virtue of the
         derived-from rule contained  in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2).   (This point
         is discussed more fully in (2) below.)  Consequently, all of the
         wastes generated in the course of treatment would be prohibited
         from land disposal unless they satisfy the treatment standard or
         meet one of the exceptions to the prohibition.


                                    1-36

-------
    2.   The Agency's proposed treatment standards generally contain a
         concentration level for wastewaters and a concentration level
         for nonwastewaters.  The treatment standards apply to all  of the
         wastes generated in treating the original prohibited waste.
         Thus, all  derived-from wastes meeting the Agency definition of
         wastewater (less than 1 percent total organic carbon (TOC) and
         less than  1  percent total suspended solids) would have to meet
         the treatment standard for wastewaters.  All residuals not
         meeting this definition would have to meet the treatment
         standard for nonwastewaters.  EPA wishes to make clear that this
         approach is  not meant to allow partial treatment in order to
         comply with  the applicable standard.

    3.   The Agency has not performed tests, in all cases, on every waste
         that can result from every part of the treatment train.
         However, the Agency's treatment standards are based on treatment
         of the most  concentrated form of the waste.  Consequently, the
         Agency believes that the less concentrated wastes generated in
         the course of treatment will also be able to be treated to meet
         this value.

    (2)  Mixtures and other derived-from residues.  There is a further

question as to the  applicability of the BOAT treatment standards to

residues generated  not from treating the waste (as discussed above), but

from other types of management.  Examples are contaminated soil or

leachate that is derived from managing the waste.  In these cases,  the

mixture is still deemed to be the listed waste, either because of the

derived-from rule (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)) or the mixture rule (40 CFR

261.3(a)(2)(iii) and  (iv)) or because the listed waste is contained in

the matrix (see, for  example, 40 CFR 261.33(d)).  The prohibition for the

particular listed waste consequently applies to this type of waste.

    The Agency believes that the majority of these types of residues can

meet the treatment  standards for the underlying listed wastes (with the

possible exception  of contaminated soil and debris for which the Agency

is currently investigating whether it is appropriate to establish a
                                    1-37

-------
separate treatability subcategorization).  For the most part, these



residues will be less concentrated than  the original listed waste.   The



Agency's treatment standards also make a generous allowance for process



variability by assuming that all treatability values used to establish



the standard are lognormally distributed.  The waste also might be



amenable to a relatively nonvariable form of treatment technology such as



incineration.  Finally, and perhaps most important, the rules contain a



treatability variance that allows a petitioner-to demonstrate that its



waste cannot be treated to the level specified in the rule (40 CFR Part



268.44(a)).  This provision provides a safety valve that allows persons



with unusual waste matrices to demonstrate the appropriateness of a



different standard.  The Agency, to date, has not received any petitions



under this provision (for example, for residues contaminated with a



prohibited sol vent waste), indicating, in the Agency's view, that the



existing standards are generally achievable.



    (3)  Residues from managing listed wastes or that contain listed



wastes.  The Agency has been asked if and when residues from managing



hazardous wastes, such as leachate and contaminated ground water, become



subject to the land disposal prohibitions.  Although the Agency believes



this question to be settled by existing  rules and  interpretative



statements, to avoid any  possible confusion the Agency will address the



question again.
                                    1-38

-------
    Residues from managing First Third wastes, listed California List



wastes, and spent solvent and dioxin wastes are all considered to be



subject to the prohibitions for the listed hazardous waste as originally



generated.  Residues from managing California List wastes likewise are



subject to the California List prohibitions when the residues themselves



exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste.  This determination stems



directly from the derived-from rule in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) or, in some



cases, from the fact that the waste is mixed with or otherwise contains



the listed waste.  The underlying principle stated in all of these



provisions is that listed wastes remain listed until delisted.



    The Agency's historic practice in processing delisting petitions that



address mixing residuals has been to consider them to be the listed waste



and to require that delisting petitioners address all constituents for



which the derived-from waste (or other mixed waste) was listed.   The



language in 40 CFR 260.22(b) states that mixtures or derived-from



residues can be delisted provided a delisting petitioner makes a



demonstration identical to that which a delisting petitioner would make



for the original listed waste.  Consequently, these residues are treated



as the original listed waste for delisting purposes.  The statute



likewise takes this position, indicating that soil and debris that are



contaminated with listed spent solvents or dioxin wastes are subject to



the prohibition for these wastes even though these wastes are not the



originally generated waste, but rather are a residual from management



(RCRA section 3004(e)(3)).  It is EPA's view that all such residues are
                                    1-39

-------
covered by the existing prohibitions and treatment standards for the



listed hazardous waste that these residues contain or from which they are



deri ved.



1.2.8    Transfer of Treatment Standards



    EPA is proposing some treatment standards that are not based on



testing of the treatment technology on the specific waste subject to the



treatment standard.  The Agency has determined that the constituents



present in the untested waste can be treated to the same performance



levels as those observed in other wastes for which EPA has previously



developed treatment data.  EPA believes that transferring treatment



performance data for use in establishing treatment standards for untested



wastes is technically valid in cases where the untested wastes are



generated from similar industries or processing steps, or have similar



waste characteristics affecting performance and treatment selection.



Transfer of treatment standards to similar wastes or wastes from similar



processing steps requires little formal analysis.  However, in a case



where only the industry  is similar, EPA more closely examines the waste



characteristics prior to deciding whether the untested waste constituents



can be treated to levels associated with tested wastes.



    EPA undertakes a two-step analysis when determining whether



constituents  in the untested wastes can be treated to the same level of



performance as in the tested waste.  First, EPA reviews the available



waste characterization data to identify those parameters that are
                                    1-40

-------
expected to affect treatment selection.   EPA has identified some of the



most important constituents and other parameters needed to select the



treatment technology appropriate for the given waste(s) in Section 3.



    Second, when analysis suggests that  an untested waste can be treated



with the same technology as a waste for  which treatment performance data



are already available,  EPA analyzes a more detailed list of



characteristics that the Agency believes will affect the performance of



the technology.  By examining and comparing these characteristics, the



Agency determines whether the untested wastes will  achieve the same level



of treatment as the tested waste.  Where the Agency determines that the



untested waste can be treated as well or better than the tested waste,



the treatment standards can be transferred.



1.3    Variance from the BOAT Treatment  Standard



    The Agency recognizes that there may exist unique wastes that cannot



be treated to the level specified as the treatment standard.  In such a



case, a generator or owner/operator may  submit a petition to the



Administrator requesting a variance from the treatment standard.  A



particular waste may be significantly different from the wastes on which



the treatment standards are based because the subject waste contains a



more complex matrix that makes it more difficult to treat.  For example,



complex mixtures may be formed when a restricted waste is mixed with



other waste streams by  spills or other forms of inadvertent mixing.  As a



result, the treatability of the restricted waste may be altered such that



it cannot meet the applicable treatment  standard.
                                    1-41

-------
    Variance petitions must demonstrate that the treatment standard

established for a given waste cannot be met.  This demonstration can be

made by showing that attempts to treat the waste by available

technologies were not successful or by performing appropriate analyses of

the waste, including waste characteristics affecting performance, which

demonstrate that the waste cannot be treated to the specified levels.

Variances will not be granted based solely on a showing that adequate

BOAT treatment capacity is unavailable.   (Such demonstrations can be made

according to the provisions in  Part 268.5 of RCRA for case-by-case

extensions of the effective date.)  The Agency will consider granting

generic petitions provided that representative data are submitted to

support a variance for each facility covered by the petition.

    Petitioners should submit at least one copy to:

       The Administrator
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       401 M Street, S.W.
       Washington, DC  20460

    An additional copy marked "Treatability Variance" should be submitted

to:

       Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
       Office of Solid Waste  (WH-565)
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       401 M Street, S.W.
       Washington, DC  20460

    Petitions containing  confidential  information should be sent with

only the  inner envelope marked  "Treatability Variance" and "Confidential

Business  Information" and with  the contents marked  in accordance with the
                                    1-42

-------
requirements of 40 CFR Part 2 (41 FR 36902,  September 1,  1976,  amended by

43 FR 4000).

    The petition should contain the following information:

    1.    The petitioner's name and address.

    2.    A statement of the petitioner's interest in the  proposed action.

    3.    The name, address, and EPA identification number of the facility
         generating the waste, and the name  and telephone number of the
         plant contact.

    4.    The process(es) and feed materials  generating the  waste and an
         assessment of whether such process(es) or feed materials may
         produce a waste that is not covered by the demonstration.

    5.    A description of the waste sufficient for comparison with the
         waste considered by the Agency in developing BOAT, and an
         estimate of the average and maximum monthly and  annual
         quantities of waste covered by the  demonstration.  (Note:  The
         petitioner should consult the appropriate BOAT background
         document for determining the characteristics of  the wastes
         considered in developing treatment  standards.)

    6.    If the waste has been treated, a description of  the system used
         for treating the waste, including the process design and
         operating conditions.  The petition should include the reasons
         the treatment standards are not achievable and/or  why the
         petitioner believes the standards are based on inappropriate
         technology for treating the waste.  (Note:  The petitioner should
         refer to the BOAT background document as guidance  for
         determining the design and operating parameters  that the Agency
         used in developing treatment standards.)

    7.    A description of the alternative treatment systems examined by
         the petitioner (if any); a description of the treatment system
         deemed appropriate by the petitioner for the waste in question;
         and, as appropriate, the concentrations in the treatment
         residual or extract of the treatment residual (i.e., using the
         TCLP, where appropriate, for stabilized metals)  that can be
         achieved by applying such treatment to the waste.

    8.    A description of those parameters affecting treatment selection
         and waste characteristics that affect performance, including
         results of all analyses.  (See Section 3 for a discussion of
                                   1-43

-------
         waste characteristics affecting performance that the Agency has
         identified for the technology representing BOAT.)

    9.    The dates of the sampling and testing.

   10.    A description of the methodologies and equipment used to obtain
         representative samples.

   11.    A description of the sample handling and preparation techniques,
         including techniques used for extraction,  containerization, and
         preservation of the samples.

   12.    A description of analytical procedures used, including QA/QC
         methods.

    After receiving a petition for a variance, the Administrator may

request any additional information or waste samples that may be required

to evaluate and process the petition.  Additionally, all petitioners must

certify that the information provided to the Agency is accurate under

40 CFR 268.4(b).

    In determining whether a variance will be granted, the Agency will

first look at the design and operation of the treatment system being

used.  If EPA determines that the technology and operation are consistent

with BOAT, the Agency will evaluate  the waste to determine if the waste

matrix and/or physical parameters are such that the BOAT treatment

standards reflect treatment of this  waste.  Essentially, this latter

analysis will concern the parameters affecting treatment selection and

waste characteristics affecting performance parameters.

    In cases where BOAT is based on  more than one technology, the

petitioner will need to demonstrate  that the treatment  standard cannot be

met using any of the technologies, or that none of the  technologies are
                                    1-44

-------
appropriate for treatment of the waste.  After the Agency has made a



determination on the petition, the Agency's findings will be published in



the Federal Register, followed by a 30-day period for public comment.



After review of the public comments, EPA will publish its final



determination in the Federal Register as an amendment to the treatment



standards in 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart D.
                                    1-45

-------
              2. INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION



    According to 40 CFR 261.32, the following coking industry waste is



subject to the land disposal restriction provisions of HSWA:



    K087:   Decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations.



    This section discusses  the  industry affected by the land disposal



restrictions for K087 waste, describes the process that generates the



waste, and presents available waste characterization data.



2.1    Industry Affected and Process Description



    The coking  industry is  composed of producers of coke and coke



byproducts.  The Agency estimates that 36 facilities in the coking



industry potentially generate K087 waste.  The locations of these



facilities are provided .in  Tables 2-1 and 2-2, by State and by EPA



region, respectively.  These facilities fall under Standard Industrial



Classification  (SIC) Code 3312.



    Coke and coke  byproducts result from the carbonization of coal, a



process by which coal  is thermally pyrolyzed.  Coke serves principally as



a fuel and reducing agent in the making of iron and steel.  The



byproducts--coal tar,  light oil, ammonia liquor, and coke oven gas--are



further refined into commodity  chemicals such as ammonium sulfate,



benzene, toluene,  xylene, naphthalene, anthracene, creosote, and road tar.



    In the carbonization process, coal is charged to coke ovens and



heated for 15 to 30 hours at temperatures ranging from 500 to 1,100°C



(Austin 1984, Perch 1979).  Coking temperatures will vary with the coking



time, the rate  of  underfiring,  the coal mixture, the moisture content of
                                     2-1

-------
1779g p.l
        Table 2-1  Number of Coke Plants Listed by State
State
Alabama
11 11 no is
Indiana
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Missouri
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Number of plants
5
2
6
1
1
3
1
2
5
5
2
1
1
1
Reference:  USDOE 1988.
                               2-2

-------
1779g p.2
      Table 2-2  Number of Coke Plants Listed by EPA Region












               EPA region        Number of plants









                 II                      2





                III                      8





                 IV                      8





                  V                     16





                VII                      1





               VIII                      1








Reference:  USDOE 1988.
                              2-3

-------
the coal,  and the desired properties of the coke and byproducts.   Gases



evolved from the coke oven--water vapor, tar, light oil,  and other



compounds--are routed to a collection main and subsequently cooled.   The



condensates and any entrained particulates are channeled  to a decanter



tank,  where tar products and ammonia liquor are separated according  to



density.  The heavy residue (sludge) that settles to the  bottom of the



decanter tank is K087 waste.  The process is depicted in  Figure 2-1.



2.2    Waste Characterization



    K087 waste generally contains from 6 to 11 percent water and from 89



to 94 percent coal tar compounds, chiefly aromatic hydrocarbons such  as



those found in pitch; anthracene oil; and light, middle,  and heavy oils.



BOAT list semivolatile organics are present at concentrations up to



28 percent; concentrations of BOAT list volatile organics measure



approximately 0.1 percent.  BOAT list metals and inorganics other than



metals are present in quantities less than 0.05 percent.   Table 2-3



provides an approximation of the composition of K087 waste, which is



based on the available waste characterization data summarized in



Table 2-4.  Waste characteristics that may affect treatment selection or



performance include (1) the high heating value, 13,000 to 15,300 Btu/lb;



(2) the ash content,  2.7 to 9.7 percent; and (3) the total  organic carbon



(TOC)  content, 76 to 86 percent.
                                    2-4

-------
                                               PURIFIED COKE
                                                OVEN GASES
  COAL
               COKE OVENS
                             COKE OVEN GASES
                              AND ENTRAINED
                              PARTICULATES
ro
i
tn
 COOLER
                  COKE
              CONDENSATES
              AND ENTRAINED
              PARTICULATES
 DECANTER
             AMMONIA
              LIQUOR
                                                                                                TAR
FLUSHING
 LIQUOR
K087  WASTE
                  FIGURE  2-1   SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM  OF K087 WASTE GENERATING  PROCESS

-------
1779g p.27
             Table 2-3  Approximate Composition of K087 Waste
Constituent                                              Concentration  (%)
Non-BDAT organics (chiefly coal tar aromatic hydrocarbons)      60-80
BOAT semivolatile organics                                     15-28
Water                                                           6-11
BOAT volatile organics                                          <0.1
BOAT metals and inorganics                                     <0.05
                                           2-6

-------
1779g p.3
                                    Table  2-4  K087 Waste Composition and Other Data
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (mq/kq)
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes
BOAT Semivolat i le Orqanics (mq/kq)
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz ( a (anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzo ( b ) f luoranthene
Benzofghi Jperylene
Benzof k. ) f luoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
D ibenzo(ah)anthracene
2 . 4-D itnethy Ipheno 1
F luoranthene
F luorene
lndeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
BOAT Metals (mq/kq)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl lium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thall ium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration (source)


6
<2
17
3

10000
<894
6700
5400
310
<982
<894
<1026
3800
4700
<894
1200
<894
<894
<982
7000
2100
64000
15000
1200
5900

<2.0
1.9
<20
<0.5
1.7
<2.0
<2.5
64
2.9
<4.0
1.2
<5.0
2.1
<5.0
50
(D

- 212
- <10
152
123

- 13000
- <1026
- 8100
- 7500

- 5300
- <1026
- 9300
- 5400
- 6500
- <1026
- 1900
- <1026
- <1026
- 1200
- 9300
- 3100
- 81000
- 41000
- 1800
- 9700


- 6.1


- 2.1

- 4.5
- 85
- 4.2
- 4.6
- 1.6

- 2.7

- 66
(2)

173
-
97
79

24200
<1290
14200
6790
-
8650
2560
-
4640
6690
<1290
<1290
<1290
<1290
28200
14200
2370
49500
43200
2380
14800

_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(3)

410
-
224
233

24100
564
8450
8465
-
10345a
3050
10340a
6030
4995
396
1350
1000
256
24750
11950
3145
40800
34750
1970
15800

_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(4)


-
-
700

20500
380
10400
7800
-
5400
6700
5500
8450
7950
<400
5450
1750
<400
25000
8050
6150
95000
36000
5900
20500

_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(5)

400
-
260
260

21500
900
10400
4600
-
1900
1500
2900
5500
4480
425
1850
580
820
13800
7100
1600
51500
19000
3150
13500

_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(6) (7)


-
-
-

.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8000
-
-
-
-
-
17000
-
-
36000
-
490
15000

_ _
0.28-20
-
-
-
-
-
31-154
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
                                                           2-7

-------
1779g p.4
                                                 Table 2-4  (Continued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
                                           (1)
                                                                  Concentration  (source)
                                                          (2)
         (3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
BOAT Inorganics other than Metals (mg/kg)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
                                        17.9  -  228
                                        0.18  -  0.38
                                         275  -  323
Non-BDAT Volati1e Orqanics (mg/kg)

Styrene                                  3.4 -  26

Non-BDAT Semivolati1e Orqanics (mg/kg)

                                        5000 -  6800

                                        6200 -  9400

Other Parameters
Dibenzofuran
1-HethyInaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Ash content (%)                          2.7 - 9.7
Heating value (Btu/lb)                 14800 - 15300
Total halogens as chlorine (%)          0.02  - 0.06
Oil and grease (%)
Percent water (%)                        5.7 - 11.3
Total organic carbon (%)                76.0 - 86.0
Total organic halides (mg/kg)           25.8 - 87.7
Total solids (%)                          87 - 91
Viscosity
                                                                    155
7190
         6010
 4650
 8500
  4200
 10200
                                                                            37
                                                                                      27
                                        0.9  -  2.7
                                      13000  -  14400

                                          22.5
                                                                                                                3.35
                                                                                                                20
aBenzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene.
 Because of the high concentration of filterable solids in the waste,  viscosity values  could  not  be  determined.
- = Not analyzed.

Source references:
(1)  USEPA 1988a.
(2)  Memorandum. Coke By-Product Sampling Data Summary, from Brenda Shine.  Midwest  Research  Institute,  to  Edwin  F.
     Abrams,  USEPA. September 29.  1987.  Coke Plant No.  6,  Record Sample.
(3)  Ibid.. Coke Plant No.  1. Record Sample.
(4)  Ibid.. Samples CLS Run 1.
(5)  Ibid.. Samples CU-1.
(6)  Environ 1985.
(7)  Letters from Earle F.  Young.  Jr.. American Iron and Steel Institute,  to Dwight Mlustick.  USEPA.  December 2.
     1986, and to Steve E.  Silverman. USEPA,  July 25.  1986;  letter and attachment  from  Edward M.  Bryan.  Petar
     Energy Corporation, to Valdas Adamkus.  USEPA. Region  V.  March 5,  1982.
                                                           2-8

-------
             3.   APPLICABLE/DEMONSTRATED  TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES



    This section identifies the applicable and demonstrated treatment



technologies for K087 waste.  Detailed discussions are provided for the



technologies that are demonstrated.



3.1    Applicable Treatment Technologies



    As shown in Section 2.2, K087 waste contains BOAT list organic



constituents and much lesser concentrations of BOAT list metals.  The



Agency has identified fuel  substitution and incineration as applicable



technologies for treating the BOAT list organic constituents in K087



waste.  As treatment processes, fuel substitution and incineration have



the same purpose:  to thermally destroy the organic constituents in the



waste by converting them  to carbon dioxide, water, and other combustion



products.  Fuel  substitution, in addition to destroying organic



constituents, uses the waste as a substitute for conventional fuels



burned in high-temperature  industrial processes.



    Both fuel substitution  and incineration result in residuals that may



require treatment because of their metal content.  Specifically, the



residuals consist of ash  and scrubber water.  Note that residuals



generated by fuel substitution technologies that meet certain EPA



facility requirements, and  for which 50 percent of the fuel  is coal, may



not be subject  to any treatment standards under the Bevill exemption  (see



52 FR 17012, May 6, 1987).  EPA's determination regarding the application



of the Bevill exemption will be addressed in EPA's rulemaking for burning



hazardous wastes in boilers and industrial  furnaces.
                                     3-1

-------
    The applicable technology for treatment of metals in the scrubber



water is a wastewater treatment system that includes (1) a chemical



precipitation step to precipitate metals out of solution,  and (2) a



settling step or a sludge filtration step to remove the precipitated



residues from solution.



    For the metals in the ash and in the precipitated residues from



chemical precipitation, the only applicable technology that EPA has



identified is stabilization.  The purpose of stabilization is to



immobilize the metal  constituents of concern,  thereby reducing their



1eaching potential.



    In addition to the specific organic and metal  treatment technologies,



EPA has also identified recycling as applicable to the K087 waste.



Recycling involves treating the K087 waste for (1) reuse in the coke



ovens or (2) production of a commercial tar product.  Treatment prior to



reuse would involve,  for example, mixing the waste with coke oven



flushing liquor, grinding the material in a ball  mill, and mixing the



milled material with coal to be fed to the coke ovens for coke



production.  Alternatively, the waste may be added to hot tar, ground in



a ball mill, and packaged as a salable product.



3.2    Demonstrated Technologies



    Fuel substitution and incineration, the applicable technologies for



BOAT list organics in K087 waste, are "demonstrated" on K087 waste.  Data



submitted by industry indicate that fuel substitution and incineration



are commonly practiced on a full-scale basis.   EPA has identified one
                                    3-2

-------
facility that uses fuel substitution and four facilities that use offsite



incineration.  Wastes from three of these facilities undergo multiple



hearth incineration.  While the Agency believes that many other



facilities also use fuel substitution and incineration, it has



insufficient information to estimate the number of such facilities.



    Fuel substitution and incineration are discussed in detail in



Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, respectively.  Performance data for rotary kiln



incineration are presented in Section 4.



    The Agency has not  identified any facilities using chemical



precipitation followed  by settling or, alternatively,  sludge filtration



on the scrubber water generated by rotary kiln incineration of K087



waste.  This treatment, however, is demonstrated on a  metal-bearing



wastewater having similar parameters that affect treatment selection, and



thus the Agency considers this treatment to be demonstrated for the K087



scrubber water.  Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 describe chemical



precipitation, settling, and sludge filtration, as well as the parameters



affecting the selection of these treatment technologies.  Performance



data for chemical precipitation and sludge filtration  of the



metal-bearing wastewater are presented in Section 4.   A comparison of



these data to those of  the K087 scrubber water shows that the parameters



affecting treatment selection are similar.



    The Agency has not  identified any facilities using stabilization on



the treatment sludge that would be generated by treatment of K087



scrubber water or the ash generated by rotary  kiln incineration of K087



waste.  Stabilization,  however, is used on a full-scale basis to treat





                                    3-3

-------
wastes (e.g., F006 waste) that contain these metals and that have



comparable concentrations of filterable solids, total  organic carbon, and



oil and grease.  Thus, the Agency considers stabilization to be



demonstrated for both the K087 treatment sludge and the ash.



Stabilization is described in Section 3.2.5.  Performance data for



stabilization of F006 waste are presented in Section 4.  These



performance data include data on characteristics of the untreated F006



waste.



    EPA has identified seven facilities that recycle K087 waste on a



full-scale basis.  The extent to which recycling is demonstrated is of



concern, however, because, unlike the other technologies, recycling may



adversely affect coke or tar product quality at some facilities.  The



Agency has little data available to assist in defining which



subcategories of K087 waste can be recycled.  Specific data were



submitted by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) concerning the



practice of recycling K087 wastes (51 FR 17019, May 6, 1987).  These data



characterize the final coke and coal tar products that result from



production which does not involve recycling of K087 waste and production



which does involve such recycling.  These data indicate that recycling



has little, if any, impact on the amount of hazardous  constituents in the



coke or coal tar, and thus lead the Agency to infer that recycling is not



likely to affect product quality.  However, the AISI data provided



characterization for only one sample of untreated K087 decanter tar
                                    3-4

-------
sludge.  These data, therefore, do not provide sufficient evidence to



support the premise that recycling can be accomplished for all K087



wastes.



3.2.1  Fuel Substitution



    Fuel substitution involves using hazardous waste as a fuel in



industrial furnaces or in boilers for generation of steam.  The hazardous



waste may be blended with other nonhazardous wastes (e.g., municipal



sludge) and/or fossil fuels.



    (1)  Applicability and use of fuel substitution.  Fuel substitution



has been used with  industrial waste solvents, refinery wastes, synthetic



fibers/petrochemical wastes, and waste oils.  It can also be used when



combusting other waste types produced during the manufacture of



Pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, and pesticides.  These wastes can be



handled in a solid, liquid, or gaseous form.



    The most common types of units in which waste fuels are burned are



industrial furnaces and  industrial boilers.  Industrial furnaces  include



a diverse variety of industrial processes that produce heat and/or



products by burning fuels.  They include blast furnaces,  smelters, and



coke ovens.  Industrial  boilers are units wherein fuel is used to produce



steam  for process and plant use.  Industrial boilers typically use coal,



oil, or gas as the  primary fuel source.



    A  number of parameters affect the selection of  fuel substitution.



These  parameters are as  follows:
                                     3-5

-------
    •  Halogen content of the waste;

    •  Inorganic solids content (ash content) of the waste,
       particularly heavy metals;

    •  Heating value of the waste;

    •  Viscosity of the waste (for liquids);

    •  Filterable solids concentration (for liquids); and

    •  Sulfur content.

    If halogenated organics are burned, halogenated acids and free

halogen are among the products of combustion.  These released corrosive

gases may require subsequent treatment prior to venting to the

atmosphere.  Also, halogens and halogenated acids formed during

combustion are likely to severely corrode boiler tubes and other process

equipment.  For thi.s reason, halogenated wastes are blended  into fuels

only at very low concentrations to minimize such problems.  High chlorine

content can also lead to the incidental production (at very  low

concentrations) of other hazardous compounds such as polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs),

polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and chlorinated phenols.

    High inorganic solids content (i.e.,  ash content) of wastes may cause

two problems:  (1) scaling in the boiler and (2) particulate  air

emissions.  Scaling results from deposition of inorganic solids on the

walls of the boiler.  Particulate emissions are produced by

noncombustible inorganic constituents that flow out of the boiler with

the gaseous combustion products.  Because of these problems,  wastes with
                                    3-6

-------
significant concentrations of inorganic materials are not usually handled



in boilers unless the boilers have an air pollution control system.



    Industrial furnaces vary in their tolerance to inorganic



constituents.  Heavy metal concentrations, found in both halogenated and



nonhalogenated wastes used as fuel, can cause environmental concern



because they may be emitted in the gaseous emissions from the combustion



process, in the ash residues, or in any produced solids.  The



partitioning of the heavy metals to these residual streams primarily



depends on the volatility of the metal, waste matrix, and furnace design.



    The heating value of the waste must be sufficiently high (either



alone or in combination with other fuels) to maintain combustion



temperatures consistent with efficient waste destruction and operation of



the boiler or furnace.  For many applications, only supplemental fuels



having minimum heating values of 4,400 to 5,600 kcal/kg (8,000 to 10,000



Btu/lb) are considered to be feasible.  Below this value, the unblended



fuel would not be likely to maintain  a stable flame, and its combustion



would release insufficient energy  to  provide needed steam generation



potential  in the boiler or the necessary  heat for an industrial furnace.



Some wastes with heating values of less than 4,400 kcal/kg  (8,000 Btu/lb)



can be used  if sufficient auxiliary fuel  is employed to support



combustion or if special designs are  incorporated into the combustion



device.  Occasionally, for wastes  with heating values higher than virgin



fuels, blending with  auxiliary fuel may be required to prevent



overheating  or overcharging the combustion device.
                                     3-7

-------
    In combustion devices designed to burn liquid fuels,  the viscosity of



liquid waste must be low enough that the liquid can be atomized in the



combustion chamber.   If the viscosity is too high,  heating of storage



tanks may be required prior to combustion.  For atomization of liquids, a



viscosity of 165 centistokes (750 Saybolt Seconds Universal (SSU)) or



less is typically required.



    Filterable material suspended in the liquid fuel may  prevent or



hinder pumping or atomization.



    Sulfur content in the waste may prevent burning of the waste because



of potential atmospheric emissions of sulfur oxides.  For instance, there



are proposed Federal sulfur oxide emission regulations for certain new



source industrial boilers (51 FR 22385).  Air pollution control devices



are available to remove sulfur oxides from the stack gases.



    (2)  Underlying  principles of operation.  For a boiler and most



industrial furnaces, there are two distinct principles of operation.



Initially, energy in the form of heat is transferred to the waste to



achieve volatilization of the various waste constituents.  For liquids,



volatilization energy may also be supplied by using pressurized



atomization.  The energy used to pressurize the liquid waste allows the



atomized waste to break into smaller particles, thus enhancing its rate



of volatilization.  The volatilized constituents then require additional



energy to destabilize the chemical bonds and allow the constituents to



react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water vapor.  The energy



needed to destabilize the chemical bonds is referred to as the energy of



activation.





                                    3-8

-------
    (3)  Description of the fuel substitution process.  As stated,  a



number of industrial applications can use fuel substitution.   Therefore,



there is no one process description that will fit all of these



applications.  However, the following section provides a general



description of industrial  kilns  (one form of  industrial furnace) and



industrial boilers.



         (a)  Kilns.  Combustible wastes have the potential to be used as



fuel in kilns and,  for waste  liquids, are often used with oil to co-fire



kilns.  Coal-fired  kilns  are  capable of handling some solid wastes.  In



the case of cement  kilns,  there  are usually no residuals requiring land



disposal since any  ash formed becomes part of the product or is removed



by particulate collection  systems and recycled back  to the kiln.  The



only residuals may  be low  levels of unburned  gases escaping with



combustion products.  If  this is the case, air pollution control devices



may be required.



    Three types of  kilns  are  particularly applicable:  cement kilns, lime



kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns.



          (i)  Cement kilns.   The cement kiln  is a rotary furnace, which



is a refractory-lined steel shell used to calcine a  mixture of calcium,



silicon, aluminum,  iron,  and  magnesium-containing minerals.  The kiln is



normally fired by coal or  oil.   Liquid and solid combustible wastes may



then serve as auxiliary  fuel.  Temperatures within the kiln are typically



between 1,380 and  1,540"C  (2,500 to 2,800°F).  To date, only



liquid hazardous wastes  have  been burned  in cement kilns.
                                     3-9

-------
    Most cement kilns have a dry participate collection device (i.e.,



either an electrostatic precipitator or baghouse), with the collected  fly



ash recycled back to the kiln.  Buildup of metals or other



noncombustibles is prevented through their incorporation in the product



cement.  Since many types of cement require a source of chloride,  most



halogenated.1iquid hazardous wastes currently can be burned in cement



kilns.  Available information shows that scrubbers are not used.



         (ii)  Lime kilns.  Quick-lime (CaO) is manufactured in a



calcination process using limestone (CaCO ) or dolomite (CaCO  and



MgCO ).  These raw materials are also heated in a refractory-lined



rotary kiln, typically to temperatures of 980 to 1,260°C (1,800 to



2,300°F).  Lime kilns are less likely to burn hazardous wastes than



are cement kilns because product lime is often added to potable water



systems.  Only one lime kiln currently burns hazardous waste in the U.S.



That particular facility sells its product lime for use as flux or as



refractory in blast furnaces.



    As with cement kilns, any collected fly ash is recycled back to the



lime kiln, resulting in no residual streams from the kiln.  Available



information shows that scrubbers are not used.



         (iii)  Lightweight aggregate kilns.  Lightweight aggregate kilns



heat clay to produce an expanded lightweight inorganic material used in



Portland cement formulations and other applications.  The kiln has a



normal temperature range of 1,100 to 1,150°C (2,000 to 2,100°F).



Lightweight aggregate kilns are less amenable to combustion of hazardous



wastes as fuels than the other kilns described above because of the lack





                                    3-10

-------
of material in the kiln to adsorb halogens.  As a result,  burning of



halogenated organics in these kilns would likely require afterburners to



ensure complete destruction of the halogenated organics and scrubbers to



control acid gas production.  Such controls would produce a wastewater



residual stream subject to treatment standards.



         (b)  Industrial boilers.  A boiler is a closed vessel in which



water  is transformed into steam by the application of heat.  Normally,



heat is supplied by the combustion of pulverized coal, fuel oil,  or gas.



These  fuels are fired  into a combustion chamber with nozzles and  burners



that provide mixing with air.  Liquid wastes, and granulated solid wastes



in the case of grate-fired boilers, can be burned as auxiliary fuel in a



boiler.  Few grate-fired boilers burn hazardous wastes, however.   For



liquid-fired boilers,  residuals requiring land disposal are generated



only when  the boiler is shut down and cleaned.  This is generally done



once or twice per year.  Other residuals from liquid-fired boilers would



be the gas emission stream, which would consist of any products of



incomplete combustion,  along with the normal combustion products.  For



example, chlorinated wastes would produce acid gases.  If this is the



case,  air  pollution control devices may be required.  For solid-fired



boilers, an ash normally is generated.  This ash may contain residual



amounts of organics from the blended waste/fuels, as well as



noncombustible materials.  Land disposal of this ash would require



compliance with applicable BOAT treatment standards.
                                    3-11

-------
    (4)  Waste characteristics affecting performance.  For cement kilns



and lime kilns and for lightweight aggregate kilns burning nonhalogenated



wastes (i.e., no scrubber is needed to control acid gases), no residual



waste streams would be produced.  Any noncombustible material in the



waste would leave the kiln in the product stream.  As a result,  in



transferring standards EPA would not examine waste characteristics



affecting performance but rather would determine the applicability of



fuel substitution.  That is, EPA would investigate the parameters



affecting treatment selection.  As mentioned previously, for kilns these



parameters are Btu content, percent filterable solids, halogenated



organics content, viscosity, and sulfur content.



    Lightweight aggregate kilns burning halogenated organics and boilers



burning wastes containing any noncombustibles will produce residual



streams subject to treatment standards.  In determining whether fuel



substitution is likely to achieve the same level of performance on an



untreated waste as on a previously treated waste, EPA will examine:



(1) relative volatility of the waste constituents, (2) the heat transfer



characteristics (for solids), and (3) the activation energy for



combustion.



         (a)  Relative volatility.  The term relative volatility (a)



refers to the ease with which a substance present in a solid or liquid



waste will  vaporize from that waste upon application of heat from an



external source.  Hence, it bears a relationship to the equilibrium vapor



pressure of the substance.
                                    3-12

-------
    EPA recognizes that the relative volatilities cannot be measured or


calculated directly for the types of wastes generally treated in an


industrial boiler or furnace.  The Agency believes that the best measure


of relative volatility is the boiling point of the various hazardous


constituents, and will, therefore, use this parameter in assessing


volatility of the organic constituents.


          (b)  Heat transfer characteristics.  Consistent with the


underlying principles of combustion in aggregate kilns or boilers, a


major factor with regard to whether a particular constituent will


volatilize is the transfer of heat through the waste.  In the case of


industrial boilers burning solid  fuels, heat is transferred through the


waste by  three mechanisms:  radiation, convection, and conduction.  For a


given boiler it can be assumed that the type of waste will have a minimal


impact on the heat transferred from radiation.  With regard to


convection, EPA believes that the range of wastes treated would exhibit


similar properties with regard to the amount of heat transferred by

                                  i
convection.  Therefore, EPA will  not evaluate radiation convection heat


transfer  properties of wastes in  determining similar treatability.  For


solids, the third heat transfer mechanism, conductivity,  is the one


principally operative or most likely to vary between wastes.


    Using thermal conductivity measurements as part of a  treatability


comparison for two different wastes through a given boiler or furnace is


most meaningful when applied to wastes that are homogeneous.  As wastes


exhibit greater degrees of nonhomogeneity, thermal conductivity becomes
                                    3-13

-------
less accurate in predicting treatability because the measurement



essentially reflects heat flow through regions having the greatest



conductivity (i.e., the path of least resistance and not heat flow



through all parts of the waste).  Nevertheless, EPA has not identified a



better alternative to thermal conductivity, even for wastes that are



nonhomogeneous.



    Other parameters considered for predicting heat transfer



characteristics  were Btu value, specific heat, and ash content.   These



parameters can neither better account for nonhomogeneity nor better



predict heat transferability through the waste.



         (c)  Activation energy.  Given an excess of oxygen, an organic



waste in an industrial furnace or boiler would be expected to convert to



carbon dioxide and water provided that the activation energy is



achieved.  Activation energy is the quantity of heat (energy) needed to



destabilize molecular bonds and create reactive intermediates so that the



oxidation (combustion) reaction will proceed to completion.  As a measure



of activation energy, EPA is using bond dissociation energies:   In



theory, the bond dissociation energy would be equal to the activation



energy; in practice, however, this is not always the case.



    In some instances, bond energies will not be available and will have



to be estimated, or other energy effects (e.g., vibrational) and other



reactions will have a significant influence on activation energy.



Because of the shortcomings of bond energies in estimating activation



energy, EPA analyzed other waste characteristic parameters to determine
                                    3-14

-------
whether these parameters would provide a better basis for transferring



treatment standards from an untested to a tested waste.   These parameters



included heat of combustion, heat of formation, use of available kinetic



data to predict activation energies, and general structural class.   All



of these parameters were rejected for the reasons provided below.



    The heat of combustion measures only the difference in energy of the



products and reactants;  it does not provide information on the transition



state  (i.e., the energy  input needed to initiate the reaction).  Heat of



formation is used as a tool to predict whether reactions are likely to



proceed; however, there  are a significant number of hazardous



constituents for which these data are not available.  Use of available



kinetic data was rejected because while such data could be used to



calculate some free energy values (&G), they could not be used for



the wide range of hazardous constituents.  Finally, EPA decided not to



use structural classes because the Agency believes that evaluation of



bond dissociation energies allows for a more direct comparison.



    (5)  Design and operating parameters.



         (a)  Design parameters.  Cement kilns and lime kilns, along with



aggregate kilns burning  nonhalogenated wastes, produce no residual



streams.  Their design and operation is such that any wastes that are



incompletely destroyed will be contained in the product.  As a result,



the Agency  will not look at design and operating values for such devices



since  treatment, per se, cannot be measured through detection of
                                    3-15

-------
constituents in residual  streams.   In this instance, it is important



merely to ensure that the waste is appropriate for combustion in the kiln



and that the kiln is operated in a manner that will  produce a usable



product.



