FINAL
BEST DEMONSTRATED
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
(BDAT)
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 2046Q
Lisa Jones
Project Manager
October 23, 1991
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND RECAP OF PRE-1990 TREATMENT
STANDARDS 1-1
1.1 General Requirements Under HSWA as Related to the LDR Program 1-1
1.2 Development of Quality Assurance Project Plan Used for Previous
Collection of Data for BDAT Program 1-5
1.2.1 EPA Data Collected from BDAT Sampling and Analysis
Program 1-6
1.2.2 Other EPA Data 1-9
1.2.3 Industry-Supplied Data 1-9
1.3 Development of Methodology to Calculate Previous Treatment
Standards 1-9
1.3.1 Evaluation of Data 1-10
1.3.2 Calculation of Treatment Standards 1-10
1.4 Data Collection and Evaluation of Post-1990 Treatment Standards . . . 1-12
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS PROGRAM 2-1
2.1 Overview of QA Concepts and Procedures Involved in
Generating Data for Land Disposal Restrictions Standards 2-1
2.1.1 Data Quality Objectives 2-5
2.1.2 Project Organization 2-18
2.1.3 Collection Plan for Field Samples and Design and
Operating Parameters 2-20
2.1.4 Sample Custody and Transport 2-25
2.1.5 Selection of Analytical Methods 2-31
2.1.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures 2-35
2.1.7 Quality Assurance Performance and System Audits 2-37
2.1.8 Corrective Actions 2-38
2.1.9 Calibration Procedures 2-39
2.1.10 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting 2-42
2.1.11 Preventive Maintenance 2-45
2.1.12 Quality Assurance Reports to Management 2-45
i
-------
2.2 Sampling and Analysis Plan 2-46
2.3 On-Site Engineering Report 2-49
3. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTABLISHING TREATMENT STANDARDS . . 3-1
3.1 Waste Treatability Groups 3-2
3.2 Determining BDAT for Individual Waste Treatability Groups 3-3
3.3 Establishing Numerical Performance Standards on the
Basis of BDAT 3-5
3.3.1 Evaluating the Adequacy of Existing Data 3-6
3.3.2 Hazardous Constituents Considered for Regulation 3-8
3.3.3 Selecting Constituents for Inclusion in the Standard 3-9
3.3.4 Calculation of Numerical Performance Standards 3-10
3.3.5 Recovery/Recycle 3-12
3.4 Technology as a Method of Treatment Standards 3-16
4. TREATMENT STANDARDS CALCULATED AND PROMULGATED
UNDER THE LDR PROGRAM 4-1
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX A - Outlier Procedure
APPENDIX B - ANOVA Test
APPENDIX C - Accuracy Correction Procedure
APPENDIX D - Variability Factor
APPENDIX E - Calculation of Variability Factor When All Treated
Residual Concentrations are Below the Detection Limit
APPENDIX F - Regulatory Standards for BDAT List Constituents
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 BDAT Constituent List 2-6
Table 2-2 Example Summary of Planned Analyses and Quality
Control Samples 2-21
Table 2-3 Example of Sample Containers, Sizes, Holding Times,
and Preservation Requirements 2-23
Table 2-4 Recommended Analytical Methods 2-32
Table 4-1 Treatment Standards for Schedules Wastes 4-3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Decision Tree Diagram for Achieving Detection Limit 2-14
Figure 2-2 Project Organization 2-19
Figure 2-3 Example of Three-Part Label 2-26
Figure 2-4 Example of Custody Seal 2-26
Figure 2-5 Example of Chain of Custody Record 2-27
Figure 2-6 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting Scheme 2-44
iii
-------
1. INTRODUCTION AND RECAP OF PRE-1990 TREATMENT STANDARDS
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) imposed substantial new
responsibilities on those who handle hazardous wastes, including stringent new restrictions on
the land disposal of hazardous wastes and associated treatment residuals.
This document, prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office
of Solid Waste (OSW), provides EPA's approach for implementing the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) Program both in terms of how treatment standards were developed for earlier
rules and, also, how EPA intends to collect and evaluate treatment data to develop treatment
standards on future rules. Section 2 presents the Quality Assurance Project Plan used to evaluate
treatment data collected past and present for the LDR Program. Section 3 presents the
methodology used for establishing treatment standards. Section 4 summarizes the treatment
standards calculated and promulgated for the Solvents and Dioxins Rule, the California List
Rule, and the First Third, Second Third, and Third Third Rules.
1.1 General Requirements Under HSWA as Related to the LDR Program
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), enacted on November 8,
1984, amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 in several ways.
Among other initiatives, the amendments require the EPA to promulgate regulations restricting
the land disposal of hazardous wastes according to a strict and detailed schedule. This effort is
generally referred to as the Land Disposal Restrictions Program (LDR).
In its enactment of HSWA, Congress stated explicitly that "to avoid substantial risk to
human health and the environment, 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 waste" (RCRA section 1002(b)(7)). Exceptions to the
25454107.01\005
1-1
-------
restrictions are intended to be minimal; all waste must be treated unless "it has been
demonstrated to the Administrator, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no
migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the
wastes remain hazardous"~the so-called "no-migration" demonstration (RCRA section
3004(d)(1), (e)(1), (g)(5)).
Consistent with the comprehensive scope of this program, HSWA's definition of land
disposal is broad. Land disposal includes but is not 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)).
The statute does, however, set different schedules for restricting various categories of waste
from various types of land disposal.
HSWA grants the Agency substantial flexibility in designing treatment standards to
implement the program. The standards can require the use of specific treatment "methods"
(technologies), or they can be stated as numerical performance standards (i.e., required
concentration-based levels of treatment), as long as they "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)). In exercising this flexibility, EPA prefers, wherever
possible, to establish numerical performance standards based on the constituent concentration in
the treatment residual rather than to require the use of specific treatment methods. The Agency
believes that concentration-based treatment standards offer the regulated community greater
flexibility to develop and implement compliance strategies. Such standards also provide an
incentive to develop innovative technologies, whdreas, if this standard is established as a method
of treatment, the regulated community must apply for a variance to use an alternative treatment
technology, such as a new and innovative technology that was not available when the rule for
a specific waste code was promulgated.
25454107.01X005
1-2
-------
EPA is not required to establish unique standards for each waste code. In some
instances, variations in physical or chemical characteristics within a single waste code may
require the establishment of multiple treatment standards for that single code. In many cases,
similarities among wastes may allow the Agency to set a single treatment standard to cover
multiple waste codes. RCRA requires the Agency to make a land disposal prohibition
determination for any hazardous waste that is newly identified or listed in 40 CFR Part 261 after
November 8, 1984, such as the mineral processing wastes removed from the Bevill Exclusion
and the additional Toxicity Characteristic wastes (55 FR 11798), within 6 months of the date of
identification or listing (RCRA section 3004(g)(4)).
Originally HSWA set a strict and detailed schedule for establishing treatment standards,
based generally on priorities related to the volume and intrinsic hazards of different types of
wastes. Two groups received early attention: (1) solvent and dioxin wastes, to be regulated
within 24 months of HSWA's passage, and (2) the so-called "California List" wastes, to be
regulated within 32 months. The solvent/dioxin waste group identified in HSWA includes those
solvent wastes covered under waste codes F001, F002, F003, F004, and F005, as well as the
dioxin-containing wastes covered under waste codes F020, F021, F022, and F023 (RCRA
section 3004(3)).*
The California List wastes, a group of wastes originally listed by the State of California
and adopted intact within HSWA, include liquid hazardous wastes containing metals, free
cyanides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), corrosives (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.
* The final dioxin regulation also established treatment standards for F026, F027, and F028.
25454107.01N005
1-3
-------
Priorities for all other hazardous wastes listed under RCRA section 3001 were established
separately, based on considerations of volume and intrinsic hazard, in a formal schedule
submitted to Congress on November 8, 1986 (RCRA section 3004(g)(1)). This schedule
required all LDR regulations for these listed wastes to be in place by May 8, 1990. Consistent
with the requirements of HSWA, EPA divided all other listed hazardous wastes into three groups
(the "Thirds"), to be regulated in successive stages over a period of 66 months from the passage
of HSWA on November 8, 1984. Furthermore, if EPA failed to set a treatment standard in the
first or second third of the schedule, the wastes could be disposed of only in accordance with
the "soft hammer" provisions, such as the requirement for disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment unit that met the minimum technological requirements specified in RCRA section
3004(o) for new facilities (RCRA section 3004(g)(6)). If EPA failed to set a treatment standard
for any scheduled hazardous waste by May 8, 1990, the soft hammer provisions would then be
superseded by the hard hammer provisions, which automatically prohibited all forms of disposal
on May 8, 1990, unless the wastes are the subject of a successful "no migration" demonstration
(RCRA section 3004(g)(6)).
The overall completion schedule for the LDR Program for the wastes specifically listed
in HSWA was as follows:
• Solvents and Dioxins: Final standards promulgated on November 7, 1986.
• California List wastes: Final standards promulgated on July 8, 1987.
• "First Third" scheduled wastes: Final standards promulgated on August 8, 1988.
• "Second Third" scheduled wastes: Final standards promulgated on June 8, 1989.
• "Third Third" scheduled wastes: Final standards promulgated on May 8, 1990.
Under the Third Third Rule, EPA granted an extension of the effective date until May 8,
1992, for certain First, Second, and Third Third contaminated soil and debris for which the
25454107.01X005
1-4
-------
treatment standards are based on incineration, vitrification, or mercury retorting. EPA also
granted a national capacity variance for inorganic solids debris contaminated with D004 through
D011 wastes. In addition, EPA has granted a 2-year national capacity variance to all inorganic
solids debris and to all soil and debris contaminated with RCRA/radioactive wastes (i.e., mixed
wastes).
Factors that must be taken into account when granting any exceptions to this program
reflect the basic rationale of the program itself. Before it can allow a waste to continue to be
disposed of in or on the land, EPA must consider the following:
1. The long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal;
2. The goal of managing hazardous waste in an appropriate manner; and
3. The persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate of such
hazardous wastes and their hazardous constituents.
1.2 Development of Quality Assurance Project Plan Used for Previous Collection of
Pata for PPAT Program
To collect data of known quality to generate the treatment standards, EPA has developed
a generic quality assurance project plan for the collection of treatment data. Originally the
Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program ("BDAT") was
Published in March 1987 (EPA/530-SW-87-011) and is referred to hereafter as the March 1987
generic quality assurance project plan. This document established specific quality assurance and
quality control parameters for assessing the quality of the data collected specifically for the LDR
Program, collected for other EPA programs, or submitted by industry for consideration in the
development of the BDAT standards.
25454107.01X005
1-5
-------
Section 2 of this Background Document replaces the March 1987 generic quality
assurance project plan; it is being distributed separately in order to facilitate dissemination. For
collection of data for contaminated soil and debris under the LDR Program, EPA developed a
separate quality assurance project plan entitled Quality Assurance Project Plan for
Characterization Sampling and Treatment Tests Conducted for the Contaminated Soil and Debris
(CSD) Program, November 8, 1990.
1.2.1 EPA Data Collected from BDAT Sampling and Analysis Program
EPA's Office of Solid Waste (EPA/OSW) and Office of Research and Development
(EPA/ORD) conducted treatment tests for the listed wastes at (1) the facilities of waste
generators that also treat the waste; (2) commercial facilities (i.e., treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs)) that treat the waste of interest; and (3) EPA or commercial facilities
with pilot-scale treatment systems. The data were collected following the March 1987 generic
quality assurance project plan and formed the basis for calculating the numerical treatment
standards calculated in the First, Second, and Third Thirds rulemaking.
(1) Data sources used to identify treatment facilities. All available in-house data were
assessed to identify waste codes for which inadequate treatment data existed. EPA used a
number of sources to identify facilities that treat and/or generate these selected waste codes. The
sources included the following:
• 1988 National Survey of Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities
(TSDR Survey);
• Stanford Research Institute's (SRI) Directory of Chemical Procedures;
• 1986 National Screening Survey of TSDFs;
• Industry Studies Data Base; and
25454107.0l\005
1-6
-------
• Hazardous Waste Data Management System (HWDMS).
In addition, trade associations were contacted to solicit their assistance in identifying facilities
for EPA to consider in its treatment sampling program.
(2) Facility selection. A hierarchy of types of plants to sample for collection of
BDAT data collection was established that was consistent with the regulatory approach described
in the preamble to the November 7, 1986, Land Disposal Restrictions Rule for Solvents and
Dioxins. The hierarchy for facility selection was as follows:
1. Generator/treater. This facility type was the best choice. This type of facility would
most likely treat the waste by itself or as a significant percentage component of a
waste mixture and would most likely optimize treatment parameters for the waste of
interest since it routinely treats the waste.
2. Commercial facility or TSDF. This facility type was second choice. This type of
facility would be familiar with treatment of a particular waste type, and would be
able to optimize treatment parameters and demonstrate the technology under "full-
scale" conditions.
3. EPA or commercial pilot-scale treatment units. This was the last choice. This type
of facility would be able to demonstrate the performance of the treatment system;
however, it does not "routinely" treat the waste of concern or similar waste and,
therefore, may have problems optimizing the treatment parameters. In addition, it
is not a "full-scale" operation.
Final plant selection was affected by the type of treatment, if any, available at
generator/treater facilities; the types of treatment technologies used at TSDFs; the composition
of the waste stream at the facility (i.e., whether the waste of concern constitutes a significant
portion of the waste stream); the design and operation of the technologies; whether the facility
layout is conducive to sampling; whether the treatment system is full-scale or pilot-scale; and
statutory time constraints.
25454107.01\005
1-7
-------
(3) Treatment tests. The purpose of the treatment tests was to obtain data of known
quality for listed waste codes for which inadequate treatment data existed. For these waste
codes, all treatment technologies currently used by generators, as well as all applicable treatment
technologies, were evaluated. Final selection of the treatment system to be tested was
determined on the basis of which applicable treatment systems could be considered to be
demonstrated for the waste of interest.
(4) Reports generated as part of sampling program. For each treatment test, a
site-specific sampling and analysis plan (SAP) was prepared. The SAP provided the site-specific
details concerning the sampling points, sampling procedures, frequency of collection,
constituents of interest, analytical methods, quality control checks, operational parameters, and
frequency of data collection.
Upon completion of the sampling and analysis activities, an onsite engineering report
summarizing all data pertinent to the evaluation of the treatment system for the listed wastes was
developed. The onsite engineering report included the following:
• Description of the waste;
• Description of the treatment system, including all pertinent design parameters;
• Summary of the operating data;
• Summary of the sample collection activities, especially any deviations or
modifications from the SAP and the rationale for their implementation;
• Summary of all analytical data; and
• Summary of all pertinent quality control data, especially analytical results for
precision and accuracy.
25454107.01N005
1-8
-------
1.2.2 Other EPA Data
EPA obtained and evaluated data from other programs, especially from EPA's Industrial
Technology Division, for setting the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
standards for point source discharges to receiving waters or publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs). These data were used, if sufficient information was available, to determine that the
waste or constituents of interest were substantially treated, the treatment system could be
identified, and the treatment system could be determined to be well-operated. Available
information on analytical methods and quality control indicators (e.g., matrix spikes, duplicates,
blanks) were also evaluated.
1.2.3 Industry-Supplied Data
For the LDR Program, EPA solicited treatment data from facilities for consideration in
the development of the BDAT standards. Facilities were requested to follow the procedures
documented in Sections 3 and 4 of the March 1987 generic quality assurance project plan.
Facilities were also requested to supply design, operating, and analytical data for both untreated
waste and treatment residuals, which included quality control data that could be used to
determine the precision and accuracy of the analytical data and the analytical procedures/method s
used.
1.3 Development of Methodology to Calculate Previous Treatment Standards
The framework for the methodology used to calculate treatment standards for the LDR
Program was published in the Solvents and Dioxins Rule promulgated on November 7, 1986.
25454107.01\005
1-9
-------
1.3.1
Evaluation of Data
In the November 7,1986, Solvents and Dioxins Rule, EPA stated, "The Agency will not
establish treatment standards using performance data that are determined not to be representative
of a well-designed and well-operated treatment system" (FR 40590). Ideally, for all treatment
data, the associated design and operating data should be evaluated. However, because treatment
performance data are limited, engineering judgment based on a comparison of constituent
concentrations before and after treatment may be used to determine whether the data reflect a
well-designed and well-operated treatment system.
EPA promulgated the use of a statistical outlier test (Appendix A) and an analysis of
variance test (ANOVA) to provide a method to evaluate whether there is a statistical difference
between the data sets, or whether the data sets are homogeneous and can be evaluated together
(Appendix B). The analysis of variance is used to evaluate data from two or more treatment
technologies where data from two or more different wastes with the same constituents need to
be treated differently.
A comprehensive discussion of these statistical methods can be found in detail in many
statistics texts, e.g., Statistical Concepts and Methods, Bhattacharyya and Johnson, (1977, John
Wiley Publications, New York).
Based on the statistical evaluation of the data, the best demonstrated available technology
(BDAT) could be determined.
1.3.2 Calculation of Treatment Standards
The treatment standards for each waste code are based on data from (1) actual
performance data for the waste code; (2) transfer of performance data based on similar waste
25454107.01\005
1-10
-------
characteristics; or (3) a specific treatment technology if sufficient data are not available to
calculate a concentration-based standard.
Based on the data available for the selected BDAT, a treatment standard could be
calculated. EPA also incorporated a method to account for process variability (including
variability that may be attributed to sampling and analytical processes). The equation for the
variability factor was proposed in the Notice of Availability for the Solvents and Dioxins Rule
and promulgated in the November 7, 1986, rule. The equation has also been used to calculate
variability factors for the development of numerous rules in the Effluent Guidelines Program
under the Clean Water Act. The use of a variability factor was determined not to be a
"relaxation" of the requirements in RCRA 3004(m), but rather a function of the normal
variability of the treatment processes. A treatment facility would have to be designed to meet
the mean achievable treatment performance level rather than the treatment standard to ensure that
the performance level remains within the limits of the treatment standard.
To determine BDAT and to calculate the concentration-based standards, EPA used the
approach discussed above. All available data were evaluated to determine whether they could
be used in the rulemaking for each waste code.
It should be noted that under the Solvents and Dioxins Rule, EPA required the use of the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to determine whether a waste requires
treatment or whether a treated waste meets the applicable treatment standards. However, in
subsequent rulemakings, EPA used a total constituent analysis as the basis for treatment
standards if the BDAT was a destruction or removal technology, used TCLP only if the BDAT
was an immobilization technology, and used both total constituent and TCLP analysis to measure
performance if the BDAT was a recovery technology.
25454107.01\005
1-U
-------
1.4
Data Collection and Evaluation of Post-1990 Treatment Standards
Section 2 is the second edition of the 1987 Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan for
the land disposal restrictions program. These are the data requirements for newly listed wastes
standards.
Section 3 presents the methodology used to calculate treatment standards for the LDR
Program.
25454107.01\005
1-12
-------
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR LAND
DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS PROGRAM
Under the Land Disposal Restrictions Program (LDR), a document entitled Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land Disposal Restrictions Program ("BDAT") was
developed and published in March 1987 (EPA/530-SW-87-011). A "Project Plan" describes the
QA/QC activities in any single EPA data collection program such as developing LDRs. This
document serves as the update to that project plan and provides additional clarification and
guidance for collection of treatment test data for the LDR Program by EPA and by others such
as industry or research organizations.
2.1 Overview of OA Concepts and Procedures Involved in Generating Data for
Land Disposal Restrictions Standards
EPA is soliciting data on treatability of a variety of hazardous wastes as discussed in the
May 30,1991, Federal Register and subsequent notices. Although EPA will examine any waste
treatment data submitted, data generated and presented according to the requirements of this
Project Plan are less likely to be rejected for use in developing treatment standards because of
data quality problems.
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) is the body of administrative and technical
procedures used to generate analytical chemical data which both accurately reflect the
compositions of the waste streams involved and also include a subset of data verifying the
validity of the results plus data characterizing the performance of the treatment system.
QA/QC requirements can be expressed in two different contexts: substantively as those
procedures a laboratory must carry out to generate acceptable data or conceptually as data
quality indicators (or objectives) which represent important factors to consider in planning for
or evaluating data quality. The QA/QC Methodology Background Document (QMBD) discusses
25254107.01\005
2-1
-------
conceptual QA/QC requirements at length: this handbook focuses on substantive QA/QC
requirements such as laboratory procedures and documentation requirements.
The major substantive QA/QC requirements for generating data, which must be discussed
in test-specific plans and reports, are the following:
Sample Handling
• Documentation of basis for selecting sample point.
• Documentation that SW-846 sample preservation procedures were followed.
• Documentation that chain-of-custody procedures were followed.
Sample Analysis
• Instrument calibration: documentation of instrument calibration procedures.
• Availability of calibration reagents.
• Blanks: results of analysis of field, laboratory, and trip blanks, clearly labeled.
• Matrix spike duplicates: results of matrix spike duplicate analyses performed on one
sample from every set of samples from a single sampling point or one of every 20
samples.
• Detection limits: verified detection limits of 1 ppm in treatment residual matrices
or documentation of attempts to reach these detection limits.
• Clear designation of analytical results on raw and untreated waste samples, including
documentation of quantitative results of all method-specific QC procedures for each
sample whose results are reported.
25254107.01V005
2-2
-------
Data Reporting Format
• Documents for reporting results in a standard format: Sampling and Analysis Plan
(SAP) and Onsite Engineering Report (OER).
QA/QC requirements for reporting on treatment technology operating conditions are to
be developed on a treatment test by treatment test basis and defined in the SAP. The operating
conditions and design parameters to report for each treatment process being tested depend on the
type of technology and the various engineering refinements exhibited by the system being tested.
EPA welcomes opportunities to evaluate draft SAPs or OERs from a commenter wishing to
submit treatability data. A potential commenter's concerns about developing the appropriate
format for treatment system design and operation data can be readily resolved once the
commenter initiates contact with EPA by requesting review at any preliminary level of SAP or
OER development.
One element of analytical QA/QC, which has assumed a new role in the post-Thirds
BDAT program, is the analytical detection limit. As of the publication of the First Update to
the Third Edition of SW-846, the definition of the detection limit in SW-846 is changing from
the 1986 Third Edition (Zero Update) definition: this definition is becoming more quantitatively
rigorous. Detection limits are important because they are frequently the basis of numerical
standards; thus, the definition of the detection limit can profoundly affect the magnitude of the
standard.
The 1986 Third Edition (Zero Update) definition in Chapter One, which sets baseline
QA/QC requirements for all SW-846 procedures, that is, the method detection limit (MDL) is
three times the standard deviation of the average noise level diyided by the slope of the
calibration line generated with solutions of known quantities of the analyte in question. The
1991 First Update to the Third Edition defines the MDL as the product of the standard deviation
(from at least three analyses of a matrix spiked with the analyte of interest at a level believed
25254107.01\005
2-3
-------
to be near the detection level) and the t-statistic (one-sided, 99 percent level of probability,
chosen as a function of the number of analyses).
For both the 1986 and the 1991 versions, some of the methods themselves have more
rigorous detection limits definitions which are spelled out in the QA/QC heading of the method
chapter itself. The First Update changes to the Chapter One global QA/QC requirements for
all SW-846 methods do not invalidate any of the method-specific requirements, but rather they
make the chapter-specific QA/QC requirements more uniform among each other by bringing
them up to a higher degree of rigor.
An acceptable data package will generally consist of two documents: the Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP) and the Onsite Engineering Report (OER). The exception is the case where
the data has already been generated; in this case the organization submitting the data will do well
to study the contents of a good SAP as presented in Section 2.2, but their data must be arranged
in the OER format presented in Section 2.3.
The SAP describes how the raw and treated waste will be sampled, preserved, shipped,
and analyzed. It includes a table assigning a unique code to each sample, duplicate and blank,
a description and justification of each sampling point, the preparations, spikes, replicates, and
analyses to be performed plus provisions for documenting the chain of custody and for
assembling documentation of these sampling and analytical procedures as they are actually
performed.
The OER is the summary of these samplings and analyses results and is essentially
documentation (both tabular and narrative) of how the activities planned in the SAP were carried
out in reality. Listing and discussing deviations from the SAP, which occurred in the course
of these activities, is an important part of the OER.
25254107.01V005
2-4
-------
2.1.1
Data Quality Objectives
The overall objective for the BDAT Program's sampling and analysis efforts is to
produce well-documented data of known quality that can be used to determine the best
demonstrated available technologies for the various listed wastes and to develop BDAT treatment
standards for these wastes.
The treatment data, i.e., data resulting from treatment tests, consist of the results of
analytical tests results of the composition of the untreated wastes and the treatment residuals.
