United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/R-94/527
June 1995
&EPA
IITRI Radio Frequency
Heating Technology
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
CONTACT
Laurel Staley is the EPA contact for this report. She is presently with the newly organized
National Risk Management Research Laboratory's new Land Remediation and Pollution Control
Division in Cincinnati, OH (formerly the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory). The National
Risk Management Research Laboratory is headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, and is now
responsible for research conducted by the Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division in
Cincinnati.
-------
EPA/540/R-94/527
June 1995
IITRI RADIO FREQUENCY HEATING TECHNOLOGY
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under the auspices of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program under Contract No. 68-CO-0048
to Science Applications International Corporation. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
-N
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 sys-
tems 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 neces-
sary 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 (NRMRL) is the Agency's centerfor investigation of
technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the environ-
ment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollu-
tion to land, air, 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 envi-
ronmental regulations and strategies.
The Laboratory's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program was authorized in the
1986 Superfund Amendments. The program is a joint effort between EPA's Office of Research and Develop-
ment (ORD) and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. The purpose of the program is to enhance
the development of hazardous waste treatment technologies necessary for implementing new cleanup stan-
dards that require greater reliance on permanent remedies. This is accomplished by performing technology
demonstrations designed to provide engineering and economic data on selected technologies.
The project described in this document consisted of an evaluation of the IIT Research Institute (IITRI) in
situ radio frequency heating (RFH) technology. As a part of this evaluation, a Demonstration Test was con-
ducted by the SITE Program in coordination with research efforts sponsored by the U.S. Air Force. During the
demonstration, the IITRI in situ RFH system was used to treat thermally a volume of soil 14.1 feet (4.30
meters) long, 10.0 feet (3.05 meters) wide, and 24.0 feet (7.32 meters) deep. The goals of the study, summa-
rized in this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report, are: 1:) to assess the ability of in situ RFH to remove
organic contaminants from a contaminated site at Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, TX, and 2) to develop
capital and operating costs for the technology.
This publication has been produced as part of the NRMRL's strategic long-term research plan. It is pub-
lished and made available by ORD to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Additional copies of this report may be ordered at no charge1 from ORD Publications, G-72 (refer to the EPA
document number found on the report's front cover): (phone) 513-569-7562, (fax) 513-569-7566, (mail) 26
West Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH, 45268. Once this supply is exhausted, copies can be purchased
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd, Springfield, VA, 22151,800-553-6847.
Reference copies will be available in the Hazardous Waste Collection at EPA libraries. To obtain further
information regarding the SITE Program and other projects within SITE, telephone 513-569-7696.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Notice ii
Foreword iii
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Abbreviations x
Acknowledgments :... xii
Executive Summary xiii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Brief Description of Program and Reports 4
1.3 Purpose of the ITER 6
1.4 Technology Description 6
1.5 Key Contacts 13
2. Technology Applications Analysis 15
2.1 Objectives - Performance Versus Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Regulations (ARARs) 15
2.1.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act '. 15
2.1.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 18
2.1.3 Clean Air Act 19
2.1.4 Safe Drinking Water Act 19
2.1.5 Clean Water Act , 19
2.1.6 Toxic Substances Control Act 20
2.1.7 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Requirements 20
2.2 Operability of the Technology 21
2.3 Applicable Wastes : 23
2.4 Key Features of the IITRIRF Heating Technology 24
2.5 Availability and Transportability of the System 24
2.6 Materials Handling Requirements 25
2.7 Site Support Requirements 25
2.8 Limitations of the Technology 26
2.9 References 28
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
3. Economic Analysis : 29
3.1 Introduction 29
3.2 Basis of Economic Analysis 29
3.3 Issues and Assumptions J. 30
3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs 33
3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 33
3.3.3 Equipment Costs 33
3.3.4 Startup and Fixed Costs ... •:..'. 35
3.3.5 Operating Costs for Treatment 37
3.3.6 Costfor Supplies 38
3.3.7 Costfor Consumables .. 38
3.3.8 Cost for Effluent Treatment and Disposal 38
3.3.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and Transport Costs 39
3.3.10 Cost for Analytical Services ?-. ... 39
3.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair and Replacement Costs 39
3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs 40
3.4 Results of the Economic Analysis 40
3.5 References 42
4. Treatment Effectiveness 43
4.1 Background 43
4.2 Methodology 46
4.2.1 Soil Sampling 46
4.2.2 Groundwater Sampling 56
4.2.3 SVE Vapor Stream Sampling 56
4.3 Performance Data 56
4.3.1 Results of Chemical Analyses 57
4.3.2 Physical Analyses 61
4.4 Residuals 63
4.5 References 64
5. Other Technology Requirements : 65
5.1 Environmental Regulation Requirements ' 65
5.2 Personnel Issues 65
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section
Page
5.3 Community Acceptance 66
5.4 References .. 67
6. Technology Status 68
Appendix A: Supplementary Data 69
A.I Chemical Analyses 69
A. 1.1 Procedure for Selecting Contaminants for Statistical Evaluation 69
A. 1.2 Methodology for Statistical Evaluation 74
A. 1.3 Data Summary ; 76
A.2 Physical Analyses 116
A.2.1 Particle Size Distribution 116
A.3 Operational Data : 123
A.3.1 Temperature 123
A.3.2 SVE System Operation 125
A.3.3 Dewatering System Operation 127
A.3.4 Electric Usage 129
. A.3.5 RF Emissions 129
Appendix B: Case Studies 130
B.I Volk Air National Guard Base (ANGB) 130
B.2 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) 131
B.3 References 131
Appendix C: Vendor Claims 132
C.I Introduction 132
C.2 Process Description 133
C.3 Treatability Studies 136
C.4 Field Experiments 136
C.4.1. Kelly Demonstration 136
C.5 Current Status and Future Plans ; 140
C.6 References 141
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number . Page
1 Criteria Evaluation for the ETRIRFH Technology xvii
2 Potential Federal and State ARARs for the Treatment of Contaminated Soil by the
IITRI RFH System at a Superfund Site 16
3 Twelve Cost Categories for the IITRI SITE Demonstration Economic Analysis 30
4 Summary of IITRI RFH Equipment Costs 35
5 Treatment Costs for the HTRIRF System Treating 10,152 Tons of Soil
(Scaled-up from the Results of the SITE Demonstration) 41
6 Treatment Costs for the ETRI RF System Treating 8,640 Tons of Soil
(Based Upon a Theoretical RF Design and Treatment Zone) 42
7 Summary of Number of QA Samples Analyzed 54
8 Number of Soil Samples Taken During the SITE Demonstration 55
9 Number of Complete Matched Pairs for the Soil Samples 55
10 Summary of Particle Size Distribution Data 63
11 Radio Frequency Radiation TLVs , 67
vm
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
1 Regional Maps Showing Demonstration Location .
2 Plan View of the Demonstration Site
3 Basic Schematic of the IITRI RFH System
4 Relative Locations of Subsurface Components Used in the IITRI RFH System
5 Cross-section of IITRI's RFH System (Not to Scale)
6 SITE Demonstration Monitoring and Dewatering Wells
7 SITE Demonstration Boreholes
8 Borehole Sampling Depths
Page
2
3
7
8
11
47
50
51
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
AC alternating current
ACGIH American Conference of Government
and Industrial Hygienists
AFB Air Force Base
ANGB Air National Guard Base
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirement
ASTM American Society for Testing
and Materials
ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center
bgs below ground surface
B&RE Brown and Root Environmental
CAA Clean Air Act '
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CERI Center for Environmental Research
Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CI confidence interval
CLU-IN cleanup information
CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation
CWA Clean Water Act
DOT Department of Transportation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FCC Federal Communications Commission
FID flame ionization detector
GHz gigahertz
IIT Research Institute
industrial, scientific, and medical
IITRI
ISM
ITER
Innovative Technology Evaluation
Report
kW kilowatt ;-j£J.
LDRs land disposal restrictions
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MDL Method Detection Limit
MHz megahertz
MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSC on-scene coordinator
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
-------
ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
PPE personal protective equipment
ppm parts per million
PQL practical quantitation limit
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
RF radio frequency
RFH radio frequency heating
RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study
RMA Rocky Mountain Arsenal
RPM remedial project manager
RREL Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
SAIC Science Applications International
Corporation
SARA Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act -
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation
SVE soil vapor extraction
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
TLV Threshold Limit Value
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TRPH total recoverable petroleum
hydrocarbons
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USAF U.S. Air Force
VISITT Vendor Information System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies
VOC volatile organic compound
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared under the direction and coordination of Laurel Staley, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Work Assignment Manager in the Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-RREL contributors and reviewers for this
report were Michelle Simon, Ten Richardson, and Robert Stenburg. Harsh Dev of the IIT Research Institute also
contributed to and reviewed the document.
This report was prepared for EPA's SITE Program by the Technology Evaluation Division of Science
Applications International Corporation in Cincinnati, Ohio under Contract No. 68-CO-0048. This report was
written by Sharon Krietemeyer and Eric Saylor. The Work Assignment Manager for the project was Jim Rawe.
xn
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is an evaluation of the performance of the IIT Research Institute (IITRI) in situ radio
frequency heating (RFH) technology and its ability to remediate soil contaminated with organics. Both the
technical and economic aspects of the technology are examined.
A demonstration of IITRI's in situ RFH system was conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program from January 1993 to August 1993
at Site S-l at Kelly Air Force Base (AFB) in San Antonio, Texeis. IITRI's RFH system applies radio frequency
(RF) energy to soil through exciter electrodes, thereby creating molecular agitation that heats the soil along with
water and contaminants contained within the soil. The IITRI RFH technology has two primary functions: (1)
to heat the soil by transmitting RF energy into it and (2) to collect vapors from the volatilized contaminants in
the heated soil. It is important to remember that the design of the soil vapor extraction (SVE) system is crucial
to.enable the IITRI RFH technology to remove contaminants from soil. For this demonstration, the SVE
extraction wells were an integral part of IITRI's system; this may not be the case in the future if the SVE design
is modified.
The demonstration began with initial soil sampling conducted from January 25,1993 through February
6,1993, during the installation of the underground system components. RF energy was applied to the soil from
April 3, 1993 through June 3, 1993. The soil was allowed to cool for approximately 2 months, and final
sampling was conducted from August 16, 1993 to August 19, 1993. Based on the analytical results from soil
samples collected before and after treatment, conclusions were reached concerning the technology's ability to
remove petroleum hydrocarbons and specific organic contaminants from soil. /
Shallow groundwater (approximately 24 feet, or 7.3 meters below ground surface) encountered within
the treatment zone during system installation, in addition to design problems encountered during the
demonstration, resulted in a smaller soil treatment volume than was originally specified in the Demonstration
Plan. This smaller volume, approximately 122 cubic yards (93.3 cubic meters), is referred to as the "revised
design treatment zone." To compensate for the shallow groundwater, the exciter electrodes were shortened and
a dewatering system was installed. Despite these measures, IITRI believes that shallow groundwater during the
demonstration caused the RFH system to malfunction, resulting in excessive soil temperatures near the exciter
xin
-------
electrodes and much lower temperatures near the edges of the revised design treatment zone. It was not possible
to monitor groundwater levels below the revised design treatment zone during treatment, but nearby groundwater
level measurements obtained during this period ranged from 24 to 33 feet (7.3 to 10 meters) below ground
surface. The portion of the revised design treatment zone that achieved the target soil temperature of 150°C
(302°F) during the demonstration had a volume of approximately 45 cubic yards (34.4 cubic meters) and is
referred to as the "heated zone."
The goal of this demonstration was to evaluate the ability of the IITRI RFH technology to remove
contaminants from in situ soil. Determination of whether the technology met the goal was based upon
contaminant concentration changes in the pre- and post-treatment samples. Concentration data from the original
design treatment zone were subjected to a preliminary statistical evaluation. Contaminants that were found to
have statistically significant concentration changes at a confidence level of 80 percent or greater in the preliminary
evaluation were statistically evaluated for the revised design treatment zone. Only contaminants that exhibited
a statistically significant concentration change at a confidence level of 90 percent or greater during the final
statistical evaluation were used to draw conclusions. Changes in total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon
(TRPH) concentrations, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were
evaluated for this demonstration.
Prior to the demonstration, concentrations of TRPH and certain individual SVOCs and VOCs were
designated as "critical" measurements. Concentrations of all other SVOCs and VOCs were considered
"noncritical" measurements. The critical SVOCs and VOCs were selected based on preliminary data and
pretreatment sampling results from Site S-l. The critical SVOCs were 1,2-dichlorobenzene; 1,3-
dichlorobenzene; 1,4-dichlorobenzene; 2-methylnaphthalene; and naphthalene. The critical VOCs were benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, and total xylenes.
The following results were observed for TRPH and SVOCs within the revised design treatment zone:
D There was a statistically significant decrease in TRPH concentration at the 95 percent confidence
level; the estimated decrease in the mean concentration was 60 percent.
D None of the five critical SVOCs achieved a statistically significant change during the preliminary
evaluation and, therefore, were not evaluated for the smaller revised design treatment zone.
D Pyrene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were the only noncritical SVOCs that exhibited changes in
the preliminary and final statistical evaluations. They exhibited a change in concentration at the 97.5
xiv
-------
percent confidence level; estimated decreases in the mean concentrations were 87 and 48 percent,
respectively.
The decreases in TRPH and SVOCs were likely due to some combination of the KF energy and SVE
applied to the soil. RFH increased the temperature of the soil, along with water and contaminants contained
within the soil, thereby volatilizing (to varying degrees) SVOCs and certain components of TRPH. SVE, which
was used to remove the volatilized contaminants, also enhances vaporization. Decreases in TRPH and SVOC
may also have been caused by the degradation of these compounds from soil temperatures reaching greater than
1,300°C (2,372 T) near the exciter electrodes. Decreases from outward migration are unlikely, since the
configuration of the SVE system limits this type of migration.