    Specifically, cement, lime, and aggregate kilns  are demonstrated only



on liquid hazardous wastes.  Such wastes must be sufficiently free of



filterable solids to avoid plugging the burners at the hot end of the



kiln.  Viscosity also must be low enough for the waste to be injected



into the kiln through the burners.  The sulfur content is not a concern



unless the concentration in the waste is sufficiently high as to exceed



Federal, State, or local  air pollution standards promulgated for



industrial boilers.



    The design parameters that normally affect the operation of an



industrial boiler (and aggregate kilns with residual streams) with



respect to hazardous waste treatment are (1) the design temperature,



(2) the design retention time of the waste in the combustion chamber, and



(3) turbulence in the combustion chamber.  Evaluation of these parameters



would be important in determining whether an industrial boiler or'



industrial furnace is adequately designed for effective treatment of



hazardous wastes.  The rationale for selection of these three parameters



is given below.



         (i)  Design temperature.   Industrial boilers are generally



designed based on their steam generation potential  (Btu output).  This



factor is related to the design combustion temperature, which in turn



depends on the amount of fuel burned and its Btu value.  The fuel feed





                                    3-16

-------
rates and combustion temperatures of industrial boilers are generally



fixed based on the Btu values of fuels normally handled (e.g., No. 2



versus No. 6 fuel oils).  When wastes are to be blended with fossil fuels



for combustion, the blending, based on Btu values, must be such that the



resulting Btu value of the mixture is close to that of the fuel value



used in design of the boiler.  Industrial furnaces also are designed to



operate at specific ranges of temperature in order to produce the desired



product (e.g., lightweight aggregate).  The blended waste/fuel mixture



should be capable of maintaining the design temperature range.



          (ii)  Design retention time.  A sufficient retention time of



combustion products is normally necessary to ensure that the hazardous



substances being combusted (or formed during combustion) are completely



oxidized.  Retention times on the order of a few  seconds are generally



needed at normal operating conditions.  For industrial furnaces as well



as boilers, the retention time is a function of the size of the furnace



and the fuel feed rates.  For most boilers and furnaces, the retention



time usually exceeds a few seconds.



          (iii)  Turbulence.  Boilers are designed so that fuel and air



are intimately mixed.  This  helps ensure that complete combustion takes



place.  The shape of the boiler and the method of fuel and air feed



influence the turbulence required for good mixing.  Industrial furnaces



also are  designed for turbulent mixing where fuel and air are mixed.



          (b)  Operating parameters.  The operating parameters that



normally  affect the performance of an industrial  boiler and many



industrial furnaces with respect to treatment of  hazardous wastes are





                                    3-17

-------
(1) air feed rate, (2) fuel feed rate, (3) steam pressure or rate of
production, and (4) temperature.  EPA believes that these four parameters
will be used to determine whether an industrial boiler burning blended
fuels containing hazardous.waste constituents is properly operated.  The
rationale for selection of these four operating parameters is given
below.  Most industrial furnaces will monitor similar parameters, but
some exceptions are noted.
         (i)  Air feed rate.  An important operating parameter in boilers
and many industrial furnaces is the oxygen content in the flue gas, which
is a function of the air feed rate.  Stable combustion of a fuel
generally occurs within a specific range of air-to-fuel ratios.  An
oxygen analyzer in the combustion gases can be used to control the feed
ratio of air to fuel to ensure complete thermal destruction of the waste
and efficient operation of the boiler.  When necessary, the air feed rate
can be increased or decreased to maintain proper fuel-to-oxygen ratios.
Some industrial furnaces do not completely combust fuels (e.g., coke
ovens and blast furnaces); therefore, oxygen concentration in the flue
gas is a meaningless variable.
         (ii)  Fuel feed rate.  The rate at which fuel is injected into
the boiler or industrial furnace will determine the thermal output of the
system per unit of time (Btu/hr).  If steam is produced, steam pressure
monitoring will indirectly determine whether the fuel feed rate is
adequate.  However, various velocity and mass measurement devices can be
used to monitor fuel flow directly.
                                    3-18

-------
         (iii)  Steam pressure or rate of production.  Steam pressure in



boilers provides a direct measure of the thermal output of the system and



is directly monitored by use of in-system pressure gauges.  Increases or



decreases in steam pressure can be effected by increasing or decreasing



the fuel and air feed rates within certain operating design limits.   Most



industrial furnaces do not produce steam, but instead produce a product



(e.g., cement, aggregate) and monitor the rate of production.



         (iv)  Temperature.  Temperatures are monitored and controlled in



industrial boilers to ensure the quality and flow rate of steam.



Therefore, complex monitoring systems are frequently installed in the



combustion unit to provide a direct reading of temperature.  The



efficiency of combustion in industrial boilers is dependent on combustion



temperatures.  Temperature may be adjusted to design settings by



increasing or decreasing the air and fuel feed rates.



    Wastes should not be added to primary fuels until the boiler



temperature reaches the minimum needed for destruction of the wastes.



Temperature instrumentation and control  should be designed to stop waste



addition in the event of process upsets.



    Monitoring and control of temperature in industrial furnaces are also



critical to the product quality.  For example, lime, cement, or aggregate



kilns require minimum operating temperatures.  Kilns have very high



thermal inertia in the refractory and in-process product, high residence



times, and high air feed rates, so that  even in the case of a momentary



stoppage of fuel flow to the kiln, organic constituents are likely to
                                    3-19

-------
continue to be destroyed.  The main operational  control required for



wastes burned in kilns is to stop waste flow in the event of low kiln



temperature, loss of electrical power to the combustion air fan, and loss



of primary fuel  flow.



         (v)  Other operating parameters.   In addition to the four



operating parameters discussed above, EPA considered and then discarded



one additional parameter—fuel -to-waste blending ratios.  While the



blending is done to yield a uniform Btu content fuel, blending ratios



will vary widely depending on the Btu content of the wastes and the fuels



being used.



3.2.2  Incineration



    This section addresses the commonly used incineration technologies:



liquid injection, rotary kiln, fluidized bed, and fixed hearth.  A



discussion is provided regarding the applicability of these technologies,



the underlying principles of operation, a technology description, waste



characteristics that affect performance, and, finally, important design



and operating parameters.  As appropriate, the subsections are divided by



type of incineration unit.



    (1)  Applicability and use of incineration.



         (a)  Liquid injection.  Liquid injection is applicable to wastes



that have viscosity values low enough that the waste can be atomized in



the combustion chamber.  A range of literature maximum viscosity values



are reported, with the low being 100 SSU and the high being 10,000 SSU.



It is important to note that viscosity is temperature dependent so that
                                    3-20

-------
while liquid injection may not be applicable to a waste at ambient



conditions, it may be applicable when the waste is heated.  Other factors



that affect the use of liquid injection are particle size and the



presence of suspended solids.  Both of these waste parameters can cause



plugging of the burner nozzle.



         (b)  Rotary kiln/fluidized bed/fixed hearth.  These incineration



technologies are applicable to a wide range of hazardous wastes.  They



can be used on wastes that contain high or low total organic content,



high or low filterable solids, various viscosity ranges, and a range of



other waste parameters.   EPA has not found these technologies to be



demonstrated on wastes that are composed essentially of metals with low



organic concentrations.   In addition, the Agency expects that air



emissions from incinerating some of the high metal content wastes may not



be compatible with existing and future air emission limits without



emission controls far more extensive than those currently used.



    (2)  Underlying principles of operation.



         (a)  Liquid injection.  The basic operating principle of this



incineration technology  is that incoming liquid wastes are volatilized



and then additional heat  is supplied to the waste to destabilize the



chemical bonds.  Once the chemical bonds are broken, these constituents



react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water vapor.  The energy



needed to destabilize the bonds is referred to as the energy of



activation.
                                    3-21

-------
         (b)  Rotary kiln and fixed hearth.   There are two distinct



principles of operation for these incineration technologies,  one for each



of the chambers involved.  In the primary chamber, energy, in the form of



heat, is transferred to the waste to achieve volatilization of the



various organic waste constituents.  During this volatilization process



some of the organic constituents will oxidize to carbon dioxide and water



vapor.  In the secondary chamber, additional heat is supplied to overcome



the energy requirements needed to destabilize the chemical bonds and



allow the constituents to react with excess oxygen to form carbon dioxide



and water vapor.   The principle of operation for the secondary chamber is



similar to that of liquid injection.



         (c)  Fluidized bed.  The principle of operation for this



incineration technology is somewhat different from that for rotary kiln



and fixed hearth incineration relative to the functions of the primary



and secondary chambers.  In fluidized bed incineration, the purpose of



the primary chamber is not only to volatilize the wastes but also to



essentially combust the waste.  Destruction of the waste organics can be



accomplished to a better degree in the primary chamber of a fluidized bed



incinerator than in that of a rotary kiln or fixed hearth incinerator



because of (1) improved heat transfer from fluidization of the waste



using forced air and (2) the fact that the fluidization process provides



sufficient oxygen and turbulence to convert the organics to carbon



dioxide and water vapor.  The secondary chamber (referred to as the



freeboard) generally does not have an afterburner; however, additional
                                    3-22

-------
time is provided for conversion of the organic constituents to carbon



dioxide, water vapor, and hydrochloric acid if chlorine is present in the



waste.



    (3)  Description of the incineration process.



         (a)  Liquid injection.  The liquid injection system is capable



of incinerating a wide range of gases and liquids.   The combustion system



has a simple design with virtually no moving parts.  A burner or nozzle



atomizes the liquid waste and  injects it into the combustion chamber,



where it burns in the presence of air or oxygen.  A forced draft system



supplies the combustion chamber with air to provide oxygen for combustion



and turbulence for mixing.  The combustion chamber is usually a cylinder



lined with refractory (i.e., heat-resistant) brick and can be fired



horizontally, vertically upward, or vertically downward.   Figure 3-1



illustrates a liquid injection incineration system.



         (b)  Rotary kiln.  A  rotary kiln is a slowly rotating,



refractory-lined cylinder that is mounted at a slight incline from the



horizontal (see Figure 3-2).   Solid wastes enter at the high end of the



kiln, and liquid or gaseous wastes enter through atomizing nozzles in the



kiln or afterburner section.   Rotation of the kiln exposes the solids to



the heat, vaporizes them, and  allows them to combust by mixing with air.



The rotation also causes the ash to move to the lower end of the kiln,



where it can be removed.  Rotary kiln systems usually have a secondary



combustion chamber or afterburner following the kiln for further



combustion of the volatilized  components of solid wastes.
                                    3-23

-------
                                                                  WATER
      AUXILIARY  FUEL
BURNER
                        AIR-
i
  LIQUID OR GASEOUS.
    WASTE INJECTION
BURNER
            PRIMARY
          COMBUSTION
            CHAMBER
AFTERBURNER
 (SECONDARY
 COMBUSTION
  CHAMBER)
 SPRAY
CHAMBER
                                                                                 GAS TO AIR
                                                                                 POLLUTION
                                                                                 CONTROL
                                                      I

                           HORIZONTALLY  FIRED
                           LIQUID INJECTION
                           INCINERATOR
                                                      ASH
                                          WATER
                                            FIGURE  3-1
                               LIQUID  INJECTION  INCINERATOR

-------
                                                                   GAS TO
                                                                AIR  POLLUTION
                                                                  CONTROL
                         AUXILIARY
                             FUEL
                                                 AFTERBURNER
   SOLID
  WASTE
INFLUENT
   FEED
MECHANISM
                                                                       COMBUSTION
                                                                       GASES
                              LIQUID OR
                              GASEOUS
                               WASTE
                              INJECTION
                                                                    ASH
                                        FIGURE 3-2
                             ROTARY  KILN  INCINERATOR
                                         3-25

-------
         (c)  Fluidized bed.  A fluidized bed incinerator consists of a



column containing inert particles such as sand,  which is referred to as



the bed.   Air,  driven by a blower,  enters the bottom of the bed to



fluidize  the sand.  Air passage through the bed  promotes rapid and



uniform mixing  of the injected waste material within the fluidized bed.



The fluidized bed has an extremely high heat capacity (approximately



three times that of flue gas at the same temperature), thereby providing



a large heat reservoir.  The injected waste reaches ignition temperature



quickly and transfers the heat of combustion back to the bed.   Continued



bed agitation by the fluidizing air allows larger particles to remain



suspended in the combustion zone (see Figure 3-3).



         (d)  Fixed hearth.  Fixed hearth incineration, also called



controlled air or starved air incineration, is another major technology



used for hazardous waste incineration.  Fixed hearth incineration is a



two-stage combustion process (see Figure 3-4).  Waste is ram-fed into the



first stage, or primary chamber, and burned at less than stoichiometric



conditions.  The resultant smoke and pyrolysis products, consisting



primarily of volatile hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, along  with the



normal products of combustion, pass to the secondary chamber.   Here,



additional air is injected to complete the combustion.  This two-stage



process generally yields low stack particulate and carbon monoxide (CO)



emissions.  The primary chamber combustion reactions and combustion gas



are maintained  at low levels by the starved air  conditions so  that



particulate entrainment and carryover are minimized.
                                    3-26

-------
  WASTE
INJECTION
                                  ASH
                                FIGURE 3-3
                     FLUIDIZED  BED  INCINERATOR
                                                            GAS TO
                                                            AIR POLLUTION
                                                            CONTROL
                                                           MAKE-UP
                                                           SAND
                                                            AIR
                                     3-27

-------
               AIR
co
ro
oo
        WASTE
      INJECTION
BURNER
                                                     AIR
                                                      GAS TO AIR
                                                      POLLUTION
                                                      CONTROL
  PRIMARY
COMBUSTION
 CHAMBER

   GRATE
                                  1
                                                     SECONDARY
                                                     COMBUSTION
                                                      CHAMBER
                                                      AUXILIARY
                                                      FUEL
                 2-STAGE FIXED HEARTH
                    INCINERATOR
                                 ASH
                                       FIGURE 3-4
                            FIXED  HEARTH INCINERATOR

-------
         (e)  Air pollution controls.  Following incineration of



hazardous wastes, combustion gases are generally further treated in an



air pollution control system.  The presence of chlorine or other halogens



in the waste requires a scrubbing or absorption step to remove



hydrochloric acid and other halo-acids from the combustion gases.  Ash in



the waste is not destroyed in the combustion process.  Depending on its



composition, ash will exit either as bottom ash, at the discharge end of



a kiln or hearth for example, or as particulate matter (fly ash)



suspended in the combustion gas stream.  Particulate emissions from most



hazardous waste combustion systems generally have particle diameters of



less than 1 micron and require high-efficiency collection devices to



minimize air emissions.   In addition, scrubber systems provide an



additional buffer against accidental releases of incompletely destroyed



waste products, which result from poor combustion efficiency or



combustion upsets, such as flameouts.



    (4)  Waste characteristics affecting performance.



         (a)  Liquid injection.  In determining whether liquid injection



is likely to achieve the  same level of performance on an untested waste



as on a previously tested waste, the Agency will compare dissociation



bond energies of the constituents in the untested and tested wastes.



This parameter is being used as a surrogate indicator of activation



energy which, as discussed previously, destabilizes molecular bonds.  In



theory, the bond dissociation energy would be equal to the activation



energy; in practice, however, this is not always the case.  Other energy
                                    3-29

-------
effects (e.g., vibrational effects, the formation of intermediates, and



interactions between different molecular bonds) may have a significant



influence on activation energy.



    Because of the shortcomings of bond energies in estimating activation



energy, EPA analyzed other waste characteristic parameters to determine



whether these parameters would provide a better basis for transferring



treatment standards from an untested waste to a tested waste.  These



parameters include heat of combustion, heat of formation, use of



available kinetic data to predict activation energies, and general



structural class.  All of these parameters were rejected for the reasons



provided below.



    The heat of combustion measures only the difference in energy of the



products and reactants; it does not provide information on the transition



state.  Heat of formation is used as a tool to predict whether reactions



are likely to proceed; however, there are a significant number of



hazardous constituents for which these data are not available.  Use of



kinetic data was rejected because these data are limited and could  not be



used to calculate free energy values (AG) for the wide range of



hazardous constituents to be addressed by this rule.  Finally, EPA



decided not to use structural classes because the Agency believes that



evaluation of bond dissociation energies allows for a more direct



determination of whether a constituent will be destabilized.



         (b)  Rotary kiln/fluidized bed/fixed hearth.  Unlike liquid



injection, these incineration technologies also generate a residual ash.



Accordingly, in determining whether these technologies are likely to





                                    3-30

-------
achieve the same level of performance on an untested waste as on a



previously tested waste, EPA would need to examine the waste



characteristics that affect volatilization of organics from the waste, as



well as destruction of the organics once volatilized.  Relative to



volatilization, EPA will examine thermal conductivity of the entire waste



and boiling point of the various constituents.  As with liquid injection,



EPA will examine bond energies in determining whether treatment standards



for scrubber water residuals can be transferred from a tested waste to an



untested waste.  Below is a discussion of how EPA arrived at thermal



conductivity and boiling point as the best method to assess



volatilization of organics from the waste; the discussion relative to



bond energies  is the same for these technologies as for liquid injection



and will not be repeated here.



         (i)   Thermal conductivity.  Consistent with the underlying



principles of  incineration, a major factor with regard to whether a



particular constituent will volatilize is the transfer of heat through



the waste.  In the case of rotary kiln, fluidized bed, and fixed hearth



incineration,  heat is transferred through the waste by three mechanisms:



radiation, convection, and conduction.  For a given incinerator, heat



transferred through various wastes by radiation is more a function of the



design  and type of incinerator than of the waste being treated.



Accordingly, the type of waste treated will have a minimal impact on the



amount  of heat transferred by radiation.  With regard to convection, EPA



also believes  that the type of heat transfer will generally be more a
                                    3-31

-------
function of the type and design of the incinerator than of the waste



itself.   However,  EPA is examining particle size as a waste



characteristic that may significantly impact the amount of heat



transferred to a waste by convection and thus impact volatilization of



the various organic compounds.  The final type of heat transfer,



conduction, is the one that EPA believes will have the greatest impact on



volatilization of organic constituents.   To measure this characteristic,



EPA will use thermal conductivity; an explanation of this parameter, as



well as how it can be measured, is provided below.



    Heat flow by conduction is proportional to the temperature gradient



across the material.  The proportionality constant is a property  of the



material and is referred to as the thermal conductivity.  (Note:   The



analytical method that EPA has identified for measurement of thermal



conductivity is named "Guarded, Comparative, Longitudinal Heat Flow



Technique"; it is described in Appendix E.)  In theory, thermal



conductivity would always provide a good indication of whether a



constituent in an untested waste would be treated to the same extent in



the primary incinerator chamber as the same constituent in a previously



tested waste.



    In practice, thermal conductivity has some limitations in assessing



the transferability of treatment standards; however, EPA has not



identified a parameter that can provide a better indication of the heat



transfer characteristics of a waste.  Below is a discussion of both the



limitations associated with thermal conductivity and the other parameters



considered.





                                    3-32

-------
    Thermal conductivity measurements, as part of a treatability



comparison for two different wastes through a single incinerator, are



most meaningful when applied to wastes that are homogeneous (i.e.,  major



constituents are essentially the same).  As wastes exhibit greater



degrees of nonhomogeneity  (e.g., significant concentration of metals in



soil), then thermal conductivity becomes less accurate in predicting



treatability because the measurement essentially reflects heat flow



through regions having the greatest conductivity (i.e., the path of least



resistance) and not heat flow through  all parts of the waste.



    Btu value, specific heat, and ash  content were also considered for



predicting heat transfer characteristics.  These parameters can no better



account for nonhomogeneity than can thermal conductivity; additionally,



they are not directly  related to heat  transfer characteristics.



Therefore, these parameters do not provide a better indication of the



heat transfer  that will occur in any specific waste.



         (ii)  Boiling point.  Once heat is transferred to a constituent



within a waste, removal of this constituent from the waste will depend on



its volatility.  EPA is using boiling  point as a surrogate of volatility



of the constituent.  Compounds with lower boiling points have higher



vapor pressures and therefore would be more likely to vaporize.  The



Agency recognizes  that this parameter  does not take into consideration



the impact of  other compounds in the waste on the boiling point of a



constituent in a mixture;  however, the Agency is not aware of a better



measure of volatility  that can easily  be determined.
                                    3-33

-------
    (5)  Design and operating parameters.



         (a)   Liquid injection.   For a liquid injection unit,  EPA's



analysis of whether the unit is  well designed will  focus on (1)  the



likelihood that sufficient energy is provided to the waste to  overcome



the activation level for breaking molecular bonds and (2)  whether



sufficient oxygen is present to  convert the waste constituents to carbon



dioxide and water vapor.  The specific design parameters that  the Agency



will  evaluate to assess whether  these conditions are met are temperature,



excess oxygen, and residence time.  Below is a discussion  of why EPA



believes these parameters to be  important,  as well  as a discussion of how



these parameters will be monitored during operation.



    It is important to point out that, relative to the development of



land disposal restriction standards, EPA is concerned with these design



parameters only when a quench water or scrubber water residual is



generated from treatment of a particular waste.  If treatment  of a



particular waste in a liquid injection unit would not generate a



wastewater stream, then the Agency, for purposes of land disposal



treatment standards, would be concerned only with the waste



characteristics that affect selection of the unit,  not with the



above-mentioned design parameters.



         (i)   Temperature.  Temperature is important in that it provides



an indirect measure of the energy available (i.e.,  Btu/hr) to  overcome



the activation energy of waste constituents.  As the design temperature



increases, it is more likely that the molecular bonds will be



destabilized and the reaction completed.





                                    3-34

-------
    The temperature is normally controlled automatically through  the  use



of instrumentation that senses the temperature and automatically  adjusts



the amount of fuel and/or waste being fed.  The temperature signal



transmitted to the controller can be simultaneously transmitted to  a



recording device, referred to as a strip chart, and thereby continuously



recorded.  To fully assess the operation of the unit,  it is important to



know not only the exact location in the incinerator at which the



temperature is being monitored but also the location of the design



temperature.



         (ii)  Excess oxygen.  It is important that the incinerator



contain oxygen in excess of the stoichiometric amount necessary to



convert the organic compounds to carbon dioxide and water vapor.   If



insufficient oxygen is present, then destabilized waste constituents



could recombine  to the same or other BOAT list organic compounds  and



potentially cause the scrubber water to contain higher .concentrations of



BOAT list constituents than would be the case for a well-operated unit.



    In practice, the amount of oxygen fed to the incinerator is



controlled by continuous sampling and analysis of the stack gas.   If  the



amount of oxygen drops below the design value, then the analyzer



transmits a signal to the valve controlling the air supply and thereby



increases the flow of oxygen to the afterburner.  The analyzer



simultaneously transmits a signal to a recording device so that the



amount of excess oxygen can be continuously recorded.  Again, as with



temperature, it  is important to know the location at which the combustion



gas is being sampled.





                                    3-35

-------
         (iii)  Carbon monoxide.   Carbon monoxide is an important



operating parameter because it provides an indication of the extent to



which the waste organic constituents are being converted to carbon



dioxide and water vapor.  An increase in the carbon monoxide level



indicates that greater amounts of organic waste constituents are



unreacted or partially reacted.   Increased carbon monoxide levels can



result from insufficient excess  oxygen, insufficient turbulence in the



combustion zone, or insufficient  residence time.



         (iv)  Waste feed rate.   The waste feed rate is important to



monitor because it is correlated  to the residence time.  The residence



time is associated with a specific Btu energy value of the feed and a



specific volume of combustion gas generated.  Prior to incineration, the



Btu value of the waste is determined through the use of a laboratory



device known as a bomb calorimeter.  The volume of combustion gas



generated from the waste to be incinerated is determined from an analysis



referred to as an ultimate analysis.  This analysis determines the amount



of elemental constituents present, which include carbon, hydrogen,



sulfur, oxygen, nitrogen, and halogens.  Using this analysis plus the



total amount of air added, one can calculate the volume of combustion



gas.  After both the Btu content  and the expected combustion gas volume



have been determined, the feed rate can be fixed at the desired residence



time.  Continuous monitoring of the feed rate will determine whether the



unit is being operated at a rate  corresponding to the designed residence



time.
                                   3-36

-------
         (b)  Rotary kiln.  For this incineration,  EPA will  examine both



the primary and secondary chamber in evaluating the design of a



particular incinerator.  Relative to the primary chamber,  EPA's



assessment of design will focus on whether sufficient energy is likely to



be provided to the waste to volatilize the waste constituents.   For the



secondary chamber, analogous to the sole liquid injection  incineration



chamber, EPA will-examine the same parameters discussed previously under



liquid injection  incineration.  These parameters will not  be discussed



again here.



    The particular design parameters to be evaluated for the primary



chamber are kiln  temperature, residence time, and revolutions per



minute.  Below is a discussion of why EPA believes  these parameters to be



important, as well as a discussion of how these parameters will be



monitored during  operation.



         (i)  Temperature.  The primary chamber temperature is important,



in that it provides an indirect measure of the energy input (i.e.,



Btu/hr) available for heating the waste.  The higher the temperature is



designed to be in a given kiln, the more likely it  is that the



constituents will volatilize.  As discussed earlier under "Liquid



injection," temperature should be continuously monitored and recorded.



Additionally, it  is important to know the location  of the temperature



sensing device in the kiln.



         (ii)  Residence time.  This parameter is important in that it



affects whether sufficient heat is transferred to a particular



constituent in order for volatilization to occur.  As the time that the





                                    3-37

-------
waste is in the kiln is increased, a greater quantity of heat is



transferred to the hazardous waste constituents.  The residence time will



be a function of the specific configuration of the rotary kiln, including



the length and diameter of the kiln, the waste feed rate, and the rate of



rotation.



         (iii)  Revolutions per minute (RPM).  This parameter provides an



indication of the turbulence that occurs in the primary chamber of a



rotary kiln.  As the turbulence increases,  the quantity of heat



transferred to the waste would also be expected to increase.   However, as



the RPM value increases, the residence time decreases, resulting in a



reduction of the quantity of heat transferred to the waste.  This



parameter needs to be carefully evaluated because it provides a balance



between turbulence and residence time.



         (c)  Fluidized bed.  As discussed previously in the section



"Underlying principles of operation," the primary chamber accounts for



almost all of the conversion of organic wastes to carbon dioxide, water



vapor, and acid gas  (if halogens are present).  The secondary chamber



will generally provide additional residence time for thermal  oxidation of



the waste constituents.  Relative to the primary chamber, the parameters



that the Agency will examine in assessing the effectiveness of the design



are temperature, residence time, and bed pressure differential.  The



first two were included in the discussion of the rotary kiln and will not



be discussed here.   The last, bed pressure differential, is important in



that it provides an  indication of the amount of turbulence and
                                    3-38

-------
therefore indirectly the amount of heat supplied to the waste.  In



general, as the pressure drop increases, both the turbulence and heat



supplied increase.  The pressure drop through the bed should be



continuously monitored and recorded to ensure that the designed value is



achieved.



         (d)  Fixed hearth.  The design considerations for this



incineration unit are similar to those for a rotary kiln with the



exception that rate of rotation (i.e., RPM) is not an applicable design



parameter.  For the primary chamber of this unit, the parameters that the



Agency will examine in assessing how well the unit is designed are the



same as  those discussed under "Rotary kiln"; for the secondary chamber



(i.e., afterburner), the design and operating parameters of concern are



the same as those previously discussed under "Liquid injection."



3.2.3    Chemical Precipitation



    (1)  Applicability and use of chemical precipitation.  Chemical



precipitation is used when dissolved metals are to be removed from



solution.  This technology can be applied to a wide range of wastewaters



containing dissolved BOAT list metals and other metals as well.  This



treatment process has been practiced widely by industrial facilities



since the 1940s.



    (2)  Underlying principles of operation.  The underlying principle of



chemical precipitation is that metals in wastewater are  removed by the



addition of a treatment chemical that converts the dissolved metal to a



metal precipitate.  This precipitate  is less soluble than the original
                                    3-39

-------
metal compound and therefore settles out of solution, leaving a lower



concentration of the metal present in the solution.  The principal



chemicals used to convert soluble metal compounds to the less soluble



forms include lime (Ca(OH) ), caustic (NaOH), sodium sulfide (Na S),



and, to a lesser extent, soda ash (Na CO ), phosphate, and ferrous



sulfide (FeS).



    The solubility of a particular compound depends on the extent to



which the electrostatic forces holding the ions of the compound together



can be overcome.  The solubility changes significantly with temperature;



most metal compounds are more soluble as the temperature increases.



Additionally, the solubility is affected by the other constituents



present in a waste.  As a general rule, nitrates, chlorides, and sulfates



are more soluble than hydroxides, sulfides, carbonates, and phosphates.



    An important concept related to treatment of the soluble metal



compounds is pH.  This term provides a measure of the extent to which a



solution contains an excess of either hydrogen or hydroxide ions.  The pH



scale ranges from 0 to 14, with 0 being the most acidic, 14 representing



the highest alkalinity or hydroxide ion (OH ) content, and 7.0 being



neutral.



    When hydroxide is used, as is often the case, to precipitate the



soluble metal compounds, the pH is frequently monitored to ensure that



sufficient treatment chemicals are added.  It is important to point out



that pH is not a good measure of treatment chemical addition for
                                    3-40

-------
compounds other than hydroxides; when sulfide is used, for example,



facilities might use an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) meter



correlation to ensure that sufficient treatment chemical  is used.



    Following conversion of the relatively soluble metal  compounds to



metal precipitates, the effectiveness of chemical precipitation is a



function of the physical removal, which usually relies on a settling



process.  A particle of a specific size, shape, and composition will



settle at a specific velocity, as described by Stokes' Law.  For a batch



system, Stokes' Law is a good predictor of settling time because the



pertinent particle parameters remain essentially constant.  Nevertheless,



in practice, settling time for a batch system is normally determined by



empirical testing.  For a continuous system, the theory of settling is



complicated by factors such as turbulence, short-circuiting, and velocity



gradients, thereby increasing the importance of the empirical tests.



     (3)  Description of the chemical precipitation process.  The



equipment and instrumentation required for chemical precipitation vary



depending on whether the system is batch or continuous.  Both operations



are discussed below; a schematic of the continuous system is shown in



Figure 3-5.



     For a batch system, chemical precipitation requires only a feed



system for the treatment chemicals and a second tank where the waste can



be treated and allowed to settle.  When lime is used, it is usually added



to the reaction tank in a slurry form.  In a batch system, the supernate



is usually analyzed before discharge, thus minimizing the need for



instrumentation.





                                    3-41

-------
  WASTEWATER
  FEED   	
co
no
               EQUALIZATION
                  TANK
                               PUMP
             ELECTRICAL CONTROLS

             WASTEWATER FLOW


             MIXER
1
1
f.
Q


'IL
X
9
4
"


AO





TREATMENT
CHEMICAL
FEED
SYSTEM

1 ,.
1 ^
  D
pH
MONITOR
ATMENT
EMICAL
FEED
rSTEM


COAGULANT OR
FLOCCULANT FEED SYSTEM


EFFLUENT TO
DISCHARGE OR
SUBSEQUENT
TREATMENT
                                                                                                  SLUDGE TO
                                                                                                  DEWATERING
                                 FIGURE 3-5
         CONTINUOUS CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION

-------
    In a continuous system, additional tanks are necessary,  as well  as



instrumentation to ensure that the system is operating properly.   In this



system, the first.tank that the wastewater enters is referred to  as  an



equalization tank.  This is where the waste can be mixed to  provide  more



uniformity, minimizing wide swings in the type and concentration  of



constituents being sent to the reaction tank.  It is important to reduce



the variability of the waste sent to the reaction tank because control



systems inherently are limited with regard to the maximum fluctuations



that can be managed.



    Following equalization, the waste is pumped to a reaction tank where



treatment chemicals are added; this is done automatically by using



instrumentation that senses the pH of the system and then pneumatically



adjusts the position of the treatment chemical feed valve so that the



design pH value is achieved.  Both the complexity and the effectiveness



of the automatic control system will vary depending on the variation in



the waste and the pH range that is needed to properly treat  the waste.



    An important aspect of the reaction tank design is that  the tank's



contents be well mixed so that the waste and the treatment chemicals are



both dispersed throughout the tank to ensure commingling of  the reactant



and the treatment chemicals.  In addition, effective dispersion of the



treatment chemicals throughout the tank is necessary to properly monitor



and thereby control the amount of treatment chemicals added.
                                    3-43

-------
    After the waste is reacted with the treatment chemical, it flows to a



quiescent tank where the precipitate is allowed to settle and



subsequently to be removed.   Settling can be chemically assisted through



the use of flocculating compounds.   Flocculants increase the particle



size and density of the precipitated solids, both of which increase the



rate of settling.   The particular flocculating agent that will best



improve settling characteristics will vary depending on the particular



waste; selection of the flocculating agent is generally accomplished by



performing laboratory bench tests.   Settling can be conducted in a large



tank by relying solely on gravity or can be mechanically assisted through



the use of a circular clarifier or an inclined separator.  Schematics of



the latter two separators are shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7.



    Filtration can be used for further removal of precipitated residuals



both in cases where the settling system is underdesigned and in cases



where the particles are difficult to settle.  Polishing filtration is



discussed in a separate technology section.



    (4)  Waste characteristics affecting performance.  In determining



whether chemical precipitation is likely to achieve the same level of



performance on an untested waste as on a previously tested waste, EPA



will examine the following waste characteristics:  (1) the concentration



and type of the metal(s) in the waste, (2) the concentration of total



suspended solids (TSS), (3)  the concentration of total dissolved solids



(IDS), (4) whether the metal  exists in the wastewater as a complex, and



(5) the oil and grease content.  These parameters affect the chemical
                                    3-44

-------
      SLUDGE •*
INFLUENT
    CENTER FEED CLARIFIER WITH  SCRAPER SLUDGE REMOVAL SYSTEM
INFLUENT
                                                          ^SLUDGE
               RIM FEED - CENTER TAKEOFF CLARIFIER WITH
            HYDRAULIC  SUCTION SLUDGE  REMOVAL SYSTEM
                                                              INFLUENT
                                                              EFFLUENT
                                             SLUDGE
                 RIM FEED - RIM TAKEOFF CLARIFIER
                           FIGURE 3-6
                      CIRCULAR  CLARIFIERS

                               3-45

-------
INFLUENT
                                                  EFFLUENT
                         FIGURE 3-7
                INCLINED PLATE SETTLER
                             3-46

-------
reaction of the metal compound, the solubility of the metal precipitate,



or the ability of the precipitated compound to settle.



         (a)  Concentration and type of metals.  For most metals,  there



is a specific pH at which the metal hydroxide  is least soluble.   As a



result, when a waste contains a mixture of many metals, it is not



possible to operate a treatment system at a single pH that is optimal for



the removal of all metals.  The extent to which this situation affects



treatment depends on the particular metals to.be removed and their



concentrations.  One approach is to operate multiple precipitations,  with



intermediate settling, when the optimum pH occurs at markedly different



levels for the metals present.  The individual metals and their



concentrations can be measured using EPA Method 6010.



         (b)  Concentration and type of total  suspended solids (TSS).



Certain suspended solid compounds  are difficult to settle because of



their particle size or shape.  Accordingly, EPA will evaluate this



characteristic in assessing the transfer of treatment performance.  Total



suspended solids can be measured by EPA Wastewater Test Method 160.2.



         (c)  Concentration of total dissolved solids  (TDS).  Available



information shows that total dissolved solids  can inhibit settling.  The



literature states that poor flocculation is a  consequence of high TDS and



shows that higher concentrations of total suspended  solids are found in



treated residuals.  Poor flocculation can adversely  affect the degree to



which precipitated particles are removed.  Total dissolved solids can be



measured by EPA Wastewater Test Method 160.1.
                                    3-47

-------
         (d)   Complexed metals.   Metal  complexes consist of a metal  ion

surrounded by a group of other inorganic or organic ions or molecules

(often called ligands).  In the  complexed form, the metals have a greater

solubility and therefore may not be as  effectively removed from solution

by chemical  precipitation.   EPA  does not have an analytical method to

determine the amount of complexed metals in the waste.  The Agency

believes that the best measure of complexed metals is to analyze for some

common complexing compounds (or  complexing agents) generally found in

wastewater for which analytical  methods are available.  These complexing

agents include ammonia, cyanide, and EDTA.  The analytical method for

cyanide is EPA Method 9010, while the method for EDTA is ASTM

Method D3113.  Ammonia can be analyzed  using EPA Wastewater Test

Method 350.

         (e)   Oil and grease content.  The oil and grease content of a

particular waste directly inhibits the  settling of the precipitate.

Suspended oil droplets float in  water and tend to suspend particles such

as chemical  precipitates that would otherwise settle out of the

solution.  Even with the use of  coagulants or flocculants, the separation

of the precipitate is less effective.  Oil and grease content can- be

measured by EPA Method 9071.

    (5)  Design and operating parameters.  The parameters that EPA will

evaluate when determining whether a chemical precipitation system is well
  *
designed are  (1) design value for treated metal concentrations, as well

as other characteristics of the  waste used for design purposes (e.g.,

total  suspended solids); (2) pH; (3) residence time; (4) choice of


                                    3-48

-------
treatment chemical; (5) choice of coagulant/flocculant;  and (6)  mixing.



The reasons for which EPA believes these parameters are  important to a



design analysis are cited below, along with an explanation of why other



design criteria are not included in this analysis.



         (a)  Treated and untreated design concentrations.  When



determining whether to sample a particular facility, EPA pays close



attention to the treated concentration that the system is designed to



achieve.  Since the system will seldom outperform its design, EPA must



evaluate whether the design is consistent with best demonstrated practice.



    The untreated concentrations that the system is designed to treat are



important in evaluating any treatment system.  Operation of a chemical



precipitation treatment system with untreated waste concentrations in



excess of design values can easily result in poor performance.



         (b)  pH.   The pH is important because it can indicate that



sufficient treatment chemical (e.g., lime) has been added to convert the



metal constituents  in the untreated waste to forms that  will



precipitate.  The pH also affects the solubility of metal hydroxides and



sulfides and thus directly impacts the effectiveness of removal.  In



practice, the design pH is determined by empirical bench testing, often



referred to as "jar" testing.  The temperature at which  the "jar" testing



is conducted is important since it also affects the solubility of the



metal precipitates.  Operation of a treatment system at  temperatures



above the design temperature can result in poor performance.  In



assessing the operation of a chemical precipitation system, EPA prefers
                                    3-49

-------
to use continuous data on the pH and periodic temperature conditions



throughout the treatment period.



         (c)  Residence time.  Residence time is important because it



impacts the completeness of the chemical reaction to form the metal



precipitate and, to a greater extent, the amount of precipitate that



settles out of solution.  In practice, it is determined by "jar"



testing.  For continuous systems, EPA will monitor the feed rate to



ensure that the system is operated at design conditions.   For batch



systems, EPA will want information on the design parameter used to



determine sufficient settling time (e.g., total  suspended solids).



         (d)  Choice of treatment chemical.  A choice must be made as to



what type of precipitating agent (i.e., treatment chemical) will be



used.  The factor that most affects this choice is the type of metal



constituents to be treated.  Other design parameters, such as pH,



residence time, and choice of coagulant/flocculant agents, are based on



the selection of the treatment chemical.



