NCD980602163_19950824_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Joint Working Group documents-OCR

,)
!l'-1 ~ u.e, q5 ""PCB l012r:o G~l..lf
Co ~ Ur:s M.,f6
fur w e..QQ_ F~ru~i ~ ~ cst,...5te..R. / .,)
bt) B.-1"3 ~p,~ f ~Klrujb.-0 /t..-bat):'__ fo LJa.ymJUh_
~ --:CM¼ 'CJ CAG'IU-Q A-o,JJ,:,Jll R F'"P Cn~o. ')'r ~ ~
~ 1hiu\~ r~ t cJJv ~ ~ i!",.¥>dr;;e~)cot,~ ¥~~ ~,._ ~ ~ ~~•-•ct: e .. a,.,w~
~ ao&Jtx><· .Ja :AA ~ ~ "
O"R ""°"'-~(!)W.J\n~o..f<
• 1'rov,~ ~~ ~l"'j o..:b ~ ~ ~
~ <-. t0.. ~ ~ J .
'b~ '2-fr
-, h j~ l~
It M~lA~ -~ r()~ MS'tu:>5JM •
~ \W~ IV\(l)')~r·\~
plAD ~ ~ ptersa\-\,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources .
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L Meyer, Director
NA
DEHNR
August 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Members of Working Group
FROM: Bill Meyer
SUBJECT: RFP For Pilot Scale BCD Study
Enclosed is a significant modification to the original RFP. Dee Strickland suggested several
changes that have been incorporated. The changes were necessary to insure that potential
respondents clearly understand what is expected.
If the Working Group would review the RFP and give me feedback, I can complete/finalize it
quickly. I am currently working on a model contract that will be included in the RFP. The
contract will be fixed price and negotiated AFTER EPA approves the applications for
alternatives to PCB disposal.
At least 25% of the total contract is intended to be withheld until the Working Group is satisfied
with the final reports required. In order to keep the process moving, I will not submit the model
contract to the Working Group for approvals, since the terms of a contract must meet relatively
strict State standards; this should not be a concern for the Working Group.
Please note the sequence and schedule of activities in the RFP. These are just estimates but may
be more realistic and longer than members of the Working Group anticipate. If anyone can
suggest/recommend how to reduce the schedule or activities, it would be helpful.
Enclosed are four copies of the guidelines for application to the EPA for a R&D or alternative
technology demonstration under TSCA. It is relatively thorough and provides for concerns
expressed by the Working Group.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
I -I
PROPOSAL NO. __ § Q __ Issue Date: 1995 ---
N C DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT HEAL TH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF GENERAL SERVICES
Request for Proposal
for
Closing Date: _____ _.__1.:..::9=9-=5
Send all proposals directly to :
(if using U.S. Postal Service)
(if proposal is transmitted by
a courier service such as UPS,
Federal Express, etc. send to)
Time: 2:00 p.m.
NC Department of Environment
Health and Natural Resources
Division of General Services
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7687
Attn: Doris E. Strickland
NC Department of Environment
Health and Natural Resources
Division of General Services
225 N. McDowell St., Room 6013
Raleigh , N. C. 27603
Attn : Doris E. Strickland
Please note the proposal number and closing date on the bottom left hand corner
of your return envelope.
PARTI
SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS
1.1 This request for proposals (hereinafter referred to as ("RFP") solicits
proposals for contractual services pursuant to Section 1 NCAC 50.0300-
.0509 of North Carolina Administrative Code.
Mark outside of return envelopes: Reply to __ § Q __
1.2 Using Agency
The services solicited herein shall be performed for:
Department of Environment, Health , and Natural Resources
1.3 Issuing Agency
Department of Environment, Health , and Natural Resources
Division of General Services
225 N. McDowell Street
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Attention: Doris E. Strickland
Telephone: [phone]
1.4 Copies of this request for proposals will be distributed only by mail or they
can be obtained in person from Room 6013 , Cooper Building , 225 N.
McDowell St., Raleigh, NC 27603 .
1.5 Sealed proposals subject to the terms and conditions made a part hereof
will be received at the address specified in 1.3 until 2:00 p.m. 1995.
1.6 Refer technical inquiries to address/person specified in 1.3.
1.7 Pursuant to Article 3 and 3C, Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General
Statutes and Executive Order No. 77, the State invites and encourages
participation in this procurement by businesses owned by minorities, women
and the disabled including utilization as subcontractors to perform
functions under this Request for Proposals.
1.8 Subcontracting: Offerers may propose to subcontract portions of the work
provided that their proposals clearly indicate what work they plan to
subcontract and to whom and that all information required about the prime
contractor is also included for each proposed subcontractor.
1.9 Performance and Default: The State reserves the right to require a
Performance Bond or other suitable performance guarantee from the
...
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
successful offeror as provided by law without expense to the State. In case
of default by the contractor, the State may procure the services from other
sources and hold the Contractor responsible for any excess cost
occasioned thereby.
Pricing : If either a unit price or an extended price is obviously in error and
the other is obviously correct, the incorrect price will be disregarded. The
right is reserved to accept other than the lowest priced proposal as may be
determined to serve the best interest of the State Agency.
Specifications: Any deviation from specifications indicated herein must be
clearly pointed out; otherwise, it will be considered that the proposal offered
is in strict compliance with these specifications, and the successful offerer
will be held responsible therefor. Deviations must be explained in detail on
an attached sheet(s).
Exceptions: All proposals are subject to Ure terms and conditions outlined
herein . All responses will be controlled by such terms and conditions and
the submission of other terms and conditions and/or other documents as
part of an offerer's response will be waived and have no effect either on
this Request for Proposals or on any contract that may be awarded
resulting from this solicitation . The attachment of other terms and
conditions by an offerer may be grounds for rejection of that offerer's
proposal.
Award: All qualified Proposals will be evaluated and acceptance made on
the Proposal judged by the Contracting Agency to constitute the best value
offered for the purpose intended . Evaluation will be based on the offerers
qualifications, experience , similar related experience, past performance ,
financial standing, labor supply, hours offered , references , cost and overall
demonstrated ability to perform the service required . The Contracting
Agency reserves the right to contract with more than one offeror to provide
the services described herein.
1.14 No Bid/Offer: Unless a response , in the form of either a proposal or a
written decline to offer a proposal , is received, offeror's name may be
removed from the applicable mailing list.
1.15 Cost for Proposal Preparation: The State will not reimburse offerors for
costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal.
1.16 Offerer's Representative for Business Purpose: The name, mailing
address, and telephone number of the offerer's authorized agent with
authority to bind the firm and answer official questions concerning the
offerer's proposal must be clearly stated .
1.17 Time for Consideration: Preference may be given to proposals allowing not
less than 30 days for consideration and acceptance.
1.18 Telegraphic Offers: Telegraphic, telecopy and facsimile offers will not be
considered; however, offers may be modified by such means , providing
such notice is received prior to the date and time of bid opening above
specified, and provided a signed original follows.
1.19 Any explanation desired by an offerer regarding the meaning or
interpretation of the RFP, attachments, specifications, etc. must be
requested in writing and with sufficient time allowed for a reply tc reach
offerers before the submission of their offer. Oral explanation of
instructions given before the award of the contract will not be binding . Any
information given to a prospective offerer concerning the RFP will be
furnished to all prospective offerers as an amendment to RFP, if such
information is necessary to offerers in submitting offers on the RFP or if the
lack of such information would be prejudicial to uninformed offerers .
1.19.1 Acknowledgement of Amendments to RFP: Receipt by an
offerer of an amendment to this RFP must be acknowledged
by including a copy of the amendment with offerer's proposa l.
1.20 The successful offerer shall provide adequate facilities , labor, equipment,
services, supe'rvision and lay days to meet all conditions of the contract
specifications.
1.21 Liability: The successful offerer Shall assume liability for damage or loss
resulting from the wrongful act(s) and/or negligence of its employees wh il e
engaged in the performance of the contract. The contractor or its insurer
shall reimburse the Contracting Agency for any such damage or loss within
30 days after a claim is submitted.
1.22 Insurance: The successful offerer shall at its sole cost and expense
procure and maintain in full force and effect during the term of the contract
from an insurance company duly authorized to do business In North
Carolina, insurance as appropriate for the conduct of the contract
1.22 .1
1.22.2
1.22.3
1.22.4
Worker's Compensation Insurance covering all of contractor's
employees who are engaged in any work under the contract.
Public Liability Insurance in the amount of $300 ,000.00 and
Property Damage Insurance in the amount of $100,000.00.
Automobile bodily injury and property damage liability
insurance when the services to be performed require the use
of motor vehicles.
Fidelity bonding (Honesty Bonding)
Contractor shall furnish the State a certificate evidencing required insurance
coverage prior to commencing work. All certificates of insurance shall
provide that the insurance company will give customers fifteen (15) days
•
' I
written notice prior to cancellation or any change in stated coverage of any
such insurance. All insurance shall remain in effect for the duration of the
contract.
Failure to provide current Certificates of Insurance to the Contracting
Agency as required, during the term of this contract will be considered
default and the contract may be cancelled.
1.23 Laws: The contractor shall comply with laws, ordinances, codes, ruIes and
regulations bearing on the conduct of the work including Federal, State and
local agencies having jurisdiction. This shall include, but not be limited to ,
minimum wages, labor and equal employment opportunity laws.
1.24 Each offeror is cautioned that the State is not obligated to ask for or accept,
after the closing date for the receipt of proposals, data which is essential for
a complete and thorough evaluation of the proposals. The State of North
Carolina may award a contract based ori initial offers received without
discussion of such offers. Accordingly , each initial offer should be
submitted on the most favorable and complete price and technical terms
which the offerer can submit to the State .
1.25 The State reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals; to
waive any informality in proposals; and , unless otherwise specified by the
offerer, to accept any item in any proposa l.
1.26 Confidentiality: In submitting its proposal the offerer agrees not to discuss
or otherwise reveal the contents of the proposal to any source outside of
the using or issuing agency, government or private, until after the award of
the contract. Offerers not in compliance with this provision may be
disqualified, at the option of the State, from contract award. Only
discussions authorized by the issuing agency are exempt from this
provision.
1.27 Proprietary Information : All proposals , after the award of the contract, will
be open for public inspection. Trade secrets or similar proprietary data
which the offerer does not wish disclosed to other than personnel involved
in the evaluation or contract administration will be kept confidential to the
extent permitted by NCAC T01 :05B.1501 and G.S. 132-1 .2. Each page
shall be identified in boldface at the top and bottom as "CONFIDENTIAL".
Any section of the proposal which is to remain confidential shall also be
marked in boldface on the title page of that section. Cost information and
certain other information essential to the evaluation of the proposal may not
be deemed confidential.
1.28 Advertising : In submitting its proposal , the offerer agrees not to use the
results therefrom as a part of any news release or commercial advertising
without prior written approval of the Division of Purchase and Contract and
the using agency.
PART II
SCOPE OF WORK
2.0 Background on Warren County PCB Landfill and detoxification commitment.
2.0.1 The State ofN.C. (State) owns and maintains a closed polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) chemical waste landfill permitted in accordance with the Toxic Substance
Control Act (TSCA) and 40 CFR Part 761. The landfill is located in Warren
County, N.C.
2.0.2 The State is committed to detoxification of the landfill utilizing appropriate and
feasible technology.
2.0.3 The State established a Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill Working Group
(Working Group) to evaluate various technologies for detoxification of the
landfill.
2.0.4 The Working Group has determined that base catalyzed dechlorination (BCD)
technology is a potential appropriate and feasible technology for detoxification of
the landfill.
2.0.5 The Working Group has determined that information obtained from multiple
variations of BCD Technology from pilot scale studies are essential for final
evaluation of the appropriateness and feasibility of this BCD for full scale
detoxification of the landfill.
2.1 Goals and Objectives of BCD Pilot Scale Studies
2.1.1 A major objective of BCD Pilot Scale Studies is to determine the
appropriateness and feasibility ofthis technology for full-scale
detoxification of the PCB Landfill.
2.1.2 Appropriateness will be largely measured by the extent and degree of
success of BCD technology to detoxify the PCB Landfill contents. The
minimum goal for detoxification is to reduce PCB concentrations to less
than 2.0ppm and a proportionate reduction in other chlorinated
constituents.
2.1.3 Feasibility will primarily be determined by considerations for safety of the
technology, rate of detoxification, cost per unit of detoxification and
reduction in long term potential for environmental releases from residuals
of the detoxification process.
2.1.4 The primary goal of the BCD Pilot Scale Studies is to provide the
technical data and a scientific basis for recommendations by the Working
Group to the State for full-scale detoxification of the PCB Landfill.
2.3 Characterization of PCB contaminated soils to be utilized for BCD Pilot Scale Studies
2.3.1 PCB contaminated soils are physically characterized in exhibit one.
Generally, the soils are coarse-grained, with less than 30% passing, #200
sieve. The liquid limit and plasticity index is 25 and 8 respectively. Total
organic or humic content is less than 2%. Soils provided for the pilot scale
process will be relatively dry at approximately gravity drainage moisture
content.
2.3.2 PCB contaminated soils are chemically characterized in exhibit two. The
average concentration of PCB is approximately 350ppm with a range of
150 to almost 900ppm. The PCB is a mixture of PCB congeners with
approximately 61 wt% Arochlor 1260, 27 wt% Arochlor 1254 and 12 wt%
Arochlor 1242. Other chemicals including chlorinated benzenes, furans &
dioxins are present in ppb or ppq concentrations.
2.3.3 The State will provide sufficient volume/weight of PCB contaminated
soils from the landfill to complete the pilot scale project. All respondents
must submit the minimum and maximum amount of soils needed for the
project.
2.4 Location of Warren County PCB Landfill
2.4.1 The Warren County PCB Landfill is located approximately 45 miles
northeast of Raleigh N.C. in Warren County.
2.4.2 A vicinity map is enclosed in exhibit three.
2.4.3 Pilot scale detoxification studies will be performed at the PCB Landfill
site.
2.5 PCB Landfill Site Visit and Pre-Proposal Conference
2.5.1 A pre-proposal conference will be held two weeks after the request for
proposals (RFP) is noticed to potential respondents.
2.5.2 A site visit will be provided two weeks after the RFP is noticed ttpotential /
respondents.
2.5.3 Specific times and dates will be established at the time the RFP is noticed.
2.5.4 Attendance at the site visit and pre-proposal conference is prereguisite to
consideration of the offerors proposal.
2.6 Process and Procedures For Implementation of Pilot Scale BCD Studies
2.6.1 The PCB Landfill is subject to TSCA regulations. BCD is considered a
research and development technology or an alternative method of disposal
under TSCA and 40 CFR 761 regulations. Respondents must submit an
application for approval of the project as an alternative method of PCB
disposal to the State and US EPA Region IV in accordance with 40 CFR
761.
2.6.2 Approximately 30 days will be allowed for respondents to submit an
application for BCD as an alternative PCB disposal method. The actual
schedule for submittal of the application will be negotiated during the pre-
proposal conference.
2.6.3 The State will facilitate and administratively support respondents efforts to
obtain US EPA approval.
2.6.4 The US EPA Region IV has committed to provide reasonable priority to
make a decision on respondents applications. The approximate schedule
for EPA to make a decision is 90 days. The quality and completeness of
applications will influence this schedule.
2.6.5 The following documents are enclosed to assist respondents in submitting
an application for alternative methods of PCB disposal.
Draft Guidelines for Permit Applications and Demonstration Plans for PCB Disposal by Non-
thermal Alternative Methods: Fr (48) /62/Wednesday, March 30, 1983,40CFR Part 761
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) Procedural Amendment of the Approval Authority for PCB
Disposal Facilities and Guidelines for Obtaining Approval
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures for Demonstrating PCB Destruction in Filing
for a PCB Disposal Permit, June 28 , 1983
Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quarterly Assurance Project Plans, Dec 29
1980
40 CFR Part 761 -Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commence and Use Prohibition
2. 7 Evaluation/Selection Criteria
2. 7 .1 Adequate response to information required for evaluation by Working
Group.
2.7.2 Adequate submittal and State and EPA approval of Pilot Scale BCD
proposal as an alternative PCB disposal method. Respondents must obtain
EPA and State approval prior to being considered for contracting with the
State for implementing the Pilot Scale Study.
2. 7 .3 Respondents shall submit a description of their business structure and a
compliance history document including:
Brief description of form of business to include partnerships,
corporation or other names, addresses and titles of all officers,
directors or partners of any parent or subsidiary corporation,
partnership or other form of business.
Names, addresses and title of any projects or facilities constructed
or operated by the applicant.
Associate/with environmental control or remediation including
parent subsidiary corporation, partnership or other form of business
2.7.3 Compliance History Documentation -Continued
A list describing any notice of violation, warning or any other
enforcement action taken against any person or facility identified
above. This includes any administrative ruling or offer issued by
any state, federal or local law, regulation or ordinance related to
waste management environmental protection.
2. 7.4 Respondents shall submit documentation of experience with the proposed
technology including:
Number of projects initiated, implemented, completed with same
or similar materials
Contacts/evaluations from federal/state/local oversight agencies on
these projects
2. 7 .5 Respondents shall submit a Health and Safety Plan specific for the
initiation, operation and closure of the project. The plan shall include
demonstration of safe work practices, site sanitation, or site
communication and security.
2.7.6 Respondents shall submit documentation and other information to describe
personnel qualification for personnel implementing the project to include:
Academic qualifications
Specific experience of individuals assigned to projects with similar
contaminants
Company safety training requirements
Includes all proposed sub-contractors
2.7.7 Respondents shall submit Financial Assurance Documents and
information including;
Financial statement on strength of organization
Ability to provide performance bond, letter of credit, trust fund,
insurance
Past enforcement/utilization implementation of financial assurance
mechanisms
2.7.8 Respondents shall submit a Monitoring Capability/ Capacity Plan
including;
Sample/analysis arrangements
Statistical tests to be used for data, precision and accuracy 0f
selected test, verification of all results of pilot scale project
Ability to monitor releases from planned and unplanned events
Soil, air, surface water/groundwater capability
Experience developing implementation QA/QC plans
2.7.9 Respondent shall submit a complete cost analysis/estimate of the project
including:
Cost per unit of material
Cost per unit of decomposition
Cost of management of residuals
Site restoration/decontamination cost estimates
Cost of mobilization to and on site
Total itemized cost of project, including all items considered
essential by the respondent
2. 7 .10 Respondent shall submit documentation and information on any history of
cost over runs on projects that the original contracted costs were exceeded.
The reason or basis for any cost over runs or excedances shall be
submitted.
2.7.11 Respondents shall submit time lines and schedules for implementing the
project. This schedule shall include all aspects of the project from initial
granting of the contract through documentation and removal of structures
and devices utilized in the project.
2. 7 .12 The respondents shall submit documentation and other information on
current and previous experiences in responding to public and citizens
concerns and include:
History of working with community groups (proactive efforts,
communication, management of complaints.)
Presence/capability of staff/personnel for public relations
"Desire" commitment to public relations and participation before,
during and after project completion.
2.7.13 The Working Group will review all information and make a
recommendation for selection of respondents to the State.
2. 7 .14 The State reserves the right to select more than one offeror and award a
contract(s) to other than low bid.
2.8 Deliverables To State
2.8.1 All information requested in sections 2.0 through 2. 7
2.8.2 Interim progress reports, monitoring data and other information requested
by the working group
2.8.3 A final report on the BCD Pilot Scale Project upon completion of the
study
2.8.4 A report of all aspects of BCD technology required for consideration to
scale the process up to full scale detoxification of the PCB Landfill. The
report shall provide data and sufficient technical and cost information that
can be technically and scientifically verified through a peer review
process. The report shall be of sufficient quality to present to the General
Assembly ofN.C. for consideration of funding a full scale BCD process
for detoxifying the PCB Landfill.
2.8.5 The report on full scale applicability shall include at least the following :
Overall protection of human health and the environment.
Short tenn effectiveness and impact on community, environment
workers during implementation of full scale operation.
Reduction of Toxicity and mobility due to treatment, degree of
irreversible treatment, characteristics of residuals.
Lon~ term effectiveness -residual risk and management, reliability
of residual management control.
Implementability -ability to construct and operate proposed BCD
technology, reliability of BCD proposals for full scale, ability to
monitor releases effectiveness of full scale BCD on the PCB
Landfill, and ability to obtain regulatory approval of full scale
BCD process at the PCB Landfill.
,C,Qfil -including capital cost, operating and maintenance cost, cost
per unit of containment and total cost of full scale BCD treatment
of the PCB Landfill.
2.9 Anticipated Sequence of Activity and Schedule for Pilot Scale Studies
2.9 .1 Notice to potential respondents (Day 1)
2.9.2 Pre-proposal conference and site visit(+ 14 Days)
2.9.3 Respondents submit application for alternative PCB disposal and all
information required by Working Group for evaluation/selection (+30
Days) ~ ~b ~~s. ~ve-
2.9.4 Respondents receive decision from USEPA on application for alternative
PCB disposal ( + 120 Days)
2.9 .5 State negotiates fixed cost contract with respondents that receive USEP A
approval for alternative PCB disposal method(+ 125 Days)
2.9.6 Respondents mobilize on PCB Landfill site and initiate Pilot Scale Study
(+ 155 Days)
2.9.7 Respondents complete Pilot Scale Study (+245 Days)
2.9.8 Working Group reviews and makes recommendations to State (+300
Days)
2. 9 .10 All the above may be significantly modified by negotiation with
respondents and events beyond the control of the respondees or the State.
The State and Working Group is committed to ensuring that the process is
implemented on as rapid a track as practicable.
PART Ill
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
3.1 Each offeror responding to this RFP should submit three (3) copies of a
statement of technical qualifications, detailing his firms ability to perf~•:·m the
services required herein. The technical proposal should be in narrative form
and should include at a minimum the information outlined below.
3.1 .1 Information relative to the offerer's background, experience, and such
other information as may be deemed relevant for the purpose of
evaluation of professional skills and capability.
3.1.2 Information describing the size and organizational structure of the
offerer's firm .
3.1 .3 Information describing how each requirement of the scope or work
will be addressed.
3.2 Each offeror should submit a list of client names , type of program, type of
contract (including type of services produced) and inclusive dates of
contracts for similar work.
3.3 Each offerer shall propose a contract schedule and guaranteed completion
date and shall assure the Department that their firm is capable of
maintaining the schedules and meeting the deadlines that have been
established. Any schedule and deadline, once established by contract, can
only be adjusted by mutual consent of all parties thereto.
3.4 Each offerer should furnish complete professional services relating to the
preparation of the scope of work including materials and any necessary
subcontractors. The bid price offered will be a fixed price and shall include
all professional fees for services rendered as well as all incidental travel
and production expenses.
' ' PART IV
FORM OF PROPOSAL
The undersigned bidder proposes and agrees if this proposal is accepted to contract with the
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of _______ to
furnish the services required herein, and to complete the scope of work as described in Part II
hereof. Services should be accomplished in full and complete accordance with the specifications
and contract documents to the full and entire satisfaction of the Division of ______ ,
with a definite understanding that no money will be allowed for extra work except as may be set
forth in written addendum to the contract, duly executed by all parties thereto.
The parties hereto agree that in consideration for performing all the requirements hereunder,
DEHNR shall pay the offerer $ ______ (to be filled in by offerer) for the services as
described herein, said sum to be full and complete compensation for the offerer's services
required herein. -
Pursuant to the provIsIons of G.S. 143-54, and under penalty of perjury, the signer of this
proposal certifies that this proposal has not been arrived at collusively nor otherwise in violatiOil
of Federal nor North Carolina antitrust laws.
Name of Firm or Corporation submitting bid
Federal I.D. Number --------------------------
By : ________________________________ _
Typed Name: ____________________________ _
Title : --------------------------------
Address: ·-------------------------------
Witness : ----------------------'-----------Proprietorship or Partnership
Please indicate if one of the following applies :
Minority Owned/Controlled
Handicapped Owned/Controlled
ATTEST:
Women Owned/Controlled
By: __________________ _
Title: ------------------
Submitted this ____ , day of ________ , 1995
--
Ol\S ~~ ft.U.Kv\
~ bJ b~d p/Yo~
dtr. 1:;o I~~ cvboJJ
w8 gt~ c:{J .~ ~
0 f:fA ~m~iui
v~~,~~
~ w~ v>l ~-<'me. lt'n-0..
ct, ld)11.M ~,u~
i. ~T Pi4.ut'e,.p +-f;·>\a1S ~
~. &-,,' t> ~ ST P£-~
cl ~~-+ revt'~ _
e. . ~--r ~ ~J; ,J:/ar-,
~ <?JilmnuJ ~$a.Jc/ c/;Jm~ ~
<f we{t3 XQ.~ $ av/toJ'tJy ,
Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill Working Group
Meeting Agenda
August 9, 1995
1) Approval of Minutes
2) Committee Reports
3) Old Business
a) Update on money for pilot projects
b) Status of road sign for PCB Landfill
c) Update on draft RFP
4) New Business
a) Letter to EPA requesting funds and technical assistance
b) Addition of dioxin sampling to biannual sampling of landfill and
oversite of that sampling
c) Timeline for RFP and bidding
d) Qualifications for science advisor
e) Fiscal management requirements for working group
5) Other Items
JOINT WARREN COUNTY/STATE PCB LANDFILL
WORKING GROUP
AGENDA -Regular Meeting August 24, 1995,
Warrenton, NC
I. Welcome
11. Roll Call/Introductions
Ill. Reading and Approval of Minutes
IV. Report of Committees Co-QJ...,--> >
B~t\1j~ + ~V\'o<Jh 1-h--.
V U f .. h d 8 . 4 B~ G.C/0.Aj~ -r F . Bo..M~
. n mis e usmess
VI.
VII.
VII I.
. ,
A. 5~~ ~u,;cm.... RF-P
8. BC-D R~P
C.
I '
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
.RA
DEHNR
August 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Members of Working Group
FROM: Bill Meyer
SUBJECT: Expanded Groundwater Monitoring On The Landfill
Enclosed is the previously submitted proposal for additional groundwater monitoring efforts on
the landfill. I will request that George Bain (private hydrologist that I think is both an expert and
unbiased in his perspective) review and comment on the proposal. I hope George will perform
this review free of charge. I would like to have the very best input to locate and design the
monitoring system.
