EPA/540/AR-92/079
June 1993
Resources Conservation Company
B.E.S.T.® Solvent Extraction Technology
Applications Analysis Report
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the
auspices of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program under Contract No. 68-CO-0048 to Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC). It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review,
and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program was authorized in the 1986 Superfund Amendments.
The SITE Program is a joint effort between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and
Development and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. The purpose of the program is to enhance the
development of hazardous waste treatment technologies necessary for implementing new cleanup standards that require
greater reliance on permanent remedies. This is accomplished by performing technology demonstrations designed to
provide engineering and economic data on selected technologies.
This project consists of an evaluation of the Resources Conservation Company (RCC) pilot-scale Basic Extractive Sludge
Treatment (B.E.S.T.®) solvent extraction system. As a part of this evaluation, a demonstration test was conducted as a
cooperative effort between U.S. EPA Region V, the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), and the EPA SITE Program. The B.E.S.T.® Demonstration Test used Grand Calumet River
sediment and took place at a centralized location immediately adjacent to the river in Gary, Indiana. The goals of the
study, summarized in this Applications Analysis Report, are: 1) to assess the ability of RCC's pilot-scale B.E.S.T.® system
to remove (extract) organic contaminants from the bottom sediments of the Grand Calumet River, using a patented
solvent extraction technology that utilizes triethylamine as the solvent; 2) to evaluate the technology's potential beneficial
effect on the metals found in the sediments, by changing the metallic compounds to less toxic or less teachable forms;
3) to assess the quality of the treated solids, water, and oil residuals; 4) to develop capital and operating costs for the
technology; and 5) to provide an overall mass balance for organic contaminants (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and
polychlorinated biphenyls) around the B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction system. These goals were established by the SITE
Program.
Additional copies of this report may be obtained at no charge from the EPA's Center for Environmental Research
Information, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268, using the EPA document number found on the
report's front cover. Once this supply is exhausted, copies can be purchased from the National Technical Information
Service, Ravensworth Building, Springfield, Virginia, 22161, (800) 553-6847. Reference copies will be available in the
Hazardous Waste Collection at EPA libraries. Information regarding the availability of other reports can be obtained
by calling the Office of Research and Development Publications at (513) 569-7562. To obtain further information
regarding the SITE Program and other projects within SITE, telephone (513) 569-7696.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
111
-------
Abstract
This document is an evaluation of the performance of the Resources Conservation Company (RCC) Basic Extractive
Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.®) solvent extraction technology and its applicability as a treatment technique for soils,
sediments, and sludges contaminated with organics. Both the technical and economic aspects of the technology are
examined.
A demonstration of the RCC B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction system was conducted from July 1,1992 to July 22,1992 using
RCC's pilot-scale unit to treat two composited sediments (Sediment A and Sediment B) collected from the Grand
Calumet River. Operational data and sampling and analysis information were carefully compiled to establish a database
against which other available data, as well as the vendor's claims for the technology, could be compared and evaluated.
Conclusions were reached concerning the technology's suitability for use in removing organic contaminants from sediment.
The following conclusions are based on the demonstration test results collected by the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program and supported by other available data, including demonstration test data collected by RCC:
• Contaminant concentration reductions of 96 percent for total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
greater than 99 percent of total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were achieved for Sediment A. Contaminant
concentration reductions of greater than 99 percent for total PAHs and greater than 99 percent for total PCBs
were achieved for Sediment B.
• Removal efficiencies in excess of 98 percent were realized for both sediments for oil and grease.
• Mass balances conducted for total materials (including triethylamine) in the B.E.S.T.® system achieved closures
of 99.3 percent and 99.6 percent for Sediment A and Sediment B, respectively. Mass balances comparing feed
and product streams (excluding triethylamine) achieved closures of 108 percent and 114 percent for Sediment
A and Sediment B, respectively.
• The products generated using the B.E.S.T.® process compared favorably with RCC's claims with regard to
residual triethylamine concentrations. Treated solids produced during the optimum treatment runs for
Sediment B had an average triethylamine concentration of 103 mg/kg. Water generated during these runs had
a triethylamine concentration of 2.2 mg/L or less, while the oil product collected at the end of all Sediment B
treatment runs had a triethylamine concentration of 733 mg/kg. Because very little oil product was generated
during the treatment of Sediment A, the Sediment A oil product was not processed to reduce its triethylamine
concentration. Solid product generated from the optimum treatment runs for Sediment A realized an average
residual concentration of 45.1 mg/kg, while water products from the optimum treatment runs for Sediment A
had triethylamine concentrations of 1.0 mg/L or less.
• The treatment cost for the remediation of contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge using the proposed 186-ton-per-
day, full-scale B.E.S.T.® system is estimated at $94 per ton if the system is on line 80 percent of the tune or $112
per ton if the system is on line 60 percent of the time.
IV
-------
Contents
Section Page
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Contents v
Tables ix
Figures x
Abbreviations xi
Acknowledgments xiii
1. Executive Summary . 1
1.1 Introduction i
1.2 Conclusions 1
1.3 Results . . 2
2. Introduction 3
2.1 The SITE Program 3
2.2 SITE Program Reports 3
2.3 Key Contacts 4
3. Technology Applications Analysis 5
3.1 Introduction 5
3.2 Conclusions 5
3.3 Technology Evaluation 6
3.4 Ranges of Site Characteristics Suitable for the Technology 8
3.4.1 Site Selection 8
3.4.2 Surface, Subsurface, and Clearance Requirements 8
3.4.3 Topographical Characteristics 9
3.4.4 Site Area Requirements - 9
3.4.5 Climate Characteristics 9
3.4.6 Geological Characteristics 9
3.4.7 Utility Requirements 9
3.4.8 Size of Operation 9
3.5 Applicable Media 9
3.6 Regulatory Requirements 9
3.6.1 Federal Regulations ; 10
3.6.2 State and Local Regulations 13
-------
Contents (Continued)
Section
Pae
3.7 Personnel Issues • 13
3.7.1 Training 13
3.7.2 Health and Safety 13
3.73 Emergency Response 14
3,8 References 14
4. Economic Analysis 15
4.1 Introduction 15
4.2 Conclusions 15
43 Issues and Assumptions 15
43.1 Costs Excluded from Estimate 15
43.2 Maximizing Treatment Rate 16
43.3 Utilities 16
43.4 Operating Times 16
43.5 Labor Requirements 16
43.6 Capital Costs 16
43.7 Equipment and Fixed Costs 16
4.4 Basis of Economic Analysis 16
4.4.1 Site Preparation Costs 17
4.4.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 17
4.43 Equipment Costs 17
4.4.4 Startup and Fixed Costs ." 18
4.4.5 Labor Costs 18
4.4.6 Supplies Costs 19
4.4.7 Consumables Costs 19
4.4.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs 19
4.4.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and Transport Costs 19
4.4.10 Analytical Costs 20
4.4.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs 20
4.4.12 Site Demobilization Costs 20
4.5 Results of Economic Analysis 20
4.6 References 22
Appendix A - Process Description 23
A.1 Introduction 23
A.2 The B.E.S.T.® Pilot Unit 23
VI
-------
Contents (Continued)
Section
A3 Unit Operations 23
A.3.1 Feed Preparation 23
A.3.2 Extraction 23
A.3.3 Decantation, Solvent Recovery, and Oil Processing 25
A.3.4 Solids Drying 25
A.3.5 Water Stripping 26
A.3.6 Product Water Treatment 26
A.4 References 26
Appendix B - Vendor's Claims 27
B.I B.E.S.T.* Process Effectively Removes PCBs and PAHs from Sediment 27
B.2 B.E.S.T.® Process Solvent Is Environmentally Friendly 28
B.2.1 Triethylamine Is Biodegradable 28
B.3 B.E.S.T.® Process Has No Air Emissions 28
B.4 , SITE and RCC Analytical Results Closely Correlate '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 33
B.4.1 Overall Mass Balance Results 33
B.4.2 RCC QA/QC Requirements . '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 33
B.5 B.E.S.T.® Process Performance Accurately Predicted by
Bench-Scale Treatability Test Protocol ' 33
B.5.1 Bench-Scale Test vs. Pilot-Scale Test Data for Grand Calumet River Testing 33
B.5.2 Bench-Scale Test vs. Full-Scale Remediation 34
B.6 Other Pilot-Scale Test Project Results Substantiate SITE Demonstration Project Results 34
B.6.1 PCBs in Soils and Sediments at an Aluminum Manufacturing Site . 34
B.6.2 PAHs in Sludge from Wood Treatment Facilities 34
B.6.3 PCBs in Soil at a Manufacturing Site 35
B.6.4 PAHs in Refinery Sludge 35
B.7 References 35
Appendix C - SITE Demonstration Results 36
C.1 Introduction 35
C3. Contaminant Removal Efficiencies 36
C.3 Residual Triethylamine 37
C.4 Mass Balances 37
C.4.1 Solids Balance 38
C.4.2 PCB Balance 33
C.4.3 PAH Balance 38
C.4.4 O&G Balance . . 33
C.4.5 Water Balance 39
vu
-------
Contents (Continued)
Section
C.4.6 Solvent (Triethylamine) Balance 39
C.4.7 Total Materials Balance 39
CAS Feed and Product Materials Balance 39
CJ> Leaching Characteristics • • • • 39
C.6 PAH and PCB Concentrations in the Product Water and Product Oil 40
C.7 Air Emissions 40
C.8 Triethylamine Biodegradation Testing on Treated Solids 40
C.9 Particle Size Distribution 41
Appendix D - Case Studies 42
D.I Massena, New York Pilot-Scale Testing 42
D.2 Pilot-Scale Testing of Wastes from Wood Treating Facilities 42
D3 Pilot-Scale Testing of Waste from Machining Operations 43
D.4 Pilot-Scale Testing of Petroleum Refining Sludge 43
D.5 Full-Scale Treatment of Oily Sludges 43
D.6 Reference 43
vui
-------
Tables
Number
1 Summary of Results from Optimum Runs (Three per Sediment) 2
2 Characterization of the Untreated Sediment (Averages from Three Optimum Runs) . . . . 6
3 Excavation Costs 17
4 Treatment Costs for 186-tpd B.E.S.T.® System Treating
Contaminated Soil, Sediment, or Sludge 21
5 Treatment Costs as Percentages of Total Costs for 186-tpd B.E.S.T.® System
Treating Contaminated Soil, Sediment, or Sludge 21
6 Projected Annual Downtime . 22
B-l SITE vs. RCC Analytical Results . . 33
B-2 SITE vs. RCC Analytical Results . 33
B-3 Total Mass Balance Comparison: 33
B-4 Transect 6 Testing Comparison 34
B-5 Transect 28 Testing Comparison 34
B-6 General Refining Site PCB Concentrations in Raw Sludge and Product Fractions 34
B-7 Aluminum Manufacturing Facility PCB Removal from Soils and Sediments 34
B-8 Wood Treatment Facilities PAH Removal from Sediments 35
C-l Total PAH, Total PCB, and O&G Removal Efficiencies 37
C-2 Residual Triethylamine Concentrations 37
C-3 Mass Balance Summaries 38
C-4 Solids Mass Balances 38
C-5 PCB Mass Balances 38
C-6 PAH Mass Balances 38
C-7 O&G Mass Balances „ 39
C-8 Water Mass Balances 39
C-9 Triethylamine Mass Balances . 39
C-10 Total Materials Mass Balances 39
C-ll Feed and Product Materials Mass Balances 39
C-12 PAH and PCB Concentrations in the Product Water 40
C-13 PAH and PCB Concentrations in the Sediment B Product Oil 40
C-14 Triethylamine Biodegradability in Treated Solids 41
C-15 Particle Size Analysis Results . 41
D-l Treatment of Aluminum Manufacturing Solids and Sludges 42
IX
-------
Figures
Number
1 Sediment Collection Locations - East Branch of the Grand Calumet River
A-l Generalized Diagram of the RCC B.E.S.T.® Solvent Extraction Process ..
B-l Transect 28 PAH Summary
B-2 Transect 6 PAH Summary .
B-3 Transect 28 PCB Summary .
B-4 Transect 6 PCB Summary .
Page
7
24
29
30
31
32
-------
Abbreviations
AAR Applications Analysis Report
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement
BDAT Best Demonstrated Available Technology
B.E.S.T.® Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment
BOP Basic Oxygen Process
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
gpm gallons per minute
gpd gallons per day
HEPA high-efficiency particulate
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
NFPA National Fire Prevention Association
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
O&G oil and grease
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PID photoionization detector
POTW publicly-owned treatment works
PPE personal protective equipment
ppm parts per million
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RCC Resources Conservation Company
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RREL Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
SAIC Science Applications International
Corporation
SARA Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
XI
-------
Abbreviations (Continued)
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TER Technology Evaluation Report
tpd tons per day
tph tons per hour
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
TSS Total Suspended Solids
xu
-------
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared under the direction and coordination of Mr. Mark C. Meckes, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Superfund Innovative technology Evaluation (SITE) Project Manager in the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-RREL contributors and reviewers for this report were Mr. Dennis
Timberlake and Ms. Michelle Simon. Other contributors and reviewers were Mr. George Jones and Mr. Lanny Weimer
of Resources Conservation Company; Mr. Stephen Garbaciak, Jr. of the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office; and
Mr. Jay A. Semmler and Ms. Linda Diez of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This report was prepared for EPA's SITE Program by the Technology Evaluation Division of Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) in Cincinnati, Ohio for the U.S. EPA under Contract No. 68-CO-0048. This report was
written by Ms. Sharon Krietemeyer, Ms. Deana Demichelis, and Ms. Evelyn Meagher-Hartzell. The Work Assignment
Manager for the project was Mr. Thomas Wagner.
Cover Photos: clockwise from top left are 1) bench-scale testing apparatus, 2) B.E.S.T.® pilot-scale unit, 3) collection
of sediments from Grand Calumet River, 4) untreated sediments being homogenized, and 5) sediment feed being weighed
prior to pilot-scale testing.
xiu
-------
-------
Section 1
Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
This report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of
the Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.®)
solvent extraction technology developed by Resources
Conservation Company (RCC). As a part of this
evaluation, a demonstration test was conducted as a
cooperative effort between the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region V, the Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO), the .Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), and the EPA Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. During this
demonstration test, the B.E.S.T.® system was used to
treat composited sediments from two areas of the Grand
Calumet River. Sediment collected from Transect 28
was screened and homogenized to form Sediment A,
while sediment collected from Transect 6 was screened
and homogenized to form Sediment B. The results of
the demonstration test and supporting data from other
testing performed by RCC constitute the basis for this
report.
1.2 Conclusions
A number of conclusions may be drawn from the
evaluation of this innovative technology. The most
extensive data were obtained during the SITE demon-
stration test. The analytical results obtained by the
SITE Program were substantiated by separate analytical
results obtained by RCC. Data from other testing
activities have also been evaluated in relation to SITE
Program objectives. The conclusions drawn are:
• Contaminant concentration reductions of 96 percent
for total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
and greater than 99 percent for total polychlor-
inated biphenyls (PCBs) were achieved for
Sediment A. Contaminant concentration reductions
of greater than 99 percent for total PAHs and
greater than 99 percent for total PCBs were
achieved for Sediment B.
Removal efficiencies in excess of 98 percent were
realized for both sediments for oil and grease
(O&G).
Mass balances conducted for total materials
(including triethylamine) in the B.E.S.T.® system
achieved closures of 99.3 percent and 99.6 percent
for Sediment A and Sediment B, respectively. Mass
balances comparing feed and product streams
(excluding triethylamine) achieved closures of 108
percent and 114 percent for Sediment A and
Sediment B, respectively.
The products generated using the B.E.S.T.® process
compared favorably with RCC's claims with regard
to residual triethylamine concentrations. Treated
solids produced during the optimum treatment runs
for Sediment B had an average triethylamine
concentration of 103 mg/kg. Water generated
during these runs had a triethylamine concentration
of 2.2 mg/L or less, while the composite oil product
collected at the end of all Sediment B treatment
runs had a triethylamine concentration of 733
mg/kg. Because very little oil product was
generated during the treatment of Sediment A, the
Sediment A oil product was not processed to reduce
its triethylamine concentration. Solid product
generated from the optimum treatment runs for
Sediment A realized an average residual concentra-
tion of 45.1 mg/kg, while water products from the
optimum treatment runs for Sediment A had
triethylamine concentrations of 1.0 mg/L or less.
-------
The treatment cost for the remediation of
contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge using the
proposed 186-ton-per-day (tpd), full-scale B.E.S.T.®
system is estimated at $94 per ton if the system is
on line 80 percent of the tune or $112 per ton if the
system is on line 60 percent of the time.
