«*EPA
          United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
           Office of Research and
           Development
           Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/AR-93/504
July 1995

Low Temperature Thermal
Aeration (LTTA) Process
Canonie Environmental
Services, Inc.
          Applications Analysis Report
                SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
                TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

-------
                                             EPA/540/AR-93/504
                                                     July 1995
Low Temperature Thermal Aeration (LTTA) Process
       Canonic Environmental Services, Inc.
           Applications Analysis Report
  National Risk Management Research Laboratory
        Office of Research and Development
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
              Cincinnati, OH 45268
                                            Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                                          Notice
    The information in this document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program under Contract No. 68-CO-0047.  This
document has been subjected to EPA peer and administrative reviews and 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land,
air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and
implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems
to support and nurture life.  To meet these mandates, EPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage
our ecological resources  wisely, understand how pollutants affect  our health, and  prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.

        The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the  Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the environment.
The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to
air, land, water and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems ; remediation of
contaminated  sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution.  The goal of this
research effort is  to catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and provide technical  support and information transfer  to ensure effective implementation of
environmental regulations  and strategies.

        This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It
is published and made available: by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community
and to link researchers with their clients.
                                                        E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
                                                        National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                                                111

-------
                                          Abstract

    This report presents an evaluation of the Low Temperature Thermal Aeration (LTTAź) system's ability to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and pesticides from
soil.  This evaluation is based on treatment performance and cost data from the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration and five case studies. This report also discusses the applicability
of the LTTAź system based on compliance with regulatory requirements, implementability, short-term impact,
and long-term effectiveness. The factors influencing the technology's performance in meeting these criteria
are also discussed.

    The LTTAź system thermally desorbs organic compounds from contaminated  soil without heating the
soil to combustion temperatures.   The LTTAź system consists of three main operations: soil treatment,
emissions control, and water treatment.  End products include treated soil, spent activated carbon, and treated
stack gas.  The transportable system consists of six major components assembled on nine flat-bed trailers and
five auxiliary support trailers.

    The LTTAź system was demonstrated under the SITE program at a confidential abandoned pesticide
mixing facility in western Arizona. During the demonstration, the LTTAź system treated site soils contaminated
primarily with  seven pesticides:  toxaphene; 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); 4,4'-
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD); 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (DDE);  dieldrin; endosulfan
I; and endrin. Additionally, Canonie Environmental  Services Corporation conducted several pilot-scale tests
and full-scale operations to obtain treatment data for soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs,
SVOCs, and organochlorine and organophosphorus  pesticides.

    Based on the results of the SITE demonstration and other case studies, the following conclusions can be
drawn. The LTTAź system: (1) can process a wide variety of soils with differing moisture and contaminant
concentrations; (2) can remove VOCs from soil to below detection limits; (3) can substantially decrease SVOC
concentrations in soil; (4) can remove pesticides from soil to below or near detection limits (removal efficiencies
range from 82.4 to greater than 99.9 percent); and (5) did  not produce dioxins and furans during the SITE
demonstration. Remediation costs, including all activities from site preparation through demobilization, are
estimated to  range from approximately $ 133  to $209 per ton of soil, depending predominantly on moisture
content, contaminant concentrations in the soil, and regulatory requirements.
                                               IV

-------
                                        Contents

Section                                                                        Page

Notice	  ii
Foreword	iii
Abstract	  iv
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols	viii
Con version Factors for U.S. Customary and Metric Units	ix
Acknowledgements	x

Executive Summary	 1

1.0  Introduction    	4

    1.1  The SITE Program	4
    1.2  SITE Demonstration Reports	4
        1.2.1  Technology Evaluation Report	5
        1.2.2  Applications Analysis Report	5
    1.3  Technology Description	5
        1.3.1  Principal Treatment Operations	5
        1.3.2  Innovative Features of the LTTAź System	9
        1.3.3  LTTAź System Limitations	9
    1.4  Key Contacts	9

2.0 Technology Applications Analysis	  10

   2.1  Basis for Applications Analysis	  10
   2.2  Treatment Effectiveness for Toxicity Reduction	  10
        2.2.1  Pesticide Removal	  10
        2.2.2  VOC Removal	  10
        2.2.3  SVOC Removal	  12
        2.2.4  Formation of Thermal Transformation Byproducts	  12
        2.2.3  Stack Emissions	  13
   2.3  Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements	  13
        2.3.1  CERCLA   	  13
        2.3.2  RCRA     	  14
        2.3.3  CAA       	  14
        2.3.4  OSHA      	  14
        2.3.5  State Cleanup Requirements	  15
   2.4  Implemenlability  	  15
        2.4.1  Mobilization	  15
        2.4.2  Operating and Maintenance Requirements	  16
        2.4.3  Reliability  	  17
        2.4.4  Personnel Requirements	  17
        2.4.5  Demobilization	  17

-------
    2.5  Short-Term Impact	18
        2.5.1 Operational Hazards	18
        2.5.2 Potential Community Exposures	18
    2.6  Long-Term Effectiveness	18
        2.6.1 Permanence of Treatment	18
        2.6.2 Residuals Handling	18
    2.7  Factors Influencing Performance	19
        2.7.1 Waste Character!sties	19
        2.7.2 Operating Parameters	20
        2.7.3 Climatic Conditions	20

3.0 Economic Analysis       	21

    3.1  Site-Specific Factors Affecting Costs	21
    3.2  Basis of the Economic Analysis	21
        3.2.1 Assumptions about the ITTAź Technology and Capital Cost	21
        3.2.2 Assumptions about the Soil and Site Conditions	21
        3.2.3 Assumptions about the L FTA(R) System Operation	24
    3.3  Cost Categories      	24
        3.3.1 Site Preparation	24
        3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory	24
        3.3.3 Equipment     	25
        3.3.4 Startup        	25
        3.3.5 Labor          	26
        3.3.6 Consumable Materials	26
        3.3.7 Utility         	26
        3.3.8 Effluent Monitoring	27
        3.3.9 Residual Waste Shipping, Handling, and Transportation	27
        3.3.10 Analytical    	27
        3.3.11 Equipment Repair and Replacement	27
        3.3.12 Demobilization	27

4.0 References	29
Appendices

A   Vendor's Claim for the Technology

B   Site Demonstration Results

C   Case Studies
                                              VI

-------
                                        Figures




Figure                                                                     Page




1   LTTAź System Row Diagram - Soil	6



2   LTTAź System Row Diagram - Air and Water	 7



3   LTTAź System Layout	8









                                        Tables




Table                                                                      Page




1   Treatment Conditions for Site Demonstration and Case Studies	11



2   Range of General Operating Parameters	20



3   Cost to Process 10,000 tons of Soil at Various Processing Rates	22



4   Summary of Variable Costs Per Ton of Soil Processed at Various Processing Rates	23
                                           Vll

-------
                   Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
Hg/dscm
ADEQ
ARAR
CAA
Canonic
CERCLA
cfm
CFR
ODD
DDE
DDT
EPA
op
GAC
gpm
Ibs
Ib/hr
ETTAź
mg/kg
ORD
OSHA
OSWER
QA
QC
RCRA
RREL
SITE
SARA
SVOC
tons/hr
VOC
Micrograms per kilogram
Micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Clean Air Act
Canonic Environmental Services Corporation
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Cubic feet per minute
Code of Federal Regulations
4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Degrees Fahrenheit
Granular activated carbon
Gallons per minute
Pounds
Pound per hour
Eow Temperature Thermal Aeration
Milligrams per kilogram
Office of Research and Development
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Quality assurance
Quality control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Semivolatile organic compound
Tons per hour
Volatile organic compound
                                         Vlll

-------
        Conversion Factors for U.S. Customary and Metric Units
Length:
Volume:
Weight:
Temperature:
inches
feet

gallons
cubic yards

pounds
tons
kilograms

5/9
2.54
0.3048

3.785
0.7646

0.4536
0.9072
1,000

("Fahrenheit-32)
centimeters
meters

liters
cubic meters

kilograms
metric tons
metric tons

0 Celsius
                                         IX

-------
                                 Acknowledgements

    This report was prepared under the direction and coordination of Paul R. dePercin, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Project Manager at the Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. The efforts of Dan Miller of the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality, and Cheton Trivedi and Paul  Lambert of Canonie Environmental Services
Corporation were essential to the project's success.

    This report was prepared for the EPA SITE program by James Peck, Scott Engle, Roger Argus, Daniel
Auker, Diana Olson, and Karen Kirby of PRC Environmental Management, Inc. Technical input was provided
by Chuck Sueper of Twin City Testing, Javed Bhatty of Construction Technology Laboratories, and Don
Burrows of Radian Corporation. The report was reviewed and edited by Robert Foster, Dr. Ken Partymiller, Dr.
Chriso Petropoulou, Butch Fries, and Jeff Swano of PRC.

-------
                                            Executive Summary
Introduction


    This report assesses the applications of the Low Temperature
Thermal Aeration (LTTAź) system developed by Canonic
Environmental Services Corporation (Canonie). A demonstration
was conducted under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)  Superfund Innovative Technology  Evaluation (SITE)
program in September 1992, at an abandoned pesticide mixing
facility in western Arizona. This evaluation of the IT FAź system
is based on the results of the SITE demonstration, subsequent
remediation  of the Arizona site, and five other case studies
performed by Canonie for several private and governmental
clients. The five case studies used in this report include remedial
activities at the McKin Superfund site (Maine), the Cannons
Bridgewater Superfund site (Massachusetts), the Ottati and Goss
Superfund site (New Hampshire), the South Kearny site (New
Jersey), and the former Spencer Kellogg facility (New Jersey).


    The LTTAź system thermally desorbs organic compounds
from contaminated soil without heating the soil to combustion
temperatures. The system consists of three main operations:
soil treatment, emissions  control, and water treatment.   End
products include  treated soil, spent granular activated carbon
(GAC), and treated stack gas. The transportable system has six
major equipment  components assembled on flat-bed trailers.

    The SITE demonstration and the case studies utilized a full-
scale LTTAź system. A major advantage of demonstrating a
full-scale system is that the demonstration results are more likely
to be representative of future operations at similar sites than the
results  from  smaller pilot-scale or prototype units.  Also, the
nature of operational problems encountered during the full-scale
system  demonstration should be indicative of potential problems
at other sites.
Technology Applications

    The LTTAź system has demonstrated its effectiveness at
treating soils contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), pesticides, and petroleum compounds by treating over
90,000 tons of soil at six different sites.  Limited data suggest
that the LTTAź system is an effective technology for removing
several semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) as well. The
LTTAź system can treat up to 50 tons per hour of contaminated
soil, making it particularly applicable to sites requiring extensive
remediation or an expedited cleanup schedule.  Based on the
findings of the SITE demonstration and other case studies, the
following conclusions  can be drawn regarding applications of
the LTTAź system:

    •   Pilot- or full-scale  LTTAź systems have  effectively
        treated soil contaminated with the following wastes:
        petroleum hydrocarbons,  VOCs,  SVOCs,  and
        organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides.
        Based on available data, reported VOC and pesticide
        removal efficiencies are generally greater than SVOC
        removal efficiencies.

    •   Contaminant removal in the LTTAź system is primarily
        through  thermal  desorption,  with  thermal
        transformation and degradation as possible secondary
        mechanisms.

        The LTTAź system is most appropriate for wastes with
        moisture content less than 20 percent. To enhance the
        efficiency of  the LTTAź system, soils with greater
        moisture content may require dewatering.

    •   Screening or crushing oversized material (greater than
        2 inches in size), or clay shredding may be required for
        some applications.

    •   Treatment residuals consist of spent GAC. The ready
        availability of facilities throughout the country to treat
        and recycle spent GAC  increases  the  long-term
        effectiveness of the LTTAź system.  Reuse of the GAC"
        makes it a temporary waste, with full recycling potential.

    •   Based on a treatment volume of 10,000 tons, treatment
        costs are $209, $144, and $133 per ton, for processing
        rates of 20, 35, and 50 tons per hour.

-------
    •    No operational problems were encountered during the
        SITE demonstration.  Canonic reports that it is not
        unusual for system maintenance to require up to 2 hours
        of downtime per week of operation.

    •    Treatability and pilot studies are highly recommended
        before implementing full-scale applications. Because
        results may vary greatly with  different soil types and
        contaminant characteristics, the LTTAź  system's
        performance is best predicted with preliminary testing
        and process monitoring during full-scale  proof-of-
        process operations.


Data Sources


    This section summarizes the LTTAź system's performance
during the SITE demonstration and during five case studies.

    The I TEAź system SITE demonstration was conducted as
part of full-scale remedial operations at an Arizona pesticide
mixing facility.   Site soils were contaminated with pesticides
primarily during mixing and loading/unloading operations.
The  pesticides  present were predominantly toxaphene,
4,4'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane(Dl)T),
4,4'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (DDE),  and 4,4'-
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane  (DDD) with  lesser
concentrations of dieldrin, endosulfan  I,  and endrin.  The
demonstration consisted of three 8-hour replicate tests.  During
the tests, contaminated soil was heated to approximately 730
degrees Eahrenheit (°E) for a residence time of approximately
10 minutes. Soil was processed at an average rate of 34 tons per
hour (tons/hr). Approximately 51,000 tons of soil will be treated
upon completion  of remedial activities. Key findings from the
SITE demonstration include the following

    •    The ETTAź system removed pesticides other than DDE
        to near or below method detection limits in soil.  All
        pesticides were  removed  to  below  cleanup
        requirements.

        The ETTAź system  achieved pesticide removal
        efficiencies ranging from 81.9 to greater than 99.9
        percent.  Only three pesticides were present  at
        quantifiable concentrations in the  treated soil: DDT
        (0.77 to  3.1 micrograms per kilogram [(ag/kgj), DDE
        (100 to 1,500 ug/kg), and endrin aldehyde (0.07 to 11
        |ug/kg).  None of the other target pesticides were
        detected.

    •    The ETTAź system's ability to remove VOCs and
        SVOCs present in the soil at the Arizona site was not
        quantifiable with any  degree  of certainty due to the
        extremely low initial concentrations  (at or below the
        detection limit). However, data from other full-scale
        non-SITE soil remediation projects conducted using the
        ETTAź system indicate that VOCs and SVOCs can be
        removed by the LTTAź system.

        Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins)  and
        polychlorinated dibenzofurans (furans) were not formed
        in the ETTAź system. No quantifiable levels of dioxins
        or furans were detected in the treated soil, scrubber
        liquor,  or GAC samples.  Extremely  low levels of
        dioxins and furans were detected in the stack gas.

        Chlorine and organic halides appeared to concentrate
        in the scrubber blowdown, where organic halide masses
        were several times greater than other process effluent
        streams.  Additionally, the treated soil contained
        significant levels of chloride.
    All five case studies involved full-scale applications of the
LTTAź process at sites  contaminated with  petroleum
hydrocarbons, VOCs, and SVOCs. These case studies include
the following:


    •    Approximately 11,500 cubic yards of oil- and VOC-
        contaminated silt and coarse sand were treated at the
        McKin Superfund site in Gray, Maine.  Concentrations
        of VOCs were reduced from greater  than  3,000
        milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to an average of less
        than 0.05 mg/kg.  A real-time continuous emissions
        monitoring system  was installed to document emission
        compliance during soil treatment operations.  All
        specified performance standards  were met for the
        treated soils and the emissions during remedial
        activities.

    •    About  11,300  tons of soil and wetland sediments
        contaminated with VOCs were treated at the Cannons
        Bridgewater  Superfund  Site  in  Bridgewater,
        Massachusetts.  The soils were treated at a processing
        rate of between 42 and 48  tons/hr.  All  treated soil
        samples met the specified cleanup standards.

    •    More than 4,500 cubic yards of soil contaminated with
        VOCs were treated at the Ottati and Cioss Superfund
        site in Kingston, New Hampshire. All treated soils met
        the discharge limitations of 1.0 mg/kg total VOCs and
        0.1 mg/kg for 1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethene, and
        tetrachloroethene.

    •    Approximately  16,000 tons of soils contaminated with
        VOCs and SVOCs were treated at a site in South Keamy,
        New Jersey. Total  VOC concentrations were reduced
        from greater than 300 mg/kg to 0.51 mg/kg of detectable

-------
        compounds.  All polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
        were reduced to a total detectable concentration of 12
        mg/kg.

    •   A total of 6,500 tons of soil contaminated with VOCs
        and SVOCs were treated at the former Spencer Kellogg
        Facility  in  Newark, New Jersey.   Total VOC
        concentrations were reduced from greater than 5,000
        mg/kg to total detectable concentrations of 0.45 mg/
        kg. All compounds were removed to below specified
        cleanup levels.


    Canonic's claims for  the technology  are presented in
Appendix A. The results of the SITE demonstration are discussed
in Appendix B. Appendix C describes each case study in greater
detail.

-------
                                                   Section 1
                                                 Introduction
    This section provides information on the  Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, discusses
the purpose of this Applications Analysis Report, and describes
the Low Temperature Thermal Aeration  (ETTAź) system
developed by Canonic Environmental Services Corporation. Eor
additional information about the SITE program and Canonic's
technology, key contacts are listed at the end of this section.


1.1     The SITE Program


    The SITE program is dedicated to advancing the
development, evaluation, and implementation of innovative
treatment technologies applicable to hazardous waste sites. The
SITE program was established in response to the 1986 Superfund
Amendments and  Reauthorization Act  (SARA),  which
recognized  a need for an alternative or innovative treatment
technology  research and development program. International
in scope, the  SITE program is administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
(RREL).


    The SITE program consists of four component programs:
(1) the Demonstration Program, (2) the Emerging 'technology
Program, (3) the Monitoring and Measurement Technologies
Program, and (4) the  Technology Transfer Program.  This
document was produced as part of the Demonstration Program..
The objective of the Demonstration Program i s to provide reliable
performance and cost data on innovative technologies, so that
potential users can assess a technology's suitability for specific
site cleanups. To produce useful and reliable data, demonstrations
are conducted either at hazardous waste sites or under conditions
that closely  simulate actual wastes and site conditions.
Demonstration data can also provide insight into a technology's
long-term operating and maintenance costs and  long-term
application risks.


    Technologies are selected for the SITE Demonstration
Program primarily  through annual requests for proposals.
Proposals are reviewed by ORD staff to determine which
technologies have the most promise for use at hazardous waste
sites.  To be eligible, technologies must be at the pilot- or full-
scale stage, must be innovative, and must offer some advantage
over existing technologies. Mobile technologies are of particular
interest.

    Cooperative agreements between EPA and the developer
determine responsibilities for conducting the demonstration and
evaluating the technology.  The developer is responsible for
demonstrating the technology at the selected site and is expected
to pay the costs to transport, operate, and remove its equipment.
EPA is responsible for project planning, sampling and analysis,
quality assurance (QA), quality control (QC), report preparation,
and technology transfer.

    Each SITE demonstration evaluates the performance of a
technology in treating a particular waste type at the demonstration
site. To obtain data with broad applications, EPA  and the
technology developer try to choose a waste frequently found at
other  contaminated sites.  In many  cases, however, waste
characteristics at other sites will differ in some way from the
waste tested. Thus, a successful demonstration of the technology
at one site does not ensure the technology will be equally effective
at other sites.  Data obtained from the SITE demonstration may
have to be extrapolated and combined with other information
regarding the  technology to estimate the operating  range and
limits of the technology.
    Data collected during a demonstration are used to assess
the performance of the  technology, the potential need for
pretreatment and posttreatment processing  of the wastes,
applicable types of wastes and media, potential operating
problems, and approximate  capital and operating  costs.
1.2     SITE Demonstration Report

    The results of each SITE demonstration are presented in
two documents, each with a distinct purpose: (1) the Technology
Evaluation Report and (2) the Applications Analysis Report.
These documents are described below.

-------
7.2.7   Technology Evaluation Report


    The  Technology  Evaluation  Report  provides  a
comprehensive description of the SITE demonstration and its
results. It is intended for engineers making a detailed evaluation
of the technology's performance for the particular waste type at
the demonstration site.  The report  describes,  in detail, the
performance of the technology during the demonstration, and
the advantages, risks, and costs of the technology for a specific
application. The report also provides a detailed discussion of
QA and QC measures  during the demonstration.