It may be appropriate for the Work Group to consider giving directions for implementing the
expansion of the groundwater monitoring system. EPA Region IV has offered assistance with
sampling both new monitoring wells and the existing monitoring systems.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX 919-71&-3605
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
I
workplan for Upgrading the cround Water Monitoring System at the
PCB Landfill
summary
The Solid waste Management Division <SWMD> has evaluated the current
ground water monitoring system, consisting of four wells, at the PCB
Landfill. The SWMD recommends upgrading the current system by
Installing six additional wells. TWo wells would be coupled with existing
wells MW-2 and MW-3, to form well nests. The other four wells would be
Installed north and northeast of the landfill In two well nests. Each well
nest would Include two wells Installed adJacent to one another and
screened at different Intervals. Assuming no unexpected circumstances
are encountered, the upgraded monitoring system should provide the
PCB Landfill with a better detection monitoring system.
1otroduct100
The PCB landfill ls approximately 3.7 acres In size. The landfill was
constructed such that approximately 50% of the cell was above the natural
grade and SO% below. eased on blue tine drawings of the landfill, It Is
estimated that the landfill, Including the liner system, was approximately
38 feet thick and ranged from elevation 354 feet to approximately 316
feet above mean sea level.
The current ground water monitoring system at the PCB landfill was
Installed In 1982 and consists of four monitoring wells screened In the
surficlal aQulfer .. These wells range In depth from 39 to 51 feet and are
completed between 10 and 17 feet below the water table.
Hydroaeo1oav
The parent rock beneath the PCB landfill has been mapped as a mica schist
by the North Carolina Geologic survey. The estimated depth to
competent bedrock Is between 70 and 90 feet. saprollte and residual soils,
lncludlng silty sand, sandy sllt, and clay, overlie the bedrock.
The ground water flow direction at the site varies seasonally between
north and northeast. During the winter and spring, the flow Is generally
to the northeast and during the summer and fall th·e flow Is generally to
tne north. Monthly water level measurements, collected over a two year
period from the four on-site monitoring wells, were used to determine
1 of 4
the trends In the ground water flow direction.
The water table extends Into the silty sand unit or the upper portion of
the saprollte. The average water table elevation varies between the
monitoring wells from a high of 319 feet In the upgradlent well to a low of
295 feet above mean sea level In the downgradlent well.
Plan for Upgrading the Ground water Monitoring system
The plan for upgrading the ground water monitoring system at the PCB
landfill has several goals Including: better definition of the lithology
underlying the site; determining the vertical component of ground water
flow; defining any variations In the ground water flow direction In the
residual soils and the saprollte; and determining the ground water flow
rate.
lnltlally, the SWMD recommends the Installation of six monitoring wells.
one well would be Installed adjacent to MW-2 and one well adjacent to
MW-3. These wells wlll probably be completed In the saprollte zone,
lmmedlately above the bedrock surface <auger refusan. The saprollte Is
expected to range from 60-90 feet below land surface.
The other four wells would be Installed as two well nests, north-northeast
of the landfill and as close as technlcally feasible to the landfill. Each well
nest would Include two wells Installed adjacent to one another and
screened at different Intervals. Within each well nest one well would be
screened below the seasonally low water table and one well would be
screened In the saprollte zone. The specific screened Interval for the wells
would be selected after reviewing the lithology encountered In the boring
and the boring logs from the other wells. Figure 1 attached Illustrates the
recommended locations for the proposed wells.
After all of the wells are Installed, the SWMD recommends that aquifer
testing be performed on selected wells. Data from this testing would
provide an Indication of the hydraullc conductivity no of the subsurface
material. The K values would enable the SWMD to develop an estimate of
the ground water flow rate.
At the conclusion of this work and assuming no unusual circumstances are
encountered, these six wells, In conjunction with the existing wells, should
provide a better ground water monitoring system for the PCB landfill.
2 of 4
rn oo ffi ~ rr
Field work Guldennes
All field work shall be conducted In conformance with accepted
engineering and geologic practices as well as the Groundwater section's
Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Soils and Groundwater
and the Hazardous waste section's sample Collectton Guidance Document.
Well lnstallatlon shall be In conformance with the North carollna Well
construction standards. A site safety plan shall be developed and
followed by all field personnel. All appropriate decontamination
procedures documented In the references above shall be followed.
During the lnstallatlon of each boring/Well, a Qualified geologist shall be
present and a boring tog completed for each well. Spilt spoon samples
shall be collected at a minimum of every five feet and where there has
been a significant change In the penetratlon/drllllng resistance. Soll
cuttings shall be containerized until the analyses of ground water samples
have been received from the laboratory. At such time, the appropriate
disposal option shall be selected.
Each well shall be constructed: a> In accordance with the attached
diagram; b> In conformance with the state's well construction standards;
and c> to be capable of yielding a ground water sample representative of
the ground water Quality at that location. The well casing and screen shall
be constructed of 2 Inch diameter PVC. The manufactured well screen
shall be sized appropriately, according to the soil type. Each well shall be
completed with a s or 10 foot well screen. The annular space from the
bottom of the borehole to a distance of 2 feet above the top of the well
screen shall be filled with an appropriately sized sand pack. A two foot
bentonlte seal shall be placed on top of the sand pack. Above the
bentonlte seal the annular space wlll be filled with a bentontte-cement
grout. Each well shall be completed with a protective steel outer casing
and a locking cap. A sloping pad shall be constructed around the base of
the well In order to direct water away from the well.
Upon completion of the well, a water level measuring point shall be
established and the elevation determined to the nearest 0.01 foot.
Each monitoring well shall be developed after the seal and grout have
stablllzed and no sooner than 24 hours after completion of the well. The
well shall be developed until all suspended materials are removed or a
reasonable volume of water has been removed. All well development and
purge water shall be containerized until the analyses of ground water
samples has been received from the laboratory. Atsuch time, the
3 of 4
appropriate disposal option shall be selected.
After all wells are completed, hydraulic conductivity value<s> wlll be
developed for the aquifer. A minimum of six slug tests or one pumping
test shall be performed In order to develop the hydraullc conductivity
value<s>. The specific wells to be used In the aquifer testing shall be
selected after an evaluation of the soil sample descriptions has been
completed.
Report
At the conclusion of the fleld work a brief report wm be prepared
describing the upgraded ground water monitoring system. The report
wlll Include: a> a narrative of the work completed; b> a generallzed cross-
section and c> an updated potentlometrlc map.
4 of 4
Steel Outer Casing
(if plastic inner casing)
Land
Neat Cement Grout
Well Casing
(2" or larger diam.)
Pelletized Bentonite ----'
Clean Washed
Sand or Gravel
Lockin~ Cap
-.. .., -N Surface
• ///--~ ... -~
II) • ... .,...
_L
en
Cl) ·-~ cu >
• .., ....
N
I • .., -.....
FIGURE 13.
NOTE:
1. Borehole t~ be
larger than outside diameter of
casing .
2. Casing and screen to be
centered in borehole.
3 . Top of well screen should not
be above mean high seasoned
water level.
4. Casing and screen material to
be compatible with type of
contaminant being monitored .
5. Well head to be labeled with
highly visible wernlng saying :
•well is for monitoring and not
considered safe for drinking. •
6. Well to be afforded reasonable
protection against damage
after construction.
GWS 1 O/e4
Recommended Construction Details For A Contaminant Monitor Well
In An Unconfined, Unconsolidated Aquifer.
-State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
MEMORANDUM:
August 24, 1995
TO: Members of Working Group
FROM: Bill Meyer
SUBJECT: Draft Criteria for Selection of Science Advisor
NA
DEHNR
It is essential that we move forward on selecting a Science Advisor. This position should be
drafting RFP contracts with various experts needed for implementation/oversight of the Pilot
Scale Studies. In addition, the advisor could/should chair sub-committees as needed and
appointed by the Working Group. There is a significant amount of time and resources that would
be available through the advisor.
I would suggest that the draft criteria be reviewed and adopted/modified in accordance with the
. Working Group perspective. It may be appropriate to reduce or combine the criteria and
establish weights for each. A suggestion is as follows:
25% -ability to communicate (oral/written translations of technical documents and data
in terms that the Working Group can understand)
25% -relevant expertise -academic and demonstrated working knowledge of other
science fields, ability to lead other experts that may be needed for areas that the advisor is
not an expert.
25% -past relevant experience
15% -knowledge of regulatory procedures and processes
10% -cost
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
• In addition, these criteria could be scored from O to 5 for each criteria and multiplied by the
percent weight to achieve a numerical score. For example, a candidate with fives for each
criteria would scale 500, and a candidate with ones for each criteria would score 100. The
differences between 500 and 100 should allow a sufficient spread to separate qualified
candidates.
It may also be appropriate to task a sub-committee with the responsibilities to select a list of
potential qualified advisors, interview each candidate and recommend final candidate. One
function should be carefully evaluated and that is the willingness and commitment to attend all
working group and sub-committee meetings.
Draft Criteria For Selection of A Science Advisor for The Joint Warren County/State PCB
Landfill Working Group.
./
* Ability to provide a variety of skills necessary to objectively offer scientific advice to
members of the working group concerning the PCB Landfill.
* Demonstrated knowledge of toxic substance"with emphasis on PCB, Dioxins and
Furans, including environmental interactions and miiigations or remediation of
environmental releases.
* Academic training in a relevant science or engineering field (chemistry, biology,
ecology, physical sciences, environmental engineering, toxicology, epidemiology or
public health.)
* Demonstrated working knowledge and technical ability to coordinate scientific and
technical experts and information in areas of regulations, regulatory processes, chemistry,
physical sciences, hydrology, ecology, public health, risk assessment, engineering,
toxicology, epidemiology, statistics, data collection and interpretation and sampling and
analysis, that may be required for efforts at the PCB Landfill that are in addition to the
science advisor's skills and experience.
* The ability to communicate and translate technical and scientific information into
terms understandable to the public while maintaining scientific or technical accuracy and
objectivity. Demonstration of experience with clients who do not possess extensive
technical backgrounds.
* Ability to draft, review and interpret various technical documents and write reports for
the working group. These documents include but are not limited to
investigation/evaluation studies, feasibility studies, engineering designs, work plans,
sampling plans, quality assurance/quality control plans, risk assessments, health
assessments, environmental monitoring plans, chemical/physical analysis and oversight
of inspection plans.
* Ability to determine/compare cost and benefits of various technologies.
Perform/review audits and other financial accounting efforts for the working group.
* Ability and commitment to attend a6scheduled meetings 'Cids:lt~afu,\jaesea; .-and
a-1 special or non-routine meetings upon request by the working group.
'·
~ QJICEL.lt£S
F<R
RECEIVED
AUG 111995
SUPERFUND SECTI ON
PEIWIT APPLICATICNS #0 CEM:NSTRATI~ lEST PlJNS
~
PCB DISPOSM.. BY t0-&-n£Rt.W.. M..~TIVE AE1KDS
NJQ ST 2.1 , 1,a,
\
I
\
U.S. Envlromantal Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Subatcancea
a..m&cal ~9ulotlon Branch '. ·TS-1,1 •
Washington, D.C. 20,,0
.. ..
' .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Prtfact. . . . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Page
1 i List of Figures. . . ..••......... . . . . . . .
List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . vi
vii
ix
Abbreviations ................. .
Gl 0111ry. • . . • • • . • • . • • • • • . . .
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Introduction. . . .
SU111ary of 40 CFR 761 Regulations and Guidance ..
l
2
2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Approval Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3 1761.&0(e) Alternative Methods of Disposal. . 2
Office of Toxic Substances COTS) Per11itting Procedures ...
3.1 Establish C0111Unic1tfons with the EPA Permit
7
Writer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Apply for an R&D Perait (Optional). . . . . . 7
3.3 Subllit Operating P1r111t Application and Deaon-
stration Test Plan to DD/EED. . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4 EPA/OTS Review of Perait Application and D1110n-
stration Test Plan. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 12
3.5 EPA/OTS Issues D190n1tr1tion Test Perait. . . . . 12
3.6 Conduct D1110n1tr1tion Test. . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7 Sub■it De■onstration Test Report to DD/EEO. . . . 13
3.8 EPA/OTS Review of the Dtaonstration Test Report. 13
3.9 DD/EEO Issues and Operating Per11it. . . 13
Perait Application Foraat ...... .
4.1 4.Z
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.1
4.7 ....
4.t
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
Perait Application Cover ...... .
Section I -SUllllry ....... .
Section II -Project O~anization .... .
Section III· Waste Description ...... .
Section IV• Procen Enginurfng Description ..
Section V • SMl)ling and Monitoring Plan ... .
Section VI • Slllplf ng Procedunt-..... .
Section VII• s...,1e Analy1i1 Proctcluns ... .
Section VIII • Monitoring Proctcluns . . . . . . Section IX• Wast.I Handling and Dfspo11l ..
Section X -Data Reporting/Recol"dkHping.
Section XI• Inspection Proctdu"s ..
Section XII· Spill P"vtntion Control and
Counteratasures Plan ....... .
Section XIII• Safety Plan ..... .
Section XIV -Training Plan .......... .
Section XV -Dt■onstratfon Test Plans.
14
14
14
17
17
17
19
20
23
23
23
23
24
24
25
25
25
[ ,
...
L
!ill!
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
List of Tables
ill!.!
Outline of Major Sections of 40 CFR 761.
Disposal Options by PCB Wasta C1t1gori1s ..
Sl.alilry of Ptrait Approval Authority ...
FoMNt for Ptrait Applications for Alternative Method of
PCB Destruction .................. .
Exu,ple of a Saapling and Monitoring Plan SU1111ary for•
ChHical Dechlorination Method ........ .
Foraat of D1t10nstration Test Plans for Nonthtraal
Destruction Systllls ............ .
Exaaplt SU11111ry of Anticipated Test P•r-ters for a
Batch Ch•ical Dechlorination Process .....
Exuipl1: Proposed Schedule for Oe110nstr1tion.
Foraat for th• D1t10n1tr1tion Test Report ...
Exaaple D1110nstr1tion Test Results SU1111ary for I Batch
Ch•ical Dechlorination Process. . . . . ....
vi
4
s
15
22
30
34
38
43
r
ABBREVIATIONS
AA: Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substan:..es.
°C: Oegr11s Celsius.
CFR: Codt of F1d1ral Regulations.
CWA: Clean Water Act. Set 40 CFR 129.
00/EED: Division Director, Exposure Evaluation Division
OVE: Data variance e1ti■at1.
ECO: Electron capture detector.
EIMS: Electron impact ■ass spectrOMtry (low resolution).
EPA: U.S. Environaental Protection Agency.
FIO : Flame ionization detector.
g: Grams.
gal.: Gallons.
GC: , . Gas chromatography.
GC/FIO: Gas chromatography with flue ionization detection.
GC/ECO: . Gas chromatography with electron capture detection.
GC/MS ; Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.
GPC: Gel penneation chro■atography.
h: Hours.
HCl: Hydrochloric acid.
HECO: Hall electrolytical conductivity detector.
H20: Water.
HRGC: High resolution GC, also tenntd capillary GC.
in.: Inch(es).
kg: Kilograms.
1 b: Pounds.
vii
-
••
L
C
'
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
4.17
4.18
4.19
TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded)
Section XVI· Test D1t1 or Engineering
Perfon111nct C1lcul1tions ..... .
Section XVII· Other Per11its/Approv1l1
Section XVIII -Schedule of Pre-Operation
Ev1nt1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.20 Section XIX -Quality Assurance Plan ..... .
4.21 Section XX -Standard Operating Procedures .. .
4.22 Section XXI -Closure Plan.
OHOnstration Test Plans ............ .
5. 1 Genera 1 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Contents of a Deaonstration Test Plan
Conducting a Deaonstration Test ..
6.1 Surt•up. . . . . . . . .
6.2 PCB Waste Destruction ..
6.3 Shutdown ...... .
Deaonstration Test Report ... .
7.: For11at and Contents. . .. .
7.2 Review. . . . . . . . . .. .
7. 3 Approval. . . .....
References .....
Appendix A -Checklists for Coapleteness of Subllfttal .
Appendix 8 -Saaplfng and Analysis Procedures ..... .
Appendix C -OTS Gufdanc■ on Frequently Asked Questions .. .
Appendix O -Addresses for Headquarters and Regional Offic■s.
Appendix E -Annotated lfblfography ............ .
1v
Page
25
26
26
26
27
27
29
29
29
40
40
40
41
42
42
48 •
4e
49
50
58
68
75
78
~
f.
l.
[
Figure
l
2
3
4
s
6
7
List of Figures
Title -
Major steps in the OTS operating p1r11it process
Proc111 to obuin an operating penait froa OTS .
R1s11rch p1r111tting proce11 ...
Ex&mple per11it application cover ..
Sch1m1ti~ of suipling and aonitoring loation1 for a
chuical dechlorination process ...
Cover for th• D•onstration Test Plan ..
Demonstration Test Report cover ...
I
V
Page
8
9
10
16
21
31
44
m~r Mi 11 i grlt!IS.
11in: Minutes.
MS: Mass spectrometry.
NEPA: National Environaental Policy Act.
c NPOES: National Pollutant Discharge Eliaination Systa.
, .
•
.J
OPTS: Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
OSHA:
OTS:
PCB:
PCDO:
PCDF:
PGC:
pH:
ppa:
QA:
QC:
RA:
Occupational Safety and Health Act. SN 29 CFR 1910.1.
Office of To_xic Sub1tanc11, a 1uborgan1zation of OPTS.
Polychlorinated biphenyls.
Polychlorinated dibenzo·2•dioxin.
Polychlorinated dibenzofuran.
Packed coluan gas chroaatography.
Maasure of acidity or alkalinity.
Parts per ■fll ion.
Quality assurance.
Quality control.
Regional Adllin11trator.
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. S.. 40 CFR 122-124 and
260-265.
sec: Seconds.
TCDO: Tetrachlorodfbenzo·2·d1ox1n.
TCDF: Tetrachlorodtbenzofuran .
TSCA: Toxic Sub1tanc11 Control Act, PL 94•469 (1976). SN 40 CFR Part 761.
viii
E
L
[
GLOSSARY
Analyte: Chemical compound or element which is the subject of an analysis.
Aroclor: Coaercial ■ ixturt of PCBs previously manufactured by Monsanto.
Authorized usa: Any PCB us• or servicing which can bt conducted in accordance
with 40 CFR 761.30.
Data variance estimate COVE): Either• nuaerical value such as I standard
deviation, or a qualitative evaluation such H "good."
Demonstration Test: A test to d1110nstrat1 systu perforaance, coanonly
called a process doaonstration test.
Electron impact ■ass spectrOMtry (EIMS): Low resolution uss spectrometry
operated fn the electron impact ionization 110d1.
High resolution gas chromatography: Gas-liquid chro1D1togr1phy performed
using a capillary coluan, typically 10-50 ■ long x 0.2 • IO, coated on
the interior with I liquid phase.
Isomer: Any compound which has the sue aolecular formula, but different
positional subs~itutions. For 1xu,pl1, for PCBs, 2,2'-dichlorobiphenyl and
2,3-dichlorobiph,nyl are isomeric; 4-chlorobiphenyl and 2,3,4-trichlorobiphenyl
are not.
Liquid: A substance is I liquid if it its Nlting point is less than 20°c •. :d
does not pau the structural integrity test (> lSX fr .. liquid content)
(We 11 er 1982).
Method: A series of techniques or procedures which for111 specific, well-
defined destruction, suipling, chNical analysis, or other procedure for
a specified coapound(s)/aatrix(cts) cOllbination.
Polychlorinattd biphtnyl (PCB): Ont of 209 individual COll!pounds having the
molecular for■ula C12HnC1 10_n' wh1r1 n = 0-9. This definition includes
monochlorobiph1nyl1.
Polychlorinatad dfbenzo•rdioxfn (PCOO): Ont of 75 individual coll!pounds hav-
ing tha aolecular fol"'IIUll C12HaC1 1.n02 , where n • 0-7. This definition
includes aonochlorod1benzo-_rdToxins.
Polychlorinatld dibenzofuran (PCDF): Ont of 13S individual compounds having
the 110lecul1r fol"'IIUla C11HnC1 1_no, where n = 0-7. This definition includes
monochlorodibenzofurans.
Packed column gas chroaatography (PGC): gas-liquid chromatography performed
using a coluan, typically 180 cm long x 2 ma IO , packed with a liquid phase
on a granular solid support material.
ix
•'
f
l
[
Part per million (ppm): One part in 1oe. For gaseous mixtures, a vo 1~me/
volume (v/v) basis is typically used and:
ppm= mg/113 x ~
where RT• 22.4 lfter/g·mole at 0°C and l 1tm
• 24.5 Jiter/g-110le at 25°C ind lat.II
and MW• 110lecul1r weight of coinpound, 1.1., g/g-11011
For low concentration aqueous sa11pl1s, • weight:volU1N (w/v) basis is most
co111111only used and l ppa =lag/lit.er (1 ag/kg for liquids with density l).
For non1qu1ous liquids ind solid ut1ri1ls, 1 weight:weight (w/w) basis is
110st comonly used and 1 PPII • 1 ag/kg.
Quality 111ur1nc1 (QA): The total fnt1grat1d progru for assuring the relia-
bility of aonitoring and Masur ... nt data. A systea for integrating the
quality planning, quality 1ss1s1Mnt, and quality faprov ... nt efforts to
Hit user requireMnts.
Quality control (QC): The routine application of proc1du"1 for obtaining
prescribed 1tandard1 of perloraance fn the aonitorfng and •••uraent pro-
cess.
QC blank: A sample processed and 1naly1ed to obtain background concentrations
of the analyt.s.
QC control: A 1eiple containing a known aaount of analyte which is processed
with 1aaple batches to 110nitor recoveries. ,
Solid: A substance is a solid if its •lting point __ i1 g"ater than 20°c
and it passes the structural integrity ttst (Weller 1982).
Technique: Specific destruction, laboratory, or saapling operation usually
conducted 11 part of a Nthod. GC/EIMS and Soxhlet extraction are
techniques.
X
r.
r.
l.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 761 (40 CFR 76l)
(USEPA 1985) establishes rules on the disposal of PCBs and PCB items. Under
these rules, organizations or persons wishing to dispose of PCBs are required
to use approved methods and must obtain a penait.
This document provides guidance for persons applying to the EPA for
approval of PCB disposal by Mthods alternative to incineration (S761.6O(t)).
This docU11ent presents and discusses the fonaat, content, and level of detail
required for permit applications, deaonstration test plans, and d1t1<.:nstr1tion
tHt reports.
Alternative Nthods of PCB destruction include, but are not limited
to, catalytic dehydrochlorination, chloroly1i1, plasu arc, ozonation, cata-
lyzed oxidation, ■icrobiological, and sodfua-cat.alyzed decoapositfon of the
PCB aolecules. Methods for decontaination of PCl•contaainated aateria1s by
r1110val and concentration of the PCBs also are considered alternative Mthods
of PCB destruction. An exaaple of this technique is fractional distillation
of PCB-contuinated dielectric fluid or rinse solvent.
These guidelines address only per■it requiraents for the disposal
of PCBs 11 regulated under TSCA. Other laws such as RCRA, CWA, and OSHA
regulations uy apply to PCB disposal Hthods and uy have different or addi-
tional per11ft requfr ... nts.
Section ~.O provides a brief su■111ry of pertinent EPA procedural
req~ir ... nts and guidance as well as a 1u.ary of pertinent Part 761 regula-.
t1ons. Section 3.0 describes the EPA Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) penni~-
ting procedures. Sections 4.0 and 5.0 provide guidance regarding preparat,~n
and sub■ission of per■1t applications and de■onstratfon test plans, respec-
tively. Section 6.0 briefly discusses conducting &'.dt■onstratfon test.
Section 7.0 provides guidance regarding preparation of a de■onstration test
report. Section 8.0 lists the reference1 for this docuatnt. Appendix A pro-
vides checklists for the applicant to u1e in dtter■1ning ff all pertinent
ar11s have been addressed prior to sub■ftul to the Agency. Appendix Bis a
sU1111111ry listing of suipling/analytical Nthods for PCBs. Appendix C provides
guidance to the applicant 1n the for■ of answers to SON frequently asked
questions. Appendix D lists the addresses for OTS Headquarters and for the
10 Regional Offices. Appendix E 11 an annotated bibliography of sources of
related inforaatfon.
l
t
z.O SUP+'.ARY OF 40 CFR 761 REGULATIONS ANO GUIDANCE
This section sunnarizes pertinent provisions of Title 40 of the Co de
of Federal Regulations, Part 761 (40 CFR 761) relat1d to the disposal of PCBs
Part 761 establishes prohibitions of and r1quir&Mnts for the unufacture •
processing, distribution in C011W1rc1, use, dfsposal, storage, and marking.of
PCBs and PCB itt■s 1n the United Sut1s. These regulations were promulgated
under authority of the Toxic Substanc1s Control Act (TSCA, PL 94-469).
40 CFR 761 was pro11ulgated May 31, 1979 (44 FR 31514). All referenc1s in this
document refer to the revised 40 CFR 761 as of July l, 1985.
2.1 General
The major sections of 40 CFR 761 ire outlined in Table .1. The stor-
age and disposal of PCBs is addressed in 40 CFR 761, Subpart 0. In Subpart o,
Paragraph 761.60, disposal reguir ... nts ire differentiated according to ~aste
type and PCB concentration; Table 2 sU111Nriz1s the disposal options of §761.60.
This guideline doc ... nt is intended to provide guidance only for
approval of alternative disposal ■tthods (1761.60(1)) which uy require ap-
proval by the Division Director, Exposure Evaluation Division of the Office
of Toxic Substances (DO/EEO). A c011panion docuaent, "Guidelines for Permit
Applications and DHK>nstration Test Plans for PCB Incin1r1torsu (Neulicht
et al. 1986), also prepared by Midwest Research Institute for EPA/OTS,
Washington, D.C., arovides guidelines for approval of incinerators by the
DD/EEO. Disposal ~y chNical w1st1 landfills (1761.75) or high efficiency
boilers (§761.60(1)(2),(3)) is not addressed, since their disposal •ethods
are approved by t~• appropriate regional adllinistrator (RA). Also, storage -
of PCBs for disposal (1761.65) or decontlllination (1761.79) is not address~J.