1.3 Results
The objectives of this Applications Analysis are to assess
the ability of the process to comply with Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and
to estimate the cost of using this technology to
remediate a Superfund site. This analysis includes
determining if the B.E.S.T.® process can 1) remove
organic contaminants from the bottom sediments of the
Grand Calumet River; 2) exert a beneficial effect on the
metals found in the sediments by changing the metallic
compounds to less toxic or less leachable forms; 3)
concentrate the organic contaminants into an oil phase;
4) produce a water phase that is relatively free of
organic contaminants; and 5) provide an overall mass
balance for organic contaminants (PAHs and PCBs)
around the B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction system.
The treated solids and the untreated sediment both
passed the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) test for metals, so it was not possible to draw
any significant conclusions regarding the effects of the
B.E.S.T.® process on metals leachability. The other
results are summarized in Table 1.
Parameter
Table 1. Summary of Results from Optimum Runs (Three per Sediment)
Sediment A Sediment B
PCBs PAHs Triethylamine PCBs PAHs Triethylamine
Average Concentration in Untreated Sediment, mg/kg
Average Concentration in Treated Solids, mg/kg
Average Removal from Sediment, percent
Average Concentration in Oil Product, mg/kg
Maximum Concentration in Water Product, mg/L
12.1
0.04
99.7
NAb
<0.003
550
22
96.0
NAb
<0.01
NA"
45.1
NA
NAb
1.0
425
1.8
99.6
2,030
< 0.001
70,900
510
99.3
390,000
<0.01
NA'
103
NA
733C
2.2
.Notes;
a NA = not applicable. These samples were not analyzed for triethylamine.
b The Sediment A oil product was sampled at the end of the last run conducted on Sediment A. When the oil was sampled, there was not
sufficient oil present for oil processing to reduce the triethylamine concentration and as a result, excess triethylamine was left in the oil. The
triethylamine concentration in the oil does not provide meaningful data regarding the typical characteristics of the oil product.
c This oil product was sampled following normal oil processing, which reduces the triethylamine concentration.
-------
Section 2
Introduction
2.1 The SITE Program
In 1986, the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) and Office of Research and
Development (ORD) established the SITE Program to
promote the development and use of innovative
technologies to clean up Superfund sites across the
country. Now in its sixth year, SITE is helping to
provide the treatment technologies necessary to
implement new Federal and state cleanup standards
aimed at permanent remedies rather than quick fixes.
The SITE Program is composed of four major elements:
the Demonstration Program, the Emerging Technologies
Program, the Measurement and Monitoring Technol-
ogies Program, and the Technology Transfer Program.
The major focus has been on the Demonstration
Program, which is designed to provide engineering and
cost data for selected technologies. To date, the
Demonstration Program projects have not involved
funding for technology developers. EPA and developers
participating in the program share the cost of the
demonstration. Developers are responsible for
demonstrating their innovative systems at chosen sites,
usually Superfund sites. EPA is responsible for
sampling, analyzing, and evaluating all test results. The
result is an assessment of the technology's performance,
reliability, and costs. This information is used in con-
junction with other data to select the most appropriate
technologies for the cleanup of Superfund sites.
Developers of innovative technologies apply to the
Demonstration Program by responding to EPA's annual
solicitation. EPA also accepts proposals any time a
developer has a Superfund waste treatment project
scheduled. To qualify for the program, a new technol-
ogy must be available as a pilot- or full-scale system and
offer some advantage over existing technologies. Mobile
technologies are of particular interest to EPA.
Once EPA has accepted a proposal, EPA and the
developer work with the EPA regional offices and state
agencies to identify a site containing waste suitable for
testing the capabilities of the technology. EPA prepares
a detailed sampling and analysis plan designed to
evaluate the technology thoroughly and to ensure that
the resulting data are reliable. The duration of a
demonstration varies from a few days to several months,
depending on the length of time and quantity of waste
needed to assess the technology. After the completion
of a technology demonstration, EPA prepares two
reports, which are explained in more detail in
Subsection 2.2. Ultimately, the Demonstration Program
leads to an analysis of the technology's overall
applicability to Superfund problems.
The second principal element of the SITE Program is
the Emerging Technologies Program, which fosters the
further investigation and development of treatment
technologies that are still at the laboratory scale.
Successful validation of these technologies can lead to
the development of a system ready for field
demonstration and participation in the Demonstration
Program.
The third component of the SITE Program, the Mea-
surement and Monitoring Technologies Program,
provides assistance in the development and
demonstration of innovative technologies to characterize
Superfund sites better.
The fourth component of the SITE Program is the
Technology Transfer Program, which reports and
distributes the results of both Demonstration Program
studies and Emerging Technology studies through the
Technology Evaluation Reports (TERs), the
Applications Analysis Reports (AARs), and abbreviated
bulletins from both programs.
-------
2.2 SITE Program Reports
2.3 Key Contacts
The analysis of technologies participating in the
Demonstration Program is contained in two documents:
the TER and the AAR. The TER contains a com-
prehensive description of the demonstration sponsored
by the SITE Program and its results. It gives detailed
descriptions of the technology, the waste used for the
demonstration, sampling and analyses during the test,
the data generated, and the Quality Assurance (QA)
program.
The scope of the AAR is broader than that of the TER.
The AAR includes a description of projected Superfund
applications and estimated costs for the technology.
This report compiles and summarizes the results of the
SITE demonstration, the vendor's design and test data,
and other laboratory and field applications of the
technology. It discusses the advantages, disadvantages,
and limitations of the technology.
Costs of the technology for different applications are
estimated based on available data from pilot- and full-
scale applications. The AAR discusses the factors, such
as site and waste characteristics, that have a major
impact on costs and performance.
The amount of available data for the evaluation of an
innovative technology varies widely. Data may be
limited to laboratory tests on synthetic waste or may
include performance data on actual wastes treated at the
pilot- or full-scale level. In addition, there are limits to
conclusions regarding Superfund applications that can be
drawn from a single field demonstration. A successful
field demonstration does not necessarily ensure that a
technology will be widely applicable or fully developed
to the commercial scale. The AAR attempts to
synthesize whatever information is available and draw
reasonable conclusions. This document is very useful to
those considering a technology for Superfund cleanups
and represents a critical step in the development and
commercialization of the treatment technology.
For more information on the demonstration of the RCC
B.E.S.T.® technology, please contact:
1. EPA Project Manager for the SITE demonstration
test:
Mr. Mark C. Meckes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513) 569-7348
2. Process vendor:
Mr. Lanny Weimer
Resources Conservation Company
3630 Cornus Lane
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043
(301) 596-6066
Mr. George Jones
Resources Conservation Company
3006 Northup Way .
Bellevue, Washington 98004-1407
(206)828-2400
3. GLNPO Remedial Programs staff:
Mr. Stephen Garbaciak, Jr.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590
-------
Section 3
Technology Applications Analysis
3.1 Introduction
This section addresses the applicability of the RCC
B.E.S.T.® technology to contaminated soils, sludges, or
sediments for which PCBs and PAHs are the pollutants
of primary interest. Recommendations are based on the
results obtained from the SITE demonstration as well as
additional data from RCC. The results of the
demonstration, which allow an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the technology in treating contaminated
sediment from the Grand Calumet River, are presented
in the body of this report. Additional information on
the B.E.S.T.® technology, including a brief process
description, vendor's claims, a summary of the dem-
onstration results, and brief descriptions of previous case
studies, is provided hi Appendices A through D.
This demonstration was a cooperative effort between the
EPA - Region V, GLNPO, the COE, and the SITE
Program. GLNPO is responsible for undertaking a 5-
year study and demonstration program for contaminated
sediments known as the Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments Program. The Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program is
operated through a Management Advisory Committee
made up of the chairpersons of the technical work
groups, and the technical work groups themselves. The
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments Program is also involved in evaluating
remedial activities of other groups such as the Superfund
Program and the COE to evaluate the effectiveness of
those activities.
3.2 Conclusions
The RCC B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction technology
physically separates organic contaminants from an
inorganic matrix, thereby reducing the volume of wastes
which require further treatment. The process consists
of multiple extraction cycles followed by solvent
recovery, oil polishing (removing virtually all of the
triethylamine from the oil product by evaporation),
solids drying, and water stripping. This technology
utilizes the solvent properties and variable miscibility of
triethylamine in water to separate oil-contaminated soils,
sediments, or sludges into their oil, water, and solids
fractions. A more detailed process description is
provided in Appendix A.
The majority of the organic contaminants initially
present in the sludge, sediment, or soil are concentrated
in the oil fraction. This fraction may require additional
treatment (e.g., incineration) to destroy or immobilize
these contaminants. Whether the water and solids
fractions can be disposed of or discharged without
additional treatment depends on the treatment efficiency
of the B.E.S.T.® process and the presence of inorganic
contaminants. The demonstration test was performed to
demonstrate the ability of the B.E.S.T.* system to
remove PAHs and PCBs from contaminated sediments
in the Grand Calumet River. This test was conducted
at a Gary, Indiana location adjacent to the river.
During the demonstration test, samples were collected
and analyzed separately by the SITE Program and by
RCC. The two sets of analytical results were in,
excellent agreement. A review of the demonstration test
indicates the following results:
• Contaminant reductions of 96 percent for total
PAHs and greater than 99 percent for total PCBs
were achieved for Sediment A. Contaminant
reductions of greater than 99 percent for total
PAHs and greater than 99 percent for total PCBs
were achieved for Sediment B.
• Removal efficiencies in excess of 98 percent were
realized by both sediments for O&G.
• Mass balances conducted for total materials
(including triethylamine) in the B.E.S.T.® system
achieved closures of 99.3 percent and 99.6 percent
for Sediment A and Sediment B, respectively. Mass
-------
balances comparing feed and product streams
(excluding triethylamine) achieved closures of 108
percent and 114 percent for Sediment A and
Sediment B, respectively.
• The products generated using the B.E.S.T.® process
compared favorablywith RCC's claims in regards to
residual triethylamine concentrations. Treated
solids produced during the optimum treatment runs
for Sediment B had an average triethylamine
concentration of 103 mg/kg. Water generated
during these runs had a triethylamine concentration
of 2.2 mg/L or less, while the oil product collected
at the end of all Sediment B treatment runs had a
triethylamine concentration of 733 mg/kg. Because
very little oil product was generated during the
treatment of Sediment A, the Sediment A oil
product was not processed to reduce its
triethylamine • concentration. Solid product
generated from the optimum treatment runs for
Sediment A realized an average residual
concentration of 45.1 mg/kg, while water products
from the optimum treatment runs for Sediment A
had triethylamine concentrations of 1.0 mg/L or
less.
• The treatment cost for the remediation of con-
taminated soil, sediment, or sludge using the
proposed 186-tpd, full-scale B.E.S.T.® system is
estimated at $94 per ton if the system is on line 80
percent of the tune or $112 per ton if the system is
on line 60 percent of the time.
The vendor's claims for the B.E.S.T.® process are
presented in Appendix B and detailed results are
presented in Appendix C.
demonstration. Sediment A was a screened, homog-
enized composite of sediment samples collected from
Transect 28, which is downstream from an oil-skimmed
settling lagoon. This lagoon received wastewater from
primary bar plate mills and a basic oxygen process
(BOP) shop. This location was chosen to acquire a
sample having a decreased organic concentration and a
relatively high metals concentration.
The high metals concentration of Sediment A was
designed to provide an evaluation of the B.E.S.T.®
system's ability to reduce the teachability of metals.
Despite its high metals concentration, the untreated
sediment passed the TCLP test for metals, so it was not
possible to draw any significant conclusions regarding
the effects of the B.E.S.T.® process on metals
teachability. The metals concentrations in the treated
. solids were similar to those in the sediment, indicating
that no significant amount of metals was removed by the
B.E.S.T.® system.
Sediment B was a screened, homogenized composite of
sediment samples collected from Transect 6. Transect 6
is located downstream of a coke plant and upstream of
Transect 28. O&G were visually observed in the
sediment collected during recent bottom sediment core
sampling in the vicinity of Transect 6. Sediment B
contained high levels of petroleum-based contaminants
(i.e., O&G and PAHs) but low levels of metals.
Analytical data characterizing Sediment A and Sediment
B, according to the main parameters of interest for this
demonstration test, are presented in Table 2.
Concentrations in Table 2 are given on a dry weight
basis for all parameters except moisture.
Table 2. Characterization of the Untreated Sediment
(Averages from Three Optimum Runs)
3.3 Technology Evaluation
The objective of this SITE demonstration was to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the B.E.S.T.® solvent
extraction technology on two sediment samples having
different contaminants and/or contrasting concentration
levels of the same contaminants. The contaminants in
the river sediments include metals, organic compounds
such as PAHs and PCBs, and inorganics including
cyanide.
The sediment collection points are shown in Figure 1.
Sediments were collected from two locations (Transect
28 and Transect 6) along the Grand Calumet River
using hollow aluminum tubes which were , driven
approximately 5 feet into the soft river bottom. The
"cores" from the tubes were emptied into buckets and
transported to the demonstration location. These
sediment samples were obtained by the COE for the
Parameter
Sediment A
Sediment B
Total PCBs, mg/kg
Total PAHs, mg/kg
O&G, mg/kg
Moisture, percent
12.1
550
6,900
41
425
70,900
127,000
64
To characterize the materials used hi this demonstration
further, particle size analyses were performed for the
untreated sediment (by wet sieve testing) and the
treated solids (by dry sieve testing). Particle size
distributions were prepared to demonstrate the ability of
the B.E.S.T.® system to treat materials containing large
fractions of fine particles. Approximately 40 percent
and 57 percent of the particles in Sediments A and B,
respectively, had diameters of 75 to 425 Mm- The
particle size distributions also indicated that 28 percent
-------
EXPLANATION
Industrial effluent outfall
0 Municipal effluent outfall
*- Direction of flow
Collection Location for
Sediment B
(Transect 6)
Collection Locationfor
Sediment A
(Transect28)
Gary Wastewater Treatment
• Plant (GWTP)
JND EAST-WEST
Figure 1. Sediment Collection Locations - East Branch of the Grand Calumet River.
and 38 percent of the particles in Sediments A and B,
respectively, had diameters of less than 75 /zm.
The demonstration site was located hi Gary, Indiana
near the Grand Calumet River. The Grand Calumet
River drains approximately 77 square miles of Lake and
Porter counties and discharges to southwestern Lake
Michigan via the Indiana Harbor and Canal. Major
industries along the waterway include primary steel and
petrochemical industries. The river's headwaters are at
the Grand Calumet River Lagoon at Marquette Park in
northwest Gary. This "East Branch" of the Grand
Calumet River flows westward through heavily
industrialized sections of Gary and East Chicago. The
Grand Calumet River is fed primarily by municipal and
industrial wastewater (up to 90 percent of its flow) and
a fairly rapid current is produced by these discharges
along several outfalls throughout the river's course.
Flow is diverted due north via the Indiana Harbor and
Canal, which discharges at East Chicago.
The Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor and Canal
area has a long history of water quality problems and
has been designated by EPA as an area of concern. The
area of concern also includes nearshore Lake Michigan
in Lake County, Indiana. Previous studies have been
conducted by EPA Region V, the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management (IDEM), and the COE.
From these studies, the COE has estimated that the
entire area of concern contains 3.5 to 4.0 million cubic
yards of contaminated sediments and the East Branch of
the Grand Calumet River contains 1.4 million cubic
yards of contaminated sediments.
-------
The majority of the RCC B.E.S.T.® pilot plant was
constructed on two portable skids. One skid contained
the B.E.S.T.® process equipment including the premix
tank, extractor/dryer, centrifuge, centrate filters, oil
decanter, stripping units, solvent evaporator, pumps, and
valves required to process contaminated sludges or
solids. Utility systems which supported the pilot plant
were contained on a second skid. These systems
included a refrigeration unit and a cooling water system.
Steam, nitrogen, and instrument air were provided in
separate units which were contained in a support trailer.
The process units utilized three levels of spill
containment, the first being the pilot unit piping itself.
Secondary containment consisted of a 25£-inch-deep
stainless steel pan underlying the entire unit. Tertiary
containment consisted of a flexible membrane liner with
raised edges forming a berm. This liner was situated
under the entire trailer unit in which the pilot plant was
enclosed.
The B.E.S.T.® pilot-scale system is designed to process
soil, sediment, or sludge feeds. The system separates
organic contaminants from soils, sludges, and sediments,
thereby potentially reducing the volume of the hazardous
waste that must be treated. The technology uses amine
solvents; triethylamine is most commonly chosen and
was the solvent used during the SITE demonstration.
Triethylamine is reported by RCC to be an excellent
solvent for treating hazardous wastes because it exhibits
several characteristics that enhance its use in a solvent
extraction system. These characteristics include:
• A high vapor pressure; therefore the solvent can be
easily recovered from the extract (oil, water, and
solvent) via simple steam stripping.
• Formation of a low-boiling azeotrope with water;
therefore the solvent can be recovered from the
extract to very low residual levels, typically less than
100 parts per million (ppm).
