p. 1



# OAR Box 1828
Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 308 ) IV-B-1 2

Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:59 AM Sheet 308 of 325P. 2 

# A-83-2 7

IV-B-1 2

MEMORANDU

M

DATE : Apri l 14 , 198 7
TO : Ji m

Eddinger , EPA/IS B
FROM : J . Thoma s Waddel l an d Davi dM. White , Radia nCorporatio n SUBJECT : Disposa l o f Sodiu m Scrubbe r Wast e

1. 0 INTRODUCTION
Option s fo r disposa l o f sodiu m scrubbe r wast e (SSW ) wer e examine db y EPA prio r t o proposa l o f new sourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS ) fo r sulfu r 1 2 dioxid e (SO- ) emission s fro m coa l an

d oil-fire dboilers . ' Durin g publi c revie w o f th e propose dstandar d(5 1 Federa l Register . 22385 , Jun e 19 , 1986) , comment s wer e receive dregardin g potentia l problem s associate dwit hdisposa l
o f SSW . Thi s memorandum summarize s recen t additiona l wor k don e t o evaluat e thes e comments .
2. 0 IMPAC T O F BES T AVAILABL E TECHNOLOG Y(BAT ) GUIDELINE S

On e commente r voice dconcer nove r th e impac t o f bes t availabl e technolog y

(BAT ) wate r qualit y guideline s o n discharge s o f liqui dsodiu m scrubbe r effluent . Thi s concer ndoe s no t appea r justified . BA T standard s ar e specifi c t o individua l wast e stream s an d industrie s an

d d o no t includ e effluent fro

m th e boile r an

d it s suppor t equipment . Therefore , thi s concer n i s no t discusse dfurthe r i n thi s memo .

3. 0 ANALYSI S O F DISPOSA L OPTION S

T o addres s comment s receive do n th e availabilit y

o f an d limitation s o

n variou s wast e disposa l options , selecte dstat e environmenta l agencie s wer e surveye dt o evaluat e possibl e constraint s on dischargin g liqui dSS W t o a

Progres s Center/320 0 E

. Chape l Hil l Rd./Nelso n Hwy./P.O

. Bo x13000/Researc h Triangl e Park

. N.C

. 27709/(919)541-910 0P. 3

receivin g wate r bod

y (RWB ) o r publicly-owne d treatmen t work s (POTW) . I n 198 3 approximatel y

50 0 sodiu

m scrubber s wer e inoperatio ninth e U.S . O f 2 thi s total , summar y

dat a wer e availabl e fo r 35 7 units . Onl y 3 7 wer e locate doutsid e California . Al l th e unit s inCalifornia , si xunit s in Wyoming , on e inMontana , an don e inTexa s wer e use dt o reduc e S0 2 emission s fro m stea m generator s use dfo r enhance doi l recover y (EOR ) an

dmineral s production . Californi a define s SS W a s a "designated " waste , meanin g tha t althoug h i t i s nonhazardou s base donspecifie dtesting , i t stil l pose s a threa t t o stat e wate r qualit y

objectives . Specifically , th e highleve l o f tota l dissolve dsolid s (TDS ) i s fel t t o pos e a hazar dt o th e state' s citru s industry . SS W

fro m thes e unit s ar e dispose do f b y eithe r 1 ) injectin g th e effluen t int o RCR

A Clas s I I well s a s par t o f th e EORoperation s o r 2 ) haulin g i t t o natura l o r man-mad e sal t pond s wher e liqui dinth e wast e i s evaporate db

y th e sun . On e petroleu m industr y

sourc e estimate dth e cos t o f disposa l b

y evaporatio n(includin g haulag e t o th e disposa l site ) i s $5 0 t o 4 $6 0 pe r ton . Th e remainin g 2 9 unit s wer e locate da t 1 9 plant s throughou t th e U.S . Disposa l procedure s use db y th e unit s discusse dabov e (dee pwel l injectio n an devaporatio nponds ) ar e specifi c t o EORan dari dregion s wit hhighne t evaporatio nrate s an

dar e no t possibl e fo r unit s locate dinmany part s o f th e country . T o determin e how SS W woul db e handle dinothe r regions , stat e wate r an