         (e)  Choice of coagulant/flocculant.  This is important because



these compounds improve the settling rate of the precipitated metals and



allow smaller systems (i.e., those with a lower retention time) to



achieve the same degree of settling as much larger systems.  In practice,



the choice of the best agent and the required amount is determined by



"jar" testing.



         (f)  Mixing.  The degree of mixing is a complex assessment  that



includes, the energy supplied, the time the material is mixed, and the



related turbulence effects of the specific size and shape of the tank.





                                    3-50

-------
In its analysis, EPA will consider whether mixing is provided and whether



the type of mixing device is one that could be expected to achieve



uniform mixing.  For example, EPA may not use data from a chemical



precipitation treatment  system in which an air hose was placed in a large



tank to achieve mixing.



3.2.4    Sludge Filtration



    (1)  Applicability and use of sludge filtration.  Sludge filtration,



also known as sludge dewatering or cake-formation filtration, is a



technology used on wastes that contain high concentrations of suspended



solids, generally higher than 1 percent.  The remainder of the waste is



essentially water.  Sludge filtration is applied to sludges, typically



those that have settled  to the bottom of clarifiers, for dewatering.



After filtration, these  sludges can be dewatered to 20 to 50 percent



solids.



    (2)  Underlying principle of operation.  The basic principle of



filtration is the separation of particles from a mixture of fluids and



particles by a medium that permits the flow of the fluid but retains the



particles.  As would be  expected, larger particles are easier to separate



from the fluid than are  smaller particles.  Extremely small particles, in



the colloidal range, may not be filtered effectively and may appear in



the treated waste.  To mitigate this problem, the wastewater should be



treated prior to filtration to modify the particle size distribution in



favor of the larger particles, by the use of appropriate precipitants,



coagulants, flocculants* and filter aids.  The selection of the
                                    3-51

-------
appropriate precipitant or coagulant is important because it affects the



particles formed.   For example, lime neutralization usually produces



larger,  less gelatinous particles than does caustic soda precipitation.



For larger particles that become too small to filter effectively because



of poor resistance to shearing, shear resistance can be improved by the



use of coagulants  and flocculants.   Also,  if pumps are used to feed the



filter,  shear.can  be minimized by designing for a lower pump speed or by



using a low-shear  type of pump.



    (3)   Description of the sludge filtration process.  For sludge



filtration, settled sludge is either pumped through a cloth-type filter



medium (such as in a plate and frame filter that allows solid "cake" to



build up on the medium) or the sludge is drawn by vacuum through the



cloth medium (such as on a drum or vacuum filter, which also allows the



solids to build).   In both cases the solids themselves act as a filter



for subsequent solids removal.  For a plate and frame type filter, solids



are removed by taking the unit off line, opening the filter, and scraping



the solids off.  For the vacuum type filter, the cake is removed



continuously.  For a specific sludge, the plate and frame type filter



will usually produce a drier cake than will a vacuum filter.  Other types



of sludge filters, such as belt filters, are also used for effective



sludge dewatering.



    (4)   Waste characteristics affecting performance.  The following



characteristics of the waste will affect performance of a sludge



filtration unit:  (1) size of particles and (2) type of particles.
                                    3-52

-------
         (a)  Size of particles.  The smaller the particle size,  the more



the particles tend to go through the filter medium.  This is especially



true for a vacuum filter.  For a pressure filter (like a plate and



frame), smaller particles may require higher pressures for equivalent



throughput, since the smaller pore spaces between particles create



resistance to flow.



         (b)  Type of particles.  Some solids formed during metal



precipitation are gelatinous in nature and cannot be dewatered well  by



cake-formation filtration.  In fact, for vacuum filtration a cake may not



form at all.  In most cases, solids can be made less gelatinous by use of



the appropriate coagulants and coagulant dosage prior to clarification,



or after clarification but prior to filtration.  In addition, the use of



lime instead of caustic  soda in metal precipitation will reduce the



formation of gelatinous  solids.  The addition of filter aids, such as



lime or diatomaceous earth, to a gelatinous sludge will help



significantly.  Finally, precoating the filter with diatomaceous earth



prior to sludge filtration will assist in dewatering gelatinous sludges.



    (5)  Design and operating parameters.  For sludge filtration, the



following design and operating variables affect performance:  (1) type of



filter selected, (2) size of filter selected,  (3) feed pressure, and



(4) use of coagulants or filter aids.



         (a)  Type of filter.  Typically, pressure type filters (such as



a plate and frame) will  yield a drier cake than will a vacuum type filter



and will also be more tolerant of variations in influent sludge



characteristics.  Pressure type filters, however, are batch operations,





                                    3-53

-------
so that when cake is built up to the maximum depth physically possible



(constrained by filter geometry),  or to the maximum design pressure,  the



filter is turned off while the cake is removed.  A vacuum filter is a



continuous device (i.e.,  cake discharges continuously), but will usually



be much larger than a pressure filter with the same capacity.  A hybrid



device is a belt filter,  which mechanically squeezes sludge between two



continuous fabric belts.



         (b)  Size of filter.  As  with in-depth filters, the larger the



filter, the greater its hydraulic  capacity and the longer the filter runs



between cake discharges.



         (c)  Feed pressure.   This parameter impacts both the design pore



size of the filter and the design  flow rate.  In treating waste, it is



important that the design feed pressure not be exceeded; otherwise,



particles may be forced through the filter medium,  resulting in



ineffective treatment.



         (d)  Use of coagulants.  Coagulants and filter aids may be mixed



with filter feed prior to filtration.  Their effect is particularly



significant for vacuum filtration  since in this instance they may make



the difference between no cake and a relatively dry cake.  In a pressure



filter, coagulants and filter aids will also significantly improve



hydraulic capacity and cake dryness.  Filter aids, such as diatomaceous



earth, can be precoated on filters (vacuum or pressure) for sludges that



are particularly difficult to filter.  The precoat layer acts somewhat



like an in-depth filter in that sludge solids are trapped in the precoat
                                    3-54

-------
pore spaces.  Use of precoats and most coagulants or filter aids



significantly increases the amount of sludge solids to be disposed of.



However, polyelectrolyte coagulant usage usually does not increase sludge



volume significantly because the dosage is low.



3.2.5    Stabi1izati on



    Stabilization refers to a broad class of treatment processes that



chemically reduce the mobility of hazardous constituents in a waste.



Solidification and fixation are other terms that are sometimes used



synonymously for stabilization or to describe specific variations within



the broader class of stabilization.  Related technologies are



encapsulation and thermoplastic binding; however, EPA considers these



technologies to be distinct from stabilization in that the operational



principles are significantly different.



    (1)  Applicability and use of stabilization.  Stabilization is used



when a waste contains metals that will leach from the waste when it is



contacted by water.  In general, this technology is applicable to wastes



containing BOAT list metals and having a high filterable solids content,



low TOC content, and low oil and grease content.  This technology is



commonly used to treat residuals generated from treatment of



electroplating wastewaters.  For some wastes, an alternative to



stabilization is metal recovery.



    (2)  Underlying principles of operation.  The basic principle



underlying this technology is that stabilizing agents and other chemicals



are added to a waste to minimize the amount of metal that leaches.  The
                                    3-55

-------
reduced Teachability is accomplished by the formation of a lattice



structure and/or chemical  bonds that bind the metals to the solid matrix



and thereby limit the amount of metal  constituents that can be leached



when water or a mild acid solution comes into contact with the waste



material.



    Two principal stabilization processes are used--cement-based and



lime-based.  A brief discussion of each is provided below.  In both



cement-based and 1ime/pozzolan-based techniques, the stabilizing process



can be modified through the use of additives, such as silicates, that



control curing rates or enhance the properties of the solid material.



         (a)  Portland cement-based process.  Portland cement is a



mixture of powdered oxides of calcium, silica, aluminum, and iron,



produced by kiln burning of materials rich in calcium and silica at high



temperatures (i.e., 1400 to 1500°C).  When the anhydrous cement



powder  is mixed with water, hydration occurs and the cement begins to



set.  The chemistry involved is complex because many different reactions



occur depending on the composition of the cement mixture.



    As  the cement begins to set, a colloidal gel of indefinite



composition and structure is formed.  Over a period of time, the gel



swells  and forms a matrix composed of interlacing, thin, densely packed



silicate fibrils.  Constituents present in the waste slurry (e.g.,



hydroxides and carbonates of various heavy metals) are incorporated into



the interstices of the cement matrix.  The high pH of the cement mixture



tends to keep metals in the form of insoluble hydroxide and carbonate
                                    3-56

-------
salts.   It has been hypothesized that metal ions may also be incorporated



into the crystal structure of the cement matrix, but this hypothesis has



not been verified.



         (b)  Lime/pozzolan-based process.  Pozzolan, which contains



finely divided, noncrystalline silica (e.g., fly ash or components of



cement kiln dust), is a material that is not cementitious in itself but



becomes so upon the addition of lime.  Metals in the waste are converted



to silicates or hydroxides, which inhibit leaching.  Additives, again,



can be used to reduce permeability and thereby further decrease leaching



potential.



    (3)  Description of the stabilization process.   In most stabilization



processes, the waste, stabilizing agent, and other additives, if used,



are mixed and then pumped to a curing vessel or area and allowed to



cure.   The actual operation (equipment requirements  and process



sequencing) will depend on several factors  such as the nature of the



waste, the amount of waste, the location of the waste in relation to the



disposal site, the particular stabilization formulation to be used, and



the curing rate.  After curing, the  solid formed is  recovered from the



processing equipment and shipped for final  disposal.



    In instances where waste contained in a lagoon is to be treated, the



material should first be transferred to mixing vessels where stabilizing



agents are added.  The mixed material is then fed to a curing pad or



vessel.  After curing, the solid formed is  removed for disposal.



Equipment commonly used also includes facilities to  store waste and
                                    3-57

-------
chemical additives.  Pumps can be used to transfer liquid or light sludge



wastes to the mixing pits and pumpable uncured wastes to the curing



site.  Stabilized wastes are then removed to a final disposal site.



    Commercial concrete mixing and handling equipment generally can be



used with wastes.  Weighing conveyors, metering cement hoppers, and



mixers similar to concrete batching plants have been adapted in some



operations.  Where extremely dangerous materials are being treated,



remote-control and in-drum mixing equipment, such as that used with



nuclear waste, can be employed.



     (4)  Waste characteristics affecting performance.  In determining



whether stabilization is likely to achieve the same level of performance



on an untested waste as on a previously tested waste, the Agency will



focus on the characteristics that inhibit the formation of either the



chemical bonds or the lattice structure.  The four characteristics EPA



has  identified as affecting treatment performance are the presence of



(1)  fine particulates,  (2) oil and grease, (3) organic compounds, and



(4)  certain inorganic compounds.



         (a)  Fine particulates.  For both cement-based and



1ime/pozzolan-based processes, the literature states that very fine solid



materials  (i.e., those  that pass through a No. 200 mesh sieve, 74 urn



particle size) can weaken the bonding between waste particles and cement



by coating the particles.  This coating can inhibit chemical bond



formation and decreases the resistance of the material to leaching.
                                    3-58

-------
         (b)  Oil and grease.  The presence of oil and grease in both



cement-based and 1ime/pozzolan-based systems results in the coating of



waste particles and the weakening of the bonding between the particle and



the stabilizing agent.  This coating can inhibit chemical bond formation



and thereby decrease the  resistance of the material to leaching.



         (c)  Organic compounds.  The presence of organic compounds in



the waste interferes with the chemical reactions and bond formation,



which inhibits curing of  the stabiliz-ed material.  This results in a



stabilized waste that has decreased resistance to leaching.



         (d)  Sulfate and chlorides.  The presence of certain inorganic



compounds interferes with the chemical reactions, weakening bond strength



and prolonging setting and  curing time.  Sulfate and chloride compounds



may reduce the dimensional  stability of the cured matrix, thereby



increasing Teachability potential.



    Accordingly, EPA will examine these constituents when making



decisions regarding transfer of treatment standards based on



stabilization.



    (5)  Design and operating parameters.  In designing a stabilization



system, the principal parameters that are important to optimize so that



the amount of Teachable metal constituents is minimized are (1) selection



of stabilizing agents and additives,  (2) ratio of waste to stabilizing



agents and other additives,  (3) degree of mixing, and (4) curing



conditions.
                                    3-59

-------
         (a)  Selection of stabilizing agents and other additives.   The



stabilizing agent and additives used will determine the chemistry and



structure of the stabilized material and therefore will affect the



Teachability of the solid material.   Stabilizing agents and additives



must be carefully selected based on  the chemical and physical



characteristics of the waste to be stabilized.  For example,  the amount



of sulfates in a waste must be considered when a choice is being made



between a 1ime/pozzolan-based and a  portland cement-based system.



    To select the type of stabilizing agents and additives, the waste



should be tested in the laboratory with a variety of materials to



determine the best combination.



         (b)  Amount of stabilizing  agents and additives.  The amount of



stabilizing agents and additives is  a critical parameter in that



sufficient stabilizing materials are necessary in the mixture to properly



bind the waste constituents of concern,.thereby making them less



susceptible to leaching.  The appropriate weight ratios of waste to



stabilizing agent and other additives are established empirically by



setting up a series of laboratory tests that allow separate leachate



testing of different mix ratios.  The ratio of water to stabilizing agent



(including water in waste) will also impact the strength and leaching



characteristics of the stabilized material.  Too much water will cause



low strength; too little will make mixing difficult and, more important,



may not allow the chemical reactions that bind the hazardous constituents



to be fully completed.
                                    3-60

-------
         (c)  Mixing.  This parameter includes both the type and duration



of mixing.  Mixing is necessary to ensure homogeneous distribution of the



waste and the stabilizing agents.  Both undermixing and overmixing are



undesirable.  The first condition results in a nonhomogeneous mixture;



therefore, areas will exist within the waste where waste particles are



neither chemically bonded to the stabilizing agent nor physically held



within the lattice structure.  Overmixing, on the other hand, may inhibit



gel formation and ion adsorption in some stabilization systems.   As with



the relative amounts of waste, stabilizing agent, and additives  within



the system, optimal mixing conditions generally are determined through



laboratory tests.  During treatment it is important to monitor the degree



(i.e., type and duration) of mixing to ensure that it reflects design



conditions.



         (d)  Curing conditions.  Curing conditions include the  duration



of curing and the ambient curing conditions  (temperature and humidity).



The. duration of curing is a critical parameter to ensure that the waste



particles have had sufficient time in which  to form stable chemical bonds



and/or lattice structures.  The time necessary for complete stabilization



depends upon the waste type and the stabilization used.  The performance



of the stabilized waste (i.e., the levels of constituents in the



leachate) will be highly dependent upon whether complete stabilization



has occurred.  Higher temperatures and lower humidity increase the rate



of curing by increasing the rate of evaporation of water from the



solidification mixtures.  If temperatures are too high, however, the
                                    3-61

-------
evaporation rate can be excessive, resulting in too little water being



available for completion of the stabilization reaction.   The duration of



the curing process, which should also be determined during the design



stage, typically will range between 7 and 28 days.
                                    3-62

-------
                         4.  PERFORMANCE DATA BASE



    This section discusses the available performance data associated with



the demonstrated technologies for K087 waste.  Performance data include



the constituent concentrations in untreated and treated waste samples,



the operating data collected during treatment of the sampled waste,



design values for the treatment technologies, and data on waste



characteristics that affect performance.  EPA has presented all such data



to the extent that they are available.



    EPA's use of these data in determining the technologies that



represent BOAT, and for developing treatment standards, is described in



Sections 5 and 7, respectively.



4.1      BDAT List Orqanics



    The Agency has data for five sets of untreated waste and kiln ash



samples and six scrubber water samples from an EPA incineration facility



that show treatment of BDAT list organic constituents in K087 waste.



These analytical data, collected during a test burn using rotary kiln



incineration, have been reported in the K087 onsite engineering report



(USEPA 1988a), along with design and operating information on the



treatment system.  The analytical data are presented in Tables 4-1



through 4-3 at the end of this section.  These data show total waste



concentrations for all BDAT list constituents in the untreated waste



(Table 4-1), the residual ash (Table 4-2), and the scrubber water



(Table 4-3).  TCLP leachate concentrations for metals in the ash are also



shown (Table 4-2).  Operating data collected during the test burn are



presented and discussed in Appendix C.





                                    4-1

-------
4.2      BDAT List Metals



4.2.1  Wastewater



    The Agency does not have performance data on treatment of BDAT list



metals in the scrubber water generated by rotary kiln incineration of



K087 waste.  However,  11 data sets are available from treatment of BDAT



list metals in a metal-bearing wastewater by chemical precipitation,



primarily using lime as the treatment chemical, and sludge filtration.



These performance data are presented in Table 4-4.  They reflect total



waste concentrations for BDAT list metals in the untreated and treated



wastewater.



    Based on the available information on waste characteristics that



affect treatment performance, the Agency believes these data represent  a



level of performance that can be achieved using this same treatment on



the K087 scrubber water.  A comparison of the scrubber water data and the



untreated metal-bearing wastewater data reveals that both wastes contain



small, if any, concentrations of antimony, arsenic, barium,  beryllium,



mercury, selenium, thallium, and vanadium.  Concentrations of cadmium,



chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc are, in most cases,



significantly lower in the K087 scrubber water, making it likely that the



scrubber water would be less difficult to treat.  Other performance-



related waste characterization data for both wastes were not available



for comparison.
                                    4-2

-------
4.2.2  Nonwastewater



    EPA does not have performance data on treatment of BOAT list metals



in either the ash generated by rotary kiln incineration of K087 waste or



the treatment sludge generated by precipitation of the K087 scrubber



water.  Industry, however, submitted performance data showing treatment



of F006 waste (an electroplating sludge) by stabilization, the



demonstrated technology for K087 nonwastewater.  These F006 data,



presented in Table 4-5, reflect total waste and TCLP leachate



concentrations for BOAT list metals  in the untreated waste and TCLP



leachate concentrations for metals in the treated waste.  The data



represent F006 wastes from various electroplating industries, including



auto part manufacturing,  aircraft overhauling, zinc plating, small engine



manufacturing, and circuit board manufacturing.



    The Agency believes these F006 data can be used to represent the



performance of stabilization on the  treatment sludge that would be



generated from treatment  of K087 scrubber water.  An analysis of the



waste characteristics that affect stabilization performance indicates



that the treatment sludge would be less difficult to treat than the F006



waste..  The scrubber water data show that this residual contains metals



at concentrations ranging from less  than 0.0003 mg/1 to 8.3 mg/1, with



the highest concentration being 8.3  mg/1 for  lead  (see Table 4-3 and the



accuracy-corrected data in Table B-4).  Precipitation of this waste would



yield a precipitated residue with an estimated concentration of up to



160 mg/1 for lead, lower  concentrations for the other metals present, and
                                    4-3

-------
a water content and filterable solids concentration similar to those of

the F006 wastes.  A review of the F006 wastes shows that  they contain

metals at concentrations ranging up to 42,900 ppm.

    The Agency believes the F006 data can also be used to represent the

performance of stabilization on the K087 ash.  EPA expects that the ash

is easier to stabilize because such ash residuals contain metals in the

form of oxides, which have been shown to leach at lower concentrations

than the typical F006 hydroxides.

    Other stabilization data, available to EPA,  can be found in the

Administrative Record.  These data were eliminated from further

consideration as sources for transferring data to develop treatment

standards because of one or a combination of the reasons  provided below:

    1.  The waste treated was less similar to the K087 ash or expected
        precipitated residuals than the waste for which performance data
        are presented;

    2.  The performance data do not show substantial  treatment for the
        constituents to be regulated (selected in Section 6);

    3.  Design and operating data, or the lack of such data, do not
        enable the Agency to ascertain whether the treatment system was
        well designed and well operated; or

    4.  The measure of performance is not consistent  with EPA's approach
        in evaluating treatment of metals by stabilization; e.g., EP
        levels are given rather than TCLP leachate levels.
                                    4-4

-------
1779g p.5
                             Table 4-1   Analytical Results for K087 Untreated Waste
                            Collected Prior to Treatment by Rotary Kiln Incineration
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (mq/kq)
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xy lenes
BOAT Semivolat i le Orqanics (mq/kq)
Acenaphtha lene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzol b ) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
para-Cresol
F luoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno( 1 . 2. 3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pheno 1
Pyrene
BOAT Hetals (mg/kg)a
Ant imony
Arsenic
Bar iutn
Beryl 1 ium
Cadm i um
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Se ten ium
Si Ivor
Tha 1 1 i um
Vanadium
Z inc


1

17
<2.0
17
?1

11000
7SOO
5700
3200
3100
4100
5100
1600
11000
7600
2100
64000
34000
1600
9100

<2.0
6.1
<20
<0.5
1.7
<2.0
3.2
85
2.9
<4.0
1.2
<5.0
2.7
<5.0
63


2

19
<2.\
17
23

12000
8100
5900
<1010
7500
4300
5300
1600
12000
7900
2500
66000
34000
1500
5900

<2.0
6.1
<20
<0.5
2.1
<2.0
4.5
80
3.6
4.6
1.6
<5.0
2.3
<5.0
63
Concentrat ion
Sample Set 1
3

5.6
<2.0
5.0
3.0

10000
7100
5600
3100
3100
4100
5100 .
1300
11000
7000
2300
64000
15000
1200
8000

<2.0
5.5
<20
<0.5
2.1
<2.0
3.2
72
3.8
<4.0
1.3
<5.0
2.2
<5.0
58


4

212
<10
152
123

13000
8100
7500
<982
9300
5400
6500
1900
<982
9300
3100
81000
41000
1800
9700

<2.0
1.9
<20
<0.5
1.7
<2.0
<2.5
64
4.2
<4.0
1.4
<5.0
2.1
<5.0
50


5

170
<10
130
121

10000
6700
5400
5300
<1026
3800
4700
1200
11000
7000
2100
63000
15000
1200
8100

<2.0
5.2
<20
<0.5
1.9
<2.0
2.6
69
3.3
<4.0
1.2
<5.0
2.2
<5.0
66
                                                     4-5

-------
1779g p.6
                                             Table 4-1   (Continued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Inorganics Other Than Metals (mq/kq)
Cyanide
F luoride
Sulf ide
Non-BDAT Volatile Orqanics (mg/kg)
Styrene
Non-BDAT Semivolati le Orqanics (mq/kq)
Dibenzofuran
2-Methylnaphthalene
Other Parameters
Ash content (%)


1
23.8
0.38
323

12
5300
7000
2.9
Heating value (Btu/lb) 15095
Percent water (%)
Total halogens as chlorine (%)
Total organic carbon (%)
Total organic halides (mg/kg)
Total solids (%)b
Viscosity0
Elemental constituents (%)
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Oxygen
5.70
0.033
83.67
27.0
87.7
-

83.80
5.62
1.13
9.13


2
18.2
-
320

12
5600
6900
3.4
14898
10.31
0.023
76.38
28.0
90.5
-

81.90
5.14
1.06
11.94
Concentration
Sample Set 1
3
21.1
-
275

3.4
5200
6300
9.7
14823
11.26
0.026
84.27
29.3
91.1
-

84.01
5.27
1.03
10.25


4
22.0
-
293

26
6800
9400
3.7
15336
7.72
0.045
79.10
87.7
89.7
-

66.36
6.46
0.82
26.59


5
17.9
0.18
302

71
5000
6200
2.7
14959
6.60
0.057
85.57
25.8
86.5
-

77.54
5.97
0.96
15.71
- = Not analyzed.
NO = Not detected; estimated detection limit has not been determined.

Note:  This table shows concentrations or maximum potential concentrations in the untreated waste for all
constituents detected in the untreated waste or detected in the residuals generated by treatment of the
waste.  EPA analyzed the untreated waste for all the BOAT list constituents that are listed in Table D-l.

aResults have been reported on a wet weight basis.
 Total solids results are biased low because of test complications arising from waste matrix.
cBecause of the high concentration of solids in the waste,  viscosity values could not be determined.

Reference:  USEPA 1988a.
                                                      4-6

-------
1779g p.7
                            Table 4-2  Analytical  Results for Kiln Ash Generated by
                                     Rotary Kiln  Incineration of K087 Waste
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Oraanics Uq/kq)
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes
BDAT Semivolat i 1e Organ ics (M9/kg)
Acenaphthalene
Anthracene
Benz ( a ) anthracene
Benzol b) f luoranthene
Benzo( k ) f luoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
para-Cresol
fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l ,2.3-cd)pyrene
Naphtha lene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
BDAT Metals (mq/kq)
Ant inxDny
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Tha 1 1 ium
Vanadium
Zinc


1

<25
<25
150
<25

<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000

<3.2
9.9
317
0.60
<0.40
34
746
44
<0.10
10
1.4
<0.60
<1.0
17
50


2

<25
<25
85
<25

<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000

<2.0
11
56
<0.5
<1.0
5.2
44
8.2
2.8
<4.0
1.6
*5.0
<1.0
9.7
13
Concentration
Sample Set 1
3

<25
<25
<25
<25

<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000

<2.0
6.7
53
<0.5
<1.0
2.2
43
8.3
2.9
<4.0
<0.50
<5.0
<1.0
6.6
13


4

<25
<2S
<25
<25

<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
'1000
<1000

<2.0
12
41
<0.5
<1.0
2.1
50
5.9
3.3
<4.0
5.9
<5.0
<1.0
8.1
12


5

<25
<25
190
<25

<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000
<1000

<3.2
5.3
63
0.36
<0.40
7.6
94
7.2
<0.1
4.5
<0.5
<6.0
<1.0
10
21
                                                      4-7

-------
1779g p.8
                                             Table  4-2   (Continued)
Concentration
Constituent/parameter (units)

BOAT TCLP: Metals (jiq/1)
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selen ium
Si Iver
Thall turn
Vanadium
Zinc
BOAT Inorganics Other Than Metals (mq/kq)
Cyanide
Tluoride
Sulfide
Non-BDAT Volatile Orqanics (Mq/kq)
Styrene
Non-BDAT Semivolatile Orqanics Ug/kg)
Dibenzofuran
2-Methylnaphthalene
Other Parameters (mg/kg)
Total organic carbon
Total chlorides
Total organic ha 1 ides

1

425
96
609
3.3
<4.0
62
<6.0
29
<0.2
93
<50
<6.0
<10
<30
169

0.74
<1.0
35.5

<25

<1000
<1000

350000
9.7
375

2

<20
33
344
<5.0
<10
<20
52
40
<0.30
<40
7.3
<50
<10
<50
202

<0.50
-
36.3

<25

<1000
<1000

553000
6.8
18.3
Sample Set t
3

<20
25
547
<5.0
<10
<20
1110
53
<0.30
<40
<5.0
<50
<10
<50
218

<0.50
-
144

<25

<1000
<1000

402000
14.1
32.1

4

<20
19
641
<5.0
<10
<20
346
20
<0.30
<40
<5.0
<50
<10
<50
288

<0.50
-
116

<25

<1000
<1000

316000
14.6
19.8

5

<32
43
546
2.5
<4.0
8.7
497
106
<0.2
16
<5.0
<6.0
<500
8.3
256

<0.50
<0.25
11.0

<25

<1000
<1000

244000
16.0
133
 - = Not analyzed.
Note:  This table shows the concentrations or maximum potential  concentrations  in the kiln ash for all
constituents that were detected in the untreated waste or detected  in  residuals generated from treatment of
the waste.  EPA analyzed the kiln ash for all the BOAT list  constituents that are listed
in Table D-2.
                                                      4-8
Reference:  USEPA 1988a.

-------
1779g p.9
            Table  4-3  Analytical Results for Scrubber Water Generated by Rotary Kiln
                                   Incineration of K087 Waste
                                                          Concentration
Constituent/parameter (units)
                   Samp lo
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (ng/1)

Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes

BDAT Semivolatilc Orqanics (/i9/l)

Acenaphthalene
Anthracene
Benz(a Janthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
para-Cresol
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene

BDAT Hetals  Ug/1)

Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
<5
14
<5
<5
<5

 8
<5

<5
                          <\0
<5

<5
<5

<5
<5
                                            <\0
<32
211
65
<1.0
26
306
1050
5610
0.23
<11
81
<6.0
126
15
2250
<33
191
350
1.3
15
304
1100
7000
<0.20
<11
61
<7.0
109
12
2040
<20
148
302
<5.0
21
155
948
3240
0.48
<40
5.7
<50
77
<50
1740
39
257
340
<5.0
41
236
1240
4780
0.33
<40
83
<50
108
<50
2910
<20
300
290
<5.0
42
255
1160
5610
0.30
<40
87
<50
96
<50
2670
<32
342
102
<1.0
51
259
1240
4840
0.40
<11
87
<6.0
136
18
2960
                                               4-9

-------
1779g p.10
                                     Table 4-3   (Continued)
                                                              Concentrat ion
Constituent/parameter (units)
                                                                  Sample
BOAT Inorganics Other Than Hetals (mg/1)

Cyan-ide                                  <0.01     <0.01     <0.01     <0.01    <0.01      <0.01
Fluoride                                  3.38      2.99      2.38     -        -           3.54
Sulfide                                  <1.0     <1.0     11.9      <1.0    <1.0       <1.0
Non-BDAT Volatile Orqanics (/ig/1)

Styrene                                  <5

Non-BDAT Semivolat i 1c Orqanics (/ig/1)
Dibenzofuran
2-Methy(naphthalene

Other Parameters
                                        <10
                                        <10
                                                  <5
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Total organic carbon (mg/1)
Total solids (mg/1)
Total chlorides (mg/1)
Total organic ha 1 ides (^9/1)
37.9
2240
51.3
33.7
26.1
2080
57.9
33.2
88.9
1910
48.5
48.7
148
2350
51.0
23.3
111
2480
58.3
27.6
94.1
2720
56.0
27.4
   = Not analyzed.

Note:  This table shows concentrations or maximum potential concentrations  in  the  scrubber
water for all constituents detected in the untreated waste or detected in residuals  generated
from treatment of the waste.  EPA analyzed the scrubber water for  all  the BOAT list
constituents that are listed in Table D-3.

aScrubber water samples are not assigned a sample set number.  See the K087  OER  (USEPA  1988a)
 for specific collection times.

Reference:  USEPA  1988a.
                                                4-10

-------
1847g
Total organic carbon
Total solids
Total chlorides
Total organic ha 1 ides
                                                    Table  4-4  Performance Data for Chemical Precipitation
                                              and Sludge Filtration of a Metal-Bearing Uastowatcr Sampled by EPA
Concentration (ppm)


Const i tuent/parameter
BOAT Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)a
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thallium
Zinc
Other Parameters
Sample
Treatment
tank composite

<10
<1
<10
<2
13
893
2,581
138
64
<1
471
<10
<2
<10
116

Set 11

Filtrate

<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
0.011
0.12
0.21
<0.01
<0.1
0.33
<1
<0.2
<1
0.125

Sample
Treatment
tank composite

<10
<1
<10
<2
10
807
2,279
133
54
<1
470
<10
2
<10
4

Set 12

Filtrate

<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
0.190
0.12
0.15
<0.01
<0.1
0.33
<1
<0.2
<1
0.115

Sample
Treatment
tank composite

<10
<1
<10
<2
<5
775
1,990
133
<10
<1
16,330
<10
<2
<10
3.9

Set 13

Filtrate

<1
<0.1
3.5
<0.2
<0.5
_a
0.20
0.21
<0.01
<0.1
0.33
<1
<0.3
<1
0.140

Sample
Treatment
tank composite

<10
<1
<10
<2
<5
0.6
556
88
<10
<1
6.610
<10
<2
<10
84

Set #4

Filtrate

-
<1
<10
<2
<5
0.042
0.10
0.07
<0.01
<1
0.33
<10
<2
<10
i.r.2

2700
2500
2800
3600
500
2900
                                900

-------
        1847g
                                                                                      (Cont inucd)
-P.
 i
Concentration (ppm)
Constituent/parameter
BOAT Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Other Parameters
Sample
Treatment
tank composite

<10
<1
<10
<2
<5
917
2.236
91
18
1
1.414
<10
<2
<10
71

Set 15
Filtrate

<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
0.058
0.11
0.14
<0.01
<0.1
0.310
<1
<0.2
<1
0.125

Sample
Treatment
tank composite

<10
<1
<10
<2
<5
734
2,548
149
<10
<1
588
<10
<2
<10
4

Set 16
Filtrate

<1
<0.1
<2
<0.2
<0.5
_a
0.10
0.12
<0.01
<0.1
0.33
<1
<0.2
<1
0.095

Sample
Treatment
tank composite

<10
<1
<10
<2
10
769
2.314
72
108
<1
426
<10
<2
<10
171

Set 17
Filtrate

<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
0.121
0.12
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
0.40
<1
<0.2
<1
0.115

Sample
Treatment
tank composite

<10
<1
<10
<2
<5
0.13
831
217
212
<1
669
<10
<2
<10
151

Set 1 8
Filtrate

<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.01
0.15
0.16

-------
1847g
                                                                    Table 4-4   (Continued)
Concentration (ppm)
Const ituent/parameter
BDAT Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thall ium
Zinc
Other Parameters
Total organic carbon
Total solids
Total chlorides
Total organic ha 1 ides
Sample Set 19
Treatment
tank composite Filtrate

<10 <1
<1 <0. 1
<10 <1
<2 <0.2
<5 <0.5
0.07 0.041
939 0.10
225 0.08
<10 <0.01
<1 <0.1
940 0.33
<10 <1.0
<2 <0.2
<10 <1.0
5 0.06

2100

-
0
Sample Set 110
Treatment
tank composite Filtrate

<10 <1
<1 <0.1
<10 <1
<2 <0.2
<5 <0.5
0.08 0.106
395 0.12
191 0.14
<10 <0.01
<1 <0.1
712 0.33
<10 <1
<2 <0.2
<10 <1
5 0.070

0
-
-
<300
Sample
Treatment
tank composite

<10
<1
<12
<2
23
0.30
617
137
136
<1
382
<10
<2
<10
135

52
-
-
300
Set 111
Filtrate

<1.00
<0.10
<1.00
<0.20
<5
<0.01
0.18
0.24
<0.01
<0.10
0.39
<1.00
<0.2
<1.00
0.100





- = Not analyzed.

Note:  Design and operating parameters are as follows:
  pH during chromium reduction - 8.5 to 9.0.
  Reducing agent - ferrous iron.
  Ratio of reducing agent to hexavalent chromium - 3.2  to 10.
  pH during chemical precipitation - 8 to 10.
  Precipitation agent - lime.
  Filter type - vacuum filter.

aHexavalent chromium was actually treated by  chromium reduction  prior  to  chemical  precipitation and sludge  filtration.
            USEPA 1986c.

-------
1973g
                                                 Table 4-5  Performance Data for Stabilization  of  FOOG Waste
Concentration (ppm)
Sample Set t
Constituent
Arsenic


Barium



Cadmium



Chromium



Copper



Lead



Stream
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP9
Treated TCLPb
1
<0.01
<0.01
-
36.4
0.08
0.12
-
1.3
0.01
0.01
-
1270
0.34
0.51
-
40.2
0.15
0.20
-
35.5
0.26
0.30
_
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
21.6
0.32
0.50
0.42
31.3
2.21
0.50
0.01
755
0.76
0.40
0.39
7030
368
5.4
0.25
409
10.7
0.40
0.36
3 .
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
85.5
1.41
0.33
0.31
67.3
1.13
0.06
0.02
716
0.43
0.08
0.20
693
1.33
1.64
1.84
25.7
0.26
.0.30
0.41
4
-
<0.01
<0.01
17.2
0.84
0.20
0.23
1.30
0.22
0.01
0.01
110
0.18
0.23
0.30
1510
4.6
0.30
0.27
88.5
0.45
0.30
0.34
5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
14.3
0.38
0.31
0.19
720
23.6
3.23
0.01
12200
25.3
0.25
0.38
160
1.14
0.20
0.29
52
0.45
0.24
0.36
6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
24.5
0.07
0.30
0.33
7.28
0.3
0.02
0.01
3100
38.7
0.21
0.76
1220
31.7
0.21
0.20
113
3.37
0.30
0.36
7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
12.6
0.04
0.04
0.14
5.39
0.06
0.01
0.01
42900
360
3.0
1.21
10600
8.69
0.40
0.42
156
1.0
0.30
0.38
8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
15.3
0.53
0.32
0.27
5.81
0.18
0.01
0.01
47.9
0.04
0.10
0.2
17600
483
0.50
0.32
169
4.22
0.31
0.37
9
0.88
<0.02
<0.02
19.2
0.28
0.19
0.08
5.04
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
644
0.01
0.03
0.21
27400
16.9
3.18
0.46
24500
50.2
2.39
0.27

-------
1973g
                                                                    Table 4-5  (Continued)
Concentration (ppm)
Sample Set t
Constituent
Mercury



Nickel



Selenium



Si Iver



Zinc



Stream
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
1
.
<0.001
<0.001
-
435
0.71
0.04
-
-
<0.01
0.06
-
2.3
0.01
0.03
-
1560
0.16
0.03

2
.
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
989
22.7
1.5
0.03
-
<0.01
0.06
0.11
6.62
0.14
0.03
0.05
4020
219
36.9
0.01
3

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
259
1.1
0.23
0.15
-
<0.01
0.07
0.11
39
0.02
0.20
0.05
631
5.41
0.05
0.03
4

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
37
0.52
0.10
0.02
-
-
0.08
0.14
9.05
0.16
0.03
0.04
90200
2030
32
0.04
5

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
701
9.78
0.53
0.04
-
<0.01
0.04
0.09
5.28
0.08
0.04
0.06
35900
867
3.4
0.03
6

0.003
<0.001
<0.001
19400
730
16.5
0.05
-
<0.01
0.05
0.11
4.08
0.12
0.03
0.05
27800
1200
36.3
0.04
7

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
13000
152
0.40
0.10
_
<0.01
0.04
0.07
12.5
0.05
0.03
0.05
120
0.62
0.02
0.02
8

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
23700
644
15.7
0.04
-
<0.01
0.07
0.07
8.11
0.31
0.03
0.05
15700
650
4.54
0.02
9
.
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
5730
16.1
1.09
0.02
-
<0.45
<0.01
<0.01
19.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
322 .
1.29
0.07
<0.01
Binding agent:  cement kiln dust.
 Mix ratio is 0.2.  The mix ratio is the ratio of the reagent weight to waste weight.
bMix ratio is 0.5.
Note:  Waste samples are from the following industries:   set II,  unknown;  set 12,  auto  part  manufacturing;  set  13,  aircraft  overhauling;  set  14,  zinc
       plating; set 15, unknown;  set 16, small engine manufacturing; set 11.  circuit board manufacturing;  set 18,  unknown; and set  19,  unknown.
Reference:  CUM Technical Note 87-117.  Table 1  (CUM 1987).

-------
    5.   IDENTIFICATION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (BOAT)

    This section explains EPA's determination of the best demonstrated

available technology (BOAT) for K087 waste.  As discussed in Section 1,

the BOAT for a waste must be the "best" of the "demonstrated"

technologies; the BOAT must also be "available."  In general, the

technology that constitutes "best" is determined after screening the

available data from each demonstrated technology,  adjusting these data

for accuracy, and comparing the performance of each technology to that of

the others.  If only one technology is identified as demonstrated, this

technology is considered "best."  To be "available," a technology

(1) must be commercially available and (2) must provide substantial

treatment.