2.2 Approval Authority
-·
Approval authority for PCB disposal facilities is stipulated in
Section 761.60. Table 3 sU111Nriz1s EPA approval authority for PCB disposal
facilities. Addresses for EPA headquarters and the regional offices art pro-
vided in Appendix D.
2.3 1761.60(1) Alternative Methods of Disposal
According to 1761.60(1) any person uy subllit a written request to
the DD/EEO or RA for an exe■c,tion froa the incineration requir9Mnts of Part
761 (see Table 2). Section 761.60(1) stat11 that the applicant for an alt1r-
n1tiv1 Mthod of destroying PCBs ■ult show that: -(a) the Mt.hod can achi1v1
a level of perlorunc:1 equivalentto'i761.70 incinerators or 1761.60(a)(2)(iv)
high efficiency boilers and, (b) t.ht •thod will not present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environaent. These two requir9Mnts ■ust bt
taken into consideration by the applicant and IMISt bt ·appropriately addr1ss1d
in the p1n11t application. Because alternative Mthods of PCB destruction
usually differ significantly fr011 incineration, it ts difficult to define
"equivalent level of perfor111nce.M For processes which destroy PCBs in con-
taminated liquids. the agency has generally required the applicant to sho~
2
l
[
"
Table l. Outline of Major Sections of 40 CFR 761a
Subpart A -General 76l.l Applicability
761.3 Definitions
761.19 References
Subpart B • Manufacturing, ProctSsing, Dfstl'ibution in Coanerc1,
and Use of PCBs and PCB lte■s
761.20 Prohibitions
761.30 Authorizations
Subpart C • Marking of PCBs and PCB ItNs 761.40 Marking Requir ... nts
761.45 Marking Formats
Subpart D -Storage and Dispos1l 761.60 Disposal Requirwnts
(1) PCBs
(b) PCB Articles
(c) PCB Conuiners
(d) Spills
(e) Alternative Methods
(f) Written Notice
(g) Testing Procedures for PCB Concentration
(h) Export/Iaport for Disposal
(f) • Approv1l • Authority for Disposal Methods
761.6S Storage for Dispos1l
761.70 Inciner1tion
(a) Liquid PCBs
(b) Nonlfquid PCBs
(c) Maint1n1nc1 of Dau and Records
(d) Approval of Incinerators
76 ChNiCll Wiste Landfills
76 D1contuin1tion
Subp1rt E -Ex111Pt1ons
Subparts F to I -[Reserved]
Subpart J • Record• and Reports 711.180 Records and Monitoring
1Note: Soae subparts are outlined 1n greater det.11 than others.
3
• ..., ~ r·. r ., r-:-, I hllle Z. Dhpoul O,tlen1 tt, PCI V11te C1te911rle1 (USIPA l98S) thnilul Rliii Dllpo11I •lhod 0nln. PCI WHlt efl lcltllCJ Alltrnlllvt Mdholl dl1po1t cencentrallon lncl .. raler l1ndflll ..... r •lllN ..,,.,, .. at selld 0non Pee w11le cateew, (fl MCtlN ,,,., (1161.JO) (17'1.JS) (1761.60) (11'1.60(•)) .. , r ...... wait• l•lnall Mineral ell dleleclrlc 111. IO(a)(Z) SO-SOI • • • • ,, .. ,. 0lller 11 .. ldl 111.ll(a)(JJ 50-SCII • • • • Menll•ld1 (1all. , ... , ll1-lll•H4J l 50 • • .. r,1) ~ Dredpd .. terl1l1 ... 111.IO(a)lS) l 50 • • • aunlcl,al ,...._. 1llldgl Pee tr1n1ferar1 <•••• JH.IO(IIJ(l) IIS• • • and, ........ , PCI up1cllar111 111.A(ll)(IJ lSOI • PCI ca,aclt.r1 111.11(11)(4) Y-511 • JI PCI ..,...,I le ..ca.IMS 111.ll(IIXJJ l 51 .c ·" PCI c•l•IMltd elec~ 111.11(11)(4) • • trlul ... ,,...t <•ac•l ca,ac I tars) 0lller PO artlcle1. 111.ll(IIXSJ l s.' • •• 0lller Pel artlcln 111.ll(ll)(S) SO-SOI •• l •' .• h Pel Uftlal•" 111.ll(cJ • • d h PCI CNlal .. rt 111.ll(c) < 500 • • All alller POI 1'1.IO(•J &50 • • :-C,t ,peel fled. l ■N11tll0111 fer •-... 11 upacllers. ~,t •••• M fl111Nd If llydr111llc fl11ld conl1ln1 > 1,000 .,._ PCls 1nd flushing 1olwtnl disposed of In 1ccordlnco with l761.60(al. "'oraliwd llquld _,t be dl1po1wcl of In accordance with 1161.60(1). "Nu,t t>. dralrwd of 111 frH·flewlng ltquld. It.« dhpoul of 1·," :.fntd tltctrlcal •qul,-nl and olMr rCI artlcl.s h nol r•guhl•d by 40 UII 1,,1 All llqulds _,l M dl1po1•d of In accord1f1Ct with paraQr1Ph (a)(ll or (l) of 1161.60 I In an lncln•rator (1161. 10), cMtalcal wa,t• landf 111 1«\U,t. 1!>), high tfflctoncy bolltr, er by an alttrnalht -u~d (1161.60(tU). Out to a lypcHJraptllc1I error, 40 CU 161 IJuly I, 191!>, p. 16)) trr-ovr.ly 1t1tn lhh ¥Ahl'! I\ !10 rpa; rtftr' to hdual llfyhlu, 44, Jl~l1 ll',1,11 (May ), 1'1') (~(rA 1'11). ---·-----~raiNd of any frtt·flewlng liquid ind liquid IIIClntratt~ In 1161. 10 IP<lntrator. ·l)f'cont•ln1ltd In ,...,1tanct with 11,1 1,.
[
-
L
[ ..
Table 3. Summary of Penait Approval Authority
Type ficil ity
Alternative disposal Mthods which are aobile or ar1
of identical des;gn to be used in aore than one EPA
Region
Research and developaent Nthod1 disposing of
> 500 lb PCB-containing ■aterial
Research and development Mthods disposing of
S 500 lb PCB-containing ■attrial
Site-specific alternative disposal Nthods to be
used in only one EPA Region
Approva 1 penni t
authority
Ass htant Adalir:istra-
tor for Pesticides ani
Toxic Suost&nces (AA)
AA'
RegioMl Administra-
tors (RAs)
RAs
1Authority has been delegated to the Division Director, Exposure Evaluation
Division, Office of Toxic Substances (DD/EEO).
5
.,
u
[
,.
,
that th• concentration of any individu.1 PCI congenar in the product (dtcon-
tuinaud) liquid-11 no aore than 2 ppa. Fractional d1st111atfon of PCB-
containing liquids au1t reeov• PCBs to a level of< 2 ppe total PCBs, quanti-
·tated us i nQ the original for1tUl1ti0n (e.g., Aroclor 1260) 11 a 1t•ndard. Any
aspects of the pl"OCIII that_uy pos, certain risks of injury to persons or
envirorwent .,,t be addressed in the application. Exaaples of such risks
include: (1) •ission of toxic 1olvent1 to the atao1phere and (b) explosion/
fire hazards froa 1od1ua reagent.
Section 4.0 of this gu1de11ne doClalnt presents and discusses tht
suggested content.I of an application for I perait to operate an alternative
Nthod for PCB disposal. •
6
'
1
3.0 OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES (OTS) PERMITTING PROCEDURES
The Code of Federal Regu~ations, Title 40, Part 761 (40 CFR 761)
specifies that the Assistant Adlllin1stration (AA) for Pesticides and Toxic
Substances h11 ll)proval authority for certain PCB disposal facilities (this
approval authority has bten dtltgated to the Division Director, Exposure
Evaluation Ofvision of tht Offfct of Toxic Substances (D0/EED)]; Regional
Administrations (RAs) havt approval authority for other facilities. Facili-
ties for which the 00/EEP has approval authority include PCB treat.Mn~ pro-
cesses that are aobile or of fdtntfcal design and intended to be ustdin 110re
than one EPA region. Also included art certain research and develop~ent (R&O)
methods that dispose of inore than a total of SOO lb PCBs or PCB-contaminated
■aterial. RAs retain approval authority for site-specific facilities such as
landfills, stationary incinerators, high-efficiency boilers, and research and
development into PCB Hthods involving a total of 500 lb or less of PCB
materials.
This section describes the process used by EPA/OTS to issue an oper-
ating penait or an R&D permit to the applicant. Figure 1 shows the aajor
steps in the operating pen1fttfng process. Figure 2 gives a ■ort detailed
process diagram which also includes the loops at various points in the operat-
ing pennit process when additional fnfon1ation 11 required. Figure 3 shows
tht process for obtaining an R&D per11it froa OTS.
3.1 Establist Co•unications With the EPA Pe1"'111it Writer
The penait applicant can facilitate the per11ittfng process by est~b~
lishing good c01111unication1 with the EPA per11it wrfter as early as possible .
Good comunication will ■ini ■ize requests for additional fnforaation as wel~
as sub■ission of unnecessary infor111tion. Early in t;t,e process, the applicant
and pen1it writer can discuss any special circ111stance1 and also the necessity
for subllitting optional infoMNtion discussed in these guidelines. In addi-
tion, advance notice of subaissfons will allow the penait writer to schedule
the review in an orderly fashion.
3.2 Apply for an R&D Ptnait (Optional)
The purpose of a research and developaent (R&D) ptr11it is to assist
tht facility operator in bringing the destruction process froa conception to
co-.rcial operation. RID per11it1 can be issued for bench-scale operations,
for pilot-scale 1y1tas, and for full-scale coaercfal systetu. First-tiN
applicants who do not have experience operating their syst•s, or who have
not yet used their 1y1tas to destroy PC81, are encouraged by EPA to obtain
an R&D peraft for •shakedown• of the process by conducting studies on a lim-
ited quantity of PC11, prior to the coaercial d8110nstration test.
An RID perait application should consist of all of the applicable
eleMnts described in Table 4 in Section 4.0 (except 11 noted). The R&D ap-
plication need not contain the detail required for an operating per11it, but
must bt sufficient to dtt10nstrate that tht R&D activity will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the anvfronaent. Tht applicant
should also supply infon11tion on the specific objectives of the R&O activity.
7
T j .
.
1
I.
[
(
~-
[
[
r
I
'
Establish Communicotfona with
EPA/OTS Parmit Writer
. -
Submit Complete Operating -Submit Complete O.mo,.tration
Permit Application to 00/EEO ~ -Test Pion to 00/EED
-EPA/OTS lteview and Approwl ~
I I
EP,1/0TS laua C.mon,hullon
Test Permit
Conduct O.monstrutlOft Test
Submit O.morwtrutfon Test ltepo,t-~
to 00/EED
EPA/OTS lr,lew __. A,p,ewl
DD/EID.._ Operating Pannlt
Figure 1. Major steps fn the OTS operating penait process.
8
r
i
[
I
[
[
'
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
l)a._ .... a.t T• -------""'" ....... " 001110
0.-.u~ '-" • __ ,_
"-"-l-,00,no
r_,..,. ........
it,00/UD
lte C.-u U i,IJl4 ,_,..,_
S..-IIN?
--------;.. .. .. ...... , .... .... , .... -... ..
:..,;C,.19(:H ........... .... __ ,_
.... ;,.fllt
I --<S>-• ona.ce--... ,;._ s-,
,..,,a,,,c:....
MlwDefWI•• .. ..___ .....
1.-0..
D1 a '-'
Tww.._.
Ou lea -, ... c .,. ...
I l 0 ,-_,
AeeliNtiel'fll~ .,o.-;,.
'-'• ..._l,ce,ie" • I
I -~----------~.
L.---------
on.__·-·
ea .... .,
1\lft1fa If■ ........
D atesS.
--, 1:=i=-1 I
I
I I I I
...... ......... .,on
o.--.. ,..,. .......
-----·
Figure 2. Process to obtain an operating per11it fro■ OTS.
9
T '
l
[
'
r--
' I I
R&D
Pennlt
Denied
R & 0 Parmlt
~licatlon
Received by
00/EEO
---------,
Appllcatlon -<$>--No -Cotllplete
I
I
I
I
L--
-------
Reviad
~ltcatlon
Suefflftted
Deficiencies
NotedONI
Returned to
~llcont
OTSIKonnenck
At:i,llcant Submit
Ope,atl "I Pwml t
Application tn
Ueu of I & 0
,.,...t
\
Figure 3. ReHIN:h pera1tt1ng proce11.
10
1
!'
l
l
[
L
u
Il
r
r
l
I
The R&D activity should provide process information and operating experience
needed for application f~r an operating permit. The R&D results should be
used for planr.ing I full-scale demonstration such that there is a high prob-
ability of a successful demonstration. The R&O results may be appropriate
for inclusion in the application for the operating per9it.
R&D perait.s can be issued by the appropriate EPA Regional Adminis-
trator for the dHtruction of a total of 500 lb or leu of PCB-contairing
material (regardless of· PCB concentration), or by the Division Direct-or,
Exposure Evaluation Division nf the Office of Toxi·c SubstancH (OD/EEO), for
the destruction of aore than 500 lb of PCB-conuining ■aterial. R&O permit
app.ications can be sub■itted at any tiN, even if an application for a per-
■it to operate coaerciatly has already ~een subllitted.
Upon receipt of an R&D per9it application, EPA will review the docu-
ment. If the application is fncoaplete or conuins deficiencies, a notice of
deficiencies will be sent to the applicant, who ■ust then revise and resubmit
the application. In SOM cases, EPA/OTS ■ay recoaend that the applicant
sub■it an operating per■it application 1n lieu of the RID per11it application,
depending upon the cfrcU1tstances involved. When a caaplete RM) pel"llit appli-
cation is approved by EPA/OTS, an R&D per9ft is issued.
Accordi~g to 40 CFR 761.60(f), before co■■encing R&D work, a 30-day
notice ■ust be giv.,n to EPA regional, sute, and local officials. After com-
pletion of the U.C activities, a report giving the results of the activities
and test results ■ust be submitted to EPA.
~.3 Subllft ~•rating Perait Application and Deaonstration Test Plan
to ob ED _ ·
The peraft applicant ■ust subait both an operating per■it applica-
tion and deaonstration test plan to DO/EEO in ol"der to receive I deaonstra-
tion pel"llit. Generally, the ptl"llit application and deaonstration test plan .
should be separate, c011plet1 documents.
The per■it application should be subllftted 11 11rty 11 possible.
Partial subaissions are accepubl• if the subllission clearly indicates the
portions of the application to be subllitted later, and if the applicant and
EPA per■it writer agl"ff that a prelf ■fnary review of I partial subllission will
be productive. The dallon1tration test plan uy be subllftted with or after
the pen1it apttl1cat1on. In any event, both the application and de■onstration
test plan .,.t N det.a,.1ned by EPA to be coaplete before I deaonstration
perai t can be h1ued.
The suggested fo,..t for an operating per■it application, based on
the S761.70(d)(l) incinerator requireants, 11 presented in Table 4 fn Section
4.0 of this doc1.1Nnt. A coaplete application ■uat address ••ch topic in the
fonnat given in Table 4. As an aid to the app licant in deteraining if all
requirements for an application have been addressed, 1 checklist 1s provided
in Appendix A.
ll
T 4
I.
[
[
I.
~.
[
[
,..
I
'
A Oel'Onstration Test Plan is a document prepared specifically for
the de110nstration tests and provides details of how the test will bt conducted
A coaplete plan ■ust include all the required infor111tion given in Tablt 6 in·
Section 5.0 of this docllltnt. Appendix A provides a checklist to--aid the ap-
plicant in dltenaining whether 111 required 1t•s have been addressed.
3.4 EPA/OTS Review of Penait Application and Dwnstratfon Test Plan
EPA/OTS reviews the penait application and dNOnstration test plan
for C0111Pleten1ss, accuracy, clarity and technical viability. If either docu·
Hnt is unacceptable to EPA, a notice of deficiencies will be sent to the ap-
plicant. The a.•f1c1enciH aust be corrected 1n • revised applicatf on or tut
plan, and the revised docuaent(s) INllt be subllitttd to the D0/EED. In SOIII
cases, this process NY nud to be repeated IIOrt than once.
3.5 EPA/OTS Issues D1110n1tr1t1on Test Ptnait
After the EPA approves the pena1t application and dtaonstration test
plan, the 00/EED w111 issue a d1110n1tr1tion ptnait. A dNOnstrat1on peraft
is required prior to destroying any PCBs in a process d1110nstr1tion. Tht
demonstration penait will specify a 11■1ted aaount of PCB-containing aaterial
which can bt destroyed during the dlll0nstrat1on and other conditions based on
the applicants penait application and dellonstration test plan. The tiN
period for which the dlll0nstrat1on penatt 11 valid also will be 11 ■ittd.
3.6 Conduct D1110nstrat1on Test
A dlll0nstrat1on test fl scheduled at a date agreeable to both th·•
applicant and EPA/OTS. It 11 dl11rable that EPA/OTS t\avt at least 60 days '
notice prior to the test; 30 dq11 notice 11 required. Thi RA of the EPA
region where the deaonstrat1on will be conducted, sute officials, and nlt·
vant local authorities should be notified.
If any ■odificat1on1 to the test plan are required prior to the
dNOnstration test, EPA/OTS (perait writer) should be notified 1n writing at
least 14 days prior to the test. Also, if event.a require that the plan be
significantly IIOd1fied during the test daon1tration, then the perait writer
should be· contacted i..adfately to dt1cu11 the 1.»licat1on1 of any IIOd1ffca-
tion1. • Al with noNll Ol)erat.1on, any significant dlv1at.1on1 f1"0II or altera·
tion1 in the test plan aust be docuanted in writing to EPA/OTS (penait wr1ttr)
within 10 ctq1 after the event. Throughout the test dt■onstrat1on, an ",v-,,t
log• should be •1ntained. Thia log should be _suba1tted u part of tht dNOn·
stration te1t. report. ,
Thi teat. 1hould be conducted under conditions si ■ulat1ng noraal cor
Nrcial operations. Operating pera1t requi ..... nta usually reflect the syst1■s 1
operating conditions during the dtllonstratfon test, and conditions used 1n
the tests btcOM condftfon1 allowed in the operating per11it. Thertfon, the
applicant should give 2!X cartful consfderat1on to the d111gn and conduct of
the d1110n1trat1on test.
12
I
[
[
L
E
[
[
'
If the demonstration test is initiated, but cannot be completed for
some reason, EPA/OTS can exercise several options. Tht first option is to
deny the operating penait without further consideration, which is ra~ly done .
A second option fs to reco111111end that the applicant subtlit an R&O permit ap-
plication in order to have a chance to correct operating deficiencies prior
to another daaonstratfon. A third option is to reschedule the test, which is
usually done when ■fnor deficiencies in the operating process cause the prob-
lem. A fourth option is to require that the application or test plan bt re-
vised and resubllittad b•fore fssuing another deaonstration pena1t; tt,fs option
is usually used when aajor desf_gn changes aust be aad9 or ujor ~rating de-
ficiencies ■ust be correc•ed before another ct,aonatratfon test can be performed.
3.7 Subllit Dwnstratfon Test Rtport to OD/EEO
After I co■plet1 det10nstratfon test has bun performed, a report of
the results ■ust be ■ade and subllitted to the D0/EED. The fonNt and required
cont1nts of the report are shown in Table 10 fn Section 7.0 of this document.
The test report ■ust contain 111 the infor111tion described in Section 7.0 of
this doc ... nt.
3.8 EPA/OTS Review of the D111onstratfon Test Report
Upon receipt, EPA/OTS will review the deaonstration test report sub-
■itted by the app•icant. If the report fs inco■plete or unclear, EPA will
r1quest that the auplicant subllit any additional infol"llltion or data nteded.
If the results of t.tle test are unacceptable, EPA aay deny the operating p1r-
■ft, request that another r anstration test plan be subaftted for approval -
prior to conducting another dt110n1tration test, or require tbat I nvfsed
penait application be subllitted for approval. If the tat results and othe-
infor111tfon are acceptable,. EPA/OTS will issue an ope_rat1ng per■it to the
app11cant.
3.9 DD/EEO Issues and Operating Ptr■it
An operating per■1t allows the operator to operate c01111trci1lly.
After acceptance of the per■ it application and daonstration test results,
the D0/EED wfll 111ue I final operating per■it. Generally, the final oper-
ating per■it will specify tht type of PCB-containing Mtarial which can be
processed, an upper li■ft on PCB concentration 1n the feed, and an effective
period of up to 3 yean froa the date of fuuance.
Few• renewal approval, additional infol"llltfon and/or tasting of
the process IIIY be required. In order to continue the effectiveness of a
per■it pending EPA action on reinuanc1 ·of the per■ft, the operator ■ust sub-
■it a renewal request letter to EPA at least 90 days, ,but not ■on than 180
d1y1, prior to tM exp1nt1on date of the per■it. •
13
i •
4.0 PERMIT APPLICATION FORMAT
This section describes tht 1nforution rtquiNd in ptrait applica-
tions for alt1rnativ1 Mthods of PCB destruction. EPA's s14JPl-.nu1 guidance
(48 FR 13181, March 30, 1983} (USEPA 1983a) establishes the required contents
of an application for a perait to operate an alternative Mthod for PCB de-
struction. The suggested fonaat for tht perait application 11 presented in
Table 4. Each Njor 1tea of the perait fonaat 11 di1cu11td 1n the following
sections.
A checklist is provided in Appenaix A to aid the applicant in deter-
aining, prior to subllitul, 1f all r quirtNnta for an application to opera~•
an alternative Mt.hod for PCB destruction have been addre11td.
A preli ■inary, partial application NY be 1ubllitted to initiate
co•unication betwHn the applicant and the EPA at the earliest possible
1101Nnt. Early c01111unication1 can bt helpful to both parties: unnecessary
subllissions can be avoided; nHdtd engineering changes can be •de while the
facility is being designed or constructed; and pl"Ovision1 can be aadt for site
vi1it1 during construction or shakedown. If a pre11 ■1nary per■it application
is subllitted, the applicant should clearly identify in the body of the pre-
li ■inary application those 1ection1 or it.as to be provided at a later date.
A re111rch and devtloPMnt per■it application should follow the suie
fonaat as an opera~ing ptrait application. Although the R&D application need
not conuin ·the dtta11 required for an operating per■it, it 11111t be sufficient
to deeonstratt that the R&D activity -.dll not present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the enviro,..nt. • The IPl)licant should also supply info ,··
■ation on the specific objective, of the R&D activity.
4.1 Perait Application Cover
Each subll111fon 1111st have a peraft application cover. The applica-.
tion cover fonaat 11 presented in Figure 4. If the ~lfcation or the appen•
dices ■ust be bound separately (1.t., 1111ltfpl1 volae1), naber eac.h volu■e
of the 1ubllh1ton fn order in the upc,tr right hind corner of the cover
("Volae • of n)•. The cover of each vol1a1 should hive the full cover 1n-
fonaation7 Thi principal aan199r 11 the person 1dent1fttd by the applicant
11 the priaary contact for wrtt~n or veroal coaunicat1on1 froa the EPA per-
■it writer.
4.2 s.ctton 1 • S&wry
The applicant 11 encouraged to begtn the pera1t applfcatton with a
short •~TY presenting the doc&aent organization and any pertinent back·
ground tnfol"lllt1on. •.
14
.,
•
u
[
[
I
&
[
[
,-
l
'
i
ii
I.
II.
III .
IV.
v.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
xv.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
xx.
XXI.
Table 4. Fonnat for Permit Applications for Alternative
Method of PCB Destruction
Ptr11it Cover
Tablt of Contents
Sunaary
Project Organization
Waste Description
Process Engineering Description
Supling and Monitoring Plan
Saapling Procedures
Suiple Analysis Procedures
Monitcring Procedures
Waste ~Jndling and Disposal
Data Repol"t.ing/Recordkeeping
Inspection Procedures
Spill Prevention Control and CounterMasure Plan
Safety Plan
Training Plan
Deaonstrat1on Test Plans•
Test Data or Engineering Perforaance Calculations
Other Per11it1/Approvals
Schedule of Preoperatfon Events
Quality Assurance Plan
Standard Operating Procedures
Closure Plan
1For I research and developaent application, this section would present the
planned research activities.
15
T
.
1
[
[
(_
E
r
[
,.
•
(PRELIMINARY) PERM-IT APPLICATION
PCB DESTRUCTION UNIT
[Type and location]
[Test site for 110bile units]
Sub■ission date:
Volume ■ of n --
Sub■ission nUllber [sequential nUllbertng, beginning with 1]
Sub■itted by:
[Co111pany n1M and 1ddress] ·
[Principal aanager and phone no.]
Subaitted to:
Division Director, Exposure Evalu&tion
Division
c/o Docuaent Control Officer (TS-79oi
Office of Toxic Sut t.anc11
U.S. Env1ronaenta1 Protection Agenc"
ROOII E-201 -
401 M StrNt S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
Figure 4. Exaaple perw1t applfcatfon ·~over .
16
• ~
[
[
r
fl
[
[
' i
'
4.3 Section II -Project Organization
Briefly describe ~he o~ga~izati~n for operating the facility. Pro-
vide an organization chart 1dent1fy1ng key individuals (position titles and
actual personrwl, if known). The organizational chart should primarily ad-
dress those personnel directly involved in the proj1ct. Tht corporate struc-
ture (e.g., relationship of c011pany officers) is only necessary if it impacts
on the chain of c011Nnd for the PCB destruction facility. Personnel ~ho
should be identified include:
• Person(s) responsible for obtaining perait;
Project unager;
Facility unager;
• Operations supervisor;
Reviwing engineer;
Maintenance supervisor;
Quality assurance officer;
Safety officer;
• Laboratory ~•rsonnel;
• Person(s) responsible for training;
• Penon(s) responsible for deaonstration test;
Person rasponsible for operation of aonitoring systa;
• Person rasponsible for racord keeping and reporting.