For the VOCs within the revised design treatment zone, the following results were observed:
D Chlorobenzene was the only critical VOC that achieved a statistically significant concentration
change in the preliminary statistical evaluation; it clid not achieve a statistically significant change
in the final statistical evaluation. No plausible theories have been developed to explain the fact that
••'! . chlorobenzene did not exhibit a statistically significant decrease in the revised design treatment zone.
D There were statistically significant increases in the concentrations of four noncritical VOCs (all
ketones) at the 99 percent confidence level; estimated increases in the mean concentrations were:
457 percent for 2-hexanone; 263 percent for 4-methyl-2-pentanone; 1,073 percent for acetone; and
683 percent for methyl ethyl ketone.
The ketones may have been formed by the degradation and subsequent oxidation of TRPH near the
exciter electrodes, where soil temperatures were highest. A possible degradation'pathway may be the pyrolytic
conversion of TRPH to unsaturated hydrocarbons. In the presence of a catalyst (e.g., silica in the soil), the RF
energy may convert these hydrocarbons into ketones. Alternatively, the increase in ketones may also have been
caused by inward migration from sources such as the groundwater and the soil beyond the sampled area. There
are insufficient data to confirm or disprove either of these hypotheses.
Outside the revised design treatment zone, only TRPH showed a statistically significant change at the
95 percent confidence level, with an estimated 88 percent mean concentration increase. Because the treatment
area was under a vacuum due to the SVE system, the TRPH increase may have resulted from inward migration;
it is not likely to be due to outward migration.
xv
-------
The following results were observed within the heated zone:
D There was a statistically significant decrease in TRPH concentration at the 97.5 percent confidence
level; the estimated decrease in the mean concentration was 95 percent.
D None of the critical or noncritical SVOCs exhibited a statistically significant change in the final
evaluation.
D None of the critical or noncritical VOCs exhibited a statistically significant change in the preliminary
or final evaluations.
The TRPH decrease may be from the S VE system pulling the volatilized contaminants out of the heated
zone into vacuum wells. As in the revised design treatment zone, this decrease may also have been caused by the
degradation of these compounds from the elevated temperatures of the RFH system.
Outside of the heated zone, there was a statistically significant decrease in the concentration of bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate at the 90 percent confidence level; the estimated decrease in the mean concentration was 37
percent This decrease may also have resulted from the some combination of contaminants being volatilized and
collected by the SVE system. There were also statistically significant increases at the 99 percent confidence level
in the concentrations of four noncritical VOCs (all ketones) outside the heated zone. The estimated mean
increases for these four ketones were: 423 percent for 2-hexanone; 249 percent for 4-methyl-2-pentanone; 1,347
percent for acetone; and 1,049 percent for methyl ethyl ketone. As previously discussed, these ketones may have
been formed by the degradation and subsequent oxidation of TRPH or may have migrated inward from the
groundwater or surrounding soil.
*»
Two-dimensional modeling of gas flow rates was used to qualitatively evaluate inward migration and
treatment zone extraction rates. The results of this modeling indicate inward gas flows from the area outside the
extraction wells toward those wells. Outward flows toward the extraction wells were indicated for much of the
area inside the revised design treatment zone. Due to inefficiencies in the SVE system design, gas flows between
the outer edge of the impermeable cap and the extraction wells were five times greater than those between the two
rows of extraction wells. As a result, contaminant migration into the treatment zone was possible, especially near
the outer edges, and contaminant removal from the treatment zone may have been relatively slow compared to
inward contaminant migration.
Concentrations of TRPH and specific VOCs and SVOCs in the SVE gas stream were monitored by a
U.S. Air Force subcontractor and were not part of the SITE demonstration. The appropriateness of the methods
xvi
-------
used and the quality of the data are unknown. However, the results appear to indicate qualitatively removals of
TRPH and certain VOCs and SVOCs.
Economic evaluations were performed based on the SITE demonstration revised design treatment zone
and a theoretical RF design and treatment zone. The theoretical RF design and treatment zone was based upon
information provided by the vendor and bench-scale tests. The effectiveness of the theoretical RF design has not
been demonstrated on a pilot- or full-scale level. Due to some combination of inefficiencies in the application
of the RF energy and the SVE design, a lack of contaminant removal was evident during the SITE demonstration.
However, the economic evaluation of the IITRIRFH technology assumes the technology will achieve the target
temperature and maintain it for the time desired. The target temperature and duration it is to be applied are site-
specific.
The results of these evaluations are as follows:
D Analysis based on the revised design treatment zone — The cost to treat approximately 10,152 tons
(9,210 metric tons) of contaminated soil using a proposed full-scale in situ RFH system was
estimated by scaling up costs from the revised design treatment zone. Cleanup costs are estimated
to be $370 per ton ($410 per metric ton) if the system is utilized 95 percent of the time.
Q Analysis based on the theoretical RF design and treatment zone — The cost to treat approximately
8,640 tons (7,83 8 metric tons) is estimated to be $ 195 per ton ($215 per metric ton) if the system
is utilized 95 percent of the time.
The IITRI RFH technology was evaluated based on the nine criteria used for decision-making in the
Superfund feasibility study process. Table 1 presents the evaluation.
xvn
-------
Table 1. Criteria Evaluation for the IITRIRFH Technology1
Evaluation Criteria
Performance
Overall Protection of
Human Health and the
Environment
Compliance with Federal
ARARs2
Long-term Effectiveness
and Performance
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
through Treatment
Short-term Effectiveness
Implemcntability
Cost1-3
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
D Site-specific treatability studies will be needed to verify the levels of contaminant removal
achievable.
D Requires measures to protect workers during installation and operation.
0 • Additional contaminants may form at high temperatures if not properly designed or operated.
D Vapor collection and treatment are needed to ensure compliance with air quality standards.
D Construction and operation of onsite vapor treatment unit may require compliance with '
location-specific ARARs. •••••-•
D • RF generator must be operated in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements. :
D As with all SVE-based systems, the contaminated source may not be adequately removed.
D Involves some residuals treatment (vapor stream).
D Potentially concentrates contaminants, reducing waste volume.
0 Potentially reduces contaminant mobility, although downward mobility of contaminants during
treatment has not been quantified.
D May partially destroy some contaminants and, in the process, form new contaminants, thereby
potentially reducing or increasing toxicity if not properly designed or operated.
O Presents minimal short-term risks to workers and community from air release during treatment.
D No excavation is required, although drilling will disturb the soil to some extent.
D RF generator must be operated in accordance with the National Institute of Occupational Health
and Safety (NIOSH) and FCC requirements (a permit may be required).
D Pilot-scale tests have been completed at two other sites to address soil contamination; no full-
scale applications to date.
D Because of operational problems experienced during the SITE demonstration, consistent soil
heating was not observed.
D Cost evaluation based on the revised design treatment zone is $370 per ton ($410 per metric
ton). Cost evaluation based on HTRTs theoretical RF design and treatment zone is $ 195 per ton
($215 per metric ton).
D No excavation is required, which should improve state acceptance.
D No excavation is required, which should improve community acceptance.
D Potential health effects of RF fields may be an issue.
1 Based upon the results of the SITE demonstration at Kelly AFB. • •
2 ARAR ~ Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
3 Actual cost of a remediation technology is highly site-specific and dependent on the target cleanup level, contaminant concentrations,
soil characteristics, and volume of soil. Cost data presented in this table are based on the treatment of approximately 10,152 tons
(9,210 metric tons) of soil (scale-up based on the revised design treatment zone) and 8,640 tons (7,838 metric tons) of soil (based
on HTRTs theoretical RF design and treatment zone).
XVlll
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This section provides background information regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program, discusses the purpose of
this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (TTER), and describes the in situ radio frequency heating
(RFH) technology developed by ITT Research Institute (IITRI). For additional information about the
SITE Program, this technology, and the demonstration site, key contacts are listed at the end of this
section.
1.1 BACKGROUND
A Demonstration Test of nTRI's RFH technology was conducted by the SITE Program in
coordination with research efforts sponsored by the U.S. Air Force (USAF). Although the technology
was developed by HTRI, Brown and Root Environmental (B&RE) assumed many of the "traditional"
responsibilities of the developer during the Demonstration Test. B&RE was hired by USAF to provide
an independent evaluation of ITTRI's RFH technology, project and site management, design and operation
of the vapor collection and treatment systems, and to assist UTRI in the construction and operation of the
RFH system. nTRI was subcontracted by B&RE to design and operate the RFH system and the soil
vapor extraction (SVE) collection wells.
The SITE demonstration was conducted at Site S-l, located near the northern boundary of Kelly
Air Force Base (AFB) near San Antonio, Texas (see Figure 1). This site was used historically as an
intermediate storage area for wastes destined for off-base reclamation. The soil is contaminated with
mixed solvents, carbon cleaning compounds, and petroleum oils and lubricants. Much of the,spilled
waste accumulated in a long sausage-shaped "sump," which is the lowest portion of a depression on the
eastern side of the site (see Figure 2). The original design treatment zone defined in the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was a plot of soil approximiately 17.5 feet (5.33 meters) long, 10.0 feet
(3.05 meters) wide, and 29.0 feet (8.84 meters) deep. However, due to the presence of shallow
groundwater, operational problems experienced during the demonstration, and changes in the original
radio frequency (RF) design, the volume of soil to be heated was decreased.
-------
.. Growden Dr.
Figure 1. Regional maps showing demonstration location.
-------
Approximate limit of
former sump area
Approximate limit of
former depression area
Site
Boundary
Figure 2, Plan view of the demonstration site.
The bottom ends of the ground and exciter electrodes were placed at depths of 29.0 feet (8.84
meters) and 19.5 feet (5.94 meters) respectively, resulting in an effective heating length of 14.1 feet (4.30
meters) and an effective heating depth of approximately 23.3 feet (7.10 meters) [the width remained at
10 feet (3.05 meters)]. This zone is referred to as the "revised design treatment zone." It was the
intention of the developer to heat the soil and achieve a temperature of 150°C (302°F) throughout the
revised design treatment zone, then maintain this temperature for approximately 4 days. However, soil
temperature data collected by ULTKI indicated a lack of significant heating in remote areas of the revised
design treatment zone. The volume of soil in the revised design treatment zone that did achieve this
objective is referred to as the "heated zone." The dimensions of the heated zone are 10.8 feet (3.29
meters) long by 5.7 feet (1.7 meters) wide by 20.0 feet (6.10 meters) deep. Both of these zones are
examined in this document. The results of the Demonstration Test and previous tests constitute the basis
for this report.
The RFH technology uses electromagnetic energy in the RF band to heat contaminated soil in
situ, thereby potentially enhancing the ability of standard S'VE technologies to remove volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) from the soil. Standard alternating
-------
current (AC) electricity is converted to RF energy by an RF generator. The design temperature and
duration of heating required are site-specific, depending on the contaminants of concern. The RF energy
is conveyed into the soil by exciter electrodes, which extend from the ground surface to the bottom of
the treatment zone. As the soil is heated, due to the dissipation of the RF energy, contaminants and
moisture in the soil are vaporized. A standard SVE system provides a vacuum to die ground electrodes
and transfers the vapors to collection or treatment facilities where noncondensable and condensable vapors
are collected for further treatment or disposal. At present, SVE extraction wells are an integral part of
IITRFs RFH system, though this may not be the case in the future. A vapor barrier covering the
treatment surface area is installed to prevent heat loss, contaminant emission, and air infiltration.
In general, HTRI's RFH system is best suited for treatment of soils composed primarily of sand
and other coarse materials. The vendor also claims the technology will work in clay; to substantiate this
claim the technology will need to be demonstrated further at other sites containing clay. The clay may
also have a low air permeability and unpact the operation of the SVE system.
1.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM AND REPORTS
In 1986, the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and Office of
Research and Development (ORD) established the SITE Program to promote the development and use
of innovative technologies to clean up Superfund sites across the country. Now in its ninth year, the
SITE Program is helping to provide the treatment technologies necessary to implement new Federal and
State cleanup standards aimed at permanent remedies rather than quick fixes. The SITE Program is
composed of four major elements: the Demonstration Program, the Emerging Technologies Program,
the Measurement and Monitoring Technologies Program, and the Technology Transfer Program.
The major focus has been on the Demonstration Program, which is designed to provide engineer-
ing and cost data for selected technologies. To date, the Demonstration Program projects have not in-
volved funding for technology developers. EPA and developers participating in the program share the
cost of the demonstration. Developers are responsible for demonstrating their innovative systems at
chosen sites, usually Superfund sites. EPA is responsible for sampling, analyzing, and evaluating all test
results. The final product of each demonstration is an assessment of the technology's performance,
reliability, and costs. This information is used hi conjunction with other data to select the most appro-
priate technologies for the cleanup of Superfund sites.
-------
Developers of innovative technologies apply to the. Demonstration Program by responding to
EPA's annual solicitation. EPA also accepts proposals any time a developer has a Superfund waste treat-
ment project scheduled. To qualify for the program, a new technology must be available as a pilot- or
full-scale system and offer some advantage over existing technologies. Mobile technologies are of
particular interest to EPA.
Once EPA has accepted a proposal, EPA and the developer work with the EPA regional offices
and State agencies to identify a site containing waste suitable for testing the capabilities of the technology.
EPA prepares a detailed sampling and analysis plan designed to evaluate the technology thoroughly and
to ensure that the resulting data are reliable. The duration of a demonstration varies from a few days to
several years, depending on the length of time and quantity of waste needed to assess the technology.