The treatment data, which are the concentrations of hazardous constituents, can then be used to
evaluate the performance of the technology on the listed hazardous waste.
The constituents to be quantified in the BDAT Program investigations are presented in
Table 2-1. This list is updated periodically as additional information is obtained on the
analytical procedures used to measure the hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII. The
untreated wastes and treatment residual should be screened for most of the BDAT constituents
to determine which constituents are present or were formed; which constituents were treated (or
formed during treatment); and which constituents should be regulated.
The data quality for analytical measurements of the BDAT list constituents in raw waste
and in treated waste residuals are primarily assessed by means of the following indicators:
analytical method detection limits, precision, and accuracy; and special QA/QC documentation
requirements apply. Each of these indicators is discussed in detail below.
(1) Detection limits. Matrix detection limits should be calculated for the untreated
wastes and each treatment residual sample, following the procedures given in Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846), Third Edition (USEPA 1986), where applicable. If samples
are diluted, the matrix detection limit should be calculated as the detection limit for the particular
matrix times the dilution factor.
25254107.01S005
2-5
-------
Table 2-1 BDAT Constituent List
BDAT
reference
Constituent CAS no. no.
Volatile oreanics
Acetone
67-64-1
222
Acetonitrile
75-05-8
1
Acrolein
107-02-8
2
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1
3
Benzene
71-43-2
4
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
5
Bromomethane
74-83-9
6
n-Butyl alcohol
71-36-3
223
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
7
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
8
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
9
2-Chloro-l ,3-butadiene*
126-99-8
10
Chlorodibromomethane
124-48-1
11
Chloroethane
75-00-3
12
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
110-75-8
13
Chloroform
67-66-3
14
Chloromethane
74-87-3
15
3-Chloropropene
107-05-1
16
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
96-12-8
17
1,2-Dibromoethane
106-93-4
18
Dibromomethane
74-95-3
19
~trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
110-57-6
20
Dichlorodifluoromethane
75-71-8
21
1,1 -Dichloroethane
75-34-3
22
1,2-Dichloroethane
107-06-2
23
1,1 -Dichloroethylene
75-35-4
24
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-60-5
25
1,2-Dichloropropane
78-87-5
26
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-02-6
27
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-01-5
28
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
29
(Deleted-2-ethoxyethanol)
110-80-5
224
Ethyl acetate
141-78-6
225
Ethyl benzene
100-41-4
226
Ethyl cyanide
107-12-0
30
Ethyl ether
60-29-7
227
Ethyl methacrylate
97-63-2
31
Ethylene oxide
75-21-8
214
lodomethane
74-88-4
32
25254107.01\005
2-6
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
BDAT
reference
Constituent CAS no. no.
Volatile Qreanicg (continued)
Isobutyl alcohol 78-83-1 33
Methanol* 67-56-1 228
Methyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3 34
Methyl isobutyl ketone 108-10-1 229
Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 35
Methacrylonitrile 126-98-7 37
Methylene chloride 75-09-2 38
(Deleted-2-Nitropropane) 79-46-9 230
Pyridine 110-86-1 39
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-26-6 40
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-6 41
Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 42
Toluene 108-88-3 43
Tribromomethane (Bromoform) 75-25-2 44
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 45
1.1.2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 46
Trichloroethene 79-01-6 47
Trichloromonofluoroniethane 75-69-4 48
1.2.3-Trichloropi'opane 96-18-4 49
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 76-13-1 231
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 50
1.2-Xylene 97-47-6 215
1.3-Xylene 108-38-3 216
1.4-Xylene 106-44-5 217
Semivolatile Orcanics
Acenapthalene 208-96-8 51
Acenaphthene 83-32-9 52
Acetophenone 96-86-2 53
Acrylamide* 79-06-1 233
2-Acetylaminofluorene 53-96-3 54
4-Aminobiphenyl 92-67*1 55
Aniline 62-53-3 56
Anthracene 120-12-7 57
Aramite* 140-57-8 58
Benz(a)anthracene 56-55*3 59
Benzal chloride1" 98-87-3 218
Benzenethiol* 108-98-5 60
25254107.01V005
2-7
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
BDAT
reference
Constituent CAS no. no.
Semivolatile Orcanics (continued)
(Deleted-Benzidine)
92-87-5
61
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
62
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
63
Benzo(ghi)perylene
191-24-2
64
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
65
p-Benzoquinone*
106-51-4
66
Bis(2-chloroethyoxy)methane
111-91-1
67
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
111-44-4
68
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
39638-32-9
69
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
117-81-7
70
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
101-55-3
71
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
72
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
88-85-7
73
p-Chloroaniline
106-47-8
74
Chlorobenzilate*
510-15-6
75
p-Chloro-m-cresol
59-50-7
76
2-Chloronapthalene
91-58-7
77
2-Chlorophenol
95-57-8
78
(Deleted-3-chloropropionitrile)
542-76-7
79
Chrysene
218-01-9
80
o-Cresol
95-48-7
81
p-Cresol
106-44-5
82
Cyclohexanone*
108-94-1
232
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
83
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene*
192-65-4
84
(Deleted-Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene)
189-55-9
85
m-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
86
o-Dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
87
p-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
88
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine*
91-94-1
89
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene+
1476-11-5
234
2,4-Dichlorophenol
120-83-2
90
2,6-Dichlorophenol
87-65-0
91
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
92
3,3 '-Dimethoxybenzidine*
119-90-4
93
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene*
60-11-7
94
3,3 '-Dimethylbenzidine*
119-93-7
95
2,4-Dimethylphenol
105-67-9
96
Dimethyl phthalate
131-11-3
97
25254107.01X005
2-8
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Constituent
Semivolatile Organics (continued)
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1,4-Dinitrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitro toluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Diphenylamine
t>iphenylnitrosaraine
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadine
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene"1"
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorphene*
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isosafrole
Methapyrilene
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4,-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene
1,4-Naphthoquinone*
1-Napthylamine*
2-Napthylamine,',
P-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
N-N i t rosodi -n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
%N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
BDAT
reference
CAS no. no.
84-74-2
98
100-25-4
99
534-52-1
100
51-28-5
101
121-14-2
102
606-20-2
103
117-84-0
104
621-67-7
105
122-39-4
106
86-30-6
219
122-66-7
107
206-44-0
108
86-73-7
109
118-74-1
110
87-68-3
111
77-47-4
112
67-72-1
113
70-30-4
114
1888-71-7
115
193-39-5
116
120-58-1
117
91-80-5
118
56-49-5
119
101-14-4
120
66-27-3
36
91-20-3
121
130-15-4
122
134-32-7
123
91-59-8
124
100-01-6
125
98-95-3
126
100-02-7
127
924-16-3
128
55-18-5
129
62-75-9
130
10595*95-6
131
59-98-2
132
100-75-4
133
930-55-2
134
25254107.01N005
2-9
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
BDAT
reference
Constituent CAS no. no.
Semivolatile Organics (continued)
5-Nitro-o-toluidine 99-65-8 135
Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5 136
Pentachloroethane* 76-01-7 137
Pentachloronitrobenzene 82-68-8 138
Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 139
Phenacetin 62-44-2 140
Phenanthrene 85-01-8 141
Phenol 108-95-2 142
Phthalic anhydride'" 85-44-9 220
(Deleted-2-Picoline) 109-06-8 143
Pronamide 23950-58-5 144
Pyrene 129-00-0 145
Resorcinol* 108-46-3 146
Safrole 94-59-7 147
1.2.4.5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3 148
2.3.4.6-Tetrachlorophenol 58-90-2 149
1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 150
2.4.5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 151
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 152
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate* 126-72-7 153
Metals
Antimony 7440-36-0 154
Arsenic 7440-38-2 155
Barium 7440-39-3 156
Beryllium 7440-41-7 157
Cadmium 7440-43-9 158
Chromium (total) 7440-47-3 159
Chromium (hexavalent) — 221
Copper 7440-50-8 160
Lead 7439-92-1 161
Mercury 7439-97-6 162
Nickel 7440-02-0 163
Selenium 7782-49-2 164
Silver 7440-22-4 165
Thallium 7440-28-0 166
Vanadium 7440-62-2 167
Zinc 7440-66-6 168
25254107.01N005
2-10
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
BDAT
reference
Constituent CAS no. no.
Inorganics Other Than Metals
Cyanide 57-12-5 169
Fluoride 16964-48-8 170
Sulfide 8496-25-8 171
Organochlorine Pesticides
Aldrin 309-00-2 172
alpha-BHC 319-84-6 173
beta-BHC 319-85-7 174
delta-BHC 319-86-6 175
gamma-BHC 58-89-9 176
Chlordane 57-74-9 177
p.p'-DDD 72-54-8 178
o.p'-DDD 53-19-0 235
p,p*-DDE 72-55-9 179
o.p'-DDE 3424-82-6 236
p,p'-DDT 50-29-3 180
o,p'-DDT 789-02-6 237
Dieldrin 60-57-1 181
Bndosulfan I 939-98-8 182
Endosulfan II 33213-6-5 183
Bndosulfan sulfate 1031-07-8 238
Endrin 72-20-8 184
Endrin aldehyde 7421-93-4 185
Heptachlor 76-44-8 186
Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3 187
Isodrin 465-73-6 188
Kepone 143-50-0 189
Methoxychlor 72-43-5 190
Toxaphene 8001-35-2 191
Phenoxvacetic Acid Herbicides
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 94-75-7 192
Silvex 93-72-1 193
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 93-76-5 194
25254107.01\005
2-11
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
BDAT
reference
Constituent CAS no. no.
Organophosphorous Insecticides
Disulfton 298-04-4 195
Famphur 52-85-7 196
Methyl parathion 298-00-0 197
Parathion 56-38-2 198
Phorate 298-02-2 199
PCBs
Aroclor 1016 . 12674-11-2 200
Aroclor 1221 11104-28-2 201
Aroclor 1232 11141-16-5 202
Aroclor 1242 53469-21-9 203
Aroclor 1248 12672-29-6 204
Aroclor 1254 11097-69-1 205
Aroclor 1260 11096-82-5 206
Dioxins and Furans
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins — 207
Hexachlorodibenzofurans — 208
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins — 209
Pentachlorodibenzofiirans ~ 210
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ~ 211
Tetrachlorodibenzofiirans — 212
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1746-01-6 213
¦"Because of the analytical problems associated with these constituents, their analysis should be undertaken only if
they are suspected to be present in the matrix of interest. For EPA projects, approval for analyzing the specific
constituents should be obtained from the EPA Project Manager and the designated QA Officer.
25254107.01\005
2-12
-------
For the constituents of interest, the detection limit should be at a maximum 1 ppm in the
matrix to be analyzed. For multicomponent target analysis such as PCDDs and PCDFs, the
detection limit should be reported in terms of a single isomer. The laboratory should try to
achieve the lowest detection limit possible for all constituents of interest. Figure 2-1 provides
a decision tree diagram of the steps that the laboratory must take if a 1-ppm or lower detection
limit cannot be achieved for all constituents.
For EPA tests, if a detection limit of 1 ppm or lower cannot be obtained based on the
amount of sample that will be used for sample extraction, digestion, or other sample preparation
step, the laboratory is to stop work and immediately contact the Contractor Project Manager or
his/her designee. At this time, the laboratory should make recommendations on how to proceed
with the analysis, including recommendations on any additional cleanup methods that could be
used to eliminate the interference or matrix problems that are preventing the laboratory from
achieving this data quality objective. The Contractor Project Manager must then immediately
notify the EPA Project Manager or his/her designee of the problem. The EPA Project Manager
will then evaluate the recommendations and determine whether (1) the laboratory should proceed
even though a 1-ppm or lower detection limit cannot be achieved; (2) the laboratory should
implement the additional cleanup techniques to achieve better detection limits; or (3) the work
should be discontinued since the expected detection limits are not adequate to evaluate treatment
performance. Note, the laboratory must obtain approval for exceeding the 1-ppm detection limit
requirement if it has determined by a review of historical data or by a screening technique that
to achieve better analytical results, the amount of sample to be extracted or digested should be
reduced from the sample quantity recommended for samples with low constituent concentrations.
If sufficient sample is extracted or digested such that a detection limit of 1 ppm or lower
is expected to be achieved for the constituents of interest in the sample, but some constituents
are present at concentrations greater than the linear range of the calibration curve, then the
laboratory is authorized to quantify the diluted sample results following each method's
procedures without first notifying the Contractor Project Manager that a 1-ppm detection limit
25254107.01\005
2-13
-------
Sample Analysis
Determine best analytical approach:
(1) Use less sample for extraction or
digestion;
(2) Use cleanup technique prior to sample
extraction or digestion;
(3) Use alternative analytical method; or
(4) Use method as is; 1 ppm detection limit
not achievable.
Analyze samples.
Dilute samples.
Analyze samples.
Analyze samples.
Receive stop
work order.
Contact EPA Project Manager.
Contact EPA Project Manager.
Determine value for detection limit.
Detection limit of 1 ppm cannot be achieved.
Receive approval to
continue work using
recommended approach.
Detection limit of 1 ppm
cannot be achieved for all
constituents because dilution
is required at instrument to
quantify high concentrations.
Detection limit of 1 ppm can be
achieved for aJI constituents
for all samples.
Detection limit of 1 ppm
cannot be achieved for all
constituents for all samples.
(Report results.)
Figure 2-1. Decision Tree Diagram for Achieving Detection Limit
25254107.01X005
2-14
-------
may not be achieved for all constituents in that sample. The laboratory, however, must then
notify the Contractor Project Manager and EPA Project Manager that the concentration levels
of some constituents were high, impacting the detection limits of other constituents. The
laboratory should make recommendations on additional sample cleanup techniques that may be
used to achieve better detection limits for these other constituents.
The matrix detection limit is to be calculated following the procedures given in each
analytical method. The method detection limit should be calculated following the procedures
given in the revised Section 1 of SW-846. The method detection limit is calculated using the
following equation:
Method Detection Limit = 6.9s
where s = the standard deviation calculated from three replicates.
(2) Precision and accuracy. Precision is defined in terms of the relative percent
difference of the matrix spike and the matrix spike duplicate, where applicable. The site-specific
SAP for each treatment test should specify the samples designated for this analysis.
Precision will be calculated using the following equation for relative percent difference:
(C, - C-) * 100
KPD (%) = — -
KC, + C2)/2]
where:
RPD = relative percent difference,
C i = the larger of the two values for matrix spike duplicates or laboratory
duplicates, and
C 2 = The smaller of the two values for matrix spike duplicates or laboratory
duplicates.
25254107.01\005
2-15
-------
Although EPA is not yet specifying acceptable limits for precision, a RPD result should be
reported in the data packages received from the laboratory and in the ensuing OERs.
Percent recovery of laboratory matrix spikes is the quantitative measure of accuracy. For
the treatment test analysis, a matrix spike and a matrix spike duplicate will be completed, at a
minimum, on one sample of each type of treatment residual.
The spike constituents should be determined on a site-specific basis for each sampling
activity and should be presented in the SAP together with the code numbers for each sample to
be taken. Spiking should be completed at the laboratory prior to extraction or digestion of the
sample. (If less than 1 liter of sample is required for the matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate, then one sample container will be filled in the field, and the laboratory will take the
sample aliquots for the matrix spike and the matrix spike duplicate from the same container.
If more than 1 liter of sample is required, then multiple sample containers are required and the
matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate will be taken from different containers.) The spike
concentration levels should be within five times the initial concentration level prior to spiking
or at five times the expected matrix detection limit for constituents expected to be at the
nondetect level. If the sample was not spiked within these ranges, the impact on the quality of
the data should be assessed, and the EPA Project Manager should be notified. If necessary, the
samples may be respiked and reanalyzed.
When the March 1987 generic quality assurance project plan was published, no limits for
accuracy were specified. Subsequently, it was determined that the recoveries for the matrix
spike and matrix spike duplicate should be between 20 and 200 percent. If recoveries are less
than 20 percent, the EPA Project Manager must be notified. The EPA Project Manager will
determine whether any additional work is required to achieve spike recoveries of at least 20
percent. If recoveries are greater than 200 percent, the data must be flagged; review on a case-
by-case basis will determine whether the results are usable.
25254107.01\005
2-16
-------
The following equation should be used to calculate recoveries:
Percent Recovery (%) = ^ c ^ x ^
where:
C j = concentration of spiked aliquot,
C 0 = concentration of unspiked aliquot, and
C { = concentration of spike added.
(3) Completeness. Completeness is defined as the number of activities initiated that
are actually finished. For this project, the first activity is acquiring the samples; the final
activity is reporting the analytical data. The degree of completeness is the number of samples
for which acceptable analytical data are generated divided by the total number of samples
collected times 100. The QA objective for completeness in the contaminated soil and debris
(CSD) sampling and analysis efforts is 100 percent. If the completeness is less than 100 percent,
documentation must be provided to explain why the QA objective was not met in terms of
sample handling, analysis, and documentation and to describe the impact on the project of these
failures to achieve 100 percent completeness.
(4) Representativeness. For this project, representativeness is addressed through
selection of appropriate sampling locations and procedures. For the treatment tests, the goal is
to obtain samples representative of the untreated matrix and treatment residuals such that the
performance of the treatment could be evaluated. One way this can be accomplished is by
obtaining matched in and out sample pairs (or sets) of the untreated matrix and treatment
residuals. (Note, residence times must be taken into account.)
25254107.01\005
2-17
-------
(5) Comparability. For this project, comparability for each treatment test will be
addressed through use of the same analytical procedures to analyze the samples. The analytical
data should be reported in the same units for each test.
2.1.2
Project Organization
The EPA Program Manager will have the overall quality assurance (QA) responsibility
for all sampling and analysis data collected for the BDAT program. All SAPs must be approved
by the EPA Program QA Coordinator or his/her designees. Figure 2-2 presents a general
organization chart. A test-specific organization chart should be prepared for each SAP.
Responsibilities of the various positions are described below.
EPA Project Manager:
EPA QA Officer:
Contractor Program Manager:
Contractor Project Manager:
Contractor QA Officer:
Principal Engineer:
Overall responsibility for all sampling and analysis data and
for ensuring data compliance with the program's data
quality objective.
Responsible for ensuring data compliance with the
program's data quality objectives; approving site-specific
SAPs and OERs, and conducting audits, if necessary.
Responsible for all work performed by the contractor.
Responsible for budgets and scheduling; project technical
oversight and coordination; and project staff (principal
engineers, sampling staff, and laboratory staff).
Responsible for ensuring that the sampling and analysis
data meet the project's data quality objectives and
reviewing all data management activities.
Responsible for obtaining background information on the
waste to be treated and on the applicable treatment
technologies; scheduling the treatment tests; and preparing
the site-specific SAPs and OERs.
25254107.01NQ05
2-18
-------
EPA Project
Manager
EPA QA
Officer
Contract Program
Manager
Contractor QA
Officer
Contractor Project
Manager
Lead
Engineer
Sampling Crew
Chief
Laboratory )
Coordinator
Engineering
Staff
Field Sampling
Staff
Labor?
Figure 2-2. Project Organization
25254107.01N005
2-19
-------
Sampling Crew Chief: Responsible for ensuring that all samples and data required
by the site-specific SAP are collected in accordance with
the project's QAPjP; ensuring that the field staff members
have adequate training; and ensuring onsite compliance
with the appropriate health and safety requirements.
Laboratory Coordinator: Responsible for scheduling the analytical work and ensuring
compliance with the analytical requirements of the QAPjP
and SAP.
2.1.3 Collection Plan for Field Samples and Design and Operating Parameters
To determine the quality of data with respect to the characterization of the waste being
treated and the treated residual, the site-specific sampling and analysis plan must contain the
following information. Note, these bulleted items are appropriate section heading.
• Sampling point descriptions. Describe the sampling points and provide the
justification for their selection. All sampling points must be identified on the
schematic diagram for the waste treatment system.
• Sample collection method. All samples should be collected as grab samples.
Sample collection procedures must be described for each sample location.
• Sampling scheduling. Frequency of sample collection will vary depending on the
treatment system. The frequency of sample collection at each sampling location must
be specified in the SAP and should be selected to best characterize the variability in
(1) the waste stream, (2) the treatment process, and (3) the analytical results.
• Constituents to be analyzed. For all sampling points, specify which of the
compounds shown in Table 2-1 (BDAT Constituents List) will be analyzed. All
analyses should be performed using SW-846 (Third Edition). Deviations from this
list of compounds should be justified. (For example, if one sample of the untreated
waste is analyzed and the data show that particular compounds are not present, then
further analysis of these compounds may not be required for the other samples from
the plant.) Table 2-2 provides an example table that can be used to summarize
planned analysis and quality control samples.
25254107.01\005
2-20
-------
Table 2-2 Example Summary of Planned Analyses
and Quality Control Samples
Analytical procedure
Characterization
sample
Number of samples collected
Untreated
waste
Treatment
residual
Semivolatiles
Primary samples
Matrix spikes8
Matrix spike duplicates3
Field sampling blank
Equipment blank
Metals
Primary samples
Matrix spikes3
Matrix spike duplicates3
Field sampling blank
Equipment blank
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
6
1
1
0
0
6
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
aAnalyses of the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples are to be completed for the
third set of matched samples collected for the untreated soil and the treatment residuals. Note,
sufficient sample aliquot amounts must be collected for this set of samples to complete these
analyses.
25254107.01\005
2-21
-------
• Total composition and TCLP extracts. For the treated residuals, analysis will be
completed on both the total composition sample for organics and inorganics and the
TCLP extracts for inorganics only. For all other samples collected, analysis will be
completed only for total composition. (It should be noted that in the March 1987
generic quality assurance project plan, TCLP analysis was required for both organic
and inorganic constituents in the treated residuals since at the time it was not
determined whether the treatment standards were to be developed using total
composition or TCLP data. Subsequently, EPA decided to use total composition data
to develop the treatment standards for organics.)
• Sample containerization and preservation. Procedures for sample containerization
and preservation presented in SW-846 (Third Edition, Table 2-16) should be
followed. The specific types of containers and the required sample preservation
should be specified in the SAP. All sampling vessels and containers will be cleaned
prior to the sample collection. The procedures used should be specified in the site-
specific SAP. Table 2-3 provides examples of sample containers, sizes, holding
times, and preservation requirements.
• Design and operating data collection. To evaluate the treatment design and
operation, the SAP must contain (1) all design and operating data to be collected, the
method of collecting these data, and the reason for collecting these data; (2) the
specific frequency for collecting the operating data; and (3) identified locations for
collecting operating data on the treatment system schematic.
Sampling procedures, locations, and frequencies must be documented in the site-specific
SAP. Sampling times for the untreated and treated samples must take into account the residence
time of the treatment system. The untreated and treated samples should be corresponding
matched pairs so that waste characteristics can be evaluated. Any deviations from obtaining
matched pairs must be documented in the SAP and approved by the EPA Project Manager. If
possible, six sets of untreated and treated samples should be collected. However, the final
selection of the number of sampling sets needed to evaluate the treatment system must be
approved by the EPA Project Manager and presented in the treatment test SAP.
25254107.01\005
2-22
-------
Table 2-3 Example of Sample Containers, Sizes, Holding Times,
and Preservation Requirements
Parameter
Container
Sample size
Holding time
Preservation*
Wastewater*
Total metals
TCLP (metals only)'1
PH
Chloride )
Sulfate )
Total solids )
Total organic carbons
Volatile organics
Semivolatile organics6
Dioxins and furanse
Solidn
Total metals )
)
TCLP (metals only)'' )
Chloride )
Sulfate )
Total organic carbon )
Volatile organics
Semivolatile organics0
Dioxins and furansc
P,G
P,G
P,G
G
G
a
P.G
G
a
G
1 one-liter jar
1 one-liter jar
1 500-mljar
2 40-ml VOA vials
2 40-ml VOA vials
2 one-liter jars
2 one-liter jars
1 500-ml wide-mouth jar
1 250-mljar
1 120-ml jar
1 250-mljar
1 120-mljar
6 months (except
mercury at 28 days)
6 months (except
mercury at 28 days)
Immediately
28 days
28 days
7 days
28 days
14 day
7 days to extraction
40 days to analyais
30 days to extraction
45 days to analysis
from collection
6 month* (except
mercury at 28 days
6 month* to TCLP
extraction,
6 month* to analysis
(except mercury at
28 day* and 28 days,
respectively)
28 day*
14 day*
14 day* to extraction
40 day* to analysts
30 day* to extraction,
45 day* to analyii*
from collection
pH <2 with HNOj
Cool s4#C
Cool S4°C
pH <2 with
H2S04, cool S4®C
Cool S4°C
Cool S4°C
Cool s4®C
Cool S4°C
Cool S4°C
Cool ss4*C
Cool S4'C
Cool 3S4*C
25254107.01\005
2-23
-------
Table 2-3 (Continued)
Parameter Container Sample size Holding time Preservation*
Sludges
Total metals )
TCLP (metals only)b )
P,G
2 one-liter wide-mouth jars
6 months (except
mercury at 28 days)
Cool
S4'C
Chloride )
Sulfate )
Total organic carbon )
Total solids )
G
1 500-ml wide-mouth jar
28 days
28 days
28 days
7 dayi
Cool
S4eC
Volatile organics
G
2 40-ml VOA vials
14 days
Cool
S4°C
Semivolatile organics'1
Dioxins and fiirans0
G
G
2 one-liter wide-mouth jars
2 one-liter wide-mouth jars
14 days to extraction,
40 days to analysis
30 days to extraction
45 days to analysis
from collection
Cool
Cool
S4°C
S4'C
Footnotes:
P - Plastic
G - Glass
aField samples will be packed on ice for shipment. Upon receipt at the laboratory, the samples will be stored at S4°C.
bIf TCLP extracts are to be analyzed for organics, holding times are as follows: volatiles, 14 days to TCLP extraction and 14 days to analysis
(28 days total); aemivolatiles, 7 days to TCLP extraction, 7 days to preparative extraction, and 40 days to analysia (54 days total).
cFor samples requiring QA analyses (MS and MSD), collect twice the amount.