dsoli dwast e regulator s an dPOT W operator s wer e contacte dinfou r state s (Michigan , Minnesota , Ne w Hampshire , an

dNort hCarolina ) base don comment s received . Producer s o f SS W inthes e state s hav e thre e disposa l options : direc t discharg e t o a RWB , discharg e t o a POTW , an ddisposa l a t a wast e disposa l site . O f th e 1 9 plants , fiv e discharge dt o a POTW , nin e discharge dt o a RWB , an don e use dth e SS W

a s a proces s feedstoc k (the metho d
o f disposa l fo r th e fou r remainin g plant s wa s no t known) . Discharg e t o a RW

B i s regulate dthroug heffluen t guideline s establishe d b y eac hstate . A

neffluen t guidelin e i s a concentratio nlimi t use din permittin g a ne w

source . Th e impac t o f a new sourc e i s evaluate db y determinin g pollutan t concentration s inth e RW B i f th e discharg e wer e t oP. 4

occur . Wast e stream s already dischargin g int o th e RW B ar e include di nth e calculations . O f th e state s surveyed , th e TD S concentratio no f th e SS W wa s th e mos t cite dconcern . Th e TD S effluen t guideline s fo r thes e state s rang e 5 6 7 fro m 10 0 t o 30 0 mg/l . ' ' Intw o o f th e states , specifi c example s wer e cite dindicatin g discharg e o f a liqui dwast e wit hcharacteristic s simila r t o 5 6 SS W woul dno t b e permitte dbecaus e TD S limit s ha dalready bee nreached . ' Thes e cases , however , ar e site-specific . Althoug halternativ e S0 2 contro l option s woul db e require dinthes e an dsimila r situations , sodiu m scrubbin g remain s a feasibl e optio ni nmany locations . POTW' s dischargin g t o a RW B mus t mee t th e same effluen t guideline s a s direc t dischargers . Th e abilit y t o discharg e SS W

t o a POT

W i s therefor e determine db

y th e presen t loadin g ona give nPOTW . A specifi c cas e wa s identifie di non e stat e wher e a POT W coul dno t accep t SS W becaus e o f sulfat e discharge s fro

m a nexistin g industria l plan t whic huse s sulfuri c aci dt o Q was hglassware . Again , thi s cas e wa s site-specific . Disposa l o f SS W

a t wast e disposa l site s i s possibl e inmos t states . Thes e facilitie s mus t b e line dt o ensur e tha t solubl e sodiu m salt s d o no t leac hint o adjacent groundwater . Th e cos t o f disposa l a t a line dfacilit y q wa s estimate da t $2 5 t o $3 0 pe r tonb y on e commenter . InNort hCarolina , tw o line d facilitie s exist ; however , neithe r facilit y i s abl e t o accep t waste s fro

m a ne w sodiu m scrubbe r du e t o existin g commitments . Othe r state s migh t hav e simila r disposa l sit e limitations . Wher e thi s i s th e case , additiona l disposa l capacit y coul db e constructe do r alternativ e S0 ~ contro l option s coul db e used . 4. 0 SECONDAR YENVIRONMENTA L IMPACT S

Inadditio nt o comment s onavailabl e disposa l options , comment s wer e als o receive dregardin g secondar y environmenta l impact s fro m H~ S emission s an dth e impac t o f TD S onTS S concentrations . Althoug hth e issu e o f H, S 1 1 emission s wa s discusse di na previou s memorandum , additiona l informatio n
wa s collecte dfro

m a POTW i nNe w Hampshir e wher e H« S emission s ar e currentl y a proble m

becaus e o f hig hsulfat e loading s fro m a nexistin g industria lP. 5

g process . H 2 S i s release dfro m th e POT W dewaterin g system

wheneve r th e wastewate r stagnate s an dbecome s acidic . I t shoul db e note dtha t th e sulfat e loadin g problem wa s no t cause db

y a sodiu m scrubbin g system . New Hampshir e stat e official s als o note dtha t H, S emission s coul dals o occu r upstream o f th e POT