• Triethylamine is alkaline (pH = 10); therefore some
heavy metals are converted to metal hydroxides,
which can precipitate and exit the process with the
treated solids.
RCC's B.E.S.T.® pilot unit requires a feed stream that
is screened to less than or equal to Vz inch, although the
SITE demonstration utilized feed screened to less than
or equal to Vi inch to minimize abrasion to the
equipment. The technology is capable of handling either
"soil" type material or "sludge" type material, which
determines the process path used in the pilot unit. RCC
classifies material low in oil and water contents as "soil"
and material having high oil and water content as
"sludge." The sediment treated during the SITE
demonstration was considered a sludge by RCC. The
vendor claims that the technology is suitable for treating
inorganics contaminated with complex organic
compounds including PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and
herbicides.
RCC has a full-scale unit that is capable of treating
sludge but cannot handle soils. The proposed full-scale
unit discussed in the following sections will be capable
of treating either soil or sludge.
Limited testing to assess the biodegradability of
triethylamine in the treated solids was conducted by the
SITE evaluation team as part of the demonstration.
Samples of the treated solids were mixed with clean soil
that was intended as a source of naturally-occurring soil
bacteria. This soil mixture was split into two cells and
the biological activity in the control cell was inhibited by
the addition of mercuric chloride. This biodegradation
study produced no evidence that triethylamine present
at 25 to 100 ppm is biodegraded in this soil within 2
months of application. This study should not, however,
be considered evidence that triethylamine is not
biodegradable in soil, since no attempt was made to
optimize treatment parameters such as pH, nutrient
availability, etc. The lack of biodegradation is supported
by a previous study which used acclimated, activated
sewage sludge [1]. In contrast, it has been reported that
triethylamine is degraded in an Aerobacter bacterial
culture [2]. These results indicate that residual
triethylamine concentrations will not quickly biodegrade
in this soil without the addition of nutrients and/or
acclimated microbial strains.
The following paragraphs present information available
on the B.E.S.T.® system and its performance and
summarize observations and conclusions from the SITE
demonstration.
3.4 Ranges of Site Characteristics Suitable
for the Technology
3.4.1 Site Selection
The pilot-scale system used during the SITE
demonstration is fully mobile and is contained on two
skids. RCC states that the full-scale system will be
transportable. It will be transported in sections and
reassembled on or near the treatment site. The
B.E.S.T.® system is applicable to sites containing soil,
sediment, or sludge contaminated with organics. Any
site on which the full-scale system is to be assembled
should also meet the physical requirements described in
the following subsections.
-------
3.4.2 Surface, Subsurface, and Clearance
Requirements
A level, graded area capable of supporting a pad holding
the equipment is needed. The foundation must be able
to support the weight of the B.E.S.T.® system and all
other equipment requiring a pad. The dimensions of
the pad or pads will depend on the configuration of the
system. The total weight of the system and all auxiliary
equipment is expected to be approximately 120 tons.
The operating weight of the system, which includes the
weight of the material being treated, is estimated to be
1,100 tons.
The site must be cleared to allow construction and
access to the facility. It is estimated that the full-scale
B.E.S.T.® system will be transported in 11 truckloads.
The access road must be at least 8 feet wide to admit
the trucks. The road should also be capable of
supporting loads up to 40,000 pounds.
3.43 Topographical Characteristics
The topographical characteristics of the site should be
suitable for the assembly of the B.E.S.T.® system. If no
indoor storage is available at the site, a building must be
constructed for spare parts storage.
3.4.4 Site Area Requirements
At least 1 acre should be available for the assembly of
the B.E.S.T.® system. Once constructed, the system,
storage tanks, and auxiliary equipment will occupy
approximately 10,000 square feet (0.23 acres). For much
of this area, a pad will be required to support the
system. In addition, the National Fire Prevention
Association (NFPA) requires that a perimeter be esta-
blished around the solvent extraction equipment. This
will increase the area required by the system. A separ-
ate area should also be provided for staging wastes for
treatment and for storing treated solids. The required
site dimensions will depend on the configuration of the
full-scale system, which may be somewhat flexible.
3.4.5 Climate Characteristics
This treatment technology may be used in a broad range
of climates, although prolonged periods of freezing
temperatures may interfere with soil excavation and may
require system modifications. Hot or cold climates may
also impact energy costs for treatment, as specific liquid
temperatures are required for the extractions.
3.4.6 Geological Characteristics
Generally, any site that is sufficiently stable to handle
the weight of the system is suitable for this technology.
3.4.7 Utility Requirements
The only utilities required by the full-scale system are
electricity and water. The site should have at least 430
kilowatts of 3-phase, 440-volt electrical power available.
Potable water requirements are 1,020 gallons per day
(gpd) for treatment, decontamination, etc. Steam and
compressed air will be provided by a boiler and an air
compressor that will be transported with the system.
3.4.8 Size of Operation
The pilot-scale B.E.S.T.® system was primarily contained
on two skids and operated at an average treatment rate
of approximately 90 pounds of contaminated sediment
per day during the SITE demonstration. The proposed
full-scale system will be much larger and will operate at
a nominal processing rate of 186 tpd.
3.5 Applicable Media
The RCC B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction system is capable
of physically separating organic contaminants such as
PCBs, PAHs, and O&G from inorganic media. Media
that can be treated by the pilot-scale system used during
the SITE demonstration include soils, sediments, and
sludges. The prototype full-scale system is only
applicable to sludges, but the proposed full-scale system
will be applicable to soils and sediments as well.
This technology has been demonstrated to be effective
in removing organic contaminants from varied sources,
including wastes generated by primary steel
manufacturing, aluminum manufacturing, petroleum
refining, machining operations, and wood treating. A
summary of the pilot-scale testing projects appears in
Appendix D.
The effectiveness of treatment is illustrated by the
results of this demonstration project and by other case
studies. This demonstration showed that the B.E.S.T.®
process removed 96 percent of the PAHs, greater than
99 percent of the PCBs, and greater than 98 percent of
the O&G from the contaminated sediments. Other
process evaluations (discussed in Appendix D)
documented PCB removals ranging from 98.8 percent to
99.88 percent, PAH removals ranging from 99 percent
to 99.21 percent, and an O&G removal of 99.65 percent.
-------
3.6 Regulatory Requirements
Operation of the B.E.S.T.* solvent extraction system for
treatment of contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge
requires compliance with certain Federal, state, and
local regulatory standards and guidelines. Section 121
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires
that, subject to specified exceptions, remedial actions
must be undertaken in compliance with ARARs, Federal
laws, and more stringent promulgated state laws (in
response to releases or threats of releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants) as necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
The ARARs which must be followed in treating
contaminated media onsite are outlined in the Interim
Guidance on Compliance with ARAR, Federal Register,
Vol. 52, pp. 32496 et seq. These are:
• Performance, Design, or Action-Specific
Requirements. One example is the Clean Water
Act (CWA) pretreatment standards for discharge to
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). These
requirements are triggered by the particular
remedial activity selected to clean a site.
• Ambient/Chemical-Specific Requirements. These
set hcalth-risk-based concentration limits based on
pollutants and contaminants, e.g., emission limits
and ambient air quality standards. The system must
comply with the most stringent ARAR for each
parameter.
• Locational Requirements. These set restrictions on
activities because of site locations and environs.
Deployment of the B.E.S.T.® system will be affected by
three main levels of regulation:
• Federal EPA air and water pollution regulations
• State air and water pollution regulations
• Local regulations, particularly Air Quality
Management District requirements
These regulations govern the operation of all
technologies. Other Federal, state, and local regulations
arc discussed hi detail in the following paragraphs as
they apply to the performance, emissions, and residues
evaluated from measurements taken during the
demonstration test.
3.6.1 Federal Regulations
3.6J.I Clean Air Act (CAA)
The CAA of 1990 regulates major sources of air toxics
from specific source categories. The CAA revisions of
1990 included a statutory list of 189 substances which
require regulation as air toxics. A draft list of source
categories was also released in 1990. Triethylamine is
one of the 189 listed air toxics and solvent extraction is
on the draft list of source categories. The 1990
amendments define a "major source" as one which emits
10 tons per year of a single air toxic or 25 tons per year
of any combination of air toxics. The triethylamine
emission rate from the proposed full-scale B.E.S.T.®
system has not yet been determined, but the process
may be subject to regulation under the 1990 CAA
revisions.
During the demonstration test, vent gases were filtered
by primary and secondary activated carbon canisters.
The air between the two carbon canisters was monitored
daily with colorimetric tubes having detection limits of
3.5 ppm triethylamine. Triethylamine was detected at
over 3.5 ppm hi two instances during the demonstration.
In each instance, the primary carbon canister was
replaced immediately and the triethylamine
concentration returned to below 3.5 ppm. The
concentration of triethylamine at the vent gas outlet was
not measured at over 0.2 ppm at any time during the
demonstration.
3.6.1.2 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLA of 1980, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986,
provides for Federal funding to respond to releases of
hazardous substances to air, water, and land. Section
121 of SARA, Cleanup Standards, states a strong
statutory preference for remedies that are highly reliable
and provide long-term protection. It strongly
recommends that remedial action use onsite treatment
that "permanently and significantly reduces the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances." In
addition, general factors which must be addressed by
CERCLA remedial actions include:
• Overall. protection of human health and the
environment
• Compliance with ARARs
10
-------
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
• Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
« Cost
• State acceptance
• Community acceptance
The long-term effectiveness of the B.E.S.T.® system is
demonstrated by its apparent ability to achieve a
permanent and significant reduction in the volume of
hazardous waste associated with soils, sediments, and
sludges contaminated with organics. During treatment,
the majority of the organic contaminants are extracted
from the soil, sediment, or sludge and concentrated
within the oily product. By removing the contaminants
from the soil, sediment, or sludge and concentrating
them within the oily fraction, the technology perman-
ently isolates these contaminants from the treated solids,
potentially enabling them to be backfilled onsite. In
addition, a significant reduction in the volume of
material requiring additional treatment and/or disposal
is realized. Thus, a "permanent and significant"
reduction in the threat posed by the waste is realized.
The B.E.S.T.* SITE demonstration was originally
designed to evaluate reduction in metallic contaminant
mobility. One of the goals of the demonstration was to
evaluate the technology's potential ability to change
metallic compounds to less toxic or less leachable forms.
The treated solids and the untreated sediment both
passed the TCLP test for metals, so it was not possible
to draw any significant conclusions regarding the effects
of the B.E.S.T.® process on the mobility of metallic
contaminants.
Short-term effectiveness and overall protection of human
health and the environment can be evaluated by
examining the emissions from the B.E.S.T.® system.
Solvent is recovered and recycled within the system,
eliminating the need for waste solvent disposal. The
water and oil products are decanted and processed (by
solvent evaporation and water stripping) to minimize
their solvent concentrations, to allow reuse of the
triethylamine, and to reduce the likelihood that the
water product will be classified as a hazardous waste.
Since the process operates in a closed loop with one
small vent for removal of non-condensible gases, air
emissions are minimal. Air monitoring results from the
SITE demonstration are discussed in Appendix C and
subsection 3.6.1.1.
The B.E.S.T.® system appears to be capable of
compliance with the known ARARs listed in Subsection
3.6. Locational requirements and local regulations are
site-specific, and they must be evaluated individually for
each site.
The B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction process is potentially
capable of significantly reducing the toxicity of soils,
sediments, and sludges contaminated with organics such
as PAHs and PCBs. Depending on the other
contaminants present and the treatment efficiency
achieved, the treated solids may be suitable for onsite
disposal without further treatment. During the
demonstration test, the B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction
technology removed greater than 96 percent and greater
than 99 percent, respectively, of the PAHs and PCBs
from the bottom sediment of the Grand Calumet River.
If metals are present, the treated solids may require
additional treatment such as fixation. The B.E.S.T.*
system may be capable of changing the chemical nature
of the metals into a less leachable form. However, since
the untreated sediment passed the TCLP test for metals,
this could not be assessed during the demonstration test.
The nature of the contaminants present also determines
the disposal requirements for the water and oil products.
In general, depending on the contaminants initially
present and the effectiveness of the stripping steps
employed, water products will often be suitable for
discharge to a local POTW. Although the oil product
may be suitable for use as a fuel, this product is more
likely to require treatment or disposal as a hazardous
waste. During the demonstration test, the elevated pH
of the water product and PCB contamination within the
oil fraction caused these materials to be designated as
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) wastes,
respectively. The elevated pH of the water product was
due to the addition of excessive caustic during water
stripping. The average pHs of the water products
generated during the treatment of Sediments A and B
were 12.3 and 11.9, respectively. RCC claims that the
water product generated by the B.E.S.T.® system should
not typically exhibit a pH greater than 11 after operators
have become more familiar with the caustic addition
requirements of a given feed stream. Depending on the
B.E.S.T.® system configuration used and on the specific
contaminants present in the feed material, an additional
water treatment step may be needed during future
applications of the technology to qualify the product
water for discharge to a local POTW.
There are a number of basic site requirements for the
B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction system. The system must
not be operated in close proximity to combustible
materials. Area requirements for staging of treated and
untreated wastes will also make it difficult to implement
this technology at sites with limited space. Furthermore,
11
-------
the B.E.S.T.® full-scale system is rather complex and is
not easily or quickly assembled or disassembled. As a
result, the per ton remediation cost (including site
preparation, system mobilization, startup, treatment, and
demobilization) will be higher for small sites than for
large sites. Unit costs for various treatment scenarios
are provided in Section 4.
State acceptance and community acceptance are the last
two factors that must be addressed by CERCLA
remedial actions. It is not possible to predict whether
a specific state or community will readily accept the
B.E.S.T.* system, but potential community concerns
include the flammability of the solvent, the obnoxious
odor of the solvent, and potential explosion hazards.
3,6.1.3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA is the primary Federal legislation governing
hazardous waste activities. Although a RCRA permit is
not required for hazardous waste treatment on
Superfund sites, the treatment systems must meet all of
the substantive requirements of RCRA. Administrative
RCRA requirements such as reporting and record-
keeping, however, are not applicable for onsite activity.
Subtitle C of RCRA contains requirements for genera-
tion, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste. Compliance with these requirements
is mandatory for CERCLA sites producing hazardous
waste onsite.
The water product generated during the demonstration
test was a RCRA-regulated material due to its elevated
pH. RCC states that the high pH of the water product
was caused by excessive caustic added during water
stripping. The water product generated by the
B.E.S.T.® system should not typically exhibit a pH
greater than 11. The nature of the water product will
depend on the B.E.S.T.® system configuration used and
the contaminants present in the waste. At many sites,
however, the system should be capable of generating a
water product amenable for discharge to the local
POTW. In general, the production of hazardous
residuals is dependent on the contaminants present
within the untreated solids. Since the majority of the
contamination collects within the oil product, this matrix
is more likely than the water product to be regulated as
a hazardous waste.
Since steam stripping and solvent evaporation are used
to recover any residual triethylamine present in the
water and oil separated from the extraction solution,
solvent concentrations in system products are typically
quite low. Average triethylamine concentrations of 103
mg/kg, <1 mg/L, and 730 mg/kg for solid, water, and
oil products, respectively, were generated during the
treatment of Sediment B. Solid and water products
generated from the treatment of Sediment A realized
residual triethylamine concentrations of 45.1 mg/kg and
1.1 mg/L, respectively. Because this sediment contained
very little oil, excess triethylamine could not be removed
from the oil, and the triethylamine concentration in the
Sediment A oil product is not considered representative
of a typical product.
In order to maintain compliance with RCRA, sites em-
ploying the B.E.S.T.® system to treat hazardous wastes
must obtain an EPA generator identification number
and observe storage requirements stipulated under 40
CFR 262. Alternatively, a Part B Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal (TSD) permit of interim status may be
obtained. Invariably, a hazardous waste manifest must
accompany offsite shipment of waste, and transport must
comply with Federal Department of Transportation
hazardous waste transportation regulations. Without
exception, the receiving TSD facility must be permitted
and in compliance with RCRA standards.
The technology or treatment standards applicable to the
media produced by the B.E.S.T.® system (treated solids,
product oil, and product water) will be determined by
the characteristics of the waste treated and the material
generated. The RCRA land disposal restrictions (40
CFR 268) preclude the land disposal of hazardous
wastes which fail to meet the stipulated treatment stan-
dards. Wastes which do not meet these standards must
receive additional treatment to bring the wastes into
compliance with the standards prior to land disposal,
unless a variance is granted. The following residuals
were produced during the SITE demonstration: a water
product classified as a RCRA waste due to elevated pH
levels, an oil product that was a TSCA waste because it
contained PCBs, and a potentially non-regulated solid
product.
