vxEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of I
Research and Development
Cincinnati. OH 45268
EPA/540/R-94/507a
August 1994
SITE Technology Capsule
Clean Berkshires,, Inc.
Thermal Desorp tion System
Introduction
In 1980, the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act (CERCLA). also known as Superfund. CERCLA Is
committed to protecting human health and the environ-
ment from the dangers posed by uncontrolled hazard-
ous waste sites. CERCLA was subsequently amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizatlon Act
(SARA) In 1986. emphasizing long-tean effectiveness and
permanent remedies at Superfund sites. SARA also en-
courages the use of alternative treatment or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent possible
to achieve these goals.
State and federal agencies as well as private parties
are now exploring a growing number of innovative tech-
nologies for treating hazardous wastes. The sites on the
National Priorities List total over 1,200 and comprise a
broad spectrum of physical, chemical, and environmen-
tal conditions requiring varying types of remedial re-
sponses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is leading the effort to define policy, technical, and
Information Issues related to developing and applying
new remediation techniques at Superfund sites. One
such EPA initiative Is the Superfund Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation (SITE) Program, which was established to
accelerate development, demonstration, and use of In-
novative technologies for site cleanups. To disseminate
information on the latest technologies, EPA created SITE
Technology Capsules. These concise documents are de-
signed to help EPA remedial project managers, EPA on-
scene coordinators, contractors, and other site cleanup
managers understand the types of data and site char-
acteristics needed to effectively evaluate a technology's
potential for cleaning up Superfund sites.
Thfe Capsule provides Information on the Clean Berk-
shires, Inc. (CBI), now renamed Max/million Technolo-
gies, Inc., Thermal Desorption System (TDS), a technol-
ogy developed to remove organic compounds from
soil. The CBI TDS was evaluated under EPA's SITE Pro-
gram In November/December 1993 at a former manu-
factured gas plant (MGP) site where soils are
contaminated primarily with coal coking by-products.
Information In this Capsule emphasizes specific site char-
acteristics and resullls from the SITE Demonstration Test.
Additional results including TDS performance at a soil
recycling site In western Massachusetts were provided
by CBI and are summarized In the Technology Status
section. This Capsule; contains the following information:
• Abstract
• Technology Description
• Technology.Appllcability
• Technology Limitations
• Process Residuals
• Site Requirements
• Performance Data
• Technology Status
• Source of Further Information
Abstract |
The thermal desorption process devised by CBI uses
standard rotary kiln technology to remove organic con-
taminants from excavated solid wastes. The process works
by vaporizing and Isolating the constituents In a gas
stream and then deistroying them In a high-efficiency
afterburner. The processed solids are either reused or
disposed of as nonhcizardous, depending on applicable
regulations.
The CBI TDS was evaluated under the SfTE Program
at the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's
Remediation Technologies Demonstration Facility at Har-
bor Point In Utica, New York. Harbor Point Is the site of a
former manufactured gas plant and has been contami-
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
noted with coal coking by-producfe. The list of primary
contaminants Include: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xytene (BTEX), polynuctear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), ferrteyanlde compounds, arsenic and lead. Four
different types of MGP soBd wastes were tested: (1) coke
plant residuals; (2) purifier bed wastes; (3) water gas plant
residuals; and (4) Uttea Terminal Harbor sediments. The
Demonstration Test took place between November 15
and December 13,1993.
Results from the SITE Demonstration are summarized
below:
• TheCBITDSachleveddestTUcttonarriremovaleffiden-
des (DREs) of 99.99% or greater In all 12 runs using total
xylenes as a volatfle principal organic hazardous con-
stituent (POHC).
• DREsof 99.99% or greater were achieved In 11 of 12 runs
using naphthalene as a semlvolatile POHC.
• Average concentrations for critical pollutants In pro-
cessed solids were (estimated) 0.066 mg/kg total BTEX;
12.4 mg/kg total PAHs; and 5.4 mg/kg total cyanide.