Note: Sample containers must be filled to ensure that adequate sample is available for analysis.
25254107.01\005
2-24
-------
2.1.4
Sample Custody and Transport
Field chain of custody must be maintained for all samples collected for the LDR
Program. Documentation of all field activities is required to provide backup for any deviations
from the SAP. All samples collected should be labeled and identified using a multi-part label;
an example of a three-part label is shown in Figure 2-3. The labels have a preprinted number
that becomes the field sample number. One portion will be completed and affixed to the sample
bottle; another portion will be entered into the field notebook with pertinent information entered
alongside the label. At a minimum, all replicate volumes for a particular sample/parameter
should have the same field sample number assigned to them.
Sample custody seals (see Figure 2-4) will be placed around all shipping container lids
to detect unauthorized tampering with samples following collection and prior to the time of
analysis. (This includes any untreated waste or treatment residuals that are being shipped for
the purpose of being used in a treatment test.) The seal must be attached in such a way that it
is necessary to break it in order to open the container. Seals must be affixed at the time of
packaging by the sampling crew chief or his/her designee. The seal should include the signature
of the sampling crew chief and the date.
Sample custody will begin at the time of sample collection by placing the sample in an
ice chest, or other appropriate container, in the possession of the sampling crew chief or his/her
designee. The chain of custody record form (see Figure 2-5) should be filled out immediately
and signed by the sampling crew chief or his/her designee. The chain of custody record must
be filled out completely and accurately since this form provides documentation for what was
collected in the field and the analysis to be completed in the laboratory. The chain of custody
record form should include the following information:
• Project name/code;
• Site/facility name;
25254107.01V005
2-25
-------
. eASAR i.\C
39530
PARAMETER
3 9530 ouplicate
VERSAR INC.
39530
parameter
TASK
PLANT
SAMPLE tOCAT
MATRIX
SAMPLING COMMENTS
SIGNATURE TIME. DATE
Figure 2-3. Example of Three-Part Label
CUSTODY SEAL
Dal*
Signature
25254107.01V005
Figure 2-4. Example of Custody Seal
2-26
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
2
c
-------
• Sample location;
• Sample type or matrix;
• Sample date and time;
• Signature of sampling crew chief or his/her designee; and
• Analysis required.
Any additional pertinent remarks concerning the samples, e.g., sample preservative used, should
also be included.
Upon completion of the form, the sampling crew chief or his/her designee will sign, date,
enter the time, and confirm completeness of all descriptive information contained on the chain
of custody record. Each individual who subsequently assumes responsibility for the sample will
sign the chain of custody record and indicate the reason for assuming custody. The field chain
of custody record will terminate upon laboratory receipt of samples. The field sample custodian
should retain a copy of the chain of custody record for the program files.
Samples must be packaged and labeled for shipment in compliance with current
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and International Air Transport Association (IATA)
dangerous goods regulations. Any additional requirements stipulated by the overnight carrier
must be followed. The packaging and labeling requirements should be documented in the site-
specific SAP. In addition to the complete mailing address, each ice chest must be clearly
marked with "this end up" arrows on all four sides, a label on each side of the container
indicating the proper shipping description of the samples, and the originator's address.
A metal or plastic ice chest should be used as the outside shipping container for
hazardous waste samples, unless otherwise specified by the shipping regulations. The outside
container must be able to withstand a 4-foot drop on solid concrete in the position most likely
to cause damage. Each ice chest should be lined with two 6-mil thick plastic bags. Styrofoam
25254107.01\005
2-28
-------
or bubble wrap will be used to absorb shock. When sample containers are placed in an ice chest
for shipment, all samples from a single sampling location (except for replicate field samples, if
collected) will be kept together as a set, unless the SAP specifies otherwise. Replicate samples
will be packaged and shipped in a separate ice chest. Since the replicate sample containers are
collected only to ensure that a sufficient sample quantity is available should a problem occur
during sample transport, the chain of custody forms should have these samples marked as "hold
for analysis." When more than one set can fit into an ice chest, one of the sets will be placed
in a separate plastic bag to prevent cross-contamination if breakage should occur. Volatile
Organic Analysis (VOA) vials will be packaged inside a plastic "ziplock" bag. Styrofoam or
bubble wrap can be used to prevent bottle breakage. The outside of the VOA package will be
labeled with the appropriate sample identification number. VOA vials should be shipped with
appropriate sample sets from a given sample location.
After sample containers are sufficiently packaged, the 6-mil thick plastic bags should be
sealed around the samples by twisting the top and securely taping the bag closed to prevent
leakage. The custody seal will be placed around the neck of the bag. When preservation
requirements dictate, ice will be placed between the inner and outer plastic bags, with the latter
taped shut.
Chain of custody records and any other shipping/sample documentation accompanying
the shipment will be enclosed in a waterproof plastic bag and taped to the underside of the ice
chest lid.
Each ice chest prepared for shipment will be securely taped shut. Custody seals will be
affixed across the joint between the top and bottom (both in front and in back) of each ice chest
prepared for shipment.
25254107.01\005
2-29
-------
The actual transportation mode should be selected based on holding times for individual
analytes. All samples should be either delivered by the sampling crew or shipped via a
commercial overnight carrier.
Upon receipt of the samples in the laboratory, the ice chests will be checked for intact
custody seals. The samples will then be unpackaged, and the information on the accompanying
chain of custody records examined. If the samples shipped match those described on the chain
of custody record, the laboratory sample custodian will sign the form and assume responsibility
for the samples. If problems are noted with the sample shipment, the laboratory custodian will
sign the form and record problems in the "Remarks" box. The appropriate Project Manager (for
EPA projects, the contractor and EPA Project Manager) should be notified of any problems.
All samples will then be logged into a sample logbook and/or computerized information
system. The following information will be documented:
• Date and time of sample receipt;
• Project number;
• Field sample number;
• Laboratory sample number (assigned during log-in procedure);
• Sample matrix;
• Sample parameters;
• Storage location; and
• Log-in person's initials.
All information relevant to the samples will be secured at the end of each business day.
All samples will be stored in a designated sample storage refrigerator, access to which will be
limited to laboratory employees.
25254107.01\005
2-30
-------
2.1.5
Selection of Analytical Methods
Analytical methods will be selected, whenever possible, from EPA/OSW-approved
methods, most of which appear in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846), Third
Edition (USEPA 1986). Exceptions to the requirement will be allowed for cases in which the
EPA/OSW-approved methods are not appropriate for the preparation or analysis of a specific
sample matrix or are not available for a particular constituent or other parameter of interest.
References to be used for selecting alternatives to the approved methods include the
following:
1. Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW), EPA 600/4-
79-020 (USEPA 1983);
2. Other available EPA methods, e.g., methods described in the Statement of Work
(SOW) for EPA's Contract Laboratory Program (CLP);
3. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (SM), 16th Edition
(American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation 1985); and
4. Methods published annually by the American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM).
If appropriate methods to analyze specific waste matrices or to analyze specific other
parameters for waste characterization are not available in the aforementioned references, then
a literature search may be completed to obtain an appropriate method to complete the analysis.
All SAPs should specify the exact analytical methods to be used for the samples collected
during the treatment test. Since the SAPs are site-specific, they should include any cleanup or
preparation steps that may be required to analyze the samples. Table 2-4 presents recommended
SW-846 methods and other methods that may be used to analyze BDAT constituents and waste
characteristics affecting performance.
25254107.01\005
2-31
-------
Table 2-4 Recommended Analytical Methods
Preparation Analysis
Parameter method8 method8
Solids
BDAT list constituents:
Volatile organics 5030 8240
Methanol 5040 8015
Semivolatile organics 3540/3550 8270
TCLP for organics 1311 followed by Follow methods for organics
methods for in wastewaters
organics in
wastewaters
Metals, total
ICP metals 3050 6010
Arsenic 3050 7060
Chromium (hexavalent) TCLP-51 FR 40643 7197
Lead 3050 7421
Mercury 7471
Selenium 3050 7740
Thallium 3050 7841
Metals, TCLP 1311 followed by:
ICP metals 3010 6010
Arsenic 7060
Chromium (hexavalent) 7197
Lead 3020 7421
Mercury 7470
Selenium 7740
Thallium 3020 7841
Cyanides 9012
Fluorides MCAWW 340.2
Sulfides 9030
Organochlorine pesticides 8080
Phenoxyacetic acid herbicides 8150
25254107.01\005
2-32
-------
Table 2-4 (continued)
Preparation Analysis
Parameter method4 method8
Organophosphorous insecticides 8140
PCBs 8080
Dioxins and furans 8280
Other parameters:
Ash content ASTM D3174
Ash fusibility ASTM E953
Chloride 9250
Corrosivity 1110
Heating value ASTM D2015
Moisture content ASTM D2216
Oil and grease 9071
pH 9045
Sulfate 9036
Sulfur content ASTM D4239
Total halogens ASTM D808
Total organic carbon (TOC) Lloyd Kahn
Total organic halides 9020
Wastewaters
BDAT list parameters:
Volatile organics 8240
Semivolatile organics 3510/3520 8270
Metals
ICP metals 3010 6010
Arsenic 7060
Chromium (hexavalent) 7197
Lead 3020 7421
Mercury 7471
Selenium 7740
Thallium 3020 7841
Cyanides 9012
Fluorides MCAWW 340.2
Sulfides 9030
Organochlorine pesticides 8080
25254107.01\005
2-33
-------
Table 2-4 (continued)
Preparation
Analysis
Parameter
method8
methoda
Phenoxyacetic acid herbicides
8150
Organophosphorous insecticides
8140
PCBs
8080
Dioxins and furans
8280
Other parameters
Acidity
MCAWW 305.1
Alkalinity
MCA WW 310.1
Bromide
MCAWW 320.1
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
MCAWW 410.1-.4
Chloride
9250-52
Color
MCAWW 110.1-.3
Conductance
MCAWW 120.1
Corrosivity
1110
Hardness, total
MCAWW 130.1-.2
Heat value
ASTM E711
Iodide
MCAWW 345.1
Nitrogen
Ammonia
MCAWW 350.1-.3
Kjeldahl, total
MCAWW 351.1-.4
Nitrate
MCAWW 352.1
Nitrate-nitrite
MCAWW 353.1-.3
Nitrite
MCAWW 354.1]
Oil and grease
9070
pH
MCAWW 365.1-.4
Solids
Filterable, gravimetric
MCAWW 160.1
Nonfilterable, gravimetric
MCAWW 160.2
Total, gravimetric
MCAWW 160.3
Volatile gravimetric
MCAWW 160.4
Settleable matter
MCAWW 160.5
Sulfate
9035/9036/9038
Total organic carbon (TOC)
9060
Total organic halides (TOX)
9020/9022
Viscosity
ASTM D445
aAll methods are SW-846 methods unless otherwise specified.
25254107.01\005 2-34
-------
Whether an EPA-approved or other method is used for the constituent parameter of
interest, the laboratory must provide documentation concerning the methods used and any
modifications or deviations required to analyze the various samples. If feasible, the laboratory
should obtain approval from the EPA Project Manager or his/her designee for method
modifications or deviations prior to implementation. This information must be included in the
OER completed for the treatment test.
2.1.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
The overall effectiveness of a quality control program depends on operating in the field
and laboratory in accordance with a program that systematically ensures the precision and
accuracy of analyses by detecting errors and preventing their recurrence or measuring the degree
of error inherent in the methods applied.
Most of the analytical methods to be used give guidelines for number and frequency of
replicates, matrix spikes, and calibration standards. The matrix spikes, replicates, calibration
standards, etc., are analyzed in the same way as the field samples and are interspersed with the
field samples. The analytical results are used to document the validity and control of data.
• Spikes: A matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analysis should be performed on
at least one sample of each treatment residual taken during a treatment test. The
SAPs should specify which samples are to be spiked and identify the spiking
components. Samples should be spiked with constituents of interest expected to be
present in the waste. The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate should meet the
requirements for precision and accuracy as specified in Section 2.1.1.
• Laboratory duplicate analysis: One laboratory duplicate analysis of the spiked
sample extract should be performed for each group of the treated residual samples
taken from the same sampling point. The laboratory duplicate analysis should also
be completed on the TCLP extract. Analytical results of the duplicate injection must
be within ±20 percent of each other for values greater than 200 ppb. For values less
than or equal to 200 ppb, analytical results for the duplicate injection should be
within ± 100 percent of each other. (The precision results of the matrix spike and
matrix spike duplicate can be substituted for the laboratory duplicate analysis.) If
25254107.01X005
2-35
-------
these criteria are not met, the data should be flagged and reviewed on a case-by-case
basis to determine usability.
• Surrogates: For GC/MS and GC methods, surrogates (i.e., chemically inert
compounds not expected to occur in an environmental sample) will be spiked into
each sample to provide matrix recovery values. Surrogates should be used if
specified in the analytical method. (Because of limited experience in analyzing each
of the waste matrices, precision and accuracy requirements are not being specified.)
• Calibration standards: Calibration standards will be prepared in accordance with
the specifications provided in the methods. Calibration standards will be analyzed
at a frequency specified in the methods. Reagent grade compounds that conform to
the current specifications of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American
Chemical Society should be used if possible.
• OC check standards: For the metal analytes, a QC check standard will be analyzed
with each batch of samples. This standard is prepared by spiking laboratory pure
water with a stock solution of the analyte that was obtained from a source
independent of the source used to obtain standards for the calibration curve.
• Calibration check samples: For GC/MS analysis, calibration check samples should
be prepared and analyzed as specified in the appropriate methods.
• Method blank: A minimum of one method blank will be prepared per set of samples
of similar matrix collected during the same sampling episode or a set of 20 samples
of similar matrix, whichever is smaller. In cases where the concentration detected
in any of the compounds detected in the blank is 10 percent or greater than the
concentration detected in any of the samples in the batch, the laboratory must take
corrective actions, as specified in Section 2.1.8.
• Internal standards: Internal standards should be used where feasible to monitor for
the consistency of GC/MS response factors and relative response times. The internal
standards projected to be used are specified in the methods, e.g., SW-846 Methods
8240 and 8270. If the internal standards are not specified in the analytical method,
they should be specified in the site-specific SAP.
• System performance check compounds: For GC/MS analysis, system performance
check samples should be prepared and analyzed as specified in the appropriate
methods (e.g., SW-846 Methods 8240 and 8270).
• Laboratory pure water: Laboratory water should be prepared by particulate
filtration, carbon filtration, reverse osmosis, and deionization, or by an equivalent
procedure.
25254107.01\005
2-36
-------
Quality control checks to be taken during field activities will include calibration of any
field monitoring equipment as well as collection of the blanks discussed below.
• One trip blank that is not opened in the field should be collected to check for sample
contamination originating from sample transport, shipping, or site conditions. The
parameters for analysis should be specified in the SAP.
• Equipment blanks should be taken as needed. Collection and frequency must be
specified in the SAP. To prepare an equipment blank, laboratory pure water or
solvents are brought to the field in a sealed container and then opened in the field.
The contents are poured over or through the sample collection device and then
collected in the sample container. The parameters for analysis will be specified in
the SAP. If contamination in the equipment blank is detected, the effect of the
contamination on the samples collected should be presented in the OER for the
treatment system.
• If samples are to be collected for analysis of volatile organic compounds, a volatile
organic blank should be collected once a day. This blank consists of laboratory pure
water taken to the field and poured into a sample container in the area where the
treatment system is located. The volatile organic blank should be analyzed for the
volatile compounds specified in the SAP. If volatile organic compounds are
measured in this blank, the effect of the contamination on the samples collected
should be presented in the OER for the treatment system.
2.1.7 Quality Assurance Performance and System Audits
Field activities of each contractor should be audited at least once by a representative
designated by EPA to ensure that required equipment and procedures for sample collection,
preservation, shipping, handling, laboratory, and documentation were used. In lieu of a third
party auditor, the field activities could be evaluated by the EPA Project Manager.
For most treatment test studies (and on at least one conducted by each contractor) for the
scheduled Thirds waste codes, the EPA Project Manager was present. He could observe that
the procedures for sample collection, preservation, shipping, handling, and documentation (e.g.,
field notebooks and chain of custody) were performed in accordance with the site-specific
25254107.01\005
2-37
-------
sampling and analysis plans. Performance samples for organics and/or metals were completed
by the laboratory quarterly. The results of the performance samples indicated that the laboratory
could complete the analysis for the BDAT constituents satisfactorily. A formal system audit of
the laboratory was not conducted; however, the laboratory was audited for other EPA projects
during the period that samples were analyzed for the various treatment tests.
2.1.8 Corrective Actions
Data generated as part of the analytical quality control program were received by the QA
Officer and the project's lead engineer to ensure the absence of systematic bias or trends.
Corrective actions were taken upon identification of any problems with the project that affected
the product quality. If problems occurred, the cause was determined, the effect of the problem
on the project was evaluated, and a solution was developed to prevent a subsequent occurrence
of the problem.
The following corrective actions were taken if the program's data quality objectives for
blank contamination, duplicate injection (or analysis), or matrix spike recovery were not
achieved:
1. Calculations were reviewed for mathematical or transcription error.
2. The laboratory/field documentation were reviewed to determine whether procedural
errors were made.
3. Equipment and reagents were examined to determine whether there was any
malfunctioning equipment or reagent contamination.
4. Instrument documentation was examined to determine whether the signal response
met the acceptance criteria and whether the calibration check standards agreed with
the calibration curve as specified by the analytical method to determine whether the
instruments were still within calibration.
25254107.01\005
2-38
-------
If these steps did not correct the problem, the EPA Project Manager was contacted to
discuss the source of the problem and its impact on the data and to determine whether any
additional corrective actions, such as reanalysis of the samples, should be taken to try to obtain
data that could meet the data quality objectives.
2.1.9 Calibration Procedures
2.1.9.1 Laboratory Analyses
All instruments should be calibrated each day that analyses are performed. The
calibration standards should include the constituents of concern for the project. The calibration
procedures described in the appropriate analytical methods will be followed.
All calibration information should be documented. If the calibration check standard does
not meet the criteria specified in the method, the instrument should be recalibrated, and the
samples analyzed after the last calibration check standard meeting the calibration specifications
should be reanalyzed. If deviations from or modifications to these procedures are necessary,
approval should be obtained from EPA prior to implementation of the deviation/modification.
Documentation of these deviations/modifications and the reason for their implementation must
be presented in the final analytical data report.
Calibration standards must be prepared using pure standard materials or purchased as
certified solutions. If the standards are made from pure standard materials, the materials must
be assayed and the purity of the standard must be known. When compound purity is assayed
to be 96 percent or greater, the weight may be used without correction to calculate the
concentration of the stock solution unless otherwise specified in the analytical material.
Commercially prepared stock standards may be used at any concentration if they are certified
by the manufacturer or by an independent source. The name of the manufacturer and the
25254107.01V005
2-39
-------
information regarding purity of the standard or the concentration of the stock solution, if
commercially prepared, must be available upon request.
Below is an overview of the calibration procedures for the analytical instruments that may
be used. The concentrations of the calibration standards for each method will be determined by
the detection limit and the linear curve of the range. For example, for a three-point calibration
or curve, one standard would be selected near the detection limit, one at the midpoint of the
linear range, and one at the upper end of the curve.
Instrument
Flame AA
Furnace A A
ICP
GC
GC/MS
Analytical balance
Procedure
Daily four-point calibration with blank, 1,5, and 10 mg/1
standards. Check standard and blank analysis after every
10 samples.
Daily five-point calibration with blank, 5, 10, 20, and 50 fil
standards. Check standard and blank analysis after every
10 samples.
Daily two-point calibration with blank and 1 mg/1 standards.
Interference check sample analysis every 8 hours. Check
standard and blank analysis after every 10 samples.
Meet chromatographic acceptance criteria (such as
degradation, peak shape, sensitivity signal to noise ratio,
and retention time stability). Then do three-point initial
calibration with 0.2, 0.25, and 1.0 fil standards, followed
by daily chromatographic check and calibration check.
Meet MS tuning criteria followed by chromatographic
acceptance criteria. Then do three-point initial calibration
with 20, 50, and 100 ng/ml standards, followed by daily
chromatographic check and calibration check.
Prior calibration check with class S weights in the gram
and milligran range. Other checks as appropriate in
expected weighing range.
25254107.01\005
2-40
-------
Instrument
HPLC
pH meter
Conductivity meter
Procedure
Meet chromatographic acceptance criteria (such as
degradation, peak shape, sensitivity, signal to noise ratio,
and retention time stability). Then do multipoint initial
calibration, followed by daily chromographic check and
calibration check.
Three-point calibration at pH 5, 7, and 10. Calibration
check after every 10 samples.
Calibration check daily and every 20 samples.
UV spectrometer
Technicon
TOC
TOX
IC
Thermometers
Hg analyzer
Daily multipoint calibration. Check standard every 20
samples.
Daily multipoint calibration. Check standard every 20
samples.
Daily single-point calibration in triplicate. Check standard
every 20 samples.
Daily calibration check. Check standard every 20 samples.
Daily multipoint calibration. Check standard every 20
samples.
Check against NBS thermometer every 6 months.
Daily four-point calibration. Check standard and blank
analysis after every 10 samples.
2.1.9.2
Field Calibration
All instruments should be calibrated each day that analyses are performed in the field.
The calibration standards should include the constituents of concern for the project. The
calibration procedures described in the appropriate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
written for the field team and provided in the SAP should be followed. If the calibration check
25254107.01\005
2-41
-------
standard does not meet the criteria specified in the method, the use of the instrument will be
discontinued until the unit can be recalibrated. Data collected after the last calibration check
standard meeting the calibration specifications should be reanalyzed with a calibrated instrument,
if possible. In addition, calibration checks should be made by the crew chief at time intervals
specified in the SAP.
2.1.10 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
For data to be scientifically valid, legally defensible, and comparable, valid procedures
must be used to prepare those data. The following sections describe the data reduction,
validation, and reporting procedures to be used for field and laboratory data.
2.1.10.1 Data Reduction
The analytical laboratory should specify its data reduction methods. Wherever possible,
the initial data reduction should be computerized. This reduces the frequency of transcription
errors and calculation errors. Where data reduction is not computerized, calculations should be
performed in permanently bound laboratory notebooks with carbon copy pages or on preprinted
data reduction pages. The data reduction for some analyses includes analysts' interpretations
of the raw data and manual calculations. When this is required, the analysts' decisions will be
written in ink on the raw data sheets. Any corrections to data sheets will be made by lining out
inaccurate information, initialing the line-out, and adding the revised information next to the
line-out.
2.1.10.2 Data Validation
Data validation begins with the analyst and continues until the data are reported. The
individual analyst should verify the completion of the appropriate data forms to ensure the
completeness and correctness of data acquisition and reduction. The Laboratory Supervisor or
25254107.01\005
2-42
-------
the data reduction staff should review computer and manual data reduction results and should
inspect laboratory notebooks and data sheets to verify data reduction correctness and
completeness and to ensure close adherence to the specified analytical method procotols.
Calibration and QC data should be examined by the individual analyst and the Laboratory
Supervisor or the data reduction staff to verify that all instrument systems were in control and
that QA objectives for precision, accuracy, completeness, and method detection limit were met
for the project.
Project data that are outside specified acceptance limits established for the data quality
indicators (e.g., data points with detection limits above 1 ppm) or that are associated with QC
outlier data should be flagged or otherwise identified in the laboratory's final data package.