3.6.1.4 Clean Water Act
The CWA regulates direct discharges to surface water
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) regulations. These regulations require
point-source discharges of wastewater to meet
established water quality standards. The discharge of
wastewater to a sanitary sewer requires a discharge
permit or, at least, concurrence from state and local
regulatory authorities that the wastewater is in
compliance with regulatory limits.
The nature of the product, wash, and rinse water is site-
specific; these matrices may be deemed hazardous waste
at some sites. Although the product water generated
during the SITE demonstration was not suitable for
release to the local POTW due to elevated pH levels,
this was simply due to addition of excessive caustic
12
-------
during water stripping. It is projected that the system
will typically generate a water product suitable for
discharge to an industrial or municipal water treatment
facility. Equipment rinse water from decontamination
operations during the demonstration was suitable for
discharge. In the commercial-scale system, the water
product will be generated at a continuous flow rate of
approximately 19 gallons per minute (gpm). Wash and
rinse water production will be dependent on the
frequency of decontamination as well as the extent of
the contamination present.
3.6.1.5 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
The SDWA establishes primary and secondary national
drinking water standards. CERCLA refers to these
standards and Section 121(d)(2) explicitly mentions two
of these standards for surface water or groundwater—
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Federal
Water Quality Criteria. Alternate Concentration Limits
may be used when conditions of Section 121 (d)(2)(B)
are met and cleanup to MCLs or other protective levels
is not practicable. Included in these sections is guidance
on how these requirements may be applied to Superfund
remedial actions. The guidance, which is based on
Federal requirements and policies, may be superseded
by more stringent promulgated state requirements,
resulting in the application of even stricter standards
than those specified in Federal regulations.
3.6.1.6 Toxic Substances Control Act
Materials containing PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm
or greater are regulated by TSCA, which addresses
disposal requirements in relation to the concentration of
PCBs in the waste. The oil product generated during
the demonstration test was a TSCA-regulated waste.
Because organic contaminants from the feed are
concentrated into the oil product, it is likely that the oil
product will be a TSCA-regulated waste whenever
significant quantities of PCBs are present in the feed.
For example, consider Sediment A, which contained 12
ppm PCBs. The concentration of PCBs in the Sediment
A oil product was approximately 190 ppm and would
have been higher if more of the residual triethylamine
had been removed from the oil. In cases such as this,
the untreated material is not a TSCA-regulated waste
but a TSCA-regulated oil product is generated during
treatment.
3.62 State and Local Regulations
Compliance with ARARs may require meeting state
standards that are more stringent than Federal standards
or that are the controlling standards in the case of non-
CERCLA treatment activities. Several types of state
and local regulations which may affect operation of the
B.E.S.T.® system are cited below:
• Permitting requirements for construction/operation
• Limitations on emission levels
• Nuisance rules
3.7 Personnel Issues
3.7.1 Training
Personal protective equipment (PPE) levels for this
demonstration were designated according to the
potential hazards associated with each work activity.
Equipment preparation, test start-up, and equipment
decontamination activities were performed in Level D
PPE. Level C PPE was required for sediment/chemical
mixing and sample collection at the demonstration unit.
All personnel are also required to be trained with 40
hours of Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) training covering PPE application, safety and
health, emergency response procedures, and quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC). Additional
training addressing the site activities, procedures,
monitoring, and equipment associated with the
technology is also necessary. Training provided prior to
the operation of the system included information
regarding emergency evacuation procedures; safety
equipment locations; the boundaries of the exclusion
zone, contaminant reduction zone, and support zone;
and PPE requirements. These training procedures were
observed throughout the demonstration.
3.72 Health and Safety
Personnel should be instructed about potential hazards,
such as the flammability and explosiveness of the
solvent, associated with the operation of the B.E.S.T.®
system. Health and safety training covering
recommended safe work practices, standard emergency
plans and procedures, potential hazards and provisions
for exposure monitoring, and the use and care of PPE
should be required. Onsite personnel should participate
hi a medical monitoring program. Health and safety
monitoring and incident reports should be routinely
filed, and records of occupational illnesses and injuries
(OSHA Forms 102 and 200) should be maintained.
Audits ensuring compliance with the health and safety
plan should be carried out.
Proper PPE should be available and properly utilized by
all onsite personnel. Different levels of personal
protection will be required based on the potential
hazard associated with the site and the work activities.
13
-------
Site monitoring should be conducted to identify the
extent of hazards and to document exposures at the site.
The monitoring results should be maintained and
posted. During the demonstration test, concerns were
raised pertaining to the possible exposure of workers via
inhalation and/or direct contact with contaminants
present in the untreated sediment (e.g., PAHs and
PCBs) and process chemicals used in the B.E.S.T.®
solvent extraction technology (e.g., triethylamine and
sodium hydroxide). In response to these concerns, air
purifying respirators equipped with organic vapor
cartridges and high-efficiency particulate (HEPA) filters
or dust covers were required for workers in the
immediate proximity of the pilot unit and during
chemical/feed mixing operations.
Although the inhalation of contaminated soil-dust
particles was a concern, dust exposure was not expected
to be a problem under normal weather conditions. As
a result, continuous particulate monitoring was not
performed during the demonstration test.
Air monitoring was performed to determine the
potential for respiratory or dermal hazards. A
photoionization detector (PID) was used to assess the
presence of ionizable organic vapors in the ambient air.
Particular emphasis was placed on ambient monitoring
for volatile emissions attributed to the solvent employed
by RCC. The maximum limit for organic vapor
concentration in the ambient air was 10 ppm above
background levels; none of the measurements taken
during the demonstration test exceeded this limit.
The health and safety practices described above were
observed throughout the demonstration.
3.73 Emergency Response
In the event of an accident, illness, explosion, hazardous
situation at the site, or intentional acts of harm,
assistance should be immediately sought from the local
emergency response teams and first aid or decontamin-
ation should be employed where appropriate.
To ensure a timely response in the case of an
emergency, workers should review the evacuation plan,
firefighting procedures, cardiopulmonary resuscitation
(CPR) techniques, and emergency decontamination
procedures before operating the system. Fire
extinguishers, spill cleanup kits, and evacuation vehicles
should be onsite at all times. Other onsite safety
equipment will include an air horn that can be used to
alert personnel in the event of an emergency.
3.8 References
1. Chudoba, J., et al. Chem Prum 19, pp. 76-80.
1969. (As referenced in Handbook of
Environmental Fate and Exposure Data, Volume 2-
-Solvents. P. Howard, Ed. Louis Publishers,
Chelsea, MI, 1991.)
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatability
Manual, Volume 1 (EPA 600/8-80-042).
14
-------
Section 4
Economic Analysis
4.1 Introduction
The primary purpose of this economic analysis is to
estimate costs (not including profits) for commercial
treatment utilizing the B.E.S.T.® system. This analysis
is based on the results of a SITE demonstration which
utilized a pilot-scale B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction system.
To a lesser extent, this analysis is also based on
information from previous tests, including a full-scale
test conducted at the General Refining site in Garden
City, Georgia. These previous tests are described briefly
in Appendix D. The pilot-scale unit utilized during the
SITE demonstration operated at an average feed rate of
approximately 90 pounds of contaminated sediment per
day; it is projected that the commercial unit will be
capable of treating up to 186 tons of contaminated soil,
sediment, or sludge per day.
4.2 Conclusions
The commercial-scale B.E.S.T.® system proposed by
RCC is designed to remediate soils, sediments, and
sludges contaminated with PCBs, PAHs, and other
organics. Treatment costs appear to be competitive with
other available technologies. The treatment cost for the
remediation of contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge
using the 186-tpd B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction system is
estimated at $112 per ton if the system, is on line 60
percent of the time or $94 per ton if the system is on
line 80 percent of the tune.
4.3 Issues and Assumptions
RCC states that the 186-tpd B.E.S.T.® system is
applicable for sites having greater than 5,000 cubic yards
(approximately 5,050 tons) of soil, sediment, or sludge
containing organic contaminants. The unit should also
be considered for smaller sites when the other treatment
alternatives, such as incineration, are costly.
Important assumptions regarding operating conditions
and task responsibilities that could significantly affect the
cost estimate results are presented in the following
paragraphs.
43.1 Costs Excluded from Estimate
The cost estimates presented are representative of the
charges typically assessed to the client by the vendor but
do not include profit.
•All costs associated with site preparation, system
mobilization, startup, and demobilization have been
excluded from the treatment cost. The costs for system
mobilization, startup, and demobilization are incurred
once at every site and are approximately the same
regardless of the quantity of contaminated material
present at the site. These costs are therefore presented
individually as fixed costs. Site preparation costs are
proportional to the amount of contaminated soil present
at the site.
Many other actual or potential costs have also been
excluded from this estimate. These costs are omitted
because site-specific engineering designs beyond the
scope of this SITE project would be required to deter-
mine those costs. As a result, certain functions are
assumed to be the obligation of the responsible party or
site owner and are not included in this estimate.
The costs that are assumed to be the responsible party's
(or site owner's) obligation include the costs for items
such as preliminary site preparation, obtaining permits,
determining regulatory requirements, initiation of
monitoring programs, waste disposal, conducting
sampling and analyses, and post-treatment site cleanup
and restoration. These costs tend to be site-specific and
it is left to the reader to perform calculations relevant to
each specific case. Whenever possible, applicable
information is provided on these topics so the reader
may perform calculations to obtain relevant economic
data.
15
-------
432 Maximizing Treatment Rate
Factors limiting the treatment rate include the feed rate
and the online percentage. Increasing the feed rate
and/or the online percentage can reduce the unit treat-
ment cost. Online percentages of 60 percent, 70
percent, and 80 percent are compared in the following
analysis. Increasing the feed rate beyond 186 tpd
requires equipment modifications which are not
considered in this analysis.
433 Utilities
To support the operation of the B.E.S.T.® system, a site
must have clean water available at a flow rate of at least
1,020 gpd. The majority of this water (980 gpd) will be
added to the extractor/dryer as direct steam. The
remainder of the water will be used hi other miscella-
neous onsite applications including cleaning and rinsing.
Electrical power is required for the operation of many
components of the B.E.S.T.® system. RCC projects that
the full-scale unit will require 40 to 70 kilowatt-hours
per ton of feed. For the purposes of this cost estimate,
it is assumed that the average electricity consumption
rate will be 55 kilowatt-hours per ton of feed.
For these cost calculations, it is assumed that sufficient
water and electrical power are available at the site. The
cost of preparing a site to meet these requirements can
be high and is not included in this analysis. Costs
associated with connecting the B.E.S.T.® system to the
onsite water and electrical supplies are included in the
site preparation costs, which are not included in the
treatment cost.
43.4 Operating Times
It is assumed the treatment operations will be conducted
24 hours per day, 7 days per week. It is further
assumed site preparation, assembly, shakedown
(preliminary operation followed by adjustments to
improve efficiency or functioning) and testing, and
disassembly operations will be conducted 10 hours per
day, 7 days per week. Excavation activities will be
concurrent with treatment. Assembly, shakedown and
testing, and disassembly are assumed to require 27 days,
18 days, and 30 days, respectively.
43.5 Labor Requirements
Treatment operations are assumed to require 18 onsite
personnel: 12 system operators (4 per shift), 3
operations supervisors (1 per shift), and 3 safety
personnel (1 per shift). RCC projects that six of the
onsite personnel will be employees from RCC's mam
office who will collect per diem and will require rental
cars. Per diem and rental car allowances will not be
required for the other 12 onsite personnel, who will be
local hires. It is assumed that onsite personnel will work
in three shifts for 24-hour-per-day, 7-day-per-week
operation. Three administrative and clerical personnel
will also be required. It is assumed that these
employees will work 40 hours per week and will not be
located onsite. Per diem and rental car allowances are
therefore not included for administrative or clerical
personnel.
43.6 Capital Costs
It is assumed that the full-scale B.E.S.T.® system will be
owned and operated by RCC. It is further assumed that
capital costs incurred by RCC will be distributed across
the useful life of the system and passed on to the users.
Capital costs are estimated for all major equipment
included in the B.E.S.T.® system. Specific items include
11 process tanks, 3 extractor/dryers, 2 boilers, cooling
towers, an air compressor/dryer, a centrifuge, an oil
decanter, a solvent evaporator, a solvent decanter, a
water stripper, a chiller, 4 heat exchangers, 3 trailers,
and storage equipment.
43.7 Equipment and Fixed Costs
Annualized equipment cost, and costs that are estimated
as percentages of equipment costs on an annual basis,
have been prorated for the duration of time that the
equipment is onsite. The costs for equipment, insur-
ance, and taxes accrue during assembly, shakedown and
testing, treatment, and disassembly. The per ton
treatment cost, however, includes only the portions of
these costs which accrue during treatment. Contingency
costs and facility modification, repair, and replacement
costs accrue only during treatment and are included in
the per ton treatment cost.
4.4 Basis of Economic Analysis
The cost analysis was prepared by breaking down the
overall cost into 12 categories. The categories, some of
which do not have costs associated with them for this
particular technology, are:
Site preparation costs
Permitting and regulatory costs
Equipment costs
Startup and fixed costs
Labor costs
Supplies costs
16
-------
• Consumables costs
• Effluent treatment and disposal costs
• Residuals and waste shipping, handling, and
transport costs
• Analytical costs
• Facility modification, repair, and replacement costs
• Site demobilization costs
The 12 cost factors examined as they apply to the
B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction system, along with the as-
sumptions employed, are described in the following
subsections.
4.4.1 Site Preparation Costs
It is assumed that preliminary site preparation will be
performed by the responsible party (or site owner). The
amount of preliminary site preparation will depend on
the site. Site preparation responsibilities include site
design and layout, surveys and site logistics, legal
searches, access rights and roads, preparations for
support and decontamination facilities, and auxiliary
buildings. Since these costs are site-specific, they are
not included as part of the site preparation costs in this
cost estimate.
Collection of the contaminated material (by excavation
or dredging) is considered RCC's responsibility.
Dredging costs for sediment typically range from $7 to
$10 per cubic yard. Excavation costs are estimated to be
approximately $36 per ton of soil excavated. The
estimated excavation costs are based on rental costs for
operated heavy equipment, labor charges, and
equipment fuel costs. It is assumed the minimum rental
equipment required to achieve the design excavation
rate of 18.2 tph includes six excavators, two box dump
trucks, and two backhoes. The operation of this
equipment will consume approximately 28 gallons of
diesel fuel per hour. This cost estimate assumes that
excavation activities will be conducted 40 hours per
week. Excavation costs are itemized hi Table 3. Costs
associated with excavation or dredging are not included
in the estimated per ton treatment cost.
Table 3. Excavation Costs
Item
Excavator
Box dump truck
Backhoe
Supervisor
Excavator operator
Dump truck operator
Backhoe operator
Diesel fuel
Cost
$l,260/week
$525/week
$585/week
$40/hour
$30/hour
$30/hour
SSO/hour
$0.90/gallon
Certain other site preparation activities will be required
at all sites. RCC will assume responsibility for the
construction of foundations to support the B.E.S.T.®
process and all auxiliary equipment. It is assumed that
the responsible party or site owner will ensure that
adequate electrical power and water supplies are
available at the site. RCC will be responsible for utility
lines and connections within the treatment area. RCC
estimates a site preparation cost of $100,000 for
foundations, electrical power, and water. This cost is
not included hi the per ton treatment cost.
4.42 Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permitting and regulatory costs are generally the
obligation of the responsible party (or site owner), not
of the vendor. These costs may include actual permit
costs, system monitoring requirements, and/or the
development of monitoring and analytical protocols.
Permitting and regulatory costs can vary greatly because
they are site- and waste-specific. No permitting or
regulatory costs are included in this analysis. Depending
on the treatment site, however, this may be a significant
factor since permitting activities can be both expensive
and time-consuming.
4.43 Equipment Costs
Major pieces of equipment include the following:
Eleven process tanks
Three extractor/dryers
Two boilers
Cooling tower(s)
Air compressor/dryer
Centrifuge
Oil decanter
Solvent evaporator
Solvent decanter
Water stripper
Chiller
Four heat exchangers
Three trailers
Storage equipment
Equipment costs also include freight, sales tax, shop
fabrication, instrumentation, and electrical systems.
Cost estimates are based on vendor quotes obtained by
RCC, on independently obtained vendor quotes, and on
information from Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers by M.S. Peters and K.D.
Timmerhaus, Third and Fourth Editions [1][2]. The
total equipment costs (including the purchase cost of the
equipment, sales tax, freight, installation,
instrumentation, and electrical systems) are estimated to
17
-------
be approximately $4,613,000 and the useful life of the
system is estimated to be 10 years. After 10 years, it is
assumed that the equipment will have a scrap value of
10 percent of its original purchase cost of approximately
$2,856,000. This yields an annualized equipment cost
(based on straight-line depreciation) of approximately
$433,000.
Depending on the nature of the feed stream,
pretreatment equipment may also be required.