The results of the ITTRI RFH technology demonstration are published in two documents: the
SITE Technology Capsule and the HER. The ITER includes information on demonstration costs and
performance, implementation problems/limitations, site conditions for which the technology is applicable,
waste handling requirements, and an evaluation of the technology in light of the nine criteria used by
remedial project managers (RPMs) during the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process.
The ITER also describes the demonstration, the developer's experience prior to the demonstration, and
the adaptability of the technology. The SITE Technology Capsule is a concise summary of the ITER.
Both the SITE Technology Capsule and the ITER are intended for use by RPMs making a detailed
evaluation of a technology for a specific site and waste.
The second element of the SITE Program is the Emerging Technologies Program, which fosters
the further investigation and development of treatment technologies that are still at the laboratory scale.
Successful validation of these technologies can lead to the development of a system ready for field
demonstration and participation in the Demonstration Program.
The third component of the SITE Program, the Measurement and Monitoring Technologies
Program, provides assistance in the development and demonstration of innovative technologies to
characterize Superfund sites better.
-------
The fourth component of the SITE Program is the Technology Transfer Program, which reports
and distributes the results of both Demonstration Program and Emerging Technologies Program studies
through ITERs and abbreviated bulletins. ,
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE ITER
The ITER provides information on the nTRI RFH technology and includes a comprehensive
description of the demonstration and its results. The ITER is intended for use by EPA RPMs, EPA on-
scene coordinators (OSCs), contractors, and others involved in the remediation decision-making process
and in the implementation of specific remedial actions. The ITER is designed to aid decision makers in
determining whether specific technologies warrant further consideration as applicable options in particular
cleanup operations. To encourage the general use of demonstrated technologies, EPA provides
information regarding the applicability of each technology to specific sites and wastes. The ITER
includes information on cost and site-specific characteristics. It also discusses advantages, disadvantages,
and limitations of the technology.
This report represents a critical step in the development and commercialization of the UTRI RFH
technology. The proposed commercial-scale system, which utilizes three 100-kilowatt (kW) units, is
described. (Note: total usage of electric or RF power is given in kW-h; therefore, the usage rate is given
hi kW-h/h, or kW.) The applicability of the proposed system is evaluated. Treatment costs for a full-
scale remediation using the 300-kW system are estimated. These costs are presented on a per ton basis
to facilitate comparison to other available technologies.
Each SITE demonstration evaluates the performance of a technology in treating a specific waste.
The waste characteristics at other sites may differ from the characteristics of those treated during this
demonstration. Therefore, successful field demonstration of a technology at one site does not necessarily
ensure that it will be applicable at other sites. Data from the field demonstration may require
^_
extrapolation'to estimate the operating ranges in which the technology will perform satisfactorily. Only
limited conclusions can be drawn from a single field demonstration.
1.4 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
HTRI claims that the RFH technology remediates contaminated soil in situ by heating the soil and
volatilizing the contaminants, thus potentially enhancing the performance of standard SVE technologies.
-------
Moisture present in the soil is also volatilized and may provide a steam sweep within the treatment zone,
thus further enhancing the removal of organic contaminants. Steam and contaminant vapors are collected
by vapor extraction wells and channeled to the vapor treatment system. The vapor treatment system is
site- and contaminant-specific and therefore is not included in this evaluation. A basic schematic for the
ITTRI KFH system used during the SITE demonstration is shown in Figure 3. The relative locations of
the subsurface components are shown in Figure 4.
60 Hz
AC Power
Distribution
o 3
^o
0.
c
O
y> o
£0
i!
gg
RF
Instrumentation
d
Stage 2
Matching
Network
Vapor Barrier Perimeter
_4.
A1 A2 />3 A4 AS A6 A7 A8
TWS
-*-
C1
Stage 1
Matching
Network
" Temperature
Measurement
Probe Lines
J ] J ]
TW3 El 82 83 84
TWS T\ M TW6
C2 C 3 C4 CS C8 C7
1 T T T- 5
X
TW7
C8
CD
I
Vapor
Collection
Manifold
• Crass-section shown in Rgure 1-2
Legend
X Thermowell
• Ground Electrode
O Exciter Electrode
Figure 3. Basic schematic of the IITRI KFH system (not to scale).
The RFH technology is potentially capable of remediating unsaturated soils contaminated with
VOCs and SVOCs. RFH is believed to be best suited to the remediation of soils containing a high
fraction of sand and other coarse materials. In soils containing a high fraction of silt or clay,
g^
contaminants tend to be strongly sorbed to the soil particles. Therefore, removal of the contaminants may
become much more difficult since these soils often have insufficient air permeability for adequate removal
of vaporized contaminants. The developer claims that the technology is applicable to clayey soils because
the permeability of such soils will increase as they dry; this claim needs to be substantiated by conducting
further tests with the technology.
-------
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A
TW5
A
TW1
A
TW2
B1
B2
B3
B4
A
TW3
A
TW4
A
TW6
01
C2
C3
C4
05
06
C7
08
A
TW7
0
I
Scale in Feet
2.5
_]
• Electrode
A Thermoweil
Figure 4. Relative locations of subsurface components used in the 11TRIREH system.
The components of nTRTs RFH system have two major purposes: transmission ,of RF energy
and collection of vapors. The primary components of the system include the following:
• RF generator — The RF generator converts AC electricity to the desired frequency radio
wave. The 40-kW generator used during the SITE demonstration can provide a
continuous RF wave at a frequency of 6.78 megahertz (MHz). Operating on a frequency
band allocated for industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) equipment niinimizes Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) operating requirements. The frequencies allocated
for ISM equipment are 6.78 MHz, 13.56 MHz, 27.12 MHz, 40.68 MHz, and seven
higher frequencies.
-------
Matching network — RF energy from the generator flows to the matching network,
which is used to adjust the electrical characteristics of the RF energy being transmitted
into the soil. Continuous monitoring and adjustment are required because the dielectric
characteristics of the soil change as it is heated. The matching network allows the RFH
system to compensate for these changes. Proper operation of the matching network
maximizes the fraction of the power from the RF generator that is absorbed by the soil.
This is important for two reasons. First, the higher the fraction of power absorbed by
the soil, the more energy-efficient the system. Second, power that is not absorbed by the
soil is reflected back to the generator and other electrical components. Excessive
reflected power will cause the electrical components to overheat.
Exciter electrodes — Energy from the RF generator flows through the matching network
and coaxial cables and onto the exciter electrodes, which convey the energy into the soil.
The exciter electrodes extend vertically from just above the ground surface to near the
bottom of the treatment zone. The exciter electrodes used during the SITE demonstration
were fabricated from 2.5-inch (0.064 meters) and 4-inch (0.10 meters) copper pipe and
were installed in 10-inch (0.25 meters) boreholes to a depth of 19.5 feet (5.94 meters)
below the surface. The boreholes were backfilled around the electrodes using a material
similar to the surrounding soil. The revised design treatment zone contained one row of
four exciter electrodes spaced 2.5 feet (0.76 meters) apart (see Figures 3 and 4).
Ground electrodes — Two rows of eight ground electrodes each were installed parallel
to and on either side of the exciter electrode row. The ground electrodes were fabricated
from 2-inch (0.05-meter) diameter aluminum pipe and were 29 feet (8.8 meters) in
length. The electrode configuration was designed to direct the flow of RF energy
through the soil and contain the energy within the treatment zone. The outer casing of
the ground electrodes was perforated on the side facing the treatment zone to permit the
collection of vapors from the soil. They were perforated in a uniform pattern over the
full length of the electrode with the exception of the four corner electrodes, which were
not perforated. Each perforated ground electrode was connected to a manifold, which
led to the vapor treatment system. Two additional perforated vapor extraction pipes were
installed parallel to the ground surface to prevent buildup of vapors below the vapor
barrier.
Thermpwells — Thermowells are Teflon® tubes sealed at the bottom with approximately
1 to 2 inches (0.03 to 0.05 meters) of silicon oil in their bottoms. Each thermowell was
designed to hold either six thermocouples or one fiber optic probe. The SITE
demonstration used seven thermowells.
Fiber optic probes — Fiber optic probes were inserted into those thermowells that were
between the two ground electrode rows (Thermowells 1 through 6). The probes went all
the way to the bottoms of the thermowells and contained four tips each to take four
temperature readings. Readings were taken every 24 hours and could be taken with the
RF power on. Toward the end of the project, the excessive heat caused several tips of
the fiber optic probes to break off; all were replaced with thermocouples.
Thermocouples — The temperature of the soil is monitored by thermocouples positioned
throughout the treatment zone. During the SITE demonstration, the thermocouples were
placed hi the thermowells and on the inner walls of the ground or exciter electrodes.
-------
Thermocouples were located at depths of 1, 12, 24, and 29 feet (0.3, 3.7, 7.3, and 8.8
meters) on the inner walls of the ground electrodes. On the exciter electrodes,
thermocouples were located at depths of 1, 10, and 19 feet (0.3, 3.0, and 5.8 meters).
Thermocouples were also located at depths of 1, 12, 24, 29, 31, and 34 feet (0.3, 3.7,
7.3, 8.8, 9.4, and 10 meters) in Thermowell 7 at the start of the demonstration. Due to
the malfunction of the fiber optic probes previously explained, thermocouples were used
in Thermowells 1 through 6 at the end of the demonstration.
Aboveground vapor collection pipes — These perforated pipes collect any vapors that rise
to the surface of the treatment zone.
Vapor collection manifold — The ground electrodes and the aboveground vapor collection
pipes feed the manifold, which gathers the vapors together and channels them into the
vapor treatment system.
Blower — The blower provides a vacuum throughout the treatment zone by pulling the
contaminated air stream through the vapor collection manifold and vapor collection pipes.
Vipor barrier — The vapor barrier is fabricated from three layers of material: a
fiberglass-reinforced silicone sheet; a 3-inch (0.08-meter) thick layer of fiberglass
insulation; arid a polyethylene (or other plastic) sheet. The heat-resistant silicone sheet
is the layer nearest to the ground surface. This layer prevents the release of volatilized
contaminants, helps maintain a vacuum hi the treatment zone, and protects one side of
the insulation. The layer of insulation reduces heat loss from the treatment zone. The
top sheet of plastic protects the other side of the insulation and prevents infiltration of air
into the treatment zone.
RF shield — A corru'gated aluminum arch with flat aluminum ends (shown in Figure 5)
covers the same area as the vapor barrier and serves as an RF shield. It is designed to
limit the amount of RF energy fhat escapes the system. A weather cover, designed to
be airtight, protects the RF shield.
Extended ground plane — An extended ground plane made of wire cloth connects the RF
shield to the ground electrodes. The extended ground plane helps contain the RF energy
within the treatment zone.
Expanded metal shield — An expanded metal shield lies on top of the vapor barrier and
extends 10 feet (3.0 meters) beyond each side of the treatment zone. The expanded metal
shield helps contain the RF energy within the treatment zone, minimizes or prevents
interference from radio broadcasts, and provides a safe working environment for the
workers.
Although not a component of nTRTs RFH technology, the vapor treatment system is crucial to
the overall process. During the SITE demonstration, vapors which condensed in the vapor collection
system piping were collected as liquids. The uncondensed portion of the vapor stream was incinerated
in a propane-fueled flare. Other sites may require more complex vapor treatment systems. Ground water
10
-------
Plastic weather cover
RF Shield
(corrugated
aluminum)
Protective Teflon® tubing
(for fiber optic temperature
measurements
Fiber optic probe
Coaxial cable (supplies
RF power to exciter
electrodes)
Ground electrode
(2" I.D. aluminum
pipe)
Perforations for,
vapor collection
(face inward
toward energy
source)
.
t*^
i
•^
IMI
>•
i
c
£
£
c
O
c
tf
*N»
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
I
0
• •
•:
j:
' ;
:
Exciter electrode (2.5"
r 4" nominal diameter
copper tubing)
"Balls" (threaded
2.5" or 4" I.D. ^
aluminum spheres)
\
•
*
|
•
X
^
p-
i
*
J:
I
f •
* ;
;
:•
y.
\
•
;T;
:J:
;
'
;
; :
j:
; *
•:
•:
:;
* '.
I;
• *
;
; ;
r i
^i
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
O
0
1
1
|
— T
fi
Three-layer
vapor barrier
and expanded
metal shield
- "T" connector
(for routing rising
vapor horizontally
through vapor
collection manifold)
A3 B1 TW4 C3
Figures. Cross-section of DTKI's RFH system (not to scale).
treatment or disposal is also not directly related to the RFH process but must be considered when
deciding to implement the RFH technology at a site. Groundwater that is present at a site will have to
be removed from the RFH treatment area using groundwater dewatering wells prior to implementation
of the RFH technology. Groundwater from dewatering wells will likely require analysis in order to
determine if it requires treatment or can simply be disposed of.
11
-------
The RFH system is transported to the site in trailers. The generator and instrumentation remain
in trailers throughout treatment. The onsite assembly of the RFH system begins with the installation of
the electrodes and thermowells. Each ground or exciter electrode is installed by drilling a hole to the
required depth, inserting the electrode into the borehole, and backfilling the hole with material similar
to the soil at the site. Thermowells are installed in the same way, except that a piece of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) pipe is used to guide the thermowell into the borehole. The PVC pipe is removed from
the borehole before the hole is backfilled. The developer claims it may be possible to spread soil cuttings
from the boreholes uniformly over the treatment zone and compact and treat them with the undisturbed
soil. Alternatively, the cuttings can be drummed and transported offsite for treatment or disposal as was
done during the SITE demonstration.