7.2.2   Applications Analysis Report

    To encourage wider use of technologies demonstrated under
the SITE program, the Applications Analysis Report provides
information on a technology's costs and its applicability to other
sites and waste types. Prior to a SITE demonstration, the amount
of data available for an innovative technology may vary widely.
Data may be limited to laboratory tests on synthetic wastes or
may include performance data on actual wastes treated in pilot-
or full-scale treatment systems. The Applications Analysis Report
synthesizes available information on the technology and draws
reasonable conclusions about its broad-range applicability. This
report is intended for those considering a technology for
hazardous  site cleanups;  it  represents a critical step rn the
development and commercialization of a treatment technology.


    The principal use  of the Applications Analysis Report is to
assist in determining whether a technology should be considered
further as an option for a particular cleanup situation.  The
Applications Analysis Report is intended for decision makers
responsible  for implementing remedial actions. The report
discusses advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of the
technology and presents estimated costs based on available data
from pilot- and full-scale applications.  The report also discusses
specific factors, such as site and waste characteristics, that may
affect performance and cost.

1.3     Technology Description


    The LTTAź is a thermal treatment system that desorbs
organic compounds from soil at temperatures of 300 to 800 ° F.
The full-scale  transportable system consists of six major
components assembled on nine flat-bed trailers. Additional
components include two soil conveyors, a power generator, a
control trailer, and additional support facilities. The entire system
and support areas require approximately 10,000 square feet of
operating space.
 1.3.1   Principal Treatment Operations


    The operations discussed in this section are based on material
 provided by Canonie (Canonie 1992a). The LTTA* system has
 three main material flow paths: soil, air, and water. The six major
 components of the system are as follows:

     1.  Materials dryer
    2.  Pug mill mixer
    3.  Cyclone separators (2)
    4.  Baghouse
    5.  Venturi scrubber and liquid-phase carbon filter
    6.  Vapor-phase activated carbon beds (2)
    These components are shown in Figures 1 and 2; the system
layout is shown in Figure 3. The following paragraphs describe
the system as it was implemented at the Arizona pesticide site.

    Contaminated soil is fed into the system from feed hoppers
by conveyors. If screening is required, then a portable screen
may be utilized prior to feeding the soil into the hoppers. Other
pretreatment procedures, such as soil dewatering, may be
employed, if necessary.  The feed hoppers or conveyors supply
soil to the elevated end of a rotating materials dryer that heats
the soil as high as 800 °Fby a concurrent flow of hot air stream.
The air stream is heated by a propane or fuel  oil burner.
Longitudinal flights inside the dryer promote  mixing by
showering the soils thus increasing the heat and mass transfer
between the contaminated soil and hot air. Organic constituents
in the soil are desorbed and vaporized in the dryer. Vaporized
organic  compounds and airborne soil particles are directed to
the cyclone separators. The dry, hot soils are discharged via a
chute at the lower  end of the materials dryer into an enclosed
pug mill mixer. Water is introduced to the pug mill to mitigate
dust generation during handling.


    The initial step in dryer emissions treatment is performed
by a pair of cyclone separators with a maximum operating rate
of 30,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm). The direction and linear
flow rate of the exhaust gas from the materials dryer is modified
so that large particles drop out of the air stream.  The particles
are collected at the base of the conical section of the separators
and transferred by screw auger to the pug mill.  In the pug mill,
the particles are quenched along with the treated  soils.  The
exhaust gas stream from the cyclone separators is directed to the
baghouse.

-------

CONTROL
HOUSE



                TREATED
                  SOIL
               DISCHARGE
BELT CONVEYOR
PUG
MILL
              EXCAVATED
                 SOIL
              EXCAVATED
                 SOIL
                                 BURNER
                                 BLOWER
                              t
                                                   MATERIALS DRYER
                                                     BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE FINES
                                                                 4
                                                                      BAGHOUSE
                                                        CYCLONIC
                                                       SEPARATORS
                                                   200 HP
                                                  BLOWER
PUMP HOUSE

VENTURI
SCRUBBER

300 HP
BLOWER
                     CARBON FILTER
                                                        CARBON FILTER
               Not to Scale
               Source:  Canonic 1992
Figure 1.  LTTAź System Flow Diagram - Soil

-------
                                                                                     MAKE-UP WATER
                                            TREATED WATER
                       AIR
                      INLET
                    f

CONTROL
HOUSE



                                                      u:

BELT CONVEYOR

PUG
MILL
                                BURNER
                                BLOWER
                             cc
                           Q Ł
                           LLJ g-
                           UJ CL
                           LL O
                             I
                             tr
                           Q UJ
                           u- O
                                                  MATERIALS DRYER
8BAGHOUSE
*s CYCLONIC
^ SEPARAIORS "' ^

200 HP
BLOWER




LIQUID
PHASE
CARBON
UNIT
PUMP
HOUSE j
1 X 	 S
FECIRCULATtD™
I WATER i
^


VENTURI
SCRUBBER

300 HP
BLOWER
                                                       CARBON FILTER
                                                       CARBON FILTER
                                                                                             TO
                                                                                        ATMOSPHERE

                                                                                             TO
                                                                                        ATMOSPHERE
            Not to Scale
            Source:  Canonie 1992
Figure 2. LTTAź System Flow Diagram - Air and Water

-------
                                                                      GENERATOR
                                                                      TRAILER
               CONTROL
               TRAILER
        TREATED SOIL
                                                                                                   ^   r ACT I VAT E D C A R BO N
                                                                                                          TRAILERS
DISCHARGE
CONVEYOR
                               CONTAMINATED SOIL
Figure 3. LTTAź System Layout

-------
    The baghouse consists of a structure housing a bank of fine
mesh filter bags that remove suspended particulate matter from
the gas stream. The baghouse is rated at a maximum capacity of
31,000 cfm, and has paniculate emissions of less than 0.04 grains
per dry standard cubic foot. Entrapped particles are removed
from the filter bags, collected, and transferred by screw auger to
the pug mill for mixing and quenching with treated soils.  The
exhaust from the baghouse is then directed to the venturi scrubber.


    The venturi scrubber operates by injecting approximately
220 gallons per minute (gpm)  of water at low pressure into the
throat of a venturi through  which the gas stream passes at a
velocity of 150 to 500 feet per second. The scrubber removes
approximately 95 percent of the particles larger than 0.2 microns
in size, neutralizes acid gases,  and removes  water-soluble
components from the air stream.

    Sodium hydroxide is pumped continuously,  or as required,
into the recirculating scrubber water to maintain the system pH
above 7.0. The water is removed from the gas stream through a
dual de-entrainment section, where it is collected in a bottom
sump. The scrubber water is then filtered through micron-sized
particulate filters and a liquid-phase carbon filter to remove any
residual particles and organic compounds.


    The treated water and any additional make-up water are
transferred to the pug mill for soil quenching. No wastewater is
generated in the process. Water exiting the liquid-phase carbon
filter is analyzed twice per week to ensure contaminant removal
and to evaluate carbon filter  loading.


    The gas stream exiting  the venturi scrubber receives final
treatment in two vapor-phase granular activated  carbon (GAC)
beds. The beds are contained  within two 35-foot by 8-foot trailers
connected in parallel.  Gas  is directed to the bottom of each
trailer to an open plenum covered by a wire mesh  supporting the
GAC.  An induced draft fan draws gas through the  GAC arid
exhausts it through a 40-foot stack.


    GAC  samples are taken routinely to determine if carbon
loading is approaching breakthrough conditions, at which time
the GAC requires replacement. The spent carbon is transported
to an off-site carbon regeneration facility for treatment and reuse.
At the Arizona pesticide site,  the carbon beds were changed after
treatment of approximately 20,000 tons of soil.
comparatively short period of time. Residues are limited to spent
carbon material, which  is easily transported to regeneration
facilities.


1.3.3   LTTAź System Limitations


    Canonic reports that the LTTAź system can process a wide
variety of soils with differing moisture and contaminant
concentrations. However, the technology is best suited for soils
with a moisture content of less than 20 percent. Wastes with a
moisture content greater than 20 percent may require dewatering.
l^retreatment screening or crushing of oversized material (greater
than 2 inches in size) or clay shredding may also be required for
some applications. When the LTTAź system  is used to treat
soils with high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, the
air pollution control system may include a thermal oxidizer or
afterburner to destroy organic compounds and  a quench tower
to cool the air stream. Treatment must be evaluated for each site
based on contaminant concentrations and cleanup objectives.


1.4     Key Contacts


    Additional information on the LTTAź technology and the
SITE program can be obtained from the following sources:

    The LTTAź Process

    Mr. Chetan Trivedi
    Canonie Environmental Services Corporation
    800 Canonie Drive
    Porter, Indiana 46304
    (219)926-8651

    The SITE Program

    Mr. Paul R. dePercin
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Research and Development
    Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
    26 West Martin Luther King Drive
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
    (513)569-7797
1.3.2   Innovative Features of the LTTAź System
    The unique features of the LTTAź system include its large
material  throughput capacity  and minimal residuals  The
reported case studies show processing capacities of up to 50 tons
per hour, allowing large volumes of waste soils to be treated in a

-------
                                                   Section 2
                                   Technology Application  Analysis
    This section addresses the applicability of the LTTAź system
to soils contaminated with pesticides,  VOCs, SVOCs, and
petroleum hydrocarbons based on the SITE demonstration results
and five case studies involving past performance of the LTTA*'
system. Appendix A presents Canonic's claims regarding the
system's applicability and performance.

    The applicability  of the LTTAź system was evaluated
according to technical criteria used for selecting remedial actions
at Superfund sites: (1) treatment effectiveness for toxicity
reduction, (2) compliance with regulatory requirements, (3)
implementability, (4)  short-term impact, and (5) long-term
effectiveness. It should be noted that these criteria can also be
applied to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
underground storage tank, or other corrective action decisions
This section also describes factors influencing the technology's
performance in meeting these criteria.


2.1     Basis for Applications A nalysis


    The evaluation of the LTTAź system's applicability is based
on the results of the SITE demonstration (Appendix B) and
reported results from five case studies (Appendix C). Treatment;
conditions for the SITE demonstration and the case studies are
summarized in Table 1. Only the treatment data from the  SITE
demonstration has been subjected to EPA's QA/QC process and
is of known quality.  Data from the case studies are based on
information provided by Canonie for the SITE evaluation as well
as on site closure reports submitted by Canonie to the EPA for
Superfund cleanups.

    Although data have been generated on the LTTAź system's
effectiveness in treating various contaminated soil types under
differing operating  conditions, results of applications of the
LTTAź  system  may vary with different soil matrices and
contaminant characteristics.  Contaminants may also behave
differently  in association with other compounds and  with
differing soil types. Therefore, the technology's performance is
best predicted with preliminary bench-scale testing to determine
whether the technology can meet treatment objectives
Treatability studies are recommended before mobili/ing the full-
scale system.
2.2     Treatement Effectiveness for Toxicity
        Reduction

    The LTTAź system's effectiveness for toxicity reduction was
evaluated based on (1) pesticide removal, (2) VOC removal, (3)
SVOC removal, (4) formation of thermal transformation
byproducts, and (5) stack emissions.

2.2.1   Pesticide Removal

    During the SITE demonstration, the LTTAź system removed
pesticides with an efficiency ranging from 81.9 to greater than
99.9 percent. The LTTAź removed toxaphene with efficiencies
ranging from greater than 99.4 percent to greater than 99.9
percent. DDT was removed with an efficiency of 99.8 percent
to greater than 99.9 percent. DDD was removed with efficiencies
ranging from greater than 98.8 percent to greater than 99.9
percent. DDE was removed with efficiencies ranging from 81.9
percent to 97.8 percent. This lower efficiency may be the result
of DDE formation as a product of thermal transformation of
DDT and DDD.

    The LTTAź system also removed dieldrin with efficiencies
ranging from 98.6 percent to greater than 99.8 percent.
Endosulfan I was  removed at an efficiency ranging from greater
than 99.8 to greater than 99.9 percent.  Endrin was removed at
efficiencies ranging  from  greater than 99.6 percent to greater
than 99.9 percent.  Endrin aldehyde was removed with
efficiencies ranging  from  greater than 92.4 percent to greater
than 99.9 percent.

2.2.2   VOC Removal

    At the case study sites,  the LTTAź system removed most
VOCs present in untreated soils to below method detection limits.
Specific compounds treated included  benzene, 1,2-
dichlorobenzene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, ethylbenzene,
toluene, trichloroethene,  1,1,1-trichloroethane, xylenes,
tetrachloroethane, and tetrachloroethene.  During the SITE
demonstration, no VOCs were present in the contaminated soil
and thus removal  efficiency could not be evaluated.
                                                        10

-------
Table 1. Treatment Conditions for the SITE Demonstration and Case Studies
 Study
  Scale
Site
Client
Treatment  Conditions
                                           Soil Type      Soil Treated     Contaminants
 SITE
 Demonstration
 Case Study 1
 Case Study 2
 Case Study 3
Full-Scale   Arizona,  confidential location
            McKin Superfund  Site; Gray,
Full-Scale   Maine
            Canons Bridgewater
            Superfund  Site;  Bridgewater,
Full-Scale   Massachusetts
            Ottati and Goss Superfund
            Site; Kingston,  New
Full-Scale   Hampshire
                    Confidential
                   McKin  Steering
                     Committee

                      Cannons
                     Bridgewater
                  Superfund Settling
                       Parties
                   Ottati and Goss
                    Settling  Party
                     Committee
  Case Study 4     Full-Scale   South Kearny, New Jersey      TP Industrial,  Inc.
                              Former Spencer Kellogg
  Case Study 5    Full-Scale   Facility; Newark, New Jersey
                                            Textron,  Inc.
Temperature:  720-750 'F
Residence Time: 9-12 min
Processing  Rate: 34 tons/hr
Soil Moisture: 4.5-5.6%

Temperature:  300-350 °F
Residence Time: 4-8  min
Processing  Rate: 35-45 tons/hr
Soil Moisture: 15%

Temperature:  450-500 'F
Residence Time: 4-8  min
Processing  Rate: 42-48 tons/hr
Soil Moisture: 16-28%

Temperature:  350-400 'F
Residence Time: 4-8  min
Processing  Rate: 35-45 tons/hr
Soil Moisture: 5-10%

Temperature:  550 °F
Residence Time: 6-9  min
Processing  Rate: 50  tons/hr
Soil Moisture: 5-10%

Temperature:  700-750 °F
Residence Time: 9-12 min
Processing  Rate: 15  tons/hr
Soil Moisture: 12-20%
                                                                                                                     Clayey loam
                                                                                                                     Silt and
                                                                                                                     coarse sand
Wetland
sediments
and soils-
unclassified

Sediments
and soils -
unclassified
                                                                                                                     Silty clays
                                                                                                                     sandy fill
                                                                                                                     Silty sand
                                                                      51,000 tons      Pesticides
                                                                      11,500 cubic
                                                                      yards           VOCs and oil
                                                                        ,330 tons
                                                                      4 ?00 cubic
                                                                      yards
                                                                VOCs
                                                                VOCs
                                                                                                                    16,000 tons      VOCs and SVOCs
                                                                                             6,500 tons       VOCs and SVOCs
  "F       Degrees fahrenheit
  min      Minute
  tons/hr   Tons per hour
  %       Percent
  VOCs    Volatile  organic compounds
  SVOCs   Semivolatile organic compounds

-------
    Results from the first case study (conducted at the McKin
Superfund site in Gray, Maine) showed effective removal of
benzene,  1,2-dichlorobenzene,  trans- 1,2-dichloroethene,
ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethene, toluene, 1,1,1 -trichloroethane,
trichloroethene, and xylenes.  The concentration of VOCs in
untreated soil ranged from 2,700 |ig/kg for benzene to 3,3 10,000
|ng/kg for trichloroethene. The concentration of trichloroethene
in treated soil was 40 u.g/kg, resulting in a removal  efficiency
greater than 99.9 percent. Reported concentrations for all other
VOCs in treated soil were below method detection limits.

    Results from the  second LTTAź case study (conducted at
the  Cannons Bndgewater Superfund site in Bndgewater,
Massachusetts) showed that benzene was effectively removed
from contaminated soil.  Removal efficiencies greater than 99
percent were reportedly achieved.  Other VOCs present were
not evaluated for removal efficiency. T he concentrations of VOCs
in untreated soil had  a maximum value of 5,300 pg/kg.  The
concentrations of VOCs in treated soil were below the method
detection limit of 25
    The third case study (conducted at the Ottati and (loss
Superfund site in Kingston, New Hampshire) involved treatment
of soils contaminated with 1,1,1 -trichloroethane, trichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. The total
concentration of VOCs in untreated soil ranged from 4,900 to
3,000,000 |ig/kg.  In the treated soils, all VOCs were reduced to
non-detectable levels except for toluene (with a residual level of
1  10 (Jg/kg) and xylenes (with a residual level of  140 (Jg/kg).
Removal efficiencies exceeding 99 percent were achieved for
all VOC compounds.

    The fourth case study (conducted at the South  Kearny site
in South Kearny, New Jersey) involved  treatment of soils
contaminated with 1 ,2-dichloroethene, 1,1,1 -trichloroethane,,
trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, 1,2-dichloroben/ene, toluene,
ethylben/ene, and xylenes.  The concentration of VOCs  in
untreated soil ranged from 550 to  190,000 |ig/kg, while the
concentration of VOCs in treated soil ranged from 380 ng/kg to
nondetectable levels.  The concentration of total VOCs before
treatment was measured at 308,200 fig/kg and after treatment at
510 ug/kg; this indicated a removal efficiency exceeding 99
percent for all VOCs.

    The fifth case study (conducted at the former Spencer
Kellogg facility in Newark, New Jersey) reported concentrations
of ethylbenzene, toluene,  and xylenes in untreated soils  at
1,400,000 ng/kg, 3,000,000 ng/kg, and 3,700,000 pg/kg.
respectively. Concentrations of ethylbenzene and toluene were
reduced to nondetectable levels (at detection limit of 50 |ag/kg)
Concentrations of xylenes were reduced to 250 (ig/kg, and total
VOCs were reduced from 5,420,000 (Jg/kg to 450 pg/kg.
Removal efficiency exceeded 99 percent for these contaminants.
2.2.3   SVOC Removal

    In general, the LTTAź system reduces the concentration of
SVOCs.  However, information from the SITE demonstration
and case studies is limited by the low concentration of SVOCs
in untreated soils.  The available information does show
significant reductions of SVOCs in treated soils, although SVOC"
removal does not appear to be as effective as VOC removal.

    Since SVOCs were not detected in the untreated soil samples
at the Arizona pesticide site, their removal efficiency could not
be evaluated for the SITE demonstration.

    For case studies 2,4, and 5, SVOC removal ranged from 51
percent  to 94 percent for  the reported chemicals. SVOCs for
which data are available  included acenaphthene, anthracene,
ben/o(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene,  benzo(k)fluoranthene,   bis(2-
ethylhexyDphthalate, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene,  naphthalene,
phenanthrene, butylbenzylphthalate, isophorone, andpyrene. At
the South Kearny,  New  Jersey site,  pyrene was present in
untreated soils at a  concentration of 15,000 ng/kg; chemical
removal efficiency  for pyrene in this case was 93 percent.
However, a slightly greater efficiency of 94 percent was reported
for pyrene at the former Spencer Kellogg facility (Case Study
5). where its initial concentration was 4,700 (ig/kg.

2.2.4   Formation of Thermal  Transformation
        By products

    Chemical characteristics of contaminants in the waste feed
determine the types of byproducts formed during treatment. Of
special concern are the dioxins and furans that may form during
the heating process in thermal treatment systems. The conditions
necessary for formation include (1) the  presence of chemical
precursors, (2) alkaline pH, (3)  high concentrations of free
chloride, (4) temperatures greater than 500°F, and (5) long
residence times.  Analytical results from the LTTAź system SITE
demonstration showed  that  the following  potential chemical
precursors for the formation of dioxins were present in untreated
and treated soil samples  and in the scrubber liquor: phenol,
benzoic  acid, benzene, furancarboxaldehyde, 2-methylphenol,
4-methylphenol, phenanthrene, and benzaldehyde. However, it
does not appear than dioxins or furans were formed  in the LTTA*
system.  While very low  levels of several  dioxins and furans
were detected in the feed soil, no dioxins or furans were detected
in the treated soil or LTTAź process streams. Trace amounts of
several dioxins and furans  were detected in the stack emissions,
but at extremely low levels.