W i f th e sewe r lin e became stagnant . Dat a submitte db

y Monsant o durin g th e publi c commen t perio dindicat e th e settlabilit y

o f tota l suspende dsolid s (TSS ) ca nb e adversel y affecte d b y highlevel s o f TDS , especiall y a t TD S level s abov e roughl y 10,00 0 ppm . A s a result , discharg e o f SS W ha s th e potentia l t o reduc e th e POTW' s throughpu t capacity . T o pu t thi s issu e inperspective , th e increase dTD S leve l a t a on e millio ngallo npe r da y capacity

POT W resultin g fro

m a sodiu

m scrubbe r i s calculate d inTabl e 1 . Usin g SS W parameter s fro

m a 15 0 millio n Btu/hou r boile r burnin g 3. 5 percen t sulfu r fue l wit ha scrubbe r remova l efficienc y

o f 9 2 percent , th e resultan t increas e inPOT W effluen t TD S i s 4,40 0 ppm . Whethe r thi s increase dTD S leve l significantl y affect s an individua l POT

W wil l depen donth e typ e o f waste s receive db y th e POT W an d th e TD S an

dTS S level s befor e additio no f SSW . 5. 0 COS T IMPACT S

Wher e discharg e t o a POT W o r RW B i s no t possible , SS W disposa l cost s
ma y rang e fro

m $25-6 0 pe r ton(equa l t o $110-$27 0 pe r thousan dgallon s o f wastes ) versu s roughl y $0.6 0 pe r thousan dgallon s whe nPOTW disposa l i s 1 2 possible . Th e impac t o f highe r scrubbe r wast e disposa l cost s ontota l annualize dcost s (i.e. , operatin g an dmaintenanc e an

dannualize dcapita l costs ) i s show

ninTabl e 2 fo r a mode l 15 0 millio nBtu/hou r steam generatin g uni t burnin g a 0.6 , 1.24 , an d3.2 3 percen t sulfu r coal . Usin g a liqui d wast e disposa l cos t o f $0.6 0 pe r 1,00 0 gallons , th e tota l annualize dcos t fo r sodiu

m scrubbin g thes e thre e coal s i s $440,000 , $550,000 , an d$827,00 0 pe r year , respectively . I f a liqui dwast e disposa l cos t o f $10 0 pe r 1,00 0 gallon s i s assumed , th e tota l annualize dcos t roughl y double s t o $746,000 , $1,137,000 , an

d$2,357,00 0 pe r year . A t thes e costs , othe r S0 2 contro l technologie s suc ha s lime spra y dryin g o r dua l alkal i ar e likel y t o b e selecte dbase do ncos t a s th e preferre dS0 2 contro l method .P. 6

6. 0 CONCLUSION S

Th e applicatio no f sodiu m scrubbin g system s ma y b e limite dinsome case s b y loca l o r site-specifi c restriction s o nwast e disposa l o r b y th e cost s require dt o mee t thes e restrictions . Thi s wil l requir e consideratio n o f alternativ e wast e disposa l method s o r S0 2 contro l options . Whil e wast e disposa l restriction s wil l limi t th e applicatio no f sodiu m scrubber s a t certai nsites , a numbe r o f unit s ar e currentl y inoperation . Infact , sodiu m scrubber s ar e mor e widel y use donindustria l boiler s tha nan y othe r scrubbin g system . Thus , whil e sodiu m scrubber s ma y

no t b e applicabl e inal l
cases , the y

ar e currentl y

inus e an

dthei r continue dus e i s expected .P. 7

7. 0 REFERENCE S

1 . Technica l Not e fro m Berry , R . S. , Radia nCorporation , t o th e Industria l Boile r S0 2 Docket . Januar y 25 , 1984 . Updat e o f th e Sodiu m Scrubbe r Wastewate r Issue . 2 . Technica l Not e fro m Maddox , J . A. , Radia nCorporation , t o th e Industria l Boile r S0 2 Docket . Septembe r 6 , 1984 . Sodiu m Scrubbe r Dat a Sampl e an