5.1      BOAT List Organics

    The technologies identified as demonstrated on the organics in K087
                                                         *
waste are fuel substitution, incineration, and recycling.   The Agency

has performance data only for rotary kiln incineration (presented in

Section 4 and adjusted for accuracy in Appendix B).  These data meet all

the screening criteria outlined in Section 1.2.6(1).  First, the data

reflect a well-designed, well-operated system for all data points (see

Appendix C).  Second, sufficient QA/QC information is available to

determine the true values of the analytical results for the treated

residuals.  Third, the measure of performance is consistent with
* Recycling may not be feasible for all generators of K087 waste (refer
  to Section 3.2).
                                    5-1

-------
EPA's approach in evaluating the treatment of organics; i.e., total  waste



concentrations are given for BOAT list organics in the residual  ash  and



scrubber water.



    Because the performance data from rotary kiln incineration are the



only data available for treatment of K.087 waste, EPA is not able to



perform an ANOVA test  (see Appendix A) on the data to compare the three



demonstrated technologies to determine which is best.  However,  since



recycling does not result in a residual to be land disposed, EPA would



consider it "best."  Of fuel substitution and rotary kiln incineration,



EPA does not believe that the former would perform better because (1) the



performance data from  rotary kiln incineration indicate that little



additional treatment of organics can be accomplished, and (2) the



temperatures and residence times of fuel substitution do not generally



exceed those of rotary kiln incineration.



    Both recycling and rotary kiln incineration are  "available"  because



(1) neither process is proprietary or patented and thus both are



commercially available, and (2) both substantially diminish the toxicity



of the waste or significantly reduce the likelihood  that hazardous



constituents will migrate from the waste, as explained below.



    For rotary kiln incineration, EPA believes that  the number of



constituents treated and the associated reductions achieved represent



substantial treatment.  For example, naphthalene concentrations ranging



from 63,000 to 81,000  mg/kg were reduced to less than 1.2 mg/kg in the



ash and 0.010 mg/1 in  the scrubber water; phenanthrene concentrations of
                                    5-2

-------
15,000 to 41,000 mg/kg were reduced to less than 1.2 mg/kg in the ash and



0.010 mg/1 in the scrubber water; and benzene concentrations up to



212 mg/kg were reduced to less than 0.026 mg/kg in the ash and 0.005 mg/1



in the scrubber water.  (See the performance data in Tables 4-1 through



4-3 and the corresponding accuracy-corrected data in Appendix B.)



    Recycling clearly provides substantial treatment because there are no



residuals.  The Agency, however, is establishing rotary kiln incineration



as BOAT for the purpose of setting treatment standards because sufficient



data are not available as to ascertain whether recycling is demonstrated



for all K087 generators (see Section 3.2).



5.2      BOAT List Metals



    Rotary kiln incineration and subsequent treatment of the scrubber



water, as noted in Section 3, result in wastewater and nonwastewater



residuals that contain metals which may require further treatment prior



to land disposal.



5.2.1    Wastewater



    For metals in K087 wastewater, the only identified demonstrated



treatment is chemical precipitation, followed by settling or,



alternatively, by sludge filtration.  Performance data for a



metal-bearing wastewater are available for chemical precipitation, using



lime as the treatment chemical, and sludge filtration, as discussed in



Section 4.2.1.  The Agency does not expect the use of other treatment



chemicals to improve the level of performance.  Thus, chemical



precipitation using lime as the treatment chemical and sludge filtration



are "best."





                                    5-3

-------
    Chemical precipitation, using lime, and sludge filtration are



"available" because such treatment is commercially available and would



provide substantial treatment for the K087 scrubber water.   Having



screened the data, EPA based its determination of substantial treatment



on the fact that there were significant reductions in the concentrations



of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc in the metal-bearing



wastewater for which data are available.   (The treated data values are



adjusted for accuracy in Appendix B.)



    As chemical precipitation, using lime, followed by sludge filtration



is demonstrated, best, and available for metals in K087 scrubber waters,



this treatment represents BOAT for metals  in K087 wastewaters.



5.2.2    Nonwastewater



    For metals in K087 nonwastewater (i.e., ash or precipitated residuals



from treatment of K087 scrubber water), the only identified demonstrated



technology is  stabilization.  Performance  data are available for



stabilization  of F006 waste using cement kiln dust as the binding agent



as discussed in Section 4.2.2.  The Agency does not expect that use of



other binders  would improve the level of performance.  Thus,



stabilization  using cement kiln dust as the binding agent is "best."



    Stabilization is "available" because it is commercially available and



it substantially reduces the likelihood that hazardous constituents will



migrate from the waste.  EPA's determination of substantial treatment is



discussed  below.
                                     5-4

-------
    In screening the performance data, the Agency determined whether any



data points should be deleted on the basis that they do not represent a



well-designed and well-operated system; EPA deleted data points from the



less effective mix ratio used in treating the sample sets.   Specifically,



EPA determined that a mix ratio of 0.5 was most effective for wastes in



Sample Sets 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and that a mix ratio of 0.2 was



effective for wastes in Sample Sets 1 and 3.



    The Agency deleted other data points for individual metal constituents



for one of the following reasons:  (1) the treated concentration was



higher than the untreated concentration; (2) sufficient information was



not available on the untreated concentration to determine treatment



effectiveness; (3) the untreated leachate concentration was already at a



low level where meaningful treatment could not be determined; and (4) the



treated level of performance after correcting the results for accuracy



could be attributed solely to dilution from the binding reagent.



(Table B-8 in Appendix B shows accuracy-corrected values for all treated



waste data points; this table also indicates the specific reasons for



data point deletion.)  Table 5-1 shows the remaining data.   EPA's



determination of substantial treatment is based on observations of the



following reductions in the TCLP leachate concentrations of metals in the



F006 waste:  up to 23 mg/1 for cadmium, 358 mg/1 for chromium, 49 mg/1



for lead, 729 mg/1 for nickel, and 0.25 mg/1 for silver.



    As stabilization using cement kiln dust as a binder is demonstrated,



best, and available for BOAT list metals in K087 nonwastewater,



stabilization represents BOAT.





                                    5-5

-------
1973g
                  Table 5-1  TCLP Performance Data for Stabilization of F~006 Waste After Screening and Accuracy Correction of Treated Values
Concentration (ppm)
Sample Set 1
Constituent Stream la
Arsenic Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP
Barium Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP
Cadmium Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP
Chromium Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP
Copper Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP
Y1 Lead Untreated TCLP
°^ Treated TCLP
Mercury Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP
Nickel Untreated TCLP 0.71
Treated TCLP 0.05
Selenium Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP
Silver Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP
Zinc Untreated TCLP 0.16
Treated TCLP 0.03
2
—
--
--
2.21
0.01
0.76
0.45
368
0.27
10.7
0.39
--
--
22.7
0.03
—
'--
0.14
0.06
219
0.01
3a 4 5 6
--
1.41 0.84 0.38
0.34 0.25 0.21
1.13 0.22 23.6 0.3
0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.43 -- 25.3 38.7
0.09 -- 0.44 0.89
4.6 1.14 31.7
0.29 0.31 0.22
3.37
0.39
__
--
1.1 0.52 9.78 730
0.27 0.02 0.04 0.06
__
--
0.16 -- 0.12
0.05 -- 0.06
5.41 2,030 867 1,200
.03 0.04 0.03 0.04
7 8
— —
0.53
0.29
0.06 0.18
0.01 0.01
360
1.41
8.69 483
0.45 0.35
1.0 4.22
0.41 0.40
__
--
152 644
0.11 0.04
_.
--
0.31
0.06
0.62 650
0.02 0.02
gk
--
0.28
0.09
--
--
—
--
16.9
0.50
50.2
0.29
--
--
16.1
0.02
__
--
__
--
1.29
0.01
Binding agent:  cement kiln dust.
aMix ratio is 0.2.  The mix ratio is the ratio of the reagent weight to waste weight.
bMix ratio is 0.5.
Reference:  CUM Technical Note 87-117,  lable 1 (CUM 1987).

-------
                  6.   SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS



    As discussed in Section 1, the Agency has developed a list of



hazardous constituents (see Table 1-1) from which the constituents to be



regulated are selected.   EPA may revise this list as additional  data and



information become available.   The list is divided into the following



categories:  volatile organics, semivolatile organics, metals, inorganics



other than metals, organochlorine pesticides, phenoxyacetic acid



herbicides, organophosphorous insecticides, PCBs, and dioxins and furans.



    This section describes the process used to select the constituents to



be regulated.  The process involves developing a list of potential



regulated constituents and then eliminating those constituents that would



not be treated by the chosen BOAT or that would be controlled by



regulation of the remaining constituents.



6.1      Identification of BOAT List Constituents in the Untreated Waste



    As discussed in Sections 2 and 4, the Agency has characterization



data (see Table 2-4)  as well as performance data from the treatment of



K087 waste by rotary  kiln incineration (see Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3).



These data, along with information on the waste generating process, have



been used to determine which BOAT list constituents may be present in the



waste and thus which  ones are potential candidates for regulation in the



nonwast.ewater and wastewater.



    Table 6-1, at the end of this section, indicates, for the untreated



waste, which constituents were analyzed,  which constituents were



detected, and which constituents the Agency believes could be present
                                    6-1

-------
though not detected.  For those constituents detected,  concentrations are



indicated.



    Under the column "Believed to be present," constituents other than



those detected in the untreated waste are marked with X or Y if EPA



believes they are likely to be present in the untreated waste.   For those



constituents marked with X, an engineering analysis of the waste



generating process  indicates that they are likely to be present (e.g.,



the engineering analysis shows that a particular constituent is present



in a major raw material).  Those constituents marked with Y have been



detected in the treated residual(s) and thus- EPA believes they are



present in the untreated waste.  Constituents may not have been detected



in the untreated waste for one of several reasons:  (1) none of the



untreated waste samples were analyzed for those constituents, (2) masking



or interference by  other constituents prevented detection, or (3) the



constituent indeed  was not present.  (With regard to Reason (3), it is



important to note that some wastes are defined as being generated from a



process that may use variable raw materials composed of different



constituents.  Therefore, all potentially regulated constituents would



not necessarily be  present in any given sample.)



    In samples collected during the K087 test burn, EPA analyzed for 192



of the 231 BOAT list constituents.  EPA did not analyze for



20 organochlorine pesticides, 3 phenoxyacetic acid herbicides,



5 organophosphorous insecticides, 7 volatile organics, 3 semivolatile



organics, or 1 metal; EPA believes that all of these compounds are



unlikely to be present in the'waste because there is no in-process source





                                    6-2

-------
for these constituents.  Of the analyzed constituents, 37 were detected.

EPA found 19 BOAT organics,* 9 BOAT metals, and 3 BOAT inorganics other

than metals (i.e., cyanide, sulfide, and fluoride) in the untreated

waste.  In the treated residuals, the Agency found 1 additiona.l organic

and 5 additional metals.  (Tables D-l through D-3 in Appendix D show the

detection limits for the test burn performance data.)  The other waste

characterization data  (as shown in Table 2-4) indicate that 5 more BOAT

organics may be present in the untreated K087 waste.  All 42 of these

constituents are potential candidates for regulation.

6.2      Constituent Selection

    EPA has chosen to regulate 10 constituents out of the 42 candidates

for regulation in K087 waste.  These constituents include 3 volatile

organics, 6 semivolatile organics, and 1 metal, as shown in Table 6-2.

    For the organics, EPA selected constituents that are present in the

untreated waste at the greatest concentrations (as shown by the

characterization data) and constituents that are believed to be more

difficult to treat based on an analysis of characteristics affecting

performance of rotary kiln incineration.  Of the volatile organics,

benzene, toluene, and xylenes are present in the untreated wastes at

higher concentrations in comparison to methyl ethyl  ketone.  Benzene,
* The xylene isomers, 1,2-xylene, 1,3-xylene, and 1,4-xylene, are being
  considered as one constituent here because they were not analyzed
  separately.
                                    6-3

-------
toluene, and xylenes are also expected to be easier to treat based on the



boiling points and theoretical bond energies.  Therefore,  these three



compounds are being regulated.



    For the semivolatile organics, the concentrations of naphthalene,



phenanthrene, fluoranthene, and acenaphthalene were highest relative to



the concentrations of the rest of the semivolatile constituents.  These



four compounds, along with indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene and chrysene, which



have relatively high boiling points and/or theoretical bond energies,



also are being regulated.  (Table 6-3 shows the boiling points and



calculated theoretical bond energies for the organic constituents.)



    As discussed  in Section 3.2.2, both the volatility of a constituent



and its combustibility affect whether the constituent will undergo



treatment in an incinerator or through another thermal destruction



technology.  The  Agency believes that the boiling point of a pure



constituent under ideal conditions will provide some indication of its



volatility in waste undergoing incineration.  The higher the boiling



point of a component, in general, the more difficult that component is to



treat.  The Agency also believes that theoretical bond energies give an



indication of combustibility.  In general, the higher the bond energy for



a constituent, the more difficult it is to combust that constituent.



    In  EPA's analysis of the boiling points of the semivolatiles in K087



waste,  indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo(ah)anthracene, and



anthracene, rank  as the most difficult to treat.  In the analysis of



theoretical bond  energies, indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene, benzoperylene, and



dibenzo(ah)anthracene rank as the most difficult to treat.  By regulating





                                    6-4

-------
indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene and chrysene along with the compounds that are



present in the highest concentrations, EPA believes that treatment will



occur for the remaining BOAT list organic constituents.



    For the metals, EPA has chosen to regulate lead,  which is present in



the greatest concentration relative to the rest of the metals.   As



discussed in Section 4.2, BOAT for the organics in K087  waste generates



both nonwastewater and wastewater residuals that may require treatment



for metals.  Analytical results from samples collected during the K087



test burn show that few metals in the scrubber water or  in the  ash were



generated in quantities that could be treated by chemical  precipitation



and sludge filtration or by stabilization, respectively.  In general, the



Agency eliminates constituents from consideration as regulated



constituents those constituents that cannot be significantly treated by



the technologies designated as BDAT.  In the case of K087  waste, however,



metals are not excluded as potential regulated constituents because the



untreated K087 waste contains metals, and it is probable that other K087



incinerator residuals will have treatable concentrations of these metals,



as discussed below.



    An incinerator is not specifically designed to treat metals.



Accordingly, the concentration of metals found in the scrubber  water and



in the ash will  depend on the specific design and operating parameters



selected for volatilization and destruction of the organic constituents



in the waste, including operating temperatures, residence  times, and



turbulence effects.  For example, an incinerator that operates  at a
                                    6-5

-------
higher temperature would be expected to have higher metal  concentrations



in the scrubber water than would an incinerator that operates at a lower



temperature.  Also, metal residual concentrations will vary from one



incinerator test to the next because the untreated wastes  can have



different concentrations of a particular metal constituent.
                                    6-6

-------
2168g
              Table 6-1  Status of BOAT List Constituent  Presence
                         in Untreated  K087 Waste
BOAT
reference
no.

222.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
223.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
224.
225.
226.
30.
227.
31.
214.
32.
33.
228.
34.
Const ituent
Volat i le Orqamcs
Acetone
Acetonitri le
Acrolein
Acrylonitri le
Benzene
Bromod ich loromet hane
Bromomethane
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l ,3-butadiene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethy 1 vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1 . 2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
trans-1 ,4-Oichloro-2-butene
Dichlorodif luoromethane
1 . 1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
1 ,4-Dioxane
2-Ethoxyethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Detection Believed to
status3 be present .

ND
ND
ND
ND
6-410
ND
NO
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND Y
                                  6-7

-------
2168g
                            Table 6-1   (Continued)
BOAT
reference
no.

229.
35.
37.
38.
230.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
231.

50.
215.
216.
217.

51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
218.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Const ituent
Volatile Orqanics (continued)
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methacrylonit r i le
Methylene chloride
2-Nitropropane
Pyridine
1,1.1, 2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1.2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Tribromomethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 , 2-Tr ichloroe thane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromonof luoromethane
1 ,2,3-Tr ichloropropane
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-
trif luoroethane
Vinyl chloride
1,2-Xylene
1 ,3-Xylene
1 ,4-Xy lene
Semivolat i le Orqanics
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminof luorene
4-Aminobipheny 1
Ani 1 ine
Anthracene
Aramite
Benz (a (anthracene
Benzal chloride
Benzenethiol
Deleted
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo( b)f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo( k)f luoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
Detection Believed to
status3 be present

ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
17-260
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

NA
ND


3-700b

10,000-24,200
380-900
ND
ND
ND
ND
6,700-14,200
ND
5,400-8,465
NA
ND

3.800-8,450
1,900-8,650
1,500-6,700
2,900-9,300
ND
                                     6-8

-------
2168g
                            Table 6-1  (Continued)
BOAT
reference
no.

67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
8?.
232.
83.
84.
85. .
86.
87. .
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
219.
Const ituent
Semivolatile Orqanics (continued)
Bis( 2-chloroethoxy )methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromopheny 1 phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Butyl-4.6-dinitrophenol
p-Chloroani 1 ine
Chlorobenz i late
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Ch loronaphtha lene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitri le
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
Cyclohexanone
D i benz( a, h) anthracene
D i benzo( a, e)pyrene
Dibenzofa, i Jpyrene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
p- Dime thy lam inoazobenzene
3.3'-Dimethylbenzidine
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Oi-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,4-Oinitrobenzene
4 , 6-D i n i t ro-o-c reso 1
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Oi-n-propylnitrosamine
Diphenylamine
Dipnenylnitrosamine
Detection Believed to
status3 be present

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.480-7,950
396-425
1,200-5,450
NA
580-1,750
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
256-820
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                   6-9

-------
2168Q
                           Table 6-1   (Continued)
BOAT
reference
no.

107.
lOo.
10r<
110.
111.
11?.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
116.
119.
120.

36.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
126.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
136.
139.
140.
141.
14?.
220.
143.
144.
145.
146.
Const ituent
5emivol.it i le Orqcimcs (continued)
1 , 2-Diphenylhydraz me
F luoranthene
F 1 uorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyc 1 open tddi one
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene .
Hexachloropropene
Indeno( 1 . ?.3-cd)pyrene
Isosaf role
Methapyri lene
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4' -Methy leneli is
(?-chloroani 1 me)
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene
1 , 4-Naphthoqu mone
1 -Naphthy lamine
2-Naphthy lamme
p-N i troani 1 me
N i t robenzene
4-N itrophenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-N i t rosodiethy lam me
N-N itrosod line thy lain i ne
N-N i t rosomethy let hy lamine
N - N i t rosomorpho line
N-Nitrosop>per idme
N-N itrosopyrrol idirie
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentach loron it robenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacet in
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phtha 1 ic anhydride
2-Picoline
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorcinol
Detection Believed to
status be present

NO
1,200-28.200
7.000-14,200
ND
NO
ND
MO
ND
ND
1,600-6,150
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
36,000-95,000
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15,000-43,200
490-5,900
NA
ND
ND
5,900-20,500
NO
                                  6-10

-------
2168g
                           Table 6-1   (Continued)
BOAT
reference
no.

147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
15?.
153.


154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
221.
160.
161.
152.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.

169.
170.
171.

172.
173.
174.
175.
Const ituent
Semivolatile Orqanics (continued)
Saf role
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4, 6-Tetrachlorophenol
1 .2 ,4-Trichlorobenzene
2.4, 5-Trichlorophenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)
phosphate
Hetals
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Tver
Thai 1 ium
Vanadium
Z inc
Inorganics Other Than Metals
Cyanide
Fluoride
Sulfide
Orqanochlorine Pesticides
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Detection Believed to
status3 be present

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND

ND Y
0.28-20
ND Y
ND Y
1.7-2.1
ND Y
NA
2.6-4.5
31-154
2.9-4.2
4.0-4.6
1.2-1.6
ND
2.1-2.7
ND Y
50-66

17.9-228
0.18-0.38
275-323

NA
NA
NA
NA
                                 6-11

-------
2168g
                           Table 6-1  (Continued)
BOAT
reference
no.

176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.

192.
193.
194.

195.
196.
197.
198.
199.

200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
Const ituent
Orqanochlorine Pesticides (cont
ganma-BHC
Chlordane
ODD
ODE
DOT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan 11
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Isodrin
Kepone
Methoxyclor
Toxaphene
Phenoxyacet ic Acid Herbicides
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
S i Ivex
2.4,5-T
Orqanophosphorous Insecticides
Disulfoton
Famphur
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Phorate
PCBs
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Detection Believed to
status be present
inued)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                    6-12

-------
2168g
                             Table 6-1   (Continued)
BOAT                                             Detection     Believed to
reference      Constituent                   '     status3      be present
no.	

               Dioxins and Furans

207.           Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins        ND
208.           Hexachlorodibenzofurans            ND
209.           Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins       ND
210.           Pentachlorodibenzofurans           ND
211.           Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins       ND
212.           Tetrachlorodibenzofurans           ND
213.           2,3.7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
                 p-dioxin                         ND
ND = Not detected.
NA = Not analyzed.
X  = Believed to be present based on engineering analysis of waste generating
     process.
Y  = Believed to be present based on detection in treated residuals.

alf detected, concentration is shown; units are mg/kg.
 Concentration for total xylenes.
                                    6-13

-------
1779g
             Table 6-2  Regulated Constituents  for K087 Waste
Const ituent
BOAT Volatile Organics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes

BOAT Semivolati 1e Orqanics

Acenaphthalene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene

BOAT Metals
Lead
                               6-14

-------
1779g
                   Table 6-3  Characteristics of the BOAT Organic Compounds
                           in K087 Waste That  May Affect  Performance
                              in Rotary Kiln Incineration Systems
Const ituent
Boiling point CO'
                                                              Calculated  bond  energy
                                                                   (kcal/mol)
BDAT Volati 1e Orqanics
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes (o-,m-,and p-)
     80.1
     79.6
    110.8
    138.4  - 144.4
1320
1215
1235
1220
BDAT Semivolatile Orqanics
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene3
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(k )f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi jperylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol3
para-Cresol
2,4-Oimethylphenola
Oi benzo( ah) anthracene
F luoranthene
Fluorene
Indenof 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
280
279
340
435
-
480
-
311
488
191
202
211.5
524
250
293-295
536
217.9
340
182
393
2400
2540
2865
3650
4000
4000
4350
4000
3650
1405
1405
1390
4430
3190
2700
4350
2094
2880
1421
3210
- = No information available.
aSources for boiling point information are Verschueren 1983,  Perry 1973,  CRC  1986.
 Calculations are based on information in Sanderson 1971.
                                          6-15

-------
                7.  CALCULATION OF BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS



    This section details the calculation of treatment standards for the



regulated constituents selected in Section 6.  EPA is setting treatment



standards for K087 waste based on performance data from (1) rotary kiln



incineration of K087.waste, (2) chemical precipitation and sludge



filtration of a metal-bearing wastewater sampled by EPA,  and



(3) stabilization of F006 waste.



    For treatment of BOAT list organics, all five data sets for



nonwastewater and six data sets for wastewater reflect treatment in a



wel1-designed and we!1-operated rotary kiln incineration system, which is



the determined BOAT.  Furthermore, they are accompanied by sufficient



QA/QC data.  Thus, the data meet the requirements for setting treatment



standards.



    For treatment of BOAT list metals in K087 waste, the 11 data sets for



wastewater from chemical precipitation, using lime, and sludge filtration



reflect treatment in a well-designed and well-operated system, which is



the technology selected as BOAT.  Sufficient QA/QC information is also



available.  Thus, these data points meet the requirements for setting



treatment standards.



    Also, for treatment of BOAT list metals in K087 waste, the nine data



sets (see Table 5-1) for nonwastewater from stabilization of F006 waste



using a cement kiln dust binder reflect treatment in a well-designed,



well-operated system, result from BOAT, and are accompanied by sufficient



QA/QC data.  Thus, they meet the requirements for setting treatment
                                    7-1

-------
standards.   Note that the Agency is using only five data points for lead,



as explained in Section 5.2.2.



    As discussed in Section 1,  the calculation of a treatment standard



for a constituent to be regulated -involves (1) adjusting the data points



for accuracy, (2) determining the mean (arithmetic average)  and



variability factor (see Appendix A) for the data points, and



(3) multiplying the mean and the variability factor together to determine



the treatment standard.



    The procedure for adjusting the data points is discussed in detail in



Section 1.2.6.   The data from each of the demonstrated technologies are



adjusted in Appendix B.  The unadjusted and accuracy-corrected values for



the regulated constituents are presented in Tables 7-1 through 7-4, along



with the accuracy-correction factors, means of the accuracy-corrected



values, variability factors, and treatment standards.
                                    7-2

-------
      io'4/g
                                                   Table  7-1   Calculation of Nonwastewater Treatment Standards for the

                                                       Regulated  Constituents Treated by Rotary Kiln  Incineration
vj
 i
Unadjusted concentration (mg/kg) Accuracy-corrected concentrat ion (mg/kg)
Sample Set t Correction Sample Set 1
Constituent
1
2
3
4

5
Variabi 1 ity
factor 123 45 Mean
(mg/kg)
factor
Treatment
standard
(mg/kg)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
BOAT Semivolatile
Acenaphthalene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)-
pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
<0.025
0.150
<0.025
Orqanics
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.025
0.085
<0.025

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.
<0.
.025
.025
<0.025

<1.
<1.
<1.

<1.
<1.
<1.

00
00
00

.00
,00
.00
<0.025
0.190
<0.025

<1.00
^1.00
<1.00

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1/0.98 <0.026 <0.026 <0.026 <0.026 <0.026
1
1.

1/0
1/0.
1/0,

.00 0.150 0.085 <0.025 <0.025 0.190
.00 0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025

.822 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217
,822 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217
.822 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217

1/0.822 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217
1/0
1/0
.822 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217
.822 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217 <1.217
0.0255
0.095
0.025

1 .217
1.217
1.217

1.217
1.217
1.217
2.8
6.85
2.8

2.8
2.8
2.8

2.8
2.8
2.8
0.071
0.65
0.070

3.4
3.4
3.4

3.4
3.4
3.4

-------
1847g
                                        Table  7-2  Calculation of the Proposed Vastewater Treatment  Standards  for  the
                                                  Regulated Organic Constituents Treated by Rotary  Kiln  Incineration


Constituent

Unadjusted concentration (mg/1) Correc- Accuracy-corrected concentration (mg/1)
Sample Set 1 tion Sample Set t Variability Treatment
123456 factor 123456 Mean factor standard
(mg/1) (mg/1)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics

Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
<0.005  <0.005  <0.005  <0.005   <0.005  <0.005   1.00   <0.005  <0.005  <0.005  <0.005
<0.005   0.008  <0.005  <0.005   <0.005  <0.005   1.00   <0.005   0.008  <0.005  <0.005
<0.005  <0.005  <0.005  <0.005   <0.005  <0.005   1.00   <0.005  <0.005  <0.005  <0.005
<0.005  <0.005   0.005      2.8         0.014
<0.005  <0.005   0.005      1.54         0.008
<0.005  <0.005   0.005      2.8         0.014
BOAT Semivolatile Orqanics
Acenaphthalene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(1.2,3-cd)-
  pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028

-------
     ioi/g
                                                   Table 7-3  Calculation  of  Wastewater  Treatment Standards for the
                                         Regulated Metal Constituents Treated by Chemical Precipitation and Sludge Filtration

Correction
Constituent factor 1

Concentration (mg/1)
Sample Set 1 Variability Treatment
2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 11 Mean factor standard
(mg/1) (mg/1)
     BOAT Metals
Lead
  Unadjusted
  Accuracy-
    corrected
                     1/0.76
<0.01
<0.013
<0.01
<0.013
<0.01
<0.013
<0.01
<0.013
<0.01
<0.013
<0.01
<0.013
<0.01
<0.013
<0.01
<0.013
<0.01
<0.013
<0.01
<0.013
<0.01
<0.013
<0.013
2.8
0.037
en

-------
1973g.
                                           10IP ic  / ~M  L.U iuu idL IUM  ui  nunwdsuewdLtM  i ruduiient Standards for the
                                                     Regulated  Metal Constituents  Treated by Stabilization
TCLP leachate concentration (mg/1)
Sample Set 1
Constituent Correction 123456789
factor
BOAT Metals
Lead
Unadjusted 1/0.929 - 0.36a - - - 0.36a 0.38a 0.37a 0.27a
Accuracy-corrected - 0.39 - - - 0.39 0.41 0.40 0.29

Variability Treatment
Mean factor standard
(mg/1) (mg/1)


.
0.375 1.37 0.51
 Data point from mix  ratio  of  0.5.   Correction factors are 1/0.929 for lead and 1/1.014 for zinc.

-------
                            8.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS



    This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental  Protection



Agency, Office of Solid Waste, by Versar Inc. under Contract



No. 68-01-7053.  Mr. James Berlow, Chief, Treatment Technology Section,



Waste Treatment Branch, served as the EPA Program Manager during the



preparation of this document and the development of treatment standards



for the K087 waste.  The technical project officer for the waste was



Mr. Jose Labiosa.  Mr. Steven Silverman served as legal advisor.



    Versar personnel involved in the preparation of this document



included Mr. Jerome Strauss, Program Manager; Ms. Olenna Truskett,



Engineering Team Leader; Ms. Justine Alchowiak, Quality Assurance



Officer; Mr. David Pepson, Senior Technical Reviewer; Ms.  Juliet



Crumrine, Technical Editor; and the Versar secretarial staff, Ms. Linda



Gardiner and Ms. Mary Burton.



    The K087 treatment test was executed at the U.S. EPA Combustion



Research Facility by Acurex Corporation, contractor to the Office of



Research and Development.  Field sampling for the test was conducted



under the leadership of Mr. William Myers of Versar; laboratory



coordination was provided  by Mr. Jay Bernarding, also of Versar.



    We greatly appreciated the cooperation of the American Iron and Steel



Institute, the American Coke and Coal Chemicals  Institute, and the



individual companies that  permitted their plants to be sampled and that



submitted detailed information to the U.S. EPA.
                                    8-1

-------
                               9.   REFERENCES
Ackerman, D.G., McGaughey, J.F., and Wagoner, D.E. 1983.  At sea
  incineration of RGB-containing wastes on board the M/T Vulcanus.
  EPA 600/7-83-024.  Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency.

Ajax Floor Products Corp. n.d.  Product literature:  technical data
  sheets, Hazardous Waste Disposal System.  P.O. Box 161, Great Meadows,
  N.J. 07838.

ASTM.  1986.  American Society for Testing and Materials.  Annual book of
  ASTM standards.  Philadelphia, Pa.:  American Society for Testing and
  Materials.
Austin, G.T.
  New York:
 1984.  Shreve's chemical process industries.  5th ed.
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Bishop, P.L., Ransom, S.B., and Grass, D.L.  1983.  Fixation mechanisms
  in solidification/stabilization of  inorganic hazardous wastes.  In
  Proceedings of the 38th  Industrial Waste Conference, 10-12 May 1983, at
  Purdue University, West  Lafayette,  Indiana.

Bonner, T.A., et al. 1981.  Engineering handbook for hazardous waste
  incineration.  SW-889. NTIS PB81-248163.  Prepared by Monsanto Research
  Corporation under Contract no. 68-03-3025 for U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency.

Castaldini, C., et  al.  1986.  Disposal of hazardous wastes in industrial
  boilers and furnaces.  Park Ridge, N.J.:  Noyes Publications.

Cherry, K.F. 1982.  Plating waste treatment,  pp. 45-67.  Ann Arbor,
  Mich.:  Ann Arbor Science, Inc.

Conner, J.R.  1986.  Fixation and solidification of wastes.  Chemical
  Engineering  Nov. 10, 1986.
CRC.  1986.  CRC handbook of chemistry and physics.
  ed.  Boca Raton, Fla.:  CRC Press, Inc.
                                        6th ed.  R.C. Weast,
Cullinane, M.J., Jr., Jones, L.W.
  stabilization/solidification of
  Waterways Experiment Station.
  Ohio:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                      and Malone, P.G. 1986. Handbook for
                     hazardous waste. U.S. Army Engineer
                    EPA report no. 540/2-86/001. Cincinnati
Cushnie, G.C.,  Jr.
  technology,  pp.
       1985.  Electroplating wastewater pollution control
      48-62. 84-90.  Park Ridge, N.J.:  Noyes Publications.
                                    9-1

-------
Cushnie, G.C., Jr.  1984.  Removal of metals from wastewater
  neutralization and precipitation,  pp. 55-97.  Park Ridge, N.J.:   Noyes
  Publications.

CWM.  1987.  Chemical Waste Management.  Technical  note 87-117,
Stabilization treatment of selected metal containing wastes.
September 22, 1987.  Chemical Waste Management, 150 West 137th Street,
Riverdale, 111.

Electric Power Research Institute.  1980.  FGD sludge disposal manual,
  2nd ed.  Prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Inc.  EPRI CS-1515 Project
  1685-1.  Palo Alto, Calif.:  Electric Power Research Institute.

Environ.  1985.  Characterization of waste streams listed in 40 CFR
  Section 261 waste profiles.  Vol. 2.  Prepared for Waste Identification
  Branch, Characterization and Assessment Division.  Washington, D.C.:
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Gurnham, C.F.  1955.  Principles of industrial waste treatment.
  pp. 224-234.  New York:  John Wiley and Sons.

Halverson, F., and Payer, H.P. 1980.  Flocculating agents. In
  Encyclopedia of chemical technology, 3rd ed., pp. 489-516, New York:
  John Wiley and Sons.

Mishuck, E., Taylor, D.R., Telles, R., and Lubowitz, H.  1984.
  Encapsulation/fixation  (E/F) mechanisms.  Report no. DRXTH-TE-CR-84298.
  Prepared by S-Cubed under Contract no. DAAK11-81-C-0164. AD-A146177.

Mitre Corp.  1983.  Guidance manual for hazardous waste incinerator
  permits.  NTIS PB84-100577.

Novak, R.G., TroxVer, W.L., and Dehnke, T.H. 1984.  Recovering energy
  from hazardous waste incineration.  Chemical Engineering Progress
  91:146.

Oppelt,  E.T.  1987.  Incineration of hazardous waste. JAPCA 37(5).

Perch, M.  1979.  Coal conversion processes (carbonization).  In Kirk-
  Othmer encyclopedia of  chemical technology.  3rd ed.  Vol. 6.   New
  York:  John Wiley and Sons.

Perry, R.H., ed.  1973.   Chemical engineer's handbook.  5th ed.
  New York:  McGraw-Hill  Book Co.

Pojasek, R.B.  1979.  Solid-waste disposal:  solidification.  Chemical
  Engineering 86(17):141-145.
                                    9-2

-------
Sanderson.  1971.  Chemical bonds and bond
  chemistry.   New York:  Academic Press.
                                         energy.  Vol. 21.  In Physical
Santoleri, J.J.   1983.  Energy recovery — a by-product of hazardous waste
  incineration systems.  In Proceedings of the 15th Mid-Atlantic
  Industrial Waste Conference on Toxic and Hazardous Waste.

USDOE.  1988.  U.S. Department of Energy. Computer printout:  EIA3
  (Energy Information Administration) mailing list, EIA5-coke plant
  survey respondents. Retrieved Jan. 14, 1988. Washington, D.C.:  U.S.
  Department of Energy.

USEPA.  1980a.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
  Waste. RCRA listing background document for K087. Washington, D.C.:
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA.  1980b.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Army Engineer
  Waterways Experiment Station. Guide to the disposal of chemically
  stabilized and solidified waste.
  Interagency Agreement
  Ohio.
                      No.
	  Prepared  for  MERL/ORD  under
 EPA-IAG-D4-0569.  P881-181505.  Cincinnati
USEPA.  1983.
  manual.   Vol
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatability
	      .  III. Technology for control/removal of pollutants.
EPA-600/2-82-001c.  Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA.  1986a.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
  Waste and Emergency Response. Test methods for evaluating solid waste.
  SW-846,  3rd ed. Washington,  D.C.:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA.  1986b.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous waste
  management systems;  land disposal restrictions;  final  rule:
  Appendix I to Part 268 - Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
  (TCLP).  51 FR 40643-54, November 7, 1986.

USEPA.  1986c.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
  Waste. Onsite engineering report of treatment technology performance
  and operation for Envirite Corporation, York, Pennsylvania.  Washington,
  D.C.:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA.  1986d.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Best demonstrated
  available technology (BOAT)  background document for F001-F005 spent
  solvents.  Vol. 1. EPA/530-SW-86-056.  Washington,  D.C.:   U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency.
                                    9-3

-------
USEPA.  1987a.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
  Waste. Generic quality assurance project plan for land disposal
  restrictions program ("BOAT"). EPA/530-SW-87-011.   Washington, D.C.:
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA.  1987b.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
  Waste. Burning of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces;
  proposed rule. 52 FR 17012, May 6, 1987.

USEPA.  1988a.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Onsite engineering
  report of treatment technology performance and operation for K087 waste
  at the Combustion Research Facility, Jefferson, Arkansas.  Washington,
  D.C.:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA.  1988b.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Onsite engineering
  report of treatment technology and performance for K061 waste at
  Horsehead Resource Development Co.,  Inc.  Palmerton, Pennsylvania.
  Washington, D.C.:  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.

Versar Inc.   1984.  Estimating  PMN incineration results. Contract
  no. 68-01-6271. Draft report  for Office of Toxic Substances.
  Washington, D.C.:  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.

Verschueren,  Karel. 1983.  Handbook of  environmental  data on organic
  chemicals.  2nd ed. New York:  Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,  Inc.

Vogel, G., et al.  1986. Incineration and cement kiln capacity for
  hazardous waste treatment.  In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Research
  Symposium on  Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous Wastes, April
  1986, Cincinnati, Ohio.
                                    9-4

-------
                                APPENDIX A



                            STATISTICAL METHODS







A.1  F Value Determination for ANQVA Test



    As noted in Section 1.2,  EPA is using the statistical  method known as



analysis of variance (ANOVA)  to determine the level  of performance that



represents "best" treatment where more than one technology is



demonstrated.   This method provides a measure of the differences between



data sets.



    If the Agency found that  the levels of performance for one or more



technologies are not statistically different (i.e.,  the data sets are



homogeneous),  EPA would average the long-term performance  values achieved



by each technology and then multiply this value by the largest



variability factor associated with any of the acceptable technologies.



If EPA found that one technology performs significantly better (i.e., the



data sets are not homogeneous), the "best"  technology would be the



technology that achieves the  best level of performance, i.e., the



technology with the lowest mean value.



    To .determine whether any  or all of the treatment performance data



sets are homogeneous using the analysis of variance method, it is



necessary to compare a calculated "F value" to what is known as a



"critical value."  (See Table A-l.)  These critical  values are available



in most statistics texts (see, for example, Statistical Concepts and



Methods by Bhattacharyya and  Johnson, 1977, John Wiley Publications,



New York).