4.4 Section III -Waste Description
and
A description of the wast1(s) intended to be destroyed in th· uni:
should bt provided. Al a ainiaua provide the following 1nforaation:
The type (11~u1d or solid) of waste ta be destroyed;
The proposed total waste and PCB f11d rates; and
The utrix and coaposition of the waste, including aajor and
■inor constituents, and expected PCB concentrations. Heating
value, viscosity, Cl, ash, water content, and other charac-
teristics of the wasta uterfal should be included, ff appro-
priate.
4.5 Section IV• Process Enqineerinq Description
The aoency needs sufficient fnforaation about a PCB destruction
process to be Ible to evaluate the perwit application. This inforaatfon ~ill
include detailed descriptions of the facility site, ,Cl and PCB-it• handling,
process design and operation, pollution control equipeent, and anticipated
perforaanca. To th11 1nd, a lht of par1Mter1 to be de1crib1d in the plan
is presented below for guidance. The 11st 11 not necessarily inclusive.
Ptrait applicants should provide additional 1nforaat1on where appropriate.
17
l
[
r
l.
E
[I
[
1
4.S.l General
• Process flow di1gru and narrative description of the system;
Otscription of tht thtorttical basis for the destr~ction
process;
• Layout df1gr111 and description of the plant or 1t0bil1 unit;
Detailed engineering drawings;
• Intended location of the 110bil1 unit or facility (1.g., by
waste lagoons or at transforaer substations); and .
• Intended location of where the unit will bt stored when not in
Ult (if 110bil1 unit).
4.5.2 Waste Feed SystN
• Narrative description of the waste feed syst• (e.g., procedure
for unloading the PCB-conufning •tarial, storage of waste,
and transfer froa storage to the proc111 operations);
• Description of waste preparation, 1f applicable (e.g., filtra·
tion, blending with reagents, solvents, preheating, shred·
dfng, and/or hawr1ng). Note: 1761.l(b) prohibits treat-
Mnt which dilute PCB wastes durfng treataent. Any step
which involves dilution aust be specifically ptr"'lllitted;
• Waste voluae IXl)tctld to be handled at the facility per month
Qr other ti• period; .
• Waite fud storage capacity and average waste feed store~ at
~h• location (e.g., gallons, nUllbtr of days' supply); and
• Description of Mthod for Masu.-...nt of the waste feed rate.-
4.5.3 Aut0111tic Waste Feed Cutoff Syst•_.
• Description·of the autoaatic waste feed cutoff systH when
process conditions deviate beyond the stated 11 ■its for re·
quired destruction efficiency or beyond safe operating limits
and delay ti• prior to cutoff; and •
D11cription of the procedures to shut off the vast• fttd line
and the whole proce11 in the event of an equipant ■alfunction .
4.5.4 Destl"UCtion Sy1ta
•
•
•
•
NaM"ative description of the dl1tl"UCtion 1y1ta (e.g., descrip-
tion of chlllfcal reactions, 1toichioatry, reagents, cata-
lysts, proa11 dasign capacity, etc.);
Engineering diagras; •
List of products and by-products and their concentrations;
Descrfptfon of how e11ent1a1 par ... ters (t.g~, t111perature,
pre11ure, flow rate, etc.) are aon1tored and the design
values;
Description of reactant/oxidant/fuel/catalyst/fted rates and
how they are 110nftor1d;
Design capacity of the syst•:
18
•. l.
•
Detailed descripti~n of the unique engineering features of the
process (e.g., high temperature, pr~ssure, long residence
tiM, heat transfer, etc.); and .
Description of any regeneration/recycling processes applied in
the process.
4.5.S Pollution Control Syst .. (PCS)
A description of the pollution control syst.N for prociss
effluents (air Nissions, liquid effluents, sludge, solid
WHtl, etc.);
Design paruaters; and
The illllipOrt.nt operating p1r1Mters of the PCS and how they will
be aonitored.
4.S.6 SU11111ry of Process Oper1tinq Par-ters
Provide a 1U11Nry which lists target walues as wll as ui,per and
lower boundaries for all Njor •asul"ed operating par1Mters, instru111nt set-
tings, and control equipaent parU1t.ers. All values 11U1t be reported in com-
110n, consistent units. The application ■ust also describe the action to 01
taken whenever the parU1ter deviates outside the control li ■its. These ac-
tions aay include adjusting the operating conditions, stopping the PCB feed,
shutting down the r1roc111, etc. The tiN allowable for corrective action
before shut·dwn ,~ other action 1M11t be specified.
4.6 Section V -Suapling and Monitoring Plan
The applicant ■ust develop I suipling and ■onitoring plan to monitor
procHs operation and to v~rffy that the PCB destruction 1s equivalent to de·
struction 1n 1761.70 incinerators. In ■oat casts, GC/ECO 11 adequate to de-
ten1fn1 the PCB content of product 0111 or related Mtric11. In SOM cases,
surrogate parU1ter1 for PCB destruction (such as the CO-CO2 ratio allowed
for 5761.70 incinerators) MY be applicable; in ■ost ca111, actual ••surement
of PCS concentration 11 necessary. A PCI screening Mthod such as infrared
spectroscopy, or a total chloride detection kit (e.g., Chlor-N-Oill or McGr1w-
Edison PCB field test kit). a chlorine-specific detector, or ultraviolet spec-
troscopy aay be al)i»ropriata for MHurtaent of PCI concentration in SOM cases,
while in other cases, GC/EINS analysis MY be nquil"ed.
For thel"Ml dlstructfon units, the regulations specify tht param-
eters which .,.t be ■onftol"ed. Since each alternative Mt.hod for destruction
of PCBs ts different, ft ts~ to the applicant to specify the process para•-
ettrs which wtll be ■onftored (continuously or routinely) and the effluent
str11a1 which wtll be ••led routinely during operatton to daonstrat.e ptr·
fonNnce. In general, EPA will require ■onitoring and ·saapling of every waste
str••• unless UMt ap,11cant cu show that ft 11 fnapproprfat.a. The plan
should include:
• Proc111 par ... ters to bt ■onitored;
• Monitoring locations;
• Monitoring Nthods;
19
J .
r:
r:
(_
E
[
' •
•
Monitoring frequencies;
• Effluent streams to be sampled;
• Supling locations;
• Sampling methods;
• Sampling frequencies;
• Analysis aethods; and
• Acceptable li ■its for result.
A scheutic d1agru can be used to illustrate the s111pling ind mon-
itoring locations; Figure 5 is an example. The specific location of each
s1111Pling point should bt discussed briefly in the narrative. Other important
parUttttrs of th• suipling and aonitoring plan can be concisely presented in
a tabular foraat. Table 5 is an 1xuipl1 of a suipling and 110nitoring plan
SUllllry.
The SIIIPlfng plan ■ust include:
•
•
A description of the systN or 'proc1ss being suipltd and a
breakdown of tht process fnto discrete suipling units (stacK
Nissions, liquid waste, product, etc.).
The objective of the 1uiplfng for each unft (e.g., collect 1
11 r1pr111ntatfve• 1aapl1; follow an EPA test protocol; or
collect a "worst case• suiple).
Th, par1Ht1rs to be tested: Lf1t the coapounds, physical
•asurN1nts, frequency, and Mdfa.
The sffiling design for each unit. This uy require a uthe·
ut cal suipling design or 1faply a reference to a standarc •
protocol. The frequency (e.g., every 15 ■in), 1fz1 (1.g.,
10 r), tf ■ing (e.g., any tiM after r11chi~ steady-state~.
nu■ber of replicates (e.g., trfplfcat,es for lOS of the 11■-
ples or 2·suipl1s, whichever ts gnat•r), nu■btr of surrog1t1-
sptk1d 1uipl11, and total nlllDtr of suiples should bt listed
for each sample type.
An 11tfute of the suiplt representativeness. This uy be
based on data (e.g., historical dita on replfcat11) or
1cfentfffc/1ngfneertng judgatnt (e.g., a suiplt frail an
actively ■fxtd fHd tank could be characterized 11 "highly11
representative).
Contfnqencf11 for action ff saapl11 cannot be coll1ct1d accord-ing to plan (e.g., alternate sftas or tf•s or an entirely
new s-.,lfng plan).
4.7 Section YI• s-,11nq P1"0Ctdures
Detat11 of tM 1111Plfng Mthods to be used on a routine basis should
be discussed tn t.1111 1tctfon. Include an e,q,lanatfon of the apparatus, c111-
brat1on procedures, and Mfnttnance procedures, ff applicable.
20
l
L
r
f'
l
'
r-v.;-------------r-----------------f
__ ..,.__.,. I
~ O,__,..,,,. '--•
:-, s .. ,n,. &.eei... -
©
I I I I I
........
a-h
Figure 5. Sch ... tic of 1uipling and aonitoring locations for a
ch•ical dechlorination proce11.
21
.
!
t.
[
I.
fl
r
[
' 1
'
i j I I I ... ... ... I
.., • "" 'W'
e ~ ij I
I ' I t I I -.,
22
•
t
(.
[
L
L
[
[
f I
I I
When •standard Nthod1" will be used. they My bt rtftrtnced ind
included as an appendix. However, any deviations froa standard procedures
■ust bt noted. FurthtT'IIOrt. when tht standard method allows different pro-
cedural variations to be used, the applicant aust be specific-as to tht pro-
cedures which will bt followed.
The discu~s1on of 1-.,ling and &n&lysis Mthods should inc1Jdt:
Suiplfng .equipaent;
Suiplfng equfpaent calibration;
Supling procedures.;
Suple recovery, storage. and ~reservation;
Suph transport and custody;
Analytical equfpeent; •
IHgent.s;
Reagents p~ratton;
Calibration standards; and
Caltbratfon proc1dur11.
Appendix 8 to this docuatnt provides guidance on saapling and analyt-
ical Mthods.
4.8 Section VII -S!!f?le Analysis Procedures
Suaaariz~ the analytical procedures (including saaple preparation)
which wil 1 bl UHd for each sup le. The s .... ry should include tht analyt ic1l
Mtt'mA.. apparatus, data reduction procedures, dat& 1tora91, equipaent ca'1-
brat1on, and equ1paent aaintenanc1. Specific dltai11 of the analytical pro-
cedures nHd not be included in thh section, but should be referenced (if
standard published procedure) or should be included 11 an appendix, if un-
publfshed or if the publication 11 not readily available.
4.9 Section Vlll -Monitoring Procedures
Provide a 11a1ary of the procedures which will be used to aonitor
tht parueters pre11nted in the sapling and aonitoring plan. Include a dis-
cussion of the Mthodl and apparatus which will be used, 11 well II the data
reduction, datl storage, equipaent calibration, and 1quipaant aaint1nanc1
procedures which w111 be followd.
4.10 Section IJ( • V.tta Mand11na and Disposal
TIie ,.,.u wltcation .,.t idlnt1ty any by-product wastes (both
PCB and non-Pel) that will be flM .. lttcl and how tM wastes will be disposed,
e.g., 1n-11ne ftlters fo .. tM ,a waata fNd 11ne. •
4.11 Section x -Data R,eoninq/RecordkNpina
The pera1t -.,,lication shall e..,licitly state what _data aN to bt
recorded (inch,afng units) and how the data r.cords IN to bt aa1ntained.
23
.
a ,.
L
L
r
[
[
f
1
'
Include exaaple c1lcul1tion1, units of N1sur ... nt1, and 1xuipl1 record r,-
porting for11s. Paragraph 761.lSO(b) 1st.&blish11 the ■1n111U11 data record
r1quir1Mnts for disposal and storage faci11t11s. Miniaua records include•
sUllllry report for the previous calendar y11r which contains: •
• Datt PCBs and PCB ft•• wtrt rectivtd and fro• whoa;
• D•t• PCBs and PCB ftHS (including process waste which has not
bttn d11110nstr1t1d to be frtt of PCS cont.uination) wtri dis•
posed of or transftrrtd;
• Sua.,iary of the total weight (kg) of PCl1 and PCI articles in
containers and PCl1 fn transfonNn which have bHn rtctivtd,
transferred to other facilities, and retained at the facility;
and
SU1111ary of tht total nUllber of PCI articles or PCB equipment
not in containers which have b11n rec:11vtd, transferred to
other fac111t11s, and retained at the facility.
Tht following fnfol"llltfon 1110 1111st be •1nta1ned on site:
• Tht d1t10nstrat1on test results;
• Ad,11t1ona1 1nfol"llltfon II 1pecfffecl fn the operating p1rait by
the RA or DD/EEO.
4.12 Section XI -Inspection Procedures
The perwft applfcatfon shall fdentffy the "utfne inspection proct-
dures uHd to identify prob\ ... and •lfunctfon1 a11ocf1tec1 wfth the facility.
Tht frequency of 1n1pectfon1 1110 should be addre11ecl. lnapectfon proc1dur1s
should bl 1dent1fiecl for ft ... IUCh 11:
• Waste fffd 1yst.ea;
• D11tructfon 1y1ta;
• Waste feed cutoff systa;
• Pollution control sy1ta;
• Procell al1ras; and
• Fire entnguhhlr 1ysta
4.13 Section XU• S,111 hftentfon Control and Counterwe11ure1 Plan
Delcr1be ttll pl'OCeduNI (fncludfng 1ysta dlsfgn) wtlfch will be used
to prevent a,1111 of PC11 .. Aho describe the procedures which will be fol•
lowed should a sp111 OCCU1". Coast Guard N9Ul1tfons specifying sp111 pr1v1n•
t1on control and counta1'111111ure plans (40 CFI 112.7) can be used II an exuplt
for the type of 1nfo'91t1on whfctl should be addre11ecl; hawtv1r, the plan pro·
vi did 1 n the perw1 t app 11 cat t Oft ftHd not be 1 n tM f Ol"Kt or dlta 11 IPIC if i Id
1n 40 CFR 112.7.
24
-
r
-
•.14 Section XIII -Safety Plan
-This section 1ddr1ssts the safety progru which will bt initiated
to protect workers and other h1.1111ns fro■ PCB exposure or other health hazards
Identify specific 1t1111s (1.g., prot1ctiv1 clothing) of the progru for tnsur-·
ing saft routine operations. • Procedures for preventing wor.ker/populuion tx·
posure in the cast of an 1quip11ent ulfunction 1ls0 should be 1ddr1sstd; pro-
c1dur1s for stopping waste fHd, shutting down the proc111, and controlling
uissions in the event of I Mlfunctfon ·sho4.lld be Addressed. Pro,isions for
prevention and control of fir11, explosions, electrical ovuges, etc., also
should be 1ddressed.
4.15 Section XIV -Training Plan
The pemt ac,plication should present a description of the training
progru which w111 be initiated to assure workers are trained in items appro-
priate to their jobs including:
• Equipeent operation (fn accordance with standard operating
procedures) i
• Ellergency shut-down proctdurtsi
• Use of prottctfve clothingi
• Waste handling;
• Spill prevention/control;
• F•~• control; and
• Haz,rds of Peas.
4.16 Section XV• De1110n1tration Test Plans
This section of the p1n1it should briefly 1uaaarfz1 the applicant's
plans for conducting a dellonstration tetti a 1apar1te detailed plan is re-
quired prior to conducting a detlonstration test (IN Section 5.0 of this docu-
Mnt) .. ·However, 111111ary fnforaation which should be presented in this section
includts: •
Tentative date (aonth/year) for the test;
• Tentative location for the test;
• Par&Mters to be t11ted,
• Type waste to be used; and
• Expected date for subllittal of test dlaonstration plan .
..
If tbt applicant fHll a test dtlloMt~ation aay not bl needed for
this facili'-7, tbt applicant 1hould present a rationale for not conducting 1
d1t10nstrat1-. It ts rare tMt a dlaonstration te1, will not bl required.
One of the f., na1on1 for not requiring a dtlloMtration test ts that an
identical untt has bffft previously teated and pen1ftted.
4.17 Section XVI• Test Data or Ena1neer1na Perloraanct C1lculations
The applicant should present a 1uaaary of any rel1v1nt test d1t1
froa R&D activities, non-PCB tests, or other sources, or any •n~fntering cal-
culations which support tht ability of the systN to destroy PCBs. 01t1i1ed
25
a
L
[
••
test results nNd not be prtsenttd in this section, but inst.ead may be pro-
vided 1s 1n a;,pendix, or rtferenctd if already on filt with the Office of
Toxic Substances. •
4.18 Section XVII· Other Per11its/Approvals
Lf1t other per,1its/1pprovals which have been obufned or ire being
sought for this unit; identify tht per11ftting agency and the person to con-
tact for additional 1nforaatfon (p1r11it w-rittr). Relevant penaits include
PCB research and developaent p1r11its, op1r1tfng penafts issued by an RA, stat,
or local peraits to operate, RCRA per11it1, NPDES peraits, and DOT per,nits.
4.19 Section XVIII· Schedu1e of Prt·Optration Events
Provide a proposed schedule (aonth and year) tor coaply.ing with th•
regulatory r1qufr ... nt1 a11oc1at1d with approval of \he facility. Schedul•d
ft••• to bt addr111ed include: beg1nnfng construction date, constn,ction
coarplttfon data, 1ublltttal of deaon1tratfon test plan, equtpaent shakedown
period, initiation of deaonstration test, 1ubllittal of deaon1tr1tion test re-
sults, and initial operating date.
4.20 Section XIX -Quality A11ur1nc1 Plan
Each peraft application aust include a Quality A11ur1nc1 (QA) Plan.
Nott that the QA plan .,,t address all data-generating act1vit111 (e.g., pro-
c111 aonit.or1 and c~ntroll1r1), not just chM1cal laboratory analysis. This
plan should confor'I"' to the 1pecific1tion1 e1~li1hed fn •Intari ■ Guidelines
and Specifications for Preparing Quality A11uranc1 Project Plans" (USEPA 1980)
and ■ust addr111 all •a1urt1Nnt (f.e., aonftorfng) par.,ters. Additional
guidance fn the preparation of QA project plans f1 available 1n "Quality
Assurance Progra■ Plan for the Office of Toxic Substances• (USEPA 1983b).
The puri»o•• of the Quality Assurance Plan 11 to 11tabli1h a sp1cific
progru to: (1) help 111ure that the aon1torfng data Met specific quality
objectives, and (b) routinely assess the quality of the aonitoring data. Ap-
propriate QA 11 i.»eratfve. If the data (physical or cheaical •asur ... nt)
art of unknown quality, Vie data are unaccep~le and cannot be used to show
a faci11ty fl operating within perait requf ,....nts. Data of poor quality, u
long as the quality ii known, IIIY be acce,~le depending on whether or not
the par1Mt1r fs critical to Pel destruction.
The Quality A11uranc• Plan should addreu Vie following tt .. s:
•
•
•
•
0'"9111izati0ft and responsfb111ty for QA;
Quality usur1nc1 objectivu for each •a•ureaent p1r1Mt1r
(e.g .. process teaperature, pre11urt)i
Nonftorfng procedures (brief dlscrfption);
Sallplfng procedures;
Analytical procedures;
Suple custody;
Specific calfbratfon procedures and f~uency;
26
a
E
I
•
•
Procedures for data reduction, validation, ind rtporting ·
Specific internal quality control checks and frtquincy; '
Audit procedures and frequency;
PrtvenUtive ■1int1nanc1 procedures and frequ1ncy;
Specific routine procedures to 1s11ss accuracy, precision, and
coapl1t1n1u;
Procedures for corrective action; and
Quality assurance reports to aanagtMnt.
Each of these itNs is discussed in •Interi■ Guid1lin1s and Sp1cifi-
c1tions for Preparing Quality Assurance Plans•; the applicant is 1dvis1d to
follow this document.
4.21 Section XX• Standard Operating Procedures
A sUIIMry of the st.anclard operating procedures (SOP) should be in-
cluded in this chapter. Thi SOP should consist of the procedures 1vail1bl1
to the facility operators for use in plant operations. The coaplete SOP
should be included 11 an appendix. Applicants aay subait a copy of the pro·
cess operating Nnual to satisfy this requi,....nt.
Applicants should bt required to develop an SOP (sUndard operating
procedure) and sut:Mlit to EPA two weeks prior to the dltlonstration. The SOP:
• Assu ... , thlt applicants have reviewed the operations in detail;
• GivLs EPA opportunity to review and becoae fuiliar with tht
op1ratfon1 prior to the on-site audit; and
• May be u11d 11 a tool for training new e11Ploye11, which giv•~
soae as1ur1nc1 that the aployHs hive rtetivtd a ■ini ■uni c·' training. -
An SOP should be a 1ttp-by-1tep proc:tdure; however, deUils of pro·
c1dur11 such II tht use of sapling or aonitoring equipaent aay be oaitted
but ■ust be referenced. Div1roenc1 fl"OII the SOP during trials or C011Mrci1l
runs should be docuaentecl and significant 110d1f1c1tion1 should bt 1ubaitt1d
to EPA. For conv1ni1nc1 of use, lab proc:edures should be separate froa system
operational procedures.
Tht SOP should be part of the training plan. Each eaploy11 should
sign and date a stattaent indicating tJ\lt the aployH has read and understood
the SOP.
4.22 s,ctton XXI -Closure Plan
Thi closure plan for the fac111ty should address two situations:
• For aobil• units, closure of the facility at each site prior
to aov1no to a new site; closu" a,st add"u 1teas such as
decontaination of equipaent, placard1~ any containated
equipaent, and disposal of any wastes generated froa d1cont1m-
in1tion/cle1nup procedures.
27
[
[
-
For both 110bflt and stationary f1c111t1ts, p1run1nt closure
(f.t., reaov11 froa 11rvfc1).
Tht closure pl1n(1) should 1ddrt11:
•
•
•
•
Rt1pon1iblt ptrsonntl;
Df1po11l of by-product w11t11 on I routine b11f1;
D11po11l of 1quipaant; and
Fin1ncf1l re1pon1fbflfty of the coap1ny .
28
-
r
l
..
•
S.0 DEKIHSTRATIOH TEST PLAHS
-This section pr1s1nts th1 suggested fonut for I Demonstration Test
Plan and britfly discusses tht major itt■s of infoMNtion which ■ust be sub-
mitted in the plan.
A O.Onstration Test P1,n 111 doallent PT'epared 1p1cific1lly for
the ctHonstratf on t11t1 and provides dlU1 h of haw the test wi 11 be con-
ducted. This includes det.1111 of: when and wflere the dwnstr1tion will be
conducted and by who■; process/pollution control operating p1raatttrs to bt
aaint1in1d during the test; waste fted quantity and type; paraaet.ers to bt
aonitored/saapled; 1111Plfng/110nitoring locations, frequency, and Nthods;
saaple analysts •thods; equations for calcu1atfng result.I; and quality
assurance procedures.
5.1 General
For alternative Mthods of destruction, tht applicant ■ust show that
the Mthod will not present an unreasonable risk Cl 761.60 (e)). Supplemental
Guid1nc1 to Part 761 (48 FR 13181, March 30, 1983) (USEPA 19831) for procedures
to approve alternative Mthods indicates that I process d1110nstration ■1y be
required by tht AA prior to approval. The suppl ... ntal guidance specifies the
aini ■ua infor■ation required for a process de9onstration test plan 11 follows:
Ti~•. data, and location of tht deaonstration;
Quan-:1ty and type of PCBs and PCB it.as to be proc1111d;
Par~ters to be aonitortd and location of sapling points;
Saaplfng Plan and Quality Assurance Plan fncludfng sampling
frequencies, Mthods, and schedules for saaple analysis; 1r.~
N ... , address, and qual1f1cat1ons of-1>er1ons who will review
1n1lytic1l results and other pertinent data, and who will
perfor11 ttchn1ca1 evaluation of tht proc111 dttlonstration
eff tCt f vent II.
Subsection 5.2 of this 11ct1on provid11 the deaonstration tut plan
foraat and describes tht required contents of• Deaonstration T11t Pl1n. Ap-
pendix I 1uaaariz11 and dtscus111 appliclblt Nthod1 for aon1tor1~ and sam-
pling process feed stre•s, effluent products, and •issions.
5.2 Contents of I Deaonstrat1on Test Plan
..
TIie Dellon1tr1tton Test Plan .,,t conutn 111 the required infol"ll1·
tion 11 de1crtNd tn U.11 doc111ent. Table & presents the foraat for I Onon-
stration Tes\ ,1an. Contents of tht Dtll0n1tr1t1on Ttst Plan, prepared accord-
ing to the NCI 1ndecl foraat, are discussed 1n the following paragraphs.
·Appendfx A PNY1dll I checklist to aid the ..,,11c1nt tn dettr111ning whither
alt required ttas have been 1ddre11td .
5.2.1 Test Ota0nstr1tion Plan Cover
A cover ■ust be provided for the Dtt10nstratfon Test Plan. f;gurt 6
presents tht cover forut to be u11d. If ■ult1plt volU111s art subllitttd,
29
C
n
...
L
fi
i
ii
I.
II.
Ill .
IV.
V.
VJ.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
x.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
Table 6. Fonnat of Demonstration Test Plans for Nonthe"'ffla l
Destruction Systems
Test Phn Cover
Table of Contents
Suaury
Project Organization
Process Engineering Infor,gtion (new infor,gtion to application)
Process Operation
Saapling and Monitoring Plan
Sapling and Analysis Procedures
Monitoring Procedures
Data Reporting
Miscellaneous Tests
Waste Hr.ndl i ng and Di sposa 1
Test Schedule
QA Plan (addenda to Perait QA Plan)
Standard Operating Procedures (addenda to P1n1it SOP)
30
Ei
E
i
L
.
I
(PRELIMINARY) DEM:>NSTRATION TEST PLAN
PCB DESTRUCTION UNIT [Type and location]
[Test site for aobile units]
Proposed test dates:
Submission date:
Volumt III of n --
Sub■ission number [in sequence with p1r11it application 1ubtli11ions]
Submitted by:
[Company natH and address]
[Principal ■anage,· .1nd phone no.]
Subllitted to:
Division Director, Exposure Evaluation
Division
c/o Docuaent Control Officer (TS-790)
Office of Toxic Substances
U.S. Enviro,..ntal Protection Agenc~
Roca E-201
401 M Street ~.V.
Wuh1 ngton, DC 20460
Figure I. Cover for the Deaon1tration Test Plan .