Installation of aboveground components can be conducted during the installation of the subsurface
components. After all aboveground and subsurface components are installed and the piping and wiring
between the electrodes and thermocouples are completed, the exciter electrodes are connected to the
matching network, RF generator, and RF instrumentation. The thermocouples are connected to
monitoring instruments. The ground electrodes are also part of the vapor collection system, which is
piped to the vapor treatment system.
After installation and assembly, shakedown and testing of the system are necessary. The system
is tested and any necessary adjustments are made. If desired, the SVE system may be operated before
heat is applied to the soil. The SVE system continues to operate as the RF system is activated and heat
is applied to the soil. Treatment continues until the termination criteria are met. The tennination criteria
are extremely site-specific and are established prior to the remediation effort. The criteria are based on
results from treatability studies, site characterizations, and cleanup levels. Termination criteria may
include the following:
• The average soil temperature in the treatment zone has been maintained at the desired
temperature for the desired amount of time.
• Contaminant concentrations in the vapor stream have dropped to concentrations below
levels established in the project objectives.
« It becomes difficult to deliver sufficient RF energy efficiently into the treatment area to
maintain the aVerage soil temperature above a preset level.
The tennination criteria may require adjustment based on information collected during treatment. During
the SITE demonstration, heat was applied to the revised design treatment zone for 9 weeks.
12
-------
After treatment is complete, the treatment zone must be allowed to cool. If the treatment zone
did not encompass all of the contaminated soil at the site, the aboveground components of the RFH
system can be disassembled, moved to another portion of the site, and reassembled while the treated soil
cools. If the commercial-scale system includes two sets of subsurface components, treatment of a second
treatment zone can begin while the first zone is cooling.
' - •-' During the SITE demonstration, which was conducted during the summer in San Antonio, Texas,
fee soil was allowed to cool for 2 months prior to post-treatment sampling after reaching temperatures
1,300°G (2372°F) and higher near fee exciter electrodes. It is possible feat fee cooldown period of a zone
at another site may be shorter in duration than fee cooldown period in fee SITE demonstration. An
alteration of fee RF design may provide more uniform heating throughout fee treatment zone and feus
prevent what occurred during fee SITE demonstration — some areas of fee revised design treatment zone
achieved temperatures much higher than fee desired treatment temperature while, at fee same time, other
areas did not:reach fee desired treatment temperature.
After fee treatment zone cools, post-treatment soil samples are collected to determine fee extent
of treatment. All subsurface components are removed through fee use of a drill rig. The boreholes are
then generally backfilled with bentonite, as was done at this site.
1.5 KEY CONTACTS
For more information on fee demonstration of fee in situ HTRI RFH technology, please contact:
1. EPA Project Manager for fee SITE Demonstration Test:
Laurel Staley
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513)569-7863
2. Process Vendor:
Harsh Dev
ITT Research Institute
10 West 35fe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60616
(312)567-4257
13
-------
Kelly AFB Project. Engineer for Site S-l RFH Field Demonstration:
Victoria Wark
SA-ALC/EMRO
305 Tinker Drive, Suite 2, Building 305
Kelly AFB, TX 78241-5915
(210) 925-1812
B&RE Project Manager:
Clifton Blanchard
800 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Suite A600
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
(615) 483-9900
USAF Technical Program Manager, Site Remediation Division:
Paul F. Carpenter
AL/EQW-OL
139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
(904) 283-6187
Information on the SITE Program is also available through the following online information
clearinghouses:
• The Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) is a comprehensive,
automated information retrieval system that integrates data on hazardous waste treatment
technologies into a centralized, searchable source. This data base provides summarized
information on innovative treatment technologies. The system operator can be reached
at (703) 908-2137. The ATTIC System access number is (703) 908-2138.
• The Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VTSITT) data
base contains information on 154 technologies offered by 97 developers: (800) 245-4505.
• The OSWER cleanup information (CLU-IN) electronic bulletin board contains
information on the status of SITE technology demonstrations. The system operator can
be reached at (301) 589-8268. The system access number is (301) 589-8366.
Technical reports can be obtained by contacting the Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERT), 26 West Martin Luther Kong Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 at (513) 569-7562.
14
-------
SECTION 2
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS
This section provides information on the ability of IFTRI's RFH system to meet regulatory and
operational requirements associated with the remediation of Superfund sites. It includes a discussion on
how use of this technology will satisfy the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
for Superfund site remediations. Also included hi this section is information on the operability,
applicability, key features, availability and transportability, material handling requirements, site support
requirements, and limitations of HTRTs RFH technology.
2.1 OBJECTIVES: PERFORMANCE VERSUS ARARs
ARARs consist of Federal, State, and local regulator/ requirements that must be considered when
remediating Superfund sites. These requirements include seven major Federal statutes discussed in the
subsequent subsections. Each statute can have corresponding State or local laws that are more stringent
than the Federal counterparts. Table 2 lists ARARs that should be considered when using the nTRI RFH
System at a Superfund site.
2.1.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, provides for Federal
funding to respond to releases of hazardous substances to air, water, and land. Section 121 of SARA,
Cleanup Standards, states a strong statutory preference for remedies that are highly reliable and provide
long-term protection. It strongly recommends that remedial actions use onsite treatments that "...
permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances." Nine
general criteria that must be addressed by CERCLA remedial actions are listed in Table 1 in the
Executive Summary.
15
-------
Table 2. Potential Federal and State ARARs for the Treatment of Contaminated Soil by the IITRI RFH System at a Superfund Site
Process Activity
Waste
characterization
(untreated waste)
Storage prior to
processing
Waste processing
Storage and
disposal after
processing
Waste
characterization
(treated waste and
residuals)
ARAR
RCRA1 40 CFR2 Part 261 or
State equivalent
TSCA3 40 CFR Part 761 or
State equivalent
<90 days: RCRA 40 CFR
Part 262 or State equivalent
>90 days: RCRA 40 CFR
Part 264 or State equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 or
State equivalent
CAA4 40 CFR or State
equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Parts 264 and
268 or State equivalents
TSCA 40 CFR Part 761 .65
RCRA 40 CFR Part 26 lor
State equivalent
TSCA 40 CFR Part 761 or
State equivalent
Description
Identification and characterization of
the soil to be treated.
Standards that apply to the treatment
and disposal of wastes containing
PCBs.
Standards applicable to the storage of
hazardous waste in containers or tanks.
Standards applicable to the treatment of
hazardous waste at permitted facilities.
Standards applicable to emissions from
treatment equipment.
Standards that apply to the storage of
hazardous waste in containers or tanks
and the disposal of hazardous wastes in
surface impoundments, landfills, and
other land structures.
Standards that apply to storage of
wastes containing PCBs.
Identification and characterization of in
situ soil, soil cuttings, spent carbon (if
used), groundwater, and condensate.
Standards that apply to the treatment
and disposal of wastes containing
PCBs.
Basis
A requirement of RCRA prior to managing the
waste.
During waste characterization, PCBs may be
identified in the waste and, if present above
regulatory thresholds (50 ppm for TSCA), the
waste is subject to TSCA regulations.
Contaminated groundwater extracted by
dewatering wells and soil cuttings from
boreholes meeting the definition of hazardous
waste must meet substantive requirements of
RCRA storage regulations.
Treatment of hazardous waste must be conducted
in a manner that meets the substantive
requirements of a RCRA Part B permit.
Air emissions may have to be controlled to meet
the substantive requirements of CAA permit.
Contaminated groundwater extracted by
dewatering wells, condensate, spent carbon Of
used), and soil cuttings meeting the definition of
hazardous waste must meet substantive
requirements of RCRA storage regulations and
must not be land disposed without meeting
specific treatment requirements.
Groundwater, condensate, spent carbon (if used),
and soil cuttings may contain PCBs above
regulatory thresholds.
A requirement of RCRA prior to managing the
waste necessary to determine regulatory status of
in situ soil.
Soil cuttings, spent carbon (if used), and
condensate may contain PCBs above regulatory
thresholds.
Response
Chemical and physical analyses must
be performed.
Analysis for PCBa must be performed
if potentially present.
Ensure storage containers and tanks
are in good condition, provide
secondary containment, where
applicable, and conduct regular
inspections.
Equipment must be operated,
maintained, and monitored properly.
Emission control devices may need to
be installed to treat air emissions from
the SVE unit.
The contaminated groundwater,
condensate, and soil cuttings meeting
the definition of hazardous waste must
be stored in containers or tanks that
are well maintained and must not be
land disposed without meeting all
applicable treatment requirements.
Ensure disposal of TSCA-regulaled
waste within 1 year of placement into
storage.
Chemical and physical tests must be
performed on the in situ soil, ground-
water, soil cuttings, and condensate.
Analysis for PCBs must be performed
if PCBs were present in untreated
soil.
-------
Table 2. Potential Federal and State ARARs for the Treatment of Contaminated Soil by the IITRI RFH System at a
Superfund Site (Continued)
Process Activity
Transportation
for offsite
disposal
Groundwater and
condensate
discharge
Worker activities
throughout the
remediation
ARAR
RCRA 40 CFR Part 262 or
State equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 263 or
State equivalent
DOT5 49 CFR
CWA6 40 CFR Parts 122,
301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and
401-471.
SDWA7 40 CFR Parts 144 and
145
CERCLA8 121(d)(2)
OSHA'29CFR1910
Description
Manifesting, packaging, and labeling
requirements prior to transporting.
Packaging, labeling, and transportation
standards.
Standards that apply to discharge of
contaminated water into sewage
treatment plants or surface water
bodies.
Standards that apply to the disposal of
contaminated water in underground
injection wells (including infiltration
galleries).
Criteria for establishing alternate
concentration limits for disposal of
contaminated water in underground
injection wells (including infiltration
galleries).
Training and protection requirements
for workers at hazardous waste sites.
Basis
The contaminated groundwater, condensate, and
soil cuttings may need to be manifested and
managed as a hazardous waste.
Transporters of hazardous waste must be
licensed by EPA and meet specific requirements.
Hazardous materials must meet specific
packaging and labeling requirements.
The groundwater arid condensate may not meet
local pretreatment standards without further ,
treatment or may require a NPDES permit for
discharge to surface water bodies.
Injection of the groundwater and condensate may
be the preferred option for management of water
from treatment at remote sites.
Workers must complete training prior to
performing duties.
Response
An identification (ID) number must be
obtained from EPA.
A licensed hazardous waste transporter
must be used to transport the hazardous
waste.
Shipments of material must be properly
containerized and labeled.
Determine if the groundwater and
condensate could be discharged to a
sewage treatment plant or surface water
body without further treatment. If not,
the water may need to be further
treated to meet discharge requirements.
If underground injection is selected as a
disposal means for treated water,
testing must be performed and
permission must be obtained from EPA
to use existing permitted underground
injection wells or to construct and
operate new wells.
Ensure workers have completed
mandatory training and have
appropriate safety equipment.
1 RCRA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
2 CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations.
3 TSCA is the Toxic Substances Control Act.
4 CAA is the Clean Air Act.
5 DOT is Department of Transportation.
6 CWA is the Clean Water Act.
7 SDWA is the Safe Drinking Water Act.
8 CERCLA is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
9 OSHA is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
-------
2.1.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAJ is the primary Federal legislation govern-
ing hazardous waste activities. Subtitle C of RCRA contains requirements for generation, transport,
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory
for CERCLA sites generating, storing, treating, or disposing of hazardous waste onsite.
Treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste typically requires the issuance of a RCRA Part
B treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) permit. At Superfund sites, the onsite treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste must meet the substantive requirements of a TSD permit. RCRA
administrative requirements such as reporting and recordkeeping, however, are not applicable for onsite
actions. ,
A Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, or its State counterpart, must accompany offsite shipment
of hazardous waste, and transport must comply with Federal Department of Transportation (DOT)
hazardous waste packaging, labeling, and transportation; regulations. The receiving TSD facility must
be permitted and in compliance with RCRA standards.
The RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDRs) in 40 CFR 268 preclude the land disposal of
hazardous waste that fails to meet stipulated technology or treatment standards. In situ treatment of media
contaminated with hazardous waste does not trigger LDRs for the soil or groundwater remaining in place.
Consequently, soil that is treated hi situ by the ITTRI RFH system does not have to meet LDRs but may
have to meet other criteria in order to remain in place. Soil or groundwater that is removed and treated
must meet LDRs prior to placement back onto the ground. For groundwater, this requirement means that
treatment must reduce the contaminants that make the water hazardous, and all other LDR-triggering
contaminants, to levels specified in 40 CFR 268 before the treated water can be land disposed (e.g., re-
introduced into the ground via an infiltration gallery). The technology or treatment standards applicable
to the residuals produced by the nTRI RFH system are determined by the type and characteristics of the
hazardous waste present in the soil being remediated. In some cases, variances from LDRs can be
obtained from EPA.
18
-------
2.1.3 Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for
the protection of public health and emission limitations for six criteria air pollutants designated by the
EPA. Requirements under the CAA are administered by each state as part of the State Implementation
Plans developed to bring each state into compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The ambient air quality standards listed for specific pollutants may be applicable to operation
of the IITRI RFH system due to potential air emissions. A vapor barrier and vapor collection system are
designed to prevent the release of the contaminants to the air.
The vapor treatment system must be designed in compliance with the CAA and evaluated on a
site-specific basis. The vapor treatment system employed during the SITE demonstration consisted of
condensate collection and a propane-fueled flare. According to B&RE, the flare operated under Standard
Exemption Number 68 as defined in Section 382.057 of the Texas Clean Air Act.