2.1.10.3 Reporting
All reports and documentation required, including chromatograms and mass spectra,
calibration records, and QC results, should be clearly labeled with the laboratory sample number
and associated field sample number. A flow chart depicting the overall data handling and
reporting scheme is provided in Figure 2.6.
The final data package submitted by the analytical laboratory should include a summary
of the analytical results for each sample as well as all reports and documentation generated as
required by the analytical methods (e.g., chromatograms, extraction notes, and chain of custody
forms).
25254107.01\005
2-43
-------
Sample Receipt
Results
Data Approved
Results
Data Approved
Report
.Report Approved
Report Preparation
Sample Preparation
Sample Analysts
Data Acquisition
and Reduction
Pinal Report Review
by Protect Manager
Anaiytieai/QC Data Review
by Laboratory Supervisor
Raw Oata Analysis
bv Lao Analysts
Review Data. Take
Corrective Action
Reanalyze Where inoicateo
Final Oata Review by
Project Manager
anfl OA Manager
Review Report. Taxe
Corrective Action,
Reanalyze Where inoicateo
Figure 2-6. Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting Scheme
25254107.01\005
2-44
-------
2.1.11
Preventive Maintenance
2.1.11.1 Field Preventive Maintenance
All field equipment should be maintained following procedures outlined by the
manufacturer. Prior to a sampling project, the field equipment to be used should be inspected
and calibrated to ensure that it is working properly. Spare parts should be available and should
be taken on the sampling trip, if appropriate. Following its use, equipment should be
decontaminated using the appropriate cleaning procedures required for the project.
2.1.11.2 Laboratory Preventive Maintenance
All laboratory instrumentation will be maintained following procedures outlined by the
instrument manufacturers. Instrument maintenance logbooks should be kept with each
instrument and updated by the operator whenever routine or nonroutine maintenance procedures
are performed.
2.1.12 Quality Assurance Reports to Management
The Contractor Project Manager, in conjunction with the Contractor QA Officer, should
identify critical areas of the project that will be subject to inspection. These inspections should
be performed by qualified staff members who are not performing or supervising the activity.
The areas inspected may include the following:
• Staff qualifications;
• Equipment maintenance records;
• Equipment calibration records;
• Protocol adherence;
• Documentation practices;
• Sample traceability and control;
• Data traceability and document control;
25254107.01\005
2-45
-------
• Recordkeeping practices;
• Review and validation practices;
• Computation practices;
• QC data and practices; and
• QC compliance.
2.2 Sampling and Analysis Plan
The following format presents prospective sampling and analysis activities in a rational
and identifiable manner. "Organization" is presented here as a shorthand for the name of the
industrial facility, corporation, consortium, or other entity intending to submit this data.
• Title Page
• Approval Page: Names, organizational addresses, and titles of the individuals
serving as Project Manager and Quality Assurance Officer in generating the data.
• Introductory Pages: Table of contents, list of tables, and list of figures.
• Section One: Introduction.
1.1 Short description of the Organization's participation in generating data for the
LDR program.
1.2 Discussion of the objective of this treatment test in terms of the waste being
treated and the technology being evaluated.
1.3 Introductory description of the waste being treated, summarizing available
analytical and other test results already performed. (Data tables can go into an
appendix.)
1.4 Names, telephone numbers, and addresses of the Project Manager, Analytical
Laboratory Manager, and Quality Assurance Officer with responsibility in this
project.
1.5 Description of the treatment system under evaluation. How much detail?
1.6 Outline and schedule of the major sampling and analysis events as anticipated.
25254107.01\005 2-46
-------
• Section Two: Project Organization.
2.1 Organizational Chart. (See Figure 2-2.)
2.2 Addresses and telephone numbers of key individuals.
2.3 Summaries of key individuals' responsibilities.
• Section Three: Waste and Treatment System Description.
3.1 Qualitative discussion of waste: process generating it, regulatory history,
previous management practices, and discussion of results of earlier analytical
investigations of this waste.
3.2 Summary of existing data characterizing the waste in tabular form.
3.3 Qualitative discussion of treatment system: how it works, whether it is an
established or innovative technology, whether the system is part of the
generating plant's existing onsite waste management system or an offsite system
or a mobile unit, dimensions and capacities of process units, and key design and
operating parameters.
• Section Four: Sampling and Analysis Activities.
4.1 Table of each sample, blank, and duplicate to be taken, each numbered with a
unique alphanumeric code indicating whether it is a field or equipment blank,
raw or treated residual, single sample, or one of a duplicate-sample pair and
indicating to what category of residual it belongs (i.e., scrubber water vs. ash
for incinerator residuals) to be explained in the footnotes to this table. This table
should state at which point each sample will be taken.
4.2 Schedule for sampling visit, accounting for collection, preservation, and
transport of each numbered sample, duplicate or blank by identification code.
4.3 Description of proposed sampling procedure for each coded sample plus the
number of samples to be collected at each site.
4.4 List of the analytes and parameters to be analyzed in each sample, the sample
preparation (digestion, extraction, cleanup, etc.), and analytical methods to be
used for each sample, all presented with unique sample code.
4.5 Narrative discussion of why these analytes and not others were selected from
the BDAT list.
25254107.01\005
2-47
-------
4.6 Specifications for sample aliquot size, preservation, and acceptable holding
times.
• Section Five: Site-Specific QA/QC Procedures.
5.1 Description of field QA/QC activities including calibration of field monitoring
equipment, preparing sampling, travel, and field blanks, ensuring that
appropriate duplicates are taken and decontamination and disposal of field
sampling equipment.
5.2 Specify the sample aliquots upon which matrix spike analyses are to be
completed and specify the spike constituents and their concentration levels.
5.3 Specify the number of trip, field, or equipment blanks to be collected and the
procedures to be used. Also, specify the analyses/methods to be performed on
the blanks, noting that in most cases the blanks will be marked "Hold for
Analysis." Also specify procedures to be performed with reagent blanks.
5.4 List the surrogate determinations to be performed for organic analyses; if
methods other than 8240 or 8270 are being used, described a surrogate use
procedure similar to 8240 or 8270s to be employed.
5.5 List the QC check standards to be run for metals analyses.
5.6 List provisions for documenting all method-specific internal standards for GC
and GC/MS procedures.
• Section Six: Sample Custody and Transport.
6.1 Description of sample custody procedures and for transporting waste from
generation facility to treatment facility if planned.
6.2 Relevant information on sample packing and shipment: Shipping category for
samples and any transported waste; DOT regulations and the carrier's
requirements for these materials; carrier name and address of the local shipping
station; address of the laboratory to which the samples will be sent; and name
and telephone number of the designated contact at this laboratory.
• Section Seven: Health and Safety.
7.1 Summary of health and safety procedures to be followed onsite during sampling
and treatment operations. Use the facility's existing health and safety plan if
one is available.
25254107.01\005
2-48
-------
• Section Eight: References.
2.3 Onsite Engineering Report
The following format assembles the results from sampling and analysis activities in a
rational and identifiable discussion of the performance of the treatment system in terms of its
measured design and operating parameters and the concentration of contaminants in the raw and
treated waste streams.
• Title Page
• Approval Page: Names, organizational addresses, and titles of the individuals
serving as Project Manager and Quality Assurance Officer in generating the data.
• Introductory Pages: Table of contents, list of tables, and list of figures.
• Section One: Introduction.
1.1 Short description of the Organization's participation in generating data for the
Land Disposal Restrictions program.
1.2 Discussion of the goals of this treatment test, in terms of the waste being treated
and the technology being evaluated, and how these goals were achieved.
1.3 Preliminary discussion of significant deviations from the SAP.
1.4 Brief introduction of the sections of the OER to follow.
1.5 Table summarizing the test site and personnel: Name and address of treatment
site; site contact names with addresses and telephone numbers; treatment test
dates; names, titles, and addresses of EPA personnel involved in onsite
activities; names, titles, and addresses of those responsible for preparing the
OER; and the name, address, and telephone number of the laboratory
coordinator.
25254107.01\005
2-49
-------
• Section Two: Waste Being Treated.
2.1 Qualitative discussion of waste: process generating it, regulatory history,
previous management and disposal problems unique to this waste, existing
management practices, and discussion of results of earlier analytical
investigations of this waste.
2.2 Summary of data taken previous to this test characterizing the waste in tabular
form.
2.3 Summary of analytical results on untreated waste samples in tabular form.
• Section Three: Treatment System Being Evaluated.
3.1 Qualitative discussion of treatment system: how it worked, whether it is an
established or innovative technology, whether the system was part of the
generating plant's existing onsite waste management system or an offsite system
or a mobile unit, dimensions and capacities of process units, and key design and
operating parameters.
3.2 Tabular summary of design and operating parameters measured during the test.
3.3 Process diagram of treatment system showing key units associated with design
and operating parameters and sampling points.
• Section Four: Sampling and Analysis Activities and Results.
4.1 Summary schedule of treatment test events and activities.
4.2 Deviations from planned sampling and analysis operations.
4.3 Tabular summary of all analytical results, each referenced by sample code
number and including the analytical method used.
NOTE: Report on all items listed in Section four of the SAP, explicitly referencing
it whenever appropriate.
• Section Five: QA/QC Measures Taken.
5.1 Tabulate collection, sample preparation, and analysis dates and (for preparation
and analyses, the procedures) for each uniquely coded sample.
25254107.01\005
2-50
-------
5.2 List of the BDAT List constituents analyzed for in each sample for the raw
waste and the treated waste residuals plus the analytical method used for each
constituent.
5.3 Narrative summary of analytical problems, deviations from SW-846,
alternatives or equivalent to SW-846 and options chosen among SW-846
alternatives.
5.4 Tabulation and explanation of any detection limits exceeding 1 ppm for BDAT
List constituents.
5.6 Data Quality Indicators:
Precision and accuracy data for the treatment test sample analytical results:
spiking data (matrix and injection extracts, samples, and duplicates).
Instrument and matrix detection limits, together with analytical method
involved.
5.7 Instrument and Procedure Verification:
Results of surrogate determinations performed for organic analyses.
Results of QC check standards to be run for metals analyses.
Results of all method-specific internal standards for GC and GC/MS
procedures.
• Section Six: Correspondence.
Critical correspondence with EPA, generating facility and treatment facility.
• Appendix:
Complete SAP
Laboratory instrument calibration results.
Laboratory QC checks (e.g., results for laboratory blanks, QC check samples,
reference samples.
25254107.01\005
2-51
-------
3. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTABLISHING TREATMENT STANDARDS
RCRA section 3004(m) specifies that treatment standards must minimize long- and short-
term threats to human health and the environment arising from land disposal of hazardous
wastes. EPA's general approach for complying with this requirement was promulgated as part
of the November 7, 1986, rule.
The legislative history accompanying HSWA states that a technical method used for
treating hazardous waste should be "the best that has been demonstrated to be achievable," but
it notes that Congress' intent is "to require utilization of available technology" and not a
"process which contemplates technology-forcing standards" (Vol. 130 Cong. Rec. S9178 (daily
edition, July 25, 1984)). The word "achievable," therefore, does not require the use of
experimental or emerging technologies in developing treatment standards. Rather, the intent of
the statute is to base treatment standards on the best technologies commonly in use and thus
reasonably available to any generator.
Accordingly, EPA's treatment standards are set in one of the following three modes:
(1) concentrations of hazardous constituents in wastewater and nonwastewater treatment residues,
(2) specific treatment technologies for the waste, or (3) a combination of a specific treatment
technology for a type of residue and constituent concentrations. The treatment standards are
generally based on the performance of the "best demonstrated available technology," or BDAT.
This approach involves the identification of applicable treatment systems for individual wastes
or for groups of wastes; determination of whether these systems are "demonstrated" to achieve
acceptably low effluent contaminant concentrations and "available" commercially; selection of
the "best" of those that are demonstrated and available; and, if possible, collection of treatment
data for the waste code of interest from representative well-designed and well-operated systems
to serve as the basis for concentration-based or technology-based performance standards.
25254107.01\005
3-1
-------
In the case of numerical or concentration-based standards, EPA does not mandate the use
of a particular technology. Waste treaters are free to use any method they choose, as long as
the results achieve compliance with the numerical treatment standard. Numerical standards also
allow waste treaters to use new and innovative technologies as they become available so long
as the numerical standards are achieved.
In cases where analytical methods were not available to measure and ensure compliance
for the constituents of concern in the treatment matrix or where sufficient performance data were
not available to establish numerical standards, a method of treatment was established as the
BDAT treatment standard. Treaters are required to use the established technology to treat the
waste. For these cases, concentration-based standards may be established in the future should
an analytical method be developed to measure the constituents of concern or should an adequate
surrogate or indicator constituent be identified to measure treatment and ensure compliance.
However, to use new technologies as they are developed, treaters must apply for a variance and
must be able to demonstrate that the performance of the new technology is equal to that of the
established technology.
3.1 Waste Treatability Groups
To determine the applicable treatment technologies, wastes may be clustered into
"treatability groups" that are similar with respect to various parameters that affect the success
of treatment. A single waste code can be divided into one or more waste treatability groups if
the waste stream manifests itself in several well defined categories. These parameters can
include such factors as physical state, water content, presence of similar hazardous and
nonhazardous contaminants, organic content, heat content, pH, and so forth. As noted, waste
treatability groups can include multiple waste codes, single waste codes, or subcategories of a
single waste code, in any combination. Information on the waste characteristics of the
"treatability" group are used to determine the applicable treatment technologies and to determine
whether sufficient data are available to evaluate each of the applicable technologies.
25254107.01\005
3-2
-------
3.2
Determining BDAT for Individual Waste Treatability Groups
For any particular waste treatability group, EPA first identifies applicable technologies
through literature reviews or on the basis of information provided by facilities currently treating
the waste or similar wastes. In some instances, technologies used to separate or process
chemicals or other materials, such as retorting, may potentially provide waste treatment in cases
where the wastes are similar to the raw materials processed, even though these technologies were
not originally designed to treat hazardous waste.
From among the applicable technologies, EPA then identifies those that are
"demonstrated" for the particular treatability group. These technologies must be used in a full-
scale operation for treatment of the waste, a similar waste, or raw materials similar to the waste.
Where the Agency does not identify any facilities treating specific wastes from a particular
group, it may "transfer" a finding of demonstrated treatment by comparing the parameters that
affect treatment of the target waste group to parameters of other waste groups for which
demonstrated treatments are known. For example, on the basis of technical literature and data
collected by the Agency, EPA considers rotary kiln incineration to be a demonstrated technology
for wastes containing hazardous organic constituents, high total organic content, and high
filterable solids content, regardless of whether any facility is currently treating specific hazardous
waste codes using this type of incineration.
The next step is to determine which of the demonstrated technologies is "best" for the
purposes of establishing BDAT. In defining "best," EPA considers only the effectiveness of
treatment-the degree to which hazardous constituents in the waste are removed or destroyed.
RCRA treatment technology evaluations do not consider economic factors.
If only one technology is demonstrated for a particular waste group, then that technology
is automatically "best." If two or more technologies are available, but acceptable data exist for
only one of them, then the Agency decides whether to develop new data or to use engineering
25254107.01\005
3-3
-------
judgment to determine whether the performance of the documented technology is likely to be
equal to, or better than, that of the others. If several technologies are available, each with
acceptable performance data, then the Agency compares the performance of these technologies
using available data.
The data comparisons among several available technologies with acceptable performance
data must be statistically defensible to the extent that sample sizes and other technical factors
permit. Before performing statistical tests, the Agency first adjusts the measured results to
account for the accuracy of the laboratory procedure used to generate the data. EPA then
compares the adjusted performance levels using the statistical "analysis of variance" (ANOVA)
technique to confirm that the technology selected as "best" does indeed perform statistically
better than the others. (See Appendix B, F Value Determination for ANOVA Test.) If the
differences among the available data sets are not statistically significant, then two or more
technologies can both be considered "best demonstrated."
Next, the Agency determines whether the best demonstrated technology or technologies
are "available." "Available" technologies must be both commercially available and provide
"substantial treatment." To be considered commercially available, the technology may be either
a common technology in universal use (such as neutralization or incineration) or a proprietary
or patented process that can be purchased or licensed from the proprietor or that is commercially
available at a facility offering use of the technology for a fee.
Technologies provide "substantial treatment" when they "substantially diminish the
toxicity" of a waste or "substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents" from the waste (consistent with the language of HSWA section 3004m). By
establishing that treatment is "substantial," the Agency ensures compliance with statutory
objectives and eliminates treatment methods providing little or no environmental benefit.
Treatment will be considered to be substantial if the available data from a well-operated
treatment system show statistically significant reductions in concentrations resulting from
25254107.01\005
3-4
-------
treatment. This process involves the use of the statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) test
as described in Appendix B.
For organic constituents, EPA measures performance based on the total constituent
concentration found in the treated waste with the exception of the wastes regulated under the
Solvents and Dioxins Rule. This is because technologies exist to destroy various organic
compounds in waste, making the total amount of constituent left in the treated waste the more
logical measure of performance.*
For all metal constituents, EPA measures performance based on total constituent
concentration and/or the constituent concentration in the TCLP extract. When the BDAT
involves a metals recovery operation, EPA may use both total awl TCLP analyses to measure
performance because it is important to establish both the effectiveness of recovery (measured by
changes in total concentration) and the stability of any treated residuals that may be sent to land
disposal (measured by TCLP analysis of the residuals). When the BDAT for metals involves
only immobilization, such as stabilization treatment, the appropriate measure of performance is
the constituent concentration in the TLCP extract.
3.3 Establishing Numerical Performance Standards on the Basis of BDAT
Once the BDAT is determined for a particular waste code, EPA prefers, wherever
possible, to define numerical performance standards in terms of concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the nonwastewater and wastewater residuals that are produced during the
treatment of the hazardous waste.
*EPA's LDR for solvent waste codes F001-F005 and dioxin waste codes F020-F023 and
F026-F028 (51 FR 40572) use the TCLP value as a measure of performance. At the time that
EPA promulgated the treatment standards for these wastes, 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.
25254107.01\005
3-5
-------
EPA develops numerical treatment standards using performance data gathered from
representative facilities. Only data from well-designed and well-operated facilities are acceptable
as usable-a judgment made on a case-by-base basis for each set of potentially usable data. Data
need not be generated only by EPA; the Agency may use data submitted by industry, provided
these data are shown to be from a well-designed and well-operated facility and were generated
using adequate QA/QC procedures for laboratory data.
3.3.1 Evaluating the Adequacy of Existing Data
All valid data available to the Agency may be used to establish BDAT-based performance
standards. All data either collected by EPA or submitted by industry, research organizations,
etc. for a specific waste code are published in the Administrative Record either during proposal
or promulgation (depending on the date of submission) of the rulemaking for the specific waste
code. Whatever the information source, however, the data underlying the performance standards
must meet QA/QC standards. If the available data for a given technology/waste group
combination are no£ of adequate quality, then data can be "transferred" from another standard
if they meet certain conditions. These issues are discussed separately below.
(1) Criteria for accepting existing data. EPA considers a number of factors in
evaluating data sets as the possible bases for BDAT standards:
1. Data must come from technologies that are demonstrated and available.
2. The facility from which the data were generated must be well-designed and well-
operated. Design adequacy is determined through review of facility specifications;
the essential requirement is that the facility include all processes needed to handle
the hazardous constituents in the target waste group, as well as all nonhazardous
constituents that could affect the system's performance in treating the hazardous
constituents. Operations adequacy is determined based on a review of the
performance range operating parameters used during the treatment test versus the
design operating specifications. Engineering judgment is used to review available
performance data to determine whether the treatment system was well-operated and
well-designed.
25254107.01X005
3-6
-------
3. EPA reviews the adequacy of the QA/QC protocols followed in generating the
laboratory analytical data. If these protocols are substandard or nonexistent, the
data may be discarded. Engineering judgment may be used to determine the quality
of the available data.
4. All candidate data sets for the treatment residuals must use measures of performance
consistent with those being used to set the standard (e.g., total constituent analysis
for all hazardous (organic and inorganic) parameters for destruction or removal
technologies and analysis in the TCLP extract for immobilization technologies).
5. For a data set to be accepted in whole or in part, the data must show substantial
treatment on a constituent-by-constituent basis. Data should be provided for both
untreated and treated concentrations. Treated concentrations must be lower than
untreated concentrations. Statistical tests can be used to determine whether
substantial treatment occurred.
6. Data on concentrations in treated waste must be adjusted for accuracy using
recovery factors specific to the laboratory tests. (See Appendix C.)
In situations where the available data show substantial treatment for one class of
constituents but not for another, the Agency may conclude that the standard should be based on
a treatment "train" of multiple BDAT technologies operating as a system. This may be the case,
for instance, in treating wastes that include both organics and metals. Incineration may show
substantial treatment of the organics, but not of the metals, which would require another form
of treatment, such as stabilization.
(2) Transfer of treatment data or standards. In some instances, EPA is proposing
and has promulgated treatment standards that are not based on a treatment test of the waste in
question by the selected BDAT technology. However, the constituents present in the subject
waste were determined to be treatable to the same performance levels as those observed in other
wastes for which EPA has previously developed treatment data. EPA believes such transfers
are technically valid in cases where the untested wastes are generated from similar industries or
from similar processing steps, or have similar waste characteristics affecting performance and
treatment selection.
25254107.01N005
3-7
-------
Transfer of treatment standards to similar wastes or to wastes from similar processing
steps requires a detailed comparison of the constituents of concern in the untested waste to those
in the tested waste. If the parameters that affect treatment performance for these constituents
indicate that the untreated waste is equally as easy or easier to treat than the tested waste, then
the transfer can be made.
3.3.2 Hazardous Constituents Considered for Regulation
The list of hazardous constituents for which BDAT performance standards may be
established is known as the BDAT Constituent List. The current list, provided in Table 2-1, is
a subset of the constituents listed in 40 CFR 261, Appendix VIII; it also includes several
ignitable constituents used as the basis for listing wastes for F003 and F005. Chemicals are
listed in Appendix VIII if they have been shown in scientific studies to have toxic, carcinogenic,
mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on humans or other life forms; for instance, they include such
substances as those identified by EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group as being carcinogenic.
There are three major reasons why not all Appendix VIII constituents or the F003 and
F005 ignitables are included on the BDAT Constituent List:
1. 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 EPA's analytical methods such as those published in SW-846 Third
Edition. EPA may choose to regulate a surrogate or indicator such as a
decomposition or ionization product, if appropriate.
2. The constituent is a member of a chemical group designated in Appendix VTTT
as "not otherwise specified" (N.Q.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. For each N.O.S. group, constituents
that can be readily analyzed are included in the BDAT Constituent List.
3. Available analytical procedures are not appropriate for a complex waste matrix,
Some compounds, such as auramine, can be analyzed as a pure constituent, but the
25254107.01\005
3-8
-------
recommended analytical method may not positively identify the constituent in the
presence of other constituents or in a complex waste matrix.
The BDAT Constituent List is updated periodically and does not preclude the addition of new
constituents as the problems above are resolved or deletion of constituents if the available
analytical methods are determined not to be valid for analyzing the constituent in residual
matrices. The initial list was published in EPA's Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan for
Land Disposal Restrictions Program ('BDAT") (EPA/530-SW-87-011); since then constituents
have been added, deleted, and annotated to note the possibility of analytical problems, especially
in solid matrices.
3.3.3 Selecting Constituents for Inclusion in the Standard
A performance standard for treating a particular waste group will list acceptable
concentrations of BDAT list constituents in treated residuals. The standard will not necessarily
include all BDAT list constituents analyzed in a particular waste stream, and may, in some
instances, include one or more BDAT list constituents that have not been detected in the waste
stream. The rationale for selecting constituents for inclusion in a standard is as follows.
The constituents considered for regulation in each waste code are, in general, those for
which available data show statistically significant reductions in concentrations resulting from
treatment. This process involves the use of the statistical analysis of the ANOVA test described
in Appendix B. EPA interprets a statistically significant reduction in concentration as evidence
that the technology actually "treats" the waste.
In some instances, EPA may regulate constituents that are "not detected" in the untreated
waste but are detected in the analyzed residual (ash, sludge, etc.). This may happen, for
instance, where the presence of other constituents in the untreated waste matrix interferes with
quantification of the constituent of concern. The result may be a finding of "not detected" when
25254107.01\005
3-9
-------
in fact the constituent is present in the waste. EPA may also choose to consider a constituent
not found in a particular sampled untreated waste if it believes that the constituent is likely to
be present in the same hazardous waste generated by another source. For example, EPA may
choose to regulate all conceivable hazardous solvents that might be used in paint or ink
manufacture, even if the available performance data do not include them all. This is done to
preclude generators from using alternative materials that are hazardous to meet the regulation
for the waste code instead of treating the waste material.