31
-
L
[
provide a cover for each vo1Utne and nU1110er 11ch vol1.1111 in the upper rig~t hand
corner, "VolLJN ! of~-"
S.2.2 Section I -Summary
The applicant should begin the plan with a short SU111Ury of the docu-
~•nt. The •~ry should indicate when, where, and by whoa the ttst will be
conducted. A britf background discussion on the unit to be tested also is
useful (e.g; type of unit, intended use, l&a!UI")' of previous ttsts or opera•
tions). •
5.2.3 Section II -Project Organization
Provide an organizational chart and narrative description, as neces·
1ary, to identify th~ key personnel for the project. Identify personnel who
have overall authority/respon1ibility for conducting the deaonstration test
and their relationship to key personnel having overall authority/responsibility
for the project. It 11 not necessary to repeat detailed infoMNtion on overall
project authority/responsibility that has previously bttn 1ubllitted in tht
ptrait application. However, a consolidated organizational chart 11 generally
advisable 10 that lines of authority can be fdentifftd. Key areas of responsi-
bility which should be idtntifitd include: . Overall project responsibility;
• Fac11it1ts 1Nn1g1r;
• Test dtllon1tr1tion coordin1tor/1Nnag1r; . Operations aanager;
• Sa!lpling craw chief;
• Monitoring 1y1t•s operator;
• Analytical 1Nn1ger/key analyst;
• Quality 1s1urance officer;
• . Safety officer; and . Operators and laboratory technicians .
Qualifications of the key individuals who will bt operating the
systH and conducting tM sapling, aonftoring, and analysis art to bt pro-
vided with the Daaon1tration Test Plan.
5.2.4 Section III• Process Enaineerinq Infor111tion
Thia section provides a general ove"iew of tM process, including
a 1i11pltfied flow diagr•. Detailed fnfor111t1on about the Pf'OCIII should be
in tht perait ap,11catfon and aay be "''"need. However, ff IIOdificatfons
have bttn ... to the syst• since the perwit 1pplfc1tion, the11 aodifications
should be acldr11sed. Siailarly, if any aodifications. to the nonaal process
systeas will be required during the deaonstr1tion, these should be addressed;
for exuple, 1f waste will be p&aped fraa 55•gal. d~ during the det10nstr1·
tion, in lieu of using a bulk fled storage tank which will be u11d during
nonaal operation, this deviation aust be noted and 1,qalained.
32
L
•
S.2.5 Stction IV -Process Operation Test Parameters
This section pr1s1nts tht operating p1r11111t1rs to bt maintained dur-
;ng tht Oeeonstration Test. lnfonnation which should b1 pr1s1nt1d includes :
•
Operational plan;
Process operating par1Mt1rs;
Anticipated aission levels; and
PCSs or PCS iteas to be fed as waste.
A brief operational plan should bt provided. This plan Ny ta~•
the fora of• detailed schedule of events. In the operational plan expl1in
the operating par1Mt1r1 which will bt aafntafned while brfngfng the unit on-
line, while conducting the deaonstratfon, and while taking the unit off-lint.
For exuiple, will a non-PCB •w11t1 fHdu ffr1t bt u1ed to dellonstrat1 safe
operation?
The proc1s1 operating conditions and anticipated Hfssions can bt
suaariztd in a tabular fon11t. Table 7 ft an exuiple •test par1Mt1r SUt11-
uryu for a cht■ical dechlorination process. Nott that control li■its (i .1 .
acceptable ranges) are presented for key operating par1Mt1rs.
ldtnttf, the waste fnd which will bl used during the dnonstration
test. State tht ty;>e of fttd, physical state, and coaposftion including antic-
ipated PCB conc,nt,ation. Stat, tht total quantity of fted to bt used during
tht demonstration. Explain how the waste feed used for the d1t10nstration ccm-
par1s to the waste which will non11lly be proc111ed during routine 0p1r1tio~;
i. •·, the SIN, worst case condition, or ■ixture of anticipated w11t11. Ex··
plain the provisions established for storage of the w~stes prior to and during
the dtt10nstratfon, if different froa non11l.
5.2.6 Section V • S111plina and Monitoring Plan
This section pre11nt1 the suipling and aonitoring plan for tht demon-
stration test. The plan should bt detailed and specific to the deeonstration .
Tht plan should addre11 all suipling and aonftoring which will bt conducted
during the d1t10n1tratfon; t.e., both l111Plfng/110nitorfng which will be rou·
tinely conducted during norwl oi,eration and 1uipling/110nftoring which will
be conducted only during the deaonstration test. A tabular fon11t, with nar-
rative explanation, as nece111ry, can be u1ed to 1u■111rfz1 the IIIIPlfng and
aonftoring plan. The sapltng/■onitor1ng plan should include the followin9
,1 ... nts:
• A de1crfption of the 1y1tee or proc111 bt1ng IIIIPltd or aon1-
torN (1nclud1no 1upl ing location) and ·· breakdown of the pro•
c111 fnto df1crete 1aiplfng units, liqufd waste, product, etc.) .
The nwaber of tests to be conducted and the schedule. Gener-
ally, three tests have been conducted on succ1ssiv1 days for
incinerators. For batch-type operations. a ■ini ■Ull of three
batches generally is processed.
33
Table 7. Exuiple S1a111ry of Anticipated Test Parameters for I Batch ChHical Dechlorination Process
·Anticipated Control Requireda Par1111ter value li ■;ts v1lue
e
Waste fHd
E Waste feed rate (kg/batch) 1,000 850-1100 NAb Wast, feed rat, (gal./batch) 275 2S0-300 HA PCB concentration in feed (■g/kg) s.ooo NA NA -Total chlorine 1n feed . (■g/kg) 3,500 NA NA PCI fttd rat, (kg/batch) 5 NA NA Chlorine feed rat, (kg/batch) 3.5 NA HA
Destruction conditions
Batch residence tiM (h) 2 < 12 NA Reactor t111Perature (°C) 40 35-45 NA Reactor pressure<• Hg) 800 760-880 NA
E■1u1ons
Final PCB conc,ntrat1on (~gig/peak) < 2 < 2 < 2
Pollution control
Not applicib1,
PCB content of waste eroctuct1 Water (ag/Vpeak) 0.005 < 2 < 2 Filter (µg/g/peak) < 2 < 2 < 2 Sludge (µgig/peak) < 2 < 2 < 2
:Required by regulation or OTS policy. NA (not applicable)
[
34
-
r
The objective of the simpling or ■onitoring for eac h un i t (e g
collect. I 11 reprtstnt.1tiv111 Hllplt; follow 1n EPA test protoc~l :'
or collect 1 "worst. cue" umple). '
• The p1rameters to be tested: List the compounds, physical
M1surtmtnts and .. dia.
•
Tht u~Hng or 110nitori~ Mthods: Lht tM Mt.hods to bt
ustd.tta,ltd dtscripton of tht Mt.hods Ny be presented ;n
this section or an appendix.
Tht s!!!Gl1 ·an1ly1i1 Mt.hod: List the analytical Mt.hods to bt
used. et.ailed description of the Mthods My be presented in
this section or an appendix.
The sampling or 110n1torin' dtsiqn for each unit. This may re-
quirt a ■atheuticai suip ing design or s1-.,ly a reference to
a standard protocol. The frequency (e.g., every lS ■in), size
(e.g., 10 ■3), ti ■fng (t.g., any ti• after reaching 1t1ady-
1tat1), nUllbtr of replicates (e .g., lOS of Ult 1U1ple1 or 2
saaplts, whichever is greater, collected 1n triplicate), number
of surrogatt·spiktd saaples, and total nu■btr of s111ples should
be listed for each Sllll)lt type. The sa..,lt size 11 usually
di~t1t1d tithtr by the aaount of sa..,le required to detect the
1na~yte or by convtnienc1 (e.g., 1 L for water).
An estimate of s lt rt restntativtness. This MY be based -
on data t .g., h star ca U on rep cat11) or scientific/
engineering judgaent (e.g., a sa..,le _froa an actively ■ixed
feed tank ■ight bt characterized as representative).
Contingtncits for action if sa■ples cannot be collected accord-
ing to the pl1n (e.g., alternative sites or tiMs, an entirely
new sapling plan, or repeat tests).
Th1 paraatters which typically should bt included in the suipling/
aonitoring plan are discussed below.
The applicant aust propose a 11t of 1aapling/110nitoring par11ttt1rs
to verify that PCB destruction 11 equivalent to disposal in 1761.70 inciner-
ators. At a ■1ni .. ttlia will include MasuJ'9Mnt of PC81 in the final prod-
uct and effluent 1tre ... (wa1tew1t1r, filters, ven~ gas, etc.). In uny c1s1s
for alternative •thod• of PCB destruction, destruction equivalent to a
1761.70 incinerator hat bHn defined 11 a •asurtd effluent 1tr1u concentr1-
tion of not greater than 2 ~g/g/resolvabl1 chl"'OIIAtographic peak. The other
aonitoring saapling par .. ters will depend upon the process design and the
type of waste feed/effluent stre•s. Process operating par ... ttrs (e.g.,
fttd rate, reaction teaperature and pressure) ■ust bt aonitored. The appli-
c1nt should include all applicable operating par ... t1rs in the saapling/
aonitoring plan. If applicable, pollution control syst• operating par1meters
should bt included in the 11-.,ling/110nitoring plan.
3S
ii
E
For physical separation processes where PCBs 1r1 concentrated in to
1 friction for subsequent destruction by an approved •ethod, the applicant
must propose I set of saapling/monitoring parameters to v1rify that (a) the
residual 11cltan11 fraction contains ~ 2 µg/g (pp■) toul PCBs, (b) no PC8s are
emitted froa tht systew through drains, vents, ttc., and (c) the process does
not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environaent . Pro-
cess operating par1Mt1rs (1.g., fttd rate, naction t1t1p1rature and pressure)
aust be aonitond. The applicant should include 111 applie&blt operating
parameters in the suipling/aonitoring.plan. If applfcclt, pollution control
syste■ operating par1Mters should be included tn the 1uipling/110nitoring plan.
The agency ■ay nquin applicants to .. nd the suipling and monitor-
ing list. The par ... ter1 which ■ay _be requiNd include, but IN not 11 ■ittd
to, PCDDs, PCDFs, and other chlorinated organics.
5.2.7 Section VI -SupHnq and Analysis Procedures
Specific details of any 1uipling and analysis procedures which will
be used during the deaonstratton test but weN not PNviously addressed in
the per■it application ■u1t be included in the Deaonstration Test Plan. This
section should review the Mt.hods previously givtn tn the corNsponding sec-
tion of the per■it application and any additional deuils or new infonnation
at the ti ■e of the dt110n1tr1tfon test.
S.2.1 !!tction VII -Monitoring Procedures
Specific details of the aonitoring procedures to be used during the
demonstration test ■ust be includtd in the Dtaonstration Test Plan. If these.
... procedures have bten C011Pletely described in the per■it application and hav•
not changed, the ptr■1t application uy be NftNnctd. The following infer-·
mation aust be included:
t
fi ..
• Typt of i nstruaentat 1 on;·
• Manufacturer, aodel nu■btr;
Suiplt conditioning syst•, ff applicable;
Calibration 1tandard1; and
Calibration procedures.
Brief dtscrtptfons of 1oae aonttoring proctdu"s which typically
have bttn usad for PCI dtstructfon system IN present.ad tn Apf>tndix 8 to this
report.
5.2.9 Section VIII• Data Rtportfnq
PNHnt a IIIIM,Y of the data to be obtained during tht dt110nstra-
tion test and to be pNHnted fn the final test report. Exaaplt calculations
and reporting untt1 should be P"•ented. Include tnfOT'llltion for process data;
pollution control sy1ta operation (tf applicable); and the PCI concentrations
for the waste fttd, effluent waste, and product strea■1.
36
-
' •
All che11ic1l 1n1lytic1l values 11ust bt reported IS conce nt
expressed IS:
• Microgra,Js per liter for w1ter; and
• Microgrus per gru for non1qu1ous liquids or solids.
PCB values fn wast• hed are to be reported u •total PCB"
of all 209 congeners). A breakdown of the total PCS value by ·h0110lc
gener ■ay be useful for certain dtstructfon tests. PCB values in pr
liquid waste, solid waste, and othtr streams ■ust be "ported in ■ic
ptr graa (~g/g) per resolvable chroaatogr1phic peak. In ■any cases
native Mthods of PCB destruction, destruction equivalence to a Sect
incinerator has been defined as a ••surtd effluent 1t"• concentr1
not great.er than 2 ~g/g/"solvable chroaatographic peak. If this or
other ■axi ■u■ allowable concentration of the effluent 1tNu(s) fs ~
dNOnstrate equfvalency, Masu"d values less than the allowable liw
not nted to be reported (1.e., ft 11 acceptable to Nport "sult1 as
than 2 ~g/g/peak .. ). The analytical result.I ■ay not be ~n.ed int
Aroclor (or other ■fxtura) concentrations, even ff an Aroclor is ust
brat• the fnstruaent (as in the waste feed) unla11 EPA gives prior 1
5.2.10 Section IX -M1sc1llaneou1 Tests
The proper operation of the autoaatfc wastt·fted cut•off 1
1urg1ncy syst111s .,ust be d11t0nstr1ttd. Describe the procedures to
during tht dt110nst~·ation ttst to check operation of 1111"11 and ... rg1
-tHS, f~l~f~:
• Wastt feed cut-off systa; . Alara sy1tt11s (e.g., high ttaperature); and
• Fire extinguisher systH.
These tests ■ust be included on the schedule (1H Section
5.2.11 Section X -Waste Handlfna and Df1po1al
Tht dta0nstratfon ttst plan ai1t identify any by-product was
(both PCB and non-PCI) tl\at wil 1 be generated and how the WlltH wil 1
posed, e.g., 1n-11ne filters for the Pel waste feed line.
5.2.12 Section XI• Test Schedule
Provide a detailed 1cl'ledul1 of the proposed de■onstratfon
period. The schedule should be of sufficient detail ·to dturaine wh,
t1H are planned for each uy. Table I 11 an 1xapl1 ,deaon1tr1tfon •
1ch1dul1. The schedule should be realistic in the 11t11e of includfni
cftnt tiM to addreu probl ... which can be expected to occur in ope·
nN process.
37
-
' •
Day
0
l
2
3
Tablt 8. Ex1111plt: Proposed Schedule for D1monstr1tion
T1nt1tiv1
date
xx/yy/U
Activity
M • Inventory waste fHj
AM/PM • Begin syst• 1h1k1down using
non-PCB fttd
AM/PM • Destruction test no. l
AM/PM • Destruction test no. 2
AM/PM • Destruction test no. 3
38
• Test of ... rgency systeffls
•• Shut unit dovn at comple·
tion of .test according to
to closure plan
-~
[
[ ..
S.2.13 Section XII -Quality Assurance P1an
Each Oe~onstration Test Pl1n must include I Quality Assurance Proj-
ect Plan. If an adequate Quality Assurance Project P1an has been submitted
with the penait application, then only addenda to tht QA plan specific to ad-
ditional suipling, ■onit.oring, and analysis fort.ht t.est d1110n1tr1tion, need
bt submitted with the Test Oe110nstration Plan. Those portions of the QA plan
which apply to nor11al operations and those which apply only t.o the d1110nstra-
tfon test ■ust be clearly fdentffied. In any event, the QA plan, wit~ addenda,
■ust address 111 Nasur .. nt par ... ters (e.g .. destruction vessel temperature,
distillation cotuan t111Per1ture) not •rely PCB 1uipling and analysis.
The QA plan ■ust confor11 to the specifications established in "In-
ttri■ Guideline and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project
Plans" (USEPA, 1980). A QA plan prepared according t.o theH specifications
wilt address the following items:
• .
. .
.
. . . .
.
Organization and responsibility for ;
QA objectives for each Masur ... nt par ... ter (precision, ac-
curacy, C011Plet1ness, representativeness, and coapatibility);
SlfflPling and 110nitoring procedures;
Suple custody;
C1libr1tion procedures and frequency;
Ana~ytfc1l procedures;
DatJ reduction, validation, and reporting;
Internal quality control checks and frequency;
PerfortHnce and syst• audits and frequency;
Preventive ■aintenance procedures and schedules;
Specific routine procedures to a111s1 data precision, accuracy,
and coapleteness;
Corrective action; and
QA reports to aanag ... nt .
Additional guidance fn the preparation of QA project plans is available in
"Quality Assurance Prograa Plan for the Office of Toxic Subst1nc11 11 (USEPA
1983b).
For ■ost 1aapling and analysis plans, a ■inf-of 101 or 2, which•
ever 11 greater, of the 1aaple1 ■u1t bl collected fn triplicate; a ■ini ■ua of
lOS or 2 of the saaplH, whichever h great.er, 111.11t bl QC controls; and a
■ini■ua of 101 or 2 of tM 1upl11, whichever h greater, 11U1t bl QC blanks.
5.2.14 Section XIII• Standard Operatina Procedures
Provide any addenda to the standard operating procedurH which wtrt
subtlitted with the per11it application, ff necessary .
39
r
l
' •
L
[
,.
6.0 CONOUCilNG A DEMONSTRATION TEST
Once tht Agency has detenaintd th1t tht Demonstration Test Plan is
C0tnpl1t1, I dellon~tr1tion will bl scheduled at a d1t1 agr11abl1 to both the
applicant and the Agency. Before the dMonstration can c01111nc1, tht igency
will issue an approval for• demonstration, i.e., a deaonstration pennit.
The approval will contain certain conditions, includir\9 not1ffcatfon of tht
demonstration to other appropriate authorities (e.g., Regional Adllinfstrator),
PCB-conufning ■1t1rial(s) to bt tr1at1d, suiplfng, analysis, waste disposal,
QA, site security, record kttping, and reporting requil"ftllnts. A copy of the
demonstration perait ■ust be on site and adhered to during the dnonstration.
If any aodifications to the test plan art required prior to the
dnonstration test~ the Agency (perait writer) should be notified in writing
within 14 days prior to the test. Also, ff events require th1t the pl1n be
significantly aodified during the test dH10nstr1tion, then the penait writer
should bt contacted 1-.diattly to discuss the i11plic1tion1 of any 110dific1·
tions. As with noraal operation, any significant deviations fr011 or alter&·
tions in the standard operating procedure ■ust bt docuaented in writing to
the Agency (p1n1it writer) within 10 days of the event. Throughout the test
dMOnstration, an "event log" should be aaint1ined. This log should be sub·
■itted as part of the demonstration test report.
Provided that other local, stat,, and federal regulations allow it,
ont or 110rt prt·t•sts uy bt conducted using a non-PCB feed to shake down the
facility. Furthtruort, an R&D ptrait may bt advisable to allow the applicant
to test tht facility with PCBs in the field prior to a full-scalt process
de110nstration (see Section 3.2).
Prior to the test, the facility ■ust be prepared. All instrument,,
controls, devices, etc., ■ust be in working order and calibrated. Sufficient
supplies of PCB waste, fuel, reagents, etc., ■ust be on hand. The facility
should bt cleaned (remove 111 waste, etc.) to prevent contuination from pre·
vious tests or other use.
The test should be conducted under conditions si■ulating nol"lllal op·
erations. Ptrait requi ..... nts usually reflect the operating conditions dur-
ing the d11t0nstr1tion test. Therefore, the applicant should give~ careful
consideration to the design and conduct of the dttlonstration test.-r.ch dt~on·
stration usually consists of the following thret steps:
6.1 Start-up
The facflfty 11 prepared for operation with no PCBs in the syst,~.
Conditions should be noted and saaplts collected to characterize background
conditions tf appl"01)riata.
6.2 PCB Wast, Destruction
The PCB waste is introductd into the facility at 1xp1cttd normal
fttd rates and 1xp1ct1d ■•xi ■u■ PCB concentr•tions. During the test, s•mples
should be collected and records kept of the rt•dings of process aonitors,
40
-
gauges, and Nttrs. Visual obs1rv1tion of tht 1fflu1nt should 1lso be made ,
where 1ppropri1t1. The numbtr ind the length of individual test runs required
d1p1nds on the process. For uaplt, the deaonstr1tion test for I bitch type
d1struction process ■igtlt consist of test runs on thrae batches. For I con-
tinuous d1st111atfon proc1s1, the dlaonstration test ■ight consist of ah of
continuous operation with saiiples of the final product strtu t.ken at 2-h
intenals and a saaple of ttMt ffnal product batch Uken at the tnd of th1 test.
6.3 Shutdown
Waste fffd fl terainated ·and ttMt facility fl then shut do..n p1r
noraal procedures or kept running on non•PCI fHd at the dflcnt1on of the
operator.
41
L
[
Ii
7.0 OEl'ONSTRATION TEST REPORT
After the de110nstr1tion test his been performed a report of the
results ■ust bt prepared anc subm;tted to the OD/EEO. Th; fonnat and the re-
quired contents of tht test report are presented in this sect1~n.
7.1 Fo1"1Ht and Contents
Table 9 presents the fo,..t for the daonstratfon test report. The
fo110-.ting paragraphs briefly describe the report content.I. The test report
■ust contain 111 of the required info,..tion 11 described fn this dOCUllltnt .
7.1.l De110n1tr1tion Test Report Cover
Figure 7 is the specified fora&t for the report cover. If the re-
port or th• appendices aust be bound aeparat.aly, nUllber each part of the sub-
aission in order (Voluae ■ of n). The coven of each volume should have the
full cover infora&tion 11-described above.
7.1.2 Certification Letter
This l1tt1r, signed by an authorized official, aust certify on be-
half of the applicant that the test was carried out in accordance with the
approved test plan and the results of 111 deter11inations are subllitted in the
report.
7.1.3 Section 1 • SU1111111ry
Tht report should begin with a short SUIIIMry. The sumury contli ,s
tablt(s) su.urfzing the pertinent test results. Table 10 11 an exuple su~·
■1ry table ·for a chHical dechlorination dtaonstration test. A brief narra-
tive should 1U111Nrize whether or not the facility Nt all perfora&nc1 require-
inents. Major problNs encountered and Mjor deviations froe the test plan
should be ■tntfoned.
7.1.4 Section II· Process Operation
7.1.4.1 General
Provide a general overview of the process using s1 ■c,lified
fl0-.t diagrus and a brief narrative. Detailed infora&tion on the process
should bt in the ,-... tt application and My bl referenced.
7.1.4.2 Operation During the Test
S111111rtz1 the operating par-tars of the process during the
destruction test. Include physical characteristics of the fHd, PCB content
of the feed, fffd rates, total fetd quantity, t.111ptr1ture1, pressures, ef·
fluent streu flow rates and v0lU11ts, and pollution control systN operating
par1■1ters (if applicable).
42
E
H
~
l
[
Ii
Table 9. Format for the Oe110nstration Test Report
1 Report Cover
11 Tabla of Contents
Hf Cartfffc1t1on Letter
I. SUllllary
II. Process Operation
III. S111P11ng and Monitoring P1"0Ctdure1
JV. Analytfc1l Procedures
V. Test Rasults
VI. QA SUIIMry
vu. Vfs1ts and Audits
VIII. c:osure
IX. W11te Disposal Manifests ~· -Appendices
43
I
(
[
DEMONSTRATION TEST PLAN
PCB DESTRUCTION UNIT
(Type and location]
(Test site for mobile units]
Proposed test dates:
Submission date:
Submission number [in s1qu1nc1 with permit 1pplic1tion 1ub•i1sions]
Submitted by:
[Company namt 1nd 1ddr1ss]
[Principal m1n1ger and phone no.]
Sub11itted to:
Division Director, Exposure Evaluation
Division
c/o Docuaent Control Officer (TS-790)
Office of Toxic Substances
U.S. Environaent1l Protection Agency
Ro011 E-201
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Figu" 7. D1110nstration Test Report cover.
.•
l
l
[
Table 10. Ex1mp1e Demonstr1tion Ttst Rtsu1ts Summary for a Bitch Chtmic1l 0tch1orination Proctss
Time test begun
Ti ■t test ended
Operating par ... ttrs: Wastt feed rate (kg/h)
Batch voluees waste feed (kg)
Batch voluaes waste fttd (gal.)
PCB concentration in feed (g/kg)
PCB fetd (kg)
Reaction start ti•• (24•h clock) Reaction tnd tiM (24•h clock)
Reaction ti111t (h)
Final batch size (kg)
Final batch sizt (gal.)
Average reactor ttfl!Peratu" (°C)
Avtragt rt•:tor prtssu" C• Hg)
Saapling/Analysis Results
Final PCB concentration of product
(1,,1g/g/p11k)
PCB concentration of wastewater
(111g/L/pt1k)
PCB concentration of filters
(µg/g peak)
PCB concentration of sludge
(µg/g/ptak)
Tut
l
Tut
2
Test
3
....
C
f
1
[
A tabular format with explanatory narrative, as n1c1ss1ry, is preferred . Ce-
tailed data such as tables of 1S-~in temperature readings and the process
operator's log, should be relegated to an appendix.
7.1.4.3 Deviations from Test Plan
Any events such as upsets,.shutdowns, or other deviations from
normal operations, along wit.h the COM"'tctivt actions t&ken ■ust be ,1escribed.
These deviations should have bttn previously reported to the permit wr,ter,
verbally during the test 1nd as• separate written incident report within 14
days of the incident. Thes1 incident reports should be presented in an ap-
pendix. This section should sUlllfflarizt the incidents, discuss their effect on
the test results, and discuss their effect on the overall ability of the sys-
tem to routinely operate within penait conditions.
Also describe non•incident-,..lated changes such as site loca-
tion, amount of PCBs treated, and use of an independent laboratory for ana1y-
sis. The purpose or reasons for these types of changes should be explained
in this section.
7.1.5 Section III· Sampling and Monitoring Procedures
Describe the sampling and aonitoring procedures used. Standard pro-
cedures may bt reftrtnced, but any dtviations or aodifications fr0111 referenced
methods must bt described. Ltngthy method descriptions should be placed in
the appendix.