    Several VOCs and SVOCs were found in the ITTAź system
process streams that were not present in the feed  soils. These
compounds were predominantly found in the scrubber liquor
and GAC, with some compounds being found in the treated soil
                                                        12

-------
and stack emissions. The most notable compounds were acetone,
acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, chloromethane, ben/ene, toluene,
xylene, benzoic acid, chlorobenzene, and phenol  The acid and
alcohol group compounds may have been formed due to pesticide
oxidation.  Simpler byproducts, such  as  acetone and
chloromethane,  may  have been formed by  toxaphene
degradation.

    Chlorine and organic halides appear to concentrate in the
scrubber blowdown, where organic halide masses are several
times greater than other process effluent streams. Additionally,
the treated soil contained significant levels of chloride. The
detected chloride is most likely due to the dechlorination of the
pesticides present in the  feed soil.
    For Case Study 2 (Cannons Bridgewater), three stack
 sampling runs were performed to quantify and characterize the
 atmospheric emissions of VOCs from the LTTAź system.  A
 computer dispersion model was used to determine worst-case
 ground level concentrations. The maximum in-stack detection
 was of toluene at 2,508 micrograms per cubic meter in the third
 run. The average total emission rate for quantified VOCs in the
 three test runs was 0.20 pounds per hour (Ib/hr).  For all three
 runs, the quantified individual VOC worst-case ground level
 concentrations from the stack emissions were below the allowable
 ambient limits, except for benzene in the third  run.

2.3     Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
        Appropriate Rquirements
2.2.5   Stack Emissions

    Generally, stack gas emissions from the LTTAź system
contain very  low concentrations of thermal transformation
products of the primary waste constituents.  Most of these
byproducts are removed in the scrubber liquor, the liquid-phase
GAC column, or the vapor-phase GAC beds. Experience from
pilot studies or other  studies performed prior to  full-scale
operation can be used to identify contaminants which may not
be fully removed by the system filters. This information can be
used to establish system operating parameters for minimizing
contaminant emissions and to establish monitoring guidelines
for determining when the GAC needs replacing.

    During the SITE  demonstration, monitoring for dusts,
pesticides, and VOCs was performed during the pilot phase and
the first week of operations. Personnel and perimeter monitors
were used to determine whether airborne material levels exceeded
established permissible exposure limits  and air permit
requirements.  Weekly air monitoring was performed during full-
scale operations to confirm that emissions remained in
compliance. Regular maintenance checks of the LTTAź process
were performed to minimize fugitive dust  emissions  from
treatment operations.

    During the SITE demonstration, chlorides were detected in
the stack gas at an average concentration of 273 micrograms per
dry standard cubic meter (jig/dscm).  In addition, ten volatile
contaminants  were reported at quantifiable levels; the highest
was benzene at 2,320 |ig/dscm. Paniculate emissions averaged
0.041 grams per dscm. Additionally, very low concentrations of
dioxins and furans were detected in the stack gas; the highest
detected concentration was 0.0479 nanograms per dscm.

    For Case Study 1 (McKin), Canonie conducted polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbon analysis of the carbon bed exhaust stream.
None of the target  analytical compounds were present above
method detection limits.
    This section discusses specific environmental regulations
 that may be pertinent to the operation of the LTTAź system,
 including the transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes
 and treatment residuals.

      Applicable or relevant and appropriate  requirements
 (ARARs) may include (1) the Comprehensive Environmental
 Response,  Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) at
 National Priorities List sites; (2) RCRA; (3) the Clean Air Act
 (CAA);  (4) applicable  Occupational  Safety and Health
 Administration (OSHA)  regulations;  and (5) state-specific
 guidelines. Site-specific soil cleanup requirements were
 established by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
 (ADEQ) for the Arizona pesticide site. The four general ARARs
 and the ADEQ guidelines are discussed below.  Specific ARARs
 should be identified for each site where the LTTA* technology
 may be used.


 2.3.1   CERCLA

    CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
 Reauthorization Act (SARA), provides for federal authority to
 respond to releases of hazardous substances, pollutants,  or
 contaminants to air, water, and land at National Priorities List
 sites. Section 121 of SARA provides cleanup standards and
 requires that selected remedies be cost effective and protective
 of human health and  the  environment.   The  federal cleanup
 standards of SARA encourage highly reliable remedial actions
 that provide long-term protection. Such  actions permanently
 and significantly reduce the  volume, toxicity, or mobility  of
 hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The LTTA*
 system permanently reduces the toxicity of the feed wastes; thus
 only a small volume of residuals may require additional treatment
 or long-term management.

    Federal cleanup standards also require that remedies selected
 at CERCLA sites comply with federal and state ARARs. ARARs
 lor a remedial action may be waived under the following six
                                                        13

-------
conditions: (1) the action is an interim measure and the ARAR
will be met at completion; (2) compliance with the ARAR would
pose  a  greater risk to health and the environment than
noncompliance; (3) it is technically impractical to meet the
ARAR;  (4) the performance standard of an ARAR can he met
by an equivalent method;  (5) a state ARAR has not been
consistently applied elsewhere; and (6) ARAR compliance would
not provide a balance between the protection achieved at  a
particular site and demands on the Superfund for other sites.
These waiver options apply only to Superfund actions taken on
site, and justification for the waiver must be clearly demonstrated
(F-PA 1988).

2.3.2   RCRA

    RCRA regulations define hazardous wastes and regulate
their transport, treatment, storage, and disposal. Wastes defined
as hazardous under RCRA  include characteristic and  listed
wastes.  Criteria for identifying characteristic hazardous wastes
arc included in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFH) Part 261
Subpart C. I.isted wastes from nonspecific and specific industrial
sources, off-specification products,  spill cleanups, and  other
industrial sources are itemized in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart I).

    Residual wastes generated by the LTTAź system include
GAC and solid waste that may be hazardous under RCRA:
requirements may be waived for temporary treatment units
operating at corrective action sites. Thus, RCRA requirements
are similar to those under CERCLA, and as proposed, allow
treatment units such as the LTTAź system to operate as temporary
treatment units without full permits.  RCRA permits were not
required at any of the six sites where LTTAź was utilized.


2.3.3   CAA

    The Clean Air Act requires  that treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities comply with primary and secondary ambient
air quality standards.  Gas and particulate emissions from the
LTTAź  system are monitored with portable photoionization
detectors, gas collection  samplers, and particulate monitors
during routine system operation.  If a thermal oxidizer is used
with the LTTAź system, then a continuous emissions monitoring
system is used to monitor the LTTAź system emissions. Site-
specific emission monitoring procedures, based upon soil
contaminants and air samples collected during pilot runs, should
be established for each site. Toxic materials were not detected
in the  analysis of samples  collected during the  SITL
demonstration. A state air pollution permit is required, except
at CERCLA sites where only  the substantive requirements of a
permit must be addressed. Permit limits may be established for
total suspended particulates, acid gases, toxic organic
compounds, and stack height.
    •   GAC - Activated carbon beds and liquid carbon filters
        are transported to a carbon regeneration facility which
        removes the adsorbed organic contaminants and makes
        the activated carbon available for reuse.

        Personal protective equipment - Disposable protective
        equipment is generally incinerated or landfilled.

    Lor both CERCLA actions and RCRA corrective actions,
treatment residuals generated by the LTTAź system are subject
to land disposal restrictions if the residuals are hazardous.  If
untreated soils contain dioxin or furan thermal precursors, dioxins
or furans may be  present in  low concentrations in treatment
residuals from the  LTTAź system and other thermal desorption
systems. Under 40 CFR Section 268.31, F020-F023 and F026-
F028, dioxin- and  furan-containing wastes are prohibited from
land disposal unless the treatment standard of 1 part per billion
for each dioxin and furan isomer is met.

    Requirements for corrective action at RCRA-regulated
facilities  are provided  in  40  CFR Part 264,  Subpart F
(promulgated) and Subpart S  (proposed). These subparts also
generally apply  to remediation at Superfund sites.  Subparts F
and S include requirements for initiating and conducting RCRA
corrective actions, remediating groundwater, and ensuring that
corrective actions comply with other environmental regulations.
Subpart S also details conditions under which particular RCRA
    For the SITE demonstration, an air pollution operating
permit was issued by the State of Arizona.  Air emission limits
specified by this permit were as follows:
     Compound
Emission Limit (Ib/hr)
     Carbon monoxide           10
     Oxides of nitrogen          2.6
     Oxides of sulfur            1.6
     Total suspended particulates  7.6
     Toxaphene                 0.22
     Total DDT compounds       0.04
     Total methyl parathion       0.02
     Total ethyl parathion         0.01


    None of the values specified above were exceeded during
the demonstration.


2.3.4   OSHA


    CERCLA response actions and RCRA corrective actions
must be performed in accordance with OSHA requirements
detailed in 29 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926 (especially Part
1910.120), which provide for the health and safety of workers
at hazardous wastes  sites.  On-site construction activities at
Superfund or RCRA corrective action sites must be performed
                                                        14

-------
in accordance with Part 1926 of OSHA, which provides safety
and health regulations for construction sites.

2.3.5   State Cleanup Requirements
    Site characteristics that must be considered before
mobilizing the LTTAź system include site area, site preparation
requirements, and site access.
    The Arizona pesticide site was remediated under supervision
of the state by voluntary action of the potentially responsible
party. Two significant ARARs were considered: air pollution
regulations specified by the county air permit (See Section 2.3.3)
and state groundwater protection and health risk standards.

    All treated soils at the Arizona pesticide site were required
to contain less than 5 mg/kg total pesticides after one pass through
the LTTAź system, as stated in the remedial action plan. ADEQ
established site-specific soil cleanup criteria for toxaphene and
DDT based upon a sliding scale which incorporates acceptable
daily intake values and results of the site-specific risk assessment
(SCS Engineers 1992).  The sliding scale values are shown in
Appendix  B. Treated soils met the specified cleanup criteria if
90 percent of the treated soil sample results accumulated each
day fell within the cleanup criteria envelope shown.

    Under Case Study 1 (McKin), the LTTAź system met all
specified performance standards established by the EPA and the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection for soils
contaminated with VOCs and petroleum products.  Feed soils
contained VOCs at up to 3,310 mg/kg and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon concentrations of up to 1.2 mg/kg.  Treated soils
contained  less than 0.1 mg/kg of trichloroethene; other VOCs
(including 1,2-dichlorobenzene,  trans- 1,2-dichlorocthene,
tetrachloroethene, and xylenes) were completely removed.
Petroleum compounds, primarily  polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, were removed to less than 0.33 mg/kg, except for
phenanthrene which was reduced to concentrations averaging
0.51 mg/kg.

    For Case Study 2 (Cannons Bridgewater) remedial design
excavation levels were established by the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection for several VOC and SVOC
compounds found in soils at concentrations up to 2,000 ing/kg.
These levels were set at 0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg for VOCs and 3.0 mg/
kg for SVOCs. Confirmation sampling shov/ed that these levels
were met for all soils treated with the LTTAź process.


2.4    Implementability

    The criteria of implementability includes the following
factors: mobilization, operation and maintenance requirements,
reliability, personnel  requirements,  and demobilization.  The
implementability of the LTTAź system is discussed below.

2.4.1   Mobilization
Site Area


    The full-scale LTTAź unit used in the SITE demonstration
was a transportable system consisting of 14 flat-bed trailers. In
addition, a tool storage trailer was located near the system. Three
ancillary trailers, located outside the operation exclusion area,
were  used to house laboratory,  decontamination, and on-site
office support areas. The entire system required a relatively flat
area of about 10,000 square feet.


Site Preparation Requirements

    Site preparation is typically needed prior to operating the
LTTAź system. For the Arizona pesticide  site, the following
site preparation was needed:

    •   All trees and brush were removed from the area where
        the LTTAź system and support facilities would be
        placed.

        An excavation 6 feet below grade was performed. The
        ground surface  was graded Hat over an approximate
        10,000-square-foot area. The installed LTTAź system
        was located 5 feet below grade.  This preparation was
        specific to the Arizona project and generally is not
        required for the LTTAź system.

    •   A 20-foot high berm was constructed around three sides
        of the LTTAź system operations area to provide both a
        visual and audio barrier between site operations and an
        adjacent recreational facility. This preparation step was
        specific to the Arizona project only.

    •   A  10-foot high chain-link fence with insert slats was
        placed along the top perimeter of the berm to restrict
        unauthorized access and to provide an additional visual
        barrier. This preparation step, specific to the Arizona
        project, was at the client's request. It is generally not
        included in LTTAź remediation projects.

    •   Earthen ramps were constructed on the east and west
        sides of the site, to provide access  for excavation and
        transportation equipment.

    •   Utilities (electric, telephone, water) for support trailers
        were connected outside the exclusion zone.  Water
        supply for system operation and support services was
        obtained from a nearby irrigation system.
                                                         15

-------
    •   Health  and  safety zones were established to
        accommodate both on-site operating and off-site
        support personnel.


Site Access


    Site access requirements for the LTTAź system are minimal.
The site must be accessible to trailer trucks delivering the ITTAź
equipment, and the bed of the access road must be able to support
these vehicles. Since the LTTA* unit trailers are oversized, some
highway restrictions may apply. Permits from state and local
authorities may be required.


2.4.2   Operating and Maintenance Requirements

    Operating and maintenance requirements for the LTTAź
system include utilities for support trailers, as well as services
and supplies.  The I TTAź system is equipped with a generator
which powers the system.  These requirements are  discussed
below.


Utilities


    Operating the LTTAź system requires the following utilities:

    •   Hlectrical power -- The LTTAź system requires 460-
        volt, three-phase, 200-ampere  electrical service.
        Transformers in the I TTAź system reduce the electrical
        service to 240-volt, three-phase and 120-volt, single-
        phase service to operate the LTTAź system and control
        circuits, respectively.  The LTTA00 system includes a
        transportable diesel  generator, allowing operation in
        areas that are remote from established utility service
        lines.

        Process water — Process water is primarily needed for
        quenching treated material, for the venturi scrubber, and
        for decontamination purposes.  The LTTAB system
        requires 20 to 100 gpm of process  water during
        operation. Treated scrubber water us reused for wetting
        treated soil.  The recovered scrubber water must be
        augmented with a steady outside supply. lor the SITE
        demonstration, a pump was utilized to obtain water from
        a nearby irrigation system.

Services and Supplies


    A number of readily obtainable  services and supplies are
required to operate the LTTAź system.   Major services may
include (1) heavy equipment rigging, (2) replacement services
for spent GAG, (3) sanitary and decontamination wastewater
disposal, and (4) laboratory analyses to monitor the system"s
performance. The laboratory analyses can be preformed on site
using Canonie's laboratory.   During all the LTTAź projects
studied for this report, the mobile laboratory was approved by
the appropriate regulatory agencies for on-site analyses.
    During the SITE demonstration, treated soil samples were
collected hourly, composited into two 4-hour samples, and
analyzed at Canonie's on-site laboratory to determine acceptable
system performance before soils were  backfilled in the
excavations. Post-excavation samples were also analyzed at the
on-site laboratory.

    During the SITE demonstration and  the  subsequent
remediation, subcontractors or off-site facilities furnished the
remaining required services.  Rigging of the LTTAź system
during mobilization was facilitated by LTTAź personnel and
local labor sources.

    Ganonie utilized Westates Carbon Company to provide
activated carbon and to accept spent carbon. Each of the vapor-
phase activated carbon beds hold approximately 50,000 pounds
(Ibs) of carbon. Approximately 20,000  tons of soil  were treated
before the liquid and vapor-phase GAG required replacement.

    All wastewater is directed through the liquid-phase GAG
column before being reused in the pug mill. There is no discharge
from the LTTAź system.

    Supplies required for the remedial activities  included (1)
sodium hydroxide to maintain the scrubber water at an alkaline
pH, (2) absorbing cloth and oil-dry material, (3) lubricating fluids
and oils, (4) diesel fuel, (5) propane, (6) plastic sheeting, (7)
fiber drums, (8) GAG for the vapor-phase beds and the liquid
phase column, and (9) disposable personal protection equipment.

    Absorbing cloth and oil-dry material were kept on site  to
contain accidental fluid spills.

    About 860 gallons of diesel fuel per day is required to operate
heavy  equipment and the diesel generator.  Diesel fuel was
supplied daily by a local retailer and stored on site in two
aboveground  1,000-gallon storage tanks.  During 5 days  of
operations involving SITE demonstration activities, 2,568 gallons
of diesel were  required for the generator and 1,752 gallons  of
diesel were required for equipment operation.

    Propane gas is required for the burner that heats the soils
within the materials dryer. Approximately 7.5 gallons of propane
per ton of treated soil were consumed during the demonstration.
Propane was supplied  through a local vendor.   The  LTTAź
system's on-site bulk tank capacity is 5,700 gallons.

    The two vapor-phase activated carbon beds (50,000 pounds
each) receive minor organic contaminant loading since much  of
the airborne contaminants are removed in the venturi scrubber.
                                                         16

-------
The GAC replacement frequency depends on site-specific
contaminant concentrations.  Samples of the carbon bed are
collected and analyzed routinely to evaluate carbon loading and
preempt breakthrough. As stated elsewhere, the carbon beds
used during the SITE demonstration were changed after treating
approximately 20,000 tons of soil.

    One  liquid-phase GAC column was used to treat scrubber
liquor exiting the venturi scrubber. For the SITE demonstration,
the liquid-phase GAC was replaced at the same time as the vapor-
phase GAC, after treating approximately 20,000 tons of soil.

    In general, each on-site worker will require two full sets of
disposable personal protective equipment per work day. Site-
specific requirements will  vary. One to two 55-gallon drums
were needed each shift to store used  persona!  protective
equipment.

2.4.3   Reliability

    No operational difficulties were encountered during the
SITE demonstration.  This section summarizes operational
problems reported by Canonic during remedial activities at the
Arizona pesticide site.

    Operational  problems generally  result  from mechanical
difficulties with equipment in the LTTAź system. Canonic reports
that operations are routinely stopped once or twice a week for
up to 2 hours to repair minor mechanical breakdowns.  During
remedial  activities at the Arizona pesticide site, a main bearing
on the materials dryer broke down, requiring a 3-day shutdown
for replacement.

    Startup operations at the Arizona site lasted about 3 weeks.
Many modifications have been made  to the  LTTAź system to
reduce startup  time and  improve  sustained operational
performance. For example, an automated screening device was
added to separate materials larger than 2 inches in diameter before
they enter the materials dryer.  The consistent performance of
this device and the relatively low potential for clogging by treated
soils, due to system design, eliminated many of the materials
handling problems common to soil treatment systems.

    For Case Study 3 (Ottati and Goss), the  cleanup goal was
1.0 mg/kg total VOCs.  Four separate locations were treated,
with feed concentrations of total VOCs greater than 2,000 mg/
kg in some locations.  Of 4,712 cubic yards of soil treated by the
LTTAź system, only 470 cubic yards failed confirmatory testing
and required reprocessing.

2.4.4  Personnel Requirements

    Operation of the LTTAź system generally requires six to
eight people per shift. However, personnel requirements depend
largely upon the type of services provided by Canonic for a
particular project, size of the site, and the specifications of the
client and regulatory agencies. During the SITE demonstration
14  staff members  were involved with LTTAź operations,
excavation operations, and on-site laboratory operations. Staff
for LTTAź operations include a control room supervisor, a field
operations supervisor, a site health and safety officer, and one to
five equipment operators.

    The control room operator monitors all LTTA* operations:
feed rate,  burner  temperature,  drum vacuum, baghouse
temperature, treated soil scale loadings, and ventun scrubber
flow rate and pressure drop.  The control room operator is also
responsible for ensuring a steady flow of soil from the feed
hopper into the LTTAź system. Up to three equipment operators
service the input and output plant operations. A feed loader and
a tailings loader work with the control room operator to maintain
a constant flow of soil into and out of the system.