2.1.4 Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) establishes primary and secondary national drinking water
standards. CERCLA refers to these standards, and Section. 121(d)(2) explicitly mentions two of these
standards for surface water or groundwater: Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Federal Water
Quality Criteria. Alternate Concentration Limits may be used when conditions of Section 121 (d)(2)(B)
are met and cleanup to MCLs or other protective levels is not practicable. Included in these sections is
guidance on how these requirements may be applied to Superfund remedial actions. The guidance, which
is based on Federal requirements and policies, may be superseded by more stringent promulgated State
requirements, resulting in the application of even stricter standards than those specified in Federal regula-
tions. If it is desired to inject the groundwater extracted by dewatering wells, condensate from the vapor
collection system, and water generated from decontamination procedures into the ground (as when an
infiltration gallery is used), compliance with SDWA and State regulations is required.
2.1.5 Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates direct discharges to surface water through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. These regulations require point-source
discharges of wastewater to meet established water quality standards. The discharge of wastewater to a
sanitary sewer requires prior approval from State and local regulatory authorities that the wastewater is
19
-------
in compliance with applicable pretreatment standards.
Depending on the applicable CWA regulations and site conditions, the extracted groundwater and
condensate may have to be further treated prior to discharge. Discharge to a publicly-owned treatment
works (POTW) will typically be regulated according to the industrial wastewater pretreatment standards
of the POTW. These standards are specified in 40 CFR 401-471 for certain industries. Depending on
the type of site, the treated water may fall into one of the specific industrial categories. If it does not,
the pretreatment standards for the treated water are determined by the POTW and depend on site-specific
parameters such as the flow rate to the POTW, the contaminants present, and the design of the POTW.
If pollutants are present hi the groundwater and condensate, discharge to a surface water body
must meet the substantive requirements of an NPDES permit effluent and be in compliance with the
provisions of 40 CFR 122, et seq. In order to meet either NPDES discharge limits or POTW
pretreatment standards, treatment of the groundwater and condensate may be required.
2.1.6 Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) grants EPA the authority to prohibit or control the
manufacturing, importing, processing, use, and disposal of any chemical substance that presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. These regulations are found in 40 CFR
761. With respect to waste regulation, TSCA focuses on the use, management, disposal, and cleanup
of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Materials with less than 50 parts per million (ppm) PCBs are
classified as non-PCB, those with PCB concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm are classified as PCB-
contaminated, and those with PCB concentrations greater than or equal to 500 ppm are classified as
PCBs. State PCB regulations may be more stringent than TSCA regulations. PCBs were not anticipated
to be present at the Demonstration Test site and therefore, no analysis was performed.
2.1.7 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Requirements
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires, personnel employed in
hazardous waste operations to receive training and comply with specified working procedures while at
hazardous sites. These regulations (29 CFR 1910) stipulate that workers must receive appropriate training
to recognize hazardous working conditions and to protect themselves adequately from those conditions.
This training typically includes a 24- or 40-hour course and an annual 8-hour refresher class.
20
-------
Proper personal protective equipment (PPE) should be available and properly utilized by all onsite
personnel. At each site, the level of PPE required is determined based on the potential hazards associated
with the site and the work activities being conducted.
OSHA has provided guidance, published in 20 CFR Part 1910.97, for exposure to
electromagnetic radiation in the RF region. This guidance states that "for normal environmental
conditions and for incident electromagnetic energy of frequencies from 10 MHz to 100 gigahertz (GHz),
the radiation protection guide is 10 mW/cm2 for periods of 0.1 hour or more, or an energy density of 1
mW-hr/cm2 during any 0.1 hour period". OSHA recommends that exposure should not exceed the limits
of the guidance without careful consideration.
2.2 OPERABILITY OF THE TECHNOLOGY
IITRI's RFH system is described hi detail in Subsection 1.4. The components of the system have
two major purposes: (1) to heat the soil by transmitting RF energy into it and (2) to collect the vapors
released by the heated soil. During the SITE demonstration, IITRI was subcontracted by B&RE to design
and operate all of the RFH system except the vapor treatment system. B&RE provided project and site
management, operated the vapor treatment system, and assisted ITTRI in the construction and operation
of the RFH system.
Two significant operational problems were encountered during the demonstration. IITRI had
planned to use a new 50-kW RF generator for the demonstration. However, the unit did not perform
correctly during startup and was replaced with a 40-kW generator that had been used during earlier tests.
This change did not appear to affect the amount of soil treated. Also, exciter electrodes removed after
the demonstration had melted, providing evidence of a system malfunction that prevented fall utilization
of RF power for soil heating. The developer believes that the shallow groundwater table contributed to
the meltdown. Because a dewatering system was installed and operated by B&RE to prevent this type
of problem, it appears that either the dewatering system was inadequate or IITRI underestimated the
distance that must be maintained between the groundwater and the bottom ends of the exciter electrodes.
21
-------
Several operating parameters affect the performance of the RFH system. The treatment
temperature determines the rate at which contaminants are volatilized as well as the range of contaminants
that will be volatilized. The length of tune the treatment temperature is maintained influences the final
contaminant concentrations. Operating temperature and treatment time are typically selected based on
the contaminants of concern, required cleanup levels, and soil characteristics. The soil at Site S-l, where
the SITE demonstration was conducted, is contaminated with mixed solvents, carbon cleaning compounds,
and petroleum oils and lubricants. The contaminants of concern were VOCs and SVOCs. It was the goal
of the developer to achieve a soil temperature of 150°C (302°F) in the revised design treatment zone, then
maintain this temperature for approximately 4 days. Due to limited communication between the
developer and the SITE Program, the Demonstration Plan states that the goal was to maintain a soil
temperature of 150°C (302°F) for 2 weeks.
Because much of the revised design treatment zone never reached 150°C (302°F), it is not possible
to calculate a length of time for which the zone was maintained at the treatment temperature.
Temperature monitoring results are presented in greater detail in Appendix A. The area within the
revised design treatment zone that achieved a temperature of greater than 150°C (302°F) and maintained
that temperature for at least 2 weeks is referred to as the heated zone (a duration of 2 weeks is used to
maintain agreement with the Demonstration Plan).
The design and operation of the vapor collection system are crucial to the performance of the
RFH technology. Factors that can be varied include the number and design of the vapor collection pipes,
the location (configuration) of the vapor collection pipes within the treatment zone, the amount of vacuum
applied to the vapor collection system, and the amount of time the vapor collection system is operated.
Analysis of the SVE design used during the SITE demonstration revealed several problems which
negatively impacted the ability of the RF technology to remove the contaminants in the revised design
treatment zone. Two-dimensional modeling of gas flow rates was used to evaluate inward migration and
treatmentzone extraction rates qualitatively. The results of this modeling indicate inward gas flows. Due
to inefficiencies hi the design of the SVE system, gas flows between the outer edge of the impermeable
cap and the extraction wells were five times greater than those between the two rows of extraction wells.
As a result, contaminant migration into the treatment zone was possible, especially near the outer edges,
and contaminant removal from the treatment zone may have been slow compared to inward contaminant
migration.
22
-------
Another problem with the SVE design was that the ground electrodes, also serving as the vacuum
wells, were connected to the same blower by a manifold and were operated at the same vacuum. The
vacuum wells created a significant vacuum under the vapor barrier, and air was drawn laterally under
the edges of the vapor barrier to the vacuum wells. However, there was a rather large domain bordered
by the two rows of ground electrodes and topped by the vapor barrier in which the gas pressure gradient
was extremely small. The soil gas velocity in this stagnation region was therefore very small, so SVE
was very slow and inefficient in this region; this region constituted a major part of the revised design
treatment zone.
The design of the SVE system must be altered in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the RF
technology properly. Extraction wells closer to the center of the domain of interest and installation of
passive vent wells may improve the SVE system. A set of passive vent wells, screened along their entire
lengths, could be placed around the perimeter of the domain of interest. This would serve to prevent the
flow of air into the domain of interest from the surrounding soil, since it eliminates all air pressure
gradients in the soil immediately surrounding the domain of interest.
As was the case during the SITE demonstration, the presence of shallow groundwater can greatly
impede the heating process and increase costs due to the need to install dewatering wells and/or
subsurface hydraulic barriers.
2.3 APPLICABLE WASTES
The KFH technology is potentially capable of remediating soils contaminated with VOCs and
SVOCs. Contaminants that can potentially be removed from the soil include: halogenated and
nonhalogenated solvents; straight-chain and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in gasoline, jet fuel,
and diesel fuel; and other VOCs and SVOCs. During a test conducted at Volk Air National Guard Base
(ANGB), ITTRI's RFH system effectively removed both VOCs and SVOCs from homogenous sandy soil
[1]. Tests performed in the heterogeneous soils present at Kelly AFB and Rocky Mountain Arsenal
(RMA) produced less positive results [2]. These tests are briefly described in Appendix B.
In general, IITRI's RFH system is best, suited for treatment of soils composed primarily of sand
and other coarse materials. The developer claims the technology will also remove contaminants in a clay
medium. However, conducting further tests of the technology in clay is recommended before this claim
23
-------
can be substantiated. Soils containing a large fraction of clay may have low air permeability and impact
the operation of the SVE system. IITRI claims that the air permeability of clayey soils is enhanced as
these soils dry. Clay soils often shrink and crack as they dry causing secondary porosity. Air
permeability may be increased in the process, but this does not ensure adequate contaminant removal.
The technology is also applicable to unsaturated soils regardless of moisture content. Theoretically, RF
energy preferentially heats moisture in the soil, causing it to act as a steam sweep to further enhance the
removal of organic contaminants. As a result, moist soils can provide improved absorption of the RF
energy but generally require additional energy, particularly if the target soil temperature is above the
boiling point of water. The dielectric constant of the soil determines the soil's ability to absorb RF
energy directly.
2.4 KEY FEATURES OF THE IITRI RFH TECHNOLOGY
HTRTs RFH technology is similar to both in situ SVE and in situ steam extraction. In SVE,
vacuum blowers induce air flow through the soil, stripping VOCs and SVOCs from it [3]. In steam
extraction, steam is injected into the soil to raise the soil temperature and strip VOCs and SVOCs from
it [4]. The primary difference between these technologies and RFH is that RFH uses RF energy to heat
the soil in the treatment zone. Because the RFH technology uses higher temperatures, it is more
aggressive than either steam extraction or SVE. Theoretically, RFH should therefore be applicable to
less volatile contaminants as well as VOCs.
2.5 AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPORTABILITY OF SYSTEM
liTKl owns and operates one 40-kW RFH system, which was used for the SITE demonstration.
The assembly of this system is a multi-step process. The system is transported in two semitrailers; the
instrumentation is housed in one trailer, and the RF power source in the other. Each of the trailers has
extra space for transportation of the remaining system components. Access roads are required for
equipment transport. The assembly of the proposed 300-kW (three 100-kW units) RFH system will be
similar to the assembly of the existing 40-kW system. It is projected that the 300-kW system will be
transported on four trailers. A full-scale system will use more electrodes and thermowells than the pilot-
scale system, but the multi-step installation process will be the same.
24
-------
2.6 MATERIALS HANDLING REQUIREMENTS
Materials handling requirements prior to treatment are minimal because this is an in situ system.
IITRI claims it may be possible to place soil cuttings removed from boreholes during the installation of
the electrodes and thermowells on top of the treatment zone and treat them with the undisturbed soil.
Alternatively, the cuttings can be drummed and treated or disposed of as was done during the SITE
demonstration.
Depending on its design, the vapor treatment and collection systems may generate residuals. The
materials handling requirements for these residuals will vary depending on the design of the vapor
treatment system and the contaminants present in the soil. During the SITE demonstration, uncondensed
vapors were channeled directly to a propane-fueled flare. Vapors that condensed in the vapor collection
system were collected in a 50-gallon (0.19-cubic-meter) drum. The drum contents were pumped as
required to the 20,000-gallon (76-cubic-meter) tank used to store water from dewatering activities. The
contents of the 20,000-gallon (76-cubic-meter) tank were periodically transferred to a Kelly AFB
industrial wastewater treatment facility for treatment. The residuals generated by the vapor treatment
system of a commercial-scale RFH system will depend on the vapor treatment system used and the nature
of the site being remediated.
Other aqueous residuals generated during the RFH SITE demonstration included groundwater
from the dewatering wells and washwater from PPE and equipment decontamination. During the
demonstration, 325,920 gallons (1,234 cubic meters) of groundwater were removed from the soil, stored
in the same 20,000-gallon (76-cubic-meter) tank, and then periodically transferred to the Kelly AFB
wastewater treatment facility for treatment.
2.7 SITE SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS
The site must be prepared for the mobilization, operation, maintenance, and demobilization of
the equipment. Access roads are needed for equipment transport. Approximately 4600 square feet (427
square meters) of a relatively flat surface are needed to accommodate the trailer-mounted RF generators,
controllers, and other support equipment for the full-scale system. Therefore, a portion of the site may
require grading.
25
-------
Remediation using a full-scale RFH process will require that certain utilities be available at the
site. Water must be available for steam-cleaning the drill rig and other equipment and personnel
decontamination activities. Electrical power must also be available. It is projected that 480-volt, 3-phase
power will be provided at an onsite distribution point, and that a 3-phase delta-wye 480- to 240-volt
transformer will be provided to establish the required single-phase service. The primary component
connected to the 480-volt, 3-phase power will be the RF generator; the majority of the other system
components will use 240-volt, single-phase power. The average hourly electrical usage rates during
heating and cooldown are estimated to be 439.5 kW and 53.25 kW, respectively.
Monitoring should be conducted to ensure that the RF field outside of the treatment zone does
not exceed National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) or FCC requirements. During
the SITE demonstration, these measurements were reportedly performed by ITTRL
A mobile drill rig and drill crew will be required onsite for the collection of soil samples and for
the installation and removal of all subsurface components. The drill rig will also be used to install
dewatering wells if dewatering is necessary. A bermed area will be required for the decontamination of
the drill rig. A forklift and operator will be required during assembly and disassembly.