                                    A-l

-------
Table A-l

95th PERCENTILE VALUES FOR
THE F DISTRIBUTION
ni = degrees of freedom for numerator
«i = degrees of freedom for denominator
(an&aea area — - .yt>)

M^
FM
\
"A
1
o
o
4
^
5
G
~
8
Q
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
oo
24
26
28
30
40
50
60
70
80
100
150
200
400
«
1
V
161.4
1S.51
10.13
7.71
6.61
5.99
5.59
5.32
5.12
4.9G
4.84
4.75
4.67
4.60
4.54
4.49
4.45
4.41
4.38
4.35
4.30
4.26
4.23
4.20
4.17
4.08
4.03
4.00
3.98
3.96
3.94
3.91
3.89
3.86
3.84
2

199.5
19.00
9.55
6.94
5.79
5.14
4.74
4.4G
4.2G
4.10
3.98
3.89
3.S1
3.74
3.68
3.63
3.59
3.55
3.52
3.49
3.44
3.40
3.37
3.34
3.32
3.23
3.18
3.15
3.13
3.11
3.09
3.06
3.04
3.02
2.99
3

215.7
19.16
9.28
6.59
5.41
4.76
4.35
4.07
3.86
3.71
3.59
3.49
3.41
3.34
3.29
3.24
3.20
3.16
3.13
3.10
3.05
3.01
2.98
2.95
2.92
2.84
2.79
2.76
2.74
2.72
2.70
2.67
2.65
2.62
2.60
4

224.6
19.25
9.12
6.39
5.19
4.53
4.12
3.84
3.G3
3.48
3.36
3.26
3.18
3.11
3.06
3.01
2.96
2-93
2.90
2.S7
2.S2
2.78
2.74
2.71
2.69
2.61
2.56
2.53
2.50
2.48
2.46
2.43
2.41
2.39
2.37
6

230.2
19.30
9.01
6.26
5.05
4.39
3.97
3.69
3.48
3.33
3.20
3.11
3.03
2.96
2.90
2.85
2.81
2.77
2.74
2.71
2.66
2.62
2.59
2.56
2.53
2.45
2.40
2.37
2.35
2.33
2.30
2.27
2.26
2.23
2.21
6

234.0
19.33
8.94
6.16
4.95
4.28
3.87
3.58
3.37
3.22
3.09
3.00
2.92
2.85
2.79
2.74
2.70
2.66
2.63
2.60
2.55
2.51
2.47
2.45
2.42
2.34
2.29
2.25
2.23
2.21
2.19
2.16
2.14
2.12
2.09
8

238.9
19.37
8.85
6.04
4.82
4.15
3.73
3.44
3.23
3.07
2.95
2.85
2.77
2.70
2.64
2.59
2.55
2.51
2.48
2.45
2.40
2.36
2.32
2.29
2J>7
2.18
2,13
2.10
2.07
2.05
2.03
2.00
1.98
1.96
1.94
12

243.9
19.41
8.74
5.91
4.68
4.00
3.57
3.28
3.07
2.91
2.79
2.69
2.60
2.53
2.48
2.42
2.38
2.34
2.31
2.28
2.23
2.18
2.15
2.12
2.09
2.00
1.95
1.92
1.89
1.88
1.85
1.82
1.80
1.78
1.75
16

24G.3
19.43
8.69
5.84
4.GO
3.92
3.49
3.20
2.98
2.82
2.70
2.60
2.51
2.44
2.39
2.33
2.29
2j>5
2.21
2.18
2.13
2.09
2.05
2.02
1.99
1.90
1.85
1.81
1.79
1.77
1.75
1.71
1.69
1.67
1.64
20

248.0
19.45
8.66
5.80
4.56
3.87
3.44
3.15
2.93
2.77
2.65
2.54
2.46
2.39
2.33
2.28
2.23
2.19
2.15
2.12
2.07
2.03
1.99
1.96
1.93
1.84
1.78
1.75
1.72
1.70
1.68
1.64
1.62
1.60
1.67
30

250.1
19.46
8.62
5.75
4.50
3.81
3.38
3.08
2.86
2.70
2.57
2.46
2.38
2.31
2.25
2.20
2.15
2.11
2.07
2.04
1.98
1.94
1.90
1.S7
1.84
1.74
1.69
1.65
1.62
1.60
1.57
1.54
1.52
1.49
1.46
40

251.1
19.46
8.CO
5.71
4.46
3.77
3.34
3.05
2.82
2.G7
2.53
2.42
2.34
*> O^
*> Ol
2.16
2.11
2.07
2.02
1.99
1.93
1.89
1.85
1.81
1.79
1.69
1.63
1.59
1.56
1.54
1.51
1.47
1.46
1.42
1.40
50

252.2
19.47
8.58
5.70
4.44
3.75
3.32
3.03
2.80
2.64
2.50
2.40
2.32
2^4
2.18
2.13
2.08
2.04
2.00
1.96
1.91
1.86
1.82
1.78
1.76
1.66
1.60
1.56
1.53
1.51
1.48
1.44
1.42
1.38
1.32
100

253.0
19.49
8.56
5.6G
4.40
3.71
3.28
2.98
2.76
2.59
2.45
2.35
2.26
2.19
2.12
2.07
2.02
1.98
1.94
1.90
1.84
1.80
1.76
1.72
1.69
1.59
1.52
1.48
1.45
1.42
1.39
1.34
1.32
1.28
1.24
•9

25;.s
19.50
S.5S
5.63
4.3G
3.67
3.23
2.93
2.71
2.5;
2.40
2.30
2.21
2.13
2.07
2.01
1.96
1.92
1.88
1.84
1.78
1.73
1.69
1.65
1.62
1.51
1.44
1.39
1.35
1.32
1.28
1.22
1.19
1.13
1.00
   A-2

-------
    Where the F value is less than the critical  value,  all  treatment data

sets are homogeneous.  If the F value exceeds the critical  value,  it is

necessary to perform a "pair wise F" test to determine  if any of the sets

are homogeneous.   The "pair wise F" test must be done for all of the

various combinations of data sets using the same method and equation as

the general F test.

    The F value is calculated as follows:

    (i)  All data are natural logtransformed.

    (ii)  The sum of the data points for each data set  is computed (T.).

    (iii)  The statistical  parameter known as the sum of the squares

between data sets (SSB) is  computed:
   SSB =

where:

k
                           U")
                                  2 1
         = number of treatment technologies
    n-j   = number of data points for technology i
    N    = number of data points for all  technologies
    T.J   = sum of natural logtransformed  data points for each technology.

    (iv)  The sum of the squares within data sets  (SSW)  is  computed:
     SSW =

where:

x
 k   ni   o
 Z   Z  *2
i=l  j=l
                           -
                               k
                             - z
                              1=1
                                        T.2
                                        1 •!
     -j  j = the natural  logtransformed observations (j)  for treatment
           technology (i).
                                    A-3

-------
    (v)  The degrees of freedom corresponding to SSB and SSW are
calculated.  For SSB, the degree of freedom is given by k-1.  For SSW,
the degree of freedom is given by N-k.
    (vi)  Using the above parameters, the F value is calculated as
follows:
                                  MSB
                              F = MSW
    where:
    MSB = SSB/(k-l) and
    MSW = SSW/(N-k).
    A computational table summarizing the above.parameters is shown below.

                    Computational Table for the F Value
Source
Between
Within
Degrees of
freedom
k-1
N-k
Sum of
squares
SSB
SSW
Mean square
MSB = SSB/k-1
MSW = SSW/N-k
F value
MSB/MSW
    Below are three examples of the ANOVA calculation.  The first two
represent treatment by different technologies that achieve statistically
similar treatment; the last example represents a case in which one
technology achieves significantly better treatment than the other
technology.
                                    A-4

-------
1790g
                                                            Example  1
                                                       Hethylene Chloride
Steam stripping
Inf luent Iff luenl
Ug/i)
1550.00
1290.00
1640.00
5100.00
1450.00
4600.00
1760.00
2400.00
4800.00
12100.00
.Ug/i)
10.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Biological treatment
In(effluent) [ln(eff luent )]Z Influent Effluent In(effluent)

2.30
2.30
2.30
2.48
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
Ug/t) Ug/D
5.29 1960.00 10.00 2.30
5.29 2568.00 10.00 2.30
5.29 1817.00 10.00 2.30
6.15 1640.00 26.00 3.26
5.29 3907.00 10.00 2.30
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
[In(effluent)]2

5.29
5.29
5.29
10.63
5.29





Sum:
                                 23.18
                                                   53.76
                                                                                             12.46
                                                                                                             31.79
Samp Ic S i/e:
    10           10
Mean:
  3669
                 10.2
Standard Deviation:
  3328.67          .63
Variability factor:
                                 10
                                  2.32
                               .06
                                                          2378
                                                           923.04
                  1.15
                                                                               13.2
                                                                            7.15
                                                                                2.48
                                                                                          2.49
                                                                                           .43
ANOVA Calculations:

                2
SSB =

              n.
               i
SSW

HSB = SSB/(k-l)

HSW = SSU/(N-k)
                      u
                                Tj
                                    2 n
  f  k   ni   ,    1    k   f Ti?  1
=   ,?,  ,?,  *?i.J   -isi  hr-
  1 1-1  J-l        j   i-l  I n,   )
                                                           A-5

-------
1790g


                                     Example 1  (Continued)
F   = HSB/MSW

where:
k   = number of treatment technologies

n   = number of data points for technology i

N   = number of natural  logtransformed data points for all technologies

T   = sum of logtransformcd data points for each technology

X .  . - the nat. logtransformed observations (j) for treatment technology  (i)
n  = 10. n  = 5. N = 15. k. - 2. T  = 23.18. T  = 12.46. 1 = 35.64.  T  =  1270.21
 12                      1           2
 2            2
T  = 537.31  T  = 155.25
                            1270.21
                              15
                                           =  0.10
SSU = (53.76 + 31.79) -
                          537.31   155.25
                           10
- 0.77
MSB = 0.10/1 = 0.10

MSW = 0.77/13 -= 0.06

      0.10
             = 1 .67
      0.06
                                    ANOVA Table
Degrees of
Source freedom
Between(B) 1
Vithin(W) 13

SS MS F value
0.10 0.10 1.67
0.77 0.06
      The critical value of the F test at the 0.05 significance level  is 4.67.   Since
      the F value  is  less  than the critical value, the means are not significantly
      different (i.e.,  they are homogeneous).

Note:  All calculations were rounded to two decimal places.   Results may differ
       depending upon the  number of decimal places used in each step of the calculations.
                                           A-6

-------
1790g
                                                            Example 2
                                                         I r i chloroethylene
           Steam stripping                                               Biological treatment
Influent       Effluent      In(effluent)   [ln(effluent)]2   Influent      Effluent      In(effluent)
 Ug/1)         Ug/1)                                          (Mg/D        Ug/1)
Sum:
Sample Size:
     10          10
                                 26.14
                                 10
                                                  72.92
                                                                                               16.59
                                                                                                             [Infeff luent)]2
1650.00
5200.00
5000.00
1720.00
1560.00
10300.00
210.00
1600.00
204 . 00
160.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
27.00
85.00
10.00
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
3.30
4.44
2.30
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
10.89
19.71
5.29
200.00
224.00
134.00
150.00
484.00
163.00
182.00



10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
16.25
10.00
10.00



2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.79
2.30
2.30



5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
7.78
. 5.29
5.29



                                                                                                                   39.52
Mean:
   2760
                 19.2
                                  2.61
                                                                220
                                                                                10.89
                                                                                                2.37
Standard Deviation:
   3209.6        23.7

Variabi I ity Factor:
                  3.70
                                   .71
                                                                120.5
                                                                                 2.36
                                                                                 1 .53
                                                                                                 .19
ANOVA Calculations
                2
SSB =
       i = l

      f  k    nj
SSW =    Z    £
      L 1=1 J^l
MSB = SSB/(k-l)

MSW = SSU/(N-k)
                               N
                               Ti2
                      1    k  f Tj?
                        -Z    J_
                      ]   '"1 I "i
                                                           A-7

-------
1790g


                                     Example 2  (Continued)
r   - MSB/MSV
where:
k   = number of treatment technologies
n.  = number of data points for technology i

N   = number of data points for all technologies
T   = sum of natural logtransformed data points for each technology
X   = the natural logtransformed observations (j)  for treatment technology (i)

                                                                   2            2
N  = 10. N  - 7. N - 17. k - 2. 1   - 26.14.  1  •= 16.59.  T  - 42.73.  I = 1825.85. ^  = 683.30.

TZ = 275.23

SSB =-    +      '       -     -           =  0.25
       10            7    I     17
SSU = (72.92 + 39.52) -	 +    '   |       = 4.79
                        I   10        7

MSB = 0.25/1 = 0.25

MSU = 4.79/15 = 0.32

r =	 = 0.78
    0.32

                                    ANOVA Table
Degrees of
Source freedom
Between(B) 1
Within(W) 15

SS MS F value
0.25 0.25 0.78
4.79 0.32
      The critical value of the F test at the 0.05 significance  level  is 4.54.  Since
      the F value is  less than the critical value, the means  are  not significantly
      different (i.e.. they are homogeneous).
Note:  All calculations were rounded to two decimal places.   Results may differ
       depending upon the number of decimal places used in  each  step of the calculations.
                                           A-8

-------
1790g
                                                       Example 3
                                                     Chlorobenzene
Activated sludge followed by carbon  adsorption             Biological treatment
Influent       Effluent      In(effluent)   [ln(effluent)]2   Influent      Effluent
 Ug/1)        Ug/1)                                      Ug/D        Ug/D
                                                           ln(effluent)
Sum:
Sample Size:
     4          4
Mean:
   5703
               49
Standard Deviation:
   1835.4       32.24
Var iabi I ity Factor:
                              14.49
                               3.62
         .95
                                              55.20
                                 14759
                                 16311.86
                7.00
                                                 452.5
                                                 379.04
                                                                         15.79
                                                                                      38.90
                                                                5.56
                                                                1.42
ln[(effluent)]?
7200.00 80.00 4.38
6500.00 70.00 4.25
6075.00 35.00 3.56
3040.00 10.00 2.30



19.18
18.06
12.67
5.29



9206.00
16646.00
49775.00
14731.00
3159.00
6756.00
3040.00
1083.00
709.50
460.00
142.00
603 . 00
153.00
17.00
6.99
6.56
6.13
4.96
6.40
5.03
2.83
48.86
43.03
37. 5B
24.60
40.96
25.30
8.01
                                                                                                        228.34
ANOVA Calculations:

SSB -
       • = l.l  n.

ssw-[iUi"2'-i
MSB = SSB/(k-l)

HSW = SSW/(N-k)

F   = HSB/MSW
  A^r
     N
 "   f-1
1=1  I Hj  J
                                                     A-9

-------
1790g
where.
                                      Example 3   (Continued)
k   = number of treatment technologies
n   - number of data points for technology i
 i
N   = number of data points for all technologies
T   = sum of natural logtransformed data points for each technology

X   - the natural logtransformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)


N  = 4. N = 7. N = 11.  k = 2. T  = 14.49. T  = 38.90. T = 53.39.  T  = 2850.49.  T   =  209.96
T  = 1513.?!
SSB -
      209.96     1513.21  1   2850.49
                                11
                                              -  9.52
SSW = (55.20 * 228.34)
                            209.96    1513.21
               14.88
MSB = 9.52/1 = 9.52

HSU - 14.88/9 - 1.65

F = 9.52/1.65 - 5.77
                                    ANOVA Table
                   Degrees of
          Source    freedom
SS
                                                          MS
                        F  value
Between(B)
Uithin(W)
1
9
9.53
14.89
9.53
1.65
5.77
      The critical value of the F test at the 0.05 significance level is 5.12.   Since
      the P value  is  larger than the critical value, the means are significantly
      different  (i.e.. they are heterogeneous).  Activated sludge followed by carbon
      adsorption  is "best"  in this example because the mean of the long-term performance
      value,  i.e., the effluent concentration,  is  lower.
Note:  All calculations were rounded to two decimal places.  Results may differ depending
       upon the number of decimal places used  in each step of the calculations.
                                          A-10

-------
A. 2  Variability Factor
                                     C99
                              VF =  Mean

    where:

     VF     =  estimate of daily maximum variability factor determined
               from a sample population of daily data;
    Cgg     =  estimate of performance values for which 99 percent of the
               daily observations will be below.  Cgq is calculated
               using the following equation:  Cgq = txp(y + 2.33 Sy)
               where y and Sy are the mean and standard deviation,
               respectively, of the logtransformed data; and
    Mean    =  average of the individual performance values.

    EPA is establishing this figure as an instantaneous maximum because

the Agency believes that on a day-to-day basis the waste should meet the

applicable treatment standards.  In addition, establishing.this

requirement makes it easier to check compliance on a single day.  The

99th percentile is appropriate because it accounts for almost all process

vari abi1ity.

    In several cases, all the results from analysis of the residuals from

BOAT treatment are found at concentrations less than the detection

limit.  In such cases, all the actual concentration values are considered

unknown and, hence, cannot be used to estimate the variability factor of

the analytical results.  Below is a description of EPA's approach for

calculating the variability factor for such cases with all concentrations

below the detection limit.

    It has been postulated as a general rule that a lognormal

distribution adequately describes the variation among concentrations.

Agency data show that the treatment residual concentrations are


                                    A-ll

-------
distributed approximately lognormally.  Therefore, the lognormal model

has been used routinely  in the EPA development of numerous regulations in

the Effluent Guidelines  program and  is being used in the BOAT program.

The variability factor  (VF) was defined as the ratio of the 99th

percentile  (C  ) of the  lognormal distribution to its arithmetic mean

(Mean), as  follows:


            VF =     C99.                                   (1)
                   Mean

    The relationship between the parameters of the lognormal  distribution

and the parameters of the normal distribution created by taking the

natural logarithms of the lognormally distributed concentrations can be

found  in most mathematical statistics texts (see, for example,

Distribution in Statistics-Volume 1  by Johnson and Kotz, 1970).  The mean

of the lognormal distribution can be expressed in terms of the

mean (^) and standard deviation (a)  of the normal distribution as

follows:

         Cgg    =  Exp  (M +  2.33a)                        (2)

         Mean   =  Exp  (M +  0.5a2).                       (3)

    By substituting (2)  and  (3) in (1), the variability factor can then

be expressed in terms of a as follows:


         VF = Exp  (2.33 a - 0.5a2).                       (4)

    For residuals with  concentrations that are not all below the

detection  limit, the 99th percentile and  the mean can be estimated from

the actual  analytical data and, accordingly, the  variability factor  (VF)

can be estimated using  equation (1).  For residuals with concentrations
                                    A-12

-------
that are below the detection limit, the above equations can be used in

conjunction with the following assumptions to develop a variability

factor.

    •  Assumption 1:  The actual concentrations follow a lognormal
       distribution.  The upper limit (UL) is equal  to the detection
       limit.  The lower limit (LL) is assumed to be equal to one-tenth
       of the detection limit.  This assumption is based on the fact that
       data from well-designed and well-operated treatment systems
       generally fall within one order of magnitude.

    •  Assumption 2:  The natural logarithms of the concentrations  have
       a normal distribution with an upper limit equal to In (UL) and a
       lower limit equal to In (LL).

    •  Assumption 3:  The standard deviation (a) of the normal
       distribution is approximated by:

       a = [ln(UL) - ln(LL)] / [(2)(2.33)]
         = [ln(UL/LLJ] / 4.66.                             (5)

       (Note that when LL = (0.1)(UL) as in Assumption 1, then
       a = (InlO) / 4.66 = 0.494.)

    Substitution of the a value from equation (5) into equation (4)

yields the variability factor, VF, as shown:

       VF = 2.8.      -                                     (6)
                                    A-13

-------
                                 APPENDIX  B

                              ANALYTICAL QA/QC



    This appendix presents quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

information for the available performance data presented in Section 4 and

identifies the methods and procedures used for analyzing the constituents

to be regulated.  The QA/QC information includes matrix spike recovery

data that are used for adjusting the analytical results for accuracy.

The adjusted analytical results  (referred to as accuracy-corrected

concentrations), in general, are used for comparing the performance of

one technology to that of another and for calculating treatment standards

for those constituents to be regulated.

B.1      Accuracy Correction

    The accuracy-corrected concentration for a constituent in a matrix is

the analytical result multiplied by the correction factor (the reciprocol

of the recovery fraction;* i.e., the correction factor is 100 divided by

the percent recovery).  For example, if Compound A is measured at

2.55 mg/1 and the percent recovery is 85 percent, the accuracy-corrected

concentration is 3.00 mg/1.
The recovery fraction is the ratio of  (1) measured amount of constituent
in a spiked aliquot minus the measured amount of constituent in the
original unspiked aliquot to (2) the known amount of constituent added to
spike the original aliquot.  (Refer to the Generic Quality Assurance
Project Plan for Land Disposal Restriction Program ("BOAT").)
                                    B-l

-------
       2.55 mg/1          x        1/0.85          =     3.00 mg/1
   (analytical result)         (correction factor)   (accuracy-corrected
                                                      concentration)

The appropriate recovery values are selected according to the procedures

specified in Section 1.2.6(3).

B.I.1    BOAT List Organics

    Table B-l presents matrix spike recovery data for the kiln ash

residuals from rotary kiln incineration of K087 waste.  Table B-2

presents the selected correction factors and the accuracy-corrected

concentrations for the constituents listed in Table 4-2.

    Table B-3 shows matrix spike recovery data for the scrubber water

residuals from rotary kiln incineration of K087 waste.  Table B-4

presents the selected correction factors and the accuracy-corrected

concentrations for the constituents listed in Table 4-3.

B.I.2    BOAT List Metals

    Table B-5 presents the selected correction factors and

accuracy-corrected concentrations for the data from chemical

precipitation and sludge filtration of BOAT list metals in wastewater

(see Table 4-4).  Matrix spike recovery data did not accompany these

performance data.  The correction factors are instead derived from  matrix

spike recovery data on metals in a similar wastewater matrix  (see

Table B-6).
                                    B-2

-------
    Table B-7 presents matrix spike recovery data for metals in the TCLP

extracts from stabilization of F006 waste.  Table B-8 presents the

selected correction factors and the accuracy-corrected concentrations for

the metals listed in Table 4-5.

B.2      Methods and Procedures Employed to Generate the Data Used in
         Calculating Treatment Standards

    Table B-9 lists the methods used for analyzing the constituents to be

regulated in K087 waste.  Most of these methods are specified in SW-846

(USEPA 1986a).  For some analyses, SW-846 methods allow alternatives or

equivalent procedures and/or equipment to be used.  Tables B-10 and B-ll

indicate the alternatives or equivalents employed in generating the data

for the K087 treatment standards.  The EPA Characterization and

Assessment Division approved other alternatives to the SW-846 methods,

and these are specified in Table B-12.  Deviations are shown in Table

B-13.  The Agency plans to use these methods and procedures to enforce

the treatment standards for K087 waste.
                                     B-3

-------
 1779g
               Table B-l  Matrix Spike Recovery Data for Kiln Ash Residuals
                        from Rotary Kiln  Incineration of  K087  Waste
                                                   Sample              Duplicate
Constituent                                   percent recovery     percent recovery
 Volat i1e  Orqanics

 1,1-Dichloroethane                                  114                 114
 Trichloroethene                                     114                 114
 Chlorobenzene                                       106                 106
 Toluene                                             106                 104
 Benzene                                             100                  98
 (Average  of  volatiles)                              (108)               (107.2)

 Semivolati1e Orqanics  (acid-extractable)

 Pentachlorophenol                                     7a                 lla
 Phenol                                               77                  80
 2-Chlorophenol                                       78                  83
 4-Chloro-3-methyIphenol                              92                  87
 4-Nitrophenol                              •          37                  35
 (Average  of  acid extractables)                      (7i)a               (71.25)3

 Semivolatile Orqanics  (base/neutral-extractable)

 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene                               84                  89
 Acenaphthene                                        93                  91
 2,4-Dinitrotoluene                                  121                 109
 Pyrene                                               34                  39
 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine                           82                  84
 1,4-Dichlorobenzene                                  79                  89
 (Average  of  base/neutral  extractables)             (82.17)               (83.5)

 Metals  (total concentration  analysis)

 Antimony                                •             23                  22
 Arsenic                                              44                  48
 Barium                                               78                  76
 Beryllium                                           78                  78
 Cadmium                                              76                  88
 Chromium  •                                           76                  83
 Copper                                               73                  77
 Lead                                                104                  82
 Mercury                                             120                 100
'Nickel                                               78                  98
 Selenium                                             92                  92
 Silver                                               72                  72
 Thallium                                             48                  76
 Vanadium                                             80                  80
 Zinc                                                 78                  80
                                          B-4

-------
1779g
                                  Table B-l   (Continued)
                                                   Sample              Dupl icate
Constituent                                   percent  recovery     percent recovery
Metals (TCLP leachate concentration analysis)

Ant imony                                             44                  42
Arsenic                                              98                 104
Barium                                               67                  85
Beryllium                   '                         78                  90
Cadmium                                              96                  96
Chromium                                             75                  83
Copper                        .                       68                  85
Lead                                                 76                  97
Mercury                                             100                 ' 96
Nickel                                               68                  80
Selenium                                             96                 100
Silver                                               88                  84
Thallium                                             76                  54
Vanadium                                             75                  86
Zinc                                                 71                  86

Inorganics Other Than Metals

Cyanide                                              96                  58
 Spike recovery values of 20 percent or less are not used in  the  development of
 treatment standards.  Thus, the averages of the acid-extractable compounds do not
 reflect the recoveries of pentachlorophenol.

Reference:  USEPA 1988a.
                                          B-5

-------
1779g
                  Table B-2  Accuracy-Corrected  Analytical Results for kiln Ash Generated by
                                    Rotary kiln Incineration of  K087  Waste
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (mq/kq)
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xylenes
BOAT Semivolatile Orqanics (mq/kq)
Acenaphtha lene
Anthracene
Benz ( a ) anthracene
Benzol b)f luoranthene
Benzol k )f luoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
para-Cresol
Fluoranthene
F luorene
Indeno( 1 , 2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphtha lene
Phenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
BOAT Metals (mg/kg)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Tha 1 1 ium
Vanadium
Zinc
Correct ion
factor

1/0.98
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00

1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.69
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.82
1/0.77
1/0.82
1/0.34

1/0.22
1/0.44
1/0.76
1/0.78
1/0.76
1/0.76
1/0.73
1/0.72
1/1.00
1/0.78
1/0.92
1/0.72
1/0.48
1/0.80
1/0.78


1

<0.026
<0.025
0.150
<0.025

<1.Z
<1.2
<1.2
<1.2
<1.2
<1.2
<1.2
<1.4
<1.2
<1.2
<1.2
<1.2
<1.3
<1.2
<2.9

<14.6
22
417
0.77
<0.53
45
1023
54
<0.10
12
1.5
<0.83
<2.1
21
64
Accuracy-corrected concentration
Sample Set #
2345

<0.026 <0.026 <0.026 <0.026
<0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025
0.085 <0.025 <0.025 0.190
<0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025

<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 --1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2' <1.Z
<1.3 <1.3 <1.3 <1.3
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
<2.9 <2.9. <2.9 <2.9

<9.1 <9.1 <9.1 <14.6
25 15 27 12
74 70 54 83
<0.6 <0.6 <0.6 0.46
<1.3 <1.3 <1.3 <0.53
6.8 2.9 2.8 10
60 59 68 129
10 10.1 7.2 8.8
2.8 2.9 3.3 <0.1
<5.1 <5.1 <5.1 5.8
1.7 <0.54 6.4 <0.54
<6.9 <6.9 <6.9 <8.3
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
12 8.2 10.1 12
17 17 15 27 •
                                                    B-6

-------
1779g
                                             Table B-2   (Continued)
Accuracy-corrected concentration
Correct ion
Constituent/parameter (units) factor
BOAT TCLP: Metals (mq/1)
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
S i Tver
Tha 1 1 ium
Vanad ium
Zinc
BDAT Inorganics Other Than Metals (mg/kg)
Cyanide
F luor ide
Sulf ide
Other Volatile Orqanics (mg/kg)

1/0.42
1/0.98
1/0.67
1/0.78
1/0.96
1/0.75
1/0.68 •
1/0.76
1/0.96
1/0.68
1/0.96
1/0.84
1/0.54
1/0.75
1/0.71

1/0.58
_b
_b

Sample Set ?
1

1.019s
0.098
0.909
0.004
<0.004
0.08?
<0.009
0.038
<0.0002
0.136
<0.052
<0.007
<0.018
<0.040
0.238

1.28
<1.0
35.5

2

<0.047
0.034
0.513
<0.006
<0.010
<0.027
0.076
0.053
< 0.0003
<0.058
<0.007
<0.060
<0.018
<0.066
0.285

<0.58 ..
-
36.3

3

<0.047
0.025
0.816
<0.006
<0.010
•=0.027
1.632
0.070
<0.0003
<0.059
<0.005
<0.060
<0.018
<0.067
0.307

<0.58
-
144

4

<0.047
0.019
0.956
<0.006
<0.010
<0.027
0.509
0.. 026
<0.0003
•=0.058
<0.005
<0.060
<0.018
<0.067
0.406

<0.58
-
116

5

<0.076
0.043
0.815
0.003
<0.004
0.012
0.731
0.139
<0.0002
0.024
<0.005
<0.007
<0.926
0.011
0.361

<0.58
<0.2S
11.0

Styrene

Other Semivolatile Orqanics  (mg/kg)
1/1.00
                                                         <0.025
                                                                    <0.025
                                                                                <0.025
                                                <0.025
<0.025
Oibenzof uran
2-Methylnaphthalene
Other Parameters (mg/kg)
Total organic carbon
Total chlorides
Total organic halides
1/0.82 <1.2
1/0.82 <1.2

-b 350000
-b 9.7
-b 375
<\.2
<1.2

553000
6.8
18.3
«1.2 <\.2 <1.2
<1.2 <1.2 <1.2

402000 316000 244000
14.1 14.6 16.0
32.1 19.8 133
 - = Not analyzed.
aThis concentration  is considered to be an analytical error based on the results  for  the other sample sets.
 Matrix spike  data are not available; thus, concentrations are not corrected for  accuracy.
Note:  This table shows the concentrations or maximum potential concentrations  in the kiln ash for all
constituents that were detected  in the untreated waste or detected in residuals generated from treatment of
the waste.  EPA analyzed the kiln ash for all the BDAT list constituents that are listed  in Table D-2.
                                                     B-7

-------
1779g
            Table  B-3  Matrix Spike Recovery Data for Scrubber Water Residuals
                       from Rotary Kiln Incineration  of K087  Waste

Sample
Constituent percent recovery
Volat i 1e Orqarncs
1 . 1-Dichloroethane
Tr ichloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Benzene
(Average of volatiles)
Semivolatile Orqanics (acid-extractable)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
4 -Chloro- 3 -methyl phenol
4-Nit rophenol
(Average of ac id-extractables)
Semivolatile Oraanics (base/neut ra 1-ext ractable)
1 , 2.4-Trichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
2 ,4-Dinitrotoluene
Pyrene
N-Nitroso-di-n-propy lamine
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
(Average of base/neutral extractables)
Metals (total concentration)
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
T ha 1 1 ium
Vanadium
Zinc
Inorganics

110
114
112
124
106
(113.2)

107
96
106
107
117
(106.6)

77
104
125
143
104
78
(105.2)

110
83
94
87
94
91
94
84
58
84
108
76
20
96
88

Dupl icate
percent recovery

106
112
106
124
108
(111.2)

85
93
108
103
118
(101.4)

85
94
124
136
98
87
(104)

117
64
88
87
92
94
98
87
58
89
90
80
18
98
91

Cyanide                                             88                  78

                                               B-8

-------
1779g
                     Table B-4  Accuracy-Corrected Analytical Results for Scrubber Water
                              Generated  by Rotary Kiln Incineration of  K087  Waste
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Oraanics (MQ/!)
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Xy lenes
BOAT Semivolatile Orqanics (ng/1)
Acenaphtha lene
Ant hracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
para-Cresol
F luoranthene
F luorene
Indeno( 1.2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
BOAT Metals (mg/1)
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thai 1 ium
Vanadium
2 inc
Correct ion
factor

1/1 .00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00

1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/1.00
1/0.93
1/1.00

1/1.00
1/0.64
1/0.88
1/0.8
1/0.9
1/0.91
1/0.94
1/0.84
1/0.58
1/0.84
1/0.90
1/0.76
_b
1/0.96
1/0.88
Concentrat ion
a
Sample
12 3 4 5 6

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 .<5
14 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<5 8 <5 <5 <5 <5
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <\0 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<11 <11 <11 <11 <11 <11
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<0.032 <0.033 <0.020 0.039 <0.020 <0.032
0.330 0.298 0.231 0.402 0.469 0.534
0.074 0.398 0.343 0.386 0.330 0.116
<0.001 0.001 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001
0.028 0.016 0.023 0.045 0.046 0.055
0.336 0.334 0.170 0.259 0.280 0.285
1.117 1.170 1.008 1.319 1.234 1.319
6.679 8.333 3.857 5.690 6.679 5.762
0.0004 <0.0003 0.0008 0.0006 0.0005 0.0007
<0.013 <0.13 <0.048 <0.048 <0.048 -'0.013
0.090 0.068 0.006 0.092 0.097 0.097
<0.008 <0.009 <0.065 <0.066 <0.066 <0.008
126 109 77 108 96 136
0.016 0.013 <0.052 <0.052 <0.052 0.019
2.557 2.318 1.977 3.307 3.034 3.364
                                                     B-9

-------
1779q p.A
                                            Table  B-4   (Cont inued)


Constituent/parameter (units) Correction
factor
BOAT inorcianics Other Than Metals (cnq/1)
Cyan ule 1/0. To
F luor ide
Sulfide -c
Concent rat ion
d
Sample
. 1234

•0.013 <0.013 -0.013 -0.013
3.38 2.99 ?.38
<1.0 <1.0 11.9 =1.0



E

'0.013 '0.013
3.54
<1 .0 <1 .0
Other Volatile Orudmcb (/
-------
                                                 Table B-5  Accuracy-Corrected Data for Treated Wastewaler Residuals
                                                          from Chemical Precipitation and Sludge Filtration
CO
 i
Untreated
concentration range Correction
Constituent (mg/1) factor
Antimony <10
Arsenic <1
Barium <10
Beryllium <2
Cadmium <5-13
Hexavalent chromium 0.08-893
Chromium 137-2581
Copper 72-225
Lead <10-212
Mercury £l
Nickel 382-16330
Selenium <10
Silver <2
Thallium <10
Zinc 3.9-171
1/0.92
1/1.00
1/0.90
1/0.90
1/0.87
1/1.06
1/0.68
1/0.83
1/0.76
1/0.90
1/0.93
1/0.48
1/0.76
1/0.84
1/0.98
Accuracy-corrected concentrat
Sample Set 1
123456
(No substantial
(No substantial
<1.1 
-------
                                                Table B-6  Matrix Spike Recovery Data for Metals in Uastewater
ro

»—•
ro
Sample
Constituent
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Original sample
M/D
<21
<10
1.420
1.4
4.2
<4.0
<4.0
<5.0
<0.2
203
<25
<4.0
<10
<60
2,640
Spike added
Ug/D
300
50
5,000
25
25
50
125
25
1.0
1.000
25
50
50
250
10,000
Spike result
M/D
275
70
5.980
25
26
35
107
22
0.9
1.140
12
42
51
212
12.600
Percent
recovery
92
140
91
94
87
70
86
88
90
94
48
84
102
85
100
Dupl icate
Spike result
Ug/D
276
66
5.940
24
27
34
104
19
1.1
1,128
<25
38
48
211
12,400
Percent
recovery
92
132
90
90
91
68
83
76
110
93
NC
76
96
84
98
              NC = Not calculable.



              aPercent recovery =  [(spike result - original amount)/spike added] x 100.



              Reference:  USEPA 1988b.

-------
1973g
              Table B-7  Matrix Spike Recovery Data for the TCLP  Extracts from Stabilization of F~006 Waste
Const ituenl
Arsen ic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
tead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium0
Silver0
Zinc
Original
amount
found
(ppm)
0.1013
0.01b
0.3737a
0.2765b
0.00753
2.9034b
0.34943
0.2213b
0.2247a
0.1526b
0.32263
0.2142b
0.001a
0.001b
0.028a
0.4742b
0.1013
0.043b
0.04373
0.0344b
0.01333
27.202b
Duplicate
(ppm)
0.01
0.01
0.3326
0.222
0.0069
0.7555
0.4226
0.2653
0.2211
0.1462
0.3091
0.2287
0.001
0.001
0.0264
0.0859
0.12
0.053
0.0399
0.0411
0.0238
3.65
% Error
0.0
0.0
5.82
10.9
4.17
58.7
9.48
9.0
0.81
2.14
2.14
3.27
0.0
0.0
6.87
69.3
8.6
10.4
4.55
8.87
28.3
76.3
Actual
spike
0.086
0.068
4.9474
5.1462
4.9010
6.5448
4.6780
4.5709
4.8494
4.9981
4.9619
4.6930
0.0034
0.0045
4.5400
4 . 6093
0.175
0.095
4.2837
0.081
5.0910
19.818
% Recovery
94.5
104
91.9
97.9
97.9
94.3
85.8
86.6
92.5
97.0
92.9
89.4
92
110
90.3
86.6
86
66d
84.8
0.87d
101.4
87.8
Accuracy-
correct ion
factor
1.06
0.96
1.09
1.02
1.02
1.06
1.17
1.15
1 .08
1.03
1.08
1.12
1.09
0.91
1.11
1.15
1.16
0.96
1.18
114.9
0.99
1.14
 At a mix ratio of 0.5.
 At a mix ratio of 0.2.
 For a mix  ratio of  0.2.  correction factors  of  1.16 and 1.18 were used when correcting for  selenium and silver
 concentrations, respectively.
 This value  is not considered in the calculation for the accuracy-correction factor.