EPA then reviews the candidate constituents list to determine whether any can be
excluded from regulation because they would be indirectly controlled by regulation of other
constituents. For instance, an incineration regulation might regulate only the least combustible
organic compounds present in the waste since achievement of a standard for these compounds
would ensure achievement of adequate treatment for the others. This approach is intended to
reduce analytical cost burdens on the treater and also to facilitate implementation of the
compliance and enforcement program.
3.3.4 Calculation of Numerical Performance Standards
The final step in setting a performance standard is to define the maximum acceptable
constituent levels in treatment residuals for the selected BDAT list constituents for a particular
waste treatability group, based on the performance of the BDAT technology. This is done by
multiplying the average treatment value observed in the acceptable available data by a factor
known as the "variability factor."
Only data obtained from treatment systems determined to be well-designed and well-
operated are used to calculate performance standards. Parts or all of the available data for a
treatment test may be discarded on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the residence time for
a waste during a particular test run was substantially shorter than the planned value, EPA might
25254107.01\005
3-10
-------
conclude that the system was not properly operated during that run and would discard the
associated treatment results in calculating average treatment efficiencies.
The variability factor used to calculate performance standards takes into account that even
well-designed and well-operated treatment systems will experience some fluctuations in
performance. These fluctuations may result from inherent mechanical limitations in treatment
control systems, treatability variations caused by changing influent loads, unavoidable variations
in procedures for collecting treated samples, or variations in sample analysis. Setting treatment
standards using a variability factor should, therefore, not be viewed as a relaxation of the
requirements of section 3004(m), but rather as a response to normal variations in treatment
processes. As a practical matter, facilities will have to incorporate variability factors into
process design to ensure performance that is more stringent than the standard in order to ensure
continuous compliance with the standard.
EPA calculates the variability factor for each selected constituent of concern using the
statistical methods described in Appendix D. The equation is the same as that used for the
development of numerous regulations in the Effluent Guidelines Program under the Clean Water
Act. It sets the standard at the upper 99th percentile value concentration of the constituent
expected in the treatment residual, using the mean and standard deviation calculated from the
acceptable available data, and assuming that performance varies lognormally.
An additional step in the calculation of the treatment standards occurs when the ANOVA
test shows that more than one technology achieves a level of performance that represents BDAT.
In such an instance, EPA first averages the mean performance value for each technology for
each constituent of concern and then multiplies that value by the highest variability factor among
the technologies considered. This ensures that all BDAT technologies used as the basis of the
standard will achieve full compliance.
25254107.01\005
3-11
-------
3.3.5 Recovery/Recycle
In developing treatment standards for the LDR program, the Agency has at times chosen
to modify the BDAT methodology that was presented in the 1989 Methodology Document. This
occurred when treatment performance data from recycling/recovery technologies were being
considered as a basis for standards development together with data from destruction and removal
technologies. Part of the rationale for modifying the methodology where recycling/recovery
technologies are being considered is the fact that the RCRA favors use of recycling and recovery
technologies. (See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 198, 98th Cong. IstSess. 31.) Therefore, the Agency
may choose to modify the standard BDAT approach for setting treatment standards in those
situations where recycle/recovery technologies are being considered along with other
technologies that involve destruction and removal. EPA may then determine that it may not be
appropriate to set treatment standards based on the technology that is determined to be "best"
(as determined by statistical comparison).
The Agency recognizes that not basing treatment standards on the "best" technology (as
determined by statistical comparison) may result in treatment residues that may not be minimized
in mobility or toxicity to the maximum extent. However, the Agency believes that a modified
methodology (where the recycling/recovery technology may be given preference) may be
appropriate if the recycling/recovery technology is well-designed and well-operated and
represents significant reduction in the mobility and or the toxicity of a waste of concern.
Further, the Agency believes that such a modified approach to developing treatment
standards where recycling/recovery technologies are given preference is consistent with the
language of RCRA section 3004(m) and with the overall statutory goals of encouraging material
reuse and waste minimization. (See e.g., RCRA section 1003 (a)(6).)
EPA used modified approaches in developing treatment standards in at least two
rulemakings for the LDR program (i.e., the amendment to the K048-K052 rule in the Third
25254107.01\005
3-12
-------
Third final rule, and in the recent final rule for K061 high zinc subcategory nonwastewaters).
In both rules, the Agency notes that the treatment standards are based on treatment technologies
that may not achieve complete destruction or removal but, nevertheless, achieve substantial
reduction in the mobility and or toxicity of the waste of concern.
The following discussion of the modified BDAT methodologies used for developing the
final amended treatment standards for K048-K052 wastes and the final treatment standards for
K061 high zinc subcategory nonwastewaters illuminates how EPA has included recycling and
recovery considerations in earlier decisions to set treatment standards.
First, it must be noted that the Agency determined in the final First Third rule for K048-
K052 that both incineration and solvent extraction are BDAT for the organic constituents in
K048-K052 nonwastewaters. EPA noted that in selecting both solvent extraction and incineration
as BDAT for K048-K052 it has included a technology that does not destroy or remove the
organic constituents of concern as well as incineration. EPA believed this was a permissible and
rational choice given that solvent extraction is a recovery technology and because of RCRA's
strong preference for use of such technologies.
In the development of the amended treatment standards for K048-K052, the Agency was
concerned with setting realistic and achievable treatment standards. The Agency adopted a
modified methodology in determining treatment standards to account for the variability in
K048-K052 wastes generated from different refineries. The Agency had a wide range of
constituent concentration data for untreated K048-K052. The most difficult to treat wastes in
K048-K052 were typically those containing the highest concentrations of constituents in the
untreated waste of the constituents of concern. The Agency attempted to account for variations
in the feed in assessing the performance of the BDAT technologies (i.e., solvent extraction and
incineration). This was particularly important since treatment performance data available to the
Agency indicated that solvent extraction technologies are to some extent matrix dependent (only
data from solvent extraction were used to develop the final amended standards for K048-K052).
25254107.01\005
3-13
-------
The Agency had treatment data from the following four sources:
1. Five-pass solvent extraction followed by centrifugation (from plant Q);
2. Three-pass solvent extraction (from plant R);
3. Three-pass solvent extraction (plant T); and,
4. Fluidized-bed incineration (from plant A).
It should be noted that although the data from incineration were determined to provide
the best treatment (the organic constituent removal efficiency for solvent extraction was
98 percent on average compared to 99 percent for incineration), the constituent removal
efficiency of solvent extraction was comparable to incineration. However, the data from
incineration were not used to develop the treatment standards (for organic constituents) because
it would have resulted in standards that were technology-forcing.
Moreover, due to the resource recovery potential associated with solvent extraction, it
was given preferential consideration and was designated the best technology. Incineration was
not designated as best as would have been the case if the standard BDAT methodology had been
used.
The treatment standard for each organic constituent in K048-K052 nonwastewaters was
calculated as follows:
1. The four available data sources from Plant Q, R, T, and A were reviewed to
determine the sample set with the most difficult to treat waste, typically the one
with the highest concentration value (including detection limit values) for the
constituent in the untreated waste. The Agency assumed that high detection limit
values in the untreated waste for several data sets indicated high concentrations of
a constituent if other data (untreated waste data or the presence of the constituent
in the treated waste) indicated that the constituent was indeed present in the
untreated waste but was not detected because of matrix interferences.
2. The concentration of the constituent in the treated waste that corresponded to the
untreated waste concentration representing the most difficult to treat waste was then
multiplied by a variability factor of 2.8 to derive the treatment standard for the
constituent. The variability factor of 2.8 is used by the Agency to account for
25254107.01\005
3-14
-------
variability when only one data point is used in a treatment standard calculation.
(Note 2.8 is also used when all the values are below the detection limit.)
Further, EPA did not believe that it would be technically valid to develop a variability
factor for each constituent by pooling all the available treatment performance data for solvent
extraction, because the data were obtained from several different types of solvent extraction
technologies, and each treatment test generating data was conducted under different conditions.
Therefore, the result of pooling the data would have been an artificially high variability factor
leading to unrealistically high treatment standards.
The Agency believes that this methodology in determining treatment standards accounts
for refinery variability in K048-K052. The Agency also accounted for the variability inherent
in performance of treatment systems as well as in the collection and analysis of treated waste
samples by using a variability factor in the calculation of the revised treatment standards.
In the development of treatment standards for K061 high zinc subcategory
nonwastewaters, the Agency was concerned with setting achievable treatment standards for all
the well-designed and well-operated High Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR) processes.
(HTMR was BDAT for K061.) The Agency was concerned with the variability of treatment
from the different HTMR processes and with potential detection limit problems that could result
from analytical equipment variability and TCLP digestion problems for the slag matrix.
As a result of these concerns, EPA used a slight modification to the BDAT methodology
for calculating the treatment standards detailed as follows. In summary, four separate sets of
treatment standards (for the metal constituents) were calculated from four individual sets of
HTMR treatment data representing different HTMR processes. It is important to note that the
Agency used only data that were determined to be from well-designed and well-operated HTMR
processes. This is an important consideration because data processes that were not well-
operated, in some cases, indicated wide variability that would yield very high and unrealistic
25254107.01V005
3-15
-------
treatment standards. The Agency then compared the four sets of treatment standards and
selected the highest standard as the treatment standard for each regulated metal.
In development of the treatment standards, the specific calculations were dependent on
the different scenarios that the data presented, as explained below. All data were corrected for
accuracy before calculating treatment standards:
1. If the data consisted of all detected values, then the standard BDAT formula was
used to calculate the treatment standard, i.e., Treatment Standard (TS)= Exponent
(EXP) (mean of the logtransformed data + 2.33 (the standard deviation of the
logtransformed data)).
2. If the data consisted of detected values and nondetected values (i.e., detection limit),
the highest detection limit was identified. If any of the detected values were below
but not above the highest detection limit, the highest detection limit was multiplied
by a variability factor of 2.8 to derive the treatment standard.
3. If the data consisted of both detected values and nondetected values and the detected
values were both above and below the highest detection limit identified in the data
set, the standard BDAT formula was used, i.e., TS = Exp (mean logtransformed
data +2.33 (the standard deviation of the logtransformed data)).
4. If the data consisted of all nondetected values (detection limit), the highest detection
(not the mean of the detection limit) was multiplied by a variability factor of 2.8 to
derive the treatment standard.
5. If the data consisted of just one datum point, the datum point was multiplied by a
variability factor of 2.8 to derive the treatment standard.
3.4 Technology as a Method of Treatment Standards
In some circumstances, it is not possible to develop concentration-based performance
standards, in which case the Agency has set a performance standard based on a specific
treatment method. This may happen when an analytical procedure is not available to measure
the constituent of concern or an appropriate surrogate or indicator constituent cannot be
identified to measure the treatment performance.
25254107.01\005
3-16
-------
The Agency sets method-of-treatment standards in two cases. First, for ignitable,
reactive, and otherwise unstable wastes, EPA specifies a deactivation process. For relatively
stable wastes which are difficult to analyze chemically, EPA sets as a method of treatment that
technology demonstrated to treat a similar waste, or waste component, to acceptably low levels.
25254107.01V005
3-17
-------
4. TREATMENT STANDARDS CALCULATED AND
PROMULGATED UNDER THE LDR PROGRAM
As of May 8, 1990, treatment standards had been promulgated for the following:
• Solvents and Dioxins Rule - November 7, 1986;
• California Rule - July 8, 1987;
• First Third Scheduled Wastes - August 8, 1988;
• Second Third Scheduled Wastes - June 8, 1989; and
• Third Third Scheduled Wastes - May 8, 1990.
This Background Document tabulates all of these standards.
All treatment standards promulgated under the LDR Program were based on the best data
available at the time of promulgation.
It should be noted that the treatment standards in the Solvents and Dioxins Rule are based
on the TCLP, whereas, for subsequent rules, the treatment standards are based on total waste
analysis for organics and inorganics for destruction or removal technologies (such as incineration
or solvent extraction) and TCLP for inorganics for immobilization technologies (such as
stabilization or vitrification).
Table 4-1 summarizes the information on how the standards were calculated for each
waste code. Table 4-1 includes the following:
• The technology;
• The type of treatment data, i.e., whether data were based on the actual waste code
or on a similar waste code; and
• The type of QC data used to adjust the standard.
25254107.01\005
4-1
-------
Appendix E summarizes the standards by BDAT constituent.
25254107.01\005 4-2
-------
Table 4-1 Treatment Standards for Scheduled Wastes
Promulgated
regulation
in specific
third
Wane code(i)
BDAT technology
Source of
performance
data
Type of data
(actual data
vi. transfer)
QC data
(actual data
vi. tranifer)
Accuracy correction
calculation!
SDR
F001-F005
Carbon adiorption, diitillation,
biological treatment,
incineration, wet air
oxidation, air stripping, and
fuel substitution (WW and NW
standards set on TCLP)
EPA data from
various sources
Tranifer
NA
NA
3/3
F002.F005
Biological Treatment, Steam
Stripping, Carbon Adsorption (WW)
Incineration (NW)
EPA data from
various sources
EPA data from
various sources
Transfer
Transfer
EPA data from
various sources
EPA data from
various sources
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
1/3
F006
Stabilization, High Temperature
Metals Recovery (Metals) (NW)
Industry submitted
Data
Submitted with
data
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
2/3
F006F012, F019
(F006-cyanjdc)
Electrolytic Oxidation,
Alkaline Chlorination (NW)
for cyanide
CyanoKEM
Data
Submitted with
data
Calculated recoveriea
over 100%
3/3
F006
Alkaline Chtorinatioa for cyanide,
chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation (WW)
K062
Transfer
Transfer from
K062
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
3/3
F019
Alkaline Chlorination,
Stabilization (Metals)
F006-F012
Transfer
Transfer from
F006-F012
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
SDR
F020-F023,
F026-F028
Incineration (WW and NW standards
set on TCLP)
EPA data
Transfer
NA
NA
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in specific
third Waste code(s) BDAT technology
2/3 F024
3/3 F024
-t* 3/3 F025
i
1/3 K001
3/3 K001, U05I
Rotary Kiln Incineration (Organica-
NW)
Lime and Sulfide Precipitation
(Melalj-WW)
Stabilization (Metali-NW)
Incineration (Organics)
Incineration (NW)
Biotreatment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
Incineration (Organica-WW and NW)
Stabilization (Metala-NW)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Stabilization (MeUls-NW)
Incineration (Organica-WW and NW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of Type of data
performance (actual data
data va. tranafer)
QC data
(actual data Accuracy correction
va. tranafer) calculation*
EPAteit
K.062
Dau
Transfer
EPA ten
EPA tcit
Dau
DaU
K019,KOI 1
F039, Volume A
Transfer
Transfer
Dau
Submitted with
daU transfer
from K062
EPA daU
EPA daU
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveriea
over 100%
Transfer from
K019, K001
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
EPA tcit K001 (Organic!)
EPA data
EPA tranafer from F006
EPA test
EPA te*
Dau for organics
DaU transfer
Dau tranafer
Dau
DaU
EPA dau for
organics
EPA daU tranafer
from F006
EPA dau tranafer
from F006
EPA daU
DaU
Calculated recoveriea
over 100%
Calculated recoveriea
over 100%
No recoveriea over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in ipccifk:
third WMe code(s) BDAT technology
1/3 K002-K008
2/3 K005, K007
No Land Disposal Bated On No
Generation
No Land Disposal Based On No
Generation
3/3 K002-K008
2/3 K009, K010
-C*
i
in
2/3 K011, K013, K014
3/3 K011.K013, K014
1/3 K01S
Stabilization, Chromium Reduction,
Chemical Precipitation, Sludge
Dewatering (NW)
Chemical Precipitation, Alkaline
Chlorination, Chromium Reduction (WW)
Incineration (NW)
Steam Stripping, Biological
Treatment (WW)
Rotary Kiln Incineration (NW)
Wet Air Oxidation (WW)
No Land Disposal (NW)
Incineration (Organics-WW)
Chemical Precipitation (NW)
3/3
K01S
Incineration (Oiganics),
Stabilization (Metals)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of Type of data QC data
performance (actual data (actual data Accuracy correction
data vs. transfer) vs. transfer calculations
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K062, F006
HPA data
K019
Industry submitted
EPA test
Industry
KOI 5
EPA data
K048-J2, K087
Data transfer from
industry
Data transfer
Data transfer
Data
Dal*
Data
EPA data
Data transfer
Transfer
Data transfer from
industry
DaU transfer
Transfer from K019
Submitted with data
EPA data
Submitted with data
EPA data
Data tranafer
Transfer from
K0S7, F019, K048-52
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries over
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in specific
third W«e code(t) BDAT technology
3/3 K017
1/3 K016, K0I9,
K020, K030
1/3 K021
3/3 K02I
1/3 K022
Incineration (NW)
Biotreatment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adioiption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
Rotary Kiln Incineration (Organica-
NW and WW)
No Land Disposal Baaed On No
Generation
Incineration (Organic«-NW)
Stabilization (Metals-NW)
Biotreatment, Steam Stripping
Carbon Adaorption, Liquid
Extraction
Fuel Subititution (Organic!)
Stabilization (Metali)
No Land Diapoaal for Wastewater!
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of Type of data
performance (actual data
data va. tnnafer)
QC data
(actual data Accuracy correction
v*. tranafer calculaliona
F024
F039, Volume A
Transfer
Tranafer
Transfer from F024
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
EPA test Dau EPA dala Calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA NA NA
K019, K087
K048-52
F039, Volume A
Transfer
Transfer
Transfer
Transfer from
K019, K0S7
Transfer from
K048-52
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No recoveries over
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
EPA test Data Submitted with data Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Transfer from F006 Transfer Transfer from F006
NA NA NA NA
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in specific
third Waste code(i) BDAT technology
3/3 K022
3/3 K025, K026
2/3 K023
1/3 K024
1/3 K025
2/3 K027
Biologicil Treatment, Steam
Stripping, Carbon Adaorption,
Liquid Extraction, etc.
(Oiganici-WW)
Chemical Precipitation, Filtration
(Metals-NW)
Incineration (Nonwaatewateri)
Incineration or Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adaorption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
Incineration
Incineration (Organica-NW and WW)
No Land Disposal Baaed On No
Generation
Incineration or Fuel Substitution
Carbon Adaorption Followed by
Incineration or Fuel SubMitution
of Spent Carbon (WW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of
performance
data
Type of data
(actual data
va. transfer)
QC dau
(actual data
va. tranifer
Accuracy correction
calculation!
F039, Volume A
Tranifer
Tranifer from
F039, Volume A
No recoveries over
100%
Method of treatment
Method of treatment
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K024
Tranifer
Transfer from K024
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
EPA test
Data
EPA data
Calculated recovcriea
over 100%
NA
NA
NA
NA
Method of treatment
NA
NA
NA
-------
Wade code(t)
BDAT technology
K028, K029 Incineration (Organics-NW)
(NW only for K029)
Stabilization (Metali-NW)
Chemical Precipitation
(Metali-WW)
K028 Stabilization (Metali-NW only
reviled)
K029 Biotreatment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
Stabilization (NW)
K032, K033, K034 Incineration (NW)
Biotreatment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adaorption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
K035 Incineration (Nonwaatewatera)
Biotreatment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adaorption, Liquid
Extraction (Organic-WW)
Chemical Precipitation,
Filtration (Metala-NW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of Type of data
performance (actual data
data va. tranafer)
QC data
(actual data Accuracy correction
va. tranafer calculationa
F024, K019
K048-K052
K062
F024
F039, Volume A
F024
EPA teat
F039, Volume A
Transfer
Transfer
Transfer
Tranafer
Transfer
Transfer
Dau
Tranafer
Transfer from
F024, K0I9
Transfer from
K048-52
Transfer from
K062
Transfer from
F024
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
Transfer from F024
EPA dau
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100®
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
K086
Transfer
Transfer
No recoveries over 100%
F039, Volume A
Transfer
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in qiecific
third Waate code(s)
1/3 K036
2/3 K036
3/3 K036
1/3 K037
3/3 K037
2/3 K038, K040
3/3 K041
BDAT technology
No Land Dispossl Based On No
Generation
Biological T rcatment
Incineration (Nonwastewatera
for DinilToton)
Incineration (Organici-WW and NW)
Biological Treatment (WW)
Incineration (NW)
Biological Treatment (WW)
Incineration (NW)
Biotreatment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of
performance
data
Type of data
(actual data
vi. tianafer)
QC data
(actual data
vi. transfer
Accuracy correction
calculation!
NA
NA
NA
NA
Industry aibmitted
K037
EPA teat
EPA teat
K037
Industry submitted
EPA teat
DaU
Transfer
Data
DaU
Industry submitted
Transfer from K037
EPA data
EPAdaU
Transfer from K037 Transfer from K037
Data Industry submitted
Data
EPA data
Calculated recoverietover
100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
F039, Volume A
Transfer
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in ipcciric
third Witt code(s) BDAT technology
3/3
K042
Incineration (NW)
2/3
K043
Biotreatment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
Incineration
i—*
O
1/3
3/3
1/3
K044, K04S, K047
K044, K04S, K047
K046 (Nonreactive)
No Land Dhponl
Deactivation
Stabilization (Metali-WW)
3/3
K046 (Reactivei)
1/3
3/3
K048-K052
K048-K0S2
Deactivation, Stabilization
(Nonwastewaieri)
Alkaline Precipitation, Settling,
Filtration (WW-Reactive and
Nomeactivea)
Fluidized Bed Incineration, Solvent
Extraction, Thermal Drying
Incineration, Solvent Extraction
(Orginic-NW)
Stabilization (Metala-NW)
Alkaline Chlorination (NW-WW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of
performance
data
Type of data
(actual data
va. transfer)
QC data
(actual data
vi. tninfer
Accuracy correction
calculation!