Residuals collected from the vapor treatment system, groundwater collected during dewatering
(if dewatering is required), and water used i:, decontamination activities may be hazardous and the
handling of these materials requires that a site plan be developed to provide for personnel protection and
special handling measures. Storage should be provided to hold these wastes until they have been tested
to determine their acceptability for disposal or release to a treatment facility.
2.8 UMTTATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY
The performance of the RF technology is very dependent on the classification of the soil present
at the site. Therefore, it is highly recommended that site-specific treatability and soil air permeability
tests be performed prior to implementing the technology.
Soils containing large amounts of silt, clay, and humic substances tend to adsorb organic
contaminants more tightly, making it more difficult for contaminant removal to occur. Soils containing
a large fraction of clay may also have insufficient air permeability and thus impede the ability of the SVE
system to remove the volatilized contaminants. The soils treated during the SITE demonstration were
26
-------
very heterogeneous. Some zones within the treatment area were highly permeable (primarily gravel or
sandy soil); other zones consisted of a large percentage of silt and clay (up to 78 percent). Extraction
of vapors from such soils frequently bypasses lower-permeability zones, leaving contaminants behind.
Wet soils normally have low air permeabilities because void spaces are filled with water. RFH,
in conjunction with SVE, will tend to dry soils and increase the air permeability of wet soils. Therefore,
RFH is likely applicable to wet soils. However, HTRI's RFH technology is not generally recommended
for the remediation of saturated soils. If saturated soil is to be remediated by RFH, the treatment zone
should be dewatered prior to treatment. If the water table is close to the contaminated soil and the
groundwater is also contaminated, it may be difficult to heat the soil without volatilizing contaminants
in the groundwater. Measures may need to be taken to lower the groundwater table in the contaminated
area or place a hydraulic barrier (i.e., slurry wall or sheet piling) upstream of the contaminated area to
divert aquifer flow around the treatment zone. Based on the results of the SITE demonstration, it is not
clear that groundwater levels can be adequately controlled at all sites to permit the proper operation of
the RFH system.
MTRI's RFH system can only be used to remove contaminants that can be volatilized at soil
temperatures that the system can practically achieve throughout the treatment zone. Inorganics, metals,
and other nonvolatile contaminants are normally removed, aad higher temperatures may be required for
some semivolatile contaminants.
The presence of large inclusions in the area to be heated can limit the use of the RFH process.
Inclusions are void volumes, containers, metal scrap, general refuse, demolition debris, rock, or other
heterogeneous materials within the treatment volume. Large debris and drums can also interfere with the
installation of underground system components.
Some soil contaminants may remain after treatment. Although the true effectiveness of the
technology during the SITE demonstration cannot be determined due to design and operational problems,
it should be noted that quantities of several organics remained in the soil after treatment was completed.
(Removal of all contaminants from the revised design treatment zone was not an objective of the
demonstration.) Further treatment is required to remediate these soils to the desired cleanup levels.
Residuals from vapor treatment, as well as soil cuttings, groundwater, and decontamination water, may
remain after treatment and require further treatment.
27
-------
IITRI claims its technology is not ready for commercialization. Considerable development and
optimization of the process is required before a full-scale system is ready for field use. The IITRI RFH
technology cannot be used as a stand-alone technology since it requires the use of a vapor treatment
system to treat the volatilized contaminants that are removed from the soil.
2.9 REFERENCES
1. Dev, H., J. Enk, G. Sresty, J. Bridges, and D. Downey. In Situ Soil Decontamination by Radio-
Frequency Heating—Field Test. Prepared by HT Research Institute for Air Force Engineering
& Services Center. September 1989.
2. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Rocky Mountain Arsenal In Situ Radio Frequency Heating/Vapor
Extraction Concept Engineering Report. November 1992.
3. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment. EPA/540/2-91/006, May 1991.
4. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment. EPA/540/2-91/005, May 1991.
28
-------
SECTION 3
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
.The primary purpose of this economic analysis was to estimate the costs (not including profit) for
using IITRI's in situ RFH technology on a commercial-scale level to remediate soil contaminated with
TRPH, VOCs, and SVOCs. The primary cost analysis is based on the results of the SITE demonstration
that utilized IITRI's 40-kW pilot-scale RFH system, information from previous tests conducted by IITRI,
and information obtained from engineering textbooks. The second analysis is based on a theoretical RF
design and treatment zone, information provided by IITRI, bench-scale tests, and information obtained
from engineering textbooks. The results of the second analysis are not discussed in detail in this section;
they are only summarized in Subsection 3.4.
Demonstration results were adversely affected by several problems associated with the design and
operation of the RFH system, as discussed in Subsection 2.2. The developer has stated that a full-scale
system would be designed differently than the system used during the demonstration, and that the
technology is far from commercialization. These factors made it difficult to prepare the cost estimate,
which is typically based on the design and operation of the system during the demonstration. When the
technology is ready for commercialization, further economic analyses should be performed. Costs
obtained from those analyses would likely be more indicative of costs of the technology at a commercial-
scale level.
3.2 BASIS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
This cost analysis was performed in accordance with standard procedures utilized for all SITE
Program demonstrations. The cost analysis was prepared by breaking down the overall cost into 12
categories. The cost categories and the areas that each of them generally comprise are listed in Table 3.
Because some of the cost categories are very site-specific, no economic analysis of these categories was
performed.
29
-------
Table 3. Twelve Cost Categories for the ITTRI SITE Demonstration Economic Analysis
Site preparation
— site design and layout
— surveys and site logistics
— legal searches
— access rights and roads
— land clearing
— preparations for support and decontamination facilities
— utility connections
— auxiliary buildings
Permitting and regulatory
— actual permit-costs
— system monitoring requirements
Equipment
— equipment used during treatment
— freight
— sales tax
Startup and fixed
— transportation of personnel to the site
— wages and living expenses
— assembly of the unit
— shakedown, testing, and training
— working capital
— insurance
— contingencies
— property taxes
— process monitoring equipment
— engineering and supervision
Operating Costs for Treatment
— labor
— fabrication
— drilling
Supplies
— spare parts
— bentonite
Consumables
— electricity
— water
— diesel fuel
Effluent treatment and disposal
— farther treatment/disposal of effluent(s)
— onsite storage of effluent(s)
Residuals and waste shipping, handling, and transport
— storage of residuals/wastes
— transportation of residuals/wastes
— treatment/disposal of residuals/wastes
Analytical services
— sampling and analytical program
Facility modification, repair, and replacement
— maintenance material costs
— design adjustments
— equipment replacements
Site demobilization
— disassembly costs
— site cleanup and restoration
— wages and living expenses
3.3 ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS
This subsection summarizes the issues and assumptions of the economic analyses for this study.
The original objective of this SITE demonstration was to treat a single cell having dimensions of 17.5
feet (5.33 meters) by 10.0 feet (3.05 meters) by 29.0 feet (8.84 meters); the total volume was 188 cubic
yards (144 cubic meters) or approximately 254 tons (230 metric tons). However, due to the presence
of a shallow groundwater table prior to installation, the lengths of the exciter electrodes were decreased
to 20.0 feet (6.10 meters). This design change and operational problems during the demonstration
resulted in an effective heating length of 14.1 feet (4.30 meters), and an effective heating depth of 24.0
feet (7.32 meters). The width remained at 10 feet (3.0 meters). This zone is referred to as the "revised
design treatment zone." The primary economic analysis is based on the revised design treatment zone.
Contaminant removals calculated for the revised design treatment zone and for the heated zone, which
is defined in Subsection 2.2, are presented in Subsection 4.3.1. An economic analysis of the heated zone
was not performed.
30
-------
For the primary analysis, the goal was to estimate remediation costs of a full-scale system based
upon a site of approximately 10,000 tons (9,072 metric tons) at a depth of 24 feet (7.3 meters). The size
of the full-scale system was estimated to be 300 kW based on input from the developer. Since a 40-kW
unit was used during the SITE demonstration, a factor of 7.5 (300 kW divided by 40 kW) was used to
scale-up the RF system and treatment volume used in the SITE demonstration to the full-scale level. The
volume of each cell at the full-scale level was determined to be 25,380 cubic feet (940 cubic yards or 719
cubic meters). However, since much of the revised design, treatment zone did not achieve the desired
temperatures, a decision was made that the width and depth of the scaled-up cells would remain equal
to the width (10 feet .or 3.0 meters) and, depth (24 feet or 7.3 meters) of the cells in the SITE
demonstration. Knowing the volume, width, and depth of the full-scale cells, the length of each cell was
determined to be 105.75 feet (32.23 meters). Based upon these dimensions and a soil density of 1.35
tons per cubic yard (0.936 metric tons per cubic meter), it was determined that the mass of eight cells
(10,152 tons or 9,210 metric tons) would be the mass used for this analysis since it most nearly meets
the 10,000-ton (9,072-metric-ton) goal.
Several assumptions about the technology were made and are discussed in the following sub-
sections. Even though the RFH system did not achieve the objective of maintaining a temperature of
150°C (302°F) throughout the revised design treatment zone and showed a lack of contaminant removal
during the SITE demonstration, this economic evaluation assumes the technology will achieve an average
treatment temperature of 150°C (302°F) and remove contaminants to necessary cleanup levels. The actual
treatment temperature, duration the temperature is maintained, and cleanup levels are site-specific.
It is assumed that the RFH system will operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, with a 95
percent online time. The online factor is used to adjust the unit treatment cost to compensate for the fact
that the system is not online constantly because of maintenance requirements, breakdowns, and
unforeseeable delays, and considers fixed costs incurred while the system is not operating. The total
estimated time the equipment will be onsite is approximately 104 weeks. This is based on the following
time estimates:
31
-------
Activity Weeks
Set up equipment, etc. 1
Assemble and install electrodes 6.4
Connect aboveground and subsurface components 1
Shakedown and testing 2
Heating at 9 weeks each for 8 cells 72
Total time to mobilize from cell to cell 7
Cooldown 8
Remove subsurface components 6.4
TOTAL 103.8
The following subsections (Subsections 3.3.1 through 3.3.12) describe assumptions that were
made hi determining project costs for 7 of the 12 cost categories. This analysis does not include cost
values for: site preparation; permitting and regulatory; effluent treatment and disposal; residuals and
waste shipping, handling, and transport; and analytical services. Costs for these,categories are highly
dependent upon site-specific factors, and therefore, no estimates are presented in this economic analysis.
Consequently, the actual cleanup costs incurred by the site owner or responsible party can be significantly
higher than the costs shown in this analysis. According to the American Association of Cost Engineers,
the actual cost is expected to fall between 70 percent and 150 percent of this estimate. Since this cost
estimate is based on a preliminary design, the range may actually be wider.
Insurance, property taxes, spare parts, contingency costs, and maintenance materials can be
estimated as a percentage of the fixed capital investment required for a project [1]. To determine the
t
fixed capital investment, an algebraic equation was devised using the cost items below:
Total equipment cost applied to the project (including freight and sales tax)
1 year supply of operating supplies (1 percent of fixed capital investment)
Transportation (other than freight)
Assembly labor
Shakedown, testing, and training labor
Contingencies (10 percent of fixed capital investment)
Engineering and supervision labor for system installation
Since some of these components are estimated independently of the fixed capital investment (e.g.,
assembly), and others are percentages of the fixed capital investment applied to the project (e.g.,
contingencies), a formula for calculating the fixed capital investment was developed.
32
-------
3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs
The amount of preliminary site preparation required is highly dependent on the site.
Consequently, site preparation costs are not included in this cost estimate and are assumed to be the
responsibility of the site owner or responsible party. It is essential to consider that site preparation
measures may significantly increase the costs associated with the use of this technology.
3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permitting and regulatory costs can vary greatly because they are site- and waste-specific.
Consequently, no permitting or regulatory costs are included in this analysis. This category may be a
significant factor hi determining project costs since permitting activities can-be both expensive and time
consuming for any technology. Regulatory approval for the vapor and condensate treatment systems may
be required. Regulatory requirements that must be considered when remediating Superfund site are
discussed in Subsection 2.1.
3.3.3 Equipment Costs
The primary pieces of equipment of the UTRI RFH system include:
RF generator
Control system
Matching network .
Dummy load
Ground and exciter electrodes
Thermocouples and thermowells
Vapor barrier
Vapor collection system
Instrumentation
Electrical components/wiring
Equipment cost estimates are based on vendor quotes, estimates by B&RE and ITTRI, or
information provided by Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers [1]. When necessary, the
Chemical Engineering Cost Index [2] is used to estimate current costs from earlier cost data. The
annualized cost (rattier than depreciation) is used to calculate the annual equipment costs incurred by a
site. The annualized cost is calculated using the following formula:
33
-------
where:
P
i
n
A = P
annualized cost ($)
present value principal sum ($)
interest rate (%)
years
i (1 + 0"
(1 + i)" - 1
The value "n" is the useful life of the equipment and varies according to the equipment under
consideration. The annualized equipment cost, prorated to the actual tune the unit is at the remedial site
(including assembly, shakedown and testing, treatment, and disassembly), is $463,097 over a period of
103.8 weeks (1.99 years). The unit is assumed to have no salvage value.
The average price of one 100-kW unit is estimated to be approximately $175,000 [3]; since the
commercial-scale unit will require three 100-kW units, the total cost to the project will be $525,000. The
prices of the control system and 6 X 50 matching networks are estimated to be $200,000 and $240,000,
respectively [4]. The estimated price for one 100-kW dummy load is estimated to be $37,000 [4].