    The field operations supervisor monitors all the operations
from outside the control room, hi addition, up to two site workers
were required at the Arizona pesticide site to provide water
supplies, keep the operations area clean, and perform routine
maintenance.

    Soil excavation, soil replacement, and other on-site support
operations  are ongoing during processing.  At  the Arizona
pesticide site three heavy equipment operators handled soils with
a deep mixer, front-end loader, backhoe, and grader.

    Additional on-site staff were needed for support operations
at the Arizona pesticide site.  Up to four laboratory staff were
present during operations (two technicians and two chemists),
and one administrative assistant.  Laboratory operations may be
conducted in shifts, with one chemist and one technician on site
for each shift. Generally, a laboratory staff including one chemist
and one technician are required.  However,  the laboratory stall
requirements are mainly dependent upon the services provided
by Canonic and on the specifications of the client and regulatory
agencies.

2.4.5   Demobilization

    This section summarizes demobilization activities associated
with the LTTAź system based on the field operations plan for
the Arizona pesticide site.

    Decontamination and demobilization activities begin once
remedial activities have been completed. Decontamination of
the LTTA*  system includes brushing and pressure-washing all
leased equipment prior to its return. The exterior of all LTTA*
plant equipment will likewise be brushed and pressure-washed.
The interiors of the trailer's are pressure-washed or scrubbed
and mopped, as appropriate.
                                                          7

-------
    A composite sample of the baghouse bags is analyzed to
determine if the bags are suitable for reuse. If the bag material
contains concentrations of contaminants above specified cleanup
levels, the bags are disposed of at a suitable facility.

    The materials dryer is aerated for a short time after all soil
processing is complete, to expel  residual levels of organic
compounds. After cooling, the materials dryer is moved to the
decontamination pads for exterior cleaning. The outside of the
dryer is pressure-washed. Wash water from title decontamination
cleaning is either (1) processed on site through the liquid-phase
carbon column until contaminant concentrations in  the water
are below drinking water maximum contaminant levels or (2)
drummed for off-site disposal.

    A decontamination inspection  is  conducted and
documentation completed by the site safety officer on all system
components before the LTTAź system exits the decontamination
zone.

2.5     Short- Term Impact

    Potential short-term concerns of the LTTAź technology
include operational hazards and potential community exposures.

2.5.1   Operational Hazards

    Operational hazards to the on-site personnel associated with
the LTTAź system  can be grouped in two categories: (1) general
site hazards and (2) potential chemical hazards.  General site
hazards include the following:
          Heavy equipment hazards
          Occupational noise exposure
          Potential slip, trip, or fell hazards
          Potential for contact with underground or overhead
          mechanical and electrical hazards
          Open trench and excavation hazards
          Airborne dust hazards
          Confined space entry hazards
          Fire and heat exposure
          High pressure control line injuries
    Potential chemical hazards involve inhaling, absorbing, and
ingesting constituents of concern in contaminated material.  The
potential for exposure  is  high during excavation and handling
of contaminated soils.  At the Arizona pesticide site, primary
constituents of concern included toxaphene, DDT, DDD, DDE,
methyl and ethyl parathion, and endosulfan I.

    All personnel working at the site had a minimum of 40 hours
of health and safety training, and were under routine medical
surveillance. Remedial activities were conducted using Level C
personal protective equipment.  Compliance with all 40 CFR
1910.120 health and safety requirements was maintained by
Canonic staff.

2.5.2   Potential Community Exposures

    Potential community health hazards from the operation of
the LTTAź system include exposure to (1) stack gas emissions,
(2) fugitive dust emissions, and (3) noise from the system and
from earth moving equipment.  Daily, real-time air monitoring
confirmed compliance with all fugitive emission guidelines for
dust and pesticides.  The berm and fence  were constructed
primarily to create a visual barrier for the neighboring golf course
visitors. However, they helped reduce the noise levels as well.
Noise level surveys surrounding the site  and nearby residences
confirmed that noise levels  from the operations were at
background levels.
- Term Effectiveness
2. 6
    Long-term effectiveness of the LTTAź system was assessed
based on the permanence of the  treatment and the handling of
process residuals. These items are discussed below.

2.6.1   Permanence of Treatment

    The LTTAź system desorbs and separates contaminants from
contaminated soils. However, the treatment residuals on which
the separated contaminants are collected are not destroyed on
site and require off-site treatment and disposal.

    Approximately 350 tons of treated soils were produced every
10 hours of LTTAź system operation at the  Arizona pesticide
site during the SITE demonstration. Treated material from each
processing period was transported separately to a clean staging
area to await analytical results.  If analytical results indicated
that the required level of treatment had not been achieved for
greater than 10 percent of the hourly grab samples, the material
from that processing period was reprocessed.

2.6.2   Residuals Handling

    The final stage of gas stream treatment  takes place in the
vapor-phase activated carbon beds.   The beds remove the
remaining VOCs from the gas stream before it exits the LTTAź
system stacks. Routine sampling of the carbon bed determines
carbon loading and the approach of breakthrough conditions. If
breakthrough is approaching, the carbon is transported off site
for regeneration and is replaced with virgin carbon. The long-
term cost effectiveness of the  LTTAź system is influenced by
the method used to treat or dispose of the residuals sorbed to the
GAC in the vapor-phase beds and the liquid-phase  column.
During the Arizona pesticide site remediation,  spent carbon from
                                                         18

-------
these components was sent to nearby carbon regeneration
facilities, which desorbed and incinerated the contaminants in a
tiered furnace operation.

    A portion of the venturi scrubber liquor containing
condensed VOCs and water-soluble air stream  components is
continuously blown down from the recirculating line and treated
by the liquid-phase GAC column. The treated water is transferred
to the pug mill for reuse in soil  quenching. Water analyses are
conducted twice each week to ensure that all contaminants are
removed in the  liquid-phase carbon  filter and breakthrough
conditions do not exist. The liquid-phase GAC is replaced on a
schedule determined by the concentration and identity of site-
specific contaminants.

    At the Arizona pesticide site, the liquid-phase carbon filter
and the  vapor-phase activated carbon beds were changed after
approximately every 20,000 tons of treated soil.  This generates
approximately 60,000 pounds of carbon each time the filter and
beds are changed.

2.7     Factors Influencing Performance

    This section discusses several factors that  may influence
the  LTTAź   system's  performance,  including waste
characteristics, operating parameters, and climate.

2.7.1   Waste Characteristics

    The most important waste characteristics affecting the
LTTAź system's  performance include  the size of the
contaminated materials, its moisture content, particle  size
distribution and  available surface area, pH, and contaminant
properties such as coefficient of adsorption and boiling point.
These characteristics are discussed below.

    The LTTAź system operates best when the waste  feed
material consists of small, uniformly sized particles, preferably
less than 2 inches in diameter. Mechanical failure and reduction
in desorption efficiency may result from large rocks or oversized
debris in the feed material. During the SITE demonstration,
oversized material in the untreated soil was removed with an
automated screen before the soils entered the LIT A*1 system.
The oversized material can be crushed through size reduction
devices, and  then processed through the LTTA*  system, if
required.


Moisture Content

    The LTTAź system is most efficient when treating wastes
with a moisture content less than 20 percent. Waste  v/ith a high
moisture content requires additional thermal energy to remove
the water while maintaining the treatment temperature, thereby
increasing operating costs. To enhance the efficiency of the
LTTAź system, wastes with an excessively high moisture content
must be dewatered. Soils at the Arizona pesticide site contained
approximately 8 percent moisture and did not require dewatering.


Particle Size Distribution and Available Surface Area

    The waste feed's particle  size distribution and available
surface area are important factors that affect the performance of
the LTTA* system.  Contaminants tend to concentrate on smaller
soil particles, because soils composed of small particles have a
larger surface area with more sites available for contaminant
sorption.

    During the SITE demonstration, 37 percent  of  the soil
particles were less than  74 microns (clays), about 43  percent
were between 74 and 425 microns (fine to medium sands), and
approximately 20 percent were greater than 425 microns.  The
clay content of the soils was fairly low, at less than 10 percent
by weight.


Alkalinity

    The alkalinity of the waste feed may also affect  the
performance of the LTTAź system. Waste feed alkalinity can
impact the net surface charge of the soil particles, which is, in
turn, related to contaminant sorption. In addition, soil alkalinity
determines the type and extent of chemical reactions that occur
during thermal treatment in the LTTAź system.  The soil at the
Arizona pesticide site was slightly alkaline and had a measured
pHof7.6.

    Eor many contaminants,  acid vapors  are produced as
products of thermal transformation in the LTTAź system. Under
these circumstances, sodium hydroxide is added to the scrubber
liquor to neutralize the acid vapors in the gas stream.


Contaminant Properties

    Physical and chemical properties  of the contaminants also
influencethe performance of the LTTAź system.  Two properties
ol primary concern are the coefficient of adsorption  and  the
boiling point.  The coefficient of adsorption measures the relative
affinity of a compound to adsorbing  surfaces.  Contaminants
with a high coefficient of adsorption will require more  thermal
energy to desorb than contaminants with a low coefficient of
adsorption. Contaminants  with a low boiling point will desorb
more readily than contaminants with a high boiling point. Both
the coefficient of adsorption and boiling point should be taken
into consideration when assessing the LTTAź system's ability
to remove a particular contaminant.
                                                         19

-------
2.7.2   Operating Parameters
                     Dryer and Heated Air Temperature
    Operating parameters affecting contaminant removal
efficiency are normally optimized during pilot testing or proof-
of-process testing.  Soil feed rate and soil temperature were
optimized during full scale proof-of-process testing at the Arizona
pesticide site, before the SITE demonstration.  Typical values
for these and other system  operating parameters are shown in
Fable 2.
Contaminated Soil Feed Rate
                         Heat generated by a propane burner provides the thermal
                     energy needed  to maintain the desired temperature in the
                     materials dryer.  The resulting air and soil temperature affects
                     the rate and degree of contaminant volatilization, desorption,
                     and formation of thermal degradation byproducts. At elevated
                     temperatures, contaminants may react to form dioxins and furans,
                     or other products  of incomplete combustion.  For the SITF
                     demonstration, the LTTAź materials dryer maintained a soil
                     temperature between 720  °F and 750 °F  to volatili/e organic
                     compounds from the contaminated soil.
    The feed material flow rate is the main variable in controlling
the residence time of soils in the LTTAź system. At a selected
propane flow rate,  the residence time determines the soil
treatment temperature. This temperature impacts the efficiency
of contaminant removal and the potential for chemical
transformations during heating.  The LTTAź system can process
contaminated material at a rate of up to 50  tons/hr. During the
SITH demonstration, soil was treated at a rate of 34 tons/lir, which
resulted in a residence time of 9 to 12 minutes. The rotational
speed of the dryer and the dryer angle were kept constant during
the demonstration.

   Table 2. Range of General Operating Parameters
                     2.7.3    Climatic Conditions

                         The SITE demonstration of  the LTTAź system was
                     conducted under dry, warm weather conditions with light winds.
                     Freezing or wet conditions may cause difficulties in the operation
                     and maintenance of the LTTAź system.   Strong winds may
                     increase fugitive dust from the excavation and soil transportation
                     process.
               Component
              Parameter
 Approximate Value
   Materials Dryer
   Cyclonic Separators
 Temperature
 Feed Material Flow Rate
 Rotational Speed
 Dryer Angle
 REsidence Time

 Inlet Velocity
    600 to 800 T
   20 to 50 tons/hr
      1 to 8 rpm
     1-7 degrees
     6 to 15 min

     4,800 ft/min
   Baghouse
 Air/Cloth Ratio
 Cleaning Frequency
                                                                                        Every 5 to 30 sec
   Venturi Scrubber
   Vapor-Phase
   Activated Carbon
   Beds


  ° F      Degrees Fahrenheit
  tons/hr   Tons per hour
  rpm     Revolutions per minute
  min     Minute
  ft/min    Feet per minute
 Gas Velocity
 Operational Gas Flow Rate
 Pressure Differential
 Water Flow Rate
 Water Slowdown Rate

 Empty Bed Velocity
 Empty Bed Contact Time
sec  Second
ft/sec Feet per second
cfm  Cubic feet per minute
gpm  Gallons per minute
   150 to 500 ft/sec
 20,000 to 30,000 cfm
6 to 25 inches of water
   100 to 220 gpm
     2 to 80 gpm

      55 ft/min
      0.07 min
                                                        20

-------
                                                     Section 3
                                              Economic Analysis
    This section presents an analysis of cost data associated with
operating the LTTAź system.  Costs have been placed in  12
categories applicable to typical clean up activities at Superfund
and RCRA sites. Site-specific factors affecting costs, the basis
of the economic analysis, and each of the  12 cost categories as
they apply to the LTTAź technology are discussed in this section.

    Data were compiled in 1992 during remedial operations at
the Arizona pesticide site. This cost analysis presents the costs
associated with treating 10,000 tons of soil contaminated with a
range of pesticides including toxaphene, DDT and its derivatives,
endosulfan, and methyl parathion at total concentrations up to
120 mg/kg.  This analysis then compares the costs of treating
soils at different soil processing rates.

    This economic analysis reveals that operating  costs are most
affected by soil moisture content, soil composition, and the nature
and concentration levels of contaminants in the soil. These factors
significantly impact the soil processing rate.  Soil processing
rates directly affect the variable costs of the LT1 A* system  by
determining the duration of system operation during any given
remediation activity.
and 30 percent below the actual costs.  The table presents a
breakdown of fixed and variable costs for processing  10,000
tons of soil at rates of 20, 35, and 50 tons/hr. Variable costs are
calculated according to a weekly rate and therefore depend on
the time required to process a given amount of contaminated
soil. Table 4 summarizes variable costs per ton of soil processed.
Fixed costs remain constant regardless of soil processing rates
and length of time that the LTTAź system is in operation.
3.2. 1
        Assumptions About the LTTAź Technology and
        Capital Costs
    This economic analysis assumes that Canonic will operate
the LTTAź system for on-site treatment of soils contaminated
with VOCs, SVOCs, or pesticides. The LTTAź system, consisting
of nine system and five support semitrailers, will be delivered to
the site  by a subcontracting transportation  company and
assembled by Canonie. In addition to the LTTAź system, it is
assumed that excavation and earth-moving equipment will be
required  at all remediation sites as detailed in Section 3.3.3.
Neither depreciation nor salvage value is applied to the costs
presented in this analysis.
3.1     Site-Specific Factors Affecting Costs
3.2.2   Assumptions About the Soil and Site Conditions
    Site-specific wastes and features affect the costs involved
with this soil treatment technology.  Waste-related factors
affecting costs include waste  volume, waste  type and
concentration, soil moisture content, treatment goals, and the
affinity of the contaminants for soil particles.  Site-specific
features that significantly affect  costs include  site area,
accessibility, geographical location, and soil composition. Soil
contaminated with compounds showing a high affinity for soil
particles may require reprocessing, particularly fine-grained soils
consisting of greater than 50 percent silts or clays. Reprocessing
significantly reduces the overall soil processing rate.

3.2     Basis of the Economic A nalysis

    Table 3 presents processing costs associated with each cost
category. These costs are estimated to be within 50 percent above
    This analysis assumes that the soil is contaminated with
VOCs, SVCXX or pesticides, is fairly homogenous, and contains
less than 50 percent silts or clays. It is further assumed that the
amount of oversized material in the soil will not significantly
impact excavation activities and that any oversized materials can
be disposed of at an ordinary Class HI industrial landfill following
testing.

    The amount and type of contaminants and the cleanup goals
will affect the soil processing rate.  Soil with a moisture content
greater than 20 percent will normally require dewatering.  This
cost analysis assumes dewatering will be accomplished by lower
production rate required to drive off the excess moisture in the
dryer drum. I )ewatering will reduce the effective contaminated
soil processing rate in proportion to the amount of moisture that
must be removed from the feed soils.
                                                         21

-------
Table 3. Cost to Process 10,000 Tons of Soil at Various Processing Rates
Cost Category

Site Preparation
Permitting/Regulatory
Equipment
Startup
Labor
Consumable Materials
Utilities
Effluent Monitoring
Residual Waste Shipping, Handling, and
Transportation
Analytical
Equipment Repair and Replacement
Site Demobilization
Total
Cost/Ton

20 tons/hr
$26,250
$22,000
$439,450
$264,810
$398,820
$387,260
0
$52,000
$28,900
$204,000
$122,400
$141,840
$2,087,730
$209
Processing Rate
35 tons/hr
$26,250
$22,000
$258,500
$264,810
$234,600
$227,800
0
$52,000
$17,000
$120,000
$72,000
$141,840
$1,436,800
$144

50 tons/hr
$26,250
$22,000
$180,950
$264,810
$335,140
$159,460
0
$52,000
$11,900
$84,000
$50,400
$141,840
$1,328,750
$133
                                                            22

-------
Table 4. Summary of Variable Costs Per Ton of Soil Processed at Various Processing Rates
Cost Category
Processing Rate
20 tons/hr 35 tons/hr 50 tons/hr
EQULPJVIENT
LIT Aź System Capital Equipment Cost
Earth Moving and Excavation Equipment
Miscellaneous Equipment
Total Equipment Cost Per Ton
LABOR
Excavation and Earth-Moving Equipment Operators
LIT Aź Staff
Analytical and Support Staff
Site Supervisor
Total Labor Cost Per Ton
CQN^JWABLEJMAIERIALS
Propane
Diesel Fuel
Carbon
Personal Protection Equipment
Disposal Drums
Total Consumable Materials Cost Per Ton
UTILITIES
RESIDUAL WASTE, SHIPPING, HANDLING, AND
TRANSPORTATION
ANALYTICAL
EQUIPMENT REPAIR
AND REPLACEMENT
TOTAL VARIABLE COST PER TON
OF SOIL TREATED

$33.33
$5.67
$4.08
$43.08

$9.85
$15.67
$8.38
$5.20
$39.10

$6.67
$2.42
$25.64
$2.33
$0.92
S37.98

$2.83
$20.00
$12.00
$154.99

$19.05
$3.24
$2.33
$24.62

$5.63
$8.95
$4.79
$2.97
$22.34

$3.81
$1.38
$14.65
$1.33
$0.52
$21.69

$1.62
$11.43
$6.86
$88.56

$13.33
$2.27
$1.63
$17.23

$3.94
$6.27
$3.35
$2.08
$16.34

$2.67
$0.97
$10.26
$093
$037
$15.20

$1.13
$8.00
$4.80
$62.70
                                                   23

-------
    Site preparation costs assume that electric and telephone
utilities and a sanitary sewer are available at or nearby the site
and that a ready source of water is available  on siie, such as
existing water lines, an irrigation canal, well,  or aquediKi. ll
further assumes that no costs [ire associated  with preparing,
fencing or otherwise improving the remediation site, except as
needed for assembly and operation of the LTTA* system

3.2.3   Assumptions about the LTTAź System
        Operation
    •    The  administrative  assistant will perform all
         administrative tasks associated with system operation;
         other staff, such as the health and safety officer, will
         participate on an as-needed basis.

    •    No major site improvements are required.

    •    Treated soil will be backfilled on site.


3.3      Cost Categories
    Accounting for down time  due to equipmen repair or
replacement, daily startup and shutdown, and other lactors, the
LTTA*' system is assumed to operate approximately 30 hours
per week. At this rate, 10,000 tons of soil can be processed in 10
weeks, not including site  preparation, mobili/ation, startup.
demobili/ai.ion, and site restoration. At a processing rate of 20
lons/hr, 1 7 weeks would be needed to process the same amouni
of soil.  At a processing rate of 50 tons/hr, 7 week1 would be
aeeded to process the material.  The 20-ton/hr and 50-ion/hr
processing rate costs are extrapolated from data based on a 35-
:on/hr processing rate, assuming  no significant changes in the
weekly operating costs of  the  LTTA* system  at diflerent
processing rates  It is also assumed that no soil dewaterinii will
he required

    When in full operation as implemented at  the Ari/ona
pesticide site, the LTTA* system may require a crew of up to 13
stall members. This includes a control room operator an overall
Held operations supervisor, three to five equipment operators,
one to two laboratory technicians, one to two laboratory chemists,
an administrative assistant, and a site supervisor who also serves
as the health and safety officer. All staff are assumed to work 40
hours per week.