• TheCBITDSshowed good operating stability. The range
for critical operating parameters was as follows: feed
rate, 16 to 22 tons/hr; kBn soU exit temperature, 620 to
860°F; afterburner temperature. 1.810 to 1,8200F; and
afterburner residence time. 0.82 to 0.87 seconds.
• Comparison of the dry weight basis concentration of
pollutants In the feed and processed solids shows the
following average removal efficiencies: (estimated)
99.7% total BTEX- 98.6% total PAHs; and 97.5% total
cyanides.
• Although stack emissions were generally In compli-
ance with applicable standards, data show sulfur diox-
ide emissions were weH above statutory limits since the
TDS was operating without any air pollution equipment
designed for scrubbing.
The CBI TDS technology was evaluated based on the
seven technical criteria used for decision making In the
Superfund feasibility study (FS) process. Results of the evalu-
ation are summarized In Table 1.
Technology Description
In general, thermal desorption Is an ex-situ physical
separation technique that transfers contaminants from
soil and water to the gas phase. The process uses heat to
rabe the temperature of organic contaminants enough
to volatilize and separate them from a bed of contami-
nated soBd waste. Temperatures are controlled to pre-
vent widespread combustion since Incineration Is not the
desired result. The volatilized organic contaminants can
be captured by condensation or adsorption, or destroyed
by using an offgas combustion chamber.
The CBI TDS Is a dlrect-flred, co-current thermal
desorber based on standard rotary kHn technology. It Is a
process which Is composed of three different operations:
feed preparation, contaminant volatilization, and gas
treatment.
Feed preparation begins with a sequence consisting
of crushing, shredding, and screening to reduce maxi-
mum parttcfe size to 3/4-in. The material is then blended
by using a front-end loader to repeatedly fold the mate-
rial onto itself as a precaution against pockets of high
BTU content soH and to distribute moisture evenly. This
step Is Important since It helps protect the system from
thermal shocks caused by oily "hot spots' In the waste.
The prepared material Is then placed Into feed surge bins
and fed Into the kiln through a two-stage conveyor belt
system.
Contaminant volatilization begins after the prepared
feed material enters the kiln. The soil temperature is In-
creased up to ~800°F through contact with an air stream
heated by a natural gas burner located at the kiln's
entrance. The kiln Is equipped with specially designed
flights that lift and veil the soil, exposing greater surface
area to the hot gases. Improving volatilization. Treated
soil exits the kiln and enters a pug mill which combines
the material with solid residuals from the gas treatment
sequence to form a consolidated processed solids stream.
Water recycled from the quench tower is added at this
time to cool the processed solids and control fugitive
dust emissions. The solids are deposited onto a discharge
conveyor and stockpiled.
Gas treatment begins when the kiln offgas, now filled
with volatilized contaminants and entrained partlculate,
enters a multi-stage treatment sequence. Kiln offgases
are first drawn through a cyclone to remove coarse
partlculate matter. The gases then enter a high-efficiency,
natural gas-flred afterburner which combusts organic con-
stituents at temperatures up to ~1,800°F. A quench tower
cools the combustion gases by passing them through a
highly atomized water mist. The cooled gas stream then
enters a baghouse to remove fine-sized filterable particu-
late. If any acid levels are high enough to Impact air
quality standards, a scrubber could be added at this
point In the treatment sequence. Treated gases exit the
system through a 75-ft high stack. Solid residuals from gas
treatment are transferred by a screw auger to the pug
mill and are combined with the treated soil from the kiln.
The TDS layout Is flexible and facilitates the rear-
rangement or addition of process equipment, as required.
This permits CBI to customize operations based on site-
specific combinations of media and pollutants. Rgure 1 Is
a schematic diagram of the CBI TDS unit as configured
for the SITE Demonstration Test. The TDS Is transportable
and Is monitored and controlled by a computer-based
data acquisition system.