The total price for electrodes, thermocouples, and thermowells is estimated to be $333,925 [5]
[6]. It is assumed that enough components for two cells will be purchased. This will enable work to
progress to the second cell while the first is in its cooldown period. The ground electrodes are anticipated
to run along the length of the cell to be heated on the borderline separating one cell from the next.
Therefore, savings will occur since one of the ground electrode rows in the first "cell can be used in the
heating of the second cell while the first cell is hi its cooldown period. One row of the ground electrodes
hi the second cell can be used hi the heating of the third cell and so on.
The RF shield cost is estimated to be $4,996. The vendor claims that the RF shield is a site-
specific item that may not be needed when the nTRI system is operated at a frequency of 6.78 MHz or
lower. However, since the RF shield was used during the SITE demonstration, it is included in this cost
estimate. The vapor collection system cost is estimated to be $12,348, based upon prices obtained from
a parts catalog [7], The vapor treatment system is site-specific and is not included in this economic
analysis.
34
-------
Instrumentation cost for the system is assumed to be 6 percent of the total purchased equipment
cost and estimated to be $102,948 for the project. Electrical installation costs are assumed to be 10
percent of the total purchased equipment cost and estimated to be $171,580 for the project. Freight costs
are assumed to be 7 percent of the total equipment purchase cost and estimated to be $120,106 for the
project. The percentages used to estimate costs for instrumentation, electrical installation, and freight are
based on information provided by Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineer [1]. Sales taxes
are assumed to be 5.5 percent of the total equipment purchase cost and their costs are estimated to be
$94,369 for the project. When these costs are added to the total equipment purchase cost, the overall
equipment cost is estimated to be $1,930,272. Table 4 summarizes all IITRI RFH equipment costs.
Table 4. Summary of IITRI RFH Equipment Costs
Component
RF Power Sources
Control System
Matching Networks
Dummy Load
Trailers
Electrodes
Thermocouples and Thermowells
RF Shield
Vapor Collection System
Instrumentation
Electrical
Freight
Sales Tax
, TOTAL
Cost
$525,000
$200,000
$240,000
$37,000
$88,000
$171,204
$162,721
$4,996
$12,348
$102,948
$171,580
$120,106
$94,369
$1,930,272
3.3.4 Startup and Fixed Costs
Transportation activities include moving the IITRI system to the site. Transportation costs for
equipment are covered under the freight charge applied to the total equipment purchase cost discussed
in Subsection 3.2.3.
35
-------
Assembly consists of unloading the system from the trailer and assembling it at the site. It is
assumed that one forklift at $325 per hour and one operator at $25 per hour will be required. The cost
to transport the forklift to and from the site is $55 per hour, and it is assumed that it will take 4 hours
to drop off and pick up the forklift. The total cost is estimated to be $1,545.
It is estimated that 10.4 weeks will be required to set up equipment onsite, fabricate and install
electrodes and thermowells, assemble the above-ground system components, and shakedown and test the
unit. Assembly and shakedown and testing are .assumed to requite five people (four technicians and one
project manager). The assembly will consist of two 2-person crews for 8 hours per day, 5 days per week
each. Each shift will consist of two technicians. It is estimated the project manager will spend 20 hours
on the project during assembly. It is assumed that the technicians will be temporarily relocated by IITRI
to the general area hi which the site is located. However, it is assumed that the technicians will not be
paid for travel or living expenses. Therefore, to compensate for the lack of living and travel expenses,
it is assumed that IITRI will increase the hourly salaries the technicians would be paid if the site were
local by a factor of 1.33. A multiplier of 1.8 was then applied to each of the worker's salaries to cover
benefits and other overhead costs. The estimated labor cost for assembly and shakedown and testing is
$70,986. Listed below are the fully-burdened costs (including wages, benefits, and overhead) for all
onsite personnel involved with assembly and all other phases of the project..
• Operator/technician — $35.91/hour
• Project Manager — $54/hour
Working capital consists of supplies, utilities, spare parts, and labor necessary to keep the RFH
system operating without interruption due to financial constraints [1]. The working capital for this system
is based on maintaining 2 months of payroll for labor, 2 months of payroll for the drilling subcontractor,
and 1 month of inventory of the other items. For the calculation of working capital, 1 month is defined
as one-twelfth of 1 year. Working capital for one month is estimated to be $204,782. The annual cost
of borrowing the working capital (at an 8.5 percent interest rate) for the time the equipment is operating
is $116,121. Therefore, the total working capital cost for this project is $231,161.
Insurance is assumed to be 2 percent of the fixed capital investment and the cost is estimated to
be $45,007 per year and $89,594 for the project. Property taxes are assumed to be 3 percent of the total
fixed capital investment [1] and the costs are estimated to be $67,510 per year and $134,392 for the
project.
36
-------
The cost for the initiation of process monitoring programs is not included in this estimate.
Depending on the site, local authorities may impose specific guidelines for monitoring programs. The
stringency and frequency of monitoring requirements may have a significant impact on the project costs.
Air monitoring will likely be required due to the potential release of air emissions during treatment.
A contingency cost is included to cover additional costs caused by unforeseen or unpredictable
events, such as strikes, storms, floods,- and price variations [1]. The total contingency cost during the
life of the system is estimated to be 10 percent of the fixed capital investment. The annual contingency
cost is $29,865 to the project. , ,
3.3.5 Operating Costs for Treatment
Treatment operations (soil heating) for the RFH system will be conducted 24 hours per day, 7
days per week, for 79 weeks. It is assumed that energy will be applied to each cell for a total of 9 weeks
(same duration that energy was applied during the SITE demonstration). It is also assumed that it will
take 1 week to move from one cell to another; therefore, this will add 7 weeks to the total treatment time.
Labor costs consist of fully-burdened personnel costs for five personnel. Fully-burdened personnel costs
were'provided in Subsection 3.3.4. The treatment labor force will be structured as described in
Subsection 3.3.4. The total labor cost for treatment is estimated to be $1,038,515.
It will be necessary to subcontract a drilling company for the installation and removal of the
electrodes and thermowells. A two-person crew will operate the drill rig. Depths of the boreholes are
assumed to be:
• Ground electrodes — 24 feet (7.3 meters)
• Exciter electrodes — 20 feet (6.1 meters)
• Thermowells — 24 feet (7.3 meters)
The cost for drilling a 6-inch (0,15 meters) diameter hole with a hollow stem auger is assumed to be
$12.25 per foot ($40.19 per meter). The estimated costs for installing and removing the subsurface
components are $6.50 and $2.50 per foot ($21.33 and $8.20 per meter) respectively. The total drilling
costs for the project are estimated to be $992,616 and assume that a geologist is not required for drilling
oversight and soils characterization.
37
-------
3.3.6 Cost for Supplies
For this technology, supplies consist of spare parts and bentonite for backfilling the boreholes
after the extraction wells and thermowells are installed. Annual operating supply costs are estimated to
be 1 percent of the fixed capital investment [1], which is approximately $22,503 per year and $44,797
for the entire project.
Bentonite used to backfill the boreholes after the extraction wells and thermowells are installed
is assumed to cost $7 per bag with each bag containing 50 pounds (22.7 kilograms) of bentonite chips.
It is estimated that 4,116 bags of bentonite will be required for the project at a total cost of $28,815.
3.3.7 Cost for Consumables
Electricity is required not only during the heating of the cell but also during its cooldown period
(equipment such as the blower, lighting, and instrumentation will continue to operate during cooldown).
The average hourly power usage rates during the heating and cooling periods are estimated to be 439.5
and 53.25 kW, respectively. Based upon a 9-week duration for heating and 8-week duration for a
cooldown period for each cell, the total electricity cost for the project (eight cells) is approximately
$453,433 (at a rate of $0.077 per kWh).
In order to implement the ITrRI RFH technology, the site must have a supply of uncontaminated
water available. Water will be used for decontamination of the drill rig augers and be added to the
bentonite used in backfilling the boreholes and is estimated to be 600 gallons (2.3 cubic meters) per day.
A sewerage charge is assumed for all water used. Based upon 600 gallons (2.3 cubic meters) per day
and rates provided by the Cincinnati Water Works, the total water and sewerage bill for the project is
estimated to be $1,794.
Diesel fuel will be required to heat the four onsite project trailers. Diesel fuel is assumed to cost
approximately $1.25 per gallon ($0.33 per liter) and $7,266 for the project.
3.3.8 Cost for Effluent Treatment and Disposal
The design of the vapor treatment system will vary depending on the contaminants present in the
soil and may generate residuals. Condensate may form in the vapor collection and treatment systems and
require treatment. Washwater from PPE decontamination may require treatment. Therefore, for the
38
-------
purposes of this report, since these items are site-specific and assumed to be the obligation of the site
owner or responsible party, they are not included in this analysis.
3.3.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and Transport Costs
If the treatment area extends below the natural water table, it will be necessary to install
dewatering wells to lower the water table. The groundwater pumped out of these dewatering wells is
likely to be contaminated. However, because dewatering will only be required at some sites and because
the quantity of groundwater removed and the contaminants present in the groundwater will vary from site
to site, this site-specific cost is assumed to be the obligation of the site owner or responsible party and
thus is not included in this estimate.
Several boreholes will be drilled for installation of the extraction wells and electrodes. The soil
cuttings removed from these boreholes will be contaminated and will require treatment. During the
•demonstration, these cuttings were drummed for subsequent treatment and disposal. 11TRI claims that
soil cuttings can be placed on top of the soil surface and treated along with the undisturbed soil. It is
assumed that the same procedure will be followed.during full-scale treatment. If the cuttings are not
treated along with the undisturbed soil, they will be a contaminated residual. The residual treatment cost
is also assumed to be the obligation of the site owner or responsible party and is not included hi this
estimate.
3.3.10 Cost for Analytical Services
No analytical costs are included hi this cost estimate. The responsible party may elect or may
be required by local authorities to initiate a sampling and analytical program at its own expense. If
specific sampling and monitoring criteria are imposed by local authorities, these analytical requirements
can contribute significantly to the cost of the project.
3.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs
Maintenance costs vary with the nature of the waste and the performance of the equipment and
include costs for design adjustments, facility modifications, and equipment replacements. For estimating
purposes, annualized maintenance costs (excluding labor) are assumed to be 3 percent of the fixed capital
investment [1] and are estimated to be $67,510 per year and $134,392 for the project.
39
-------
3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs
It is assumed that the transportation costs in the demobilization phase will be equal to the
transportation costs of the assembly phase of the project. Therefore, the cost for site demobilization is
estimated to be $1,545. It is assumed that a total of 14.4 weeks will be required for disassembly of the
above-ground components and for preparation time needed to remove the equipment from the site. Labor
will be structured as described in Subsection 3.3.4 and will cost approximately $98,289.
It is assumed that much of the demobilization will occur while the cell is in its cooldown period.
It is estimated that it will take 8 weeks for each cell to cool down. However, the time required to cool
down will only add 8 weeks to the total time onsite for the last cell, since everything except the
duplicated components can be removed during cooldown.
3.4 RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
This subsection summarizes the results of the economic analyses of the nTRI RFH system treating
10,152 tons (9,210 metric tons) of soil based upon a scale-up of the SITE demonstration and 8,640 tons
(7,838 metric tons) based upon a theoretical RF design and treatment zone. In both cases, the developer
claims that the RF system is capable of operating with an online factor of 95 percent on a full-scale level
and will heat and maintain the desired treatment temperature throughout the zone under consideration.
The treatment temperature and the duration the heat will be applied are determined on a site-specific
basis.
Table 5 summarizes the estimated treatment costs per ton using the IITRI RFH system in the
treatment of 10,152 tons (9,210 metric tons) of soil with an online percentage of 95 percent. Table 5
also presents the treatment costs of each of the 12 cost categories as a percentage of the total cost. Table
6 summarizes the estimated treatment costs of the theoretical' RF design and treatment zone. The actual
cost is expected to fall between 70 and 150 percent of the estimated cost.
40
-------
Table 5 indicates that the RFH system costs approximately $370 per ton ($410 per metric ton)
to remediate a 10,152-ton (9,210 metric ton) site. Table 6 indicates that the costs of implementing the
theoretical RF design and treatment zone at a site containing 8,640 tons (7,838 metric tons) is estimated
to be $195 per ton ($215 per metric ton). This cost estimate is based on information and assumptions
supplied by ITTRI that were input into the standard SITE cost estimating procedures. These assumptions
and IITRI's theoretical design were not verified during the SITE demonstration.
Table 5. Treatment Costs for the HTRI RF System Treating 10,152 Tons of Soil
(Scaled-up from the Results of the SITE Demonstration)
Item
Site preparation
Permitting and regulatory
Equipment
Startup and fixed
Operating costs for treatment
Supplies
Consumables
Effluent treatment and disposal
Residuals and waste shipping, handling,
and transport
Analytical
Facility modification, repair, and
replacement
Site demobilization
Total operating costs
Unit
$/ton
NE
NE
45.62
47.93
200.07
7.25 '
45.56
NE
NE
NE
13.24
9.83
369.50
Cost
$/metric ton
NE .
NE
50.29
52.83
220.54
7.99
50.22
NE
NE
NE
14.59
10.84
407.30
Cost (% of total cost)
NE
NE
12.3
13.0
54.1
2.0
12.3
NE
. NE ,
NE
3.6
2.7
100
NE = Not estimated in the analysis. The cost for this item is highly dependent on site-specific factors.