Pretreatment equipment is assumed to consist of a
hammermill and a vibrating screen. The purchase cost
for these items is estimated to be approximately $74,700.
It is assumed no rental equipment will be required for
operation. Support equipment is included in the
equipment costs provided above. Support equipment
refers to pieces of purchased equipment necessary for
operation but not integral to the system.
The projected full-scale B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction
system will be capable of treating 186 tpd of
contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge. System effluents
will include oversized residuals (if oversized materials
are present in the feed), the treated solids, an oil
product, and an aqueous product. It is projected that
the aqueous product will be suitable for discharge to a
municipal or industrial wastewater treatment facility.
The annualized equipment cost is prorated to the actual
time the system is commissioned to remediate a
contaminated material (including assembly, shakedown
and testing, treatment, and disassembly). The portion of
this cost that is accrued during treatment is then
normalized relative to tons of feed treated and
incorporated into the per ton treatment cost. The
equipment costs accrued during assembly, shakedown
and testing, and disassembly are included in the
estimated costs for those functions.
4.4.4 Startup and Fixed Costs
Mobilization includes both transportation and assembly.
The BJE.S.T.* system will be transportable, but it is
large and its relocation will therefore require a
significant amount of time and planning. For the
purpose of this estimate, transportation costs are
included with mobilization rather than demobilization
activities. Transportation activities include moving the
system, the solvent, and the workers to the site. As a
rough estimate, it is assumed that the commercial-scale
B.E.S.T.® system can be transported in 11 truckloads.
Assembly (field installation) consists of unloading the
system from the trucks and trailers and reassembling it.
RCC estimates a total mobilization cost (transportation
and assembly) of $500,000, which is not included hi the
per ton treatment cost.
This cost estimate assumes that 18 days of shakedown
and testing will be required after assembly and prior to
the commencement of treatment. During this time, the
system components are tested individually. It is
estimated that eight workers will be required for 10
hours per day, 7 days per week during shakedown and
testing. Labor costs consist of wages ($40 per hour for
the supervisor and $30 per hour for the other seven
operating personnel) and living expenses (refer to
subsection 4.4.5). Labor costs during shakedown and
testing are estimated to be $55,980 and are not included
hi the per ton treatment costs.
Equipment costs, insurance costs, and property taxes
accrued during assembly, shakedown, and testing are
estimated to be approximately $91,500. Because these
costs are incurred during mobilization and startup, they
are not included hi the per ton treatment cost.
Working capital is the money required for the operation
of the system [1]. For remediation projects, the working
capital is the money that the vendor has spent in the
operation of the system but has not yet recovered from
the site owner or responsible party. For this estimate,
working capital consists of the money invested in
supplies, energy, spare parts, and labor costs for 1
month. For the calculation of working capital, 1 month
is defined as one-twelfth of a year, or approximately 30.4
working days. At the end of a project, all working
capital should be recovered. As a result, the only charge
to the project is the "time-value" of the working capital
over the period of the project. This cost is estimated
based on the current prune lending rate of 6 percent.
The annual cost for insurance is estimated as 6 percent
of the purchased equipment cost, and the annual cost
for property tax is estimated as 3 percent of the total
equipment cost [1]. Costs for insurance and taxes
accrue during assembly, shakedown and testing,
treatment, and disassembly. The per ton treatment cost,
however, includes only the portions of these costs which
accrue during treatment.
The cost for the initiation of monitoring programs has
not been included hi this estimate. Depending on the
site, local authorities may impose specific guidelines for
monitoring programs. The stringency and frequency of
monitoring required may have a significant impact on
the project costs.
An annual contingency cost of 10 percent of the
annualized equipment capital costs is allowed to cover
additional costs caused by unforeseen or unpredictable
events, such as strikes, storms, floods, and price
variations [1]. The annual contingency cost has been
prorated to the treatment tune and is included in the
per ton treatment cost.
18
-------
4.4.5 Labor Costs
Labor costs consist of wages and living expenses. Onsite
personnel requirements per shift during treatment are
estimated at: four operators at $30 per hour, one
operations supervisor at $40 per hour, and one safety
officer at $40 per hour. Labor costs also include three
administrative and clerical employees, each working 40
hours per week at $20 per hour. Labor rates include
benefits and overhead costs. It is assumed that onsite
personnel will work in three shifts for 24-hour-per-day,
7-day-per-week operation.
Living expenses depend on several factors: the duration
of the project, the number of local workers hired, and
the geographical location of the project. RCC projects
that they will send 6 people from then: main office and
the other 12 onsite personnel will be local hires. Living
expenses for all onsite personnel who are not local hires
consist of per diem and rental cars, both charged at 7
days per week for the duration of the treatment. Per
diem covers hotel, food, and incidental expenses. For
this analysis, per diem is assumed to be $70 per person
per day. This value is based on a rough average of the
government per diem rates [3], which vary by location.
Two rental cars are required for 24-hour-per-day
operation and are available for an estimated $25 per day
per car. Depending on the location and length of the
project, RCC may elect to hire and train more or fewer
local personnel. Labor costs must be adjusted
accordingly.
4.4.6 Supplies Costs
For this estimate, supplies consist of chemicals and
spare parts. RCC estimates that 1 to 2 pounds of
triethylamine will be required per ton of waste
processed. The more conservative estimate of 2 pounds
of triethylamine is used for this analysis. Triethylamine
can be purchased in 330-pound drums for approximately
$1.40 per pound.
During the SITE demonstration, approximately 3 gallons
of 50 percent sodium hydroxide were consumed per ton
of waste treated. Although sodium hydroxide
requirements will be site-specific, the economic analysis
is based on the level of consumption measured during
the demonstration. A sodium hydroxide cost of $2.33
per gallon is used for the economic analysis [4].
Nitrogen gas is also used in the B.E.S.T.® system. RCC
states that nitrogen costs typically range from $1.00 to
$1.50 per ton of waste treated. For the purpose of this
cost estimate, the assumed nitrogen cost is $1.50 per ton
of feed processed.
The annual cost for spare parts is estimated at 5 percent
of the total purchased equipment cost [1].
4.4.7 Consumables Costs
Compressed instrument air will be produced by an air
compressor/dryer system that will be transported to the
site with the B.E.S.T.® system. As a result, compressed
air costs are indirectly included elsewhere (in the
electricity and equipment costs).
RCC estimates that the process will consume 40 to 70
kilowatts of electricity per ton of feed. For the purposes
of this economic analysis, an average electricity
consumption rate of 55 kilowatts per ton of feed is
assumed. The average price of electricity sold to all
ultimate consumers in the United States in April 1992
was $0.066 per kilowatt-hour [5]. This average price was
used in this economic analysis.
It is estimated that the operation of the B.E.S.T.®
system will consume approximately 1,020 gpd of water
during treatment. A water cost of $0.0011 per gallon is
used in this economic analysis.
4.4.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs
Effluent treatment and disposal costs vary depending
upon the contaminants initially present in the soil,
sediment, or sludge. As a result, effluent treatment and
disposal costs are site-specific and are assumed to be the
responsibility of the responsible party or site owner.
The effluent streams from the B.E.S.T.® process include
the treated solids, oversized feed material, an oil
product, and an aqueous product. If the untreated soil,
sediment, or sludge contains only organic contaminants
that can be removed effectively, the treated material
should be suitable for return to the site or use as
backfill. If, however, there are leachable inorganic
contaminants present or there are excessive quantities of
organics remaining in the solids, the treated solids may
require further treatment or disposal as a hazardous
waste. The quantity and characteristics of the oversized
materials will vary from site to site. At some sites, they
may require treatment or disposal as a hazardous waste.
The organic contaminants from the soil, sediment, or
sludge are concentrated into the oil product.
Incineration is the most likely disposal option for the oil.
The cost of incineration varies depending on the specific
organic contaminants present and the heating value of
the oil product. The aqueous effluent from the
B.E.S.T.® system should be suitable for discharge to a
sanitary or industrial wastewater treatment facility.
19
-------
4.4.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and
Transport Costs
The residuals from the B.E.S.T.® process are the treated
soil, sediment, or sludge; oversized feed materials; an oil
product; and an aqueous product. Potential treatment
and disposal options for these residuals are described in
subsection 4.4.8. Other potential costs for each of these
residuals include the costs associated with storage,
handling, and transportation. These costs are assumed
to be the obligation of the responsible party (or site
owner) and could significantly add to the total cleanup
cost, especially for TSCA or RCRA regulated residuals.
Equipment costs, insurance costs, and property taxes
accrued during demobilization are estimated to be
approximately $61,000. Total demobilization costs are
estimated to be approximately $180,000 and are not
included in the per ton treatment cost.
Site cleanup and restoration are limited to the removal
of all equipment from the site; this is included in the
cost of disassembly and decontamination. Requirements
regarding the filling, grading, or recompaction of the soil
will vary depending on the future use of the site and are
assumed to be the obligation of the responsible party (or
site owner).
4.4.10 Analytical Costs
No analytical costs are included in this cost estimate.
Much of the monitoring, sampling, and analyses
required for full-scale treatment will be site-specific and
will depend on the contaminants present and the
cleanup standards. The client may elect or may be
required by local authorities to conduct additional
sampling and analysis. Analytical costs typically
contribute significantly to the overall cost of a
remediation project.
4.4.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement
Costs
For estimating purposes, total annual maintenance costs
(labor and materials) are assumed to be 10 percent of
annualizcd equipment costs. Maintenance labor typically
accounts for two-thirds of the total maintenance costs
and has previously been accounted for in subsection
4.4.5. Maintenance material costs are estimated at one-
third of the total maintenance cost and are prorated
over the entire period of treatment. Costs for design
adjustments, facility modifications, and equipment
replacements are included in the maintenance costs.
4.4.12 Site Demobilization Costs
Demobilization costs are limited to costs associated with
the disassembly and decontamination of the B.E.S.T.®
system and auxiliary equipment; transportation costs are
accounted for under mobilization activities. Disassembly
consists of taking the B.E.S.T.® system apart and
loading it and all auxiliary equipment onto 11 trailers for
transportation. It requires the use of an operated 50-ton
crane, available at $6,360 per week, for 4 weeks.
Additionally, disassembly requires an eight-person crew
working 10 hours per day, 7 days per week, for 30 days.
Labor costs consist of wages ($40 per hour for the
supervisor and $30 per hour for each of the other
workers) and living expenses (refer to subsection 4.4.5).
4.5 Results of Economic Analysis
The costs associated with the operation of the B.E.S.T.®
system, as presented in this economic analysis, are
defined by 12 cost categories that reflect typical cleanup
activities encountered on Superfund sites. Each of these
cleanup activities is defined and discussed, forming the
basis for the cost analysis presented in Table 4. The
percentage of the total cost contributed by each of the
12 cost categories is shown hi Table 5.
Online factors of 60 percent, 70 percent, and 80 percent
are used to estimate the cost of treatment using the
B.E.S.T.® system. The online factor is used to adjust
the unit treatment cost to compensate for the fact that
the system is not online constantly because of main-
tenance requirements, breakdowns, and unforeseeable
delays. Through the use of the online factor, costs
incurred while the system is not operating are incorpo-
rated into the unit cost.
Manufacturers provided RCC with projected preventive
maintenance and repair requirements for the centrifuge
and the extractor/dryers. Downtime due to repairs and
preventive maintenance for other equipment was
estimated by RCC based on pilot-plant experience.
Projected maintenance and repair requirements are
summarized in Table 6. These requirements are
expected to represent a significant portion of the total
system downtime. The totals shown in Table 6 assume
that preventive maintenance tasks for the various pieces
of equipment are planned and can therefore be
conducted concurrently. Repairs, on the other hand, are
often unplanned and therefore not conducted
concurrently.
On an annual basis, RCC projects a total of 1,108 hours
of downtime due to preventive maintenance and repairs.
This represents approximately 13 percent of the total
operating time available in 1 year. The system is likely
to experience additional downtime due to other unfore-
20
-------
Table 4. Treatment Costs for 186-tpd B.E.S.T.® System Treating Contaminated Soil, Sediment, or Sludge
Cost fa/ton)
Item
Site Preparation
Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Equipment Cost Incurred During Treatment
Startup and Fixed Costs0
Labor-
Supplies
Consumables
Effluent Treatment and Disposal
Residuals Shipping, Handling, and Transport
Analytical Costs
Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement
Site Demobilization
Total Treatment Costs
60% online
a
b
10.62
9.13
48.14
15.40
28.48
b
b
b
0.35
d
112.12
70% online
a
b
9.11
7.85
41.27
14.84
28.48
b
b
b
0.30
d
101.85
80% online
a
b
7.97
6.90
36.11
14.46
28.48
b
b
b
0.27
d
94.19
Site preparation costs are not included in these per ton treatment costs. Preliminary site preparation costs are considered site-specific costs
which are the responsibility of the site owner or responsible party. Other site preparation costs (excavation or dredging of contaminated
materials, construction of a foundation for the B.E.S.T.* system, and electrical and water lines and connections within the treatment area) are
considered RCC's responsibility and are presented individually. The costs for the foundation and for the electrical and water lines and
connections are estimated to total approximately $100,000. Excavation costs are estimated to be approximately $36 per ton of soil excavated
and dredging costs are estimated to be approximately $7 to $10 per cubic yard of sediment collected.
Considered a site-specific cost which is the responsibility of the site owner or responsible party and therefore not included in these per ton
treatment costs.
Startup costs are presented individually and therefore not included in these per ton treatment costs.
Considered a fixed cost which is presented individually and therefore not included in these per ton treatment costs. The cost for site
demobilization is estimated to be approximately $180,000.
Table 5. Treatment Costs as Percentages of Total Costs for 186-tpd B.E.S.T.® System Treating Contaminated Soil, Sediment, or Sludge
Cost fas % of total cost)
Item 60% online 70% online 80% online
Site Preparation
Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Equipment Cost Incurred During Treatment
Startup and Fixed Costsc
Labor
Supplies
Consumables
Effluent Treatment and Disposal
Residuals Shipping, Handling, and Transport
Analytical Costs
Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement
Site Demobilization
a
b
9.5
8.1
42.9
13.7
25.4
b
b
•b
0.3
d
a
b
8.9
7.7
405
14.6
28.0
b
b
b
0.3
d
a
b
85
7.3
38.3
15.4
30.2
b
b
b
0.3
d
Site preparation costs are not included in these per ton treatment costs. Preliminary site preparation costs are considered site-specific costs
which are the responsibility of the site owner or responsible party. Other site preparation costs (excavation or dredging of contaminated
materials, construction of a foundation for the B.E.S.T.* system, and electrical and water lines and connections within the treatment area) are
considered RCCs responsibility and are presented individually. The costs for the foundation and for the electrical and water lines and
connections are estimated to total approximately $100,000. Excavation costs are estimated to be approximately $36 per ton of soil excavated
and dredging costs are estimated to be approximately $7 to $10 per cubic yard of sediment collected.
Considered a site-specific cost which is the responsibility of the site owner or responsible party and therefore not included in these per ton
treatment costs.
Startup costs are presented individually and therefore not included in these per ton treatment costs.
Considered a fixed cost which is presented individually and therefore not included in these per ton treatment costs.
21
-------
Table 6, Projected Annual Downtime
Major Equipment
Item
Extractor/diycr
Centrifuge
Other Major
Preventative
Maintenance,
hours per year
24
30
200
Repairs,
hours per year
300
408
200
Equipment
All Equipment
Combined
200
908
seeable delays. As a result, online factors of less than
87 percent appear to be appropriate.
The projected results of commercial-scale operation are
based on the results of the pilot-scale demonstration.
Cost estimates for several pieces of equipment are based
on quotes obtained from vendors by RCC or on
independently obtained vendor quotes. Other cost
estimates are based on information provided in Plant
Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers [1][2].
When necessary, the "six-tenths" rule is used to estimate
equipment costs from available cost data for equipment
of a different capacity [1]. In other cases, the Chemical
Engineering Cost Index is used to estimate current costs
(August 1992) from earlier cost data [1].
It is assumed the commercial-scale unit will have a feed
rate of 186 tpd. For the remediation of contaminated
soil, sediment, or sludge, the results of the economic
analysis show a unit cost ranging from $94 per ton to
$112 per ton for 80 and 60 percent online conditions,
respectively. These costs are considered "order-of-
magnkude" estimates as defined by the American
Association of Cost Engineers. The actual cost is
expected to fall between 70 percent and 150 percent of
these estimates. Since these cost estimates are based on
a preliminary design, the range may actually be wider.
The cost estimates presented in Table 4 do not include
costs associated with site preparation, system
mobilization, startup, or demobilization. These costs
will impact the total remediation cost. This impact will
be more noticeable for small sites, where the total
treatment costs will be low and the other costs will
therefore represent a larger fraction of the total cost.
The impact of these costs on the total remediation cost
is less significant for large sites.
The cost estimates presented in Table 4 also exclude
certain site-specific costs assumed to be the
responsibility of the site owner or responsible party.