EPA ten
F039, Volume A
Data
Transfer
EPA data
Transfer from
F039, Volume a
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
EPA teat
NA
NA
EPA teat
Data
NA
NA
DsU
Data
NA
NA
EPA data
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA
NA
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Industry
K062
DsU
Transfer
Industry
Transfer from K062
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
EPA tetf and
industry submitted
EPA test and
industry data
Industry data
Transfer
Data
Data
Data
Transfer
Submitted with data
Data
Data
Transfer
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in ^ecific
third Wane code(s) BDAT technology
1/3 K060
3/3 K060
1/3 K06I (Low Zinc)
1/3 K061 (High Zinc)
3/3 K061
1/3 K062
1/3 K069
3/3 K069
No Land Disposal Baied On No
Generation
Biological Treatment (Wastewaters)
Incineration (Nonwastewsteis)
High Temperature Metali Recovery,
Stabilization
Recycling
Chemical Reduction (WW)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Chromium Reduction, Chemical
Precipitation
No Land Disposal Based on Recycling
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Stabilization, Vitrification (NW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of Type of data QC data
performance (actual data (actual data Accuracy correction
data vs. transfer) vs. transfer cslculations
NA
NA
EPA data
K087
Transfer
Transfer
EPA test
Data
NA
K062 transfer
Industry data
EPA lest
NA
Transfer
Data for lead
Data
NA
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
NA
Data
Data
NA
NA
EPA data
K087
EPA data
NA
K062 transfer
Industry data
Transferred
NA
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100*
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA
No cslculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in specific
third Waste code(i)
1/3 K07I
3/3 K071
1/3 K073
3/3 K073
ro
1/3 K083
3/3 K0S3
BDAT technology
Acid Leaching, Chemical Oxidation
Thermal Processing, Acid Leaching,
Stabilization (NW)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
No Land Disposal Baaed On No
Generation
Incineration (Nonwaatewaters)
Biotreatment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
No Land Disposal Baaed On No Ash
Incineration (Nonwaatewaters)
BiotreaUnent, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption, Liquid
Extraction (Organici-WW)
Chemical Precipitation, Filtration
(Metals-WW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of Type of data QC data
performance (actual data (actual data Accuracy correction
data vs. transfer) va. transfer calculations
EPA test
Industry submitted
K07I
NA
Data
Data
Data
NA
Submitted with data
Industry submitted
Transfer from K071
NA
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA
K019
F039, Volume A
Transfer
Transfer
Transfer from K019
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA
K086
F039, Volume A
NA
Transfer
Transfer
NA
Transfer
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
NA
No recoveries over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in q>ecific
third Waste code(s) BDAT technology
3/3 K085 Incineration (NW)
Biotreatment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adaorption, Liquid
Extraction
1/3 K086 (Solvent Incineration
wastes)
Chemical Precipitation (Metals-WW)
3/3 ROW
1/3 K0S7
2/3 K093
2/3 K094
2/3 K095, K096
(NW only)
Incineration (NW)
Alkaline Chlorination (Cyanides)
Biotreatment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adaorption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
Incineration
Incineration
Incineration
Incineration (Organics)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of Type of data QC data
performance (actual data (actual data Accuracy correction
data vi. transfer) va. transfer calculation*
EPA test Data EPA data No calculated recoveries
over 100#
F039, Volume A Transfer Transfer from No calculated recoveries
F039, Volume a over 100#
EPA test
Transfer from K062
Data
Transfer
FOW, Volume A
F006-F0I2
Data transfer
Transfer
F039, Volume A
Transfer
EPA data
Transfer
EPA data
F006F012
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100*
No recoveries over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
EPA test
Data
K024
Transfer
K024
Transfer
F024, K019
Transfer
EPA data
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Transfer from K024
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Transfer from K024
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Transfer from
F024, K019
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in specific
third Wade code(i) BDAT technology
3/3 K095, K096
3/3 K097, K098
£ 1/3 K099
1/3 K100
3/3 K100
Biotreatment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
Stabilization (NW)
Incineration (NW)
Biotieatment, Steam Stripping,
Caibon Adsorption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
Chemical Oxidation
No Land Disposal Baaed On No
Generation
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Stabilization, Vitrification (NW)
1/3
K101.K102
Incineration (Ofganica-NW and WW)
Stabilization (Metal«-NW)
Chemical Precipitation (MeUlt-WW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of Type of data QC data
performance (actual data (actual data Accuracy correction
data v«. transfer) va. transfer calculation*
F039, Volume A
Transfer
F024
EPA test
Transfer
Data
F039, Volume A
Transfer
EPA data and
industry submitted
NA
Data
NA
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
EPA test
Transfer
Transfer
Dau
Data
Dau
Transfer
Transfer
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
Transfer from F024
EPA data
Transfer from
F039, Volume A
No recoveries over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
EPA dau
NA
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
EPA dau
Dau
Transfer
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in specific
third Wane code(i) BDAT technology
3/3 KI0I.K102
1/3 KI04, K105
3/3 KIOS
3/3 KI06
2/3 KU3, KU4, Kt 15
K116
Incineration (Organics)
Stabilization Technologies
(Metals-NW)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Liquid/Liquid Extraction, Steam
Stripping, Cartoon Adaoiption
Incineration (NW)
Biotrealment, Steam Stripping,
Carbon Adaoiption, Liquid
Extraction (WW)
Thermal Processing, Acid Leaching,
Stabilization (NW)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Incineration or Fuel
Substitution (NW)
Stabilization (Metals-NW)
Carbon Adaoiption Followed by
Incineration or Fuel Substitution
of Spent Carbon (WW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of Type of data QC data
performance (actual data (actual data Accuracy correction
data va. transfer) vs. transfer calculations
EPA test
Industry submitted
EPA data
EPA test
EPA test
F039, Volume A
Data
Data
Data
Data
Data
Transfer
EPA data
Data
Data
Data
EPA data
Transfer from
F039, Volume a
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
Industry submitted
K071
NA
Transfer
Method of treatment
Data
Data
NA
Transfer from F006
NA
Industry submitted
Transfer from K071
NA
Data
NA
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in specific
third
Waste code(s)
BDAT technology
in
K221
Incineration
CTt
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
D001
D002
D003
Arsenic (DOM)
Arsenic (K031,
K084, P010, P0I2,
P036, P038, U136)
Deactivation to Remove Ignitability
or Incineration/Fuel Substitution
for High TOC D001
Deactivation to Remove Coirosivity
Deactivation to Remove Reactivity
Except for Cyanides
Alkaline Chlorination (Cyanides)
Vitrification (NW)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Vitrification (NW)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
3/3 Barium (D005, P013) Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Stabilization (NW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of
performance
data
Type of data
(actual data
vs. transfer)
QC data
(actual data
vs. transfer
Accuracy correction
calculations
K015, K086
EPA, Industry
Transfer
Data
Transfer from
K015,K085
NA
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA
EPA, Industry
NA
EPA data
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Data
NA
Transfer
Data
Data
Data
Industry data
NA
NA
Transfer from F007
Industry data
Industry data
Industry data
Industry data
NA
NA
No recoveries over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
EPA data
Industry submitted
Data
Dsn
EPA data
Industry submitted
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in fttifie
third Waste code(s) BDAT technology
l
3/3
3/3
Cadmium (DOM)
Chromium (D007,
U032)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Stabilization (NW)
Thermal Recovery (Cadmium Batteries)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Stabilization (NW)
Recovery (Refractory Bricks)
3/3
3/3
Lead (D008, DUO,
U144-U146)
Meteor; (D009,
P065, P092, U15I)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Stabilization, Vitrification
(NW)
Thermal Processing, Acid Leaching,
Stabilization (NW)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
3/3
Selenium (D010,
PI03, PI 14. U204,
U205)
Chemical Precipitation (WW)
Stabilization, Vitrification
(NW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of Type of data QC data
performance (actual data (actual data Accuracy correction
data vi. tiansrer) vi. transfer calculations
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
EPA data
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
Data
Data
NA
Data
Data
Data
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
Data
Data
Industry submitted
K071
Data
Transfer
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
Data
Data
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
NA
EPA data
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
Transfer from K07I
Industry submitted
Industry submitted
No calculated recoveriei
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA
No calculated recoveriei
over 100%
No calculated recoveriei
over 100%
No calculated recoveriei
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveriei
over 100%
No calculated recoveriei
over 100%
No calculated recoveriei
over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in apccifk
third Waate code(») BDAT technology
3/3
Silver (D011, Chemical Precipitation, Ion Exchange
P099, PI04) (WW)
Recovery, Stabilization (NW)
i
05
3/3
3/3
Thallium (PI 13,
PI 14, PUS, U214
U2IS, U216.U217)
Vanadium (PI 19,
PI 20
Recovery, Stabilization (NW)
Chemical Oxidation, Chemical
Precipitation (WW)
Recovery, Chemical Precipitation
(WW)
Recovery, Stabilization (NW)
3/3
2/3
D0I2, D013, DOM
D015, D016, D0I7
P039, P040, P041,
P043, P044, P062,
P071, P0S5, P089,
P094, P097, P109,
Pill, U058, U087,
U235
Incineration (NW)
Incineration (All), Biodegradation
(D012, D015, D016)
Carbon Adaorption (D013), Wet Air
Oxidation (D014), Chemical Oxidation
(D016, DO 17)
Incineration (NW)
Biological Treatment (WW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of Type of data
performance (actual data
data va. tranafer)
QC data
(actual data Accuracy correction
vs. transfer calculstions
Industry submitted,
EPA data
Industry submitted,
EPA data
Industry
EPA data
Data, transfer
Data
Data
Data
Industry
Industry
Data
Data
Method of treatment
NA
Industry submitted,
EPA data
Industry nibmitted,
EPA data
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
Industry
EPA data
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
Industry
Industry
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
No calculated recoveries
over 100%
NA
NA
K037
Industry submitted
Transfer
Data
Transfer from K037
Industry data
Calculated recoveries
over 100%
Calculated recoveriea
over 100%
-------
Promulgated
regulation
in specific
third W««te code(i) BDAT technology
2/3 Cyanide U&P Wastes Electrolytic Oxidation, Alkaline
(POO, P021, P029, Chloiinition
P030, P063, P074,
P09S, P099, PI 04,
P106, PI2I)
2/3 U028, U069, U08S, Incineration
UI02, UI07, U190
2/3 U22I, U223 Incineration or Fuel Subititution (NW)
Carbon Adsorption Followed by
Incineration or Fuel Substitution
of Spent Carbon (WW)
3/3
U A P waatea not
previously
regulated
Incineration (NW)
Biological Treatment, etc. (WW)
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Source of
performance
data
Type of data
(actual data
va. transfer)
QC data
(actual data
va. transfer
Accuracy correction
calculations
Industry submitted
F006-F012, F0I9
Data, transfer
Submitted with data
Transfer from
F006-F012, F0I9
Calculated recoveries
over 100®
K024
Transfer
Transfer from K024
Calculated recoveries
over 100*
Method of treatment
NA
NA
NA
EPA data
EPA data
Transfer
Transfer
Transfer
Transfer
No recoveries over 100%
No recoveries over 100%
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
APHA, AWWA, and WPCF. 1985. American Public Health Association, American Water
Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 16th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Public
Health Association.
USEPA, 1980. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Monitoring Systems and
Quality Assurance, Office of Research and Development. Interim Guidelines and
Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans. QAMA-005/80.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1983. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-029.
Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste. SW-846. 3rded. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1988b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory. Quality Assurance Materials Bank: Analytical Reference Standards.
7th ed. SP-4440-86-77. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
25254107.01\005
5-1
-------
APPENDIX A
Outlier Procedure
-------
An outlier in a data set is an observation (or data point) that is significantly different from
the other data. The measure of difference is determined by the statistical methods known as a
Z-score. Because the outlier test assumes data to be normally distributed, it is necessary to
transform the data by computing the logarithm of each data point before performing the outlier
test. The Z-score is calculated by dividing the difference between the data point and the average
of the data set by the standard deviation. For data, this is normally distributed, 99.5 percent (or
two standard deviations) of the measurements will have a Z-score between -2.0 and 2.0. A data
point outside this range is not considered to be representative of the population from which the
data are drawn.
EPA uses this statistical method to confirm that certain data do not represent treatment
by a well-operated system. The Agency uses this method only in cases where data on the design
and operation of a treatment system were limited. This method is a commonly used technique
for evaluating data sets.
15254038.002
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B
ANOVA Test
-------
F Value Determination for ANOVA Test
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 finds that the levels of performance for one or more technologies are not
statistically different (i.e., the data sets are homogeneous), EPA then averages the long-term
performance values achieved by each technology and multiplies this value by the largest
variability factor associated with any of the acceptable technologies. If EPA finds 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 B-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).
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 whether 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.
15254038.002
B-l
-------
CRITICAL VALUES
I 95 fh PERCENTILE VALUES FOR
1 1
| THE F DISTRIBUTION
! n; = decrees of ireedcir. far numerator
/
I ti; = decrees c: ireedcrr. :'cr aer.aainsicr
y
| (thAsed tru = JS)
~M i
1
n ^=k-1
n2* N-k
\ rt ,
•
A
•
3
4
5
6
1
16
20
30
40
50
100
•
•
•
1 CIS
l«gj
•*« « -
22;.S
230.2
224.0
22SJ
:;2J
2412
242.0
250.1
Hf* «)
222.C
*? •
A
:s.si
1S.00
IS.16
1S.35
12.30
12.23
1S.37
19.41
19.43
19.45
19.46
IS.46
16.47
15.49
1S.5-
;
IC—3
£.£5
5.22
o ««
9.01
2J4
S.85
2.74
2.69
2.66
2.62
2.S0
2.5E
2.56
£.22
*
6.94
6.59
6.39
6.26
6.16
6.04
£J1
£.84
5.20
£.75
1
£.70
s.SC
w
6.51
£.79
S.41
£.19
5.05
4.95
4.22
4.S8
4.00
4.56
4.50
4.4G
4.44
4.40
W
4
<.76
4.23
4.39
4..22
CIS
4.00
2J*
127
121
2.77
2.72
•% « *
l.i"
£.55
%. # *
4.25
< 1 *t
112
" «»
A
16
4.49
2.53
2.34
2.01
185
174
119
A •«
133
» Of
129
126
113
«B»M <
^ i
» *
• * t
i.il
:i9
2^0
ISt
121
170
2-55
128
m
» ^
115
* *4
«•»
108
* A*
••••
1^6 1
:s;
2.16
123
177
166
Z£l
2J4
m of
A
e* ^
1C7
104
1.92
--2 ;
15 !
^31
*> »¦»
2.13
2J0
174
163
148
M IM
12.5
137
A AM
m»mm
100
1.94
1.SS |
1
4.23
2.49
2.10
2J7
171
160
145
112
m * *
104
1.29
196
1J0
-¦24 t
«•« <
;.20
2.44
2.05
" »«>
166
155
140
» m+
113
107
192
193
1.31
1J4
1.71 '
* *
m+ •
4.26
2.40
2.01
171 '
1SS
151
136
112
109
123
194
us
1.36
1.20
1.72 1
2S !
4.22
2.27
IS!
174
159
m »•
*
• ++
115
105
199
1.S0
1.25
» t«
1.76
1.S9 :
21 1
oo
2.34
2J5
w m*
Ml*
156
• 145
102
196
1.S7
121
1.72
' mm
• •••
1.65 j
3c:
* **
mmmrnm
2J2
159
153
142
1
109
IS 9
193
U4
1.79
1.78
*..59
1.=
40
4.02
*
184
121
142
ZM
132
100
ISO
184
174
169
1.66
159
151
50
4.03
112
179
156
140
m
113
195
185
178
159
153
160
* **
1.44
60
4.00
115
176
2^3
137
2#t
110
193
181
ITS
155
159
156
1.42
139
70
198
2.13
174
150
135
133
2JB1
189
179
172
2.52
156
153
1.45
135
20
196
2.11
m mm
mrn*m
142
133
131
105
188
177
170
160
1.54
1.51
1.42
133
lioo
2.94
109
170
146
130
119
103
188
l:se
191
2.06
2.67
143
mmm •
U6
100
' *»
' 73C
2.29
2.04
ICS
»
2U4
1J2
1.80
40C
126
mm M •
1C2
2*29
m *»«»
m • m
U6
178
: •
2.54
199
160
U7
m mi
109
1J4
1.75
1.75
% m*
«¦ • *
1.39
1.67
1.64
1.51
1.64
1.62
1.80
U7
157
1.54
• *»
1.49
1.46
iJl
1.47
1.45
*»%•
1.40
1.4t U) L3
1.44 -JU
' 119
-3* UJ
: 1-4 1.00
Table B-7 95th Percentile Values for the F nist.rihntinn
15254038.002 B-2
-------
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 =
k
'II
E
-
i-l
V
E t,
<-1
N
where:
k = number of treatment technologies
n; = number of data points for technology i
N = number of data points for all technologies
Tj = sum of natural logtrnasformed data points for each technology.
(iv) The sum of the squares within data sets (SSW) is computed:
=
* »i
e i
j-i j-1
k
E
i-l
fifl
ni
1
where:
Xjj = The natural logtransformed observations (j) for treatment technology (i).
(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.
15254038.002
B-3
-------
(vi) Using the above parameters, the F value is calculated as follows:
F = MSB
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
Degrees of
freedom
Sum of
squares
Mean square
F
Between
k-1
SSB
MSB = SSB/k-1
MSB/MSW
MSW = SSW/N-k
Within
N-k
SSW
Following 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 where one technology is significantly better treatment than the other
technology.
15254038.002
B-4
-------
Example 1
Methylene Chloride
Steam atrioDinc
Bioloeical treatment
Influent
Effluent
ln(effluent)
[ln(efQuent)]3
Influent
Effluent
ln(effluent)
[ln(efiluent)]}
(Pift)
(«/l)
0«/l)
Qig/l
1550.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
1960.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
1290.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
2568.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
1640.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
1817.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
5100.00
12.00
2.48
6.15
1640.00
26.00
3.26
10.63
1450.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
3907.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
4600.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
1760.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
2400.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
4800.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
12100.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
Sum:
-
-
23.18
53.76
-
-
12.46
31.79
Sample Size:
10
10
10
-
5
5
5
-
Mean:
3669
10.2
2.32
-
2378
13.2
2.49
-
Standard Deviation:
3328.67
.63
.06
-
923.04
7.15
.43
-
Variability Factor:
-
1.15
-
-
-
2.48
-
-
ANOVA Calculations:
SSB
SSW -
k
r
Zl)
L
k
£
M
/-i
ii
N
MSB - SSB/(lc-l)
MSW - SSW/(N-k)
15254038.002
B-5
-------
Example 1 (continued)
F « MSB/MSW
where:
number of treatment technologic*
number of data point* for technology i
number of natural loguaniformed data point* for all technologies
of logtransformed data point* for each technology
k
N
T, <= auro
v . the nat. logtrawformed obaervationa (j)
for treatment technology CO
n, 10, tij »= 5, N =* 15, k *= 2, T,
T,» - 537.31 T,1 - 155.25
23.18, T,
12.46,T ¦ 35.46,T1 = 1270.21
SSB
I
537
31 „ l5525) - 127l°"21 " °-
10
10
5 ;
ssw
( 537.31 15555 \ . 0 77
. ( 53.76 ~ 31.79 ) - ^ —JJ- 5 /
MSB " 0.10/1 = 0.10
MSW - 0.77/13 - 0.06
0.10
0.06
1.67
ANOVA Table
freedom
Between(B)
Within(W)
F value
1.67
at the 0.05 aignificance level
Since Hit Fvmhw i. k. — • *» —'
The critical value of the F teat 1
fi.e., they are homogeneoua).
NOTE: All raH'!"™"' were rounded to two decimal placet. Reautu may differ depending upon the number of decimal place* used in each atep of the e^kuletieo-
B-6
15254038.002
-------
Example 2
T richloroethy lene
Activated iludge followed bv idiorption
Biological treatment
Influent
Effluent
ln(effluent)
[ln(effluent)]2
Influent
Effluent
ln(effluent)
[ln(efflue
0j«/1)
(«/»
(WD
0
-------
Example 2 (continued)
F = MSB/MSW
where:
k « number of treatment technologies
rii * number of data points for technology i
N = number of natural logtraniformed data pointa for all technologies
T, " mm of logtransfonned data points for each technology
Xj — the nat. logtianaformed obiervationa 0) f°r treatment technology CO
N, - 10, N, - 7, N - 17, k = 2, T, = 26.14, T, - 16.59, T - 42.73, T - 1823.85, T,1 « 683.30, T,1 - 275.23
SSB - ( . 27123) - 1825115 - 0.25
{ 10 7 ) 17
SSW - ( 72.92 ~ 39.52 ) - ^ j . 4.79
MSB = 0.25/1 = 0.25
MSW - 4.79/15 = 0.32
F - ^ - 0.78
0.32
ANOVA Table
Degreeiof
Source freedom SS MS F value
Between(B) 1 0.25 0.25 0.78
Within(W) 15 4.79 0.32
The critical value of the F ten 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 calculation
15254038.002
B-8
-------
Example 3
Chlorobenzene
Steam ftriooinB
Bioloirical treatment
Influent
Effluent
ln(effluent)
{ln(effluent)]>
Influent
Effluent
ln(effluent)
[ln(effluent)]2
(m/l)
(jig/1)
0«/l)
Gig/1
7200.00
80.00
4.38
19.18
9206.00
1083.00
6.99
48.86
6500.00
70.00
4.25
18.06
16646.00
709.50
6.56
43.03
6075.00
35.00
3.56
12.67
49775.00
460.00
6.13
37.58
3040.00
10.00
2.30
5.29
14731.00
142.00
4.96
24.60
3159.00
603.00
6.40
40.96
6756.00
153.00
5.03
25.30
3040.00
17.00
2.83
8.01
Sum:
14.49
55.20
38.90
228.34
Sample Size:
4
Mean:
5703
49
3.62
14759
452.5
5.56
Standard Deviation:
1835.4 32.24
.95
16311.86
379.04
1.42
Variability Factor:
7.00
15.79
ANOVA Calculations:
k
fr*l
SSB •
E
i
(-1
(H
N
SSW
k ¦¦
EE'1,,
M J-1
-*(?)
MSB - SSB/(k-l)
MSW - SSW/(N-k)
15254038.002 B-9
-------
Example 3 (continued)
F « MSB/MSW
where:
k » number of treatment technologies
n, — number of d»u points for technology i
N = number of natural logtrtinformed data poinu for all technologies
T, = gum of logtransformed data pointa for each technology
« the nat. loguansfomed observations (j) for treatment technology (i)
N, - 4, Nj - 7, N = 11, k - 2, T, - 14.49, T, - 38.90, T - 53.39, T* * 2850.49,T,1 = 209.96, T,' «= 1513.21
ssb - [ - 9 J2
7 J 11
SSW - ( 5550 ~ 228.34 ) - ^ j - 14.1
MSB - 9.52/1 -= 9.52
MSW - 14.88/9 - 1.65
F = 9.52/1.65 = 5.77
ANOVA Table
Between(B)
Wilhin(W)
9.53
1.65
5.77
NOTE:
, . . ., c t! Sine- the F value i» leu than the critical value, file means are significantly different
JT. "IwUa S. to W to .to
value, i.e., the effluent concentration, is lower
All calculations were rounded to two decimal places. Remits may differdependinguponthenumberof decimal places used in each step of the calculation.
15254038.002
B-10
-------
APPENDIX C
Accuracy Correction Procedure
-------
Accuracy Correction Procedure
To calculate treatment standards, it is first necessary to adjust laboratory results for
accuracy, based on the laboratory test's "recovery value" for each constituent it analyzes.* The
recovery value measures the amount of constituent recovered after "spiking"—the addition to the
waste sample of a known amount of constituent. The recovery value is equal to the amount of
constituent recovered after spiking, minus the initial concentration in the sample, divided by the
amount recovered.
Once the recovery value is determined, the following procedures are used to select the
appropriate percent recovery value to adjust the analytical data:
1. If duplicate spike recovery values are available for the constituent of interest, the data
are adjusted by the lowest available percent recovery value~the value that will yield the
most conservative estimate of treatment achieved. (If a spike recovery value of less than
20 percent is reported for a specific constituent, however, the data cannot be used to set
a national treatment standard and are discarded.)
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 avaiable for a specific constituent, but are available for a similar class of
constituents, then spike recovery values for this class of constituents are transferred. All
spike recovery values greater than or equal to 20 percent for a spiked 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 the lowest average value.
4. If spike recovery data are not available for the waste matrix, then spike recovery values
are transferred from a waste that the Agency believes is a similar matrix. For instance,
if the data are for an ash resulting from incineration, then data from other incinerator
*It may also be necessary to estimate recovery values in order to perform the ANOVA test
discussed in Section 3.2 to determine which demonstrated technologies are "best."
15254038.002
C-l
-------
ashes could be used. This is not an exact analysis, but it is considered the best practical
approach. 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 each treatment
standard for tested wastes are provided in the background document prepared for that waste.
Any alternatives or equivalent procedures and/or equipment allowed by the approved methods
will also be documented in EPA's SW-846, Third Edition (November 1986). NOTE: The
Agency will use the methods and procedures presented in each background document to enforce
the treatment standards. Facilities should, therefore, use these procedures in assessing the
performance of their treatment systems.
15254038.002
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
Variability Factor
-------
Variability Factor
C99
VF=——
Mean
(1)
Where:
VF = estimate of the daily maximum variability factor determined from a sample
population of daily data.
C99 = Estimate of performance values for which 99 percent of the daily observations will
be below. C,, is calculated using the following equation: C„ = Exp(y + 2.33
Sy) where y and Sy are the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of the
logtransformed data.
Mean = Average of the individual performance values.
EPA is establishing this figure as a 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 variability.
In several cases, all the results from analysis of the residuals from BDAT treatment are
found at concentrations less than the detection limit. In such cases, all the actual concentration
values are considered to be unknown and, hence, cannot be used to estimate the variability factor
of the analytical results. The following is a description of EPA's approach for calculating the
variability factor for cases in which all concentrations are below the detection limit.
It has been postulated that a lognormal distribution adequately describes the variation
among concentrations. Agency data shows that the treatment residual concentrations are often
distributed approximately lognormally. Therefore, the lognormal model has been used routinely
in EPA's development of numerous regulations in the Effluent Guidelines Program and is being
15254038.002
D-l
-------
used in the BDAT program. The variability factor (VF) was defined as the ratio of the 99th
percentile (C99) of the lognormal distribution to its arithmetic mean (Mean).
C99
VF=—-
Mean
(1)
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, Volume
1, by Johnson and Kotz, 1970). The mean of the lognormal distribution can be expressed in
terms of the mean (p.) and standard deviation (a) of the normal distribution as follows:
By substitution (2) and (3) in (1), the VF can then be expressed in terms of a as follows:
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
VF can be estimated using equation (1). For residuals with concentations that are below the
detection limit, the above equations can be used in conjunction with the following assumptions
to develop a VF:
Assumption 1: The actual concentrations follow a lognormal distribution. The
upper limit (UL) is equal to the detection limit. The lower limit (LL) is 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.
C,, = Exp (ji + 2.33 )
Mean = Exp (ji+ 0.5a2)
(2)
(3)
VF = Exp (2.33a - 0.5a2)
(4)
15254038.002
D-2
-------
• 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 = [(In (UL) - In (LL)] / [(2)(2.33)] = [ln(UL/LL)] / 4.55 (5)
(Note that when LL = (0.1)(UL) as in Assumption 1, then a = (lnlO) / 4.66 = 0.494.)