Technology Applicability
In general, the CBI TDS can be applied at any site
where the following conditions exist: the target waste
can be excavated or dredged readily tor processing,
target pollutants are amenable to desorption at kiln tem-
peratures with a capacity between 600 and 1,100°F, and
gas phase contaminants can be destroyed In an after-
burner at temperatures of 2.000°F or less.
CBI states that the TDS Is capable of handling a
variety of solid waste types Including soil, sediment, and,
sludge. Within each solid waste type, the unit accepts a
range of particle sizes, from granular to silly clays. In the
SITE Demonstration Test, large chunks of debris were pul-
verized until the maximum particle size was reduced to
3/4-ln. and were then combined with other feed materi-
als tor routine treatment. CBI claims that soil containing
large proportions of silt or dense clay-like hardpan, tradl-
-------
r, Evaluation Criteria tor the CBITDS
'
Criteria
Overall Protection
of Human Health
and the
Environment
Provides both short-
and long-term protec-
tion by permanently
eliminating contami-
nants in soil.
Process controls
reduce any unac-
ceptable short-
term or cross media
impacts.
Complisnca with
Federal ARAfts1
May require
compliance with
RCRA treatment,
storage, and land
disposal regulations.
Feed preparation,
and operation ot
treatment unit may
require compliance
with State and
ARARs.
Emission controls
are needed to
ensure compli-
ance with air
quality standards.
f'^'1-.-
Long-Term ,'.!»','-
Effectiveness and
Performance '
Effectively separates
organic contamination
from soil, and
destroys organics
in afterburner.
Involves well demon-
strated technique for
removal of
contaminants.
Involves some
residuals treatment
or disposal.
Metal bearing
wastes not effect-
ively treated.
Reduction of
Toxicity. UooOty,
or Volume
Through
Treatment
Significantly
reduces taddty,
mobility, and vol-
ume or son contam-
inants through
treatment
Does not produce
any intermediates
of greater toxicity
as a result of
treatment
Treatment is
permanent.
Short-Twin
Effectiveness
Requires measures
to protect wofkers
and community dur-
ing excavation, han-
dling, and tre.ttmont
High throughout
rates of technology
can reduce oweraS
time for
remedial action.
Implementability Cost
Thosystemhas $7S-19onon
on^neemctency (which is highly
ofSO-90%. dependenton
sitecharac- *
toristics)
Utility require-
ments are limited
to water, electricity,
and natural gas
or fuel oil.
Technology
performance
monitored by
computer data
acquisition
system.
Thermal technol-
ogies historically
have had trouble
gaining commun-
ity acceptance.
•ARARs • Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
tionally a problem for other treatment technologies, have
been processed successfully by the TDS.
The CBI TDS was designed to remove volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), semlvolatlle organic compounds
(SVOCs), and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). During
the Demonstration Test, the CBI TDS removed VOCs such
as BTEX; SVOCs such as naphthalene, phenanthrene,
chrvsene, benzo(a)pyren©, and other PAHs; and organo-
metalllc ferricyanlde complexes. CBI claims that other full-
scale TDS operations have been used to treat TPHs
including gasoline and fuel oils such as No. 2 oil. dies©!
fuel, kerosene, and. jet fuel.
The CBI TDS does have some limitations with respect
to the characteristics of wastes it can treat (see Technol-
ogy Limitations), and, the process does generate some
residuals that require further treatment (see Process Re-
siduals). As such, the technology should not be consid-
ered entirely stand-atone.
Technology Limitations
Contaminated feed materials must have a minimum
solids content of 60% to facilitate materials handling op-
erations. It should be noted that a high moisture content
may reduce throughput only If burner capacity Is ex-
ceeded. As feed material passes through the kiln, energy
is first consumed to heat and vaporize moisture. Signifi-
cant contaminant volatilization cannot begin until most of
the moisture is driven from the feed material. In order to
restore desorber throughput, higher burner firing rates or
the addition of a separate dewatering step may be re-
quired. During the SITE Demonstration, high moisture con-
tent feed materials did not appear to have an impact on
desorber performance.