Sufflfta,ize the type, location, ti••• vol.e, and number of samples
collected. Any significant deviations fr0t11 the De•onstr1tion Test Plan ~,ist
be noted and the potential effects on the results~iscusstd.
7.1.6 Section IV· Analytical Procedures
Describe tht analytical procedures used for each paramet1r (e.g .,
PCBs in water). Standard procedures ■ay be rtfertnctd but any dtviations or
modifications fr011 refertnctd •tthods ■ust bt dtscribtd. Identify deviations
from the Demonstration Test Plan. Lengthy descriptions should bt placed in
an appendix.
7.1.7 Section V -Test Results
Present conc111 1ua111rits for 111 pertinent p1r&Nt1rs such 1s:
• Influent and effluent streu analysts;
• An1ly11s of filters, wastewater, and other by-products; and
• SystN perfor'INnce results.
Discuss tht test and QC results 1nd analysis 1yst•-perfo,...nct as necessary.
All results should be tr1c11blt to tht origiMl test data. As I ain;mum,
identify how tht r1sults wert c1lcul1ttd (fon1ul11 and data used). Detailed
simple calculat;ons should bt presented in tht appendix and reftrenced.
46
-
l
[ ..
Identify and discuss any anomalies in the system operation, samc i,~g
monitoring, or analysts that ~ay have significant i~pact on the test results . '
Raw data and the raw 1nalytical results (e.g., chromatograms, mass
measurements) also should be presented in the 1ppendices .
7.1.8 Section VI· Quality Assur1nc1 SU111111ry
SUlllll&rize the QA ,..sults (blanks, replic1t1s. audit resu1ts). Iden-
tify any serious prob1•s (e.g .• unacceptable audit results, f1ilure to c1l,-
br1te ;nstrumenutfon) or dtviations froa QA protocol. A 1epar1t1 QA report
must be presented, authored and signed by the QA officer. The QA rtport
should address 111 tht QA objectives, including whether or not precision and
1ccur1cy objectives wert Mt, 11 well as "sults of quality control samples,
ptrfor111nce audit SUll)lts, and systt■s audits.
7.1.9 Section VII· Visits and Audits
This section should contain I list of visitors and auditors and the
affiliation, address, and phont nUlllbtr of those who were on site during the
demonstration. The list should include all visitors or auditors from state,
local, or federal 1gencies, thtir contractors. applicant ■anagemtnt, QA per-
sonnel. and independent consultants. Whert possible, tht purpose of these
visits and any significant results should bt sunaarized. If audit reports,
engineering certifications, etc .• were issued by any visitors, they should be
appended to tht de111onstr1tion test report.
7.1.10 Section VIII· Closure
The applicant should sU1111arizt tht facility closure after the jemon-
stration. Any deviations fro• tht closure plan should be discussed. Appli-
c1nt should provide docU111nution (coi,111 of aanifest) to show th1t all ~astes
generated during tht process test were properly disposed according to iSCA
and RCRA regulations. Applicant should be aware th1t all tht w1st1 generated
during the test should be disposed of by incineration and not landfilling,
unless coepliance with the landfill restrictions can bt dt110nstrated.
7.1.11 Section IX· Waste H1ndlinq and Disposal
The dtt10nstr1tion test "port should provide docuaentation th1t all
wastes generated durt119 the deaonstration test were properly disposed in 1c-
cordanc1 with TSCA and ICRA. Manifests should be included in the test report,
when appliclbl1.
7.1.U Appendices
Supporting 1nforut ion (t. g., deufltd proctdu"' • 1n1lyt ica 1 rt·
sults, s111pl1 calculations, QA report) should be presented in the appendices.
Include tht chronological dlllonstration test events 1~ and any incident re-
ports.
-
,-
i
[
7.2 Review
The permit writer will review the report to dtttrmint if it conta,~s
all necess1ry elements 1nd if the demonstr1tion h1s ■tt tht objtctivts of tne
test.
7.3 Approval
Upon 1cc1pt1nce of the process dN10nstr1tion test report and I deter-
mination th1t tht process operates within 111 of the pertinent requirtments
of 40 CFR 7611nd tht conditions of the deonstr1tion permit, the DD/EEO shall
issue a final permit to oper1tt comerci1lly. The operating permit will con·
tain cert1in conditions, including a1tric1s to be tr11t1d, ■1xi•um PCB con-
centrations to bt treated, waste disposal, sitt security, r1cordkeeping, re·
porting, and closure requirements. A ptr"llit will noMN11y bt issued for uo
to 3 y11rs' op1r1tion. A copy of this approval should bt on site and adnered
to during 111 operations.
48
•
I
l
[
~
8.0 RE~ERENCES
Neulicht. R. M., R. V. Shah. G. Kelso. B. L. Carson, and M. O. Eric
"Guidelines for Permit Applications and Demonstration Test Plans fo
lncintrators,11 Draft Interim Report No. l. Revision Ho. 3, MRI Proj
850l·A(06), EPA Cont!act No. 68·02·3938 (May 28, 1986).
U.S. Environ111ent1l Protection A~ncy, 11 Polychlorin1t1d Biphenyls (Pt
facturing, Processing, Distribution in C01111rc1, and Use Prohibitio,
eral Register.!!, 31514-31568 ( ... y 31, 1979).
U.S. Envirorwent1l Protection Agency, MGuide11nes and Specification!
paring Quality Assurance Project Plans,• Office of Montt.oring Sysw
Quality Assurance, QAMS-005/80, O.C:1110er 27, 1980. .
U.S. Envirorwental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 761, MProc1dur1l I
of the Approval Authority for PCB Disposal Facilities and Guidance 1
ing Approval,N Federal Register,!:!, 13181-13186 (19831).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. •Quality Assurance Program Pli
the Office of Toxic Substance," Office of Pesticides and Toxic Subs
Washington. D.C., September 30, 1983b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, Code of Federal Regulati
Title 40. Part 761 (40 CFR 761), "Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) M
turing. Proce!sing, Distribution in Co•erce, and Use Prohibitions."
IS of July 1. 1385.
Weller. P. J., J. Andis. and S. Baig, •Preliainary Study Regarding A
Definitions of PCB Solid/Liquid Wastes,• d&ted October 1981. Apptndi
R. G. Mcinnes and R. J. Johnson, "Provision of T1chnic1l Assistance
Regional Office 1Mp1ementation of the PCB Regulations·•East and West
Project Summary Report by GCA Co~oration, Ntw Bedford. MA, and TRW.
Redondo Beach, CA. on EPA Contract No. 68-02-3168. Work Assign111ent H,
and Contract Ho. 68-02-3174. Wor~Assign .. nt Ho. 68, for David C. Sa,
USEPA, Office of Research and OevtlopMnt, !ERL. Research Triangle P,
1982, 186 pp.
49
j
i
I
l
L -
•
APPENDIX A
CHECKLISTS FOR COMPLETENESS OF SUBMITTAL
so
1. Pernd t Cov1r
APPENDIX A·l
PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR NONTHERMAL DESTRUCTION SYSTEMS
To Bt
Sub■;tttd Not
Submitttd At L1t1r 01t1 1 App1icao1t
r · 2. S'"91Mry (Sect;on I)
t
j
l
[
C
3. Projtct Org1ni11tion (Section II)
A. Chart
B. Text
4. W1stt Dtscription (Section III)
A. Typt
8. Tot1l Afflount/Fttd Rite
C. Physic1l/Ch1111ic1l
Ouc:ription
S. Proc:1ss E~qintering (Section IV)
A. General Overview
• ·Ots(ription
• Flow Ohgra11
• Location
• s;te Maps
B. W1st1 Feed Systtt1
C. W1st1 Fttd Cut Off Systt■
O. Destruction Syst1■
E. Pollution Control Syst ..
F. Process Operating Par&Mttrs
6. Simpling and Monitoring Plan
(Section V)
A. SUIC)ling/Monitoring
Parueter Lht
(SH atUCMG 1upp1 ... nta1
checklht) a. S111P11ng/Mofl1tor1ng Fr-equency
C. fr1.-111CY!Nlaer of Sup lts ----
(5-1• Det1fft)
0. Nltllodl
• Sapling
• Monitoring
• Analytical E. Equip .. nt
• Saap 1 i ng • Monitoring
• Analytical
Sl
C
r
I
[
C
7. SaapHng Proctduru (Stction VI)
A. ·Appropr;1te Methods
B. Written Protocols
C. App1r1tus
D. C1libration E. M1int1nanc:1
8. S1mpl1 An1lys;s Procedures
(Section Vll) A. Appropri1te Methods
B. Written Protocols
C. App1ratus
D .. C1Hbration
E. 01t1 Reduction
F. Data Storage
G. M1intenanct
9. Monitor;ng Procedures
( Stet ion VI II)
A. Appropriate Methods
B. written Protocols
C. Apparatus
O. Calibrat;on
E. 01t1 ~,duction
F. Dau Storage
G. M1inten1nce
10. Waste Handling 1nd Disposal
A. L;st of All W1st1s (tyi,e
and 1111ounts)
B. Disposal Methods
11. Cata Rtporting/Recordkeeping
(Section IX)
A. FOMlllt B. Ex1111plt C1lcul1tions
C. Uni ts
To Be
Submitted ~ot Submitted At L1t1r D1te 1 Ao 0 1,ca~1e
12 . Inspection Procedu"I (Section X)
A. WHtl Fffd Syst•
B. Dtstn.ct1on Fffd SystN
C. waste Fffd Cut•Off Systn
O. Pollution Control Syst• E. Ala,_
F. Ft" bt1ntu11h1r Sy1t•1
S2
13. Spill Prtvtntion Control and
Count1r111asure1 Plan
(Sect ion XII)
• 14. Safety Plan (Section XIII)
[ 1S. Tr1ining Plan (Section XIV)
16. Demonstration T1st Plan
r · (Section XV)
-
j
J
l
[
'
A. T1nt1tivt D1t1 a. T1nt1tiv1 Location
C. P1ra111t1rs to bt T11t1d
D. Type Waste
17. Test Data or Engin1er;ng
Perfonnanct Calculations
(Section XVI)
A. Previous T11t Results
B. Engin11ring Calculations
18. Othtr P1M11it1 or Approvals
(S1ction· X'.'II)
A. R1gion1l R&D
B. R1gion1l Full•Sc1lt
C. ·RCRA
D. St1t1 or Local
E. DOT
F. Other
19. Schedult (Stct;on XVIII)
20. Quality Assurance Plan
(Section XIX)
A. For111t
8. Org1niz1tton ·al'ld
Rtspon11b111ty c. QA Olajectt_ves
1. PNchion
Z. Acclll"ICY
J. COllpleteMII
4. lepresenuttveneu
5. Coap1rab111ty
D. Monitoring Procedures
E. Suipling Proc1dur11
Sub11itttd
SJ
To Bt
Sub11itttd At Lattr 01u1
Not
Appl ;cac:'e
-
r
-
L
[
F. An1lytic1l Proc1dur1s
G. -SIIIC)lt Custody H. Calibration Proc1dur11
and Frequ1r,cy I. D1t1 Reduction, V1lid1tion
1nd Reporting
J. Inttrn1l Qua,ity Control
Chtcks
IL Audi ts
l. Perfor111nct
2. System
L. Preventive M1inten1nc1
M. Specific Routine Procedures
Used to Assess Data
Precision Accuracy and
Comp httnH s
N. Corrective Action
O. Qu1lity Assurance Reports
to M1n1ge111ent
21. Op1r1tional Plan (Section XX)
22. Closure Pl~n (Section XXI)
A. Sit1·to·Sit1
B. P1M11n1nt.
C. Routine W1st1 Disposal
To Be
Su6111i ttld
Suba1tttd At L1ttr 01t11
Not
ApoHca~·e
1 Section of the p1rwiit. should bt r1s1rvtd for rtvistd submittal and t~t
dtficitncy should bl nottd int.ht application.
S4
-
APPEHOIX A-2
CHECKLIST FOR NONTHERMAL DESTRUCTION SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION TEST PtlH
To Be
Submitted Not Subfflitt•d At Later 01t11 App1 i caeie
r· 2. Suaary (Section I}
..
3. Project Organization (Section II)
A. Key Personnel Identified a. Organization Chart
4. Process Engineering Infofflation
(Section III; new i nfofflation
fro• Pereit Appl i cations)
S. Process Operation Test
Parameters (Section IV)
A. Operatic.nal Plan
B. Process Operating ParaMters
C. Anticipated E■ission Levels
D. Waste Feed Description/
Quant ity
6. Sampling and Monitor i ng Plan
Design (Section V)
A. HUftlbtr of Tests
B. Parameters to bt Monitor1d2
C. Par11Nt1rs to bt SIIIC)led2
D. Sampling/Monitoring Locations ___ _ E. NU111ber/Fr1quency of S.-ples
F. S1aplin9 Methods
G. Mon;torint Methods
H. An1ly1i1 Mettlod
7. Supl1ftl/Allalyst1 Pncedures2
(SecUOft YI)
A. MltMdl
I. Written '"tocol
C. EQUfPNft\
D. C11fbr1t1011
55
E
r
T
•
l
l
[
C
8. Mon1tor;ng Proctdurts1
(S,ct ion Vtl)
A. Written Protocol a. Equip .. nt
C. C1l ibntion
9. 01t1 Reporting (Section VIII)
A. 01t1 to bt Rtporttd, Units
B. Eump lt C11cu11t ions
10. Misc1111n10us Tests (Section IX)
A. W1st1 Fttd Cut•Off
8. Alana Systns
C. Ffrt Syst ..
11. W1st1 H1ndl;ng 1nd Oisp0s11
(Stction X)
12. Ttst Schtdult (Section XI)
13 . Addtnd1 to QA Pl1n (Section XII)
14. Add1nd1 to St1ndard Operating
Proctdurss (Section XIII)
Toh
Subm;tud
Sub~itted At Later 0&tt1 Not
ApP 1; cac:i 1 e
1 Stet10n of tht ptt"llit should bt rtstrvtd for rtvistd 1ubtlitt1l 1nd t·,'?
deficiency should be noted in the 1pplic1t~n.
2 Stt supplemental checklist .
S6
SAMPLING _AHO .«:lHITORING PARAMETER SUPPLEMENT FOR NONTHERMAL PCB 0ES7~UC".'::N ·--·-· ... .. .. --
& -"' ., ., -= c:,, z ~ • ..... ~ r I. -,. ~ .,, 0 -• ~ -... -0 l,fl .,, ~ l t J:. ' G
., ., -C: .. .. 'Z :I 0
0 .... ., ..,, --.. l ... C: ~ -r t .. -I.I C
C: "' • :,
i -r -::s ~ i= .. ~ r .. ..,, .. --., ..
0 -0 ,, .. -CIC I. ~ ., -., --.! .. ,.. ~ ---ID t -,. -• i C: -I • -0 0 :I :I C: .. .. ., --..,, C Cl I.I X
l ;n Waste FHd 1. PCBs -- - --- -b. Fttd Compos;tion --- - ---
c. Wutl Fttd Ritt --- --- - --d. Rt1;1nt Fttd Ritt -------- -
•• Reaction T~trtturt -- - ---- -.. f. Reaction Prtssurt ----- -
- -
g. pH of Product --- -
~ - --
l'I. Rts; dull R11g1nt in Product ------- --; . PCB Concentration in Product_ ----- ---.
j. PCBs in AQutous Eff1uents ------.
k. PCBs in Otl'ltr WUtH -------.
1. PCBs in Air Emissions ---- -
- ---.
m. Pollution Control SystN
Operation ---- --------J n. Other
L
[
~
57
•
,.
••
I
J
APPENDIX I
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
I ·.
-
...
J
j
l
[
Th;s •ppendix reviews .. thods of ••11pling 1nd 1n1lysis of PCBs ;~
feed ••teri1ls 1nd fin1~ products or effluents. An1lytic1l mttnods for PCSs
hive bHn rtvitwtd (Er1ck.son and Stlnley 1982~ Erickson It 11 . l9S:c .
Erickson 1986). •
1.0 SAMPLING PLAHS
S1,ngling plans 1rt ofttn slighted in the rush to g•t • t•st under-
w1y. Poor pl1nning of th• •~ling can ruin an othen,;se accept1blt ttst and
is ofttn tht weakest portion of 1n 1pplfc1ti0n. Tht 1pplicant and permit re-
vi1wer must work togtthtr to develop I d1t1iltd Slfflpling plan which will pro-
duct tht dasirtd infor1111tion. In SO!fte CHIS, I "tyi,ical" umplt fflly bt de-
sir•d, wn;1, in others a "11torst case" suplt uy bt desired. The objec:ti-ve
must be clearly spelled out.
PCS dtstruction f1ciliti1s are, unfortun1t1ly, not idt1l s1moli~g
situ. Events do not 11 ways occur according to plan, es pee: ii 11 y dur; ng tne
shikt•down periods in 11tn;ch the destruction test is generally htld. The sam-
pling pl1n must reflect the realities of the destruction unit and 1111kt tvtry
attempt to meet tht stated objectives. Tht plan should propose 1lt1rnatives
to tht opti111u111 samples. In cuts where I sapling :,11n h compro11iud, tne
d1monstr1tion ttst report should prtstnt 1n 1xpl1n1t1on.
S1v1r1l 1x1111pl1s of approaches (not full sUtpling plans) to sam•
pl;ng situations 1r1 pr1s1nt1d below. •
1. A ch1111ical dechlorination systn is to bt d1111onstrat1d. Tht
batch process vessel is to bl filled froa n1.11erous drus. Tht process vessel
is filled 1nd tht ■ixtr activated. Thirty ■inut~s 1ft1r ■fxing, a s1~~,, is
drawn from the vessel tip; 1 second suplt is drawn lO ■in ht.tr.
2. A fitld of waste druas is to bt supltd. Tht drums could bt
randomly simpled. If tht drUlls 1r1 known to bt fro• s1vtr1l sources and 1rt
idtnt ifi 1b 11, tt'le umpli ng dui ;n should i ncludt st rat; ficat ion of tnt sub·
sets.
3. The plan stipulates that if a bung on a drua is frozen, the sam·
pltr ;s to ■ovt to tht n11r11t drua to the north. lf aort than half of tht
bungs art frozen or ff the bungs on 1n app1r1nt set of druas (in one 1r11 or
with similar aarkings) are 111 frozen, tht r1pr1s1nt1tiv1n1s1 of tht s1mp1;ng
■ay be coaproafsed (these aay all contain• corl"Osivt liquid which has frozen
tht drUIIS shut} and lddftfon1l efforts It o,enfng the drUIIS should bt employed.
Thtst would tnclUde fnefng the frozen bungs or cutting a new hole in tht drum.
2.0 EXANPLIS o, SAMtLE COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
Add1tfont1 pid1nc1 on saaplt collection t.echniqu11 11 av1;l1blt ;n
"S1111C)l1r1 and S111Plfn1 Procedures for Klzardous W11t1 Str•••• (USEPA 1980) 1nd
fn 11 S111pHng and An1lysh Methods for H1z1rd0u1 W11te C011bu1tion11 (USEPA 1983).
S9
-
[ ,.
T
l
[
2.1 Liquids
Liquids Ny bt ~01lec:t_1d by grab or integrative ttc:hniQuts . Gr-a::
saapl;ng ■1y include fill1ng I Jar froa I spigot or dipper c:olltc:t ion of
water !roa a lagoon. Fr1qu1ncy of sa~pling and aaount to bt c:olltc:ted dur-,~g
tac:h test ■ust be stated in the 111tpling plan 1nd rec:ordtd wnen the s,moles
art collected. Intagrative Sllft1)ling r1quir11 a p1.111p on -in interval timer-•
slow flow fro■ 1 valve, •1nu1lly ti1111d interval supl;ng, or other 01..,;c:;
Additional guid1nc:1 is 1v1il1ble (Berg 1982). •
2.2 Solids
Solid sampling techniques vary with the nature of tht solid. Fr11-
flowing powders ■ay behave like a liquid, •hilt other solids ••Y rtQuire spe-
c:ial equipment to reaovt I portion. The 1quipaent to bt ustd (trowel, auger,
gr1in thief, etc.) and proc:1dur1s for its use ■ust bt 1d1Qu1t1ly dtsc:ricea .
2.3 Mixtd Phast S1111plts
Mixed ph1s1 simples r1pres1nt a challenge to tht sample collector .
In t1nks and other static systHs, 1 phase separation during sampling is pr-,-
f1rabl1, provided that tht total voluat or weight of each ph1s1 is measured .
Ph1s1s coll1ct1d s1p1rat1ly must bt 1naly11d separately. Proportions of tac:~
phase in thl system (1.g., a holding tank) shall bt NISUrtd volu1111tric1lly .
Examples including skiMing solids off liquids Ind drawing off oil and ••ttr
layers from a tank. Whtrt ph1s1 separation is iapractical, such 1s a sus-
• pended solid. tht wholt ■ust bt ■fxtd to assure that the s•l• is r1pr1sent1-
tivt. In I fl-,wing pipt, colltcting I r1pr1s1nt1tiv1 1uipl1 of a solid/oil/
water ■hturt ■1y bt impossible, since tht valve position is fixed. In tl'lis
situation tht oil ph1st would probably contain aore PCls than the wattr and
would rtprtstnt a aaximUffl (worst cast for w11t1, btst case for fttd). Tht
r1prtstnt1tivtntss or lack tntrtof should bl noted.
3.0 SAMPLE ANALYSIS
For aany alttrnativt t1chnologf11, the PCI content of tht fttd,
product, and waste t111Plt1 111,st b1 .dlt1rain1d. This section addrtssts tne
analysis of th11e •trictt for PCls. A1 discussed tlstwhtrt tn this doc:umtnt,
EPA aay require 1ddttton1l 1n1ly111 to dta0nstr1u U\1t an alttrn1tiv1 ttc:1'1-
nology 11 1quiv1ltnt to tnc1n1r1tion. The ao,licant 11 re1pon1iblt for 0r1-
s1nting d1t1iltd •thodl for th111 aatric11, other •trices, or non-PCB 1n1ly-
s1s, as required.
OTS ... not specify an1lyt.tc1l •tMdt for ,cas i tlovtvtr. th; s
section presents certain guidtlints on •thod• wtiic~ OTS NI reason to btlitvt
will provide acce,Uble data. Methods for fffd •ttrtah, 1t1ck gu, uh,
and scnMer water IN pr111nttd. Methods other than those presented htrt 1111y
bt propostcl by peratt app11canu, providtcl \.Mt tM pro,o1td •thods Htt tl"lt
OTS d1t1 quality objtcttv11 (1.g., an1ly1i1 for 111 PClt in SIIIC)lts w;tn dt·
ttction lt ■its 1d1qu1t1 to Nit ptrait requir1N~t1). Applicants snould re-
view thtst guid1lin11 and propose coaplttt, specific Ntl\ods in tntir ttst
60
1
..
plan. Many Nthods, ;nc:luding 10111 of those discussed in this section
present ont or aort options to the analyst. Tht appl;cant ~ust state .n:-~
option 1s to bt used. If stltc:tion of options is d1p1nd1nt on umplts, 0--~
on ether factors whic:h cannot bt predic:ttd, tht stltc:tion crittria must bt
presented in tht test plan.
PCBs art I coiapltx set of 209 individual c:hefflical co~pounds. Tne
commtrcial fflixturts for COlllfflonly found 1n the fHd uttrial g1n1r1lly contain
from 20 to 80 of thtst 209 PCB congeners. In most casts for final product or
1fflutnt s1mpl1s, however, it can be anticipated that the PCB p&tttrn w,11 ee
qualitatively different from that in tht feed, un11,1 tht PCB, were trans•
aitted through the systu without any chaical 1lt1ri~ion by the destruction
process. For f;nal product or effluent uaplu, the analytical '"tl'lod must
;d1ntify and quantitatt 111 of the PCBs present in each s111pl1, not just tne
Aroc:lor present in the feed.
3.1 Fttd Materials
As long as the fttd uttrial contains PCls which Qualft&tivtly re•
stmblt ont of the co1111erci1l mixtures, such as tht Aroclors, the traditional
1n1lytic1l Methods which ust Aroclor ■ixturts for GC calibration are acc:tp•
tablt. Thest Nthods are discusstd below.
If the PCB coaposition in tht fetd aattrial dots not r1s1mt)l1 1
colfllftercial ■ixturt, tht saaples should be an1ly11d using tht ■tthods rtcom-
■endtd for-the final product and effluent 1uipte1, as discu1s1d below.
3.1.1 Oils -
Tht EPA procedure for an1lyii1 of PCls in tr1nsfof"lllr oils an~ waste
oils (USEPA 1981, Bellar 1nd Lichttnber-g 1911) providts a ;tntraliztd approac:n
with respect to sa,aple pr1par1tion and instrU1Nntal 1n1lysis. Several cltanup
ttc:hniques art provided as optional 1ppro1cnts in this procedure. For tl'lt
instrumental analysis, GC with halogen specific, electron capture, or mass
sptctrOMtry detectors are all allowed, provided appropriate li ■its of d1t1c:·
tion can bt 1chievtd. A stront quality control p~r• including control
s111q)l1s, daily quality control check Slal)lts, blanks, standard addit;ons,
1ccur1cy and prtcisfon records, and tnstnaenUl and chroaatographic perfor·
aanc:1 criteria h Nquirtd to support 111 data generated by the ■-tf'\od.
The ASTM (1913) 040!9•13 procedure for ■intral insulating oils
utili1e1 so1ven\-d11utfon and I Florisil slurry cl11nuo prior to PGC/ECO dt·
t1r11in1tton. The proctdurt assUats that tM c-,011t10ft of \he PCls pnunt
in tr1n1fo'91P or capacitor otls closely ,..,.-111 U\lt of tM Aroclor stan·
dards. I\ IIOWI t.hat tM sensitivity of tM £CD h rtductd by aintral o; 1
and instructs tN analyst to aakt the aaovnt of oil in tM standard and s1mp11
equivalent to ■fnf■fze tM effects of the otl tnterf1rtnc1 on the quantitativt
result.I.
61
,-
l
[
'
3.1.Z Soils, Sludgts 1 and Solid W11t11
A Yaritty of standard Hthods 1re IYl111blt for thtst fflltl"iCes .