    Because the full-scale LTTA* system is the only model
available, no equipment cost alternatives are presented here This
analysis presents fixed and variable costs for operating the full-
scale LTTAR system.

    Other assumptions used  for this analysis  include  the
following:

        The site is located approximately 2,000 miles from the
        Canonic main office in Porter, Indiana.

    •    Only an air permit is necessary for LTTAź system
        operations.

    •    CiAC is regenerated and reused off site.

    •    The only residual waste produced during remedial
        operations are disposal drums for personal protective
        equipment and a small amount of laboratory waste.
    Cost data associated with the LTTAB technology have been
assigned to the  12 categories discussed below.


 3.3.1   Site Preparation

    Site preparation costs are based upon the space and logistical
requirements of operating the LTTAź system.  A 10,000-squarc-
ibot site must be leveled to provide adequate area for the LTl'A*
system  and  its  support trailers.  Additional  leveling may be
required for soil staging. Fencing materials around the LTLV
unit are assumed in the cost estimate.  It is assumed that site
preparation  can be accomplished in 1 week.  The total (fixed)
cost for site  preparation is $26,250.

    This cost estimate assumes that no road  building or other
major improvements to the remediation or processing areas are
necessary. 1 Electric and telephone hook-ups, at a cost of $ 1,000
anil $250 respectively (Means 1992b), will  be necessary. A
source of water is assumed to be available and a sanitary sewer
loc ated on or very near the site.  Total utility hook-up costs are
SI.250.

    Equipment used during site  preparation includes the
excavation and earth-moving equipment and  miscellaneous
equipment used throughout the remediation process at a total
cost of $5,850,  in addition to a 25,000-lb grader at $2,300 per
week for one week (Means 1992a) for site leveling. In addition
to the site supervisor  and administrative assistant, up to four
medium equipment operators will be required, at a total cost of
812,440 (see Section  3.3.5).   Three hundred  feet of 8-foot,
slatted, wire mesh fence on 4-by-4 wooden posts are assumed in
the  cost estimate to provide a visual screening, at a cost of $4,410
(Means  1992b). Total equipment costs for site preparation are
$25,000.

3.3.2   Permitting and Regulatory

    Permitting  and regulatory costs for the LTTAź system are
based upon the costs of obtaining an air permit and are estimated
to be approximately $22,000 (Canonic 1992c). Permitting costs
will vary depending on the site-specific regulatory requirements.
                                                         24

-------
    No other regulated effluents are produced by the LTTAź
system. Treated soil is backfilled on site. Wastewater is produced
in small quantities during demobilization and decontamination;
however, this water is recycled through the venturi scrubber and
processed by a liquid-phase GAG column until it  exceeds
drinking water standards and can be discharged to a sanitary
sewer. All soil and water sampling and analysis costs ore included
in analytical costs.


3.3.3   Equipment


    Equipment costs to remediate soil using the I TTA* system
are based on (1) LTTAź system equipment capital cost, (2) earth-
moving and excavation equipment cost, and (3) miscellaneous
equipment  cost.  For the purpose of  this economic analysis,
operating costs are incorporated into the weekly rental rate of
equipment for excavation and miscellaneous equipment costs.
Equipment operating costs are based on standard hourly operating
cost assuming 30 hours of operation per week. Operating costs
of the LTTAź system are itemized in overall variable costs. 1 he
total cost of equipment is $25,850 per week.


    Rental of the LTTAź  system is billed to the  client  and
includes a total of 14 trailers. Nine trailers are used for the LTTA*
equipment itself, while the remaining  five trailers are used for
operations, an on-site laboratory, personnel equipment, health
and safety equipment, and miscellaneous related equipment. The
cost of the laboratory trailer is itemized separately under
analytical costs. LTTAź equipment costs are extrapolated from
figures provided by Ganonie and should be used only as a
benchmark, since the actual capital equipment billing rate will
vary from site to site. The capital equipment cost for the I TTA*
system is approximately $20,000 per week


    Earth-moving and excavation equipment costs assume that
a minimum amount of equipment  is needed to  excavate
contaminated soil, deliver it to the LTTAź processing area, load
the contaminated soil into the  processing unit, return the
processed soil to the excavation area, and backfill the clean soil.
Three pieces of heavy equipment are assumed to be necessary
to complete these tasks; a crawler-mounted diesel hydraulic
backhoe at $1,700 per week (Means, 1992a), and two  standard
40 to 45 horsepower, wheeled loaders with a minimum 5/8-cubic-
yard capacity, at $850 per week each (Means, 1992a). The total
cost of earth-moving and excavation equipment is S3,400 per
week.

    Miscellaneous equipment costs include (1) two  portable
toilets at $26 per week each; (2) a 40-cubic-yard dumpster at
S345 per week; (3) an 18-foot, 3,000-pound, 2-wheeJ-drive all-
terrain forklift for moving equipment and supplies at $564 per
week; (4) two, 3/4-ton, 2-wheel-drive pickup trucks at $235 per
week each; (5) a 2,000-gallon water truck for dust suppression
at $900 per week; and (6) a submersible electric pump capable
of delivering at least 85 gpm at $116 per week (Means, 1992u)
The total weekly rate for miscellaneous equipment is $2,447 per
week.
3.3.4   Startup


    Startup costs are fixed costs which includes mobili/ation,
assembly, and shakedown.  A fixed cost figure can be given
because startup should take the same amount of time at each site
once standard site preparation is complete. All costs associated
with startup are included in the fixed price, including variable
costs such as labor, equipment, and consumable materials (see
the applicable section for  specific rates and  costs).  Unusual
requirements at any given site will affect startup costs. The total
startup cost is approximately $264,810.

    Mobilization  costs include all costs associated with
transporting equipment to the site. It is assumed that mobilization
will take 1 week. The total cost of delivering the 14 trailers to
the site is $34,510 ($2,465 per trailer) (AAA Goast to Goasi:
Trucking  1993).  This assumes that the trailers will travel
approximately 2,000 miles to the site; the actual  cost depends
on the distance from the remediation site to the Ganonie office
in Porter, Indiana. It is assumed that all other equipment will be
delivered to the site by or picked  up from local suppliers at no
charge. The only on-site personnel required during mobilization
are the site supervisor and administrative assistant, each working
a standard 40-hour  week, for a cost  of $3,560.  The total
mobilization cost is approximately $38,070.


    Assembly of the LTTAź system is assumed to take 3 weeks.
All normal equipment costs apply for a cost of $77,550.  In
addition  to  the LTTAź  operator, site supervisor, and
administrative assistant, one equipment operator and six technical
support staff are assumed in the set up of the system, for a cost
of $62,180 (see Section 3.3.5). All staff are assumed to work
40-hour weeks. Due to the nature of the work, employees will
not be exposed to contaminated soil and, therefore, will not wear
personal protection equipment.  The total assembly cost is
approximately $139,730.


    During shakedown, the LTTAź system operates for 1 week
at a much lower soil processing rate.   During shakedown,
contaminated soil is  processed through  the LTTAź system to
perform proof-of-process testing.  All normal operating costs
for equipment, labor, consumable materials, utilities, analytical,
and equipment repair  apply.  The total  shakedown  cost is
approximately $85,010.
                                                         25

-------
3.3.5   Labor


    Labor costs fall into four categories:  (1) excavation and
earth-moving equipment operators, (2) LTTAź staff, (3)
analytical and support staff, and (4) the site supervisoi. All staff
are assumed to work 8-hour shifts, 5 days per v/eek for the course
of site remediation. Labor wage rates include overhead and fringe
benefits. All staff wage rates are based on standard level-of-
effort cost  accounting (James M. Montgomery  1992). No
overtime is included in  this economic analysis.  Per diem  is
assumed to be $500 per week for each staff member. The total
cost of labor during LTTAź system operation is approximately
$23,460 per week.


    Three equipment operators are assumed necessary to operate
the earth-moving and excavation equipment. It is assumed that
these operators can also operate the forklift and water truck, as
needed. The labor wage rate for a heavy equipment operator is
$36.75 per hour or $1,470 per week (Means 1992a). The total
cost rate for excavation and earth-moving equipment operators
is $5,910 per week. The LTTAź staff are responsible for the
actual operation and maintenance of the LTTAź system. The
LTTAź staff are as follows:  (1) control room operator at $ 1,820
per week, (2) field operations supervisor at $2,620 per week,
and two laborers at $1,480 per week. The total cost of labor for
LTTAź staff is $9,400 per week.


    Analytical and support staff labor are needed while the
LTTAź system is in operation. A minimum of three employees
make up the analytical and support staff: (1) one laboratory
technician at $1,180 per week, (2) one laboratory chemist at
$1,410 per week, and (3) one administrative assistant at $940
per week. It is assumed that the administrative assistanl can
perform all administrative tasks of the soil remediation project
with other staff, such as the health and safety officer, participating
as needed during their normal shift.  The tolal labor costs for
analytical and support staff are $5,030 per week.
    When in operation, the LTTAź is powered by a generator
trailer.   Monitoring  of  fuel use  during the LTTAź SITE
demonstration indicates that the generator uses approximately
1.25 gallons of diesel fuel per ton of soil processed, or 1,310
gallons per week at 35 tons/hr. Diesel cost per gallon, delivered
on site, is assumed to be $ 1.10 per gallon (Supreme Oil Company
1992). The diesel fuel costs are approximately $ 1,440 per week.

    Based on  figures generated  during the LTTAź SITE
demonstration, approximately 7.5 gallons of propane  is
consumed per ton of soil treated, or about 7,980 gallons per week
at 35  tons/hr.  This cost analysis assumes a cost of $0.50 per
gallon for propane, for a  total propane cost of approximately
$4,000 per week.


    A major component of the consumable materials cost is GAC
regeneration. Based upon the data collected during processing
at a 35-ton/hr rate, it is assumed that the GAC used in the vapor-
phase and liquid-phase carbon adsorption units (approximately
50,000 Ibs)  must be regenerated every 3 months.  Type and
concentration of contaminants, soil processing rates, and soil
water content  will affect GAC regeneration.  The  cost of
regenerating the 50,000 Ibs of GAC is approximately $200,000.
Prorated on a per-week basis, the consumable materials cost for
GAC regeneration is $15,385 per week.


    Due  to  the potential for exposure to contaminants from
airborne particulates, all employees working outdoors at the site
will be required to wear personal protective equipment.  It is
assumed that  each employee working outdoors  will use a
minimum of level D protection. In addition, equipment operators
and the field operation supervisor are  expected to  require
respirators for level C protection.  Costs for personal protective
equipment are estimated at $25.00 per day for standard level D
protection and $45.00 per day for level C protection. Four staff
will require level D and four staff will require level C protection
each day, for a total of $280 per day or $1,400 per week.
    The site supervisor oversees all operations associated with
the site remediation at $2,620 per week. The site supervisor's
total labor wage rate is $3,120 per week.

3.3.6   Consumable Materials
    Consumable materials costs fall into two major categories:
(1) materials consumed in the LTTAź process (propane, diesel,
and GAC), and (2) materials related to personal protective
equipment and the necessary waste disposal drums.  For this
cost analysis, fuel and operating costs for excavation,  earth-
moving, and miscellaneous equipment have been accounted for
in the weekly equipmentrate (Section 3.3.3). Similarly, analytical
supply costs are included in the analytical rate.  The total
consumable materials rate is $22,780 per week.
    All used disposable personal protective equipment must be
drummed and disposed of as hazardous waste.  It is assumed
that two open-top, 55-gallon, steel or fiber drums will be required
for hazardous waste disposal per day ($56 each) for the estimated
personal  protection equipment consumed.  The total cost for
disposal drums is $550 per week.


3.3.7   Utility


    A diesel  generator supplies all power for LTTAź system
operations and is incorporated into capital  equipment costs.
Although electrical, water, and telephone utilities are in use, the
weekly consumption rates for these utilities are  negligible in
                                                         26

-------
terms of the overall LTTAź system operating costs. Therefore,
for this economic analysis, the utility rate is assumed to be SO
per week.


3.3.8   Effluent Monitoring


    Effluent monitoring costs are given as a fixed cost, based
upon the assumption that only one air permit is required to operate
the LTTAź system.  A one-time stack gas sampling must be
performed and reported by  an outside  contractor to verify
compliance with the air permit. The monitoring of feed and
treated soil, ambient air testing, liquid-phase and vapor-phase
carbon unit testing, and final demobilization and decontamination
water testing are not permit-related and are thus itemi/ed under
analytical costs. The cost of this  sampling and subsequent
analysis is approximately $52,000 (Canonie 1992c).


3.3.9   Residual Waste Shipping, Handling, and
        Transportation


    It is assumed that residual  waste shipping, handling, and
transportation consists only of the disposal of drummed personal
protective equipment and a small amount of laboratory hazardous
waste. No other residual waste is produced.  Treated soil is
backfilled on site. A small amount of v/astewater is produced
during demobilization and decontamination; however, this water
can be treated by the liquid-phase GAC column until it meets or
exceeds drinking water standards. The water is then discharged
to a sanitary sewer. It is assumed that oversized material such as
rocks and concrete is tested and disposed of at a standard Class
III industrial landfill. If the oversized material exceeds cleanup
standards, it can be pulverized and processed through the LTTA*
system; however, it is assumed  that  this will not be necessary.
The pick-up, transportation, and disposal cost for a 100-lb drum
is approximately $170 (Means 1992b). The total cost rate for
residual waste  shipping, handling and transportation is $1,700
per week.


3.3.10  Analytical


    Analytical costs include the rental of the  LTTAź system
laboratory trailer  and all related supplies,  consumables,
equipment rental, and outside verification testing associated with
normal LTTAź system operations. Feed soil and treated soil are
each analyzed  on site twice per day.  Samples of each are sent
weekly to an outside laboratory for verification testing. Water
and carbon from the liquid-phase and vapor-phase carbon units
are analyzed on site once per week.  Demobilization and
decontamination wastewater is also analyzed on site and verified
by an independent laboratory.
    According to Canonie estimates for the Arizona pesticide
site, analytical costs are approximately 60 percent of LTTA*
capital equipment costs (Canonie 1992c). Based on the weekly
LTTAź capital equipment cost of $20,000 (see Section 3.3.3),
the analytical cost is $12,000 per week.


3.3.11  Equipment Repair and Replacement


    Standard maintenance of LTTAź machinery requires about
2 hours per week. This includes inspection and replacement of
baghouse filters and pumps as well as other routine maintenance.
Repairs are made on an as-needed basis.

    Based on Canonie estimates at the Arizona pesticide site,
equipment repair and maintenance is about 36 percent of the
LTTAź system capital equipment cost (Canonie 1992c). Based
on the ITTAź capital equipment rate of $20,000 per week, the
total equipment repair and replacement rate is $7,200 per week.


3.3.12  Demobilization


    It is assumed that all necessary site demobilization activities
can be completed in ten  8-hour shifts.  Five days are required
for LTTAź system shutdown, cleanup and disassembly; the
additional five days are required for site cleanup and restoration.
With the exception of site-specific cleanup and restoration costs,
site demobilization costs will be fairly consistent. Total site
demobilization cost is approximately $141,840.


    Shutdown, cleanup, and disassembly of the LTTAź system,
including decontamination, can be performed at $25,850 with
equipment already on site; however, six additional laborers are
assumed necessary in  addition to the regular staff, for a total
labor cost of $34,840 (see Section 3.3.5). During this time, up
to 12 workers will be wearing level D personal protective
equipment, necessitating purchase and disposal of three 55-gallon
drums per day. This results in a total consumable materials cost
of $3,000 and a total  residual waste shipping, handling and
disposal costs of $1,670.  Disconnecting electric and telephone
utilities will cost approximately $1,000 (Means  1992b).
Analytical costs will be double the  normal rate of $12,000 (see
Section 3.3.10) due to the volume of wastewater produced dunng
decontamination of equipment and because verification testing
must be done by an outside laboratory. Finally, the 14 LTTAź
trailers must be returned to the Canonie office in Porter, Indiana.
This  cost, $34,510, is  the same as trucking costs during
mobilization.  The total shutdown, cleanup, and disassembly cost
is $124,870.
                                                         27

-------
    Site cleanup and restoration is fairly minimal because the
processed soil is backfilled throughout the remediation process.
It is assumed that cleanup and restoration can be accomplished
using the on-site excavation and earth-moving equipment with
the addition of a grader, for a total equipment cost of $5,695. If
extensive soil dewatering was necessary, the increased volume
of processed soil  caused by the addition of sand to the feed
material could hinder site cleanup and restoration, but for the
purposes of this cost analysis, no additional costs are included.
During cleanup and restoration only three excavation and earth-
moving equipment operators, site supervisor, and administrative
assistant will be involved, for a total labor cost of $10,470. ] ;ive
employees will be wearing personal protective equipment during
this period;  the resulting total consumable materials cost is  $625.
Personal protective equipment disposal cost is $180.  The total
cost of site  cleanup and restoration is approximately $ 16,970.

-------
                                                  Section 4
                                                References
American Automobile Association (AAA) Coast to Coast
    Trucking. 1993. Personal communication bet ween Mr.
    Dan Auker, PRC, and AAA Coast to Coast Trucking
    representative. January 4.

Canonic Environmental Services Corporation (Canonic).
    1987. "Soil Remediation and Site Closure at the McKin
    Superfund Site." July.

Canonic. 1991. "Remedial Action Report, Cannons
    Bridgewater Superfund Site, Volume 1." October.

Canonic. 1992a. "Project Work Plan - Field Operations Plan
    and Quality Assurance Project Plan - for Central Arizona
    Pesticide Site." July.

Canonic. 1992b. "Project Summaries." (Unpublished)
    Provided to James Peck of PRC. October 13.

Canonic. 1992c. Correspondence to Regarding Air Permit
    Costs to James Peck of PRC. December 11.
EPA. 1988. "CERCLA Manual on Compliance with Other
    Laws." Interim Final. OSWER, PA/540/G-89/006.

Means. 1992a. "Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 1993."
    7th Edition, Copyright 1992.  Construction Publishers
    and Consultants. Kingston, Massachusetts.

Means. 1992b.  "Means Building Construction Cost Data,
    1993." 51st Edition, Copyright 1992.
    Construction Publishers and Consultants. Kingston,
    Massachusetts.

James Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1992.
    Confidential Business Information.

SCS Engineers. 1992.  "LTTAź Proof-of-Process Oversight for
    Confidential Site." July 7.

Supreme Oil Company. 1992. Personal communication
    Regarding Fuel Costs to James Peck of PRC.
    December 30.
                                                      29

-------
                                                 Appendix A
                                 Vendor's Claims for the Technology
i.o
Introduction
                                                           /./     LTTAź Advantages
    Low Temperature Thermal Aeration (LTTA*) is a remedial
technology developed by Canonic Environmental Services Corp.
(Canonie) for treating soil containing volatile organic compounds
(VOCs),  semivolatile  organic  compounds (SVOCs),
organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), organophosphoius pesticides
(OPPs), and other extractable organic compounds  The 1 TTA*
system separates these hazardous constituents from excavated
soil and allows the treated soil to be backfilled on-site without
restriction. The LTTA* technology was developed by ('anome
using full-scale equipment during the remediation of the McKin
Superfund Site in Gray, Maine.  More than 11,000 cubic yards
(yd3) of soils impacted with chlorinated VOCs and petroleum
hydrocarbons were successfully remediated  at tins Superfund
Site. After the successful completion of the McKin Superfund
Site soil remediation, Canonie employed  a new transportable
LTTA* system to cost effectively treat the  soil at the following
live sites:

    1.   The Ottati & (ioss Superfund Site in Kingston, New
        Hampshire;

    2.   The South Keaniy Site in New Jersey;

    3.   The  Cannons/Bridgewater Superfund Site  in
        Massachusetts;

    4.   The Former Spencer Kellogg Facility in Newark, New
        Jersey;

    5.   A Pesticide Site in Arizona.

    At each of these sites, compliance with soil cleanup criteria
was verified by analyzing the treated soil on -site or off-site  Table
1 presents a summary of the contaminants successfully removed
from soil using the full-scale LTTAź system and the removal
efficiencies achieved.  Typical pre- and  post-treatment soil
characterization results for contaminants at the above mentioned
sites are presented in Tables 2 through 6.
                                                       The 1TTAź system provides the following advantages over
                                                   many other treatment systems:

                                                       1.   LTTAź is a full-scale, proven technology which has
                                                           treated more than 90,000 tons of contaminated soils at
                                                           Superfund and non-Superfund Sites.