CBI advises that the unit has a waste heat value
upper limit of approximately 300 Btus/lb. The limit was a
conservative estimate designed to ensure temperature
stability throughout tt-ie system. However, actual condi-
tions during testing introduced waste with heat values in
excess of 3.000 Btus/lb. For MGP wastes, the major sources
of elevated healing value are oily manufactured gas by-
products and wood chips from purifier beds, an out-
dated stack gas scrubbing process. Waste blending or
homogenlzation Is highly recommended as a means to
evenly distribute both moisture and Btu content.
Various compounds containing sulfur and cyanide
are common In MGP wastes and when treated with this
system become a potential source of air pollution. A
caustic scrubber may be required to capture the com-
bustion products of these compounds If sulfur and cya-
nide levels are high enough to exceed health and safety
or applicable air quality standards.
Treatment of wastes contaminated primarily with ha-
logenated hydrocarbons can be accomplished with the
addition of air pollution control equipment since system
temperatures are above the condensation point, pre-
venting corrosion of mponents. Metals that are not
partlcutariy volatile are not likely be treated effectively by
the TDS. If there Is a need to reduce metals concentra-
tion, a separate pre- or post-treatment step will be re-
quired. Plastic materials are not recommended for
treatment by this process since their decomposition prod-
ucts could cause plugging or foul surfaces.
Process Residuals
The CBI TDS was designed to minimize waste streams
by combining or recycling Internal process streams wher-
-------
Prepared
food soils
r
Kiln
Natural
gas
To atmosphe
I
d
Stack
Gas streams
Natural gas streams
SottdAvater streams
Pugmill
Processed solids
stockpile area
Municipal
water
Make-up
water
tank
Figure 1. CBI thermal desorption system.
ever posstofe. For example, excess water from the quench
tower Is recycled In the system to control fugitive dust
emissions. As a result of Its design, the TDS generates three
residual streams: (1) screened debris rejects, (2) processed
solids, and. (3) stack gases.
Screened debris rejects for the Demonstration Test
consisted primarily of a taw volume of metal scraps, over-
sized wood pieces, and, articles of plastic. These Items
are currently stockpiled onsfte. Other screened debris were
pulverized and combined with feed material for routine
treatment.
Internal solid residual streams generated by the TDS
are combined to create a single consolidated processed
solids stream. The stream consists of parflculate removed
from the gas treatment sequence and Win solids. The
processed solids are not derived from Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRA) listed wastes and do not
exhibit characteristics of hazardous waste as defined In
40 CFR 261. Preliminary results show that the processed
solids have met special site-specific treatment standards
and are currently stockpiled onslte awaiting use as back-
fill In future Harbor Point projects.
Stack gas emissions from the TDS were subject to a
number of standards during the Demonstration Test In-
cluding: 40 CFR 50. National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards (NAAQS); Title 6 New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations (NYCRR) Part 257, Air Quayty Standards; and
New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion (NYSDEC) Air Guide 1, Guidelines for the Control of
Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants. Results from the Demon-
stration Test show lhat average sulfur dioxide emissions
were above NYSDEC standards for each MGP waste type
tested. The addition of a caustic scrubber would be re-
quired for full-scale remediation at this site.
Site Requirements
CBI TDS equipment transportation requirements con-
sist of 15 to 20 legal and oversized truck loads of equip-
ment. Oversized loads requiring permits include: feed bins,
kiln, cyclone, afterburner, afterburner stack base, quench
top, quench bottom, and, baghouse. For remote sites,
access roads will be necessary for equipment transport.
