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 parameterfuel -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 #1J
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
------- |