These costs are described in subsections 4.3 and 4.4.
This analysis does not include values for 6 of the 12 cost
categories, so the actual cleanup costs incurred by the
site owner or responsible party may be significantly
higher than the costs shown in this analysis. A summary
of the items which are and are not included in the
treatment cost is presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Costs Included in Treatment Cost
Item
Included in
Treatment Cost?
no
no
yes
no
Costs for Collection of Contaminated Material
(by Excavation or Dredging)
Site Preparation Costs
Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Equipment Costs Incurred During Treatment
Equipment Costs Incurred During Startup and
Demobilization
Startup Costs (Costs Associated with
Transportation, Assembly, Shakedown, and
Testing)
Fixed Costs Incurred During Treatment
Fixed Costs Incurred During Startup and
Demobilization
Labor Costs Incurred During Treatment
Labor Costs Incurred During Startup and
Demobilization
Cost for Supplies
Cost for Consumables
Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs
Residuals Shipping, Handling, and Transport
Costs
Analytical Costs
Facility Modification, Repair, and
Replacement Costs
Site Demobilization Costs
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
4.6 References
1. Peters, M.S. and Timmerhaus, K.D. Plant Design
and Economics for Chemical Engineers; Third
Edition; McGraw-Hill, Inc: New York, 1980.
2. Peters, M.S. and Timmerhaus, K.D. Plant Design
and Economics for Chemical Engineers; Fourth
Edition; McGraw-Hill, Inc: New York, 1991.
3. Federal Register, Rules and Regulations. Volume
57 Number 39. February 27, 1992.
4. Chemical Marketing Reporter. Schnell Publishing
Company, New York. October 12, 1992.
5. Energy Information Administration. Monthly
Energy Review. DOE/EIA-0035 (92/07). July
1992.
22
-------
Appendix A
Process Description
A.I Introduction
Resources Conservation Company's (RCC's) Basic
Extractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.®) solvent
extraction system uses a unique property of certain
amine solvents such as triethylamine to separate oil-
contaminated sludges or soils into their oil, water, and
solids fractions. Organic contaminants in the sludge or
soil concentrate in the oil fraction after separation. The
physical property of inverse miscibility of triethylamine
in water can be used to overcome solvent extraction
difficulties typically encountered when handling samples
with high water content. At temperatures below 60°F,
triethylamine is miscible with water (triethylamine and
water are each soluble in the other). Above this
temperature, triethylamine and water are only partially
miscible. This physical property can be exploited by
using triethylamine chilled below 60°F to solvate oil and
water simultaneously [1].
During this Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) demonstration, the feedstock was mixed with
triethylamine solvent to create a single phase extraction
fluid. The liquid is a homogeneous solution of
triethylamine and water present in the feedstock. This
solution solvates the oils that were present in the
feedstock, because the amine solvents can achieve
intimate contact with solutes at nearly ambient
temperatures and pressures. This is the reason that the
B.E.S.T.® process is able to handle feed mixtures with
high water content with a high extraction efficiency [1].
A.2 B.E.S.T.® Pilot Unit
The B.E.S.T.® pilot plant is a solvent extraction system
designed for batch operation. A process flow diagram
for the B.E.S.T.® system is shown in Figure A-l. Some
of the unit process operations, such as water stripping
and centrifugation, are normally operated continuously.
The pilot plant has a nominal feed volume of 1 cubic
foot (8 gallons) of dry solids per batch run [1]. Four
operators per shift were employed for system operation,
process control, sample coordination, and safety
considerations.
A. 3 Unit Operations
The pilot plant operations, which will be described in
this section, consist of the following [1]:
Feed Preparation
Extraction
Decantation, Solvent Recovery, and Oil Processing
Solids Drying
Water Stripping
Product Water Treatment
A3.1 Feed Preparation
Feed preparation consists of sample collection, transport
to the pretreatment area, and screening out of oversize
material. The developer projects that screening to
-------
Solvent Separation I Solvent Recovery
Solvent
Evaporator
Water Product
Figure A-1. Generalized Diagram of the B.E.S.T.® Solvent Extraction Process.
-------
The sediments treated during this demonstration were
first processed in the premix tank [1]. The first
sediment extraction phase (a cold extraction) consisted
of adding feedstock and a predetermined quantity of
caustic to the premix tank, which was then filled with
chilled solvent. The mixture was agitated for 5 to 30
minutes and allowed to settle. The minimum settling
tune was determined in the RCC laboratory prior to the
demonstration [2]. The triethylamine/water/oil mixture
was decanted through decant ports, located on one side
of the premix tank, and drained to the decant pump
which transported the mixture to the centrifuge. The
fine solids were separated by centrifugation and directed
to the extractor/dryer. The centrate was routed to the
centrate tank and immediately pumped through the
centrate filter into the solvent evaporator. Cold
extractions were repeated and solids were accumulated
as feed was added to the premix tank. Because the feed
used in the SITE demonstration had a high moisture
content (more than 40 percent), it required more than
one cold extraction.
Once a sufficient volume of moisture-free solids is
accumulated, the solids are transferred to a steam-
jacketed extractor/dryer. Warm triethylamine is added
to the solids. The mixture is heated, agitated, settled,
and decanted. This process can also be repeated.
These warm and hot extractions result in separation of
the organics not removed during the initial cold
extraction. The number of hot and cold extraction
cycles required depends on feedstock composition and
settling characteristics [1]. Feedstock processing
requirements during the SITE demonstration were
predetermined on a preliminary basis by bench-scale
testing prior to the demonstration.
A33 Decahtation, Solvent Recovery, and Oil
Processing
According to Figure A-l, the centrate recovered from
the first extraction stage flows to the oil decanter, where
it is separated into its aqueous and organic components.
The aqueous phase is transferred to the water receiver
tank. The organic phase, which contains a mixture of
triethylamine, oil, and water, is pumped from the oil
decanter to the solvent evaporator and heated. During
the SITE demonstration, the oil decanter was not used
because it was not functioning properly. The centrate
was therefore pumped directly to the solvent evaporator.
In either case, further heating in the solvent evaporator
evaporates the low-boiling azeotrope of solvent and
water (boiling point of approximately 170°F), leaving the
oil behind. The evaporation process is continued until
the water is depleted. At that point, the temperature of
the boiling liquid rises until it reaches the boiling point
of pure triethylamine (193°F) and evaporation continues
until nearly all the triethylamine is removed [1].
The triethylamine/water vapor from the solvent
evaporator is condensed in heat exchangers that use
cooling water with a temperature of approximately
100°F. This produces condensed triethylamine/water
with a temperature of approximately 110°F. At this
temperature, the triethylamine and water are only
partially miscible and separation is accomplished in a
continuous flow solvent decanter. The recovered solvent
is recycled back to the solvent storage tank and the
water is drained by gravity to a water storage tank for
storage until stripping operations are performed.
Ultimately, the water is steam stripped in the water
stripper column to remove residual triethylamine [1].
Oil processing is also performed in the solvent
evaporator. The contents of the solvent evaporator are
heated at approximately 193°F until virtually all the
triethylamine is removed. The remaining residual
solvent is released by the injection of a small amount of
water into the oil. The water forms an azeotrope with
the residual solvent, thereby dislodging it from the oil.
The recovered oil fraction can be dechlorinated or
incinerated to destroy the organics [1].
When the samples from Transect 28 were treated, the
amount of oil produced was too small for oil processing,
so the oil was left in solution with a Umited amount of
solvent. This oil/solvent mixture was stored in a drum
, for disposal. Oil processing was conducted on the oil
product from the treatment of the Transect 6 sediments.
A.3.4 Solids Drying
Solids drying is performed on the solids remaining in the
extractor/dryer after the last extraction stage. Before
drying, a small amount of caustic is added to the solids
for pH control. The extractor/dryer is equipped with a
steam jacket and direct steam injection ports. To dry
the washed solids, steam is first supplied only to the
steam jacket to indirectly heat the extractor/dryer and
its contents to about 170°F. After the bulk of the
solvent is removed, direct steam is injected into the
extractor/dryer vessel. The entire drying process is
performed with the extractor/dryer mixing paddles
rotating. This mixing increases the heat transfer, thus
reducing the drying tune. The solvent and steam form
an azeotrope which is then directed to the dryer
condenser. After all the triethylamine is removed, the
temperature of the vapor rises to the boiling point of
water. After the drying process is complete, the solids
are removed through the discharge port on the bottom
of the extractor/dryer [1]. During the SITE
demonstration, a portion of the solids were retained for
laboratory analysis and the remainder was collected for
transfer to a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) disposal
facility.
25
-------
Liquid from the condenser drains into the mixing tank.
The triethylamine/water mixture and any carryover dust
are directed to the centrifuge to remove solids. The
ccntrate is then pumped through the centrate filter and
into the solvent evaporator, where it is combined with
the triethylamine/oil/water already present [1].
A3.5 ' Water Stripping
Water stripping is accomplished by direct contact steam
stripping. Before the triethylamine is stripped from the
decant water, a predetermined amount of caustic soda
is added to the water to raise the pH. Steam is injected
directly into the bottom of the stripping column to heat
the column to the desired temperature. Preheated feed
water is introduced into the top of the column. The
non-vaporized feedwater flows through the column and
is stripped of residual solvent by upflowing steam. The
bottoms are returned to the water receiver tank until a
steady state is obtained. The bottoms are then rerouted
to be discharged as product water. The solvent
azcotrope vapors generated are routed to the water
stripper condenser and the recovered solvent is recycled
[1].
AJ.6 Product Water Treatment
The final process involves the discharged stripped water,
termed product water. During the SITE demonstration,
this water was collected separately for each batch
processed. These samples were analyzed for pH, Total
Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS),
oil and grease (O&G), residual solvent (triethylamine),
conductivity, PCBs, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), and metals. Analytical results indicated that
the product water was a RCRA waste because of its
high pH. RCC claims that the high pH was due to
operator error (addition of excessive caustic) and should
not typically be an issue.
A.4 References
1. Resources Conservation Company. Draft B.E.S.T.®
Pilot Unit Test Report, Grand Calumet River,
Gary, Indiana, October 1992.
2. Science Applications International Corporation.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation - Draft
Demonstration Plan, June 1992.
26
-------
Appendix B
Vendor Claims
NOTE: This appendix to the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Applications Analysis Report was
prepared by Resources Conservation Company (RCC).
Claims and interpretations of results in this Appendix
are those made by the vendor and are not necessarily
substantiated by test or cost data. Many of RCC's
claims regarding cost and performance can be compared
to the available data in Section 4, Section 3, and
Appendix C of this Applications Analysis Report.
RCC, the developer of the Basic Extractive Sludge
Treatment (B.E.S.T.®) solvent extraction process, states
that the B.E.S.T.® process offers several advantages over
other treatment technology alternatives. These
advantages include:
• The B.E.S.T.® process can effectively remove
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other hazardous
organic compounds from soils, sludges and
sediments.
• Triethylamine, the solvent used in the B.E.S.T.®
process, is environmentally friendly. Triethylamine
is biodegradable, does not accumulate in the
environment, and occurs naturally in the food chain.
• There are no air emissions from the B.E.S.T.®
process. Therefore, permitting and siting a
B.E.S.T.® process unit is simpler than for other
technologies, such as incineration or thermal
desorption.
Discussion of these claims is presented in Subsections
B.I, B.2, and B.3.
RCC conducted a B.E.S.T.® pilot-scale demonstration
test on contaminated sediments from the Grand
Calumet River in Gary, Indiana. Testing occurred in
Gary, Indiana between June 23, 1992 and July 28, 1992.
The test was performed to demonstrate the ability of the
B.E.S.T.® process to remove PAHs and PCBs from
contaminated sediments.
Sediment from two locations was tested. The locations
were Grand Calumet River Transect 28 and Grand
Calumet River Transect 6. Five batches of each
sediment type were processed. The less contaminated
sediment, Transect 28, was processed first.
During the demonstration program, RCC collected and
analyzed numerous samples from the pilot unit when
treating sediments from both Transect 6 and Transect
28. [RCC conducted these analyses in accordance with
published EPA Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) guidelines.] Subsection B.4 provides a
comparison of the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) analytical data and RCC analytical
data. The SITE and RCC analytical results closely
correlate, further substantiating the success of this
demonstration program.
Subsection B.5 provides a comparison of the bench-scale
treatability test data and the pilot-scale demonstration
test data generated as part of this project. The
comparison clearly shows that the bench-scale
treatability test protocol closely predicts pilot-scale test
results. Subsection B.5 also provides a comparison of
bench-scale treatability test data to full-scale
performance data from a previous project.
A summary of other pilot-scale demonstration tests
conducted by RCC is provided in Subsection B.6.
Results from these pilot-scale test projects demonstrate
that the B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction process can
effectively remove PCBs, PAHs and other hazardous
organics from soils, sludges and sediments.
B. 1 B. E. S. T. ® Process Effectively Removes
PCBs and PAHs from Sediment
This demonstration of the B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction
process clearly shows that the technology can remove
PCBs and PAHs from sediments with a high water
content. The following objectives of the demonstration
27
-------
program were successfully achieved:
• Demonstrate the B.E.S.T.® process unit operations
at pilot scale. The unit operation components
demonstrated included the following equipment:
• Extractor/dryer vessel
• Fines centrifuge
• Decanter vessel
• Solvent evaporator
• Water stripper
• The pilot test will process enough contaminated
sediment to evaluate the process sensitivity to
changes in the feed composition between the two
locations tested; Transect 6 and Transect 28.
• Demonstrate that the B.E.S.T.* process can achieve
greater than 96 percent removal of total PAHs and
total PCBs from the contaminated sediments.
• Produce recovered water, solids and oil with solvent
residual concentrations of less than 80 parts per
million (ppm), 150 ppm, and 1000 ppm, respectively.
• Calculate mass balance of feed material into the
pilot unit versus total products out (solids, water
and oil) within the range of 100 ± 15 percent.
Overall success of the demonstration test was excellent.
RCC's analytical results for the sediments treated during
the demonstration test are summarized in Figures B-l,
B-2, B-3, and B-4.
B.2 B.JB.S.r.® Process Solvent Is
Environmentally Friendly
Triethylamine, the solvent used for the B.E.S.T.® solvent
extraction process, has several characteristics that
enhance its use for removing hazardous organics from
the environment. These characteristics include:
• Triethylamine is biodegraded aerobically by
commonly occurring soil bacteria.[l]
• Triethylamine photochemically degrades in the
atmosphere, will not adsorb to sediments, and
does not bioconcentrate hi the environment.[2]
• Triethylamine appears in the food chain in
boiled beef, caviar, cheeses, wheat bread, and
milk fermentation products.[3]
• Triethylamine is produced from natural
ingredients; ethyl alcohol and ammonia.[4]
• Triethylamine is a commonly used industrial
solvent. Over 17 million pounds of
triethylamine were produced in 1982.[5]
BJt.l Triethylamine Is Biodegradable
As discussed in Appendix C, part C.8, Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
conducted limited testing to assess the biodegradability
of triethylamine in one treated solids sample. Samples
of a single batch of treated solids were mixed hi a 1 to 1
ratio with common potting soil. No bacteria cultures
were taken to quantitate the bacterial activity in the
potting soil. No attempt was made to produce an
environment suitable for bacterial growth or
biodegradation. Specifically, the elevated pH of the
solid product was not neutralized, moisture content of
the solid product and potting soil was not measured or
adjusted, and no attempt was made to aerate the
samples in this testing.
SAIC testing showed no observed difference between
the triethylamine biodegradability in the control samples
and the mixed soil samples. These results are too
limited to be of any use in determining if triethylamine
can be expected to biodegrade. The only valid
conclusion that may be reached as a result of SAIC
biodegradation testing is that if the treated solids were
mixed 1 to 1 with potting soil, with no other
environment adjustments and no product aeration, no
significant biodegradation of triethylamine would be
expected.
RCC studies have shown that neutralized samples with
a moderate moisture content exhibit the ability to
markedly reduce the triethylamine level by
biodegradation when mixed with soils containing
common soil bacteria [6]. Triethylamine levels were
reduced by as much as 99 percent. Independent studies
have also been conducted on the biodegradability of
triethylamine. It has also been reported that
triethylamine is degraded in an Aerobacter bacterial
culture [1]. Aerobacter is a common soil bacteria. It
has also been reported that triethylamine readily
biodegrades in a brine acclimated waste treatment
system [7].
B.3 B.E.S.T.® Process Has No Air
Emissions
During the demonstration program SITE monitored the
ambient ah- for organic vapors on a daily basis 5 meters
28
-------
Batch
T-28 Untreated Sediment
T-28 Treated Solids
Figure B-l. Transect 28 PAH Summary.
-------
(0
1
(0
4-1
o
Batch
T-6 Untreated Sediment
T-6 Treated Solids
Figure B-2. Transect 6 PAH Summary.