Reference:   Memo to  R. Turner.  U.S.  EPA/HUERL from Jesse R. Conner, Chemical Waste Management,  dated January 20. 1988.
                                                      B-13

-------
                                              Table  B-8   Accuracy-Corrected  Performance  Data  for  Stabilization  of  F006 Waste
CO
 I
Concentration (ppm)
Sample Set #
Constituent
Arsenic


Barium



Cadmium



Chromium



Copper



Lead



Stream
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
1
<0.01
<0.01d
-
36.4
0.08
0.12f
-
1.3
0.01
0.01e
-
1270
0.34
0.59f
-
• 40.2
0.15
0.20f
-
35.5
0.26
0.3'3f
-
2
<0.01
<0.01c'd
<0.01d
21.6
0.32
0.51C
0.46f
31.3
2.21
0.53C
0.01
755
0.76
0.46C
0.45
7030
368
5.57C
0.27
409
10.7
0.45°
0.39
3
<0.01
<0.01c'd
<0.01d
85.5
1.41
0.34
0.34C
67.3
1.13
0.06
0.02C
716
0.43
0.09
0.23C
693
1.33
1.69f
1.99C
25.7
0.26
0.34f
0.44C
4
-
<0.01c'd
<0.01d
17.2
0.84
0.20C
0.25
1.30
0.22
0.01C
0.01
110
0.18
0.27C
0.35f
1510
4.6
0.31C
0.29
88.5
0.45
0.34C
0.379
5
<0.01
<0.01c'd
<0.01d
14.3
0.38
0.32C
0.21
720
23.6
3.43C
0.01
12200
25.3
0.29C
0.44
160
1.14
0.21C
0.31
52
0.45
0.27C
0.39g
6
<0.01
<0.01c'd
<0.01d
24.5
0.07
0.31C
0.36f
7.28
0.3
0.02C
0.01
3100
38.7
0.24C
0.88
1220
31.7
0.22C
0.22
113
3.37
0.34C
0.39 •
7
<0.01
<0.01C|
<0.01d
12.6
0.04
0.04C
0.15f
5.39
0.06
0.01C
0.01
42900
360
3.5C
1.41
10600
8.69
0.41C
0.45
156
I'.O
0.34C
0.41
8
<0.01
d <0.01C'
<0.01d
15.3
0.53
0.33C
0.29
5.81
0.18
0.01C
0.01
47.9
0.04
O.llc
0.23f
17600
483
0.52C
0.34
169
4.22
0.35C
0.40
9
0.88
,d <0.02c'd
<0.02d
19.2
0.28
0.19C
0.09
5.04
0.01
<0.01C
<0.01e
644
0.01
0.03C
0.23e
27400
16.9
3.28C
0.50
24500
50.2
2.67C
0.29

-------
      19/jg
                                                                          Table B-8   (Continued)
CD
 i
en
Concentration (ppm)
Sample Set #
Constituent
Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Si Iver

Zinc

aMix ratio
Mix ratio
Note: Data
Stream
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
' Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLPa
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
Untreated total
Untreated TCLP
Treated TCLP3
Treated TCLPb
is 0.2. The mix rat
is 0.5.
points were deleted
1

<0.001
<0.001d
435
0.71
0.05
-
<0.01
0.07d
2.3
0.01
0.04e
1560
0.16
0.03
io is the ratio
for the reasons
•> t i «n
2

3

<0.001 <0.001
<0.001c'd <0.001d
<0.001d <0.001c'd
989
22.7
1.73C
0.03
-
<0.01
0.07c'd
0.13d
6.62
0.14
0.04C
0.06
4020
219
42. Oc
0.01
of the reagent
given in the
259
1.1
0.26
0.1 7C
-
<0.01
0.08d
0.13c'd
39
0.02
0.24f
0,06C
631
5.41
0.06
0.03C
weight to waste
4

<0.001
<0.001C'd
<0.001d
37
0.52
0.12C
0.02
_
0.09c'd
0.16d
9.05
0.16
0.04C
0.05
90200
2030
36C
0.04
weight .
5

<0.001
<0.001C'd
<0.001d
701
9.78
0.61C
0.04
_
<0.01
0.05c'd
0.10d
5.28
0.08
0.05C
0.079
35900
867
3.87C
0.03

6

0.003
<0.001c'd
<0.001d
19400
730
19. lc
0.06
.
<0.01
0.06c'd
0.13d
4.08
0.12
0.04C
0.06
27800
1200
42. Oc
0.04

7

<0.001
<0.001C'd
<0.001d
13000
152
0.46C
0.11
_
<0.01
0.05c'd
0.08d
12.5
0.05
0.04C
0.06f
120
0.62
0.02C
0.02

8
.
<0.001
<0.001Cld
<0.001d
23700
644
18. lc
0.04
-
<0.01
0.08c'd
0.08d
8.11
0.31
0.04C
0.06
15700
650
5.17C
0.02

9

<0.001
<0.001c'd
<0.001d
5730
16.1
1.25C
0.02
-
<0.45
<0.01C'd
<0.01d
19.1
<0.01
<0.01C
<0.01e
322
1.29
0.08C
<0.01

following footnotes:
     f
 No untreated total  concentration  or  TCLP.
Untreated TCLP  value  low.
 Treated values  greater  than  untreated  value.
         in attributed  to dilution  with  reagent.

-------
1847g

             Table B-9  Analytical Methods for Regulated Constituents



Analysis/methods                                           Method       Reference
Volatile Organics
    Purge-and-trap                   .                      5030             1
    Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for
      volatile organ ics                                    8240             1

Semivolatile Orqanics
    Continuous liquid-liquid extraction (treated waste)    3520             1
    Soxhlet extraction (untreated waste)                   3540             1
    Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for semi-
      volatile organics:   Capillary Column Technique       8270             1

Metals
    Acid digest ion
    •  Aqueous samples and extracts to be analyzed by      3010             1
       inductively coupled plasma atomic emission
       spec t roscopy (ICP)
    •  Aqueous samples and standards to be analyzed by     3020             1
       furnace atomic absorption (AA) spectroscopy
    •  Sediments, sludges, and soils                       3050             1
    Lead (AA. furnace technique)                           7421             1
    Zinc (ICP)                                             6010             1
    Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)      51 fR 40643      2
References:
1.  USEPA 1986a.
2.  USEPA 198Gb.
                                             B-16

-------
                                    Table B-10   Specific  Procedures or Equipment  Used  in  extraction of Organic  Compounds  When
                                                Alternatives or  Fquiva lent.s Are Allowed  in  the  SW-8-1G Methods
   Analysis
SW-646 method
    Sample aliquot.
Alternatives or eq.nvalents allowed
         by SW-846 methods
     Spec if ic procedures or
          equipment used
   Purge-and-trap
    5030
5 mi 111 1 iters of 1 iqu ul:
1 gram  of  sc1 id
CO
I—'
•-J
  The purge-ancl-trap device to be
  used is specified in Figure 1  of
  the method,   fhe desorber to he
  used is described in Figures 2 and 3,
  and the packing materials are
  described in Section 4.10.2 of SW-846.
  The method allows equivalents of this
  equipment or materials to be used.

  The method specifies that the
  trap must be at least  25 cm long
  and have an  inside diameter of at
  least 0. 105  cm.

  The surrogates recommended are
  to Iuene-d8. 4-bromof luorohenzene.
  and 1 ,2-clichloroethane-d4 .   The
  recommended  concentration level is
  50 //g/ 1 .
The purge-and-trap equipment and
the descrber used were as specified
in SW-846.  The purge-and-trap
equipment were a leckm-ir tSC-2 with
standard purging chambers (Supelco
cat. 2-G293).   The packing materials
for the traps  were 1/3 silica gel
and 2/3 2.6-diphenylene.

The length of  the trap was 30 cm
and the diarreter was 0.105 cm.
                                                                                                                        The  surrogates  were  added  as
                                                                                                                        specified  in  SW-846.
  Soxhlet Extraction
    3540
   1  gram of  sol id
                                                                            The recommended surrogates
                                                                            and their concentrations are
                                                                            the same as for Method 3520.
                                                                                               The surrogates used and their
                                                                                               concentration levels were the same
                                                                                               as for Kethod 3520.
                                                                            Sample grinding may be required
                                                                            for sample not passing through a
                                                                            1-inrn standard sieve or a 1-mm
                                                                            opening.
                                                                                               Sample grinding was  not  required.

-------
                                                                    Table B-IO  (Continued!
  Analys is
SW-846 method
  Sample  aliquot
Alternatives or equivalents a
         by SW-BdG' methods
     Specific procedures or
          equipment  used
  Continuous  liquid-
  1iquid extract ion
   3520
1 iter  of  1 iqu id
  Acid and base'neutral extracts
  are usually combined before
  analysis by 6C/MS.   Under some
  situations, however, they may
  be extracted and analyzed
  separately.
Acid ancl base/neutral extracts
were combined.
co
 i
00
                                                   The base/neutral surrogates
                                                   recommended are ?-f luorohiphenyl,
                                                   nitrohenzene-d5, and terpheny 1-dl1.
                                                   The acid surrogates  recommended
                                                   are 2-f luorophenol,
                                                   2,4.E-tribromophenol.  and
                                                   phenol-d6.   Additional compounds
                                                   may be  used for surrogates.   The
                                                   recommended concentrations for
                                                   low-medium concentration level
                                                   samples  are 100 ppm  for acid
                                                   surrogates and 200 ppm for base/
                                                   neutral  surrogates.   Volume of
                                                   surrogate  may be adjusted.
                                                                                                                       Surrogates were the same as those
                                                                                                                       recommended by SW-846. with the
                                                                                                                       e'-cept ion that phenol-dO war.
                                                                                                                       substituted for phenol-clB.  The
                                                                                                                       ccncertrations used were the
                                                                                                                       concertrations recommended  'n SW-f46.

-------
1458g
                                     Table B-ll  Specific Procedures or Equipment  Used for  Analysis  of  Organic  Compounds
                                                When Alternatives or Equivalents Are Allowed in the SV-846 Methods
   Analysis
SV-846
method
Sample
preparation
method
Alternatives or equivalents
   allowed in SU-846 for
 equipment or in procedure
Specific equipment or procedures used
Gas chromatography/
  mass spectrometry
  for volatile
  organics
  8240    5030
              Recommended GC/MS operating conditions:
                                                    Actual  GC/MS operating conditions:
       DO
                        Electron energy:
                        Mass range:
                        Scan time:

                        Initial  column temperature:
                        Initial  column holding  time:
                        Column temperature program:
                        Final column temperature:
                        Final column holding  time:
                        Injector temperature:
                        Source temperature:

                        Transfer line temperature:
                        Carrier  gas:
                                           70  ev  (nominal)
                                           35-260 amu
                                           To  give 5 scans/peak but
                                            not  to exceed  7 sec/scan
                                           45'C
                                           3 min
                                           8'C/min
                                           200'C
                                           15  min
                                           200-225'C
                                           According to manufacturer's
                                           specification
                                           250-300'C
                                           Hydrogen at 50 cm/sec or
                                           helium at 30 cm/sec
                                                    Electron  energy:
                                                    Mass  range:
                                                    Scan  time:
                         70 ev
                         35-260 amu
                         2.5 sec/scan
                                                    Initial  column temperature:   38"C
                                                    Initial  column holding  time:  2  min
                                                    Column  temperature program:   10*C/min
                                                    Final column temperature:
                                                    Final column holding  time
                                                    Injector temperature:
                                                    Source  temperature:
                                                                                                                 Transfer line temperature:
                                                                                                                 Carrier gas:
                         225'C
                         30 min or xylene elutes
                         225-C
                         manufacturer's recommended
                         value of 100'C
                         275'C
                         Hclium at 30 ml/min
                                                The column should be 6 ft x 0.1  in I.D. glass.
                                                packed with  1% SP-1000 on Carbopack B  (60/80 mesh) or
                                                an equivalent.

                                                Samples may  be analyzed by purge-and-trap technique
                                                or by direct  injection.
                                                                                         The column  used was an 8 ft x 0.1  in  I.D. glass, packed
                                                                                         with  1% SP-1000 on Carbopack B (60/80 mesh).
                                                                                         The samples were analyzed using the purge-and-trap
                                                                                         technique.

                                                                                         Additional  information on actual system used:
                                                                                         Equipment:  Finnegan model 5100 GC/MS/DS system
                                                                                         Data system:  SUPERINCOS Auloquan
                                                                                         Mode:  Electron  impact
                                                                                         NBS library available
                                                                                         Interface to MS - Jet separator

-------
1458g
                                                                   Table B-ll  (Continued)
Analysis
          Sample
SW-846    preparation
method    method
Alternatives or equivalents
   allowed in SW-846 for
 equipment or in procedure
       Specific equipment or procedures used
                                               Recommended GC/MS operating  conditions:
                                                                                       Actual GC/HS operating conditions:
Gas chromatography/
  mass spectrometry
  for semivolatile
  organics: capillary
  column technique
       oo
       i
       ro
       o
  8270   3520-liquids  Mass range:
         3520-solids   Scan time:
                       Initial column temperature:
                       Initial column holding time:
                       Column temperature program:

                       Final column temperature hold:
                       Injector temperature:
                       Transfer line temperature:
                       Source temperature:
                                               Injector:
                                               Sample volume:
                                               Carrier gas:
                35-500 amu
                1 sec/scan
                40'C
                4 min
                40-270'C at
                lO'C/min
                270'C (until
                benzo[g,h, i Jperylene has
                eluted)
                250-300'C
                250-300'C
                According to
                manufacturer's
                specification
                Grob-type. split less
                1-2 (il
                Hydrogen at 50 cm/sec or
                helium at 30 cm/sec
                                               The column should be 30 m by 0.25  rim I.D..  \~ian  film
                                               thickness silicon-coated fused silica  capillary  column
                                               (J&W Scientific OB-5 or equivalent).
Mass range:
Scan time:
Initial column temperature:
Initial column holding time:
Column temperature program:
Final column temperature hold:
Injector temperature:
Transfer line temperature:
Source temperature:
                                                                                       Injector:
                                                                                       Sample volume:
                                                                                       Carrier gas:
35-500 amu
1 sec/scan
30'C
4 min
8'C/min to 275'
and 10"C/min unti1
305'C
305'C
240-260'C
300'C
Manufacturer's
recommendation
(nonheated)
Grob-type, spitless
1 >il of sample extract
Helium at 40 cm/sec
                                                                                       The column used was a  30 m x 0.32 mm I.D.
                                                                                       RTx -5 (5% phenyl methyl silicone) FSCC.
                                                                                                               Additional  information  on  actual  system used:
                                                                                                               Equipment:   Finnegan model 5100 GC/MS/DS system
                                                                                                               Software  Package:   SUPER I NCOS Autoquan

-------
         lOi/y
                                Table B-12  Specific Procedures Used in Extraction of  Organic  Compounds When Alternatives  to
                                    SW-846 Methods Are Allowed  by Approval of EPA Characterization and Assessment Division
         Analysis
SW-846 method     Sample aliquot
                          SW-846  specification
                                   Specific procedures allowed by
                                       approval of EPA-CAD
         Continuous  liquid-
         liquid extraction
    3520
1  liter
The internal standards are
prepared by dissolution in
carbon disulfide and then
dilution to such volume that
the final solvent is 20%
carbon disulfide and BOX
methylene chloride.
The preparation of the internal
standards was changed to eliminate
the use of carbon disulfide.   The
internal standards were prepared
in methylene chloride only.
         Soxhlet  extraction
    3540
1  gram
CO
 i
ro
The internal standards are
prepared by dissolution in
carbon disulfide and then
dilution to such volume that
the final solvent is 20%
carbon disulfide and 80%
methylene chloride.
The preparation of the internal
standards was changed to eliminate
the use of carbon disulfide.   The
internal standards were prepared
in methylene chloride only.

-------
              i OH / y
                                                                Table  B-13   Deviations  from SW-846
              Analysis
Method
SW-846 specifications
Deviation from SV-846
Rationale for deviation
              Soxhlet extraction
              Acid digestion for
              metals analyzed
3540       Concentrate extract to
           1-ml volume.
3010       Digest 100 ml of sample in
3020       a conical beaker.
                             Extracts for untreated waste
                             were concentrated to 5-ml
                             volume.
                             Initial  sample volume of
                             50 ml  was digested in Griffin
                             straight-side beakers.   All
                             acids  and peroxides  were
                             halved.
ro
                             The untreated waste samples
                             could not be concentrated to
                             1-ml sample volume because of
                             the viscosity of the extract.

                             Sample volume and reagents
                             were reduced in half,
                             therefore, time required to
                             reduce sample to near
                             dryness was reduced.
                             However,  this procedure
                             produced no impact on the
                             precision and accuracy of
                             the data.

-------
                                APPENDIX C

           DESIGN AND OPERATING  DATA  FOR ROTARY KILN  INCINERATION
                              PERFORMANCE DATA
    This appendix is a presentation and analysis of the design and

operating data from the Onsite Engineering Report of Treatment Technology

and Performance for K087 Waste at the Combustion Research Facility,

Jefferson, Arkansas (USEPA 1988a.)

    The operating data presented in Table C-l are reported according to

the sample set time interval during which they were collected.  The

desired operating conditions or targeted values for the test burn are

displayed under the headings.  The targeted values represent the optimum

operating conditions that are believed to provide the most effective

destruction of the organic constituents of concern in the Combustion

Research Facility (CFR) rotary kiln system.

    Table C-l indicates that the kiln rotational speed, the scrubber

effluent water temperature, the pressure across the venturi scrubber, and

the scrubber effluent water pH and flow rate were kept with the targeted

values.  The operating data for the kiln and afterburner temperatures and

for the gaseous emissions show some fluctuations from the targeted

values.  Also, the operating data for the feed rate indicate that there

are fluctuations inherent in the operation of the rotary kiln system.

All these fluctuations from the targeted values are discussed below.
                                    C-l

-------
    Tables C-2 and C-3 summarize the time intervals during which the



temperature in the kiln or the afterburner fell below the targeted



values.  These data have been estimated from the strip charts at the end



of thi s appendix.



    The targeted temperature in the primary chamber of the rotary kiln at



the CRF was ]800"F.  This temperature represents the maximum



temperature attainable in the primary chamber of the CRF kiln.   During



treatment, there were a number of deviations from the targeted



temperature.  Considering the range and frequency of these deviations and



examining the concentratons of organics in the kiln ash, EPA has



concluded that the conditions in the primary chamber represent  a



wel1-operated unit for treatment of the K087 waste.  A discussion of the



deviations from the targeted temperature is presented below.



    As shown during the test sample set time intervals, temperatures in



the kiln fell below the targeted 1800°F on 16 occasions for periods



lasting from 3 to 90 minutes.  The most severe fluctuation occurred on



August 26 1987, when the temperature climbed from 1350 to 1800°F over



a period of approximately 70 minutes.



    The targeted temperature for the afterburner was 2150°F; this



temperature represents the maximum attainable value for the CRF.  During



treatment, the operating temperature deviated from the targeted condition



on several occasions.



    Both the kiln and the afterburner at the CRF were equipped  with



ultraviolet sensors that automatically terminated the auxilliary fuel and



air flows (and signaled to the operator to stop feeding waste into the





                                    C-2

-------
kiln) when a flameout (loss of visible flame) was detected.   Note that



false detection of a flameout resulted in an actual  flameout because the



auxiliary fuel and excess air were turned off.  Flameouts were detected



on several occasions during the sample set time intervals of the K087



test burn, as indicated on Table C-4.



    The Agency believes these flameouts represent typical fluctuations



during normal operations of rotary kiln incinerators, especially in



systems where containerized waste is ram fed into the incinerator at



discrete time intervals.  During the sample set time intervals, the kiln



and afterburner flames were reignited within seconds.  As evidenced by



the data, a flameout usually results in a decrease in temperature and, if



the flameout occurs in the afterburner, a drop in oxygen and a rise in



carbon dioxide content in the gas stream from the afterburner.  Note that



there were occasions when the continuous emissions monitoring



instrumentation indicated less than  1 percent oxygen and greater than



100 ppm carbon monoxide in the gas stream from the afterburner.



(Table C-5 summarizes the estimated  times.)  These occasions, however,



were extremely short-lived, as indicated by the spike-like behavior of



the curves on the Figure B and D strip charts, which are presented in



this appendix.



    Oxygen and carbon monoxide spikes also were produced when



temperatures climbed sharply in the  kiln; according to CRF engineers.,



these spiking phenomena were caused  by "hot charged" fed into the kiln.



(A fiber drum was considered to be a "hot charge" if its K087 heating
                                    C-3

-------
value exceeded that of the average fiber drum.)  These spikes would not



be considered uncommon in an operation such as the CRF rotary kiln



system, which has a ram-feed mechanism.



    The operator at the ram feeder was instructed to stop the feed



immediately after each flameout occurrence or period of dramatic



temperature increase until the system stabilized.  Thus,  while the feed



rate averaged over the feeding period of each sample set  interval was



less than the targeted value, it does not indicate poor operation.



    Having evaluated the operating data, the Agency believes that the



rotary kiln incineration system was well operated and that the analytical



data are useful for the development of treatment standards for K087 waste,
                                    C-4

-------
1779g
                                                      Table C-l  Operating Data from the K087 Test Burn

Sample Set/
Date Time
Target values:6
Sample Set #1 8:40-15:10
8/25/87
Sample Set #2 14:10-18:25
8/25/87 (scrubber effluent
Sample Set #2 10:20-13:00
8/26/87 (kiln ash data)
o
en
a h
Temperature (T) Emissions
Kiln Pressure
rotational Scrubber Feed drop
speed effluent ratec 02 C0? C0d THC venturi
(rpm) Kiln Afterburner water (Ib/hr) (% vol) ('/< vol) (ppm) (ppm) (in H.,0)
0.2 1800 2150 <180 105 6-8 - <1000 0 20
0.2 1400-2000 1950-2150 165-170 77 0-19 7.0->10 0->100 -f 9-17g

0.2 1600-2000 1850-2150 143-170 80 0-18 6.4->10 0-MOO -f 7-14g
water data)
0.2 1350-1875 1925-2150 165-170 97 0-13 3.8->10 0->100 0->10h 7-229


Scrubber
ef f luent
Scrubber water
effluent flow rate
water pH (gpm)
7.0-8.0 1.5
6.9-7.8 1.5

7.0-7.5 1.5

7.0-7.6 1.5


Sample Set #3  9:50-14:15   0.2
  8/28/87
1675-2000  1900-2150    165-170     89        0-14        5.4->10   0-1500    0->10     20
             7.2        1.5
Sample Set #4   13:15-16:50   0.2
  8/28/87
1625-2000  2050-2150    165-170      87        2-12        6.8->10   0-800     0
20
             7.2        1.5
Sample Set #5  15:50-18:25  0.2
  8/28/87
1725-2050  2125-2175    165-170      90        4-12        6.4->10   0-360     0
20
7.2        1.5

-------
      1779g
                                                                           Table C-l  (Cont inued)

       Kiln and afterburner temperatures presented on this table are minimum and maximum values according  to  the  data  logger  strip  charts,  which  are  presented  in
       Figures C-l through C-5  in this Appendix.  Note that the thermocouples connected to the American  Combustion  printer  are  used by  the  controller  for
       adjusting operating conditions.
       The minimum 0-, and maximum CO values typically correspond to periods of flameout in the kiln  and/or afterburner.   See  Figures B.  C.  and  D  (in
       Appendix C) for strip charts showing continuous emissions monitoring (CEM)  of 0,,.  CCK,  and CO.  respectively.
       Includes weight of fiber drum packaging  (1.1 pounds per drum) and weight of waste (approximately  3.5 pounds  per  drum).   Waste feed  rate  alone  was
       targeted at 80 Ib/hr.
       Upper end of detection  limit for CO was  raised from 100 ppm on August 25 and 26 to 2000 ppm on  August  28 by  switching  to another  strip chart recorder.
       The targeted values represent the optimum operating conditions to provide the most effective  treatment for hazardous organic constituents.  EPA
       recognizes that during normal operation, these optimum conditions cannot be sustained at all  times.   EPA will determine  whether  the  treatment  system  has
       been adequately operated based on the magnitude and duration of the fluctuations from the targeted  values.
       THC analyzer was down for repairs.
      "Needle readout failed during the test burn; operator speculated that pressure drop was  in reality 20 in H,0  on 8/25  and  8/26.  Operator  recorded values
       from a second readout located  in the bay area on 8/28.
       The analyzer registered  four sharp peaks on 8/26 at approximately 10:25, 10:28, 11:00,  and 11:40  and one sharp peak  on 8/28  at approximately 09:59.

      Reference:  USEPA 1988a.
o
 i

-------
1779g
                       Table C-2  Sunmary of  Intervals When Temperatures in
                                  the Kiln Fell Below Targeted Value of 1800T
Date
Interva 1
                                            Minimum temperature  reached
                                               during interval  ("F)fl
                                                         Observations
8/25/87






8/26/87


8/28/87





08:
08:
10:
11:
12:
15:
17:
10:
11:
11:
09:
10:
10:
10
14
16:
41
57
03
36
37
07
04
20
27
:39
50
01
07
:14
:41
:08
- 08:
- 09:
- 10:
- 12:
- 12:
- 15:
- 18:
- 11:
- 11:
- 12:
- 09:
- 10:
- 10:
- 10
- 15
- 16
57
27
15
12
40
12
25
27
39
:00
:59
:05
:13
:20
:08
:14
1400
1450
1650
1675
1750
1725
1600
1350
1725
1650
1725
1725
1675
1725
1625
1725
F lameout
Flameout
F lameout
Flameout
F lameout
'
Flameout
Ash bin
-
Flameout
-
F lameout
Flameout
Flameout
-
-
(06:
(08:
(10:
(12
(12

(17
41)
:57, 09:12)
:02)
:00)
:37)

:02-16:25)
replaced at 10:00

(11

(10
(10
(10



:40, 11:42)

:00)
:07)
:14)


 Intervals and minimum temperatures are estimated from strip charts  in Figures  C-l  through  C-5.
 which are presented  in this appendix.
                                                  C-7

-------
1779g
                      Table  C-3   Summary  of  Intervals When Temperatures in the
                                 Afterburner  Fell  Below  Targeted Value of 2050"F
Date
                     Intervalc
                                          Minimum  temperature reached
                                             during  interval ("F)a
                                                                              Observations
b/ 25/67 08:
08:
10:
10:
11 :
12:
13:
15:
15:
16:
17:
8/26/87 10:
11:
11:
8/28/87 09:
10:
14:
16:
17:
17:
.41 -
57 -
:00 -
48 -
33 -
35 -
03 -
:34 -
56 -
45 -
03 -
30 -
02 -
39 -
50 -
33 -
:41 -
08 -
02 -
32 -
08:
10
10
11:
11:
12:
13:
15:
16
16:
17:
11
11:
12:
10:
10:
15:
16:
17:
18:
:47
:00
:30
:00
:48
:45
:09
:42
:27
54
:20
:02
:24
:00
33
53
:11
:30
:17
:25
2025
1950
1975
2050
2000
2050
2050
2050
2025
2025
1850
2000
1950
1925
1900
2000
2075
2125
2125
2125

F lameout
F lameout
F lameout

F lameout
F lameout
F lameout
F lameout
F lameout
F lameout
F lameout
F lameout
F lameout
F lameout
F lameout





(08
(10
(10

(12
13:
(15
(16
(16
(17
(10
(11
(11
(10
(10
-
-
-
-

:57)
:02)
:50)

:37)
07}
:30.
:00)
:42.
:02)
:30)
:02)
:40.
:00)
:37)











15:37)

16:47)



11:42)






Intervals and minimum temperatures  are  estimated  from  strip charts  in Figures C-l through C-5,
 which are presented in this appendix.
                                                 C-8

-------
1779g

              Table C-4  Flameout  Occurrences Recorded by Operator
Date               Operating log time               Location of flameout
                                                    Kiln        Afterburner
8/25/87 08:41
08:57
09:12
10:02
10:50
12:00
12:37
13:07
15:30
15:37
16:00
16:42
16:47
17:02
8/26/87 I'D: 30
11:02
11:40
11:42
13:36
8/28/87 10:00
10:06
10:13
10:37
11:10
12:56
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
                                       C-9

-------
1779g
          Table C-5  Occurrences of Oxygen and Carbon Monoxide  Spikes
Date
8/25/87





















8/26/87







8/28/87














Time of
occurrence
08:56
09:08
09:32
09:35
09:57
10:00
10:48
11:33
12:14
12:32
12:34
12:54
13:02
13:14
13:33
15:31
15:33
15:38
15:55
16:13
16:40
16:45
10:25
10:30
10:56
11:02
11:35
11:40
12:35
12:40
10:00
10:06
10:13
10:34
10:36
11:07
12:21
12:56
13:22
14:27
14:35
15:09
15:25
15:33
17:00
Less than
1% oxygen
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X •
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
Greater than
100 ppm carbon
monoxide
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
-
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
observat ions
Flameout (08:57)
Flameout (09:12)
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Flameout (10:02)
Flameout (10:50)
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Flameout (12:37)
Hot charge
Flameout (13:07)
Hot charge
Hot charge
Flameout (15:30)
-
Flameout (15:37)
Flameout (16:00)
-
Flameout (16:42)
Flameout (16:47)
Hot charge
Flameout (10:30)
Hot charge
Flameout (11:02)
-
Flameout (11:40)
Hot charge
Hot charge
Flameout (10:00)
Flameout (10:06)
Flameout (10:13)
Hot charge
Flameout (10:37)
Flameout (11:10)
Hot charge
Flameout (12:56)
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
Hot charge
 Oxygen less than 1  percent  and carbon monoxide greater than 100 ppm
 according to strip  charts  in  Figures C-6 to C-8 and C-12 to C-16.
 Estimated from strip charts in Figures C-6 to C-16.

                                       C-10

-------
Temperature Trends for the Kiln Exit, Afterburner Exit,
        Venturi  Exit  and  Scrubber  Effluent Water
                           C-ll

-------
I-;'-! ••.•'-.• : • • • 1 . ! 1 i 1 • • . i i i
THERMOCOUPLE CURVE
2 - Kiln Exit
3 - Afterburner Exit
4 - Venturi Exit
5 - Scrubber Liquor
1::. 1 ! !
i -i;i i i i i i •• • ' :
Oi • i ! ! i 101 i ! I 2O ! ' : ••
100 . • 90 ' i 1 i BO. i : ;
• . _| - . : i : j ; l ' • i '
: i
8/Z5/B7 11:30 ( |
. . ' : I 1 , 1 ! i i
i j • ; i . ; , , i
• ; : ' : : : j : ' i !
1 ; 1 | ! . . ' • ' 1
. . : • ; 1 MI ! i i ! ! 1
• : : ! ! , ! ' ! : !
. ! i :
•. := 1!


! ! I1
. i • : '• ]'• ! i ! i ! 1
. • • • ! 1 ! : ! !
i : , i : i i ''
I • i i i ! i , ; J
! ' : • i i : . . : i ' i ! .
i I • ; i ! i i ; J ! ! :
1 , l : j > 1 i : i ' ' • ' ;
i : •
8/25/87 10:30 T , |
100 . • i .9T ! , ! ' : -8O ; ; ! : '
• ' ! • . ' : ! : : ' • ! i ' ' '•
• ''•'• ' i • i i ! i '
• ' ; ' : i M ' ; i ; ; i ,
: • . ' . . ; I ! i .
: - i . ' .- : ! I ! '• ! ! ; '
: 1 . • • i ! ; i . i '
! ' : i : ; ! ! i ! ;
| : '
j 8/25/87 10:00 T"?"""
( . : . l . - 1 . ' !
• • j , ; i ; : • ! i i ' 1
: : • . i ' ' '
! i ' i ! - ' '• '•• • \ 1 i
'•';•' : i . I i ! ! ! '
: . , i i • • . : • ! i i i i i ! ! : i
...... i i MI •.:>«•.<
..,- i ! : ! i ii i i ' : ! : i • i

Ml
i ' •• i i ' ! ' 1
i ! j i : : ! ' i ! i > !
!!.'!! i ; ! : .1 '
01 ! ! ! ! ! !10 I i 201 1 j j
100 i ' : .90 801 I
i , : ! i ! i
1 ! . :, , .
; ! i ' 1


i . ii ii ; 1
TT T
i . j |
T T T T 1
-L 4- <-
i | i
1 ( i ! i 1 •!
i
n fZ .'••»'

i ?• „'. ^4 .•-_ ,
TEMPERATURE : :
Q-^5QO°F ' ' '

-2500 F . .
0-250°F i ' • ', '
O-L- twr — ' •' ! •'"' '' ' :

i j i i i i ; i : . • .
?'. 1 -1

'"' 1
'.'I."- ..'•
: i "•?.


t" ^'~
c\ *y.
r, —
•» •
; Z . > ; .
•+• : i 1 i '
• '•- SI. • Z 1 1 ' '
• ! : K
I , |_ • ' ' ' : : i • = . : i • • / I-.
3O ! . i M i '40t : ! ' I [ 5tt : ' 60
~!0t \ ' ', i ; 60! ' • • : 50' ' JO ..- " .-
'•*:••
1 ? ' i
••^ '-.^ -ji

••!••. i :,.'• : i • "V
: i , 1 | i i - • • i • •

l- ' '
1 : ^ •
j i ill | ! i , . . : ; i • . i . .
I • ** '
; 1 1 | ! ' ; • . • • :_ ff-
'• ' i ' ' ! i i . • • • j :
i : 1 i i : i . • ! • i : ' ,
I i 1 1 M ill i i ! i 1 i i
! ! : i ; i i ' • ' ! • ••::;••
1 1 1 l ! i i | I • • • ' 1 . •
1 i " 1 ! ! - ' ! i : : !
i : , i - 1 i , ;
! i 4j i ! ; : ! 1 i
1 " I i i i ' i ! i l
! 1 i j j i M 1 1 M
i 1 | 1 i i 1 i 1 M • : , ! 1 i i i
ill! li iii '•. • i! .,
; ) i i : i : i . . . : i . : .
1 : i MI- i i i M : • i : . :
' '•• \ .'i ! : i ! ' j \ '< i • ; ' - '
• ! : i 1 i • ' ' : ! II i ; ' ' ' • •



: c:

r ' tr
t. ^. '


• • i/i •*'•






• •••'{. ~
>!\ . -
i i ' ; '
IT
'_!*!_
1 : : l
,'! Ji
• : i •' • * •
. : : • '71:
.f • - . •
80
20,

'.. ~ ' '•
•T . •!
Z
• - '.'.. -2 !
4. .'--2 ' •
4:' . , ;2
4 ' -'' \9


j '"V i '-« !
' .'•• i I.M -

1 ' **" i "* ' ' '* 1
: • . ii ; V •
! i i • {! • ?!
.','<'. V', ^ S !
i ' .;-{ Cj!1 4
• - ''. •• f.'- ' c- 1
i 1 i -' * :
: . > ^'.
, '.' z


? ' "^
; i 7 .
i l : ' '• . '• M > j 1 i i ' '• ! l - i • !:"•'?
301 ! ! : -40! i . ! : : ;5Q . . . 60
Y7O: ! ; . : ' 60! ! i i j i .50 • : , 40
• ' ' • ; • • ' i : • • I - '
, • H.
4! i i
4ll |
•!>.*'
; : ;
4 H
^ : ,*
• ^ •

._
~" .
*• • \ '
~, 1 ' i
<' f '^
:'.
2
! 2
I i
i ,
i '•'« j.
!-i 1 :
2 i i i
^ ' • •

' • i
•? [-- *














/ L . 90 ICO
• r . . 10. o

'f • ' i
' : '!?•-•
[ I '
i i . •


1 1 i
' • i
1 ' ! '
i .
: , 1 i





• »
1 'Til
:. t !
Ji • t 1
M ' » !
''IT'
:
• . i 1
i i (-.; i -
1 1 1


Ir
.K
• ?i i
< ! 1
' ! J
?M
p ! 1 1
1 ti i
:' '*
! ! 1 i i' : j
• ' ' ' f': ' i '
1 • > i r; " "
f ' : i ;
i i i ^ ! ; - :
V . ? 70> ' ' '•:. "'2 . 8O
^ 530* • .-::

22O

• • • | • M i i : - . i ! •'. 2 1 4 •' .-: f
< ' '• ' ! ' ! i i • ' -; ,-i |a--''~ '.
: ; ; , i ! < : . i . •>•$•/ \:' •
• : i :
'• < ! . . i ! ! i ' : i ' • i | .-•••_.-• -1
i ! i . j i i !!••;! ! i: ,
! i : i i ' i ! 1 : i ' • ' • •
i i j i i 1 . i i . .
; M ! i i ; 1 . i .
.• ••.
/" ;

"• \ '-'.
• ---i
! i
! i 1 ill..!::-::
/ *v.
1 i ' i : ! ••.!;: M . ! '<{ t-4

4 . k, •
4 - ..• -2
i • .-.; 2
;
• '•
. , •£
-


i


1 '


• ' ' i ! M '•


. ; .

; ! i i i .i :
i i ; •
1 1 i i ! ! '! '•
i i :,,
1 i , Li
i 1 ! i i • .: •
• . , , ...
, i i 1 • • :
• • • : 1 • .

' ' ' i J ; 9O : - - ! '100
; i / :*! -10: • : i i . .0
i S
•i
1 ;:
! -» —
• •** ' i
. 7
T
-.


'. -. 1 , , . ;
_ i =\ . j . . ;
; •' '•: 7 i ! . :
::!.•'


..'.,.!•. . i IV £••'•-. 2
: 1 ! : M i .•::•• • ! :-' i
i : • • ! ; M i • i i > ; • i i
:• *
i ' ' i • i ; i ' ' : ; ' ! ; '( '~
! • ' ' • l ' ' • I -
: • ! • ' : • i • 1 !
i ! ' ' i : I 1 ] i '• : . Ill : ;
. ! • • • • ; : • 1 ; , . 1 . . j .
! ! ' i i >'•:;.',',•• ! I . . , 1 .
i i ! j'il I1 ' ! i j : • :
1 1 . j : • i '• : : • i . ' .
j.''-. a
X' •> • •
j •'•' ' t
1 ~v t .. * .
1 •* | i '•• '

: "•'
' : i
• . ] -5 ;
' i > ^ * .
• : v c.
!3O ' 1 1 i 401 i 1 M SO • ' ! • • 60
i70! ; i :6O i i so . . • • - 40-
1 | .':.::.-
ill1 : ' i : :
i i : • • • i , ..
1 •-.-,,
i 1 ', ! i ; :
1 ill i!;i
j 1 ! !!-'!-:
^
•"
• ,. • -
t^M £.


. y
' J ! ;
~ ' • i
! ' B • '
' i ' -
• • i . si . i
: . -. :
;. . •



•;.,,.,:
: • . • : i .


i : • - i i i-. •
•"• • ''''.':'•
'.'I.'

i
: • ' . . ;


. i _ '
' i * • • i
* • |

•rl 2 j . ,
4; ; :
i :
2: : : - : : .
.-' \3f7Qj. i '
"-•7i':'a50. : ; f
• * - 1 / '.*• • •
—' /"
:> "•';


. ! •/"
• • .-'*) ' •*! !
: ; i ; ]j f '' >•
• : ' j''£:i
L 1 1 | ! i ! i l ! \- i ^: • r-
TT I I ! i ' l ;•::.-
T i i 1 ; : ..-! ?
Q»rji 2&ILJ ^L* II | ' > j ! : • ' ' '
_ J_ _ i i i : : ; • • ' "
• -3' . l / • o-'
: ' ' i-l'.-.j.ii
-i '.•;
'..'.I '
„•: ^
; I •r'



1 . i •
• ••'••
i > 1 1
4 l i
.4 , •
4 1 '
Mil
ill!

i •
. -t. • *; •
•? • s; i .
: S i ' * 1 1 1 :
= i i 8O/
si
• • : .2ft -: i ;
1 ' l.\
i

I*-

' if I"
'in-
; i i
; 1 1
l : ' :
. ! : '
'. ' • !