-Stvtral EPA _Nthods u_tiliZI dichloroaeth1nt txtraction, follow@~ by
cleanup and GC dttera1n1tion with difftrtnt detectors. so;1 and other solio
w1ste1 uy bt analyzed by EPA's SW•M6 Nthods (USEPA 19841). Mtthod 8080 is
tht packed coluan GC/ECD Nthod; 8250 11 tht packed column GC/EIMS ~tthOd '
and 8270 11 the capillary coluan GC/ElMS Mthod. All U\rff Nthods h&vt ~
st1ttd li•it of detection of 1 ~g/g. SON ~t1ons are prtstnttd ;n these
111tnods and tht qu1ntit1tion procedure h not well·dtfintd for PCBs; thtl"tfor-t
applicants 11ust supply additional details on the planned an1lys;s. •
The sludgt .. thod EPA 625-S (H11lt and Lopez•Avila 1984) gives oo-
tional Florisil, silica gel, 1nd GPC cle1nup1 and stipulates electron imoact
a1ss spectro .. try 11 the GC detector. Qu1ntit1tion is by tot1l 1re1s co~oar,~
to tot1l 1re11 ot Aroclor standards.
ASTM Method 03304•74 (ASTM 198lb) utilizes I hexane/wattr/actt~n;trilt
extraction for soil s--,:,les. Several optional cleanups art prtstnttd. Samo lts
art an1lyz1d by packed colUllln GC/ECD and qu1ntit1ted using the total areas cf
Aroclor standards.
3.l.l Capacitors and Other Solids
No standard Nthods exist specifically for thest 111tricu. Tht
s1mplt should~• physically prepared by shredding or grinding and thtn tx-
tracted with an appro~riate solvent (t.g., btnzent or hexane), prtftraoly with
1 Soxhlet apparatus ovtr 11ultiplt cycles. Cleanup and analysis can then fol-
low ant of tht Nthods given above.
3.2 Final Product or Effluent S1"!Plts
3.2.1 Processes Which Do Not Chance Aroclor P1tt1rn
For processes which do not alter the PCI coapos;t;on~ such 1s sol-
vent cle1n;"g/distill1tion processes, the Mthod1 listed above for fttd sam-
ples can be adaoted to U\e fin1l product or effluent IIIIC)les. With tht lowtr
requ;red dettction lt■its, additional bl1nk1 Ind other QC Nasurts m1y bt
approprhte.
3.2.2 Proc111e1 Which Alter the Aroclor Pattern
If tt,e Aroc1or pattern is 11gn1f1c1ntly altered by the destruction
_process, o,a 1f other Pas (e.g., partially dechlorinated hoaologs) 1r1 ob-
served tn Ille 1--,111, then tht traditional MU\odl described above are not
1pproprt1w. For thttt 1aaple1, tl'II analytical Mtl\ocS ■1,,11t identify and Qu1n-
tit1te 111 of tt,e PC11 pre1ent tn the tMOlt, Mt jyst UII Aroclor pr1s1nt in
the fttd. •
62
r
'-
[
C
3.2.2.1 Oils and Other Nonvolat11t Organic Liguids
Tht HIT"
tht fttd_saaolts, abo
strum1nt1l ttchn;qut.
preparation pr0c:1dur1s may follow those listt~
S&mpl1s m1y then bt 1n1lyz1d by 1n appropriate
If tht applicant chooses to ust GC/ECD as the instrumental
method, I ■ixturt of 10 PCB congeners (one each for the various dtgrtts of
chlorination) ■ay bt ustd for tht calibration. This ■ixture wa, dtttM11,ntd
by the Ory Color Manufacturers Association (OCHA) to give an av1r1g1 ECO re-
sponse for uch homolog (OOtA 1982). Instrumentll 1n1lysi1 can bt don, ac-
cording to EPA Mtthod 608 (USEPA 1984b) or ASTM {1983) 04059-83. To Quanti·
tatt tht 1ana;:ilts 1 the following protocol (Michitest Research Institute 1985)
fflly bl used:
1. D1ttn11ine the retention windows. Nott: This is an a~e,-
trary de111arc:1tion and results in 11isidentific:ation of 10111 congeners as
tither I higher or lower homolog. However, since the ECO cannot discrim··ate
by homologs, th;s is the best approach to partitioning the peaks.
(1) Record the rtttntion time for tac:h c:ongtntr in t~e
standard on a data shttt.
(Z) For the 110no•, tht window extends from the rtttntion
timt of tht standard, which ;s tht first eluting PCB, to tht midpoint btt~e,n
tht mono• and ~i-st1ndards. Start tht window sufficiently ahead of tht stan-
dard elution ~i,.t (t. g., O. l ■in) to allow for retention ti• drift.
(3) Tht windows for di• through non1• 1r1 tht 111idpc-i'nts
betwttn tht rtttntion tiees of tht standards.
(4) For the deca·, which has only ont isomer, tht window
h tht retention timt of tht standard, allowing appropriate timt (t.g., :
0.1 min) for retention t;■, drift.
b. Calculate a lin11r regression curve for each hoaolog. Tl"le
m;nimum correlation coefficient (e.g., 0.99) should be specified in tnt QA
Plan. If th;s required correlation is not obUined, tither t"lrun the standard
curve or p1rfor11 corrective action as given in the QA P1an.
c. Qu•ntit1t1 the 1uipl11. ObUin the concentration in m;cro-
gr1111s p1r ailliliter of each peak in the suiplt (11 injected on tht g1s c~rc•
111tograph) fl"OII ~ regression equations c1lcul1ttd above. For aost samples,
only peaks .... , \0 or greater t.Mn 1 .,ig/g Neel N t"lporUd. Those PtlkS IIIUCl"I
less than Vitt value do not. ftffd to N calculated. Where it. appears th1t. tl"lt
p11k1 will N Nlow tM cut.off, calculate tM area counts nec1111ry for 2 ~g/g
and then vt111111y CGal)lre t.l'lete with tN t111Plt data. This shortcut can speed
up the data reduct.ton process by elt ■iMtint unMC1111ry calculations.
d. Multiply the conc1ntr1tion obt1ined by the dilution factor
1nd d;vidt by the original suiplt weight (or voluat) to obtain the c0nc1ntr1-
tion in .,ig/g (or .,ig/■L) of the original s1■pl1. Record this v1lut on t.nt data
sheet for tlCh peak greater than or equal to 2 .,ig/g .•
63
•
,.
1
l
[
'
•· Aut0111.-<.1d qu1ntit1tion routines inc0rpor1tin; tl'lt 40011 princ:iples My be sucstituttd. •
An ~PA •tthod for by-product PCBs fn co11111rci1l products •no
product wastes (Erickson tt 11. 1982; Erickson 1984b) ■1y bt ustd witl'I GC/MS
as the fn1truaent1l Nthod. This Mthod presents s1v1r1l options, so Ptrm it
applicants au,t stipulate which options art to be used .
3.2.2.2 Vo1atf1t Orq1n1c Liquids
No sptci fie standard proc1duru 1r1 rtcollllfttndtd for tn,u
111atric:H. If the ■atrix is coap1tibl1 with the analytical 1111tl'lod (t .g., a
hydrocarbon 1nd GC/ECO), direct injection or tv1porativ1 concentrat i on ma y e,
suffici1nt. If the ■atria is not co~1tfb1t with tht 1n1lytic11 mttl'lod (t .g.,
1 chlorofluorocarbon and GC/ECD), then a solv1nt•txch1ngt must bt conducted
(MRI 1985). A l'lightr boiling hydrocarbon 11 k1tptr" should bt lddtd, so t l'l at
tht sample f1 not evaporated to dryness. Tht 1uiplt analysis by GC/ECO or
GC/MS can follov that given fn Sec:tfon 3.2.2.1. above.
3.2.2.3 Dfssolv1ble Solids (Process Waste, Sludge. ttc.)
For samples which r11dily dissolve fn organic solvents sucn as
htx1n1, btnzent, or metnanol/htxant, I wtightd aliquot can bt dissolvtd to a
known concentration. ■ixtd thoroughly (MRI l98S), and thtn tither 1n1lyz1d
directly, or cleaned up 1s an oil sa111plt (stt Section 3.2.2.1). Tht samplt
1n1lysis by GC/ECO or GC/MS can follow that given fn Section 3.2.2.l. above .
l.2.2.4 Insoluble Gr1nul1r Solids Soils Ash and Hon-Sulk
, o id wastes ttc.
The IUtPlt preparation for soils, sludges. and solid wt,tts
can follow that in Section 3.1.2 above. No specific published ~•tl'lod is
1v1il1blt for analysis of ash IIIIIPlts using the DCMA quantitation mixture .
S1~ple preparation (extraction. cleanup, ttc.) can bt dont according to E?A's
SW-846 (USEPA 19841) or tht EPA by-product aethod (Erickson 1984b; Eric~son
et al. 19851). Tht 1aaplt analysis by GC/ECD or GC/MS can follow tn1t givtn
in Section 3.2.2.1 above.
3.2.2.5 Insolublt lulk Solids
No 1Undard NthOdl txht sptc1fically for filttr 11edi1 and
othtr bulk solids. The int.in IIIIPlt should be extracted with an appropri1u
solvent, preferably w1UI I Soxhlet apparatus over aultiplt cycles. It is
illlC)ortant Ulat. Ula tt1t.fre l111Ple N extracted since the PCI content 1 s most
likely not. hDaageneou1 and, thus. a 1ub1aaple -ould probably not bt rtpresen·
tative. The choice of extract.ion solvent depends on Ula nature of tht samplt .
If the 1aap1e ta heavily wattr-ladtn or hydrophiHc, the solvtl"lt should wtt
the surface (1.g., ■ixtd l\ta1ne/1cttone or hex1M/w1ttr/1c1tonitrilt). lf
the suple fl hydro,hobic, then extraction with •· nonpolar solvent such u
htxant or btnztne .. y N appropriate. TM l111Ple analysis by GC/ECD or GC/MS
can follow that given in Section 3.2.2.1 lbovt. •
64
E
r
l
[
C
3.2.2.6 Aqueous S•mples
Scrubber water and othtr aqueous saaplts can be 1nalyztd oy
EPA Method 608 (USEPA 1984b) or 625 (USEPA 1984c) or ASTM "'lthod 03534·80
(ASTM 19811) only if thJ Aroclor pattern remains int1ct ~ft1r the incintration .
If u,1 Aroclor p1tttrn h significantly 11.ttrtd by tht dtstruc·
tion process, or if other PCBs (1.g., partially dtchlorin•ttd hofflologs) are
ocservtd in the ••mi>lts, then the above Nthods art not appropri1tt for t~t
1n1lysis. An EPA fflethod for by•product PCBs in water (Erickson 19841) may be
ustd with GC/MS IS tht instrut1ent1l Mthod. This Mthod pr1s1nts several op-
tions, so permit 1pplic:1nts ■ust stipulate which options art to bt used.
lf tht applicant chooses to use Gt/ECO IS tht instruffltntal
~ethod, the OCMA (1982) Quantit.ation discussed above ■1y be used. No specific
published Nthod ii available for analysis of ash saaples using tht OCMA Quan-
titation ■ixture. Suple preparation (extraction, cleanup, etc.) can bt done
according to EPA Method 608 (USEPA 19Ub) or 62S (USEPA 1984c) or tht EPA by-
product ffltthod (Erickson 1984b). InstrU11tntal analysis can bt dont 1ccording
to EPA Method 608 (USEPA 1984b). To quantitate the saaples, tht protocol pre•
s1nt1d in Section 3.2.2.1 ■1y be used.
4.0 REFERENCES
American Socitty for Testing and Materials. "Standard Method for Polychlori-
nattd 81phenylt (PCBs) in Water, ANSI/ASTM O 3534•80," in Annual Book of ASTM
Standards Part 31, Philadelphia, Pennsylvani1 (19811), pp. 816·833. .
Allltrican Society for Testing and Materials. •standard Method for An1lysis of
Environ111ntal Materials for Polychlorinated liphenyla, AHSI/ASTM O 33Qt·77,"
in Annual Book of ASTM Standards Part 31, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (l98lb),
pp. 877-885.
Alllerican Soc;ety for Testing and Mlterials, •standard Method for Analysis of
Polychlorfoated Biphenyh in Mineral Insulating Oih by Gu Chro1111to9raphy,"
ANSl/ASTM O 4059·83, in Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 40, Phil1d11ph,1,
P1nnsylv1nia (1983), pp. P2•SS0.
Btllar, T. A., 1nd J. J. Lichttnbef"9, •Thi DettNination of Polychlor;n1t1d
Biphenyls in Tran1forMr Fluid and Waste 0111,• prtJ»artcl for U.S. Environmtn·
tal Protection A91ncy, IPA•600/4•11•045 (1H1).
Berg, E. L., •ttandbook for 5.-pltng and Saaole '"••nation of Water and waste·
water,• U.S. lnvtronaenul Protection A9ency, l1port No. EPA•600/4•82·029
• (SeptHNr 1112), 411 pp. • .
Dry Color Manufacture" A11octation, •Aft ANlyttcal Procedure for the Oet1r-
■inat ton of Polychlortnat.ed liphtnyl1 tn Dry Phtl'lalocyanine 11\11, Phtha1o-
cyanine Green, and Diarylidt Yellow Pigaent1,• Arlington, Virginia (1982).
6S
E
r •
' l
l
[
C
Eric:ltson, M. 0., .. An•lytic&l 14ethod: The An&lysis of-ly-Produc:t Cl'llor,,.,ltld
lfpnenyl1 in Water, Revision 2, .. U.S. Enviro,,..ntal Protection A;tnc:y, Offici
af Toxic Sua1unce1, Washington, D.C., EPA 560/5•85·012 (198-41).
Erickso~. M. D., "An1lytic1l Method: Tht Analysis of By-Product Chlorinittd
liphenyls in Coaerci1l Products and Product Wastes, Revision 2," U.S. Environ-
Nntal Protection Agency, Off1ct of Toxic Substances, Wa~hington, oc, EPA
S6:./S•U•010 (19Mb);
Erickson, M. D., "Analytical Cheehtl")' of PCBI," Boston: lutttrworth Pub-
1 is hers (1986).
Erickson, M. 0., and J. S. St1nl1y, "Methods of Analysis for By-Product PC8s--
Uttr1ture Review and Preli ■inal")' Reco,..nd1tions," Interim Report No . l, Of·
fice of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ~ashin;ton,
0.C., EPA•S60/S•82•00S, October 1982, 135 pp.
Erickson, M. 0., J. S. Stanley, K. Tur1111n, G. Radolovich, K. Bauer, J . Onstot,
0. Rost, and M. WickhUI, "Analytical Methods for ly-Product PC8s·•P,-1limin1ry
Va1id1tion and Inttri• Methods," Inttria Report No. 4, Office of Toxic Sut:1-
st1nc11, U.S. Envi roMental Protection Agency, W11hi ngton, O. C., EPA· S60/
5·82·006 (1982), 243 pp. (NTIS No. PB 83 127696].
Erickson, M. 0., J. S. Stanley, J. K. Tufflan, and G. Radolovich, "Analytical
Mttl'lod: The Analysis of Chlorinated Bipl'lenyls in Liquids and Solids,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offict of Toxic Substances, Washington,
0.C., EPA•S60/S•8S·023 {F1bru11")' 198Sa).
Erickson, M. D, J. S. Stanley, J. K. Turman, J. E. Going, 0. P. Radford, and
O. T. Hegg1111, 11 D1te,..ination of By-Product PCBs in Co-.rcial Products and
Wastes by High Resolution GC/EIMS," Environ. Sci. Ttchnol. (sub■ itt1d) :~9850).
Haile, C. L., and V. Lopu•Avila, "01vtlopt1ent of Analytical Ttst Proc:~~1.1rts
for the Meuur1111nt of Organic Priority Pollutants••Projec:t SUfflllary," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environaental Monitor;ng and Support Labor-a•
tory, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA·600/S•·M•001; (Full Report 1v1il1blt 1s HTIS No.
PB 84-129 o•a> (19M).
Midwast Research Institute, "Op1rating Proc1dur1 • Analysis of Suolts for
PCBs by GC/ECO," EPA Contract No. 68•02•3931, MRI Project No. 8SOl-A6
(OecMber 1985).
U.S. Environaental Protection Agency. •s~ltrs and S1ac,ling Procedures f~r
Hazardous Waste Stre1111,• Report No. EPA•600/2•IO•Oll (January 1980).
U.S. Envi,.,..ntal Protection Agency, •Tht Analysis of Polychlorin1t1d 8iph1nyls
in Tr1n1fo,_, Fluid and W11t1 0111,• Office of ltstarch and Dtvelopa1nt, En~,-
ronaenU1 Nlnftorfnt and S~ort Laboratory, Cinc:1nnat1, Ohio (February 1981).
U.S. Envf ronaental Protection Agency, •s~lf ng and Analysis Methods for Hu·
ardous Waste Comu1tion (First Edition),• prepared by A. D. Little, Inc:.
(Oecelllbtr 1983).
66
u.s. Envinu .. nul ,rotection Agency, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid ~•s~e-Phy1ic1l/Chetlic1l Methods, SW-M6, 2nd Edition, Revised.'' Office of Sol,a ~ast~ and EMrgtncy Response, Washington, DC (April 19U1).
U.S. En9iro,-nt&l Protection Agency, "Or;anochlorine Pesticidas ind PCBs--Mtthod 608," Fed. R1gi1t., !!(209). 89•104 (October 26. 19Ub).
u.s. Envfro,..nul Protection Agency, •11s1/Neutral1. Acids. and Pesticides---Method 62!,• Fe-d. Reqfst .. !!(209). 153•174 (October 26. 1984c).
C
r
-
' l
67 •
fl
r
-
l
l
[ ..
APPENDIX C
ors GUIDANCE ON FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Junt l986
68
E
[
--
PREFACE
This Apptnd;x pr1s1nts_1nsw1rs to frequently 1sk1d questions related to p1,..itting of incinerator fac,litits. Tht 1nsw1rs r1pr1s1nt OTS guiaance, as of June 1986.
69
E
r
, . -
1
[
Question 1: How does OTS approve extraction and df1tfll1tion typt proc,sses?
Answer: OTS wfll issue~ pef"lllit for the overall systtfl and not for individ-
ual unit operat1ons. The systtffl ■ust be closed. All workin; fluids
aust be labeled in accordance -ith tM orfg1na1 conc1ntr1ti0n of t~e
treated ■at1ri11, unl111 shown t.o bt of I lower conc1ntr1ti0n. All
fluids, filters, wastes. and the system itself ~ust bt appropriite ly
Marked btfor1 l11ving the site, unless shown to bt less than 2 ppm
ptr resolvable chroNtographic peak in the PCB retention window .
Al 1 fluids Ind PCB-c:onuining lllltlrials should bt ttsttd btfOl"t
leaving tl'11 site so -that a foraal ac:c:ounting or 11us bahnce of
PCBs is ■1int1in1d. Rtc:ords •ust be kept for any tffluent streams.
Tht PCB-containing product Nttrials (fluids, filters, ttc.) must
bt dis~osed of according to "gulations (1.1 .• incinerattd).
Specific 1xaaples include:
1. Proctssts which art authoriztd (11 dtfin1d in Glosury of
Ttf"IIIS) according to 40 CFR 761.30 are:
• Closed filtration units to r1110ve PCBs from transformer
dielectric fluids; and
• Extraction/distillation proc:1ss1s whfc:h rtmovt PCBs from
transfonntr ditl1ctric fluids if the ditltctric is rtustd
in PCB•c:ontrolltd tquipaent and the conctntrattd waste is
disposed according to the regulations. •
b. An 1xtr1ctfon/distill1tion process which uses I solvtnt • ·!"king
fluid to rtaov1 PCBs froa transformers ■ust incintratt 111 t ~t
resulting •1t1ri11, or ■Ult labtl 111 the ■lttrial IS PCS-
contafnfng fn accordanct with the original conc1ntration of the
fluid btfng trt1t1d, or ■111t obtain I PCB destruction permit
requi rf ng the PCBs t.o bt dtl troytd to bt low 2 PP• ptr rt·
solvable chroaato;raphic p11k.
c. Destrvctfon syst•• with an ancillary 1xtr1ction/distill1tion
process will be Pt"'■itttd as an tntirt unit and ■ust tr11t t~t PCI aattrfal to btlow Z ppa per re1olv1bl1 chroaatograp~;c p11k.
Question 2: How 1tlould coapanfes apply for disposal of aore than ont kind of
.. terfal by a single proce11?
r Answer: Applfc1nt1 .,,t Justf fy the apt,liclbi ltty of the proc:111 to tht dif•
ferent types of ,ca Nttri1l1. The ju1tfffc1tfon ■ust include•
docuaenutton of the tffectiv1ness of ttle process with tht d;fftrtnt
utrtc11. This uy bt liafted to c1lcu~1tion1 showing tht lack of
70
-
r
T
•
j
l
[
Answer:
a1trix effect on PC! destruction efficiency or, prtftribly, wou 1d
1nc:1ude R&O results deaonstratfng the process efftctivtntss. EPI\
nof"Sllly will r1quir1 that I fitld duonstration ~•Y bt adtQua~e
for t1c:h ■1trix.
Conditions Which May 81 Included in PtT"fflits
What physic:al/chNic:11 p1r1m1t1rs for m1tric1s to bt tested .;11
bt sptcifitd for PCB fluids in PCB disposal ptnaits issued to
ct1emic1l destruction and other 1ltern1t1 Mthods of destruction
flcil it ies.
In general. p1r11its are issued only for the Ntric1s demonstrated .
Per11it1 will be issued ac:c:ording to the following scheme:
a. Min1r1l oil dieltctric fluid (MOOEF) • the Qualifier "dielec-
tric fluid"-identifies I specific ty;,e of 11ineral oil. There-
fore, additional description within tht per11it is unnecessary.
b. H11t transfer fluid • tht widt range of fluid types ustd in
hut tr1nsf1r applications 111kts it ntcuury to specify,
within tht per111it, tither tht p1rticul1r brand nue authorized
(i.e., Th1r111inol SS) on a specific stt of c:htmical and phys·
ic1l characteristics.
c. .iydr1u1ic fluid • the ut.erial used in this capacity is suf-
ficiently si ■i\ar tl\at it will not be per11itted by brand ~amt .
Rathtr, tht allowable bottoa solidJ, wattr content (t.g. l0X)
or other physical or ch .. ical prop1rtit1 will bt specif ed .
d. Othtr • in this category art wastt oils, ktroStnt, etc.
Authorizations to dispose of th1s1 fluids will bt written on
an individual basis. Cht■ic:11 analysis and cat•gory of appli·
cation will be tht description criteria used for tht permits .
Quest;on •: Can ltss rigorous or 1111 stringent analytical ttc:hniQuts bt ustd
during coatrcial operation of ch•ical proctssts thin wert used
during tM proce11 cseaon1tr1tion(1)?
No. For ctlelltcal trtataent processes, the analytical techniQut
which wtll be u1ed dur1nt c0111Nrcial 1ite operation is consid1r1d
tn'"rat·to tM proctu and therefore .,,t be dNonstrattd on•sitt.
Quaitty a11uranc1 infor111tion for that technique au1\ be provided
to •~rt tM applic1tton/dellon1tration plan. Confir111tory testing
(f.1., t,y anotMr laboratory) should be COfldYCtld to verify tht rt·
su1\I of fttld units. OTS rlSINII the rigbt t.o spotCMCk tht 1n1-
1ytfca1 Mthodology and results. In ol"dlr to Met the equiva1ency
requir ... nt to incineration, the 1ddition1l burden of analyzing t~t
final concentration of each batch h dt ... d approprhte and n1ces-
ury by OTS.
7l
. I
-.
Question 5: Ia •blend-doWnN of PCI fluids author111a?
Answer: Blending and/or spiking 11 allowed only for the purpose of •chitv·
1ng a particular treat.Mnt concentration during process dtmonstr•-
-tion1. However, during co-.rcial operation no ■at1ri1l which tx·
ceed1 the concentration level deeonstrat~d and autnoriztd by the
pen1it, uy·bl diluted or blended. •
■ Question&: How should process filters be disposed?
,-
T
l
[
Answer: For process filters which utilize activated charcoa, or a1croretic-
ul1r resins (e.g., XA0·2), the used and contuin1ted Mlttri•l must
be disposed of by EPA-approved fnciner&tfon. Other filter mtd i •
1hall also be incinerated unle11 the PCB concentration of the fil-
ters, as deter11ined by ChNical an1ly1fs 1 11 < 2 ~g/g/resolv1el1
chroaatograpnfc peak, in which case, the filters art not r19ul1ttd.
Th1 applicant ■ust obt.a1n ai,proval for alternate disposal fro~ CTS .
Question 7: What are the requil"tllent1 for handling by-product wastes from
alternative technology processes?
Answer: Pen11fts issued for alternative destruction processes gentrally ~i ll
require that 111 tre1t1d aaterials and brproduct waste streams must
have PCB concentrations of le11 thin 2 ~g/resolvablt cnrom1t09r1phic
peak (ppa). If this condition is not •t, th1 effluents cont•ining
2 PP• or greater ■ust be disposed 11 if they cont.tined the PCB con-
centration of the original influent uterial.
Deonstration Test Protocol
Qutstfon 8: What are the testing requi,....nts for dioxins and fur1ns dur,~;
proce11 d1t10n1tration1?
Answer: Chem;cal reaction systNI which use sodiu■ reduction w;11 not ct
required to perfoN dioxin and furan analyses if operated btlow •0-
proxi•tely 500•c. Sy1tea1 wl'liC~ o,erate in eXCISI of S00°C ~ill
be evaluata4 on a c11rbrc111 basis. Si ■ilarly, other 1lttrn1tt
d11tn,ctton 1y1tea1 w111 be evaluated individually.
Question 9: Should 111 proc111 effluents be analyzed?
Answer: If U.. .. ,ca fled •ter1a1 being treated by the proceu ; s ovtr 500
PIia ,ca, tMft ttle resulting 1ffluent1 ·au1t bl incinerated unless 1n
analysts ts conducted and 1ndfc1t11 ""-t the ,Cl concentr1t;on is
below 2 ppa per ,ca peak.