-------
T-28 Untreated Sediment
Batch
T-28 Treated Solids
Figure B-3. Transect 28 PCB Summary.
-------
Batch
T-6 Untreated Sediment
T-6 Treated Solids
Figure B-4. Transect 6 PCB Summary.
-------
upwind and downwind of the treatment unit. No
organic vapors were detected during the demonstration
program. SITE also monitored the vent gases from the
treatment unit on a continuous basis. No solvent was
detected in the vent gases released to the environment.
Results of SITE'S air monitoring operations are
provided in Subsection C.7.
B.4 SITE and RCC Analytical Results
Closely Correlate
SITE analytical results were in agreement with RCC
analytical results. A comparison between SITE and
RCC PAH and PCB analytical results follows in
Tables B-l and B-2:
Table B-l. SITE vs. RCC Analytical Results
(PAH Results, mg/kg dry basis)
SITE RCC
Sample Results Results
Transect 28
Untreated Sediment
Treated Sediment
Removal Efficiency, percent
Transect 6
Untreated Sediment
Treated Sediment
Removal Efficiency, percent
550
22
96.0
70,900
510
99.3
783
34
95.6
87,500
716
99.2
Table B-2. SITE vs. RCC Analytical Results
(PCB Results, mg/kg dry basis)
SITE RCC
Sample Results Results
Transect 28
Untreated Sediment
Treated Sediment
Removal Efficiency, percent
Transect 6
Untreated Sediment
Treated Sediment,
Removal Efficiency, percent
12.1
0.04
99.7
425
1.8
99.6
5.5
0.07
98.7
580
1.1
99.8
B.4.1 Overall Mass Balance Results
The overall mass balances calculated by RCC were
based on RCC's analytical results. The overall mass
balances calculated by SITE and RCC represent
excellent mass balance closure. Both total mass
balances indicate that even though individual balances
may vary because of the considerable number of
analyses involved, no significant amount of material is
lost for either Transect 28 or Transect 6. The total
mass balances for RCC and SITE are compared here in
Table B-3:
Table B-3. Total Mass Balance Comparison
RCC Total SITE Total
Sample Mass Balance Mass Balance
Transect 28, percent 103.5
Transect 6, percent 106.2
99.3
99.6
B.4.2 RCC QA/QC Requirements
RCC prepared a detailed Sampling Analysis Plan and
Quality Assurance Project Plan in strict compliance with
published EPA QA/QC guidelines. The QA/QC
requirements for this demonstration project included:
Data quality objectives
Field sampling and measurement procedures
Sample custody and transport
Calibration procedures and frequency
Sampling, analysis and monitoring
Data validation
Performance audits and system audits
3.5 B.E.S.T.® Process Performance
Accurately Predicted by Bench-Scale
Treatability Test Protocol
In order to evaluate each potential application for the
B.E.S.T.® process, RCC has developed a low cost
bench-scale treatability test protocol. This bench-scale
test provides data that closely simulate both pilot-scale
and full-scale system performance. The bench-scale
treatability test data allow RCC to evaluate the
feasibility of the process and to estimate treatment costs.
When a pilot-scale test is performed, the bench-scale
test is used to obtain information which provides
operational guidelines.
B.5.1 Bench-Scale Test vs. Pilot-Scale Test Data for
Grand Calumet River Testing
RCC performed bench-scale treatability testing with
Grand Calumet River sediment, before pilot-scale
testing began. Split samples of the exact material to be
tested at the pilot scale were tested at the bench scale in
June 1992. A summary of results from all testing shows
33
-------
the ability of bench-scale testing to predict pilot-scale
test results:
Table B-4. Transect 6 Testing Comparison
(PAH and PCB Concentrations, mg/kg, dry basis)
Sample PCBs Total PAHs
Bench-Scale Test
Untreated Sediment
Treated Solids
Removal Efficiency, percent
Pilot-Scale Test
Untreated Sediment
Treated Solids
Removal Efficiency, percent
700
< 1
> 99.8
580
1.1
99.8
76,900
346
99.6
87,500
716
99.2
General Refining, Inc., Superfund site. All data were
collected by an EPA contractor. These data
demonstrate a close correlation between bench-scale
treatability test data and full-scale operating data.
Table B-6. General Refining Site PCB Concentrations in Raw
Sludge and Product Fractions (ppm)
Raw Sludge,
mg/kg, dry basis
Product Solids,
mg/kg, dry basis
Product Water,
mg/L
Extraction Efficiency,
percent
Test A
14
0.02
<0.01
99.9
TestB
12
0.14
<0.01
98.8
Processing (1987)
13.5
<0.13
<0.005
>99
Table B-5.
Sample
Transect 28 Testing Comparison
(PAH and PCB Concentrations, mg/kg, dry basis)
PCBs
Total PAHs
Bench-Scale Test
Untreated Sediment 6 890
Treated Solids <1 28
Removal Efficiency, percent >83 97
Pilot-Scale Test
Untreated Sediment 5.5 783
Treated Solids 0.07 34
Removal Efficiency, percent 98.7 95.6
E.S2 Bench-Scale Test vs. Full-Scale Remediation
The reliability of the bench-scale treatability tests to
predict full-scale performance has been verified by the
US EPA report Evaluation of the B.E.S.T.® Solvent
Extraction Sludge Treatment Technology- Twenty-Four
Hour Test, by Enviresponse, Inc., under EPA Contract
68-03-3255. Evaluating the B.E.S.T.® process, this
report states:
Resources Conservation Company has conducted
many laboratory tests and developed correlations to
which data from full-scale operations, such as the
General Refining site, can be compared.
Table B-6 presents data from two separate bench-scale
treatability tests and from full-scale operations at the
B.6 Other Pilot-Scale Test Project Results
Substantiate SITE Demonstration
Project Results
The Pilot Unit has been tested at four facilities prior to
the SITE demonstration test. A brief summary of the
results of those tests follows.
B.6.1 PCBs in Soils and Sediments at an Aluminum
Manufacturing Site
PCBs were removed from soils and sediments at an
aluminum manufacturing site. The treatment objective
of 2 mg/kg was easily met. The .following table
summarizes the results:
Table B-7. Aluminum Manufacturing Facility PCB Removal
From Soils and Sediments
PCB Concentration
(mg/kg. dry basis')
Sample Untreated Sample . Treated Solids
Lagoon #1 (sediment)
Lagoon #2 (soil)
Lagoon #3 (sediment)
Lagoon #4 (sediment)
Landfill #1 (soil)
Landfill #2 (soil)
530
800
480
137
13
5
0.7
1
1
0.6
0.3
0.2
B.6.2 PAHs in Sludge from Wood Treatment
Facilities
PAHs were removed from two contaminated sediments
taken from different wood treatment faculties. The
34
-------
treatment goal of removal of greater than 90 percent of
PAHs was easily met. The following table summarizes
the results:
Table B-8. Wood Treatment Facilities PAH Removal From
Sediments
Total PAH Concentration
(me/kg, dry basis)
Sample Untreated Sample Treated Solids
Bayou Bonfpuca Site, 9700
Slidell,
Jennison
Louisiana
i-Wright Site, 8800
23
79
Granite City, Illinois
B.63 PCBs in Soil at a Manufacturing Site
PCBs were removed from a soil sample at a
manufacturing site in Greenville, Ohio. Approximately
1000 pounds of soil sample was treated in 18 distinct
batches; The PCB contamination level in the sample
was reduced from 130 mg/kg (dry basis) to 2 mg/kg
(dry basis). The treatment objective of 10 mg/kg was
easily met.
B.6.4 PAHs in Refinery Sludge
PAHs were removed from four contaminated sludges at
the Exxon refinery, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The
sludges were tested to help establish Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT) standards for removal of
PAHs from K048-K052 wastes (refinery sludges).
Current BDAT standards are partially based on results
from this pilot testing.
The oil and grease content of the refinery sludges was
reduced from 26 percent to 0.09 percent. Total PAHs
were reduced to 11.6 mg/kg.
B.7 References
1. EPA Document EPA Data ORD USEPA
Washington, D.C. 20460, Feb. 1983 Manual
(reprint), Volume 1 600/2-82-OOla (1983)
2. Howard, P.H. et al: Handbook of Environmental
Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals pp
493-498(1990)
3. Golonmya, R.V. et al: Chem Senses Flavour 4:97-
105 (1979)
4. Kirk & Othmer: Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology (1980)
5. USITC: United States International Trade
Commission, USITC 1982 (1986)
6. Erikson, T., Resources Conservation Company:
Biodegradation of Triethylamine, (September 9,
1992)
7. Portier, RJ., Hoover, D., Fugisaki, K.: Evaluation
of Biotreatment Approaches for Triethylamines and
Methyl Isobutyl Ketones Waste Waters, Hi-Tek
Polymers, Inc. Preliminary Study, Institute For
Environmental Studies, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, LA, (July 1, 1991)
35
-------
Appendix C
SITE Demonstration Results
C.I Introduction
This appendix summarizes the results of the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration
test of the Resources Conservation Company (RCC)
Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.®) system.
These results are also discussed in Sections 1 and 3 of
this report. A more detailed account of the
demonstration may be found in the Technology
Evaluation Report (TER).
Test sediments were collected from two locations
(Transect 28 and Transect 6) in the Grand Calumet
River approximately 10 days before the start of the
demonstration. Sediments were collected using hollow
aluminum tubes that were driven approximately 5 feet
into the soft river bottom. The sediment samples were
emptied into 5-gallon buckets and transported to the
demonstration site. Sediment from Transect 28 was
screened and homogenized to form Sediment A, while
sediment from Transect 6 was screened and
homogenized to form Sediment B.
For the SITE demonstration, Sediment A and
Sediment B were treated using the B.E.S.T.® pilot-scale
system. Three runs (Runs 1, 2, and 3) were conducted
for each sediment to optimize operating parameters.
For each sediment, the operating parameters from one
of the first three runs were selected as "optimum" and
two more runs were conducted at optimum conditions.
Optimum conditions for each sediment were determined
by RCC based on observations, sampling, and analyses
(by RCC's laboratory) from the three initial runs. For
Sediment A, Runs 3, 4, and 5 were conducted at
optimum conditions. For Sediment B, Runs 2,4, and 6
were conducted at optimum conditions. The
summarized results presented in Sections 1 and 3 are
averages from the runs conducted at optimum
conditions. During all runs, sampling was performed in
accordance with the procedures outlined in the
Demonstration Flan.
The primary objective of a SITE demonstration is to
assess the ability of the technology to meet applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). The
ability of the B.E.S.T.® system to remove organic
contaminants from inorganic matrices such as soils and
sludges was evaluated. Results from this demonstration
include polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
concentrations in the treated and untreated sediment;
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in the
treated and untreated sediment; triethylamine
concentrations in the treated sediment, product oil, and
product water; and metals teachability by the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for the
treated and untreated sediment. PAH and PCB
concentrations in the product oil and product water are
summarized in subsection C.6. Air emissions results for
both the vent emissions and the ambient air are
presented in subsection C.7. Finally, the results of the
triethylamine biodegradability testing are presented in
subsection C.8.
C.2 Contaminant Removal Efficiencies
During the demonstration, 96 percent of the PAHs and
greater than 99 percent of the PCBs initially present in
Sediments A and B were removed. These results are
consistent with demonstration test objectives and
support RCC's claims that average removal efficiencies
of 96 percent to greater than 99 percent could be
obtained for both PAHs and PCBs using the B.E.S.T.®
system. Table C-l lists the specific concentrations and
removal efficiencies obtained during runs performed
using optimum conditions. These results were obtained
by comparing contaminant concentrations present in the
sediments before and after treatment. Table C-l also
contains the oil and grease (O&G) removal efficiencies
obtained during the demonstration test. Average O&G
removal efficiencies of greater than 98 percent were
experienced for both sediments. The measurement of
O&G is not required for the evaluation of RCC's
claims. However, because PCBs and PAHs are among
the compounds detected by the analysis for O&G, these
36
-------
Table C-l. Total PAH, Total PCS, and O&G Removal Efficiencies
Total PCBs
Total PAHs
O&G
Raw Treated
Sediment Solids
mg/kg, mg/kg, Percent
Parameter dry dry Removal
Sediment A
Run3 8.01 0.05 99.4
Run 4 11.8 0.04 99.7
Run 5 16.4 0.04 99.8
Average 12.1 0.04 99.7
Sediment B
Run 2 316 2.1 99.3
Run 4 462 1.8 99.6
Run5 497 1.4 99.7
Average 425 1.8 99.6
O&G results support the removals experienced for both
PAHs and PCBs.
C.3 Residual Triethylamine
Treated solids produced during the optimum treatment
runs for Sediment B had an average triethylamine
concentration of 103 mg/kg. Water generated during
these runs had a triethylamine concentration of 2.2
mg/L or less, while the oil product collected at the end
of all Sediment B treatment runs had a triethylamine
concentration of 733 mg/kg. Because very little oil
product was generated during the treatment of Sediment
A, the Sediment A oil product was not processed to
reduce its triethylamine concentration. Solid product
generated from the optimum treatment runs for
Sediment A realized an average residual concentration
of 45.1 mg/kg, while water products from the optimum
treatment runs for Sediment A had triethylamine
concentrations of 1.0 mg/L or less. These results
comply with RCC's claims and the demonstration test
objectives regarding the system's ability to produce
residual triethylamine concentrations of less than 80,
150, and 1,000 parts per million (ppm) for water, solids,
and oil products, respectively. Table C-2 lists the
specific concentrations obtained for the three products
generated during those runs performed under optimum
conditions.
C.4 Mass Balances
Mass balances for Sediment A and Sediment B were
performed for water, oil, solids, PCBs, and PAHs
entering and exiting the system during system operation.
Raw Treated Raw Treated
Sediment Solids Sediment Solids
mg/kg, mg/kg, Percent mg/kg, mg/kg, Percent
dry dry Removal dry dry Removal
457 21 95 7,400 203 97.3
568 28 95 6,600 66 99.0
620 17 97 6,700 65 99.0
548 22 96 6,900 111 98.4
64,100 447 99.3 116,000 1,330 98.9
63,500 402 99.4 167,000 1,230 99.3
85,200 682 99.2 99,100 1,810 98.2
70,900 510 99.3 127,000 1,460 98.9
Table C-2. Residual Triethylamine Concentrations
Solids Water Oil
Parameter mg/kg mg/L mg/kg
Sediment A
Run 3 27.8 <1 a
Run 4 28.0 <1 a
RunS 79.6 2.2 a
Sediment B
Run 2 88.7 1.0 a
Run 4 130 <1 a
RunS 89.3 <1 733b
a Not analyzed
b This number is an average value for five aliquots collected
incrementally, following oil processing, at the end of the
treatment of Sediment B.
These balances were obtained by comparing the weights
and volumes of raw sediment and process additives (i.e.,
solvent, sodium hydroxide, etc.) entering the system with
the various product fractions and samples recovered
during testing. Analytical data regarding contaminant
concentrations within the various fractions, as well as
percent solids, O&G, water, etc., were used in
conjunction with measurements recorded during the
demonstration. Since material holdup within the system
could distort the individual material balances obtained
for each run (batch), the mass balances calculated within
this report evaluate overall performance during the five
runs cumulatively. Cumulative balances comparing total
materials (including and excluding triethylamine)
entering and exiting the B.E.S.T.® system were also
performed. Table C-3 summarizes all mass balance
results.
37
-------
Table C-3. Mass Balance Summaries, Percent*
Sample
Solids
PCBs
PAHs
O&G
Water
Triethylamine
Feed and
Product
Total Materials Materials8
Sediment A
Sediment B
89
108
95
112
115
126
222
119
125
116
87
82
99.3
99.6
108
114
a The project objectives for all mass balances were closures between 80 and 130 percent.
b The vendor claim for this mass balance was closure between 85 percent and 115 percent for feed and product materials.
C.4.1 Solids Balance
Solids balances were performed during the
demonstration by comparing the amount of solids
entering the system as part of the feed sediment to the
process solids recovered. Solids balance results are
consistent with demonstration test objectives that
closures of between 80 and 130 percent could be
obtained for solids treated within the B.E.S.T.® system.
The mass balances for solids are presented in Table C-4.
Table C-4. Solids Mass Balances
Sediment A
Sediment B
Solids Input, Ibs
Solids Output, Ibs
Solids Recovery, percent
474
420
89
285
306
108
C.43 PAH Balance
Like PCBs, all of the PAHs entered in the feed
sediment, while the majority exited in the product oil.
Closures of 115 and 126 percent were obtained for
PAHs during the treatment of Sediments A and B,
respectively. The PAH balance results are consistent
with the demonstration test objectives of closures
between 80 and 130 percent. Mass balances for PAHs
are presented in Table C-6.