                                                       2.   I Jnlike incineration systems, during treatment of OCPs,
                                                           LTTAź does not generate dioxins or dibenzofurans.

                                                       3.   LTTAź provides a very cost effective solution for
                                                           remediation of soils impacted with chlorinated VOCs,
                                                           OCPs, and OPPs.  The cost of remediation  using
                                                           incineration is generally an order of magnitude higher
                                                           than that using LTTAź.

                                                       4.   1 J'TAź provides permanent treatment, allows backfill
                                                           of treated soil on-site, and eliminates future liabilities
                                                           to the potentially responsible party.

                                                       5.   No wastewater or waste streams other than personnel
                                                           protective equipment and  activated carbon (for
                                                           regeneration) are generated by LTTAź that require off-
                                                           site disposal. This eliminates the need for permits like
                                                           NPDES.

                                                       6.   The LTTAź system  can remediate a site in  a  much
                                                           shorter time than those technologies which utilize
                                                           indirect heat transfer mechanism, for example a thermal
                                                           screw system.  Soil processing rates of up to 55 tons
                                                           per hour (tph) have been achieved in the past by LTTA*'.
                                                           Soil treatment systems utilizing thermal screws have
                                                           been known to obtain processing rates of 2 to 3 tph.

                                                       7.   LTTAź is a trailer mounted system and  can be
                                                           transported from site-to-site.

                                                       8.   LTTAź has a flexible system  configuration and can
                                                           utilize an thermal oxidizer in lieu of the carbon
                                                           adsorption system. This flexibility enables LTTA*' to
                                                           treat soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons
                                                           and allows destruction of the contaminants of concern.
                                                       30

-------
Table A-1. Demonstrated Full-Scale
Compound (b)
LTTAź Chemical Removal Efficiencies
Pretreatment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Post-Treatment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Removal Efficiency
Site (a)
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
trans- 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Xylenes
Total VOCs
Organochlorine Pesticides
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDT
Toxaphene
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Ethyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Merphos
Mevinphos
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
5.3
320
300
1,400
1,200
3,000
460
470
3,700
5,420

206
48
321
1,540

116
0.78
195
20.4
2,000

11
1.1
2.2
2
2.1
1
1.6
6.5
2.3
0.15
3.4
0.79
1
1.2
3.8
4.7
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.02)
ND (<0.02)
ND (<0.05)
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.05)
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
0.25
0.45

ND (<0.01)
0.94
ND (<0.04)
ND (<0.5)

ND (<0.07)
ND (<0.059)
ND (<0.004)
ND (<0.002)
ND (<50)

ND (<0.39)
0.062
0.22
0.3
0.34
0.33
0.32
1
0.3
0.05
0.2
ND (<0.39)
0.24
0.042
0.23
0.26
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%

>99%
99%
>99%
>99%

>99%
>92%
>99%
>99%
>99%

>65%
94%
90%
85%
84%
67%
80%
85%
87%
67%
94%
>51%
76%
96%
94%
94%
Cannons
McKin
McKin
Newark
Ottati & Goss
Newark
Ottati & Goss
Ottati & Goss
Newark
Newark

Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona

Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Cannons

Newark
Newark
Newark
Newark
Newark
Newark
Newark
South Kearny
Newark
Newark
Newark
Newark
Newark
Newark
Newark
Newark
ND    Not detected. (Detection limit is provided parenthetically.)
(a)     Descriptions of the site cleanups are provided in the project description section of this booklet.
(b)     This tabte includes only chemicals treated to date using a full-scale LTTAź system.  Bench-scale results show that many other
       chemicals can be cost effectively treated using LTTAź.
                                                               31

-------
 Table A-2. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration Process Representative Soil Analysis
           Results McKin Superfund Site Gray, Maine

Chemical Constituent
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Anthracene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Concentration
Pretreatment Soil

2.7
320
300
130
120
62
19
3,310
840

0.44
0.8
1.2
0.79
0.8
1.2
(mg/kg)
Post-Treatment Soil

ND(<1)
ND (<0.02)
ND (<0.02)
ND(<1)
ND (<0.02)
ND(<1)
ND (<0.02)
0.04
ND«1>

ND (<0.33)
ND (<0.33)
ND (<0.33)
ND (<0.33)
ND (<0.33)
0.51
Notes:

1.    All concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
2.    ND indicates that the chemical constituent was not detected in excess of the stated concentration.
                                                             32

-------
 Table A-3. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration Process Represetnative Analytical Results
           Ottati & Goss Superfund Sites Kingston, New Hampshire

Chemical
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes

Chemical
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Location
Pretreatment
33
19
12
>470
>380
>1,100
Location
Pretreatment
27
27
40
>87
>50
>170
1
Post-Treatment
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
0.14
3
Post-Treatment
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
Location
Pretreatment
120
6.5
4.9
260
>300
>900
Location
Pretreatment
470
460
1,200
3,000
440
180
2
Post-Treatment
ND (<0.025)
ND(<0.025)
ND(<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
ND(<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
4
Post-Treatment
ND (<0.025)
ND(<0.025)
ND (<0.025)
0.11
ND (<0.025)
0.14
Notes:

1.    All concnetrations are reported in mg/kg.
2.    Pretreatment soil samples were anlayzed by gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (EPA Method 8240).
3.    Post-treatment soil samples were analyzed by gas chromatography (EPA Method 8010/8020).
4.    ND indicates the chemical compound was not detected in excess of the stated concentration.
                                                          33

-------
Table A-4. Representative LTTAź Proof-of-Process Analytical Results South Kearny,  New Jersey
              Chemical Constituent
 Volatile Organic Compounds
  1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
  1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
  Trichloroethene
  Tetrachloroethene
  1,2-Dichlorobenzene
  Toluene
  Ethylbenzene
  Xylenes (total)
  Total VOCs

 Semivolatile Organic Compounds
  Acenaphthene
  Anthracene
  Benzo(a)anthracene
  Benzo(a)pyrene
  Benzo(b)fluoranthene
  Benzo(g,h,i)peryiene
  Benzo(k)fluoranthene
  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
  Chrysene
  Di-n-butylphthalate
  Fluoranthene
  Fluorene
  lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
  Naphthalene
  Phenanthrene
  Pyrene

Pretreatment Soil
0.55
3
15
190
100
5.6
15
5.2
308
0.7
2.5
5.9
5.4
5
3.5
4.9
6.5
5.9
1.9
7
1
3.2
2
6.4
15
Concentration (mg/kg)
Post-Treatment Soil
ND
ND
0.15
0.38
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.51
ND
ND
0.94
0.58
1.2
0.63
0.71
1
1.3
0.84
1.8
ND
0.55
0.34
1.2
1
Notes:
1.   All concentrations are reported in mg/kg.
2.   ND indicates the chemical compound was not detected.  Detection levels varied.
                                                               34

-------
Table A-5. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration Process Representative Treatment Results
         Former Spencer Kellogg Facility Newark, New Jersey

Chemical Constituent
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Total VOCs
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f 1 uoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fl uoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Concentration
Pretreatment Soil

0.24
1.4
3,000
3,700
5,420

1.1
1.1
2.2
2
2.1
1
1.6
0.95
2.3
0.15
3.4
0.79
1
1.2
3.8
4.7
(mg/kg)
Post-Treatment

0.072
ND (<0.05)
ND (<0.05)
0.25
0.45

ND (<0.39)
0.062
0.22
0.3
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.071
0.3
0.05
0.2
ND (<0.39)
0.24
0.042
0.23
0.26
Notes:

ND = Not detected above the detection limit shown.
                                                     35

-------
    Table A-6. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration Soil Treatment Results for a Pesticide Site in Arizona
                       Chemical
         Concentrations (mg/kg)

Pretreatment
Post-Treatment
    Organochlorine Pesticides

     p,p'-DDD

     p,p'-DDE

     p,p'-DDT

     Toxaphene
    206

     48

    321

    1,540
  ND(<0.01)

     0.94

  ND (<0.04)

   ND <0.5
    Organophosphorus Pesticides

     Ethyl Parathion

     Methyl Parathion

     Merphos

     Mevinphos
    Notes:

    ND = Not detected at indicated detection limit.
    116

    0.78

    195

    20.4
  ND (<0.07)

  ND (<0.059)

  ND (<0.004)

  ND (<0.002)
2.0     Process Description

    The LTTAź technology is a thermal desorption process.  It
utilizes hot air to desorb organic  contaminants from the
contaminated soil into a contained air stream and then treats the
air stream extensively before discharging it to the atmosphere.

    The LTTAź system is trailer mounted and transportable.
Approximately 10 system components are mobilized to the site,
where ductwork,  conveyor, and wiring connections are
completed.  Administrative trailers, laboratory trailers, and
various construction trailers are also  mobilized, providing the
necessary facilities for workers and management.

    Figure 1 depicts the  primary components of the  ITTAź
system.  A soil flow diagram and an air and water flow diagram
for the  LTTAź process are  presented in  Figures  2  and 3,
respectively.
     A description of the LTTAź system components and related
 operations are presented below:

     1.   Feed Train - Rate-controlled feed hoppers and weighing
         belt conveyors feed the material to the rotary dryer. The
         feed/processing rate is measured by the weighing belt
         conveyor.

     2.   Rotary Dryer - The soil is transferred from the feed
         conveyor to the feed end of the rotary dryer. Numerous
         flights inside the dryer move the soil over the length of
         the rotary  dryer.  A propane or fuel oil burner at the
         feed end of the dryer heats air stream.  This hot air
         stream flows co-currently with the soil in the drum, and
         dries the soil and  volatilizes the organic contaminants
         from the soil into  the hot air stream.   The process
         temperature, soil residence time in the dryer, and the
         processing rate depend upon the type of soil, the nature
         of the contaminants, contaminant concentrations, and
         treatment levels to be  achieved.
                                                         36

-------
3.   Pug Mill - The cleaned hot soil exits the rotary dryer
    and flows by gravity into a pug mill mixer. Water is
    metered into the pub mill to quench hot soil to allow
    handling of the treated soil without fugitive dust
    generation.  Steam generated during soil quenching is
    vented into  the air treatment system under negative
    pressure.

4.   Cyclones and Baghouse - The air stream vented from
    the rotary dryer is directed to an extensive air treatment
    system.  The air stream  typically contains dust,
    evaporated organics, and traces of acid vapor.  Air is
    first passed through a cyclone system to remove coarse
    dust particles, and then it is directed into a baghouse to
    remove fine dust particles.  The dust recovered from
    the cyclones and the baghouse is transported via a screw
    conveyor into the  pug mixer, where it is quenched
    together with the processed soil.

5.   Venturi Scrubber - The air stream exiting the baghouse
    is directed  into a venturi  scrubber for acid  vapor
    removal. In the scrubber, the air slream is intimately
    mixed with slightly caustic solution.  During  this
    mixing, the acid vapors are adsorbed from the air stream
    into the water stream and neutralized. Also, some of
    the organics in the air stream are adsorbed into the water
    stream. After the intimate mixing, a two-stage separator
    removes the entrained water from the air stream.  The
    pH of the collected water is adjusted and the water is
    recirculated. A  slip stream of the scrubber water is
    blown  down continuously,  treated with liquid-phase
    carbon as required and then utilized in the process
    operation.

6.   Carbon Adsorption Beds - The air stream exiting the
    venturi scrubber is directed to two vapor-phase carbon
    adsorption units, operating  in parallel.  The organics
    remaining in the air stream after scrubbing, are adsorbed
    onto  granular activated  carbon.  Once the carbon is
    completely  spent, it is transported to an off-site,
    permitted facility for regeneration. The clean air stream
    is then discharged to the atmosphere.
3.0
Optional Thermal  Oxidizer -  In  some  cases  (soil
contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, for
example) the vapor-phase carbon adsorption system is
replaced with a thermal oxidizer which destroys the
vaporized organics present in the process air stream.

Process Economics
    The cost of each particular application depends on the
following parameters:

    1.   Volume of the soil to be treated;

    2.   Site conditions;

    3.   Soil type and soil moisture content;

    4.   Type of the contaminants, their feed concentrations and
        required final, treated soil concentrations.

    As the parameters mentioned above will be unique to each
remediation project, a project-specific cost can be developed only
after the parameters  are defined.  However, in general terms,
soil remediation costs using LTTAź may fall  within a range of
$90 to $ 130 per ton of soil processed. This cost may  include
excavation, soil processing,  on-site analyses, air monitoring,
permitting, work plan preparation, and on-site coordination with
clients and agencies.
                                                     37

-------
                                                                        GENERATOR
                                                                        TRAILER
               CONTROL
               TRAILER
DISCHARGE
CONVEYOR
        TREATED SOIL
                                                                                                              ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                                                                              TRAILERS
                                 CONTAMINATED SOIL
  Source: Canonic 1992
Figure 1.  LTTAź Soil Processing Equipment Layout

-------

CONTROL
HOUSE



                 TREATED
                   SOIL
                DISCHARGE
      BELT CONVEYOR
PUG
MILL
               EXCAVATED
                  SOIL
               EXCAVATED
                  SOIL
                                  BURNER
                                  BLOWER
                              t
                               DC
                             Q UJ
                             LJJ Q-
                             Uj QL
                             U- O
  DC
Q m
LU O.
III U_
u- O
                                                   MATERIALS DRYER
                                                     BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE FINES
                                                                                               ^ g
                                                                                                 CD
                                                      FROM DUST A COLLECTION
                                                                      BAGHOUSE
                                                        CYCLONIC
                                                       SEPARATORS
                                                        200 HP
                                                       BLOWER
PUMP HOUSE

VENTURI
SCRUBBER

300 HP
BLOWER
                          CARBON FILTER
                                                        CARBON FILTER
               Not to Scale
Figure 2.  Soil Flow Diagram
                                                       39

-------
                                                                             MAKE-UP WATER
                                     TREATED WATER
             i
                 AIR
                INLET

CONTROL
HOUSE



                                               u

_J	«'_ 1_J	Jj

BELT CONVEEYOR

PUG
MILL
                          BURNER
                          BLOWER
                       -
                    U- O
                      I
                      DC
                    Q UJ
                    LLI U-
                    UJ Q-
                    U- O
                      I
                                           MATERIALS DRYER
                                                                                              T
8BAGHOUSE
* CYCLONIC
^ StPARA 1 OHS ^

200 HP
BLOWER




LIQUID
PHASE
CARBON
UNIT
PUMP
HOUSE j
•IB ^^^B aM^HH i^m
x- — >,
RECIRCUIATEDT VENTURI
WATER . SCRUBBER
-^— •*•'
300 HP
BLOWER
                                            t
                                               CARBON FILTER
                                                CARBON FILTER
                                                                                     TO
                                                                                ATMOSPHERE

                                                                                     TO
                                                                                ATMOSPHERE
      Not to Scale
Figure 3.  Air and Water Flow Diagram
                                                       40

-------
                                                 Appendix B
                                       Site Demonstration Results
    This appendix summarizes  the results from the  SITE
program demonstration of the Canonie LTTAź system.  A
detailed presentation of the SITE demonstration results can be
found in the Technology Evaluation Report. The LTTAź system
was demonstrated using soils which were contaminated with
pesticides, primarily toxaphene and DDT and its derivatives,
DDD and DDE. The demonstration was conducted as part of
full-scale remedial activities being carried out by Canonie.

B.I     Site Description
                                The geology of the site consists of alluvial basin sediments
                            overlying granitic and extrusive rocks. Surface sediments are
                            generally a clayey loam. Depth to groundwater in the area of
                            the site is approximately 200 feet.  Groundwater conditions for
                            the area of the site are typically unconfmed, but semiconfmed
                            and perched conditions are known to exist.  Several water wells,
                            mainly for irrigation, exist in the vicinity of the site.

                            B.2     Demonstration Testing and Sampling
                                    Procedures
    The LTTAź system was demonstrated at an  abandoned
p ^sticide mixing facility in western Arizona, as part of a full-
scale remedial effort. The facility actively serviced farms in the
surrounding area for over 30 years.  Activities at  the facility
included mixing pesticides, loading and unloading crop dusting
aircraft, washing and maintaining aircraft, and disposing of
pesticide containers by burning on site.  Pesticides stored and
mixed on  site included toxaphene,  DDT, ethyl and methyl
parathion,  endosulfan, dieldrin, andendrin. The site covers 36
acres including an unpaved runway, an office complex, a mixing
area, and an aircraft hanger.  An estimated 51,000 tons of soil,
contaminated with pesticide concentrations of 5 mg/kg or greater,
were treated by the LTTAź system. Soil with concentrations of
less than 5  mg/kg total pesticides and above the required cleanup
levels (Figure B-1) were deep mixed to a depth of 2 feet. Actual
concentrations of pesticides in the  feed  soil during  the
demonstration were as follows:
        Pesticide

        Toxaphene
        DDT
        DDD
        DDE
        Dieldrin
        Endosulfan I
        Endrin
        Endrin Aldehyde
Concentration Range

4.5 - 47 mg/kg
1.2-54 mg/kg
0.027 - 0.86 mg/kg
3.7 - 15 mg/kg
<0.001-0.20 mg/kg
<0.001 - 1.1 mg/kg
0.12-2.0 mg/kg
(0.002 - 0.65 mg/kg
    Prior to initiating demonstration activities, a quality
assurance project plan (QAPP) was prepared.  The QAPP
identifies demonstration objectives and presents a sampling
program with associated quality assurance/quality control (QA7
QC) procedures that would achieve the established objectives.
Two primary objectives and eight secondary objectives were
defined in the QAPP and are listed in Table B-l.  Measured
parameters associated with primary objectives were defined as
critical parameters, and measured parameters associated with
secondary objectives were defined as noncritical.

    The SITE demonstration consisted of three test runs. During
all runs, the LTTAź system was operated at conditions appropriate
for  the feed material as determined by Canonie.  Each run
required approximately 8 hours to complete.

    Prior to demonstration sampling, the LTTAź system was
started according to Canonie's operating procedures. Sampling
began when steady-state operating conditions were attained. For
each run, solid and liquid samples were collected every 40
minutes for the 8-hour test period.   Stack gas samples were
collected once each run. The SITE demonstration did not include
continuous emissions monitoring of stack gases.

    During the demonstration, samples were collected from
seven process points: (1) feed soil, (2) treated soil, (3) scrubber
liquor, (4) treated scrubber blowdown, (5) vapor-phase GAC,
(6)  stack gas emissions, and (7) water supply line.  Critical
analytical parameters, based upon the primary demonstration
objectives,  included toxaphene,  DDT, DDD, and DDE
                                                        41

-------
            HI
            Q
            O

            =! O
                       4.0 —
                       3.5 —
                       3.0 -
                       2.5 —
2.0 —
                       1.5  —
                       1.0  —
                       0.5  -
                                           MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF
                                           TOTAL DDT FAMILY =  3.52 MG/KG
SHADED AREA SHOWING ACCEPTABLE
PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS
                                                                 MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF
                                                                 TOXAPHENE = 1.09 MG/KG
                                                    0.5
                                                                                                   1.5
                                                  CONCENTRATION OF TOXAPHENE
                                                            IN MG/KG
                                   SELECTED CLEANUP CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR PESTICIDES
 DDT/DDD/DDE (mg/kg)
                                       0.00
                                                   0.01
                                                               0.83
                                                                           1.00
                                                                                      2.00
                                                                                                  3.00
                                                                                                              3.36         3.52
 Toxaphene (mg/kg)

 a Target detection limit for DDT/DDD/DDE
   Target detection limit for toxaphene

Source:  SCS Engineers 1990
                                       1.09
                                                  1.087         0.83
                                                                           0.78
                                                                                      0.47
                                                                                                  0.16
                                                                                                              0.05         0.00
Figure B-1.  Sliding Scale Cleanup Criteria
                                                              42

-------
Table B- 1.  Demonstration Objectives
                PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
              SECONDARY OBJECTIVES
 1.  Assess the ability of the technology to
    remove toxaphene, DDT, ODD, DDE from
    contaminated soils.
 2.  Determine whether dioxins and furans are
    formed within the system as products of
    incomplete combustion (PICs) of pesticides.
1.  Determine whether the treated soil meets
   cleanup standards specified by ADEQ after
   one pass through the system or if the soil must
   be reprocessed to meet these standards.