1 I ' i 1
, i
• i ;
!


• . • i i ! .M
• ! .90 - • i . :.iOO
: I ',10. • . . : , , 0
i i
, ' 1 ' : i
. . 1 : ; i
,.;.;; ; i
Ji i




i '••
i!.'
: 1
1 « '.-'
J._:|
'i •;. i
', \ r
1 1 ,
1*1
1 Jl
5 1 '
fe i i
ill!
ill
i li
• : • ; i ; :
i 1 : . Mi:
i .,,:
j ' i : . 1 •
: I ' ; : ; ! :
iii ! i l I
1 1 ' i •• : '. !
i M i I'l
i . ' i 1 i i .i ;
• '• ' , • '• '
','.'• \ < '
• 1 ' i ' ; I 1
OJ
      Temperature
                  Figure C-l   Temperature  Trends  for Sample  Set #1
                                  C-12

-------
i . i • : • ; : ••',,. i i • 1 . . i i i , i , .
THERMOCOUPLE CURVE TEMPERATURE
2 - Kiln Exit 0-2500°F
3 - Afterburner Exit- 0-2500°F
4 - Venturi Exit 0-250°F
5 - Scrubber Liquor 0-250°F
01 i .
too i •

, . -I0i : '• !
i l :9O 1 1
i • .
• \ ',':.'.
1 : • ! 1
I .
i
; i i i
• i ; .
: i 1 I
i i : 20 ! ! •
i i BO ! i
i 1
i !
! ' i
8/25/87 15:00
•• i
i . i
i . . i i i ! : '
• • • ! i ' • :
i • i , • i
i • • .

,

1 '. '

1 .

i 1 : :
r ' ! \

I ! j
' l l i
. , ,
i ! 1

~ i i
; 1 1 1
! ' ' !
! 1
1 1 i
1 i
i ' '
i ! !
8/25/87 14:30
: • • •
i . . ;
i 1 1
: ' !

! l I
! : .
01 :,
! • .
: I . ,
J : -
i ' !
i ' '

1 1 * '
1 : 1 :
I'll
' 1 i
' ' i
: •' i '

; ' : '
: • ; 'to: : ; >
1
1
' 1 1 1
i ' : -
1 • i 1
1 i 1
1 ! i
, : i
! i '
1 I ! !
f : I ;
1 1

i
;H !
iiii
• • 1 •
i ! ' i
i 1 |
t] !
i 1 1 1
• 1


i : ' 3tt • 1 • l 140 i , •
: i ,7Q 1 i
i . •

III!
1 i 1

1 I
I '

i



! i '
' : :
i : ' !
: - i • •

i
i ; i '
! 1 '
. i ; .
1 i
1 1 '20 ! ; ;
8/25/87 14:00
i • i


J

! , . : .
|

	 WMMV





• . 1 I

: : ' .




• • 1 ;
8/25/87 13
^•^^^^— •
1



i
. , •



I'
:30

1



: • - i




• i
: ' ! 1

8/25/87 13:00
l
01
100 '
. I
. 1 '•
' ' ' i
. 1 i 1
I'll
I0i • •
i ' • 901 ; •
i • :
1 1
1 • i
! i i

; • 1 ;
'• i :
. ! i 1
: 1 1
i




: J
; ' •
i
: ; , •
' ' 1 I
Sridlb
' i
i ' ' 1
j !
i
i
: j i I
i 1 1
, i
i i
'• i ' !
1 1


i
i i '• -

'• • ' l


1 ' i
: l
u ' :
: • : 30 • ! :
; • ' 70 ; i *


, '





| ...
i



• ' : :

, i ; •

: • • 1




!
,

• ; : :




-. •• : 20: • .
; : jSO1 ; : ,
. ; : '
i i ;

ill!
1 : I
8/25/87 12:30
j : i -
I [ !
' • ' •
ii
, .
J • '


; i
i
, 1 1
ill
j
_i_
,- , i
i i 1
i ' I
il
! t .
I : :


1 ! !


l 1 ,
i
1
1 i



> i •


1
. i ! :


; , . i


• • l
i
l i : '6O | !
aplei
1 ; '
' ! 1 •
1 1 >
i
TT
1 1
, • i :
i i i
1 1 1
; j
: ! i
i : !
: i .
' ; : i

i • :
• ' '. !
! • . •
; . i '
• ' i ;
= : • :
*i 't
' i • '
•hi
i i
J. ' '
1
1 l
1 ', :

i ! ; 1
j i
i i
1
j j f i
1 1 !
Ill'

• l :
; 1 1 •
i ' '
. i : ;
: . ' .

1 . i .
i : 4O ' >
. : i 60 1
i •
. ;



. • i



1 . : :
;





i ' •


. , ,
i ;
• • ;
. .
i ! j
; • !3Q . i
; • 70: ; :
. '
j 1
: . i
1 • 1
1
I [ '
: ; i
l * !


i ' 1
1 1 I
•• i
1 1
1 j 1 1
1
1
I ; !
; i


j_ J_


: : ,
• i
i ' i ,
; ; :
! ! i


:
1 •; rt ii '••'• .. •:
.' -,/ .ii ' • t t
;
~n 1 1
i i
i • •
l
' |B-'4 - '
i ' ' t' — ' . '
i

it'.
: i :
. i , >



.
50 i
. 50 • : • j
.1— >

' i i i
• i 1 i
: i i :
! i i !
i
i

:

1 ;
1 1
i ; I
.
!
;
j I
I t

1 • ; •
s : • :


i . ! l
• ,

; , -.

1 • '
! ' ' '
III,


I ';. : •;. -
i',. --7 ••. —
•;. T
•; ,.
. . • ^
., •• ..i^
: 1

i
j
- j
~ 1
•i P : -.:"••* • > "j -
.; .^ f • :• ;Z- ; :.
'!• ? 1
• • • 60- •; 3 ~i« . :1
. . 40 . • i rf 3» . -2
. -2
• 2 ! ao: - • ;
• i . 20 . .
••••'• I ( ' ^-.;' •>••'•
1 ' '• *
I

• i j i i
i . .1 i , . ;
...:i • i
1 • • • i ' • •
j • •
I "f ? ..'•
I '• ^ ^' • '
.'• . •
. ~ i
- , .
-.1 ' * :
| • y ^4 _-. i i :
• . i • 1 ' •:' ? * ''••' •
' • • i ' '
i ; i . i • . :
. • i ! • • -
i I : i
. : • .

: . . •


• • 1
. .
:•' C- - »•• • .
. • i i Ir! ?j i ».' ! i i-
-••.!•: ^ ! i! i.H
' • '.'i *3 | ,,«•' .
' 'r ii ' i- ' '"
|i; '• ' f .-'
ii • H 7 '- • J
* '• V f "'»' ; '
i .> ^ *• ;-'
' • . • i :
, ; .
' !
1 ' •

! : ;

i i • .
i 5» • ' i
50i : •

i : :

. : • | . .

i . . :
• ;
! ' ! •
'- !
I : i .



i . I > :


, ' : : :





;
: . : ' ' • :
1 ! • i ' :

r "

: ' i
i : 140! : • i
; : 1 «O ' i ;
ii.1!
i
: 1 !
L 1 '
! i
| |
MI!
i • i
1 1 1
' 1 !
J J
•
' '' 1
! ! i


1
i '

: 1
1 ! !
j . : :
JJ T

! i

! . • i
l 1 i
. ! i •
,
h'P*1 ; "•
• • i.i & •• :-•
. •'• i.. ft- k; • :--'
• ? A L .•••>

• • 60 ; * •• 70 '-. ,
• . 40 : • * ~1 30 ' !
.2 ; :
,*t\:
>, | I
! ! 1
| i : ;
J i ; :
•• :* '
L {
L ,
.; '* '
J-2 :
'-.' '2 •
2: ; •

1 S.
1

I— ^^^E



P . ? 9a . • i IOC
T ,10; • ! - 0
'::•'•]•;•' '' '• '.\
• "1 -
1 '-li
. . : ' t " i i
. ' i : ! *i :
i i i i
: . J : 11 '
' • ' ' T1 '
i : ; 1 . . i.:
i i i I i
j i i : ; .
Ill ; < ; i
, 1 1 j ' ; , .

: . . i


I ; • ! . '
i i : ; 1
:'•'''• •
• \ 1
^ea : !
-.:. --20,
• : ' 1 ' I '•?".••'*
. S; '-». ? . T..--. -
• " • 9O . ; 100
. - 'tOi . . , • 0
.-•!=. ' i
.• '
: i * 3 « -.•!• 2 J
- , .

-. (< *•'. £ • ?.
?:« k' .>2 •'•')•?•.

*' A k< •' '•
.;-. -y i
i '. *T c •' . c
.

if J L
; J. L
—'•I
; *•

• • 'f f • -f
1

i '-'• f ' '. •'" -
\ 3 * , ' 2 i
i ' .*v.- *'.C' ' • -t 2

1 s: •
^^ \

•^^ .


-
:;. .
j
;•;
V

- •
• *:
r • 3.
\ ' 7.
i *f ~.i. * • -3 ~ ii
'; f: ' ''..' -s

: '• '

i ' . :

; • '

' • :

J
, so ' :
• 1 ! 50 i
1 I ' ,
l
: : 1
i . :
; j
i . .
' i ' 1
i 1 :

. : ' :
1 . .
i i



i '
' ' ! !
• '
l - ;
'' ^j 1 i ;:
•'''{-'''' -t":-' '
"' -T-- . : ' .''E-
' 1 : 7 i .--'
•'. •*. f "'
-:. •• • • •
' -60 • !? ? 7W • i
40 \\ . <• 30- ••••;.;
1 •



: : ' •


1 : . !
• . ,
i ' • -


1 '<<• •*. 4' ••
..; UJ i. •,
•>J-«.i J. v-
. -.-' r' _. ' •• -.
:'•!•'':> • • ;
•(•**{• V
..(:'-* *
1 •"
i- * • •
., - •£.
I 5-
,! „ '.
!•.-!* i . , -
1 '•-...•;
! . i ' 3 : * -
' • ' • .\ *
1 | . .;. . S .
'.'• :2 "80. .I : '
2 • : 20: ' i
. •••'2 '
(•'"? •
f
.-. '

^ . .
p;,_.Z •
!.• 5 *' '..•• 2
. ' h p- Jl! • , •-'; . 2
ii j- . • -^..z
• ' ; : . 1 Ii * ^ ''.J •> •• •
i i : .










. . ;

: • • : • i '•
1

v j 90: '• 100
•J| • 3 10 ' ' • 0
:• • •:<
. 1 : /' S. .
' ' . ••'*-
''•r- ' T '
r ; - -| . - :
: ! . "i ! •'
••!^ f".

{ ?
i ; . ,\ • 7 •
, . : :

1 s.
', • Si
i ; '• ; : . i



: . . | ...
. . : . .
I



. . . • 1
Temoerature
                        Figure C-l   (Continued)
                            C-13

-------

It tnd i*«pi« i«t ii-*r T
1 II !: -'hi .- ll,! !!i

^ THERMOCOUPLE CURVE TEMPERATURE ..

2 - Kiln Exit 0-2500°F i-

- Afterburner Exit 0-2500 F
4 - Venturi Exit 0-250°F -.

- scrubber Liquor 0-250 F or
wo j_ ]A| ja'oj 7a M sa










>



! ' ~^~ T
i






"'""" "•JU : : 13 ;:
OO 90 tC 70 it £






^ .ta. .i_
8/25/87 16-OC 	











II i

J_
oj 1 10 BO OC 40 30
.100 1 M SO 70 90 5C
J_

	
B/ZS/87 15:00 	















* 8*ain.SM>lt S«t »Z-fll
11
i • . 1 1 F r~""
' • • _r


" W 9
	 \[.[ 	 .[ 	
, 15* T T"
	 L..i| 	 2....I1I1..
L i5 ' ' 5
L i-Li Lit
l«ol T ""dj sa Lfi»c too
T 	 	 ' 	 j_ 	

	 L.L 	 4 	
\ !| ! 1 J
•Jt ' » i i X
	 iJ.r E'I 	 = : 	 . .
;,.. "'.'. . • .

	 1::.. i: t :: ;:: 	 :i
	 !£.,...£ j ziri .
i? r . •* ?
	 |T]j 	 ij ? i
. Tj » 2 r
k pj.<»4i --^T- 	 -• 	 T" "
...._...,........f.. ^ 	
.....:::.:"":[!a:;r" r^rr"r1 j'-""""]
	 I....E., :i; : : : 3 	 ;•;:::.
	 r rj i s 	
....;...t-- t i: it:::" a 	 tzi'
	 Li'ij...: i 2 	 i:.
sc 7c -. J « : J i : cc
: 	 ' ! ' S ," *!M * £ .0
..... .£„ j-.-.r- T 	 . j 	
L ' * ' L : i * X
1 H i [j ' ^ I
-i- 4- / ftf J* t »i ' ^ L i
	 3I...4.]F...Tr, ;..... 	 _i
	 t z., ....•:.!...„ r 	 :±i.i
V 3- ' • ' ' ~ X .' ' '
Tj" ,i • 1 1 r1! 1 1 f . j- 1 1 i j j
' * , i Jif ' ,; 1 ii
I T7 , ,J ; ' i •• 1* * i ; i
Tp 1-3 "a i
il 3 H '>2 4'1' ' ' '
i TT • j .-2 j j_
	 ;.!.. i. ..!.!.: 	 LI 	 1 	 i..
, fj-frt ^ " . — 5 	 r"
_. c -fL»J i ' ' -a '
I-T ' • U;' L ' 4, ' ' ' J a
- - ! '' vt j- ,t 1 ! i'p
T ^ ^ ii ? I''1
	 4_ 	 .T 	 |.I 	 ...[...JJ.J 	
T| ,b i ,'t r
	 I 1 . . •' .~.:.i. 	 '
isol 1 / fc _i7« .' 2 lac | >gpj 100
« r Htija '..» EC t ib ' id
$•!' t f * | i
,„._., 	 	 *J, .---,-;..- -. r'| 	 4-4- '-

::::::::::::::l:;:;:::i::::::::::;::::;:::i
	 jj. . .., i.i 	 .: 	
	 JL-'.-i-l 	 	 — *
	 tt i IT • : i '
: • . " E I
1 1 '
i •' ' i


" * / ' ft 1
' i". • • • T
t . t
\ '. ^ • TT '. '

tt i i ''• '• t I
	 I. . . ..l.t.S.. i..; 	 	 >..l 	 ~...
	 i.i.J; 	 ..L 	
 Temperature
         Figure C-2  Temperature Trends  for Sample  Set  #2
*Data for scrubber effluent water collection

-------
1 ' • "' : !i f i --^ •' '
• : • ' i • ! j 1 1 1 i
— : — 1- 8/26/C7 13-30 -j- I ' ' | i ^ • i 	 L-^--
- THERMOCOUPLE CURVE TEMPE
' 2 - Kiln Exit 0-
- 3 - Afterburner Exit 0-
4 - Venturi Exit 0
. 5 - Scrubber Liquor C
' •. • b/26/87 13-00 > * iirsL

•: if Li Jlil 	
.: ;• T.I. It 	
• 1 1 !


. . i ; i ! ^
0 ' i • HOI i 20! ISO!
100 ' : jSOj 170 1 !
1 1 r
i 1 III!
. I : ' 1 ' i i
i ; ! I i I
i !

1 ' i
i f i 1
; 1 ,— .
i ' J fl/?fi/fl7 i^.nn - 	 J 	 L 	

i : . j |
: ! T I
r • P~
i i T T T T
i

' I"1" ~ j 1 i T
i '


T T T
o; 10 20 Tjoi
100 I9O 80 |70I
1


(Ml
!
1



1



iii ]T
I ^ t i j


1 ; i
. i ~r
Mi . '«gi i
'T. _.;___.__ 	 1 „
	 I
EC 130
100 i 90 ' 80 70
; | 1
III !

-i- J-M-L--' -J!-'1-' • Air'' * 1 -i-; *luL >-'
'• ' I ij_ 1 ! L j_ i . : ! i r f l! ' ! ' '^ ' r!
J 	 •' 	 	 ;.-:j:' .! q - '-U-r-. ja . i in
II 1 111 :| T --hrii i \\ \\'t 	
PflTIIDF i i ! -!-- ; !! Mr-' '--- -H'^
KHIUKL j- ' • f • T - -| I '[-:j!_v f 'J ] * ']'
?5f)fi°F 	 ^ i i! a .IK ,•
°500°F -•-- 	 --r-i •' -I .!'*} >
.-3UU r , - ^ ^ :< i
-250°F T j_ fTT r JT^
-25C°F .^_r_ ! ;lc' ! (| ','-
^ - l| ci- i K 2 -
,,,,.«, X, -4-. 	 ! r.\ i\ ..+ . 2J 	 ,_
ill S! . 12 ~ » , | I 1 ± i .;>• -
	 T"i £ "•""": t
	 J..J -L •- , ...
	 	 	 1 MU J. -\.
T- US' ?• ; • * • "
.. T , , .-f M -M hi!', f
"T 	 f'^^'TT^irrr^-^rrT^TTT
! ' ; : ' ! \ '• 3. •»! . • •*•
40| 1 ;5a i ' 60! ' - :. -b '-I7WI 'T t 1 '80, f
:60; i 5tt ! '4O i : • '• ! ?304I-: ': i \ ' .20. ( i
i : i 1 i : i • • i I r? 4j.' 2 • ' ! !
' ill ! ! ' ' : \ i rt'i J'-'I f • '•
! ! : ' ), .i! :;,"•.. -
-L- -L • ' i : ri' A -••'' • '
II ' - i i ?! -••.•!! ' i
i! ! • ; • h'i "^..i 'i
! ! ! ! : ; . ' j : "T •»,;• -2; i : •
1 j i 1 1 1 , ' " i 3l •*...: J , . : :
1 i i [ i 5i 5*1 -2 i M
i T _, j II ' i:i« -.•-•• 2 i •
	 j"" "1 I i 1 11 li 1 *'il! 1 i
i 1 ; , |i ! ij! 5 5. ! 1
amvi,.! 	
1 • || • ti r >- :•.!.:! • I
i 1 1 !i>->r i li ! /»
U1-;:^ , ' i • i • !..-•
! I-',-::'!-.' * >!•'. •••}?
1 i .=",?! *| 1 !
; : M '"<• 21 1 i i
, -S jf 41 1
- f & .4 £ !
	 ._.. _ . . . . tj I r# -ii i
40| 50 i ! 60; i 1 i i-j::?^ ' 80'
,60 |SO| !40j '; ! ii!30. 20, '; i
11 •[§•"* iii
_L -rl 7! * i ' i '
" 	 " ^ /lifi *'i ;
	 T: ..j-i2'.^ P
T '-ir^.r* P ^r
	 I _L _i_i -O 4' ' _LT
T 	 -t-fe— - 	
T ;i. i' W;! Jj ! !
•s \y v ki li i
	 J.'-jj.iia^l . U--J
j. ' • "- r a n r
	 J.^'-'*Li?i 'Ji •:
i ••"5lJl""Sl'4lli"
	 :[' \ :'!'?•! »! I .-'
L. t tf tt rn-'T^i t i1 — s • i
• !^. J^ d : ''-I
:::..::::"" 	 "Tr iftirs- -^""^T--
	 l.i .^'* ! ^Jk ! ' ,
T 'Iii t TITTTr 	 +
:f"'j. :?:_;:_::!. 	 v^-l|l: ^'^^.j- 4.1.
-."-I ,. . , _..|j^--4jT1- — .
T 1 n .j ' V i3 r ; j T-
4d ba| 1 !ed,t 2 HlP-^ntlTraoiT
SO 50 40. i i'| i', pfccHl j ! ;20i
::"::::::"::::::t::::::r":*n?^!2" "i
	 . ._ ... T i !|b i'4| 1 ____
— T 	 . t_! ! J.,^ ',}!{,! i
- 1 : i ! '
J_ j SI i 1 r
'j ! » • ' i : ; i
i •' t i ' i i I |
A I ^ 1 j i j
; f L ' i UU
i- — ^^^
r ^^H
•• ' i > 1 Wfl
i i M
' ^ ; ' | i
• si j_ 1 1 '
t !
t « T j_T
:: :: :::Ti7:i
\ i — ..^
i -h - - H
1 'i " 1 ' i 1 i
I / - 1 i i i i
T ;T^!9o; in i loo
{ i ?IIOi i i : ' i i 0
' : ! - '• i : i i i '•
'li1' i ;l ; ;
II :_, ! ; i , | .
!!l'i l! ' ;;i
Hi r i ; ! i i ;
I rl ! : •
.;, i r , , j , .
: i. J! i . ! i i i
! i 5 • i i i j ; :
f 1 ?l ! • i : 1 ' I
ITift :TrT'~ , 1
/ r. i ' i i : .
_ iii i
L, ! ' 'Ml ' ! '
i ' T ! in-
; ! i , • -^
! A
-- : i 1 •
= i n i ^n
5 ' 1 |
1r
- ; ; :
>< Lj '90 : tOO
5 L 10. o
J r T ! i i •
i-
.^r.
/^
i i
'] ?
I • \ i ' !
; fe T~ !
[T- T
i , T 1
"? — " 	 ix
1 • ^_j 	 r
t" t IT
15 i !
r I TT
a i
.3 bi i '
?S J. =1
JL^~ ] •
\ L , i i
> r i
i] ril_J_J4iL
r1 ^ngotTTTIioo
1 J ' |loi --J-P0
7 s + tn
I p| ! ^
- i H
  Temperature
                             Figure C-2   (Continued)
*Data for kiln ash collection.
C-15

-------
jJT, ,.,, ~r i f" j T "^
..IL^L 	 '.4. 	 I. Lu.:i4a4J5L.jl± ...
1 1 \r~-~ T
...± 	 i 	 T 	
0|_ \0 P0| 1 30 ^401 SO
THERMOCOUPLE CURVE TEMPERATURE
2 - Kiln Exit 0-2500°F
3 - Afterburner Exit 0-2500°F
4 - Venturi Exit 0-250°F
5 - Scrubber Liquor 0-250°F
i |



i

TT
j
r
.... 	 :. ...:: ::..::;•• ':::::: " r •
t 	 ..... L
	 	 r
	 I 	 : .: 	 • t
	 t
o 10 Ua Uol 4ci Isc
100 M ea 7c 60 tsoj
.i:;i;:;. ;;:;;:: ..:::. ..:...::: ::...::::'"i
.4+T :.....: 	 I
m • n 1 • •- 	 t '
.4... 	 	 I
...T 	 t
.Z 	 I t
...I 	 41 	 ".... " I..
..44. 	 t T.. t . It
.nit t 	
.Ttt 	 1 • 	
II - - - - - - - - -
*l "7"
T"
1 1
! 1 If
|il * , r 1 ] i |
j_ ! 1

J_I 	 I 	 - - . L 	 . L 	
Itl -if 	 L . j . L I . .

irD"^T"*7 " " r 	 	 "
o! 1 in zc 1 i x J l4oT so
IOO Mi ! So 7C j&C SO
Tj. i i [
r
"t" i



-















	
0 K> M M 40 50
IOO 90 M 7C 5C 501


J • 1 • I
i. A. _L "
.... .. L ...






,
	 ' i i < i & • -I rr •
£ ' 1 	 1
!] i 7 i J 'J '-..1 !r -M r |] !
T 1 '!L «L i i 4. . - .k . 	
T" : ?( ' I '1*1 [
Hi' 1 ' H . • I 	
sal ! M ITrt I • I 1 ed ; f90( IOO
o; j 'i p. 0*1 i J ecf T? To T 5
	 "trj; .rT---:Trt ij:::::tT-'
:.":..(...: 4 	 !ri":j tt 	 it
1 a. it j T i
	 _TC TT... i . i I y. I ±
	 t.jJii:, __._£! 	  i '1° ' J *° IO°
I 4Q ; ti ja BU ' Tub o
" ; i" u --•• «i' ."" i.;: ' ["
4 fi '. • - r .
t " ' f v " : ' 	 i. • • • • -
! TIT"* TV f •
." " : '. 1 jj ' " TI:I: ' "1:: i":
Ir ' i' ^ ' ?*T 7 i i
	 vp ,!>.-; ,"• tilt -t tt[-
» ? -1, i 	 -A-'--- - 44---
1 ri ~C i r t
" " i"" \~$'\" T/- 	 j-i-- -----
1 t JO. It 1 j 1
I fr i • . i. 	 •__;.. Ij_ . _
t'; ft T t ' 7 t
' ^T ' i ' T [_T
1 HI • T i\' T " ' ' s T " " r
il IrtikiLM^ f tl
: 	 fl---"- £fJ----: ^-i:: :::::

	 T riti" ^4; 	 I'i 	
. 4 II nl ftl J, . :L J .... I.I 	
I" 1 £ St * M t , ^ t
. . L tt. t!E '.. T.; 	 LJ... I 	
'sex i vpo* I'- ^ol 5 -ifld 100
wot ( T^-ao" •• 1S f fo :o
" " "• . -.J i'" 'i'T 	 J 	
	 __•• I Jj 	 4. 	 O 	
13 it . j t i t
:: ::::::::: t»:;.:: :i.::: : ;::L::: ::±:
lu' t T , T fl
i j . • . . [ ,
4r '
T 1 'I 1 ' • ' 1 ' J
:::: J r;; \TH:I::::-::;:::: si;::::: :::::
.. .. W JL t'^I.. tTT 	
ft f 4| TT £ • T T TT TT |
	 	 liw. J.L . . ili, LJ.1-^ 	 1
•,'|fe il 1 l.i 1; 1 • t MI
	 l...;k. i... 1....L.. ii 	 illi
t 1 •' 4 , r f ht t HI titr
•' b! > L - Ji 1 JJ- 4-
	 H * 	 t' T^t
	 il( ' . 1. . , r 	 TI
T5 ' ' • r 1 t
f* . j
•-•!-. ? ' Jl
i I ,• T
7O t 180 : ""iflj IOO
46T ' \j"5o|_ ; 20r T 10 0
4' r i 1 .• ?
	 f.?:.,..!.;^..:.^ 	
j. ;L.i; i 1 4.
. f ; i . ' ,11 	
:••= t • :- £t t
§: ' \
• i" • T
""[ ?:*_: :::::::::::::::

- M »: 	 	 	
T t ; ti ; l r .
r T q.< t i ' .
r i i . >' ,.,..
r IT T . I !rrrf" " LL""t L 	
OJ
      Temperature
           Figure C-3  Temperature Trends  for  Sample  Set



                              C-16
#3

-------
THERMOCOUPLE CURVE
2 - Kiln Exit
3 - Afterburner Exit
4 - Venturi Exit
5 - Scrubber Liquor
TEMPERATURE
   0-2500°F
   0-2500°F
    0-250°F
    0-250°F
rt .7« ! ' ' | '': J 260! I '
  Temperature
               Figure C-4   Temperature Trends for Sample Set #4
                                  C-17

-------
                  I
                                         .-•• -5-4
                                              \  2 •
                      :«d iSar»la Si
                                                    -k
     ~t9
THERMOCOUPLE CURVE
2 - Kiln Exit
3 - Afterburner Exit
4 - Venturi Exit
5 - Scrubber Liquor
TEMPERATURE
   0-2500°F
   0-2500°F
    0-250°F
    0-250°F
-H-f
 Temperature
              Figure C-5  Temperature Trends for Sample Set #5
                                  C-18

-------
Oxygen Emissions Strip Charts
               C-19

-------
      OXYGEN EMISSIONS
 I
1^0
O
      8/25/87
      HORIZONTAL SCALE:  3 cm/hr
      VERTICAL SCALE:  0-25X (vol)
      100
                  •Begin Sample Set #1
       14:25

End Sample Set II-
                                      Figure C-6  Oxygen Emissions  for  Sample  Set  II
       *Dornrv«or none
                                        1 1 .,. *»,..

-------
                OXYGEN  EMISSIONS
o
r
                B/25/87

                HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr

                VERTICAL  SCALE: 0-25%  (vol)
                                           LBegin  Sample Set 02
End Sample  Set #2J
                                        Figure C-7  Oxygen Enjj^ions  for Sample Set  #2


                *Recorder pens were not aligned vertically; thus,  stack curve  is shifted 10 minutes to the left.

-------
                         OXYGEN  EMISSIONS
i
ro
r\>
                         8/26/87

                         HORIZONTAL SCALE:  3 cm/hr
                        , VERTICAL SCALE: 0-25% (vol)
                                   •Begin  Sample Set 12

                                                      **End Sample Set #2J
                                                                                         14:00
                                                      Figure C-7   (Continued)
                       *Recorder pens were  not aligned vertically;  thus, stack curve is shifted 5 minutes  to the left.

                      **0ata for kiln ash collection.

-------
    OXYGEN EMISSIONS
o
I
U)
    8/28/87
    HORIZONTAL SCALE:  3 cm/hr
    VERTICAL SCALE: 0-25%  (vol)
                                                 End Sample Set #3
•Begin  Sample  Set
                                                      •Begin  Sample  Set  #4
                           17:35

     -Begin Sample Set d>5  End Sample Set

End Sample Set iC4-J
1
                                   Figure  C-8  Oxygen  Emissions  to^Sample  Sets  #3,  #4,  and #5

-------
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Strip Charts
                    C-24

-------
ro
en
        CARBON  DIOXIDE EMISSIONS


        8/25/87

        HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr

        VERTICAL  SCALE: 0-10%  (vol)
                                                                    12:25
               •-Begin  Sample Set #1
      14:25


End Sample  Set
                                   Figure  C-9  Carbon Dioxide  Emissions for  Sample Set
        *Recorder pens were not aligned vertically; thus, stack curve is shifted 8 minutes  to the  riant.

-------
               CARBON DIOXIDE  EMISSIONS
o
               8/25/87
               HORIZONTAL SCALE:  3 cm/hr
               VERTICAL SCALE: 0-10% (vol)
               F100
                                             01=     '          I
                           13:15
             15:15

LBegin Sample  Set
                                                                                   **
17:15
                                                                                     End  Sample Set  02-1
                                  Figure  C-10  Carbon Dioxide Emissions  for Sample Set  #2

             *Recorder pens were not aligned vertically; thus, stack curve  is shifted 8  minutes  to the  right.
             **Data  for scrubber effluent water collection.

-------
                             CARBON  DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
r>o
                             8/26/87
                             HORIZONTAL SCALE:  3  cm/hr
                             VERTICAL  SCALE: 0-10% (vol)
                                       •Begin  Sample Set
                                                         **End  Sample Set 12-J
                                                       Figure C-10

                           *Recorder pens were not aligned vertically: thus, stack curve is shifted 8 minutes to the right.

-------
CARBON DIOXIDE  EMISSIONS
8/28/87
HORIZONTAL  SCALE:  3 cm/hr
VERTICAL  SCALE:  0-10% (vol)
I
 10:15
Begin Sample  Set 03
12:15
      13:35
End Sample Set 03-
   1-Begin Sample  Set 04
                                                                                          -Begin Sample Set #5 End Sample Set 05-
                                                                                      End Sample  Set 04-1
                             Figure C-ll  Carbon Dioxide Emissions  for Sample Sets #3, 04,  and 05
  *Recorder pens were not aligned vertically: thus, stack curve  is shifted 8 minutes to the right.

-------
Carbon Monoxide Emissions Strip Charts
                     C-29

-------
     CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
     AFTERBURNER
     8/25/87
     HORIZONTAL  SCALE:  3 cm/hr
     VERTICAL  SCALE:  0-100 ppm
o
I
oo
o
    08:25                       10:25

           •Begin Sample Set 01
      14:25

End Sample Set #1—J
                                Figure  C-12   Carbon Monoxide  Emissions for Sample Set #1

-------
o
i
CO
                CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
                AFTERBURNER
                8/25/87
                HORIZONTAL SCALE: 3 cm/hr
                VERTICAL SCALE: 0-100ppm
                                        100
                                                       15:25

                                        LBegin  Sample  Set  #2*
End Sample Set
                                Figure C-13  Carbon  Monoxide  Emissions  for  Sample  Set

-------
oo
                              CARBON  MONOXIDE  EMISSIONS
                              AFTERBURNER
                              8/26/87
                              HORIZONTAL  SCALE:  3  cm/hr
                              VERTICAL  SCALE:  0-100  ppm
                                   100-
                                 10:00
                                       LBegin Sample Set #2*
                                                         *End Sample  Set  #2-
                                                  Figure  C-13  (Continued)

-------
1800-
1600-
1400-
      CARBON  MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
      AFTERBURNER
      HORIZONTAL SCALE:  10 units/hr
      VERTICAL SCALE:  0-1800 ppm
   •-Begin Sample Set #3
         14:00

End Sample Set 03-1
                                     Figure C-14  Carbon Monoxide^ftbssions  for  Sample  Set #

-------
o
1800-
1400-

in
600-
400-
i
l
i
l
j

• -•
7~
-
:.::

L
: A
: 8
H
V
i
.. —


._.




....
£
U7
!••
1
it
i':
I
J •
i :
{,"i
.r
i


- '







	 -
— rr-j
•-T-H
3)1
; |
T^
. - 1
:: il
:i f!
i|l

^
:::\

:.T.ap-. 7i tr
.. .:j|..:i 1
.-..!I..:il 1.
I .!
::
i! ::::
....
ARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
FTERBURNER
/ 28/87


~ ; n
ORIZONTAL SCALE: 10 units/hr '
ERTICAL SCALE: 0-1800 ppm : . :i












; — •
HE:
P
1 1~^~}
IS
1 ' I
M
Jiri
|E|
F
4-.
1 	
•; — i
: —

i F
:J; ||t::
3:20
Begin
— .
	







. .- : . .








'


	
"Tr"
U:..
fij;:
rH"
i
trJT:
'. L . .
i !,'
i ;;-.
1 --:
I -. .
:;;
I ; ~
i i:;
ii
Sam

,
. .
	 I _1
" Hj ' '
ilil
ill
Lit!
1 |U
4: 1
: :i; 1
II
J-L
HI!
i
«!| III
li!'! l|
.. 1 ....
. I











! "
Hi-
ll :.



i
t
|
litii
'jtj
rr
• t
;!
. t
;|
l
i
'.'.
i:
'j;!!
| j!
i!
11 I1
iiii
Mi
1!
'. '. ' 1 !
pie Set
#
	












	 •' '7
::± :i
Ui.ij ji
-ill: !
Il }: i
Hill
!.['"*! li
"t" I
IM

iii li
ijill
li; !
Hi!
liliili
If! P
ill !
4


... .- .





4




'" IcJ
iH|I
HI
ii
i-.i
i |lr
!l!i!
, 11
1]
II
"9,7
]l P
1 Iiii
~~-.
i 	



—". '.'.
i

. . 1 -... ._

1
...



77 ::
P
-f;

ifr;
. . L. .
.r •
i!::
rr~
i1!;
ILl
r: • '
t ; :




1 — ~
~; ;;
TrH.! j
- • i H :
-*n j

:i::i |
liiij j
~m j
.. : .j : .
..... I .
3% ![

-;iij i|

14:20
: ;jr
... ....



T". "7
i:: :;.':











	 • . "r _
;ij i
11
i! :H
; ! ji
:. ;i 1
!' i
ill
Jik!
• ; :i !
l! IL
!

III!
.. i ,




! '












:ip
1
!|!ji
*
III
ii
i
!:-•!
i;
I- f
. j:|
.1:
4fi
Illll

::;:




	
....
! . . .








i .


Sli
!i«
r(P
I.'il!
'iiH
Hi
1!
jj
i
i .
fi
i





-: —


	











	 1

--H
;-3{
f
. i
ii
11
ii

ij
j|
; l
M
i!
i
i
j
₯
Ilil
i : ..


:ij.


; \~~

IT. "
. . . _










it?-:
1
i
§
*fi-;
:~
;;r.;
;i:i:
:,-=:
-1 -
'.ii:
..i ..






~::::












	
P

;1

ii
n
i||
ii*--
r:^'
7
:.:
-~;'
_i;ii
±.
	







C








£




5_


-TZT
-3?
. 	 ,
* ;r~
rr
iiii
2U_
ifH
' 'l '•
3'
V
1!
ui
|r..

















	
::T}:

: *r
-
. . p. .
;::
»
..41
... i
31
;i:
i
- 'TIT
iH
; * t
t
i




— ^


• -;










—
---_
' T."
m
._....
'if:

' 1 '
liili
Tr:
1
•hi:
r-r
.jl.
11!
:|;i



__


._..
-











- :-
iii
ir
-



i
:i.L



	


-;
•-










--
-_-.
'~
i ii
*-
hi
iO
n:
"Eil
il!
P!
if!
iii;



—


'.~".
—










	
;_m
r~

[irl-r
i T-T'
'.'.r.
= !Hi
iitfi
"~T;
'. LL.'
i
ilF!




	

. 	
T~ '.
-










••--
• — 1
::^
1
'li
4 1
iii
J;ij
,n
4
TI
I !i|i i ill iH: II
15:20




- '
..-j
! |
- ;;












	
	 . . 'r
1 4
\m
-j!r
i ii*
.teli
'-; • l
T! . .11
ii"; 1
H.i I
!§ ii
ll»!!l
liii n
li ::i "
• ; i " • ;


11 ' ' : '
jj. 	 L.
!' *'"
rt •;::














•i •-[•
-. . .,.
ill
: r
: i
t HF|!
in!'
i. r
i ii
i!
nit
•Fli
nil
1 ill!






-2-



	




-4-




nii
CL.
1
!f'
u 1
:T i
'1
:n'
ii
ii
;M
if
-rr :
il
10
111
::i




. . . t
:.':
_..








.
"*

" l"
f
i!
11
Fi
ill
|r'
j-
1
it
hi

;













_ _j 	

i.7|jj
' n 1
i
t
1
T" " T ;
3!
:|

mil
, •

.











;— •
".:'.'
ii|l:
™i"
[|||:
lit;
il . :_
T !i!'
. 1. .
• \-
!fh
il'n
16:20
End Sam
r.
.: 1
1 ;
-r.
;;-;•
' 'I"






""


--..
ii|"
Sil1
i
ijll
II I
il
:i
;i
IIII
1 !
.1.1
pie


.'•~.
;; —
. _









:-~
:;~
ft
i ri
l|r
I • "
iih
:i;_
i r
f;
fi
lib!
Se
i : .

'i
1

:~.:






"r
. .:
. . . :
: : i
•• :
._
T.:".

., . j .. .,



-H •
••r
i
l
:;
Iii

J!
iiii!
--ji-
; i j :
!)-
;i
1
t
1,



. — L
'J. T.L
-j
"'I
! L
-
:-!1
..it
;l
a
it

'-
-





•-
: t
ii
!j
• i
M
n
; 'i
1
i . i
L J
I
                                 Figure C-15   Carbon  Monoxide  Emissions  for  Sample  Set

-------
oo
en
1800-
1600-
1400-
1200-
1000-
pm
800-
600-
400-
200-











l ....
1 	
J-
j....
i -•-
i —:
1 "
u
I ...
1 •-• •
1 —
1 •_••
1


!::.

!•-
|!.:!
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
AFTERBURNER
8/28/87
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 10 units/I
VERTICAL SCALE: 0-1800 ppm
| i L_

I
hi:

...,



••:il
•;ni
•:':!
...._,
ill
....)
•'"I
;: 1
:::|

•' !
i
' .: i
.. :(
r
• i;
-M
;ii!
•l|:
i'lll
ill'











:-|Ii
: -. : .
:::'i

...:!
. ..! j
.'. c.'l
Hi!'

