«*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
-------
------- |