2.  Assess the ability of the system to remove
   pesticides other than toxaphene,  DDT,  DDD,
   and DDE from the soil. Removal was
   assessed for five other pesticides found on
   site: dieldrin, endosulfan I, endrin, and methyl
   and ethyl parathion.

3.  Determine whether VOC or SVOC reaction
   products other than dioxins and furans  were
   formed as PICs or as products of  a
   dihydrochlorination within the system.

4.  Determine the fate of pesticides and chlorine
   in the system to the extent possible.
                                                        5. Document the operating conditions of the
                                                          LTTAź process and identify any potential
                                                          operational problems.
                                                        6. Characterize soil conditions on site.
                                                        7. Develop technology and operating costs that
                                                          can be used in the Superfund decision-making
                                                          process.
                                                          Measure the effect of the process on the
                                                          bearing capacity of the soil.
                                                    43

-------
concentrations in the feed soil and treated soil streams, and dioxin
and furan concentrations in each of the process streams sampled.
Noncritical analytical parameters, which are tflose associated with
secondary objectives, included organochlorine pesticides other
than toxaphene,  DDT, DDD, and DDE; organophosphorus
pesticides: VOCs; SVOCs; total chloride; total organic halides
(in liquid samples);  and extractable organic halides (in solid
samples).  Noncritical parameters such as percent moisture,
particle size distribution, pH, density and California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) were also analyzed to characterize the feed and
treated soil.  Composite samples of feed soil and treated soil
were collected for all critical parameters. Four composite samples
were collected from each test run (12 samples total).  Each sample
was a composite  of three grab samples collected at  40-minute
intervals. Daily composite samples  for  determination  of
noncritical parameters were generated by mixing equal amounts
of all 12 grab  samples.  Samples for analysis of noncritical
parameters were composited from four grab samples, which were
collected at 2-hour intervals.  Samples for VOC analysis were
collected as grab samples at 2-hour intervals to  minimize
contaminant loss  resulting from sample compositing.

    The vapor-phase GAC samples were collected at the end of
the demonstration. These were collected from the bottom foot
of one of the vapor-phase activated carbon  beds.  Samples of
scrubber liquor and treated scrubber blowdown were collected
once at the beginning and once at the end of each run.

    Gas samples were collected from the stack gas  using four
sampling trains operated simultaneously.  Samples  for
organochlorine pesticides, organophosphorus pesticides, and
SVOCs were collected using Modified Method  5 (MM5)
sampling trains, according to EPA test methods for  evaluating
solid wastes (SW-846), Method 0010 (EPA 1986).  The
organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticide samples were
collected from  the same MM5 train.  Samples for dioxins and
furans were collected by an MM5 sampling train configured and
operated as described in SW-846, Method 23. Samples for
paniculate matter, hydrochloric acid  (HC1), moisture content,
volumetric flow rate, and gas stream temperature were performed
according to the  boilers and industrial furnaces (BIF) Method
0050 (EPA 1990). Gas samples for VOC analysis were collected
by Method TO-14 using SUMMA™ canisters. All sampling
trains were leak-checked upon initial assembly and at the end of
each run. Sampling personnel used preprinted checklists.
calculation forms, and color coding to facilitate the sampling
process.  In  addition,  appropriate calibration and  inspection
records were kept to document that the sampling trains were
properly maintained and calibrated.

B.3     Treatment Results

    This section summarizes results of the SITE demonstration
and presents an evaluation of the LTTAź system's effectiveness
in treating soils contaminated with pesticides.  A  summary of
results for critical parameters is presented in Table B-2.  A detailed
presentation of analytical results is provided in the Technology
Evaluation Report. The results are based on extensive laboratory
analyses under the rigorous QA/QC procedures specified in the
QAPP.  The following sections discuss (1) the ability of the
ETTAź system to remove pesticides from soils, (2) formation of
products of thermal transformation, (3) compliance with cleanup
requirements, (4) fate of pesticides in the system, (5) fate of
chlorine in  the system, (6) operating  conditions,  (7) soil
properties, and (8) effect on soil bearing capacity.

B.3.1   The Ability of the LTTAź System to Remove
        Pesticides from Soils

    The ability of the technology to remove pesticides from
contaminated soils was assessed  under both primary and
secondary objectives. As a primary objective, the target pesticides
included toxaphene, DDT, DDD, and DDE since these are the
pesticides for which cleanup levels were established for the site.
The removal of other pesticides  found on site  (dieldrin,
endosulfan I, endrin, methyl parathion, and ethyl parathion) was
assessed as a secondary objective.

    All composite  feed soil samples  collected during  the
demonstration contained high levels of toxaphene, DDT, DDD,
and DDE. Measured concentrations of toxaphene in the feed
soil  ranged from 4,500 to 47,000 (ig/kg with an average
concentration of 18,300 ng/kg. Feed concentrations for DDT
and its metabolites DDD and DDE ranged from 1,200 to 54,000
for DDT, 27 to 860 \igfkg for DDD,  and 3,700 to 15,000 |ig/kg
for DDE. Toxaphene was not detected in any of the treated soil
samples above the  detection limit of  17 |ig/kg (the fourth
composite sample of run 3 had a detection limit of 50 jig/kg).
Trace amounts of DDT were present in the treated soil samples
at an average detected concentration of approximately 1.1  jig/
kg. DDD was not detected in any of the treated soil samples
above the detection  limit of 0.33 ng/kg (the fourth composite
sample of run 3 had a detection  limit of 0.99 fig/kg).  DDE
concentrations in the treated soil ranged from 100 to 1,500 jig/
kg with an average of approximately 680 (Jg/kg.

    Other pesticides were detected in the feed soils at lower
concentrations than toxaphene, DDT, DDD, or DDE and were
effectively removed by the LTTAź system. Dieldrin was present
in the feed soil at estimated concentrations ranging from 29 to
200 |ig/kg and removed to below the detection limit of 0.33 fig/
kg in all treated soil samples, except two samples which had a
residual dieldrin concentrations of 0.42 and  0.76  |Lig/kg.
Endosulfan I was present in three of the feed soil samples in the
first run at estimated concentrations ranging from 170 to 1,100
Hg/kg and was removed to below the detection limit of 0.33 ng/
kg (the fourth composite sample of run 3 had a detection limit of
0.99 |ng/kg). Endrin and endrin aldehyde were detected in the
feed soil sample at average concentrations of 525 ng/kg and 162
Hg/kg.  Endrin was removed to below the method detection limit
of 0.33 |ig/kg in all treated soil samples (the fourth composite
                                                        44

-------
Table B-2. Summary of Results for Critical Parameters
Parameter

Feed Soil Treated Soil
(ug/kg) (ug/kg)
Toxaphene 18,300
DDT 18,700
DDD 220
DDE 6,980
2,3,7,8-TCDD <0.091
TCDD (total) <0.091
TCDF (total) 0.1
PeCDD (total) <0.082
PeCDF (total) <0.097
HxCDD (total) <0.15
HxCDF (total) <0.095
HpCDD (total) <0.14
HpCDF (total) <0.14
OCDD <0.41
OCDF <0.20
ug/kg Micrograms per kilogram
ug/L Micrograms per liter
ng/dscm Nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
DDT 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DDE 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
DDD 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
2,3,7,8-TCDD 2, 3, 7, 8, -Tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
TCDD (total) Total tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
TCDF (total) Total tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans
PeCDD (total) Total pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
<20
<1.06
<0.39
677
<0.15
<0.15
<0.095
<0.12
<0.86
<0.18
<0.12
<0.18
<0.15
<0.35
<0.26

Average Concentration
Scrubber Liquor
(ug/L)
<2.8
0.041
<0.031
23
<0.0016
<0.0016
<0.00094
<0.0016
<0.0011
<0.0028
<0.0018
<0.0026
<0.0021
<0.0047
<0.0034
PeCDF (total)
HxCDD (total)
HxCDF (total)
HpCDD (total)
HpCDF (total)
OCDD
OCDF
a
b

Vapor-Phase Stack Gas
GAC (ng/dscm)
<50 <98.6
<2.0 8.2
<1.0 <1.97
79 1,980
<0.099
<0.099 0.0062
<0.058 0.013
<0.090 ND
<0.070 <0. 00061
<0.22 0.0046
<0.12 0.00062
<0.21 0.0062b
<0.19 0.0013b
<0.53 0.04b
<0.40 0.0021b
Total pentachlorinated dibenzofurans
Total hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
Total hexachlorinated dibenzofurans
Total heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
Total heptachlorinated dibenzofurans
Octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
Octachlorinated dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents
Potential false positive; similar levels were
detected in the trip blank sample
45

-------
sample of run 3 had a detection limit of 0.99 jig/kg). Trace
concentrations of endrin aldehyde ranged from <0.66 to 11 ng/
kg in treated soil. There were no organophosphorus pesticides
in the feed soil at concentrations above detection limits; however,
trace quantities of ethyl parathion were detected at concentrations
ranging from 1.8 to 4.6 jig/kg.

    To numerically quantify the effectiveness of the ITTAź at
removing pesticides from soil, removal efficiencies were
calculated using the following equation:
                         fW-W)
        Removal Efficiency = 1	L-_L7x 100%
where:  W. = Total amount of pesticide fed into the
                dryer, in pounds (Ib )
        Wr = Total amount of pesticide left in the
                treated soil (Ib).


    To allow correlation of results,  treated soil samples were
collected approximately one residence time interval after feed
soil samples were collected. Total mass of contaminants was
calculated using the concentrations reported as received in the
soil and the measured soil feed or discharge rate, as appropriate.
Qrganochlorine pesticide removal efficiencies for each composite
sample are listed in Table B-3.

    The removal  efficiencies indicate the LTIA* process is
highly effective at removing pesticides from soil. The LTTAź
removed all detectable toxaphene and DDD from the soils. A
trace residue of DDT remained (approximately 1 uŁ/kg), and a
677 ng/kg residue of DDK remained in the  soil.   Removal
efficiencies for toxaphene ranged from greater than 99.4 percent
to greater than  99.9 percent.  DDT was removed with an
efficiency of 99.8 percent to greater than 99.9 percent.  DDD
was removed with efficiencies ranging from greater than 98.8
percent to greater than 99.9 percent.  DDE was removed with
efficiencies ranging from 81.9 percent to 97.8 percent.

    The residual DDK concentrations likely resulted when the
DDT dehydrochlorinated in the  materials dryer, forming DDK
as a product of thermal  transformation.  This increase in DDK
concentration in the materials dryer would affect the calculated
efficiency at which DDK is removed. Another factor that may
have affected the DDK removal efficiency is that DDK probably
has a higher coefficient of adsorption than DDT or DI )D due to
its molecular structure.  The ethylene bond in DDK, forces the
molecule into a planar structure, with pi-electron orbitals on either
side of the entire molecule. This bond  greatl) increases the
molecular forces, causing adsorption to the soil. 1 )DT ;ind DDD
do not have an ethylene bond and are configured as tetrahedrons
with pi-electron orbitals limited  to the  two  ben/ene groups
attached to the ethane group. This configuration of DDT and
DDD  does not provide the planar structure present in DDK.
Therefore, DDT and DDD are not as likely to adsorb to soil
particles. The molecular configuration of feed contaminants as
well as potential thermal transformation products should be
considered in any preliminary estimate of the effectiveness of
the LTTAź system.

    Of nine feed soil samples containing dieldrin, eight of the
corresponding treated soil samples did not contain dieldrin above
the detection limit.  Removal efficiencies for dieldrin ranged
from 98.6 to greater than 99.8 percent. Kndosulfan I was removed
from three feed soil samples with removal efficiencies ranging
from greater than 99.8 to greater than 99.9 percent. Kndrin was
removed to below detection  limits  with removal efficiencies
ranging from greater than 99.6 to greater than 99.9 percent. Trace
amounts of  endrin aldehyde remained in  eight treated soil
samples. Kndrin aldehyde removal efficiencies  ranged from
greater than 92.4 to greater than 99.9 percent. Neither ethyl nor
methyl parathion were present in the feed soil at concentrations
high enough to evaluate the removal efficiency.

B.3.2   Formation of Products of Thermal
        Transformation

    A  primary objective of  the SITK demonstration was  to
determine whether dioxins or furans are formed in the LTTAź
system as PICs of pesticides, and a secondary objective wa>, to
determine whether reaction products other than dioxins and
furans  were  formed  as   PICs  or  as  products   of
dehydrochlorination.

    The test data indicate that the LTTAź system did not generate
measurable amounts of dioxins or furans. The feed soil contained
very low levels of various dioxins and furans. Although very
low concentrations of dioxins and furans were detected in the
stack gas, none of the  other solid  or liquid process streams
contained measurable levels of dioxins or furans.

    Several VOC and SVOC compounds detected in the LTTA*
system's process streams.  These compounds may have been
formed within the system as products of thermal transformation.
The most notable VOCs are acetone and acrylonitrile, which were
present in the scrubber liquor; acetone, acrylonitrile, benzene,
toluene, and xylenes, which were  present in the GAC; and
acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, chloromethane, benzene, and toluene,
which were present in the stack emissions.  The most notable
SVOC detections are the benzoic acid and phenol, which were
present in the scrubber liquor. The aromatic compounds were
presumably formed  from the breakdown of DDT, DDD, and
DDK. The simpler hydrocarbons and chlorinated compounds,
such as methylene chloride, may have been formed from me
breakdown of toxaphene and other pesticides. It is suspected
that some of the compounds, such as benzoic acid and phenol,
are formed from oxidation processes. The presence of VOC and
SVOC compounds may be indicative of incomplete combustion
of pesticides within the materials dryer.
                                                        46

-------
Table B-3. Pesticide removal Efficiencies for the LTTAź Process
     Compound
                                                             Removal Efficiency (Percent)
                         Run 1 Composite Samples
Run 2 Composite Samples
Run 3 Composite Samples
                       123412341234
 Toxaphene
                     >99.9    >99.8     >99.9     >99.9    >99.6    >99.9     >99.7     >99.9     >99.7    >99.9    >99.8     >99.4
 DDT
                     >99.9     >99.9     >99.9     >99 9    >99.9    >99.9     >99.9     >99.9    >99.9    >99.9    >99.9     998
 ODD
                     >999    >99.6     >99.9     >99 8    >99.1    >99.7     >98.8     >99.9    >99.9    >99.8    >99.6     >99.4
                      91.3      97.8     93.2      82.4      85.4      93.9     85.3     81.9      93.5      92.1      94.2     94.6
                      >99.8     >99.1     >99.2     >99 4     986     >99.5     >99.1     >99.1     >99.7     NC       NC       NC
 Endosulfan I
                      »99.9      NC      >99.8    >99 9     NC      NC       NC       NC      NC      NC       NC       NC
 Endosulfan
                      NC       NC       NC      NC      NC      NC       NC       NC      NC      NC       NC       NC
 Endrin
                     >99.9     >99.9     >99.9    >99 9    >99.7    >99.9     >99.8     >99.9    >99.9    >99.9    >99.9     >99.6
 Endrin Aldehyde       98.4     >98.6     >99.8     946      997      999       992      975     >98.5     NC      >99.9     >92.4
 >      Greater than
 NA    Not applicable
 NC    Not calculated (Compound was not present in the feed soil above the detection limit)
 DDT   4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
 ODD   4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
 DDE   4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
                                                                47

-------
B.3.3   Compliance with Cleanup Requirements

    One of the secondary objectives for die demonstration was
to determine whether the treated soil met cleanup standards
specified by ADEQ after one pass through the system or if the
soil required reprocessing to meet the standards.  The ADEQ
established  site-specific cleanup criteria for toxaphene
contamination and the sum of DDT, DDD, DDE contamination.
Sliding scale criteria were established with a maximum allowable
concentration of  1.09 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of
toxaphene with no  DDT/DDD/DDE at one: end, and a maximum
allowable concentration of 3.53 mg/kg of DDT/D1 )D/DDE with
no toxaphene at the other end.  Figure B-1 illustrates the sliding
scale criteria established by ADEQ (SCS Engineers 1992).

    According to the approved remedial action plan,  soil
containing greater than  5 mg/kg of total pesticides was to be
treated by the LTTAź system.  Soil that contained less  than 5
mg/kg  of total pesticides but greater than the cleanup criteria
was to be deep-mixed  on site (SCS Engineers  1990).  An
estimated 51,000 tons of soil was treated by the ITTA* system.
The treated soil sample results indicated that the ADEQ cleanup
criteria were met after one pass through the system.

B.3.4   Fate of Pesticides in the System

    Toxaphene, dieldrin, endosulfan I, andendrin were present
in the feed soil, but were either less than or near their detection
limits in the other process streams. This indicates that they were
either destroyed in the LTTAź  process or were distributed
throughout the process streams at very low levels.  DDT and
DDD may have degraded into  DDE and endnn may have
degraded into endrin aldehyde. DDE] was concentrated in the
scrubber liquor and was also detected in the vapor-phase GAC
and, at low levels,  in the stack gas.

    Toxaphene is apparently  destroyed in the process.
Toxaphene was present in feed soil samples at an average
concentration of 18,300 |ng/kg. Toxaphene was not present in
the  scrubber liquor, as were DDT,  DDD, arid DDE, yet the water
solubility of toxaphene  is 50 to  1,000 times greater than the
water solubilities of DDT and its metabolites. If present in the
exhaust stream, toxaphene would tend to be scrubbed out by the
venturi scrubber.  Additionally, toxaphene was not detected in
the  vapor-phase GAC or the stack gas. Toxaphene reportedly
decomposes near its boiling point (National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health and Occupational Health and
Safety Administration 1981) and dehydrochlorinates at  155°C
(3 H°F)( Gains 1969).

    The  scrubber  liquor contained measurable quantities of
DDT, DDD, and DDE. DDT was detected in the scrubber liquor
in concentrations ranging from 0.027 to 0.054 (ig/L. DDD was
detected  in concentrations ranging from 0.029 to  0.057 |ig/L.
However, these concentrations are qualified as estimates due to
matrix interferences.  DDE was detected in the scrubber liquor
in concentrations ranging from 5.9 to 40 ^ig/L. While DDE is
found in the  scrubber liquor at 100 to 1,000  times the
concentration of DDT, it was present in the feed soil at much
lower levels than DDT. Although the water solubility of DDE is
a magnitude greater than the water solubility than DDT, the results
suggest  that DDE is being formed as a product of thermal
transformation of DDT in the materials dryer.

    Pesticides that were not condensed or stripped in the venturi
scrubber would be removed from the exhaust stream by the vapor-
phase GAC beds. DDE was present in vapor-phase GAC beds at
a concentrations of 79 Mg/kg; however, based on the QC results,
pesticide data from the GAC samples are likely biased low due
to low analytical recoveries of contaminants.

B. 3.5  Fate of Chlorine in the System

    Determining the fate of chlorine in the LTTAź system was a
secondary objective for the SITE demonstration.  Table B-4
provides an approximation of the organic halide and total chloride
distribution in the system. Chloride and organic halides appear
to concentrate in the scrubber blowdown, where organic halide
masses are several times greater than  other process effluent
streams. Additionally, the treated soil contained significant levels
of chloride.