:ii:i!
. .J;|
:t:i
: ' '
t ;- ;
-Ml
• i:i: lijl :!iii
16:00
-
"1 „


4




C"



••
T

l;
,,V:I

t|!
:n|!
•: =

!
.
e
/.H
i]
~t
•i
Ii
; r
-il
-if!!
: i
!.!
f
\
ii
1C
il
• 1
J!
1
\
\
F
.-:!."..
•

. | ...
	 l
(
:::i';::

:::::!.::-.
... ! 	
i





-•;
.I
4r
Ri
I—:
-'-lit
•M.
:]
:i
• f
•
;r
Ili
rt*
1
ii
M-
i!1
•r;
:!lii
•'!'•
•;rr •
.ill.
'iiii
;i
!j.
L
-i
H
Ii
Ii




— d
:±;
r.qi
' ill
-rJ!
i
m


• • -T-
.._..
_-]J
. 2r:
.Ul!
3!!

:!iil




-.'.'.





•
• ~'~L:
i
••rt1
• - 1 ••
;.n:q
*ii
ii

- .11 .
• -71 ;
• -t ; »
• 't|:
" ;'i .' .'
. .| !:
.:!!;
M::;
; 1 ', i '
:i[!l

IN












::-
—
;--
	 .
iri
•
:in:
- _.. .
::v
- '. i
i

'•••••






	






:~~
....• —
. ._
• • —

•
:i;i:

:~::
:ii .

ii-:
,^i'
Ir
l
: . i ::.
... . |










..




i
T|"
:JH:
-.(.- .
•jri
'iti
.:,..
::[:'
:. i.
_t •
:-p
• • t ;
iiih
•.n
.;:'
:.i:
--[! =
i|:
••}>
•ii
liii :::i ilii •;! !.: :jll
-Begin Sample Set
:igure C-16 Carbon
....j



... -i
::-fj
".OI
. — .
-~\
••-.-
.: \'.
"~d!
:'T'
._(.
- :!
.. :|
•1
• -J
::JI
.: ii
- !i
. ii
: !J















....




:±
• -i
. : ;i|
..:.
•--
--
: : :
.:!
1
1
ii:i
•'HI



:'.~



1











i^
-L.;.;
• - r-
t — — •
•-•'-•
. . J I :
1 . Li
.-J i—



!•::•''
i '. .
j.'i .
r
. .: .i:;i;.j .
.. I! iijlll.J !
17:00
#5
Honoxide
. i


—

:;:





6_-




5

i
ifH
ifc
W
T~
rir '
~t ~* "
!ji-
;.i~
1
ir.
I
\<-
1 1
•fi'1'
|;r-
—r^—
L"
— ~>—
H:
Em
:i::
t|:;
T| • "
. 1


.•••








,__.


"t
!fh:
f
fjf-
ill-.
Ht
Jr.
[tP
i.-Ll
--U.
MI:
i.i-
1 1
*t "
'Mr
:;i|
!iV;
'•]'•'•
•\\l
;ifr
— r; — *
!l!!i
;!«;,
LSJ,





•














: 	 .
imi
	 i
irn:
* — • •
— -•'
"•::
.TJ
.E
T, 	 i
-n
;;,'
lili
km;

:i.

- ; •
. . - -
_ . .
















.Li_.
,

IT"'
il
It"*
Ife
I4r4
IE
la
;.-j
T "
-1 ' '
1
I;:
il-n
F
ik













*











- i- •

H-i
:^t
J3?
IJJ
(fe
1
Rfi
-jj-
t~.^.
l.-r
rn
J..P
-i i
Pi
ll!|

ii'.

, L .


••;:•

- -

















'it
Ili
life
tr---
|
1
i
t!-:
4f-,
!H3J
J!:f
tilt,
!i;i
IIH






:--




















1 . i
in"
^rf"
ITT—
R~-
fr

L:; 	
•"-H
jt::
ff-"
"7 —
ii
T"
;r~.
H::
b.
-•:,; |,
• •: 1

..... j.j
. 1
.. . . , ,


	 ; I:
""i n
•-,) II
. . — ,.
... 1:





. 1:





.... Li
i
i •!
— - 1 II

1.1-
~r— 1
i,l
i*|
i|

-fl[

~u. ^
ii} :
•— {
;;!{
j^ri
tfi|-
—Hi ;
Mr
;.i; i;Jj] IIU| >U' -HI
.iiii lidjiualiL' ii'l
18
End S
; for Sample Set
i/ :'.-: ;:,
r; ";i" ii
I. '.::•!
i -;i -n
J.. 'ri : !;
t .-tl: :!'
1i« . ' i ••;
, - $
);: ^. :i|
] 	 !J
;:: .-_.: :i|



I





i
-4



L: iiHiiiT
\i,^..l
\.i 	 i~!
ii^ii
;) trii4 i I
nig 111
!l rjHi lif
!1 iffii jl
pftjS1
SSf
ff FTtr
p;l
pi • * 1 75
t -fr"t;! Jl
1 jl^i Ji
ucHi'i
l -ii- i
ii i|
Wl
i™
T TTTT • "
ijitf
iifl Iff
:00
ample 5
#5
. ::n
i -il
!i
1 <:il
; ' 1
I • •
'• ":li
|l--rt
Ii -r
il :-.
:| :m
:|. :HT
ii — r


•H --H
ii ~i]
t! 	
_ 	 !
^i ni
J JI1
• 1
j:#
] HH
IP!
ti
ii
il
*j.
Ii
;i
(
u
Pi
|
f-r
ft
'il
Jet

—

_...
.....
	 1
. _J
i 	 ^
-— '•
: ::~
—


—


"
:—
	 r
1
;Sf
if
Uli
:m
!4r
!=?
i;hj
md
ffrfi
jUi!
trf

i
u .
r
|{

i
i
15-

-------
                                APPENDIX D

            DETECTION LIMIT TABLES FOR ROTARY KILN INCINERATION
                              PERFORMANCE DATA
    Tables D-l through D-3 indicate detection limits for all  constituents

analyzed in samples from the K087 rotary kiln incineration test burn.
                                    D-l

-------
1779g p.8
                  Table D-l  Detection Limits for Samples of K087 Untreated Waste
                                Collected During the K.067 Test Burn
Detection limit
Sample Set #
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (mq/kq)
Acetone
Aceton it r i le
Acrole in
Aery lonit r i le
Benzene
Bromocl ichloromethane
Bromomethane
Carbon tet rachloride
Carbon disulfide
Ch lorobenzene
2-Chloro-l ,3-butadiene
Chlorod i bromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethy 1 vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
1 , 2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1 ,2-Di bromomethane
Di bromomethane
trans- 1, 4-Dichloro-2-butene
D ichlorodi f 1 no rome thane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethylene
trans -1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
trans -1 , 3-Dichloropropene
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
1 ,4-Oioxane
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methylacrylonitri le
Methylene chloride
Pyr idine
1,1.1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane

1

2.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
?0.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
20.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
20.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
41.0
1.0
20.0
20.0
82*. 0
10.0
41.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
20.0
2.0
82.0
1.0

2

2.1
21.0
21.0
21.0
. 1-0
1.0
2.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
21.0
1.0
2.1
2.1
1.0
2.1
21.0
2.1
1.0
1.0
21.0
2.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
41.0
1.0
21.0
21.0
82.0
10.0
41.0
2.1
2.1
21.0
21.0
1.0
82.0
1.0
D-2
3

2.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
20.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
20.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
20.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
41.0
1.0
20.0
20.0
82.0
10.0
41.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
20.0
1.0
82.0
1.0

4

10.0
104.0
104.0
104.0
5.2
5.2
10.0
5.2
5.2
5.2
104.0
5.2
10.0
10.0
5.2
10.0
104.0
10.0
5.2
5.2
104.0
10.0
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
207.0
5.2
104.0
104.0
414.0
5.2
207.0
10.0
10.0
104.0
104.0
5.2
414.0
5.2

5

10.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
5.1
5.1
10.0
5.1
5.1
5.1
102.0
5.1
10.0
10.0
5.1
10.0
102.0
10.0
5.1
5.1
102.0
10.0
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
203.0
5.1
102.0
102.0
406.0
5.1
203.0
10.0
10.0
102.0
102.0
5.1
406.0
5.1


-------
1779g p.9
                                     Table 0-1   (Cont inuerl)
Detect ion limit
Sample Set *
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (mq/kq)
(cont inuecJ)
1,1,2, 2-Tet rachloroe thane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
T r i bromomethane
1 , 1 , 1 -1 r ichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Tnchloroethane
Tr ichloroethene
Tr ich loroinonof luoromet hane
1 , 2 ,3-Tr ichloropropane
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
BOAT Semivolatile Oraanics (mq/kq)
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminof luorene
4-Aminol.iipheny 1
An i 1 ine
Anthracene
Aramite
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi jperylene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
p-6enzoqu mone
Bis( 2-chloroetrtoxy )et hane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloropropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromopheny 1 pheny 1 ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-6utyl-4.6-dmitrophenol
p-Chloroani 1 me
Chlorobenz i late
1


1.0
1.0
! .0
1 .0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 .0
! .0
2.0
1.0

894
894
1788
17aa
1788
894
894

894

4470
894
894
894
894

894
894
894
894
894
894
4470
«94

2


1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 .0
1 .0
2.1
1.0

1010
1010
2020
2020
2020
1010
1010

1010

5050
1010
1010
1010
1010

1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
5050
1010

3


1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0

954
954
1908
190«
1908
954
954

954

4770
954
954
954
954

954
954
954
954
954
954
4770
954

4


5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
10.0
5.2

982
982
1964
1964
1964
982
982

982

4910
9b2
982
982
982

982
982
982
9b2
982
982
4910
982

5


5.1
5.1
5.!
5. 1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
10.0
5.1

1026
1026
2052
2052
2052
1026
1026

1026

5130
1026
1026
1026
1026

1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
5130
1026

                                                  D-3

-------
1779g  p.10
                                    Table D-l   (Continued)
Detection limit
Same le Set- i
Const 1 1 uent /paramet er ( un 1 1 s )
BOAT Semivolat i le Orcianicb (mq/kq)
(cont mued)
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphtha lene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloroprop ion it r i le
Chrysene
ort ho-Creso 1
para -CreGol
Dibenzfa. hjanthracene
Dibenzo(a.e)pyrene
Dihenzo(a , i (pyrene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3 , 3 ' -0 ich lorohenz id me
2 , 4- Dichlorophenol
2. 6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
3.3' -Ounet.hoxyhenz ii'l ine
p-Dlmet hy laminoazobenzene
3,3 ' -Dimethyl benz id me
2.4-Dimethy Ipheno 1
Dimethyl phthalcite
Oi-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,4-Dimtrobenzene
4.0-Dmitro-o-cresol
2.4-0 in i tropheno 1
2,4-Dinit rotoluene
2 . 6-Dmitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dipheny lam ine/
dipheny Ini t rosamme
1 , 2-Dipheny Ihydraz me
F luordnthene
F luorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobu tad iene
Hexach lorocyc lopentad iene
Hexachloroethane
1


694
H94
894

B94
894
80-1
894


894
894
8'j 4
1790
894

694
894
1788

sy4
894
894
4470
4474
4474
894
894
«94
894
1788

4470
894
894
894
U94
694
894
2


1010
1010
1010

1010
1010
1010
1010


1010
1010
1010
2020
1010

1010
1010
2020

1010
1010
1010
5050
5050
5050
1010
1010
1010
1010
2020

5050
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
3


954
954
954

954
954
954
954


954
954
954
1906
954

954
954
1908

954
954
954
4770
4760
4766
954
954
954
954
1908

4770
954
954
954
954
954
954
4


9b2
982
962

9o2
982
982
962


982
982
9b2
1962
982

9b2
982
1964

9«2
982
982
4910
490C
4906
982
982
952
982
1964

4910
982
982
982
952
982
982
5


1026
1026
1026

1026
1026
1026
1026


1026
1026
1026
2052
1026

1026
1026
2052

1026
1026
1026
5130
5130
5130
1026
1026
1026
1026
2052

5130
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
1026
                                                  D-4

-------
1779g  p.11
                                    Table  D-l  (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set *
Conit it uent /parameter (units)
RDM Semi vo lat i IP Ch'Q.imcr. (mq/kq)
(cont uiuetl)
hexachlorophene
Hexacli loropropene
Indeno( 1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
Isosaf role
Methapyr i lene
3 -Me thy 1 chol ant hrene
4,4' -Me thy lenebis(2-chloroan i 1 ine)
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene
1 , 4-Ndphthoquinone
1 -Napht hy lamine
2-Naphthylamine
p-N it roam 1 me
N it robenzene
4-N 1 1 rophenol
N - N 1 1 r osod i - n - bu t y 1 am i ne
N-N itrosodiethylamme
N-N 1 1 robod imethy lam i rie
N-N it rosomethy let hy lamine
N-N it rosomorphol ine
N-Nitrosopiper idine
N-N i trosopyrrol idine
5-N i tro-o-toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroe thane
Pentach loron 1 1 robenzene
Pentach loropheno 1
Phenacet in
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-P icol ine
Pronamide
Pyrene
Reborc mol
Scif role
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3.4 ,6-Tetrachlorophenol
1 , 2 , 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
2.4,6 Trichlorophenol
Tris(2. 3 -dibromopropyl) phosphate
1




894
17S6

17«6
1788

894

4470
4470
4474
894
4474


894
894
178S
894
4470
1788


«94
4474
1788
«94
894
894

894

4470
1788

894
4474
894

2




1010
2020

2020
2020

1010

5050
5050
5050
1010.
5050


1010
1010
2020
1010
5050
2020


1010
5050
2020
1010
1010
1010

1010

5050
2020

.1010
5050
1010

3




954
1903

1908
1906

954

4770
4770
4766
954
4766


954
954
1908
954
4770
1908


954
4766
1908
954
954
954

954

4770
1908

954
4766
954

4




982
• 1964

1964
1964

982

4910
4910
4906
982
4906


9b2
962
1964
962
4910
1964


9B2
4906
1964
9a2
9«2
982

982

4910
1964

9«2
4906
982

5




1026
2052

2052
2052

1026

5130
5130
5130
1026
5130


1026
1026
2052
1026
5130
2052


1026
5130
2052
1026
1026
1026

1026

5130
2052

1026
5130
1026

                                                 D-5

-------
1770g p.12
                                      Table D-l   (Cont inuecl)
Const Huent /parameter (units)
BOAT MtM,il', (mq/kcj)
Ant imony
Arsen ic
Ra r i um
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Tha 1 1 ium
Vanad i um
Zinc
BOAT Inorganics Other Than Metals (ing/kg)
Cyanide
F luor ide
Suit ide
BOAT PCBs Ug/kg)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 12CO
BOAT Oioxins/Furans (ppb)
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-rhoxins
Pentachlorodibenzof uran

1

2.0
1 .0
20
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
0.05
4.0
0.5
5.0
1.0
5.0
5.0

0.50
0.05
5.0

50
50
50
50
50
50
50

.
-
-
-
Detect ion 1 unit
Sample Set e
2345

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
20 ?0 20 20
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
0.05
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

50
50
50
50
50
50
50

2.3
1.9
2.6
1.9
                                                    D-6

-------
1779g p.13
                                      Table  D-l   (Cont inner!)
                                                              Detect ion 1imit
                                                                Sample Set  r
Constituent/parameter (units)
BD4T Dio>:ins/ru'rant; (ppb)
  (continued)

let rachlorodiben?o-p-diox ins
let rachlorodibenzofuran
2.3.7,b-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

Nnn-BDAT Vn1.it i IP Orq.inicr.  (ing/kg)

Styrene

Mnn-RDAT Semi vol.it i If Or;;,inics  (mg/kg)

Dibenzofuran
i'-Methy Inaphtha lene

Other Parameters
1.0
894
             l.O
1010
1010
            1.0
                         954
                        5.2
                                     982
                                               1 .9
                                               1 .8
102C2
1026
Total
Tot,. 1
organic ha 1 ides (mg/kg)
sol ids (ppm)
20
10
20
10
20
10
20
10
' 20
10
- = Not analy/ed.

Note:  Detection  limit  studies  have  not  been completed for constituents that show no detection
        limit.

Reference:   USEPA  1968a.
                                                    D-7

-------
177;
-------
1779y  p.15
                                    Table  D-2   (Cont inued)
Detection limn
Sample Set *
Coiibt i tuent/ parameter (units)
BDA1 Volatile Orqamci (<;q/kq)
(cont inued)
1 . 1 . 1 ,2-Tetrachloroe thane
1.1.2, 2-Tet rachloroethane
Teti\-ichloroethene
Toluene
T r ibromomet hane
1 . 1 , 1-1 r ithloroethdiie
1.1, 2-Tr ichloroe thane
Tr ichloroethene
Trichloromonof luorome thane
1 . 2.3-Tr ichloropropane
Vinyl chloride
Xy lenes
BOAT Semivolat i le Orqanics (;iq/kq)
Acenaphtha lene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminof luorene
4-Aminobipheny 1
An i 1 ine
Anthracene
Arami te
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benz idine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi jperylene
Benzofk )f luoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) ethane
Bii(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-chloropropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromopheny 1 phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
1


25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
25

1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000

1000

5000
1000
1000
1000
1000

1000
1000
1000
• 1000
1000
1000
2


25
25
25
" 25
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
25

1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000

1000

5000
1000
1000
1000
1000

1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
3


25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
25

1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000

1000

5000
1000
1000
1000
1000

1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
4


25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25 '
25
25
50
25

1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000

1000

5000
1000
1000
1000
1000

1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
5


• 25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
25

1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000

1000

5000
1000
1000
1000
1000

1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
                                                 D-9

-------
177'ng p. 1G
                                      Tahle D-2  (Cont inuecl)
                                                             Detect ion 1 unit
                                                               Sample Set  r
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT f.emwolat i 1e Organ ics (/ig/kg)
  (continued)
2-sec-Buty1-4,6-din itrophenol
p-Chloroan i 1 me
Chlorobenzilate
p-Chloro-in-cresol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropionitri le
Chryiene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
D ibenzofa,e)pyrene
Oihenzo(o,i jpyrene
m-0 ichlorobenzene
o-Oichlorobenzene
p-D ich lorobenzene
3,3' -Dichlorobenz ui me
2.4-Oichlorophenol
2, t.-Oichlorophenol
Diethyl phtha Idle
3. 3 ' -Dimpthoxyhenz irline
p- Dime thy lam moazobenzene
3.3 ' -Dime thy Ibenz id me
2.4-Dnnethy Ipheno!
Dimethyl phtha Kite
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1,4-Dmitrobenzene
4 ,6-Dimtro-o-cresol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2.4-Dimtrotoluene
2,6-Dmitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalote
Diphenylamine/
  diphenyln itrosamine
1 ,2-D ipheny Ihydraz me
f luoranthene
F luorene
5000
1000

1000
1000
1000

1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000

1000
1000
2000

1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000

5000
1000
1000
5000
1000

1000
1000
1000
5000
1000

1000
1000
1000
5000
1000

1000
1000
1000
5000
1000

1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1 000
1000
1000
1000
1 000
1 000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
?000
1000
1000
1000
. 1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000 .
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
5000
1000
1000
5000
1000
1000
5000
1000
1000
5000
1000
1000
                                                   D-10

-------
177?ig p. 17
                                      Table 0-2  (Cont uiued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
                                                             Detect ion 1 unit
                                                               Sample Set  *
BOAT spun vn l.il i IP Orq.inics (/ig/kg)
  (com muea)
Hexoch lorobenzene                        1000
Hex.ichlorohutadiene                      1000
Hexachlorocyclopentachene                1000
Hexachloroethane                         1000
HexdCh lorophene
Hexach loropropene
Indenof1.2.3-cd)pyrene                   1000
Isosafrole                               2000
Methdpyrilene
?,-Mcthylcholanthrene                     2000
4,4'-Methylenebis(2^chloroaniline)       2000
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene                              1000
1,4-Naphthoqu inone
1-Naphthylamine         .                 5000
2-Naphthylamine                          5000
p-Hitroani line                           5000
Nitrobenzene                             1000
4-Nitrophenol                            5000
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-N Hrosodiethy lamme
II-N 11 rosodimethylamine
N-Hitrosomethy lethylamine
N-Nitrosomorphol me
N-N 11 rosopiperidme
N-N11 rosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacet in
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picol me
Pronamide
Pyrene                                   1000
Resorc inol
Safrole                                  5000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000

2000
2000

1000
1000
2000

2000
2000

1000
1000
2000

2000
2000

1000
1000
2000

2000
2000

1000
5000
5000
5000
1000
5000
5000
5000
5000
1000
5000
5000
5000
5000
1000
5000
5000
5000
5000
1000
5000
1000
1000
2000
1000
5000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
5000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
5000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
5000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
5000
2000
10000
5000
2000
1000
1000
1000
10000
5000
2000
1000
1000
1000
10000
5000
2000
1000
1000
1000
10000
5000
2000
1000
1000
1000
100001
5000
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
5000
1000

5000
                        1000
                        5000
            1000

            5000
                                                    D-ll

-------
      p. lb
                                      Table D-2   (Cont muecl)
Detect ion limit
Sample Set =
Const ituent/paraineter (units) 1
BOAT Semivolatile Organ ics (uq/kq)
(cont mued)
1 , 2, 4 , 5-Tetrachlorobenzene 2000
2.3.4. 6-Tet rachlorophenol
1 ,2.4-lrichlorobenzene JOOO
2.4.5-Trichlorophenol 5000
2,4.6-Trichlorophenol 1000
2 3 J
2000 2000 2000
1000 1000 1000
5000 5000 5000
1000 1000 1000
5
2000
1000
5000
1000
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl(phosphate
BOAT Metals Other Than Metals (mg/kg)
Antimony
Arsenic
Ea r i urn
Bery11 lum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Se len ium
Si Iver
Tha 11ium
V.inad ium
Z inc
3.2
1.0
0.10
0.10
0.40
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.10
1 . 1
0.50
0.60
1.0
0.60
0.20
2.0
1.0
20
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
0.05
4.0
0.50
5.0
1.0
5.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
20
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
0.05
4.0
0.50
5.0
1.0
5.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
20
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
0.05
4.0
0.50
5.0
1.0
5.0
2.5
3.2
1.0
0. 10
0.10
0.40
O./O
0.60
0.50
0.10
1 . 1
0.50
0.60
1.0
0.60
0.20
BOAT TCI P: Metals (//g/1)
Ant imony
Arsenic
Bar ium
Beryl 1ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
32
10
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
0.20
20
10
200
5.0
10
20
25
1.0
0.30
20
10
200
5.0
10
20
25
1 .0
0.30
20
10
200
5.0
10
20
25
1 .0
0.30
32
10
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
0.20
                                                    D-12

-------
1779g p.19
                                      Table  0-2   (Continued)
Constituent/parameter (units)
BOAT TC.LP: Metals (,,q/l)
(LOiit inued)
Nickel
Selenium
S i Iver
Tho 1 1 HUH
Vanadium
Zinc
BOAT Inorcianics Other Than Metals (mq/kq)
Cyanide
f luor ule
Sulfide
BOAT PCBi (;.q/kq)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Arcclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1246
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260

1


11
50
6.0
10
6.0
2.0

0.50
1 .0
5.0

50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Detect ion 1 imit
Sample Set »
2345


40 40 40 11
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
50 50 50 6.0
10 10 10 500
50 50 50 6.0
50 50 50 2.0

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
1.0
5.0 5.0 ' 5.0 2.5

50
50
. 50
50
50
50
50
BDAI Oiox in;,/Furdns (ppb)

Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
Pentcichlorod ibenzo-p-d i ox ins
Pentachlorodibenzofuran
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
2,3.7,B-letrdChlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
0.09
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
                                                  D-13

-------
]77f>cj p.?0

                                      Table D-2  (Continued)
                                                             Detection  limit
                                          	Sample bet  s
Constituent/parameter (units)               1             ?          3
Non-BDAI Voldtile Orudnics dig/kg)
Styrenc         •                           ?S           ?5          ?S           25           ?S

Non-BDAT Semivolatile Orqanics (nQ/kg)

Dibenzoturan                             1000         1000        1000         1000         1000
P-Methylnaphthalene                      1000         1000        1000         1000         1000

Other Pdi'dineters

Total organic carbon (mg/kg)              200          200         200          200          200
Total chlorides (rag/kg)                     5.0          5.0         5.0         5.0          5.0
Total organic hd1 ides (mg/kg)              10           10          10           10           10
- = Hot analyzed.

Note:  Detection  limit studies have not been completed for constituents that  show no detection
       1imit.

Reference:   USEPA 198'8,i.
                                                   D-14

-------
177Sg  p.21
                  Table 0-3   Detection Limits for KOtt?  Scrubber Effluent  Water
Detect ion 1 unit
Sample Set *
Const Huent/ parameter (units)
BDA1 Volatile Orci.inics (;iq/l)
Acetone
Acetonitr i le
Arro loin
Acr> Ion i t r i le
Benzene
broinoJ icli loromethcjne
Bromomet hane
n-But>l alcohol
Carbon let rachlor ide
Carbon Uisult'ule
Chlorohenzene
2 Chioro 1 ,3 butadiene
Ihlorochbromomethane
C'h io roe thane
2-Cnlcroethy 1 vinyl ether
Chloroform
Cr.loromethane
3-C'h loropropene
1 , 2 -Dihromo-3-chloropropane
\ .2- Oibromomethane
Dibromomethane
traiib- 1 . 4-Dichloro-2-butene
Dichlorociit luorome thane
1.1- Dichloroethane
i . 2- Dichloroethane
1 . 1 -0 ich loroethy lene
t ran:,- 1 . 2-Dichloroethc?ne
1 , 2 -Dichloropropane
trans-1 , i-Dich loropropene
c ii,-l , 3-D ich loropropene
1,4-0 loxane
Ethyl Denzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl methacry late
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl is'Obutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Me thy lacrylonitr i le
Methylene chloride
Pyridine
1.1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1

1C
100
100
100
b
b
10

b
5
a
100
b
10
10 '
c
J
10
100
10
J
5
100
10
c
J
•j
b
s
5
c
J
5
200
*J
100
100

50
200
10

100
100
5
400
*J
2

10
100
100
100
5
b
10

r
j
5
5
100
5
10
10
s
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
c
r
j
5
5
5
5
b
200
C
j
100
100

50
200
10

100
100
5
400
C
J
3

10
100
100
100
5
b
10

0
b
5
100
5
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
5
5
5
5
C
J
5
b
200
j
100
100

50
200
10

100
100
b
400
5
4
\

10
100
100
100
5
b '
10

5
b
5
100
b
10
10
5
10
100
10
b
b
100
10
J
r
j
b
5
b
b
5
200
b
100
100

bO
200
10

100
100
5
400
5
J

10
100
100
100
b
J
10

r
_>
b
c
100
b
10
10
b
10
100
10
"j
5
100
10
5
^
b
5
5
E(
b
200
c
100
100

bO
200
10

100
100
c
.J
400
C
J
6

10
100
100
100
b
b
10

b
c
5
100
r
10
10
5
10
100
10
5
5
100
10
c
J
b
b
5
5
b
b
200
b
100
100

bO
200
10

100
100
b
400
b
                                                 D-15

-------
177^9  p.22
                                    Table 0-3  (Com inued)
Detection limit
f.ample Set t
Con it Huent/ parameter (units)
BOAT Volatile Orqanics (/iq/1) (continued)
1,1.", 2-letrach loroethjne
Tet rachioroethene
Toluene
Tr i bromoinethane
1 , 1 , 1 -1 r ichloroethdne
1 , 1 ,?-Trichloroe thane
Tr ichloroethene
T r ichloroinonof luorome thane
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropdne
Vinyl chloricle
Xylenes
BDA1 >,emi vo lat i le Oroanics (/iq/1)
Acenaphtha lene
Acenaphthene
Acetophenone
2-Acety laminof luorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
An i 1 me
Atithrduene
Ar^mi t e
Benz (a (anthracene
Benzenethiol
Benz id me
Benzo(;i (pyrene
Benzol b)f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi )perylene
Benzo(k)t luoranthene
p-Benzoqiiinone
is( 2-ch1oroethoxy)ethane
BisU-cnloroethyl (ether
Bii( 2-chloropropy 1 }ether
Bii(2-ethylhexy IJphthalate
4-Bromopheny 1 phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Buty 1-4 , 6-d in i tropheno 1
p-Chloroan i 1 ine
Chlorobenz i late
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronaphtha lene
1

5
5
5
r
£,
r
5
r
j
c
10
5

10
10
10
10
50
10

SO
10

100
10
50
10
10
?0
10
10

10
10


10
10
10
10
o
L

5
5
5
C,
5
c,
5
r.
")
10
5

10
10
10
10
50
10

50
10

100
10
50
10
10
?0
10
10

10
10


10
10
10
10
3

5
5
C
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5

10
10
10
10
50
10

50
10

100
10
50
10
10
20
10
10

10
10


10
10
10
10
4

5
5
C
5
5
^
!j
5
5
10
C
J

10
10
10
10
50
10

50
10

100
10
50
10
10
20
10
10

10
10


10
10
10
10
r
J

5
c;
C
r
^
5
S
5
5
t;
10
5

10
10
10
10
50
10

50
10

100
10
50
10
10
?0
10
10

10
10


10
10
10
10
0

c
J
5
c
r
_t
5
5
r
J
5
c
10
c
J

10
10
10
10
50
10

50
10

100
10
50
10
10
20
10
10

10
10


10
10
10
10
                                                D-16

-------
J77yg  p.23
                                    Table D-3  (Cont inued)
Detect ion 1 imit
Sample Set r
Const ituent /parameter (units)
BOAT Semivolat i le Ornanics (/iq./l)
2-Chlorophenol
3-Ch loroprop ion i t r i le
Chrysene
ortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
D ibenz [a , h) anthracene
Dibenzo(a ,e)pyrene
Dibenzo(a , i Ipyrene
m- Dicn lorobenzene
o-Dich lorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3.3' -Dichlorobenz id me
2 . 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 6-D ichloropheno 1
Diethyl phthalate
3.3' -Dimethoxybenz id me
p-D line thy lammoazobenzene
3, 3 ' -Dime thy Ibenz idine
2 . 4- D imethy 1 phenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,4-Duii trobenzene
4.6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2.4-Dimtrophenol
2.4-D mitrotoluene
2. 6-Din itrotoluene
Oi-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine/
diphenylmtrosamine
1 , 2-Dipheny Ihydraz me
F luoranthene
Fluorene
Hexach lorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexach 1 o roc ycl open t ad iene
Hexachloroethane
Hexach lorophene
Hexach loropropene
Indenof 1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
1
(cont inued)
20
10
SO
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
20
10

20
10
10

10
SO

10
10
10
50
10

20
10
10
10
10
10
50


10
2

20
10
SO
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
20
10

20
10
10

10
50

10
10
10
50
10

20
10
10
10
10
10
50


10
3

20
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
20
10

20
10
10

10
50

10
10
10
50
10

20
10
10
10
10
10
50


10
4

20
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
20
10

20
10
10

10
50

10
10
10
50
10

20
10
10
10
10
10
50


10
c
_J

20
10
SO
10
10
10
50
10
20
10 '
20
10
10 '
20
10

20
10
10

10
SO

10
10
10
50
10

20
10
10
10
10
10
50


10
fc

20
10
50
10
10
10
50
10
20
10
20
10
10
20
10

20
10
10

10
50

10
10
10
50
10

20
10
10
10
10
10
50


10
                                                 D-17

-------
I779g  p.?/!
                                     Table  D-3  (Continued)
Detection limit
Sample Set t
Coni>t i tuent /parameter (units)
BOAT beini volflt i le Oraanics (nn''l) (cont
Isosaf role
Methapyr i lene
3 -Me thy Icholanthrene
4.4' -Met hy lenebis) 2-th loroan i 1 me)
Methyl met naner.ulfon.it e
Naphtna lene
1 ,4-Naphthoqumone
1 -Ntiphthy Icimine
2-Naphthy lamine
p-ft 1 1 roan 1 1 ine
N 1 1 robenzene
4-N i 1 ropheno 1
N H 1 1 rosod i - n-butylamine
H-N it rosod lethylamine
N-N 1 1 rosod line thy lain me
N-N 1 1 rosomethy lethylamine
N-N 1 1 rosomorpho 1 ine
N-Nit rosopiper idine
N-Ni trosopyrrol idme
5-N i t ro-o- tolu id me
Pentachlorobenzene
Pen tachloroe thane
Pent achloron it robenzene
Pentachloropheno 1
Phenacet in
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picol me
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resorc mol
Saf role
1,2,4. 5-Tet rachlorobenzene
2,3,4. G-Tetrachlorophenol
1 , 2 ,4-1 r ichlorobenzene
2 , 4 , 5-Tr ichlorophenol
2 , 4 , 6-Tr ichlorophenol
Tr i s ( 2 . 3-d i bromopropy 1 ) phosphate
1
inued)
50
10

10

10
50

50

10

20
10
20
10

10

10
10
10

20
10
10
JO
50
20
20
20
10



50
10

2

50
10

10

10
50

50

10

20
10
20
10

10

10
10
10

20
10
10
10
50
20
20
20
10



50
10

3

50
10

10

10
50

50

10

20
10
20
10

10

10
10
10

20
10
10
10
50
20
20
20
10



50
10

4

50
10

10

10
50

50

10

20
10
20
10

10

10
10
10

20
10
10
10
50
20
20
20
10



50
10

5

50
10

10

10
50

50

10

20
10
20
10

10

10
10
10

20
10
10
10
50
20
20
20
10



50
10

6

50
10

10

10
50

50

10

20
10
20
10

10

10
10
10

20
10
10
10
50
20
20
20
10



'50
10

                                                  D-18

-------
1779g  p.20
                                    Table D-3  (Cont inued)
Detection limit
Sample Set »
Constituent/parameter (units) 1
BOAT Metals (uo.'l)
Ant imony 32
Arsenic 10
Barium 1 .0
Beryl 1 mm 1.0
Cadmium 4 . 0
Chromium 7 . 0
Copper 6.0
Lead 5.0
Mercury 0.20
Nickel 11
Selenium 5.0
Silver 6.0
Thallium 10
Vanadium 6.0
Zinc 2.0
BDA1 Inorganics Other lhan Metals (mq/1)
Cyanide 0.01
Fluoride ' 0.20
Suit ule 1 .0
BOAT PCB? (;.q/l)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1212
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1246
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
BRAT Diox ins/Furnns (ppt)
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-diox ins
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-diox ins
Pentachlorodibenzofuran
Tet rachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzof uran
2,3 , 7,5-TetrdChlorodiLieiizo-p-dioxin
2 34 5

33 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
1.0 200 200 200
1.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
4.0 10 10 10
7.0 20 20 20
6.0 25 25 25
0.0 10 10 10
0.20 0.30 0.30- 0.30
11 40. 40. 40.
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
7.0 50 50 50
10 10 10 10
6.0- 50 50 50
2.0 50 50 50

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.20 0.01
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

.
-

.
-
-
-

- - -
_
.
.
_
.
.
6

32
10
1 .0
1 .0
4.0
7.0
6.0
5.5
0.20
11
5.0
6.0
10
6.0
2.0

0.01
0.20
1 .0

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1 .0
1 .0

0.39
0.32
1 .45
0.75
0.32
0.32
0.32
                                                 D-19

-------
1779g p.26
                                      Table D-3  (Continued)
Const ituent.'parameter (units)
Detect ion limit
Sample Set ?
1 2 3 4 5

6
Hon-C-iDAT Volat 11e Orcianics  (/iq/1)

Styrene

Non-CiDAT Semivolat i le Orciamcs  (nq/1!
Dihpn.'of uran
2 -Me thy 1 naphtha lene
Other-
Tot 3 1
Tota 1
Tola 1
Total
10 10 10
10 10 10.
10
10
10 10
10 10

Parameters
chlorides (mq/1)
organic
organic
sol ids
carbon (mg/1)
ha 1 ides (;*g/l)
(mg/1)
1.0 1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0 2.0
10 10 10
10 10 10
1.0
2.0
10
10
1.0 1 .
2.0 2 .
10 20
10 10
0
0


Reference:  USEPA  1988a.

aiamples are not assigned  to  sample  sets.
- = Not analyzed.

Note:  Detection limit  studies  have  not  been completed  for  constituents that show no detection
       1imit.
                                                    D-20

-------
                                 APPENDIX  E



               METHOD  OF  MEASUREMENT  FOR THERMAL  CONDUCTIVITY







    The comparative method of measuring thermal conductivity has been



proposed as an ASTM test method under the name "Guarded, Comparative,



Longitudinal Heat Flow Technique."  A thermal heat flow circuit is used



that is the analog of an electrical circuit with resistances in series.



A reference material  is chosen to have a thermal conductivity close to



that estimated for the sample.  Reference standards (also known as heat



meters) having the same cross-sectional dimensions as the sample are



placed above and below the sample.  An upper heater, a lower heater, and



a heat sink are added to the "stack" to complete the heat flow circuit.



See Figure E-l.



    The temperature gradients (analogous to potential differences) along



the stack are measured with type K (chromel/alumel) thermocouples placed



at known separations.  The thermocouples are placed into holes or grooves



in the references and also in the sample whenever the sample is thick



enough to accommodate them.



    For molten samples, pastes, greases, and other materials that must be



contained, the material is placed into a cell consisting of a top and



bottom of Pyrex 7740  and a containment ring of marinite.  The sample is



2 inches in diameter  and 0.5 inch thick.  Thermocouples are not placed



into the sample; rather, the temperatures measured in the Pyrex are



extrapolated to give  the temperature at the top and bottom surfaces of



the sample material.  The Pyrex disks also serve as the thermal



conductivity reference material.



                                    E-l

-------
   GUARD
GRADIENT
   STACK
GRADIENT
                                     CLAMP
            THERMOCOUPLE
                         UPPER  STACK
                            HEATER
                               i
                               i
                              TOP
                          REFERENCE
                            SAMPLE
                            BOTTOM
                          REFERENCE
                            SAMPLE
                               i

                         LOWER STACK
                            HEATER
                               i
                         LIQUID  COOLED
                           HEAT SINK
                                          HEAT FLOW
                                          DIRECTION
                                                            UPPER
                                                            GUARD
                                                            HEATER
                                                             LOWER
                                                             GUARD
                                                             HEATER
FIGURE  E-l    SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE COMPARATIVE METHOD
                               E-2

-------
    The stack is clamped with a reproducible load to ensure intimate


contact between the components.  To produce a linear flow of heat down


the stack and reduce the amount of heat that flows radially, a guard tube


is placed around the stack, and the intervening space is filled with


insulating grains or powder.  The temperature gradient in the guard is


matched to that in the stack to further reduce radial heat flow.


    The comparative method is a steady-state method of measuring thermal


conductivity.  When equilibrium is reached, the heat flux (analogous to


current flow) down the stack can be determined from the references.  The


heat into the sample is given by


                           Q    = A (dT/dx)

                            in     top     top


and the heat out of the sample is given by


                           Q    = A    (dT/dx)

                            out    bottom     bottom


where


                          A  =  thermal  conductivity


                        dT/dx  =  temperature gradient


and top refers to the upper reference, while bottom refers to the lower


reference.  If the heat were confined to flow down the stack, then Q.
                                                                    in

and Q    would be equal.  If Q   and Q    are in reasonable
     out                      in      out

agreement, the average heat flow is calculated from


                           Q    = (Q   + Q   )/2.
                                    in    out


The sample thermal conductivity is then found from


                         A     = Q/(dT/dx)

                          sample         sample.
                                    E-3

-------