72
l
[
E
•
Question 10: Does OTS requ;re testing of a;r Missions (e .g .. PCBs or bt nzent) during ch .. ical process deeonstrat;on tests?
Ans~er: Any em;,,;ons (g1seous, liquid, or solid in nature) ~ust come ~/.;~~
-111 other relevant Federal, st1te, and local re;ul1tions. For c~e~-
ical tre1t11ent processes, OTS requires documentation verifying t~at
no air emission regulations art violated. OTS reserves tht rignt
to require or conduct sampling of any gaseous effluent strt1m. Re-
sults of pre•de■onstration testing for air emissions ~;11 bt re-
viewed by OTS, but not necess1rily acc1pt1d in lieu of d1ta acQu i red
during a demonstration test.
Question ll: How ■any batches ■ust be treated during a chemic1l process demon-
stration?
Answer: For ch•mical treataent processes, I dnonstration should ,nclude as
1 aini ■UIII, thr11 full·scale batches treated on separate days, or o~
the sa~e day following 1ysttt1 shutdown(s). At least two conctntr a-
tion levels should be tested. A replicate run at the highest con-
centration should be conducted. The higher .concentration should be
approximately double the lower unless the applicant has re1son to
use different concentrations.
,;
Question 12: What PCB standards an recoaended for Analytical testing?
Answer: The PCB standard chosen depends on the PCB comc,osition in the sam-
ples and the purpose of the data .
a. If I waste fted sa~le fs being as11yed for initial PCB con·
c1ntrati0n, and if it consists of:an identifiable Aroclo ·· (or
other c01NHrcial ~ixture) or cOllbination of Aroclors, th~ in -
strument ~ay be c1libr1ttd using tht appropriate Aroclo , or
combination of Aroclors. The standard concentrations must be
within tht working rangt of tht instruaent and ■ust bracKet
the c0ncentr1ti0n of the suiplt dilutions.
b. If the SIIIC)lt dots not contain I PCI ahturt si ■ilar to tl'lt
Aroclors or other coaarci11 ■ixtun1, tht applicant ~ust dtm·
on1tr1t1 that 111 PCl1 art bti~ NIIUred. Tht product oil
froa a cfletlical tr11tatnt proc111 and si ■ilar sa•plts art in
this category. For cht•ical dtstructfon proc1111s, 11, puks
■Ult N 1111 than 2 ppa/r11olv1bl1 ChT"CNtographic ptlk ..
The ,ca elution windOW 11 dlfinec:I by tht retention tiNs on 1
gas chroaatotraph between Z•chlorobiphenyl and dtcachlorooi·
phenyl. The calibration ■iature 11 generally a solution con·
ta1n1ng one each of the 10 PCI hoaolog1 (1.1., aono•, di·,
tr1•, ... d1c1chlorobiphenyl; 1.g., tl\e "DCMA" solution avail·
able,,.. chroa1togr1phy supply coa,anits).
73
•• 'I
D
r
•
1
•
1
'r
i
[
C
~~ witn tne ~rotiur c1libr1tion, the st1nd1rd eonc,~t~•~;o-s
■ust be w~ th, n the w<irld ng range of t_he i nstrl,jjlltnt &na lli.ist
bracket the conc1ntr1tion of the SUtp1ts.
Any peaks within the PC! rtttntion window •ust bt ci1culited
as PCBs un1tss tht 1n11yst can de1110n1tr1t1 through uu of
blinks, confi rt11at0ry ttchni QutS, or other Nthods thn tne
peak(I) in Question fs not I PCB.
Prtparatio"s for I Otmonstration
Question 13: Is an R&O program, or SOWie othtr de110nstr1tion of tht ability to
optr1te, required pr;or to scheduling•" official test dtmonstr 1-
tion?
Answer: For previously unp1rt11itttd facilities OTS r1co11111ends 1ithtr • pre-
li11inuy R&O progr1111 with PCBs or use of a PCB substitute for sno,-
down of tht unit. An R&O pert11it will not be issued for mort tnan
three total batches. It should be stressed that once the 1pp1icint
procttds with a demonstration test, if the deaonstration schtdult
is not adhtrtd to, OTS will reserve the right to rescind tht permit
while on·sitt or l11v1 tht d1monstr1tion before it is comp1tttd .
Another demonstration cannot bt rescheduled for a ■fnimum period of
thrtt 111onths.
Question 14: Will 1pplic1nt preparedness be screened prior to demonstration?
Answer: OTS will work with applicants to ensure that the process is rtady
prior to the demonstration. This aay includt evidence of succ,ss·
ful op1r1tions under siaflar conditions. For facilities whtr~ im-
mtdi1t1 on-site analysts of product i-1_ required u part of • he
demonstration, successful analysis of QA samples ■ay bt rtQu.red
btfort tht demonstration as 1 ■ethod of screening out unprtpired
applicants.
Test Oe111onstrations
Question 15: What crittri1 will bt used to uke 1n on-site dettnaination to
discontinue a deaonstr1t;on?
Answer: For chNic1l tr11t.Nnt atthods, an acceptable run ■ust bt co~pltttd
on tM ffrst day or EPA representatives will have sufficient c1ust
to leave. Two interruptions will bt allowed during process;ng of
any batch. Additional interruptions 1ut0111tically inv1lid1t1 tht
run•• results.
If tht deaonstrat;on schedule is not 1dtltrtd to, OTS w;11 rtstrvt
the right to rescind u,, perait whne on.•sitt or leave the dtmon•
1tr1tion before it is coapltttd. Another dte0n1tr1tion cannot bt
rtscf'ledultd for 1 ■ini ■ua period of thr11 ·aont.h1.
C ,.
L
l
C
APPENDIX D
AOORESSES FOR HEADQUARTERS AND REGIONAL OFFICES
75
F
r
i.
[
•
. -:--""'.fl • : ·-:.ii:..-~ ........... ,.~-~--~-!ial!!-■11111
Addresses follow for U.S. IPA He1dqu1rt.er1 and Region•. ~aoqvaf"tars will
supply the nlNI of legional Pel Coorclfnatort upon requaat.
HeadQuarters Director of the Office of Toxic
. SubsUncH (TS•792) Environaental Protectfon Agency
401 M Street, s.w.
Wul'lington, D.C. • 20'60
Region l .{Connecticut, M1fne, Massachusetts,
New H1111pshire, Rhode Island, Ver90nt)
Regional Adfflfnistrator
Environaental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
:oston, Massachusetts 02203
Region 2
{New Jersey, New York)
Regional Administrator
Environ~ental Protection Agtncy
26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278
Region 3
{Delaware, District of ColUllbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
West Vfrgi nil)
Regional Adndnistrator
Environmtntal Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Strttt
Pniladtlph;a, P1nn1ylv1ni1 19107
At,ion, (A abua, Florida, c;.c»rgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North taro11n1, South
Carolina, T1nne11N)·
R1gion1l Aclll1n11tr1tor
Enviro,..ntal ,l"RK\tOft Agency 3,5 Cour\11M Stf'Nt, N.E.
Atlanu, llort1• 303'5
n
r .
• ,
"'
r
[
C
.
Rtgional Adllinistrator
Environaental Prottction Agency
230 South Deart)orn Strtet
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Region 6 (Ark1ns1s, Louisiana, Ntw Mexico,
Okll~Offll, Texas)
Reg·~nal Administrator Environmental Protection Agency
First International Building
1201 Elm Str11t
Dallas, Texas 75270
R19ion 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)
Rtgional Administrator Environmental Prottction Agtncy
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Rtgion 8 {Colorado, Mont,na, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
Rtgional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Strett, Suitt 1300
Otnvtr, Colorado 80202·2413
Rt ion 9
r1zona, California, Hawaii, Nevada)
Regional Adlllinistrator
Environmental Protection Agincy
215 Frt~ont Street •
San Francisco, California 9410S
Re~ion 10 •
(A Hkl, lcllM, ON90ft~ Washington)
Regional -.1nt1trator
Environaental Protectton Agency
1200 6th Avenue
St1ttl1, W11hington 91101
-.1
77
-
C
r
l
[
C
APPENDIX E
ANNOTATED IIILIOGRAPMY
78
r
...
[
t
D .. G. Ac:ke,..1n, L. L. Sc:i _nto, P. S. B.itsl'li, .. R. G. Oe:umyu, R. ~-Jor-·s:i"'. G.
R1c:l'\1,.d, A. fll. T11cat1, 1nd E. M. Sworzyn, Outruc:t10n and Oispou1 of PCSs
by Ther111l and Non•Then11l Methods," Noyes D1t1 Corporation, Par1t Rid;t NJ
1983, 417 pp. ' '
Guidanc:t • Th1r,a1l and Non•Then1111
This fl a v1rt11tim c:ollbination of two EPA reports:
1. Sworzyn and Acktrfflln (1982) (EPA•600/2•82·069J, and
2. Ac:ktM111n et 11., (1981) (EPA·600/2•81•022J.
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D1part111nt of H11lth, Education, .and Welfare, Public: Health Service, Ctnter
for Dis1as1 Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety ind Health,
"Criteria for a R1c:0111Hnded Standard ... Oc:c:upational Exposure to Polyc:hlorinated
Bfphtnyls (PCBs)," S1ptellber 1977, 224 pp. (available fr011 U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC).
Worker Safety and H11lth
Tht N1tfon1l Institute for Oc:c:up1tion1l Safety and H11lth (NIOSH) rec:om·
mends that employee exposure to polyc:hlorfn1ted biphtnyls (PCBs) in the work•
plac:1 be c:ontrolltd by 1dh1r1nc:1 to the following sections. Tht st1nd1rd is
designed to protect the health and provide for tht safety of •~ploy11s for up
to a lO•hour workday, 40-hour workweek, over a nonaal working lif1tfm1. The
standard h NHurablt by technfqu11 that art valid, r1produc:ibl1, and 1v1il·
able to industry 1nd govtrnNntal agencies. Coapli1nc1 with tht standard
should subst1n•;a11y r1duc:1 any risk of reproductive or tU110rig1nic effects
of PCSs 1nd prevent other adverse effects of exposure in the workpl1c:e. Em•
ploytts should regard the r1c:0111111nded workplac:e-~tnvironMntal lh,;t u t.tlt
upper boundary for exposur• and aakt every effort to k11p exposure 1s l -~ 1s
possible.
Evid1nc:1 indic1tes adverse r1produc:tiv1 1nd tuffiorigenic: effects in txper-
im1nt1l 1nim1ls exposed to certain COMtrc:ial PCB pr1par1tions. Currently
1v1il1bl1 infonn1tion is not 1d1Qu1t1 to deaonstr1t1 that other co1M11rci1l
PCB preparations do not have thest effects. Should suffic:ent infor111tion bt·
come 1v1il1ble to indicate that tht standard offers gr11t1r or l1ss1r protec-
tion fro• soat c:hlorobiphenyl isoaers or co-.rcial prep1r1tions than is n1ed1d.
it will bt considered for revision. [froe R1co-.nd1tion1 section of report)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
79
. I
\
-
r
•
•
,
l
[
C
It. L. Durfee, G. ~onto1,. F. 0. Wh1taore, J. D. hrdeA, £. E .... Cui&n, 111.
and I. A. Westin, PC11 1ft tM Unit.ea Stites• lndu1trt1l Use and Environt11entil D1str1but1on1,• U.S. Enviro,..ntal Pr:otect1on A9ency, Office of Toxic Sub·
!;~neat, Washin~n, DC, Rai,ort No. EPA 560/&7&•005 [NTIS No. P9•2S2O12J, 1976.
-pp.
Review of Disposal and Destruction Methods
Thf1 docuaent present• the curNnt state of knowledge about the oroduc· tion, usage, and distribution of polychlorinated biphenyh (PC.Ss) in the
United States. The info,....tion presented 11 derived fr011 detailed studies on
the production and first tier user industries, the past and present gener1 -
ticn and disposition of PCl·containing wastes, anvfro,..nt1l transport and
cumulative loads, potential alternatives to PCB, usage, inadvertent losses to
and potential foraation in the anvironaent, and current regulatory authorities
for PCls control. These results indicated that, although PCBs content of in•
dustrial w1sta1 can be reduced throuoh various approaches (tr11t.111nt, substi•
tution, ate.), there exists I potentially severe future hazard in the form of
large 1Mounts of PCls currently contained in land disposal sites. Further
definition of this and other aspects of the PCl1 probl•, and deter111in1tion
of ways to ainiaiza the hazard, are ree0111Nnded. [author's abstract)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Protection Agency, •40 CFR Part 761, Po1ychlorfnated Bipheny1s
(PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Coaaerce, and Use Pron,0i·
tions," Federal Register,!!, 31514•31561, May 31, 1979.
TSCA Rul11
This final rule implements provisions of the Toxic Substances Con~:ol
Act (TSCA) prohibiting tne ■1nufactura, proc111ing, distribution f n co•'!rct,
and use of polychlorinated biphenyl1 (PCls). Specifically, this rule:
(1) Prohibits 111 aanufacturing of PCl1 after July 2, 1979, unless sp,-
cifiealty exeapted by the Environatntal Protection Agency (EPA),
(2) Prohibits the pf"OCeSliftV, di1trfbutfon fn coaerce, Ind Ult of PCB,
except fn a totally enclosed •nner after July 2, 1179i
(3) Auttlorfz11 c1rutn proc11stng, df1trfbutton tn c-rce, and ust of
PCl1 tn a non-toully enclo1ed 111M1r (wtlfctl would othlrwts1 be subject to
the prohibition de1crf1Md uove)i
(4) Prolltbtu 111 proc111tng and df1trfbu\fon fn c-rc• of PCls after
July l, 1971, un1••· 1pectffc111y IXIIIPUd by EPA. [author's SUllllry]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
80
l
[
C
C
r
Environ1Nnt~l Protection Agency, "Region V Strategy f~r PeT"aittin; PCB Ois•
po11l Sit1s,w Process £valuation Unit, T1cnnic1l, PeN1ta 1na Coeplianc 1 Ste·
tion, Waste Manag ... nt lranch, Wasta Manag ... nt 01v1s1on, Region v, u.s. En•
vironaental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL, und1t1d, 68 00.
Guidanc,-
This dociaent describes the peT'1ft1tt1ng experiments by repeating tht lcc;i•
c1blt CRF Sections and providing ex..,111 of approval and consent letters .
Participant progr111s (public hearings) procedures and I checklist for tvllult·
fng applications 1r1 1pp1nd1d.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Protection Agency, w40 CFR Part 761, Polychlor1n1t1d Bi0htnyls
(PC8s) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in COMerce and Ust Prohibitions;
Recodif1cat1on," federal R1af1ter, !!, 195~6-19527, May 6, 1982~
TSCA Rules
This action recodifies 40 CFR Part 761 which deals with polychlorinattQ
bipn1nyls (PCBs). The rtcodification provides for 1 •ore orderly organization
of tnt m1t1ri1l. No substantive changes art involved. [author's summary)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 761•-Polychlorinattd Bipnenyls
(PC8s)·•Proc1d,J~11 Affltndment of tht Approval Authority for PCB Disposal F1ci1;-
ti1s and G~idanlt for Obtaining Approval,w Fedtral Rtqisttr, !!, 13181·13186
(1983).
TSCA Rules
This proctdural rult change gives the Assistant Adlllinistrator for Ptst,-
cidts and Toxic Substances (Assistant Adllinfstrator) authority to approve ctr·
t1in PCB disposal facilities which have previously bten subject to approv1l
by each Regional Administrator. The Assistant Adllinistrator will bt tht ap-
prov1l authority for facilities which art operated in aore than ont region.
Tht Regional Adllinfstrators will continue to have the authority to approve
111 unique, sitt•specific facflttfes such 11 landfills, stationary incinera-
tors, and r1s11rch and dlvtlo,-nt into ,Cl disposal •th0d1. This 1Mndm1nt
dots not change any 1taftdard1 for ap,rovi"I Pel disposal acttvititt and should
provfdt bttttr responsiveness to the needs of tM pwa11c and industry. ln
addition, EPA ts providing 1uppl ... ntal guidll'\Ce to a11t1t persons apply;ng
for approval of PCI d11po11l technol09fe1 U\at are 1ltefflative1 to incinera-
tors and higtl efficiency taoil1r1. [1uth0r1 1 tUllllry]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
81
,1
I
-
r
•
M. D. Erfct10ft and J. S. Staftley, •Met.hods of Wly111 for ly-,roduct PC8s••
Literature ••view and Prel1■1n1ry •ec011Nndatfon1,• •eport by M10wtst Rtst•r~h
Institute, K1n111 ·Cfty, MO, to David P. Redford, U.S. Environaental Protection
Agency, .Office of Toxic Sub1t1nc11, .F1tld Studi11 lranch, Washington, oc
EPA-560/S-12•005, 1912, 135 pp. '
Suplina and Analytical Methods
A review of the literature on polychlorin1t1d bfphenyl (PCB) 1n1lysis ind
reco ... nd1tfon1 for Mt.nods t.o dat.era1ne by-product PC81 f n co-.rchl prod·
ucts 1nd other ■-trices art presented. This report w11 pr1p1"d to assist EPA
in fonnul1tfng a rule regulatf"9 by-product PCl1. The published literature on
PCB an1ly1f1 11 critically reviewed. Several hun~red references art cited ;n
1 bibliography. Tht review 11 subdivided into 1xtr1ctfon, cleanup, dtttrfflina·
tfon, data reductton, conffr111t1on, screening, quality a11uranc1, and by·
product an1ly1i1 11ction1. The detef"llinat1on section includes TLC, HPLC, cc
(PGC and CGC), GC detectors (ECO, FID, HECO, £IMS, Ind other MS), and non-
chromatographic aMlytical Mthodl ( .... IR, t\tctroch•1stry, NM, and RIA).
Techniques applicable to 1n1ly1f1 of caaercial products, air, and w1ttr for
by-product PCls are discussed. The final section of this report presents a
recolllftended overall priNry 1n1lytfcal sch .... [authors' abstract]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. D. Erickson, J. S. Sunley, G. Radolovfch, K. Turaan, K. lauer, J. Onstot,
D. Rose, 1nd M. Wickhu, "Analytical Methods for ly•Product PCBs··lnitial Vali-
-dation and Int1ri■ Protocols," Report by Midwest Research Institute, K1ns1s City,
MO, to D1vfd P. Rtdford, U.S. Environantal Protection Agency, Offfct of Toxic
Sub1tanc11 1 F1tld Studies Branch, W11hfngton, DC, EPA•H0/5•12•006, 1982 . ·243 pp.
l
[
Simpling and An1lytfcal Methods
This docuaent presents proposed analytical •thods for analysis of by·
product PCBs in coaaercial products, product w11ta 1tr1••• w1stewattrs, and
air .. The 1n1lytical Nthod for C011Nrcial products and pr04uct waste streams
consists of a flexible approach for extraction and cltan111t of particular••-
trices. The 11C•laN1ICI Pel 1urrot1t11 are lddtcl ••,art.of a strong quality
111uranc1 progr• \o dlttra1nt ltvth of recovery. TM wasiew.ttr Ntl'\od ; s
based on EPA MIUlocll IOI Ind 125 w1ttl revh1ons \o tnchldl USI of t.ht 13 C-
11beltd PCI surrogates. Thi air •thod 11 a revision of a proposed EPA ~tthod
for the coll1ctfon and analysis of PCl1 1n air and flue ga1 •is1ions. Capil-
lary or packed col.an 111 chr0111~raphy/1l1ctron 1apact ionization aass sp1c-
troa1try h pro,osecl •• tl\t pri .. ,y tnstnaenul •t.Mcl. le1pon11 factors
and r1t.1nt1111 tt•• ef 77 ,ca COftllntN relative \o tetrechlorobiphtnyl ·d,
art pr11M1N 1n lddttton \o 1utt1tic11 analysts to project validity of tne
data and uvapo1atton et relatht re1pon11 factoN to all 20t po11iblt con-
geners. PN1tatnary studies ustng ttle uc•1aN1~ 1u"'°91tes \o val idatt
speciffc c1u,... procleluret and \o analyze 11v1ral c ... rctal products and
product wastes tncltcau that tM pro,oslCI analyttal MUINI are both ftuiblt
and practical. [authors' ••tract] '
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
82
ti
r
,. -
• 1
1
1
L
[
~
L. Fradk in ind S. B1r-isu, "Ttcl'ln0~0gi1s for Treatment, Reuse, &nd Oi s;:icsa l of Polychlorin1ted l1pn1nyl W1st11, Prepared for U.S. Depirtment of Entr;y ANL/££S•TM-161, 1982 (NTIS No. DE12013715). '
R,v;ew of Disposal 1nd Destruction M1thod1
-, .1
Several t1chnolog;11 bting d1v1loptd by privau ;ndustry and governm, ... t
to Mtlt U.S. Environm1nt1l Protection Agency regulations for PC8s wtrt 15.
se1s1d to 111i1t in the selection of ~egulations for PCBs wtrt 1ssesstd to ass;st fn the stlection of the best proc:111 for a particular a~,1;cation .
Methods 1v1lu1t1d i nclud1 I sodfua n1phth1lfde 1yst1111, a 1od;um·1m;n, mttl'lod
th1 H1PEG TM proc:111, pl1111a·arc ttc:hl'lology , ultravf oltt·ozont trutmtnt, '
c1t1lyztd wet oxidation, hydroth,,...1 dechl ori nation, lf;nt·1ctiv1ttd reduc· tfon, and EPAC filters as well 11 tht ai,provtd acthods of land disposal and
incineration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy, "PCB Compliance, A1se11Mnt, and Spill Cont~1 Guide," Naval Entrgy a~d Env;ron11ent1l Support Activity, Fort Huen ... , CA, Report No. NEESA·20 .2·028A (HTIS No . AO•Al21 329/7] August 1982, 105 pp .
Guidance
Polychlorinattd biph1nyls (PCB) art toxic belonging to tht well•kno~n
chlorinated hydrocarbon f111ily. Because of their low fl.,.1bility and high
stability, PCBs havt been extensively u1ed 11 coolants and insulators in tltc·
tric1l equipMnt. However, due to the known tnvi~naental and htaltn probltms
occurring froa iaproptr u11 and h1ndling, the Envi~naental Protection Agtncy
has pro•ulgatea stringent regul1tory cont~ls concerning u1t, 1tor,g1, trans-
port and disposal of PCBs leading to I total ban_•n u1t of PCBs. Th;~ 1uioe ~•s dtsigned to 111ist Navy activities in coaplying with thtst co~l•~ ano
intricate r1gulation1. [author's abstract]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. M. Sworzyn and D. G. Acke,..1n, "lnteri■ GuidelinH for tht Ohpoul/
Destruction of PC81 and PCB ltHI by Non•theraal Methods,• Report by TRW ,
Inc., Redondo lt1ch 1 CA 90271, to David Sanchez, EPA, Office of Rtstarch and
DtvtlopNnt, Research Trf1ngl1 Park, NC, EPA•600/2•12•O&9, 1912, 177 pp.
(NT1S Ho. P882 217491).
Guidinct • Non•Thtf'llll
lh1 "'°" ft aft fntlria re1ourc1 IM guideline doCUlllftt to help EPA •
regional off1cH 1-,1-nt the polychlor1nated biphenyl (PCI) regulations <•o CFR 711) for using non•ther111l •UN• of destroying/dhposing of PCBS .
Tht report delcrfbes and tvalu1t11 -v1riou1 11ternat1vt ChNic1l, physical,
1nd bio109fc11 ,Cl .-..oval and/or destruction UChnolog111 1 including:
ca,-con ad1orptfon: c1talyttc dehydroch1or1nat1on: chlor1noly1i1; 1odiua·b1s1d
dechlorin1tion; photolytic and ■1c:row1v1 plaua destructioft; c1t11y1td w1t·1;r
oxidation; and 1ctiv1ttd 1ludg1, trickling f i lter, Incl other bacterial mttnoos.
83
E
r •
•
-
l
r
•
•
I
··-
TIie al~tve technol~1•• were evalu.ted us1n t1chnic1l, regulatory en t•
ro,..nul 1arNCt, econoai~, and ener~ criteria. lec1Y11 the t.echnologiesvtn-
vestigat.ed are fn various 1uge1 of developaent (only 1odiua-b11ed dechlorina-
tion 11 available coaercially), data def1c1enc1•• exist Ind good eng;neering
judgaent -.1 uttd.to •~Pl ... nt 1v1il1blt Qu.nt1tat1vt 1nforaat1on. Of the
technol09ie1 evaluated, aany show potential for> toS PCI dt1truct1on with
■1nilMII invironaental i~act and tow-to·aocler1t1 econoaic cost. These ttch•
11ologi11 are: catalytic dehydroc"lorinat1on, 1odiua-bued dechlorination,
and ptl0tolyt1c and ■fcrowave pla1aa proce11e1. [1uthor'1 1b1tr1ct]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------·
J. v. Zbozinek, T. J. Chang, J. R. ~r1h, P. K. McConaick, and J. E. Mccourt,
"PCB Dflpoul Manual," Report by.SCS Engineers, Inc., LonQ leach, C11Horni 1 for the Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, C1liforni1, CS-~98,
1985 .
Guidance
The objective of this report 11 to present an update of the information
presented in FP-1207, VolUIH 1, published tn 1979. -There have betn signifi·
cant changes both to the regulations and tht technology in the inttrvtning
ptriod. This rtport t111Ph11izt1 tht ttchnology in the intervening period.
This report tt11ph1siz11 those areas which wert subjtct to the gr11ttst change,
as well as ntw 1r11s that were not considered wl\en tht previous volU11e was
published. Aaong the v1riou1 1re11 of PCB d11po11l which are 1ddr1s11d in
th;s report are PCI Nttr;111 1nd their di1tribution in the utility industry,
regulations, th•,,.•1 destruction technology, land dispo11l, treataent tech•
nologi11, dhpoul capacity and dtNnd, and I PCB unag ... nt progru. lt is
inttnded that t1,h ■1nu1l provide sufficient dtta11 to bt useful in utility
dtcfsfon proc11111, even with the realization that t"9gulation1 art onct a;iin
in I state of change, 11 are tht 1v11l1ble proc11111 and disposal c1~1ci ~.,u
[authors' abstract]. •
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------