Once onsite, the TDS can be fully operational In approxi-
mately 1 mo, depending on weather conditions and avail-
ability of necessary facilities, equipment, utilities, and
supplies. The major components of the system are de-
signed to be off-loaded directly Into place. If a suitably
constructed floor space is not available, then, at a mini-
mum, concrete footers will be required to support system
components at several key locations. Once assembled,
the entire system has a footprint measuring 100 x 150 ft
(exclusive of materials handling and decontamination
areas). For standard operations, the system requires a
crew of 6 to 8 people. After treatment te completed the
system can be demobilized and moved offslte within one
mo.
Utility requirements for the CBI TDS are electricity.
water, and natural gas. The TDS requires a three-phase
transformer with 1000-ampere. 480-volt service. The fol-
lowing quantities of utilities were used (/ton of soil treated)
during the Demonstration Test: water, 320 gal; electricity.
-------
18.3 kllowatt-hr; and natural gas. 0.16 to 0.424 million Btus
' (based on 1500 to 4000 SCF/ton).
• Match emissions data against New York State Air
Gulde-1 Toxic Air Contaminants Standards.
Excavation of one waste type, water gas plant re-
siduals, was accomplished In a prefabricated, fully-en-
closed, mechanically-ventilated, temporary structure. The
enclosed structure was necessary due to the high level of
malodorous volatile compounds In the waste and the
proximity of the excavation pit to the surrounding com-
munity. Dredging of harbor sediments required construc-
tion of a sheetplle excavation cell and Installation of a silt
curtain to decrease 1he potential for harm to the aquatic
environment. The need for specialized facilities such as
these Is site specific.
A method to store waste materials prepared for treat-
ment may also be necessary. Storage capacity will de-
pend on waste volume. During the Demonstration Test,
several prefabricated structures were used to house pre-
pared feed materials prior to treatment. The structures
averted a rain runoff problem and prevented windy con-
ditions from creating a dust hazard. Storage should also
be provided to hold the processed materials until they
have been tested to determine their acceptability for
disposal or reuse.
Onsite analytical equipment capable of determining
the residual concentration of organic compounds In feed
and treated materials can provide quick-turnaround In-
formation on TDS performance. Such equipment and fa-
cilities were utilized during the Demonstration Test.
Performance Data
The performance of the CBI TDS was evaluated on
four types of MGP solid wastes. These were: (1) coke plant
residuals; (2) purifier bed wastes; (3) sediments from the
Utica Terminal Harbor; and (4) water gas plant residuals.
The four waste lypes were selected because they repre-
sent waste iypes commonly found at each of the esti-
mated 3,000 former MGP sites located across the nation.
Maximum pollutant concentrations were 320 mg/kg BTEX;
4/420 mg/kg total PAHs; 1,120 mg/kg total cyanide; 60
mg/kg arsenic; and 320 mg/kg lead.
Three 4-hr replicate runs were conducted for each
waste type. For each run, samples were collected from
the feed soil, processed solids, cyclone solids, baghous©
solids, quench water. Intake water, and, stack gases.
Samples were analyzed for PAHs, BTEX, cyanide, and
metals. Feed soil samples were also analyzed for other
physical and chemical parameters.
Performance criteria established for the Demonstra-
tion Test Included the following:
• • Compare actual DREs against standard of 99.99%.
• Determine concentration of total PAHs. total BTEX,
and total cyanide In 1he processed solids stream.
• Evaluate thestabllityof targetedoperating param-
eters.
• Calculate removal efficiencies fortotal PAHs, BTEX,
and total cyanide.
• Ascertain whether particutate emissions are within
limits established by New York State.