Table C-6. PAH Mass Balances
Sediment A
Sediment B
PAH Input, Ibs 0.245
PAH Output, Ibs 0.283
PAH Recovery, percent 115
25
31
126
C.4.2 PCB Balance
Closures of 95 and 112 percent were obtained for PCBs
during the treatment of Sediments A and B, respectively.
The amount of PCBs entering the system was calculated
by multiplying the analytically determined value for PCB
concentrations present within the feed by the weight of
the feed entering the system. This value was then
compared with the cumulative amount of PCBs
deposited in the various system products, particularly the
oil product. The PCB balance results are consistent
with the demonstration test objectives of closures
between 80 and 130 percent. Mass balances for PCBs
are presented in Table C-5.
Table C-5. PCB Mass Balances
Sediment A
Sediment B
PCB Input, Ibs 0.00469
PCB Output, Ibs 0.00444
PCB Recovery, percent 95
0.146
0.163
112
C.4.4 O&G Balance
Closures of 222 and 119 percent were obtained for
O&G during the treatment of Sediments A and B, re-
spectively. The amount of O&G entering the system
was calculated by multiplying the analytically determined
value for the concentration of O&G present within the
feed by the weight of the feed entering the system.
Values for O&G exiting the system were determined
using analytical data regarding O&G concentrations
within the oil product. The O&G mass balance closure
achieved for Sediment B met the demonstration object-
ive of closure between 80 and 130 percent. The elevated
recovery obtained for Sediment A can in part be attri-
buted to inaccuracies in the analytical values achieved
for O&G concentrations associated with the low oil
content of the sediment entering the system. The deter-
mination of the mass of O&G in the Sediment A pro-
duct oil and solvent mixture was also difficult because of
the high solvent fraction of this mixture. In addition,
O&G in feed sediments were analytically determined by
extraction with methylene chloride, while the pilot unit
uses triethylamine as its extraction solvent. The mass
balances for O&G are presented in Table C-7.
38
-------
Table C-7. O&G Mass Balances
Sediment A
Sediment B
O&G Input, Ibs 3.48
O&G Output, Ibs 7.71
O&G Recovery, percent 222
67.3
80.0
119
C.4.5 Water Balance
Water balances were performed during the demonstra-
tion by comparing the amount of process water entering
the B.E.S.T.® system to the mass of product water
exiting the system. Although the majority of the process
water enters the system as part of the feed, a portion
enters the B.E.S.T.® system in the extractor/dryer
vessel. Closures of 125 percent and 116 percent were
obtained for testing performed on Sediments A and B,
respectively. The water balance results are consistent
with the demonstration test objectives of closures
between 80 and 130 percent. The water balances are
shown in Table C-8.
Table C-8. Water Mass Balances
Sediment A
Water Input, Ibs 555
Water Output, Ibs 692
Water Recovery, percent 125
Sediment B
767
888
116
C.4.6 Solvent (Triethylamine) Balance
Triethylamine is used as the extraction solvent in the
B.E.S.T.® system. The used triethylamine is recovered
and reused without exiting the system, although small
amounts of triethylamine remain in the treated solids,
water product, and oil product. Solvent mass balance
closures of 87 percent and ,82 percent were obtained for
Sediments A and B, respectively. The solvent balance
results are consistent with the demonstration test
objectives of closures between 80 and 130 percent.
Mass balances for triethylamine are presented in Table
C-9.
Table C-9. Triethylamine Mass Balances
Sediment A
Triethylamine Input, Ibs
Triethylamine Output, Ibs
Triethylamine Recovery, percent
751
652
87
Sediment B
891
727
82
C.4.7 Total Materials Balance
Mass balances for all materials entering and exiting the
process were also calculated. Closures of 99.3 percent
and 99.6 percent were obtained for Sediment A and
Sediment B, respectively. These closures are very good
and show that even though individual balances may vary
because of the considerable number of analyses
involved, no significant amount of material is lost for
either Sediment A or Sediment B. The mass balances
for the total materials are presented in Table C-10.
Table C-10. Total Materials Mass Balances
Sediment A Sediment B
Total Materials Input, Ibs 1,784 2,010
Total Materials Output, Ibs 1,771 2,002
Total Materials Recovery, percent 99.3 99.6
C.4.8 Feed and Product Materials Balance
Mass balances for all feed and product materials
(sediment, water, steam, and sodium hydroxide feed
streams; solid, water, and oil products) entering and
exiting the process were also calculated. Closures of 108
percent and 114 percent were obtained for Sediment A
and Sediment B, respectively. These closures comply
with the developer's claim that the mass balance of feed
material into the pilot unit versus total products (solids
plus water plus oil) out will be in the range of 85 to 115
percent. The mass balances for the feed and product
material are presented in Table C-ll.
Table C-ll. Feed and Product Materials Mass Balances
Sediment A Sediment B
Feed Materials Input, Ibs 1033 1119
Product Materials Output, Ibs 1119 1274
Recovery, percent • 108 114
C.5 Leaching Characteristics
The metals portion of the TCLP was performed on both
the untreated sediment and the treated soh'ds. As stated
in Section 1 of this report, the treated solids and
untreated sediment both passed the TCLP for metals, so
no significant conclusions can be drawn from data
regarding the effects of the B.E.S.T.® process in the
treatment of metals.
39
-------
C.6 PAH and PCS Concentrations in the
Product Water and Product Oil
Table C-12 summarizes the PAH and PCB concentra-
tions measured in the product water generated during
each of the three optimum runs for each test sediment.
Averages of the optimum runs for each sediment are
also presented. Table C-13 summarizes the PAH and
PCB concentrations measured in the oil produced from
the treatment of Sediment B. A total of five aliquots
(field replicates) of product oil were collected following
triethylamine removal in the solvent evaporator at the
end of the fifth and final run. This "oil polishing"
distillation procedure was not conducted for Sediment A
because of the small amount of oil present in
Sediment A.
C.7 Air Emissions
During the demonstration, the ambient air was
monitored for ionizable organic vapors using an
photoionization detector (PID). The ambient ah- was
monitored on a daily basis 5. meters upwind and
downwind from the treatment unit. Particular emphasis
was placed on ambient monitoring for volatile emissions
attributed to the solvent employed by RCC. The
maximum limit for organic vapor concentration in the
ambient air was 10 ppm above background levels; none
of the measurements taken during the demonstration
test exceeded this limit.
Vent gases were filtered by primary and secondary
activated carbon canisters and the triethylamine
concentration in the air between the two carbon
canisters was monitored daily with reaction tubes. The
maximum limit for the triethylamine concentration in
the air between the two carbon canisters was 3.5 ppm.
This limit was exceeded twice during the demonstration
test (15 ppm and 30 ppm). In each instance, the
primary carbon canister was replaced immediately and
the triethylamine concentration returned to below 3.5
ppm. Vent gas triethylamine emissions were not
measured at over 0.2 ppm at any time during the
demonstration.
C.8 Triethylamine Biodegradation Testing
on Treated Solids
Triethylamine biodegradation testing on the treated
solids was added to the Demonstration Plan because it
was indirectly related to the B.E.S.T.® process.
Biodegradation was not a critical parameter in the
B.E.S.T.® SITE demonstration. RCC, the developer,
has referenced a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) report (EPA-600/2-82-001a) that states that 200
ppm of triethylamine in water was completely degraded
in 11 hours by Aerobacter, a common soil bacteria. The
use of this reference implies that triethylamine may
biodegrade in the treated solids. Biodegradation testing
was thus intended to indicate whether triethylamine
would degrade in the treated solids produced during the
SITE demonstration.
Table C-12. PAH and PCB Concentrations in the Product Water
Run Numbers
Parameter
Average of
Optimum Runs
Sediment A
Total PAHs, pg/L
Total PCBs, pg/L
Sediment B
Total PAHs, pg/L
Total PCBs, /ig/L
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
Table C-13. PAH and PCB Concentrations in the Sediment B Product Oil
Aliquot Number*
Parameter
Total PAHs, mg/kg
Total PCBs, mg/kg
1
498,000
2,030
2
438,000
1,750
3
299,000
2,520
4
297,000
2,150
5
436,000
2,180
Average
394,000
2,130
The aliquots 1 through 5 were collected incrementally as the product oil in the solvent evaporator tank was drained by a hose into a drum.
40
-------
A very limited biodegradation study was conducted by
mixing equal portions of viable potting soil and treated
product solid samples collected from three of the
demonstration test runs (two Sediment A samples and
one Sediment B sample). For each of the three
sediment samples, two sets of 12 test vials were
prepared; the first set contained unaltered mixtures and
the second "control" set contained the same
homogeneous mixture spiked with mercuric chloride.
The samples were then stored away from light at room
temperature as test sample/control sample pairs. Each
pair was analyzed at four separate time intervals.
Table C-14 summarizes the biodegradation test data.
The results of the biodegradation study are quite
variable but they do not appear to provide any evidence
that triethylamine present at 25 to 100 ppm is
biodegraded in this soil within 2 months of application.
C.9 Particle Size Distribution
Table C-15 presents particle size distribution data for
the untreated solids (by dry sieve testing). The particle
size analyses demonstrate the ability of the B.E.S.T.®
system to treat materials containing a large fraction of
fine particles.
Table C-14.
Triethylamine Biodegradabflity in Treated Solids
Time Interval Concentrations, mg/kg dry weight*
Sample
Sediment A, Run 1
Test Cell
Control Cell
Sediment A, Run 4
Test Cell
Control Cell
Sediment B, Run 4
Test Cell
Control Cell
DayO
85.8
73.6
42.4"
30.4b
- '-'-'-•
147
146
a All concentrations are the average of three replicate runs,
b Duplicate analysis was not performed on any of the three
Day 14
85.5
92.3
53.1
50.4
140
155
one of which was analyzed
replicate run samples.
Day 28
55.0
68.9
65.0
70.9
148
146
in duplicate.
Day 56
66.9
57.0
64.7
71.4
152
158
Table C-15. Particle Size Analysis Results
Percent of Total
Sample
> 4.75 mm*
4.75-2.00 mmb
2.00-425
425- 75 /imd
<75
Sediment A
Feedf
Treated Solids*
Sediment B
0.00
0.31
4.60
3.86
27.55
14.60
40.16
49.87
27.69
31.36
Feedf
Treated Solids*
0.00
2.38
0.10
12.01
4.25
60.01
57.20
23.83
38.45
1.78
a Retained by No. 4 sieve
b Retained by No. 10 sieve
c Retained by No. 40 sieve
d Retained by No. 200 sieve
e Passes No. 200 sieve
f Wet sieve
g Dry sieve
41
-------
Appendix D
Case Studies
D.I Massena, New York Pilot-Scale Testing
Pilot-scale tests were conducted in September and
October of 1991 in Massena, New York to determine
the ability of Resources Conservation Company's
(RCCs) Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.®)
solvent extraction system to treat six wastes from an
aluminum manufacturing facility. Three of the wastes
were sludges taken from three lagoons, including a
soluble oil lagoon and a sanitary lagoon. The other
three wastes were soils, two of which were taken from
a waste lubricating oil landfill and a oily waste landfill.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were the target
contaminants in all sk wastes. Treatment results for the
six wastes are shown in Table D-l. The concentrations
of PCBs initially present in the wastes ranged from 5
mg/kg to 800 mg/kg, while the treated solids contained
between 0.2 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg of PCBs. The
objective of these tests was to determine whether the
B.E.S.T.® process was capable of reducing the PCB
concentrations in the soils and sludges to less than 2.0
mg/kg. This goal was achieved for ah* six wastes.
D.2 Pilot-Scale Testing of Wastes from
Wood Treating Facilities
In June 1991, the pilot-scale B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction
unit was used to conduct treatability studies on
contaminated soil from two wood treating facilities. The
soils were transported from the two facilities to the test
location in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
The treatability tests conducted on the wood treating
wastes were sponsored by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The objective of these tests
was to determine the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) standard for contaminated soil and
debris. This standard was successfully established.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were the
target contaminants in these treatability tests. The soil
from one of the wood treating facilities contained 10,900
mg/kg PAHs; the resulting treated solids contained 109
mg/kg. This represents a 99 percent reduction in
PAHs. The soil from the other wood treating facility
contained 14,000 mg/kg of PAHs. Following B.E.S.T.®
Table D-l. Treatment of Aluminum Manufacturing Soils and Sludges
Waste Origin
Soluble Oil Lagoon
Sanitary Lagoon
60 Acre Lagoon
Waste Lubricating Oil Landfill
Oily Waste Landfill
Dcnnison Crossroads
Initial PCB Concentration
530 mg/kg
137 rag/kg
480 mg/kg
800 mg/kg
13 mg/kg
5 mg/kg
Final PCB Concentration
0.7 mg/kg
0.6 mg/kg
1.0 mg/kg
1.0 mg/kg
0.3 mg/kg
0.2 mg/kg
Removal of PCBs,
percent
99.9
99.6
99.8
99.9
97.7
96.0
42
-------
solvent extraction, the treated solids contained 8.2
mg/kg PAHs. This represents a 99.9 percent reduction
in PAHs.
D.3 Pilot-Scale Testing of Waste from
Machining Operations
In December 1989, the B.E.S.T.® pilot-scale unit was
used to conduct a treatability study in Greenville, Ohio.
The soil at this site became contaminated with PCBs as
a result of the disposal of lubricants from machining
operations. B.E.S.T.* solvent extraction reduced the
PCB concentration in the soil from 130 mg/kg to 2.5
mg/kg hi the treated solids, a reduction of 98.1 percent.
This treatability test easily met its objectives of
producing treated solids containing less than 10 mg/kg
PCBs.
D.4 Pilot-Scale Testing
Refining Sludge
of Petroleum
The B.E.S.T.® pilot-scale solvent extraction unit was
employed in February 1989 for a treatability test
conducted in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The objective of
this treatability test was to establish BDAT standards for
K048-K052 wastes. These standards are partially based
on the performance of the B.E.S.T.* unit during this
pilot-scale test. The waste treated was a sludge
containing PAHs and oil and grease (O&G) from
petroleum refining operations.
The petroleum refining sludge was initially 26 percent
O&G. The treated solids generated by the B.E.S.T.®
solvent extraction system contained 0.09 percent O&G
and 11.6 mg/kg PAHs.
D.5 Full-Scale Treatment of Oily Sludges
RCC's prototype full-scale B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction
system was employed hi the treatment of oily sludge at
the General Refining site hi Garden City, Georgia. This
oily sludge was generated during waste oil reclamation
and re-refining activities and was disposed of hi unlined
lagoons. RCC mobilized the full-scale B.E.S.T.® unit
and installed it at the General Refining site hi mid-1986.
The system was tested and modified, then employed hi
the treatment of approximately 3,700 tons of oily
sludges. An extensive 24-hour sampling and monitoring
program was conducted during the last week of
treatment, which was concluded hi March 1987 [1].
The 24-hour test was conducted by RCC with the
assistance of the EPA Region X Environmental Services
Division and Region IV Emergency Response and
Control Branch. The primary objective of this test was
to determine the B.E.S.T.® system's ability to separate
the feed components and isolate them into specific
product streams. The feed contained PCBs, metals
(primarily lead), volatile organics, and semivolatile
organics [1].
Samples were collected from the feed stream, product
oil, product solids, aqueous product (before and after
the water treatment system), blowdown sludge from the
water treatment system, process air emissions, and
recycled solvent. The organics (PCBs, volatiles, and
semivolatiles) from the feed were concentrated hi the oil
fraction, although minimal amounts of organics were
present hi the solid and aqueous products. The metals
from the feed were primarily concentrated hi the solid
product, but the concentration of lead hi the oil product
was also significant. The low concentrations of metals
hi the aqueous phase were further reduced hi the Water
treatment system [1].
After metals removal, the aqueous product was suitable
for discharge into an industrial wastewater treatment
facility. TCLP results for lead hi the solids product
ranged from 4.0 to 12 mg/L, while the regulatory level
is 5 mg/L. Because the lead was only marginally
leachable and the other metals were present hi stable
forms that resisted leaching, the test report states that
the solids are potentially eligible for land disposal or
detisting [1]. The oil product was sold as fuel to a fuel
blender.
The B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction system used during this
project is a prototype and is the only full-scale unit
currently available. This prototype system is capable of
treating up to 100 tons of contaminated sludge per day
(it is not applicable to contaminated soils). Forty tons
of sludge were treated during the 24-hour testing period.
The average solvent to feed ratio during this period was
4 to 1. Because the system recycles the solvent, only 16
pounds of solvent were consumed per ton of sludge
treated. Furthermore, RCC estimates the system can be
modified such that it will only consume 2.5 pounds of
solvent per ton of sludge treated [1].
D.6 Reference
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation
of the B.E.S.T.® Solvent Extraction Sludge
Treatment Technology Twenty-Four Hour Test.
EPA/600/2-88/051, August 1988.
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993-753-009
43
-------
------- |