B. 3.6  Operating Conditions

    Another secondary objective of the demonstration was to
document the operating conditions of the LTTAź process and
identify any potential operational problems. This objective was
achieved by recording observations of operating conditions and
by monitoring system operating parameters using available
instrumentation. During the demonstration, the LTTAź system
consisted of nine trailer-mounted components and five support
trailers, llie entire system occupied approximately 10,000 square
feet.  The  system  processed soil at a consistent rate of
approximately 34 tons/hr and a temperature of 730°F.  Soil
residence time in the dryer was 9 to 12 minutes.  The materials
dryer rotated at two revolutions per minute and was maintained
at an angle of 2.5  degrees.  The burner  for the materials dryer
consumed approximately 7.5 gallons of propane for each ton of
soil treated. Diesel fuel consumption was 1.2 gallons per ton of
soil treated for the generator and 0.7 gallons per ton of soil treated
for the excavation equipment. The baghouse influent temperature
was approximately 380°F, and the baghouse effluent temperature
was approximately 350° F. The materials dryer was maintained
at a negative pressure of 0.10 inches of water relative to
atmospheric pressure. The Venturi scrubber recirculated 147 gpm
of scrubber liquor.   Pressure drop across  the venturi was
maintained at slightly greater than 10 inches of water. The pug
mill used approximately 80 gpm of water. The whole LTTAź
system used approximately 60 kilowatt-hours of  electricity
supplied by a 900-kilowatt generator.
                                                        48

-------
Table B-4.  Fate of Chlorine in the LTTAź System
 Process Stream
         Run
                      Flow Rate
Conversion
  Factor
  Chloride
Concentration
    TOX/EOX        Total Chloride   Total TOX/EOX'
  Concentration          (kg)             (kg)
 INFLUENT STREAMS
 Feed Soil
                   34.8 tons/hr 34.3
                  tons/hr 34.6 tons/hr
                                                     7257
                                                     7257
                                                     7257
                   27.5 mg/kg
                   22.1 mg/kg
                   28.8 mg/kg
                  32.4 mg/kg <21.0
                  mp/kg <20.5 mg/kg
                        7.0
                        5.5
                        7.2
                8.2
               <5.23
               <5.15
 Make-up Water
                    1/2/3
                      80 gal/min
                                                     1817
                    62mg/L
                      120mg/L
                                                                                                                             17.44
 EFFLUENT STREAMS

 Treated Soil
 Scrubber
 Slowdown
                   32.9 tons/hr 34.4
                  tons/hr 34.0 tons/hr
                      80 ga^min
                      80 gal/min
                      80 gal/min
   7257
   7257
   7257

   1817
   1817
   1817
  97.2 mg/kg
  83.9 mg/kg
  66.1 mg/kg

  365mg/L
  128mg/L
  110mg/L
<22.0 mg/kg <22.3
mg/kg <21.5 mg/kg
    165mg/L
    140mg/L
    120mg/L
23
21
16

53
19
16
<5.3
<5.6
<5.3

 24
 20
 17
   \CBeds
                    1/2/3
                     100,000 IDS
                                                    0.0324
                   483 mg/kg
                    <31.4 mg/kg
                                                                                                             1.5
                                                                                                                            <0.95
      Gas
                  280 dscm/min 280
                    dscm/min 280
                      dscm/min
                                                      480
                                                      480
                                                      480
                 0.265 mg/dscm
                 0.271 mg/dscm
                 0.283 mg/dscm
                        NA
                        NA
                        NA
                       0.036
                       0.036
                       0.038
                NC
                NC
                NC
NA
NC
TOX/EOX
GAC
kg
tons/hr
mg/kg
gal/min
mg/L
Ibs
dscm/min
mg/dscm
Conversion factor for flow rate to mass or volume units for 8-hour run to allow direct multiplication with concentration values
Total mass for 8-hour run
Assumed  120 hours of operation for GAC beds
Not analyzed
Not calculated
Total organic halides/extractable organic halides
Granular activated carbon
Kilogram
Tons per hour
Milligram per kilogram
Gallon per minute
Millgram per liter
Pounds
Dry standard cubic meters per minute
Milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
Less than
                                                                  49

-------
    No operational  problems  occurred during the SITE
demonstration.  Potential operational problems would include
mechanical problems with the process equipment, fugitive dust
generated by the operations, noise pollution, the availability of a
water supply capable of producing 100 gpm, and availability of
space for locating the LTTAź system and staging of soils.

B. 3.7   Soil Properties

    Feed soils were sandy with a high silt-clay content and
moderate plasticity. The liquid limit (water content at which the
soil behaves as liquid) was approximately 19 percent. The soils
were classified as A-4 according to the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) classification scheme  (ASTM
1989).   Moisture content was between 4.5 and 6.5 percent.
Approximately 37 percent of the feed  soil was finer  than 74
microns, 43 percent was between 74 and 4:25 microns and slightly
more than 20 percent was coarser than 425 microns. The average
pH was 7.6. Characteristics of the treated soil were only slightly
changed, with the most notable difference being an increase in
moisture content to 10.2 percent.
EPA. 1990. "Methods Manual for Compliance with B.I.F.
    Regulations." Office of Solid Waste, Publication No.
    EPA/530-SN-91-010.

SCS Engineers. 1990. "Remedial Action Plan for a
    Confidential Site in Arizona." July 7.

SCS Engineers. 1992. "LTTAź Proof-of-Process Oversight for
    Confidential Site.: July 7.
B. 3.8   Effect on Soil Bearing Capacity

    The bearing capacity of both the feed and treated soil was
determined using the CBR test. The CBR measures the ratio of
the stress applied to the soil to provide a 0.100 inch penetration
divided by a standard value of 1,000 pounds per square inch.
These values are presented in Table B-5. The CBR values of the
treated soil were slightly higher than those of the untreated soil,
indicating that the bearing capacity was slightly improved.
B.4     References

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1989.
    Methods Published Annually by ASTM.

Gains, T.B.  1969. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology.
    14th Edition, p. 515.

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (NIOSH/
    OHSA). 1981. "Occupational Health Guide and
    Chemical Hazards." p.2.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1986. "Test
    Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Volumes IA-IC:
    Laboratory Manual, Physical/Chemical Methods " and
    "Volume II: Field Manual, Physical/Chemical Methods."
    SW-846, Third Edition, Office of Solid Waste, Document
    Control No. 955-001-00000-1.
                                                        50

-------
Table B-5.  California Bearing Ratio

Process RUn
Stream


Feed
Soil
1
2
3
Treated
Soil
10 Blows 25 Blows 56 Blows

Dry Density Dry Density Dry Density
CBR CBR CBR
kg/m3 Ibflt3 kg/m3 Ibflt3 kg/m3 Ibflt3


7 1714 107 17.5 1865 116.4 40 1985 123.9
7.4 1755 109.5 20.4 1917 119.6 30.1 2017 125.9
6.5 1740 108.6 19.1 1892 118.1 38.9 1985 123.9


                         8.9       1802      112.4      26.7       1914      119.4      36.8       1991      124.2
                         7.6       1737      108.4      25.3       1869      116.6      52.3       1955       122
                         9.9       1766      110.2      22.3       1856      115.8      43.3       1970      122.9
CBR    California Bearing Ratio
kg/m3    kilogram per cubic meter
Ib/ft3    pound per cubic foot
                                                           51

-------
                                               Appendix C
                                               Case Studies
    This appendix was prepared using information provided by
Canonie Environmental Services Corporation.  Claims and
interpretations of results in this appendix are made by Canonie
and are not necessarily substantiated by test or cost data. Many
of Canonie's claims regarding cost and performance can be
compared to the available data in Section 3 and Appendix B.
    The cumulative results from five case studies and the Arizona
pesticide site for contaminant removal efficiency are shown in
Table C-l. Short descriptions of the sites, remedial activities,
and type of contaminated materials treated are presented in the
sections that follow.
C.I
McKin Superfund Site Remediation
Client:     Steering committee representing over 300
           Potentially Responsible Parties

Location:  Gray, Maine - EPA Region 1

Performance
Period:     December  1985 - May 1987

Material:   Contaminated soil and grouridwater
containing  VOCs and  oils

Scope
of Work:   Aeration of soils at low temperature to
           remove VOCs

Total Cost: $6,500,000
Site Description

    The McKin site was formerly used as a liquid waste storage,
treatment, and disposal facility for volatile organic  solvents,
chemicals, and heavy oils.  As a result of improper operation
practices, VOCs and oils were released to soils and groundwater.
The resulting  groundwater and soil contamination was
exacerbated by the geological structure. A silty clay layer was
located 20 feet below the silty, coarse, sandy surface  material.
The contaminant leachate dispersed along the clay layer affecting
a local drinking water aquifer. This site was ranked number 32
on the National Priorities List (NPL) and was the first NPL project
to be completed in Region 1.


LTTA* Process Operations

    The McKin site was the first site to implement the LTTAź
technology. More than 9,500 cubic yards of soil contaminated
with VOCs and 2,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with waste
petroleum were treated with the LTTAź process. Concentrations
of VOCs were reduced from greater than 3,000 mg/kg to leve"
averaging less than  0.05 mg/kg.  Polynuclear aroma
hydrocarbons were reduced to concentrations less than 10
kg   The  innovative  design and construction techniqu
implemented by Canonie reduced the overall cost of remediation
by approximately $8,000,000. Processing rates ranged from 35
to 45 tons/hour.

    The soil treatment results for contaminant removal using
the LTTAź system at the McKin site are shown in Table C-2.
                                                 C. 2     Cannons Bridgewater Superfund Site
                                                 Client:      Cannons Bridgewater Superfund Site
                                                             Settling Parties

                                                 Location:   Bridgewater, Massachusetts -
                                                             EPA Region 1

                                                 Performance
                                                 Period:     September 1988 - September 1990

                                                 Material:    Contaminated building structures, tanks,
                                                             and VOC- and PCB-contaminated soils

                                                 Scope
                                                 of Work:    Thermally treat VOC-contaminated soils;
                                                             excavate and decontaminate PCB-
                                                             contaminated soils; demolish and dispose of
                                                             tanks and buildings

                                                 Total Cost:  Confidential
                                                      52

-------
Table C-1. Reported Full-Scale LTTAź System Chemical Removal Efficiencies
Compound
Pretreatment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Posttreatment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Site
Name
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane
Xylenes
Total VOCs
Organochlorine Pesticides
ODD
DDE
DDT
Toxaphene
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Ethyl parathion
Methyl parathion
Merphos
Mervinphos
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
5.3
320
300
1,400
1,200
3,000
460
470
3,700
5,420

206
48
321
1,540

116
0.78
195
20.4
2,000
< 0.025
<0.02
<0.02
<0.05
< 0.025
< 0.05
< 0.025
< 0.025
0.25
0.45

<0.01
0.94
< 0.04
< 0.5

< 0.07
< 0.059
< 0.004
< 0.002
<50
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99

>99
99
>99
>99

>99
>92
>99
>99
>99
Cannons
McKin
McKin
Spencer
Ottati and Goss
Spencer
Ottati and Goss
Ottati and Goss
Spencer
Spencer

Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona

Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Cannons
                                                               53

-------
Table C-1.  Reported Full-Scale LTTAź System Chemical Removal Efficiencies (continued)
Compound
Pretreatment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Posttreatment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
Site
Name
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i,)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalat
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1.1
1.1
2.2
2.0
2.1
1.0
1.6
6.5
2.3
0.15
3.4
0.79
1.0
1.2
3.8
4.7
<039
0.062
0.22
0.30
0.34
0.33
0.32
1.0
0.30
0.05
0.20
<039
0.24
0.042
0.23
0.26
>65
94
90
85
84
67
80
85
87
67
94
>51
76
96
94
94
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
South Kearny
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Source:  Canonie 1992
mg/kg   Milligrams per kilogram
<        Less than
>        Greater than
                                                                54

-------
Table C-2.  LTTAź Process Representative Soil Treatment Results McKin Superfund Site Gray, Maine
Compound
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Anthracene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Concentration
Pretreatment Soil
2.7
320
300
130
120
62
19
3,310
840

0.44
0.8
1.2
0.79
0.8
1.2
(mg/kg)
Posttreatment Soil
< 1
<0.02
< 0.02
< 1
< 0.02
< 1
<0.02
0.04
< 1

<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
0.51
 Source:  Canonie 1992
 mg/kg    Milligrams per kilogram
 <        Less than
                                                             55

-------
Site Description

    This 4-acre site was formerly used as a waste oil processing
facility.  The site was then converted to a solvent incineration
facility which operated from 1974 to 1980.

    The site structures, tanks, soils, and adjacent wetlands were
contaminated with VOCs  and SVOCs.  On-site structures
included an incinerator which was tested for dioxins and PCBs.
On-site buildings and tanks were found to be contaminated with
PCBs and SVOCs.

LTTA* Process Operations

    The soils at the Cannons Bridgewater site that  were
contaminated by VOCs and SVOCs were processed with the
ITTAź system to reduce the volatile organics.  Posttreatment
soil samples were collected and analyzed to verify compliance
with the thermal aeration treatment criteria.  All posttreatment
soil samples met the thermal treatment criteria. The treated soils
were backfilled on site. A total of 11,330 tons of soil (containing
approximately 1,242 pounds of VOCs) was treated at the Cannons
Bridgewater site. Processing rates ranged from 42 to 48 tons/
hour.

C. 3     Ottati and Goss Superfund Site
Client:     Three-member settling party committee

Location:   Kingston, New Hampshire - EPA Region 1

Performance
Period:     November 1988 - April 1989

Material:   Contaminated soils, sediments, and
           groundwater containing VOCs

Scope
of Work:   Utilize LTTA* to remove VOCs from soil

Total Cost: $1,470,000


Site Description

    The Ottati and Goss Superfund site was used to stabilize
spent organic solvents.  Due to improper operation, soils and
groundwater at the site were contaminated by VOCs  This site
ranked number 129 on the NPL.


LTTA* Process Operations

    The LTTAź system treated 4,700 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with VOCs. All soils treated by the LTI A* system
met the performance standard of 1.0 mg/kg total V()( "s and 0.1
ing/kg  for the  compounds  1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and tetrachloroethene. Processing rates ranged
from approximately 35 to 45 tons/hour.

The soil treatment results for contaminant removal
using the LTTA* system at the Ottati and Goss site are
shown in Table C-3.
C.4     South Kearny Site Remediation

Client:     TP Industrial, Inc.

Location:  South Kearny, New Jersey - EPA Region 2

Performance
Period:    June 1989 - December  1989

Material:  Site soils contaminated with VOCs and
           SVOCs at levels up to 10,000 mg/kg

Scope
of Work:  Thermally treat 16,000 tons of
           contaminated vadose zone soils with the
           LTTA* system; confirm compliance with
           cleanup criteria at an on-site laboratory;
           replace soils on site

Total Cost: Confidential
Site Description

    The 2-acre site was a former manufacturing facility where
spent solvents were disposed of. Soil samples indicated elevated
concentrations of VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds.
Maximum concentrations were 10,000 mg/kg for VOCs and 150
mg/kg for semivolatile organic compounds.
LTTA* Process Operations

    The I TTAź process treated 16,000 tons of soil contaminated
with VOCs and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Residual concentrations averaged 0.3 mg/kg for VOCs and 0.93
mg/kg  for PAH compounds.  All remedial  activities  were
conducted under a permit issued by the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection and were completed within 7 months
to comply with site "fast-track" status. Processing rates of up to
50 tons/hour were achieved.

    The soil treatment results for proof-of-process runs using
the LTTAź system at the South Kearny site are shown in Table
C-4.
                                                     56

-------
Table C-3.  LTTAź Process Soil Treatment Results Ottati and Goss Superfund Site Kingston, New Hampshire1
                                       Location 1
                                                                               Location 2
                                                                                                                       Location 3
                                                                                                                                                                Location 4
       Compound
                            Pretreatment2        Posttreatment3        Pretreatment2       Posttreatment3        Pretreatment2       Posttreatment3       Pretreatment2        Posttreatment3
 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
                                 33
                                                   < 0.025
                                                                         12
                                                                                           < 0.025
                                                                                                                 27
                                                                                                                                   < 0.025
                                                                                                                                                         470
                                                                                                                                                                           < 0.025
 Trichloroethene
                                                    0025
                                                                                             0.025
                                                                                                                 27
                                                                                                                                     i.025
                                                                                                                                                                           < 0.025
 Tetrachloroethene
                                 12
                                                   < 0.025
                                                                         4.9
                                                                                           < 0.025
                                                                                                                 40
                                                                                                                                   < 0.025
                                                                                                                                                         ,200
                                                                                                                                                                           < 0.025
 Toluene
                                >470
                                                   < 0.025
                                                                        260
                                                                                           < 0.025
                                                                                                                >87
                                                                                                                                   < 0.025
                                                                                                                                                        3,000
                                                                                                                                                                            0.11
 Ethylbenzene
                                >380
                                                   < 0.025
                                                                        >300
                                                                                           < 0.025
                                                                                                                >50
                                                                                                                                   < 0.025
                                                                                                                                                         440
                                                                                                                                                                           < 0.025
 Total xylenes
>1,100
                                                     14
                                                                        >900
                                                                                           < 0.025
                                                                                                                >170
                                                                                                                                   < 0.025
                                                                                                                                                         180
                                                                                                                                                                            0.14
Source:  Canonie 1992
1     All concentrations are  reported in milligrams per kilogram
2    Pretreatment soil samples were analyzed by EPA Method 8240
3    Posttreatment soil samples were analyzed by EPA Methods 8010 and 8020

-------
 Table C-4.  LTTAź Process Representative Proof-of-Process Analytical Results South Kearny, Ne Jersey

Compound
Volatile Organic Compounds
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
Total VOCs
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
di-n-Butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Concentration
Pretreatment Soil

0.55
3
15
190
100
5.6
15
5.2
308

0.7
2.5
5.9
5.4
5
3.5
4.9
6.5
5.9
1.9
7
1
3.2
2
6.4
15
(mg/kg)
Posttreatment Soil

ND
ND
0.15
0.38
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.51

ND
ND
0.94
0.58
1.2
0.63
0.71
1
1.3
0.84
1.8
ND
0.55
0.34
1.2
1
Source:  Canonie 1992
mg/kg    Milligrams per kilogram
ND      Not detected
                                                            58

-------
C. 5    Former Spencer Kellog Facility                    LTTA* Process Operations
                                                             A total of 6,500 tons of soil contaminated with VOCs and
Client:      Textron, Inc.                                 SVOCs from 22 discrete sites were excavated and treated with
                                                         the LTTAź process.   The overall processing rate was
Location:   Newark, New Jersey - EPA Region 2          approximately 15 tons/hour.  The  LTTAź removed all
                                                         contaminants to below specified cleanup levels.
Performance
Period:     November 1991 - March 1992                    jne soji treatment results for contaminant removal using
            mr^^,    j 0,7^^,        •     _•                the LTTAź system are shown in Table C-5.
Material:    VOC- and SVOC -contaminated soils
Scope
of Work:    Thermally treat VOC- and SVOC-
            contaminated soils with minimal impact to
            daily facility operations
Total Cost:  Confidential
     Table C-5.  LTTAź Process Representative Soil Treatment Results Former Spencer Kellogg Facility Newark, New Jersey
                                                                   Concentration  (mg/kg)
                        Compound                       Pretreatment   Soil          Posttreatment  Soil
              Volatile  Organic  Compounds
     Benzene                                                 0.24                       0.072
     Ethylbenzene                                            1,400                      < 0.05
     Toluene                                                 3,000                      < 0.05
     Total  xylenes                                            3,700                       0.25
     Total  VOCs                                              5,420                       0.45
            Semivolatile  Organic  Compounds
     Acenaphthene                                             1.1                       < 0.39
     Anthracene                                               1.1                       0.062
     Benzo(a)anthracene                                        2.2                        0.22
     Benzo(a)pyrene                                            2                         0.3
     Benzo(b)fluoranthene                                      2.1                        0.34
     Benzo(g,h,i)perylene                                        1                         0.33
     Benzo(k)fluoranthene                                      1.6                        0.32
     bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate                                  0.95                       0.071
     Chrysene                                                 2.3                        0.3
     Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene                                    0.15                        0.05
     Fluoranthene                                             3.4                        0.2
     Fluorene                                                 0.79                       < 0.39
     lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene                                      1                         0.24
     Naphthalene                                              1.2                       0.042
     Phenanthrene                                             3.8                        0.23
     Pyrene                                                   4.7                        0.26
     Source:  Canonie 1992
     mg/kg   Milligrams per kilogram
     <       Less than
                                                      59

-------

-------