Substitution of the a values from equation (5) into equation (4) yields the VF.
VF = 2.8
For concentration data with only two data points, a reliable estimate of the variability
of the data and, hence, the VF cannot be obtained. Nevertheless, the following procedure
assumes that the population of concentration data from which these two samples were drawn is
lognormally distributed. It is also assumed that the values of these two samples represent an
estimate of the range (min and max) of population data.
The standard deviation a of the corresponding normal distribution can be estimated using
the ratio of the two available data points, R, (larger value/smaller value) as
a = [log (R)] / (2*2.33) = logR/4.66 (6)
For several values of R (10, 20,... 100)), the value of VF was obtained and tabulated in
Table C-l. To use the table to find the VF (as calculated using (4)), the ratio of the larger value
to the smaller value is obtained and rounded to the nearest R value in the Table. Alternatively,
VF can be calculated by combining equations (4) and (6). The treatment standard is then
calculated as:
15254038.002
D-3
-------
C" = (VF) (mean)
The mean is the average of the two treatment values.
15254038.002
D-4
-------
Table D-l. Variability Factors When only Two Data Points Are Available
Ration of larger value
to smaller value
(order of magnitude)
Variability Factor
5
2.11
10
2.80
20
3.64
30
4.20
40
4.62
50
4.97
60
5.27
70
5.52
80
5.75
90
5.95
100
6.14
15254038.002
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E
Calculation of Variability Factor When All
Treated Residual Concentrations are
Below the Detection Limit
-------
Calculation of Variability Factor
When All Treated Soil Concentrations
are Below the Detection Limit
Agency data show that the treatment residual concentrations are often distributed approximately
lognormally. Therefore, the lognormal model has been used routinely in EPA's development
of numerous regulations in the Effluent Guidelines Program and is being used in the BDAT
program. The variability factor (VF) was defined as the ratio of the 99th percentile (C99) of the
lognormal distribution to its arithmetic mean (Mean).
VF = —(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, Volume
1, Johnson and Kotz, 1970.) The mean of the lognormal distribution can be expressed in terms
of the mean (jx) and standard deviation (s) of the normal distribution as follows:
CM = Exp 0i + 2.33 5) (2)
Mean = Exp (jx + 0.5 s2) ^
By substitution (2) and (3) in (1), the VF can then be expressed in terms of (s) as follows:
VF = Exp (2.33 5 - 0.5s2) (4)
25254110.01N005
E-l
-------
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 VF can be
estimated using equation 1. For residuals with concentrations below the detection limit, the
above equations can be used in conjunction with the following assumptions to develop a VF.
• Assumption 1: The actual concentrations follow a lognormal distribution. The
upper limit (UL) is equal to the detection limit. The lower limit (LL) is 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 of the normal distribution is approximated
by:
s = [(1« (UL) - In (LL)] / [(2X2.33)] = [1 n(ULILL)) / 4.66 . (5)
(Note, when LL = (0.1)(UL) as in Assumption 1, then s = (lnlO) / 4.66 = 0.494.)
Substitution of the s values from equation (5) into equation (4) yields the VF.
VF = 2.8 (6)
For concentration data with only two data points, the following procedure can be used to
estimate the variability of the data. This procedure assumes that the population of concentration
data from which these two samples were drawn is lognormally distributed. It is also assumed
that the values of these two samples represent an estimate of the range (min. and max.) of
population data.
The standard deviation (s) of the corresponding normal distribution can be estimated using the
ratio of the two available data points, R, (larger value/smaller value) as:
s = [ln(/?)] / (2*2.33) = btR/4.66 (7)
25254110.01\005
E-2
-------
For several values of R (10, 20,...100), the value of VF was obtained and tabulated in Table
F-l. To use Table F-l to find the VF (as calculated using (4)), the ratio of the larger value to
the smaller value is obtained and rounded to the nearest R value. Alternatively, VF can be
calculated by combining equations (4) and (7). The treatment standard is then calculated as:
C" = (VF) (mean) <8>
The mean is the average of the two treatment values.
25254110.01\005
E-3
-------
Table F-l Variability Factors When only Two
Data Points Are Available
Ratio of larger value
to smaller value
(order of magnitude) Variability Factor
5
2.11
10
2.80
20
3.64
30
4.20
40
4.62
50
4.97
60
5.27
70
5.52
80
5.75
90
5.95
100
6.14
25254110.01X005
E-4
-------
APPENDIX F
Regulatory Standards for BDAT List Constituents
-------
REGULATORY STANDARDS FOR BDAT LIST CONSTITUENTS
Table of Contents
Pace
1. Footnotes 1
2. Volatile Organics 2
3. Semivolatile Organics 10
4. Metals 21
5. Inorganics Other than Metals 27
6. Pesticides/Herbicides/Insecticides 28
6.1 Organochlorine Pesticides 28
6.2 Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides 30
6.3 Organophosphorous Insecticides 30
7. pcbs 31
8. Dioxins and Furans 31
F-l
-------
FOOTNOTES
1. Met air/carbon for salts.
2. Based on EP leachate analysis but this does not preclude the
use of TCLP analysis.
3. Sum of diphenylamine and diphenylnitrosamine.
4. High mercury subcategory >260 mg/kg total mercury.
5. High mercury subcategory >260 mg/kg total mercury - contains
mercury and organics (and are not incinerator residues).
6. High mercury subcategory >260 mg/kg total mercury - inorganics
(including incineration residues and residues from retorting
of mercury).
7. Low mercury subcategory <260 mg/kg total mercury.
8. Low mercury subcategory <260 mg/kg total mercury - residues
from retorting of mercury.
9. Low mercury subcategory <260 mg/kg total mercury - that are
not residues from retorting of mercury.
10. Light ends subcategory.
11. Spent filters/aids and desiccants subcategory.
12. High Zn subcategory.
13. Low Zn subcategory.
14. In TCLP extract.
15. Radioactive hazardous mixed waste.
NR Not regulated.
SDR Regulated by solvent/dioxin rule.
TS Treatment technology specified.
* Not on BOAT list but regulated.
() Numbers in parenthesis refer to thirds.
F-2
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Volatile Organics
BOAT list
Constituent
Codes in which
Wastewater
Non-wastewater
nuifcer
name
constituent Is regulated
standard (iag/l)
standard (mg/kg)
222.
Acetone
K086
0.28 (3)
160
(3)
U002
0.28 (3)
160
(3)
SDR
0.05
0.59""
1.
Acetonitrile
K011
38 (3)
1.8
(2)
K013
38 (3)
1.8
(2)
KOH
38 (3)
1.8
(2)
U003
0.17 (3)
0.17
(3)
2.
Acrolein
POOS
NR (3)
TS
(3)
3.
Acrylonitrile
icon
0.06 (3)
1.4
(2)
K013
0.06 (3)
1.4
(2)
KOH
0.06 (3)
1.4
(2)
U009
0.24 (3)
84
(3)
4.
Benzene
F00S
0.07 (3)
3.7
(3)
K011
0.02 (3)
0.03
(2)
IC013
0.02 (3)
0.03
(2)
KOH
0.02 (3)
0.03
C2>
K048
0.011 (1)
14
(3)
K049
0.011 (1)
14
(3)
K051
0.011 (1)
14
(3)
K052
0.011 (1)
14
<3)
K060
0.17 (3)
0.071
(3)
K083
0.14 (3)
6.6
(3)
K08S
0.14 (3)
4.4
(3)
K087
0.014 (1)
0.071
CD
K103
0.15 (1)
6.0
(1)
K104
0.1S (1)
6.0
(1)
K105
0.14 (3)
4.4
(3)
U019
0.14 (3)
36
(3)
5.
Bromodichloronethane
NR
6.
Broamae thane
U029
0.11 (3)
15
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Volatile Organics (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-wastewater
nwber name constituent is regulated standard (mg/l) standard (mg/kg)
223.
n-Butyl alcohol
K086
5.6
(3)
2.6
(3)
U031
5.6
(3)
2.6
(3)
SDR
5.0
5.0""
7.
Carbon tetrachloride
F025 ***
0.057
C3)
6.2
(3)
F025"'
0.057
(3)
6.2
(3)
K021
0.057
(3)
6.2
(3)
K073
0.057
(3)
6.2
(3)
U211
0.057
(3)
5.6
(3)
SDR
0.05
0.96""
8.
Carbon disulfide
IC049
0.011
<1>
MR
SDR
1.05
4.81""
9.
Chlorobenzene
K019
0.006
(1)
6.0
(1)
K085
0.057
(3)
4.4
(3)
K10S
0.057
(3)
4.4
(3)
U037
0.057
(3)
5.7
(3)
SDR
0.15
0.15""
10.
2-ChIoro-1,3-butadiene
F024
0.28
(2)
0.28
(2)
11.
Chlorodibromomethane
NR
12.
Chloroethane
K018
0.007
(1)
6.0
(1)
13.
2-Chloroethylvinylether
NR
14.
Chloroform
F025'"
0.046
(3)
6.2
(3)
F025'"
0.046
<3)
6.2
(3)
K009
0.10
(2)
6.0
(2)
K010
0.10
(2)
6.0
(2)
IC019
0.007
(1)
6.0
(1)
K021
0.046
(3)
6.2
(3)
K029
0.046
(3)
6.0
(2)
K073
0.046
(3)
6.2
(3)
UOAA
0.046
(3)
5.6
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Uaste Constituents
Volatile Orcanics (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-wastewater
timber na»e constituent is regulated standard (ng/l) standard (tug/kg)
20.
21.
22.
23.
ChloroMethane
3-Chloropropene
1,2-Dibrowo-3-chloropropene
1,2-Oibroanethane
Dibromoethane
Trans-1,4
0ichIoro-2-butene
2 Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-0ichloroethane
1,2-Oichloroethane
24.
25.
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Trans-1,2
Dichloroethene
IC018
U045
F024
U066
U067
U068
U074
U075
F024
K016
K028
U076
F024
F025'*'
K018
K019
K020
K029
U077
F025w
K029
U078
U079
0.007
0.19
0.28
0.11
0.028
0.11
TS
0.23
0.014
0.007
0.007
0.059
0.014
0.21
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.21
0.21
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.054
(1)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(1)
CD
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
NR
33
0.28
15
15
15
TS
7.2
0.014
6.0
6.0
7.2
0.014
6.2
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.2
6.2
6.0
33
33
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Volatile Organics (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-wastewater
nwfcer name constituent is regulated standard (mg/l) standard (nig/kg)
26.
1,2-DichIoropropane
F024
0.014
(2)
0.014
(2)
KOI 7
0.85
(3)
18
(3)
U063
0.85
(3)
18
(3)
27.
Trans-1 f3-Dichloropropene
F024
0.014
(2)
0.014
(2)
U084
0.036
(3)
18
(3)
28.
Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
F024
0.014
(2)
0.014
(2)
U084
0.036
(3)
18
(3)
29.
1,4 Dioxane
U108
0.12
(3)
170
(3)
2-Ethoxyethenol
FOOS
TS
(3)
TS
(3)
22S.
Ethyl acetate
K086
0.34
(3)
33
(3)
U112
0.34
(3)
33
(3)
SOR
0.05
0.75""
226.
Ethyl benzene
K048
0.011
(1)
14
(3)
K049
0.011
(1)
14
(3)
K051
0.011
(1)
14
(3)
K052
0.011
(1)
14
(3)
K086
0.057
(3)
6.0
(3)
SOR
0.05
0.053""
30.
Ethyl cyanide
P101
0.24
(3)
360
(3)
227.
Ethyl ether
U117
0.12
(3)
160
(3)
SOR
0.05
0.75""
31.
Ethyl nethacrylate
U118
0.14
(3)
160
(3)
214.
Ethylene oxide
NR
32.
I odowethane
U138
0.19
(3)
65
(3)
33.
Isobutyl alcohol
U140
5.6
(3)
170
(3)
SOR
5.0
5.0""
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Uaste Constituents
Volatile Oraanics (continued!
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-uastewater
nwfcer name constituent is regulated standard (ng/l) standard (mg/kg)
228.
Methanol
K086
5.6
(3)
NR
(3)
U154
5.6
(3)
TS
(3)
SDR
0.25
0.75""
34.
Methyl ethyl ketone
K086
0.28
(3)
36
(3)
U159
0.28
(3)
36
(3)
SDR
0.05
0.75""
229.
Methyl isobutyl ketone
K086
0.U
(3)
33
(3)
U161
0.14
(3)
33
(3)
SDR
0.05
0.33""
55.
Methyl methacrylate
U162
0.14
<3>
160
(3)
37.
MethacryIonitriIe
U152
0.24
(3)
84
(3)
38.
Methylene Chloride
F001
0.44
(1)
NR
F002
0.44
(1)
NR
F003
0.44
(1)
NR
F004
0.44
(1)
NR
FOOS
0.44
(1)
NR
F025'"
0.089
(3)
31
(3)
F025'*'
0.089
(3)
31
(3)
K086
0.089
(3)
33
(3)
U080
0.089
(3)
33
(3)
SOR
0.20
0.96""
2-Nitropropane
FOOS
TS
(3)
TS
(3)
39.
Pyridine
IC026
TS
(3)
TS
(3)
U196
0.014
(3)
16
(3)
SOR
1.12
0.33""
AO.
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
K028
0.007
(2)
5.6
(2)
IC095
0.057
(3)
5.6
(2)
K096
0.057
(3)
5.6
(2)
U208
0.057
(3)
42
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Volatile Organic* (continued)
BOAT list
Const i tuent
Codes in which
Wastewater
Non-wastewater
number
name
constituent is regulated
standard (ng/l)
standard («g/kg)
41.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
K020
0.007
(1)
5.6
(1)
K028
0.007
(2)
5.6
(2)
K09S
0.057
(3)
5.6
(2)
K096
0.057
(3)
5.6
(2)
U209
0.057
(3)
42
(3)
42.
Tetrachloroethene
KOI 6
0.007
(1)
6.0
(1)
K019
0.007
(1)
6.0
(1)
K020
0.007
(1)
6.0
(1)
IC028
0.007
(2)
6.0
<21
K030
0.007
(1)
6.0
(1)
K043
0.006
(2)
1.7
(2)
ton
0.056
(3)
6.2
(3)
K095
0.056
(3)
6.0
(2)
K096
0.056
(3)
6.0
(2)
U210
0.056
(3)
5.6
(3)
SDK
0.079
0.05""
43.
Toluene
K001
0.028
(3)
28
(3)
K015
.15
<1>
6.0
(3)
*022
0.080
(3)
0.034
11)
IC037
0.080
(3)
28
(1)
K048
0.011
(1)
14
(3)
IC049
0.011
(1)
14
(3)
K051
0.011
(1)
14
(3)
K052
0.011
(1)
14
(3)
K086
0.080
(3)
28
(3)
K087
0.008
(1)
0.65
(1)
U051
0.028
(3)
28
(3)
U220
0.080
(3)
28
(3)
SOR
1.12
0.33""
44.
Tribrommethane
(Broaofona)
U225
0.63
(3)
15
(3)
45.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
K018
0.007
11)
6.0
(1)
K019
0.007
<1>
6.0
(1)
K028
0.007
(2)
6.0
(2)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Volatile Oraanica (continued)
AT list
Constituent
Codes in which
Wastewater
Non-wastewater
MMber
nane
constituent is regulated
standard (mg/l)
standard (mg/kg)
45.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (continued)
K029
0.054
(3)
6.0
(2)
IC073
0.0S4
(3)
6.2
(3)
K086
0.054
(3)
5.6
(3)
U226
0.054
(3)
5.6
(3)
SDR
1.05
0.41""
46.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
F001
0.030
<3>
7.6
(3)
F002
0.030
(3)
7.6
(3)
F003
0.030
(3)
7.6
(3)
F004
0.030
(3)
7.6
(3)
FOOS
0.030
(3)
7.6
(3)
F025"'
0.054
(3)
6.2
(3)
F025"'
0.054
(3)
6.2
(3)
K0Z8
0.007
(2)
6.0
(2)
K095
0.054
(3)
6.0
(2)
K096
0.054
(3)
6.0
(2)
UZ27
0.054
(3)
5.6
(3)
47.
Trichloroethene
F025"'
0.054
(3)
5.6
(3)
F025'*'
0.054
(3)
5.6
(3)
K086
0.054
(3)
5.6
(3)
K095
0.054
(3)
5.6
(2)
K096
0.054
(3)
5.6
(2)
U228
0.054
(3)
5.6
(3)
SDR
0.062
0.091""
48.
Tr i chloroMonof luoro«ethane
U121
0.020
(3)
33
(3)
SOR
0.05
0.96""
49.
1,2,3*TrichIoropropane
K017
0.85
(3)
28
(3)
231.
1,1,2-Trichloro-
1,2,2-trif luoroethane
SOR
1.05
0.96""
50.
Vinyl chloride
F025'"
0.27
(3)
33
(3)
F025"'
0.27
(3)
33
(3)
K029
0.27
(3)
6.0
(2)
U043
0.27
(3)
33
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Volatile Organics (continued)
BOAT list
Constituent
Codes in which
Wastewater
Non-wastewater
nuifcer
name
constituent is regulated
standard (mg/l)
standard (mg/kg)
215.
1,2-Xylene
K001
0.032
(3)
33 (3)
1,3-Xylene
K048
0.011
(1)
22 (3)
1,4-Xylene (total)
K049
0.011
(1)
22 (3)
IC051
0.011
(1)
22 (3)
K052
0.011
(1)
22 (3)
K086
0.32
(3)
28 (3)
K087
0.014
(1)
0.070 (1)
U0S1
0.032
(3)
33 (3)
U239
0.032
(3)
28 (3)
SOft
0.05
0.15"1'
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Sewivolatile Organics fcontinued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-wastewater
nuriier na«e constituent is regulated standard (mg/t) standard (mg/kg)
St.
Acenaphthalene
K087
0.028
(1)
3.4
(1)
52.
Acenaphthene
K035
NR
3.4
(3)
K051
0.050
(1)
3.4
53.
Acetophenone
K022
0.010
(3)
19
(1)
K086
0.010
C3)
9.7
(3)
U004
0.010
(3)
9.7
(3)
233.
Acrylanide
KO11
19
(3)
23
(2)
IC013
19
(3)
23
(2)
K014
19
(3)
23
(2)
54.
2 - Acety I aiai nof I uor ene
U005
0.059
(3)
140
(3)
55.
4-faninobiphenyl
m
56.
Aniline
K083
0.81
(3)
14
(3)
K013
4.5
(1)
5.6
(1)
KICK
4.5
(1)
5.6
(1)
U012
0.81
(3)
14
(3)
57.
Anthracene
K015
1.0
(1)
3.4
(3)
K035
NR
3.4
(3)
K049
0.039
(1)
28
(3)
K051
0.039
(1)
28
(3)
58.
Araaite
NR
59.
Benz (a)anthracene
K035
0.059
(3)
3.4
(3)
K051
0.043
(1)
20
(1)
U018
0.059
(3)
8.2
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Uaste Constituents
Semi volatile Organics (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-wastewater
nunfcer name constituent is regulated standard (*g/l) standard (mg/kg)
60.
Benzenethiol
NR
62.
Benzo(a)pyrene
K035
NR
3.4
<3>
K048
0.047
(1)
12
(3)
K049
0.047
(1)
12
(3)
KOSO
0.047
(1)
12
(3)
K051
0.047
<1>
12
(3)
K052
0.047
(1)
12
(3)
K060
0.03S
(3)
3.6
(3)
U022
0.061
(3)
8.2
(3)
63.
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
K01S
.29
(1)
3.4
(3)
64.
Benzo-(ghi)perylene
NR
65.
Benzo(k)fIuoroanthene
K015
.29
(1)
3.4
(3)
66.
p-Benzoquinone
U197
TS
(3)
TS
(3)
67.
B i s(2-chloroethoxy)-methane
U024
0.036
(3)
7.2
(3)
68.
B i s(2-chloroethyI)-ether
IC017
0.033
(3)
7.2
(3)
K019
0.007
(1)
5.6
(1)
U025
0.033
(3)
7.2
(3)
69.
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
U027
0.055
(3)
7.2
(3)
70.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate
F024
0.036
(2)
1.8
(2)
K048
0.043
(1)
7.3
(3)
KOA9
0.043
(1)
7.3
(3)
K0S1
0.043
(1)
7.3
(3)
K086
0.28
(1)
28
(1)
U028
0.54
(2)
28
(2)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Semivolatile Organic* (continued)
BOAT list
ruber
Constituent
Codes in which
constituent is regulated
Wastewater
standard (mg/l)
Non-wastewate
standard (mg/k
71.
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
U030
0.055
(3)
15
72.
Butylbenzyl phthalate
K086
0.017
(3)
7.9
73.
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
P020
0.066
(3)
2.5
74.
p-Chloroaniline
P024
0.46
(3)
16
75.
Chlorobenzilate
U038
0.10
(3)
TS
76.
p-Chloro ¦-cresol
U039
0.01B
(3)
14
77.
2*Chloronaphthatene
U047
0.055
(3)
5.6
78.
2-Chlorophenol
K105
0.044
(3)
4.4
U048
0.044
(3)
5.7
80.
Chrysene
IC035
0.059
(3)
3.4
K048
0.043
(1)
15
K049
0.043
(1)
15
K051
0.043
(1)
15
K087
0.028
(1)
3.4
U050
0.059
(3)
8.2
81.
Ortho-Cresol
K035
0.11
(3)
NR
K052
0.011
(1)
6.2
U0S2
0.11
(3)
5.6
SDR
2.82
0.75
82.
Para-Cresol
K035
0.77
(3)
NR
K052
0.011
(1)
6.2
U052
0.77
(3)
3.2
SDR
2.82
0.75
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Uaste Constituents
Semivolatile Organics (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Hon-wasteuater
nurfier name constituent is regulated standard (mg/l) standard (mg/kg)
232.
Cyctohexanone
K083
0.36
(3)
NR
(3)
IC086
0.36
(3)
NR
(3)
U057
0.36
(3)
TS
(3)
SOR
0.125
0.75""
83.
Oibenz(a,h)-anthracene
K035
NR
3.4
(3)
U063
0.055
(3)
8.2
(3)
84.
Dibenzo(a,e)-pyrene
NR
86.
m-Dichlorobenzene
K08S
0.036
(3)
4.4
(3)
K096
0.036
(3)
5.6
(2)
U071
0.036
(3)
6.2
(3)
87.
o-D i chIorobenzene
K030
0.008
(1)
NR
K042
0.088
(3)
4.4
(3)
K085
0.088
(3)
4.4
(3)
K086
0.088
(3)
6.2
(3)
K10S
0.088
(3)
4.4
(3)
DO 70
0.088
(3)
6.2
(3)
88.
p-0 i ch I orobenzene
K019
0.008
(1)
NR
K030
0.008
(1)
NR
K042
0.090
(3)
4.4
(3)
K08S
0.090
(3)
4.4
(3)
K105
0.090
(3)
4.4
(3)
U072
0.090
(3)
6.2
(3)
SOR
0.65
0.125""
89.
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
U073
TS
(3)
TS
(3)
234.
Cis-1,4-0ichloro-2-butene
U074
TS
(3)
TS
(3)
90.
2,4-Dtchlorophenol
IC043
0.049
(2)
0.38
(2)
U061
0.044
(3)
14
(3)
91.
2,6-Dichlorophenol
K043
0.013
(2)
0.34
(2)
U082
0.044
(3)
14
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Sewivolatile Oroanics (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-wastewater
nuifcer name constituent is regulated standard (mg/l) standard (mg/kg)
92.
Diethyl phthalate
IC086
0.20
(3)
28
(3)
U088
0.54
(2)
28
(2)
93.
3,3•-Dimethoxybenzidine
U091
TS
(3)
TS
<3)
94.
p-D inethy I ami noazobenzene
U093
0.13
(3)
TS
(3)
95.
3,3'-Di«iethylbenzidine
U09S
TS
(3)
TS
(3)
96.
2,4-Dinethyl phenol
K049
0.033
(1)
MR
K052
0.033
(1)
NR
U101
0.036
(3)
14
(3)
97.
Dlnethyl phthalate
K086
0.047
(3)
28
(3)
U102
0.54
(2)
28
(2)
98.
Di-n-butyl phthalate
K048
0.060
(1)
3.6
(3)
K051
0.060
(1)
3.6
(3)
K086
0.057
(3)
28
(3)
U069
0.54
(2)
28
(2)
99.
1,4-0initrobenzene
NR
100.
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
P047
0.28'"
(3)
160'"
(3)
101.
2,4-Dinitrophenol
K103
0.61
(1)
5.6
(1>
IC104
0.61
(1)
5.6
(1)
P048
0.12
(3)
160
(3)
102.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
K025
TS
(3)
TS
(3)
U105
0.32
(3)
140
(3)
103.