Predemonstratioh sampling and analysis showed that
each of the four waste types would require spiking in
order to provide pollutant concentrations that were con-
sistent and sufficient to evaluate the DRE performance
criterion. A volatile compound
-------
Removal efficiencies for BTEX, PAHs, and cyanide
were determined by comparing the dry weight concen-
tration of pollutants In the native feed soil and the pro-
cessed solids. Average removal efficiencies were:
(estimated) 99.7%. total BTEX; 98.6%. total PAHs; and 97.5%.
total cyanides. If the spBdng levels were considered, these
reductions would be greater. Removal efficiencies are
summarized In Table 3. Total BTEX, total PAHs. and total
cyanide concentrations In feed sol and processed soBds
are Illustrated In Figures 2 through 4.
Particulate emissions from the unit are subject to
limits established In 6 NYCRR Part 212: General Process
Emissions Source. For all! 2 runs, partlculate emissions met
the applicable State emission limit of 0.050 grains/dry
standard cubic foot (gr/dsft3) corrected to 7% oxygen.
The NYSDEC requires a toxic ambient air quality Im-
pact analysis for all new or modified sources of air con-
taminants regulated under 6 NYCRR Part 212. The analysis,
which Is described In New York Air Gulde-1, was con-
ducted to predict the point of maximum concentration.
A standard point source method was used to predict the
site of maximum Impact. As a conservative and simple
approximation, the effective stack height was assumed
to be the physical stack height. Building cavity Impacts
were not considered because emissions are confined to
onslte receptors. Worst-case annual and short-term am-
bient Impacts were calculated for all toxic emissions emit-
ted from the TDS then compared to the appropriate
guldeflne concentration to assess the acceptability of
the source. For all air contaminants but one, the pre-
dicted worst-case Impact was less than the concentra-
tion Bsted In the New York Air Guide 1. Arsenic emissions
exceeded the annual guideline concentration during
coke plant waste treatment runs, and both the annual
and short-term guideline concentrations were exceeded
during purifier bed wastes treatment runs. Since this basic
screening analysis showed a higher than acceptable
Impact, a more refined air quality analysis should be
T*bto2. Destruction and Removal Efficiences
Tables. Input/OutputSolids Concentrations and Removal Efficiencies
Waste Type
Goto Plant
Purifier Wastes
Harbor Sediments
Water GMS Plant
Run
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
ORE Total
Xylensa
99.990%
99.994
> 99.9992
99.993
99.997
99.998
99.994
99.997
99.997
99.998
99.998
99.998
ORE
Naphthalene
99.998%
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.9992
99.9990
> 99.997
> 99.997
99.9996
99.97
99.998
99.9997
Waste Type
Processed
Food Soil Solids Removal
Concentration Concentration Efficiency
(Mgfcg) (mgJkg) (%)
BTEX
Coke Plant
Purifier Wastes
Harbor Sediments
Water Gas Plant
Average
13
15
81
320
0.056
0.071
0.065
0.073
'
99.6
99.6
99.9
99.8
99.7
PAHs
Coke Plant
Purifier Wastes
Harbor Sediments
Water Gas Plant
Average
320
1040
1620
4420
13
5.1
5.5
26
95.9
99.5
99.7
99.4
98.6
Total Cyanides
Coke Plant 730 21
Purifier Wastes 1120 0.24
Harbor Sediments 9.3 0.23
Water Gas Plant 4.3 0.2
Average
97.1
99.9
97.5
95.4
97.5
conducted to accurately predict the site of maximum
concentration.
It should be noted that metal emissions. Including-
arsenic, would vary depending on such factors as input
concentration, metals species, waste matrix, organic con-
stituents and chlorine content. Emission estimates for other
waste streams treated by the TDS cannot be extrapo-
lated from the demonstration results and site-specific cal-
culations would need to be performed to determine
ambient Impacts. Upon examination of these ambient
impacts, operating temperature, air pollution control
equipment operating parameters, and, waste stream char-
acteristics need to be analyzed to determine how best to
control metal emissions.