dAnalysis . 3 . Lette r fro

m Anton , E . C , Californi a Wate r Resourc e Contro l Board , t o Maddox , J . A. , Radia nCorporation . Ma y 30 , 1984 . Californi a Wate r Regulations . 4 . Telecon , May , P . A. , Radia nCorporation , wit hOuellette , R. , Shel l Oil , Octobe r 28 , 1986 . Sodiu m Scrubbe r Effluent . 5 . Telecon , May , P . A. , Radia nCorporation , wit hRamsey , D. , Nort h Carolin a Departmen t o f Natura l Resources . Octobe r 23 , 1986 . Sodiu m Scrubbe r Discharg e Considerations . 6 . Telecon , May , P . A. , Radia nCorporation , wit hAllen , D. , Ne w Hampshir e Wate r Contro l Board . Octobe r 29 , 1986 . Sodiu m Scrubbe r Discharge . 7 . Telecon , May , P . A. , Radia nCorporation , wit hBoerson , G. , Michiga nAi r an dWate r Qualit y

Control . Octobe r 29 , 1986 . Sodiu m Scrubbe r Discharge . 8 . Telecon , May , P . A. , Radia nCorporation , wit hDakota , R. , Merima c New Hampshir e POTW , Octobe r 28 , 1986 . Facilit y Operatio nan

dSodiu m Scrubbe r Effluen t Impacts . 9 . Cogentrix , Inc. , Comment s o f Cogentrix , Inc . (publi c comment s onNSPS ) t o Docke t No . A-83-27 . 10 . Telecon , May , P . A. , Radia nCorporation , wit hMyer , W. , Nort hCarolin a Departmen t o f Natura l Resources , Octobe r 23 , 1986 . Wast e Sit e Disposa l o f Scrubbe r Effluent . 11 . Technica l Not e fro m Martinez , J . A. , Radia nCorporation , t o Sedman , C . B. , U.S . EPA . Apri l 2 , 1984 . H 2 S Emission s fro m Sodiu m Scrubbin g Wastewate r Stream s inSewe r Systems . 12 . Laughlin , J . H. , e t al. , Radia nCorporation , Industria l Boile r S0 2 Cos t Report , prepare dfo r U.S . EPA , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , Novembe r 28 , 1984 .P. 8

TABL E 1 . CALCULATION O F TD S IMPAC T O

N MODE L POT

W

Mode l Parameters : 15 0 millio nBtu/hou r stea m generatin g uni t 3.5 4 weigh t percen t coa l sulfu r conten t sodiu m scrubbe r a t 9 2 percen t S0 2 remova l Scrubbe r Effluen t Rat e = 50.2 8 gp m

= (50.2 8 gal/min ) (ft 3 /7.4 8 ga l ) (66.5 8 lb/ft 3 ) (6 0 min/hr ) (2 4 hr/day )

= 644,46 6 lb/da y
TD S Concentratio n= 57,00 0 pp m (or 5. 7 weigh t percent )
TD S Rat e - 36,73 5 lb/day

Impac t o n 1 0 Gal/Da v

POT W
Tota l Flo

w Rat e = (IO 6 gal/day ) (ft 3 /7.4 8 gal ) (62. 4 lb/ft 3 )

8,342,25 0 lb/day (36,735/8 , 4,40 0 pp m Increas e in TD S = (36,735/8,342,250 ) (IO 6 )P. 9



### a TABL E 2 . TOTA L ANNUALIZE D COST S FORSODIU M SCRUBBERS a ' b

Liqui dWast e Coa l Sulfu r Content , (wt . % ) Cos t Rat e ($/l,00 0 gal ) 0. 6 1.2 4 3.2 3

0.6 0 44 0 55 0 87 0

100. 0 74 6 1,13 7 2,35 7

200. 0 1,05 4 1,72 7 3,84 8

Al l cost s in$1000/year , 1985 . Sodiu m scrubbe r installe do n15 0 millio nBtu/h r boiler . 

### c Correspond s t o coal s inSummar y o f Regulator y

Analysi s wit hnomina l sulfu r content s o f 1.2 , 2.5 , an d6. 0 l bS0 2 /millio nBtu .