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
U106
0.55
(3)
28
(3)
104.
Oi-n-octyl phthalate
K086
0.017
(3)
28
(3)
O107
0.54
(2)
28
(2)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Semi volatile Organics (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-wastewater
number name constituent is regulated standard (mg/l) standard (mg/kg)
105.
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
U111
0.40
(3)
14
(3)
106.
Oiphenyl amine
*022
0.52'"
(3)
NR
K083
0.52'"
(3)
NR
219.
Diphenylnitrosamine
K022
O.^O'1'
(3)
NR
K083
0.40"'
(3)
NR
107.
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
U109
TS
(3)
TS
(3)
108.
F luoranthene
K035
0.068
(3)
3.4
(3)
IC087
0.028
(1)
3.4
(1)
U120
0.068
(3)
8.2
(3)
109.
Fluorene
K019
0.007
(1)
NR
K035
NR
3.4
(3)
IC048
0.050
<1>
NR
K0S1
0.050
(1)
NR
110.
HexachIorobenzene
F025"'
0.055
(3)
37
(3)
K016
0.033
(1)
28
(1)
IC018
0.033
<1>
28
(1)
K085
0.055
(3)
4.4
(3)
U127
0.055
(3)
37
(3)
111.
HexachIorobutadiene
F025'"
0.055
(3)
28
(3)
IC016
0.007
(1)
5.6
(1)
K018
0.007
(1)
5.6
(1)
K028
0.007
(2)
5.6
(2)
K030
0.007
(1)
5.6
(1)
U128
0.055
(3)
28
(3)
112.
HexachIorocyclopentadi ene
IC016
0.007
(1)
5.6
(1)
K032
0.057
(3)
2.4
(3)
K033
0.057
(3)
2.4
(3)
K034
0.057
(3)
2.4
(3)
IC097
0.057
(3)
2.4
(3)
U130
0.057
(3)
3.6
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Semivolatile Organics (continued)
BOAT list
number
Constituent
Codes in which
constituent is regulated
Wastewater
standard (mg/l)
Non-wastewater
standard (mg/kg)
113.
HexachIoroethane
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
36.
121.
HexachIorophene
HexachIoropropene
Ideno-(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isosafrole
Hethapyrilene
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4'-Methylenebfs-
(2-chloro-aniline)
Methyl aethane-sulfonate
Mapthalene
F024
F025"
K016
IC018
K019
K028
K030
K073
K095
U131
U132
K030
U243
K035
K087
U137
11141
U155
U157
1)158
K001
K019
K03S
K048
K049
K051
K052
0.036
0.055
0.033
NR
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.055
0.055
0.055
TS
NR
0.035
NR
0.028
0.0055
0.081
0.081
0.0055
0.50
NR
0.031
0.007
0.059
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
(2)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1>
(1)
1.8
30
28
28
28
28
28
30
28
28
TS
19
28
3.4
3.4
8.2
2.6
1.5
15
35
1.5
5.6
3.4
42
42
42
42
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Uaste Constituents
Semivolatile Organics (continued)
BOAT list
nuifcer
Constituent
name
Codes in which
constituent is regulated
Wastewater
standard (mg/l)
Hon-wastewater
standard (mg/kg)
121.
Napthalene (continued)
K060
0.028
(3)
3.4
K086
0.059
(3)
3.1
K087
0.028
(1)
3.4
U051
0.031
(3)
1.5
U165
0.059
(3)
3.1
122.
1,4-Napththoquinone
11166
TS
(3)
TS
123.
1-Napthylamine
0167
TS
(3)
TS
124.
2-Naphthylamine
U168
0.52
(3)
TS
O-Nitroanitine
K101
0.27
(1)
14
125.
p-Nitroaniline
P077
0.028
(3)
28
126.
Nitrobenzene
K025
TS
(3)
TS
K083
0.068
(3)
14
IC086
0.068
(3)
14
K103
0.073
(1)
5.6
K104
0.073
(1)
5.6
U169
0.068
(3)
14
SOR
0.66
0.125
127.
4-Nitrophenol
K025
TS
(3)
TS
U170
0.12
(3)
29
O-Nitrophenol
K102
0.028
(1)
13
128.
N-Ni trosodi-n-butylami ne
U172
0.40
(3)
17
129.
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
U174
0.40
(3)
28
130.
N-NitrosodimthyIamine
P082
0.40
(3)
TS
131.
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
MR
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Semivolatile Oraanics (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in uhich Wastewater Non-wastewater
nuMber name constituent is regulated standard (mg/l) standard (ng/kg)
132.
N•NitrosomorphoIine
NR
133.
N-Nitrosopiperidine
U179
0.013
(3)
35
(3)
134.
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
U180
0.013
(3)
35
(3)
135.
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
U181
0.32
(3)
28
(3)
136.
PentachIorobenzene
K030
MR
28
(1)
K042
0.055
(3)
4. 4
(3)
K08S
0.055
(3)
4.4
(3)
U183
0.055
(3)
37
(3)
137.
Pent achIoroethane
K018
0.007
<1>
5.6
U1B4
TS
(3)
TS
(3)
138.
Pentachloronitrobenzene
U185
0.055
(3)
4.8
(3)
139.
PentachIorophenol
K001
0.18
<3)
7.4
(3)
K043
0.22
(2)
1.9
(2)
U051
0.18
(3)
7.4
(3)
SOR
0.01
0.01""
UO.
Ptienacetin
U187
0.081
<3)
16
(3)
HI.
Phenanthrene
K001
0.031
(3)
1.5
(3)
KOI 5
0.27
<1>
3.4
(3)
KOI 9
0.007
(1)
5.6
(1)
K03S
0.059
(3)
3.4
(3)
*048
0.039
(1)
34
(3)
K049
0.039
(1)
34
(3)
K051
0.039
<1>
34
(3)
K052
0.039
(1)
34
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Semivolatile Orqanics (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Hon-wastewater
nunfcer name constituent is regulated standard (mg/l) standard (mg/kg)
141.
Phenanthrene (continued)
IC087
0.028
(1)
3.4
(1)
U051
0.031
(3)
1.5
(3)
142.
Phenol
K022
0.039
(3)
12
K035
0.039
(3)
NR
K048
0.047
(1)
3.6
(3)
IC049
0.047
(1)
3.6
(3)
K050
0.047
(1)
3.6
(3)
K051
0.047
(1)
3.6
(3)
K052
0.047
(1)
3.6
(3)
K060
0.042
(3)
3.4
(3)
K083
0.039
(3)
5.6
(3)
K103
1.4
(1)
5.6
(1)
K104
1.4
(1)
5.6
(1)
K10S
0.039
(3)
4.4
(3)
U188
0.039
(3)
6.2
(3)
220.
Ptithalic anhydride
IC023
0.54
(2)
28
(2)
K024
0.54
(2)
28
(2)
K093
0.54
(2)
28
(2)
K094
0.54
(2)
28
(2)
U190
0.54
(2)
28
(2)
144.
Pronamide
U192
0.093
(3)
1.5
(3)
145.
Pyrene
K001
0.028
(3)
1.5
(3)
K035
0.067
(3)
8.2
(3)
K04B
0.045
(1)
36
(3)
K049
0.045
(1)
36
(3)
K051
0.045
(1)
36
(3)
U051
0.028
(3)
1.5
(3)
146.
Resorcinol
U201
TS
(3)
TS
(3)
147.
Safrole
U203
0.081
(3)
22
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Semivolatile Organics (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-wastewater
number name constituent is regulated standard (mg/l) standard (mg/kg)
148.
1,2,4,5-letrachIorobenzene
K019
0.017
(1)
NR
K030
0.017
(1)
14
(1)
K042
0.055
(3)
4.4
(3)
K085
0.055
(3)
4.4
(3)
U207
0.055
(3)
19
(3)
149.
Total-Tetrachlorophenol
K043
0.018
(2)
0.68
(2)
SOR
0.01
0.01""
ISO.
1,2,4-T r i ch I orobenstene
roi9
0.023
(1)
19
(1)
K030
0.023
(1)
19
(1)
K042
0.055
(3)
4.4
(3)
K085
0.055
(3)
4.4
(3)
K096
0.055
(3)
19
(2)
151.
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
D017
TS
(3)
7.9
(3)
K043
0.016
(2)
8.2
(2)
K105
0.18
(3)
4.4
(3)
SDR
0.05
0.05""
152.
2,4,6-THchIorophenol
K043
0.039
(2)
7.6
(2)
K105
0.035
(3)
4.4
(3)
SOR
0.05
0.15""
153.
Tris(2,3-dibroMO-propyl)-phosphate
U235
0.025
(2)
0.1
(2)
-------
Regulator/ Standards for BOAT List Uaste Constituents
Metals
BOAT list
nmfcer
Constituent
Codes in which
constituent is regulated
Wastewater
standard
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Hetals (continued)
BOAT list
nuriier
Constituent
Codes in which
constituent is regulated
Wastewater
standard (ng/l)
Non-wastewater standard (ng/1)
(TCLP values, otherwise noted)
158.
Cadaiua (continued)
159.
ChroaiiiM (total)
K028
6.4
(2)
NR
(2)
r06l""
1.61
(3)
0.14
(1)
K061""
1.61
(3)
0.14
(1)
K069
1.6
(3)
0.14
(3)
K100
1.6
(3)
0.066
(3)
K101
0.24
(3)
0.066
(1)
K102
0.24
(3)
0.066
(1)
0007
5.0
(3)
5.0
(3)
0007""
NA
TS
(3)
F006
0.32
(3)
5.2
(1)
F007
0.32
(2)
5.2
(2)
FOOfl
0.32
(2)
5.2
(2)
F009
0.32
(2)
5.2
(2)
F011
0.32
(2)
5.2
(2)
F012
0.32
(2)
5.2
(2)
F019
0.32
(3)
5.2
(3)
F024
0.35
(2)
0.073
(3)
K002
2.9
(3)
0.094
(3)
K003
2.9
(3)
0.094
(3)
IC004
2.9
(3)
0.094
(3)
K005
2.9
(3)
0.094
(3)
K006 (anhydrous)
2.9
(3)
0.094
(3)
K006 (hydrated)
2.9
(3)
5.2
(3)
K007
2.9
(3)
0.094
(3)
K008
2.9
(3)
0.094
(3)
K015
0.32
(1)
1.7
(3)
K022
0.35
(3)
5.2
(1)
K028
0.35
(2)
0.073
(3)
K048
0.20
(1)
1.7
(1)
K049
0.20
(1)
1.7
(1)
K0S0
0.20
(1)
1.7
(1)
K051
0.20
(1)
1.7
(1)
K052
0.20
(1)
1.7
(1)
*061""
0.32
(3)
5.2
(1)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Hetals (continued)
¦DAT list
nunfcer
Constituent
Codes in which
constituent is regulated
Wastewater
standard (mg/l)
Non-wastewater standard (mg/l)
(TCLP values, otherwise noted)
159.
ChroaiiM (total) (continued)
221.
160.
161.
ChromiiN (hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Lead acid batteries
K061""
0.32
(3)
5.2
K062
0.32
(1)
0.094
K086
0.32
(1>
0.094
K100
0.32
(3)
5.2
K101
NR
5.2
K102
NR
5.2
U03Z
0.32
(3)
0.094
MR
NR
D008
5.0
(3)
5.0"'
D008
TS
(3)
TS
0008""
NA
TS
F006
0.040
(3)
0.51
F007
0.040
(2)
0.51
F008
0.040
(2)
0.51
F009
0.040
(2)
0.51
F011
0.040
(2)
0.51
F012
0.040
(2)
0.51
F024
NR
(2)
Reserved
K001
0.037
(1)
0.51
IC002
(3)
0.37
K003
(3)
0.37
K004
(3)
0.3 7
KOOS
(3)
0.37
K006 (anhydrous)
(3)
0.37
K006 (hydrated)
(3)
5.2
K007
(3)
0.37
K008
(3)
0.37
K028
0.037
(2)
0.021
K044
TS
(3)
TS
K045
TS
(3)
TS
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Uaste Constituents
Metals {continued)
¦OAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Hon-wastewater standard (ng/l)
raafcer naae constituent is regulated standard (ng/l) (TCLP values, otherwise noted)
161. Lead (continued)
K046
0.037 (3)
0.18
(3)
K047
TS (3)
TS
(3)
K048
0.037 (1)
NR
K049
0.037 (1)
NR
K050
0.037 (1)
NR
K051
0.037 (1)
NR
K0S2
0.037 (1)
NR
K061
0.51 (3)
0.24
(1)
K062
0.04 (1)
0.37
(1)
K069
0.51 (3)
0.24
(3)
K086
0.037 (3)
0.37
(3)
K087
0.037 (1)
0.51
(1)
K100
0.51 (3)
0.51
(3)
K101
0.17 (3)
0.51
(1)
K102
0.17 (3)
0.51
(1)
P110
0.040 (3)
0.51
(3)
U051
0.037 (3)
0.51
(3)
U144
0.040 (3)
0.51
(3)
U145
0.040 (3)
0.51
(3)
U146
0.040 (3)
0.51
(3)
162. Mercury
0009'"
0.20 (3)
TS"'
(3)
0009"'
0.20 (3)
TS'*'
(3)
0009'"
0.20 (3)
0.20'"
(3)
0009""
NA
TS
(3)
K071
0.030 (1)
0.025
(3)
K101
0.082 (3)
NR
K102
0.082 (3)
NR
K106'"
0.030 (3)
TS
(3)
K106'*'
0.030 (3)
0.20'"
(3)
K106'*'
0.030 (3)
0.025'*'
(3)
P065'"
0.030 (3)
TS
(3)
P065'"
0.030 (3)
0.20"'
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Metals (continued)
BOAT (1st
nuiter
Constituent
Codes in which
constituent is regulated
Wastewater
standard (mg/l)
Non-wastewater standard (mg/l)
(TCIP values, otherwise noted)
162.
Mercury (continued)
163.
Nickel
P065'"
0.030
(3)
0.025'*'
(3)
P065
0.030
(3)
TS
(3)
P092
0.030
(3)
TS
(3)
U151'"
0.030
(3)
TS
(3)
U151w
0.030
(3)
0.20
(3)
U151'*'
0.030
(3)
0.025*"
(3)
U151"1'
NA
TS
(3)
F006
0.44
(3)
0.32
(1)
F007
0.44
(2)
0.32
(2)
F008
0.44
(2)
0.32
(2)
F009
0.44
(2)
0.32
(2)
F011
0.44
(2)
0.32
(2)
F012
0.44
(2)
0.32
(2)
F024
0.47
(2)
0.088
(3)
K01S
0.44
(1)
0.20
(3)
K022
0.47
(3)
0.032
(1)
K028
0.47
(2)
0.088
(3)
K048
NR
0.20
(1)
IC049
NR
0.20
(1)
K050
NR
0.20
(1)
K051
NR
0.20
(1)
K052
NR
0.20
(1)
K061""
0.44
(3)
0.32
(1)
K061""
0.44
(3)
0.32
(1)
K062
0.44
(1)
NR
K083
0.47
(3)
0.088
(3)
K101
NR
0.32
(1)
K102
NR
0.32
(1)
K115
0.47
(2)
0.32
(2)
P073
0.32
(3)
0.32
(3)
P074
0.44
(2)
0.32
(2)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT list Uaste Constituents
Metals (continued)
¦OAT list
number
Constituent
Codes in which
constituent is regulated
Wastewater
standard (ng/l)
Non-wastewater standard (wg/l)
(TCLP values, otherwise noted)
164.
Seleniua
165.
Silver
166.
Thallius
167.
168.
Vandadiu*
Zinc
0010
0010""
K048
K049
K050
K051
K052
P103
P114
U204
U20S
0011
0011""
F006
F011
F012
P099
P104
P113
P114
P115
U214
U215
U216
U217
P119
P120
P122
U249
1.0
NA
NR
NR
NR
MR
NR
1
1
1.
0
0
0
1.0
5.0
NA
NR
NR
NR
0.29
0.29
0.14
NR
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
28
28
TS
IS
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
13)
(3)
(3)
TS
TS
5.7
TS
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.0
TS
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
TS
NR
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Inorganics Other Than Hetats
BOAT list
nuntier
Constituent
name
Codes in which
constituent is regulated
Wastewater
standard (mg/l)
Non-wastewater
standard (mg/kg)
169.
Cyanides (total)
169.
Cyanide (amenable)
D003
Reserved
(3)
590
(3>
F006
1.2
(3)
590
(2)
F007
1.9
(2)
590
(2)
F008
1.9
(2)
590
(2)
F009
1.9
(2)
590
(2)
F010
1.9
(2)
1.5
(2)
F011
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
FD12
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
F019
1.2
(3)
590
(3)
KOOS
0.74
(3)
Reserved
(3)
K007
0.74
(3)
Reserved
(3)
KO11
21
(3)
57
(2)
K013
21
(3)
57
(2)
K014
21
(3)
57
(2)
K048
0.028
(3)
1.8
(1)
K049
0.028
(3)
1.8
(1)
K050
0.028
(3)
1.8
(1)
K051
0.028
(3)
1.8
(1)
K052
0.028
(3)
1.8
(1)
K060
1.9
(3)
1.2
(3)
K086
1.9
(3)
1.5
(3)
K104
2.7
(1)
1.8
(3)
P013
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
P021
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
P029
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
P030
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
P063
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
P074
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
P098
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
P099
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
P104
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
P106
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
P121
1.9
(2)
110
(2)
D003
0.86
(3)
30
(3)
F006
0.86
(3)
30
(2)
F007
0.10
(2)
30
(2)
F008
0.10
(2)
30
(2)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOM list Waste Constituents
Inorganics Other Than Metals (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-wastewater
nunfcer name constituent is regulated standard (ng/l) standard (mg/kg)
169.
Cyanide (amenable) (continued)
F009
0.10
(2)
30
(2)
F010
0.10
(2)
NR
F011
0.10
(2)
9.1
(2)
F012
0.10
(2)
9.1
(2)
F019
0.86
(3)
30
(3)
K011
Reserved
Reserved
KOI 3
Reserved
Reserved
K014
Reserved
Reserved
P013
0.1
(2)
9.1
(2)
P021
0.1
(2)
9.1
(2)
P029
0.1
(2)
9.1
(2)
P030
0.1
(2)
9.1
(2)
P063
0.1
(2)
9.1
(2)
P074
0.2
(2)
9.1
(2)
P098
0.1
(2)
9.1
(2)
P099
0.1
(2)
9.1
(2)
P104
0.1
(2)
9.1
(2)
P106
0.1
(2)
9.1
(2)
P121
0.1
(2)
9.1
(2)
170.
Fluoride
P056
35
(3)
TS
(3)
U134
35
(3)
TS
(3)
171.
Sulfide
MR
Pesticides
Oraanochlorine Pesticides
172.
Aldrin
POM
0.021
(3)
0.066
(3)
173.
alpha-BHC
U129
O.OOOH
(3)
0.066
(3)
174.
beta-BHC
U129
0.00014
(3)
0.066
(3)
175.
delta-BHC
U129
0.023
(3)
0.066
(3)
176.
ganma-BHC (Lindane)
0013
IS
(3)
0.066
(3)
U129
0.0017
(3)
0.066
(3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Organochtorine Pesticides (continued)
BOAT list
nuifcer
Constituent
name
Codes in which
constituent is regulated
Wastewater
standard (mg/l)
Hon-wastewater
standard (mg/kg)
177.
Chlordane
K032
(C097
U036
0.0033 (3)
0.0033 (3)
0.0033 (3)
0.26 (3)
0.26 (3)
0.13 (3)
178.
p.p'DDO
U060
U061
0.023 (3)
0.023 (3)
0.087 (3)
0.087 13)
235.
o.p'OOD
U060
U061
0.023 (3)
0.023 (3)
0.087 (3)
0.087 (3)
179.
p,p(DDE
U061
0.031 (3)
0.087 (3)
236.
o.p'DDE
U061
0.031 (3)
0.087 (3)
180.
p.p'DDT
U061
0.0039 (3)
0.087 (3)
237.
O.p'DOT
U061
0.0039 (3)
0.087 (3)
181.
Dieldrin
P037
0.017 (3)
0.13 (3)
1B2.
Endosulfan I
P050
0.023 (3)
0.066 (3)
183.
Endosutfan II
P050
0.029 (3)
0.13 (3)
238.
Endosulfan sulfate
P050
0.029 (3)
0.13 (3)
184.
Endrin
D012
P051
TS (3)
0.0028 (3)
0.13 (J)
0.13 (J)
185.
Endrin aldehyde
P051
0.025 (3)
0.13 (J)
186.
Heptachlor
K032
K097
P059
0.0012 (3)
0.0012 (3)
0.0012 (3)
0.066 (3)
0.066 (3)
0.066 (3)
187.
Heptachlor epoxide
K032
K097
P059
0.016 (3)
0.016 (3)
0.016 (3)
0.066 (3)
0.066 (3)
0.066 (3)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Organochlorine Pesticides (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-wastewater
number name constituent is regulated standard (mg/t) standard (mg/kg)
188.
Isodrin
POM
0.021
(3)
0.066
(3)
189.
Kepone
U142
0.0011
(3)
0.13
(3)
190.
Nethoxyclor
DOH
TS
(3)
0.18
(3)
U247
0.25
(3)
0.18
<3)
191.
Toxaphene
D015
TS
(3)
1.3
<3)
K041
0.009S
(3)
2.6
(3)
K098
0.0095
(3)
2.6
(3)
P123
0.0095
(3)
1.3
(3)
Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides
192.
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
D016
TS
(3)
10
(3)
IC099
1.0
(1)
1.0
(1)
U240
0.72
(3)
10
(3)
193.
SiIvex
MR
194.
2.4.5-T
0017
TS
(3)
7.9
(3)
Oraanoohosohorous Insecticides
195.
Disulfoton
K036
0.025
(2)
0.1
(3)
K037
0.025
(3)
0.1
(1)
P039
0.017
(2)
0.1
(2)
196.
Fanphur
P097
0.025
(2)
0.1
(2)
197.
Methyl parathion
P071
0.025
(2)
0.1
(2)
198.
Parathion
P089
0.025
(2)
0.1
(2)
199.
Phorate
K038
0.025
(2)
0.1
(2)
K040
0.025
(2)
0.1
(2)
P094
0.025
(2)
0.1
(2)
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Uaste Constituents
PCBs
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Hon-wastewater
niafcer name constituent is regulated standard (ng/l) standard (mg/kg)
200.
Aroclor 1016
K085
0.013
(3)
0.92
(3)
201.
Aroclor 1221
K085
0.014
(3)
0.92
(3)
202.
Aroclor 1232
K085
0.013
(3)
0.92
(3)
203.
Aroclor 1242
K085
0.017
(3)
0.92
(3)
204.
Aroclor 1248
K085
0.013
(3)
0.92
(3)
205.
Aroclor 1254
K085
0.014
(3)
1.8
(3)
206.
Aroclor 1260
K085
0.014
(3)
1.8
(3)
Dioxins and Furans
207.
Hexach I orod i benzo - p-d i ox i n
F024
0.001
(2)
0.001
(2)
K043
0.001
(2)
0.001
(2)
K099
0.001
(1)
0.001
(1)
SDR
0.001
0.001""
208.
HexachIordi benzo-furans
F024
0.001
(2)
0.001
K043
0.001
(2)
0.001
(2)
K099
0.001
(1)
0.001
(1)
S0R
0.001
0.001"*'
209.
PentachIorodibenzo-p-dioxin
F024
0.001
(2)
0.001
(2)
K043
0.001
(2)
0.001
(2)
K099
0.001
(1)
0.001
(1)
SDR
0.001
0.001""
210.
PentachIorodi benzo-furans
F024
0.001
(2)
0.001
(2)
K043
0.001
(2)
0.001
(2)
K099
0.001
(1)
0.001
(1)
SDR
0.001
0.001""
-------
Regulatory Standards for BOAT List Waste Constituents
Dioxins and Furans (continued)
BOAT list Constituent Codes in which Wastewater Non-wastewater
nuMber nam constituent is regulated standard (ng/l) standard (mg/kg)
211.
Tetrachtorodibenzo-p-dioxin
K043
0.011
(2)
0.001
(2)
K099
0.001
(1)
0.001
(1)
SOR
0.001
0.001""
211.
Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans
F024
0.001
(2)
0.001
(2)
K043
0.001
(2)
0.001
(2)
IC099
0.001
(1)
0.001
(1)
SOR
0.001
0.001""
213.
2,3,7,8-Tetraehlorodibenzo-
SOR
0.001
0.001""
p-dioxin
------- |