A continuous emissions monitor (CEM) was used to
measure oxygen (Oj), carbon dioxide (CO,), carbon mon-
oxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx). and,
sulfur dioxide (SO,). NYSDEC currently has no emission
limits for any of these pollutants except SO,. The CEM
recorded levels of SO, above regulatory standards during
all runs. Because of tne short duration of the Demonstra-
tion Test, NYSDEC allowed the system to operate without
a scrubber. However, NYSDEC would require a scrubber
to control SO, emissions If the CBI TDS was selected to
remediate this site. Stack emissions are summarized in
Tables.
-------
Tablo 4, Average Targeted Operating Parameters
Parameter
Feed Rate (tons/hr)
Kiln Exit
Temperature (°F)
Afterburner Exit
Temperature (°F)
Afterburner Residence
Time (seconds)
Coke Plant
18
620
1810
0.86
Table S. Average Stack Emisssions Data
Particulate
Lead
Arsenic
CO*
Total Hydrocarbons'
NOX'
Spg*
gr/dsff
Ib/hr
ftg/m3
Ib/hr
ftg/m3
IbAir
ppm
Ib/hr
ppm
Ib/hr
ppm
Ib/hr
ppm
Ib/hr
Purifier Wastes
£•:• .
860
1810
0.87
Coke Plant
0.025
2.66
17.0
0.0011
10.7
0.0007
<1
<0.1
6
0.7
88
10.8
125
21.4
Harbor Sediments
:; 16
780
1810
0.82
Purifier Wastes
0.026
3.18
76.5
V.0047
39.2
0.0024
3
0.2
1
0.1
91
10.5
1020
165
\ Water Gas Plant
; 1G
820
i 1820
0.84
i
i
i
i
i
Harbor Sediments
\ 0.042
\ 5.46
| 13.4
| 0.0009
5.7
i 0.0004
<1
<0.1
<1
!
-------
f
I
8
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Feed Soil
Coke
plant
Processed solids
Purifier
wastes
Harbor
sediments
Water
gas plant
FJguro 2, Average BTEX concentrations in feed soil and processed solids.
1
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Feed Soil
Processed solids
1040
- 320
Coke
plant
Purifier
wastes
Harbor
sediments
Water
gas plant
Rgun 3. Average PAH concentrations in feed soil and processed solids.
-------
1120
H| Feed soil I
E^a Processed solids I
0.2
Goto
plant
Purifier
wastes
Harbor
sediments
Water
gas plant
Flgun 4. Average cyanide concentrations in feed soil and processed soils.
tion soil clean-up requirements, and compliance tests for
emissions have demonstrated a ORE In excess of 99%.
CBI has also designed and built a High Temperature
Thermal Incinerator (HTI) which It operates currently at a
PCB-contaminated site. The HTI Includes a rotary Win, cy-
clone, afterburner, first quench, baghouse, second
quench, and packed bed scrubber. Approximately 50,000
tons of contaminated soils have been remediated. The
soil Is primarily silly clay or dense clay-like hardpan and Is
contaminated with up to 594,000 ppm polychlorinated
blphenyls (PCBs) and up to 86,000 ppm VOCs. The HTI is
permitted to operate at approximately 52 tons/hr and
consistently operates at 42 to 46 tons/hr. Processed soils
to date have had PCB concentrations bebw 0.5 ppm
and partlcuiate emissions below the 0.015 gr/dsft3 require-
ment. Hydrochloric acid (HCI)/chlorine (CQ emissions are
0.072 Ib/hr.
Disclaimer
Although the technology conclusions presented In
this report may not change, the data has not been re-
viewed by the EPA Quality Assurance/Quality Control of-
fice.
Source of Further (Information
EPA Contact: \
Ronald F. Lewis >
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268:
Telephone No.: (513) 569-7856
Fax No.: (513) 569-7620
Technology Developer:
Neal Maxymilltan \
Vice President i
Clean Berkshires, Inc.
Ten Post Office Square
Suite 600 South
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone No.: (617) 695-9770
Fax No.: (617) 695-9790
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/540/R-94/507a
------- |