41
-------
Table 6. Treatment Costs for the IITRI RF System Treating 8,640 Tons of Soil
(Based upon a Theoretical RF Design and Treatment Zone)
Item
Site preparation
Permitting and regulatory
Equipment
Startup and fixed
Operating costs for treatment
Supplies
Consumables
Effluent treatment and disposal
Residuals and waste shipping, handling,
and transport
Analytical
Facility modification, repair, and
replacement
Site demobilization
Total operating costs
Unit
$/ton
NE
NE
30.76
36.75
75.70
3.83
14.88
NE
NE
NE
8.60
24.37
194.89
Cost
$/metric ton
NE
NE
33.91
40.51
83.44
4.22
16.40
NE ,
NE
NE
9.48
26.86
214.82
Cost (% of total cost)
NE
NE
15.8
18.9
38.8
2.0
7.6
NE
NE
NE
4.4
12.5
100
NE « Not estimated in the analysis. The cost for this item is highly dependent on site-specific factors.
3.5 REFERENCES
1. Peters, M.S. and K.D. Timmerhaus. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, Third
Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1980.
2. Chemical Engineering. McGraw-Hill, Inc., Volume 102, Number 1, January 1995.
3. Cost determined based upon an average of estimates from vendors.
4. Information provided by JJTRL
5. Cole-Parmer 1995-1996 Catalog. Niles, Illinois.
6. Consolidated Plastics Catalog. Twinsburg, Ohio, 1994.
7. Grainger Industrial and Commercial Equipment and Supplies 1994 Catalog. Lincolnshire, Illinois,
1994.
42
-------
SECTION 4
TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
4.1 BACKGROUND
The SITE demonstration of ITTRI's RFH system took place at spill Site S-l at Kelly AFB in San
Antonio, Texas. From 1960 to. 1973, Site S-l was used as an intermediate storage area for wastes
awaiting offsite reclamation. Waste liquids including mixed solvents, carbon cleaning compounds,
petroleum oils, and lubricants were temporarily stored in tanks located within this area. Spills during
waste transfer operations and flooding of storage tanks are reported to have caused the current soil
contamination. After waste transfer operations at the site were halted, the tanks were removed, the sump
and depression were backfilled, and the area was graded. Soil contamination persists down to and in the
saturation zone, which begins approximately 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters) below the surface.
The original design treatment zone was 10.0 feet (3.05 meters) wide, 17.5 feet (5.33 meters)
long, and 29.0 feet (8.84 meters) deep. However, due to shallow groundwater and operational problems
during the demonstration, the original RFH design was modified and the volume of the soil to be heated
was decreased. The exciter electrodes were raised to a depth of 19.5 feet (5.94 meters below the
surface), resulting in an effective heating length of 14.1 feet (4.30 meters) and an effective heating depth
of 23.3 feet (7.10 meters). The width remained at 10.0 feet (3.05 meters). This volume is referred to
as the "revised design treatment zone." It was the intention of the developer to heat the soil in the
revised design treatment zone to 150°C (302°F) during the demonstration and maintain it at that
temperature for 4 days. However, soil temperature results indicated a lack of significant heating in
remote areas of the revised design treatment zone. As discussed in Subsection 2.2, the volume of soil
in the revised design zone that did achieve 150°C (302°F) and maintain it for 2 weeks is referred to as
the "heated zone." The dimensions of the heated zone are 10.8 feet (3.29 meters) long, 5.7 feet (1.7
meters) wide, and 20.0 feet (6.10 meters) deep.
The goal of this demonstration was to evaluate the ability of the ETTRI RFH technology to remove
TRPH, SVOC, and VOC contaminants from the in situ soil. Determination of whether the technology
met the goal was based upon contaminant concentration changes in the pre- and post-treatment matched
43
-------
boreholes or pairs (i.e., final boreholes were placed as close as possible to the original boreholes and
samples were collected from the same depth). The requirement for pre- and post-treatment data matched
pairs is summarized hi Appendix A.
Population distributions for most contaminants were log-normal, and as a result, concentration
data were log-transformed. The log-transformed ratio of the post-treatment concentration to the
pretreatment concentration was calculated for each sample of each contaminant. The ratios were
evaluated statistically using a 2-sided t test to determine whether the contaminant concentration had
exhibited a statistically significant change between the pre- and post-treatment sampling events. A
detailed description and application of the paired t test are presented in Appendix A. A preliminary
statistical evaluation was performed for the original design treatment zone before HTRI requested that the
size of this zone be modified. This evaluation was based on an 80 percent confidence level. The eight
contaminants that were found to have statistically significant concentration changes in the preliminary
evaluation were evaluated under a final statistical evaluation which was based on a 90 percent confidence
, level. The geometric mean ratio of post-treatment concentrations to pretreatment concentrations was also
calculated. This geometric mean ratio was converted to a geometric mean percent decrease or a
geometric mean percent increase, as appropriate. Upper and lower 90 percent confidence intervals were
also determined for the revised design treatment and heated zones and are presented in Appendix A.
Because the final statistical evaluation included only those contaminants that exhibited statistically
significant changes in the preliminary evaluation, this evaluation focuses on those compounds whose
concentrations changed between pre- and post-treatment sampling. Numerous other compounds did not
exhibit statistically significant changes in concentration. These compounds are not discussed hi detail
because it was often difficult to determine why the concentration of a given compound did not exhibit a
statistically significant change. Some contaminants may have been unaffected by the RFH technology.
Other contaminants, however, may have had initial concentrations so low that a statistically significant
change would have been difficult to demonstrate. As a result, the contaminants that did not exhibit
statistically significant changes are not discussed to avoid potential misinterpretation. The procedure for
determining which contaminants would be evaluated is described hi greater detail in Appendix A.
Prior to the demonstration, concentrations of TRPH and certain individual SVOCs and VOCs
were designated as "critical" measurements because they were expected to be present hi the highest
concentrations. Concentrations of all other SVOCs and VOCs were considered "noncritical"
44
-------
measurements. The critical SVOCs and VOGs were selected based on preliminary data and pretreatment
sampling results from Site S-l. The critical SVOCs were 1,2-dichlorobenzene; 1,3-dichlorobenzene; 1,4-
dichlorobenzene; 2-methylnaphthalene; and naphthalene. None of the critical SVOCs met the criteria for
inclusion in the final statistical evaluation. The critical VOCs were benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
chlorobenzene, and total xylenes. Only one of the critical VOCs, chlorobenzene, met the criteria for
inclusion in the final statistical evaluation.
The noncritical SVOCs selected for the final statistical evaluation were pyrene and bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate. Although bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is a common laboratory contaminant, the
evidence strongly supports the concentrations measured during this demonstration. The bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate concentrations measured in the samples were significantly higher than those measured in the
blanks. In addition, the USAF contractor has indicated that bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was used at Kelly
AFB as a plasticizer.
The noncritical VOCs selected for the final statistical evaluation were 2-b.exanone,-4-methyl-2-
pentanone, acetone, and methyl ethyl ketone. All critical and noncritical SVOCs and VOCs are listed
in Appendix A. The contaminant removal results are summarized in Subsection 4.3. SITE personnel
also performed particle size distribution analyses on the soil to characterize the size and to determine if
the technology altered the distribution from pre- to post-treatment soil sampling. Moisture analyses were
also performed to convert soil sample concentration results to dry weights.
B&RE also evaluated ITTRI's RFH system hi terms of operational features by performing (or
subcontracting to nTRI) the following tasks (see Appendix A for details):
• Measuring soil temperature in the revised design treatment zone (HTRI)
• Analyzing the SVE vapor stream to determine contaminant removal (B&RE)
• Analyzing the groundwater collected from the dewatering wells and condensate collected in
the vapor collection system (B&RE)
• Measuring RF fields radiating from the test array (HTRI)
• Electrical usage (B&RE)
45
-------
4.2 METHODOLOGY
4.2.1 Soil Sampling
Pretreatment sampling was conducted from January 25, 1993 - February 6, 1993. B&RE used
a mobile, hollow-stem auger drill rig to drill 10-inch (0.25-meter) diameter boreholes for the installation
of the thermowells and electrodes. Figure 4 shows the locations of all electrodes and thermowells used
in the SITE demonstration.
During installation of the electrodes, B&RE informed Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC), the SITE Program contractor, that the water table was higher than previous studies
had indicated and the installation of dewatering wells was necessary. The dewatering wells were designed
to minimize groundwater interference with the test, since HTRI's RFH technology is designed for the
remediation of soils in the vadose zone. B&RE designed, installed, and operated the dewatering system.
Due to the shallow groundwater, nTRI and B&RE subsequently decided to raise the exciter electrodes
to 19.5 feet (5.94 meters) and evaluate the RFH technology based on the revised design treatment zone.
The ground electrodes would have also been shortened from 29 feet (8.8 meters) long to 24 feet (7.3
meters) long, but time and cost limitations associated with USAF funding made this change impractical.
Several problems were encountered during soil sampling. First, pretreatment soil samples were
collected down to 30.0 feet (9.14 meters) even though the treatment zone depth had been revised. Then,
since the revised design treatment zone was altered to a depth of 23.3 feet (7.10 meters), B&RE decided
that no post-treatment samples below 24.0 feet (7.32 meters) would be taken. Consequently, pretreatment
samples between 24.0 and 30.0 feet (7.32 and 9.14 meters) were not a part of the evaluation. Second,
a portion of the pretreatment samples were taken during the installation of the dewatering wells, before
the water table was lowered. According to information provided after the demonstration by B&RE,
piezometer PW03 (located in the revised design treatment zone, see Figure 6) indicated that the water
table rose to approximately 22.47 feet (6.849 meters) below ground surface during the pretreatment
sampling. Therefore, it is estimated that the pretreatment soil samples ranging from approximately 20
to 24 feet (6.1 to 7.3 meters) below ground surface may have been affected by the groundwater table.
The groundwater certainly increased the moisture content and may have increased the contaminant
concentrations of some pretreatment soil samples; however, there is not enough information to prove or
disprove this possibility. Based upon information provided by B&RE after the demonstration, the water
table rose to approximately 24.4 feet (7.44 meters) during RFH application. Therefore, it is possible that
46
-------
MW09
MW10
TW11
DW02
<»
PW04
DW03
Original Design Treatment Zone
DW01
TW12
• Well for collecting groundwater samples or monitoring groundwater level
<«—'—'—"-*» Scale: 1 inch = 15 feet
Remote wells:
TW01 was approximately 110 feet south of MW10.
MWRR was approximately 40 feet west of MW09.
MWQQ was approximately 110 feet north of MW09.
MWW was approximately 190 feet north and 330 feet west of MW09.
Figure 6. SITE demonstration monitoring and dewatering wells.
47
-------
pretreatment soil samples were collected within the zone of saturation even when the dewatering system
was operational. The groundwater levels after dewatering was initiated are summarized in
Appendix A. :
Soil samples were typically collected using 3-inch (0.08-meter) diameter split spoons. The split
spoons were pushed or hammered into the soil (at the appropriate location and depth) using the drill rig.
The main portion of each split spoon was 2 feet (0.61 meters) long and contained four 6-inch (0.15-
meter) long stainless steel liners, which were numbered from bottom to top. The bottom portion of the
split spoon, which was approximately 3 inches (0.08 meters) long and called the "shoe," did not contain
any liners.
The soil characteristics at each sampling point affected the number of liners that were filled with
soil. The split spoon filled from the bottom: first the shoe filled, then the first liner, then the second
liner, and so on. For example, if the split spoon was pushed into the soil 12 inches (0.30 meters) and
then hit a large rock that stopped its progress, only the shoe and;the first liner would be filled with soil.
The second liner would be partially filled with soil. For each given sampling point, one. to four liners
were filled with soil. < •• :t • , '...•' . ,
The split spoon was then removed from the borehole and placed on a flat surface covered with
clean aluminum foil. The headspace in the liners was monitored using a flame ionization detector (FID).
Soil samples were collected for both chemical and particle size distribution analyses. When a soil sample
was selected for chemical analysis, the field sampling crew did not remove it from the stainless steel liner
in which it was collected; any void spaces were filled with soil from the shoe to minimize contaminant
volatilization. The ends of the liners were covered with pre-cut, 4-inch x 4-inch (0.1-meter x 0.1-meter)
pieces of Teflon® that were secured with polyethylene caps. The liners were labeled, sealed in a plastic
bag, and placed in a cooler with ice for preservation. When a soil sample was selected for particle size
distribution analysis, the field sampling crew removed the sample from its liner and placed it in a plastic
bag. When the split-spoon was filled or nearly filled (i.e., three or four liners were full of soil), the
second liner was selected for chemical analysis. When only two liners were full of soil, the second liner
was selected for chemical analysis. When a chemical analysis field duplicate was collected, the first liner
was selected as the chemical analysis field duplicate. When only the first liner was full of soil, it was
selected for chemical analysis. No field duplicates were collected if only the first liner was full. After
the soil was selected for the chemical analysis, and when appropriate field duplicates had been collected,
48
-------
a portion of or all of the remaining soil was designated as fJie particle size sample.
Soil samples were collected at the appropriate locations shown in Figure 7. The sampling depths
for each borehole are shown in Figure 8. In Figure 8, shading indicates sampling intervals designated
by the sampling plan (an "X" indicates intervals sampled during pretreatment sampling). Two of the
pretreatment soil samples were not collected at the depths designated by the sampling plan due to
insufficient soil recovery. When insufficient recovery occurred, the next deeper interval was sampled
instead. Samples were labeled with identification numbers that identified the borehole and 2-foot (0.61-
meter) sampling interval.
Samples, blanks, and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples were collected and
prepared for chemical analysis. For pretreatment sampling, 48 samples were analyzed for TRPH,
SVOCs, VOCs, and moisture. The methods used for these analyses and lists of target VOCs and SVOCs
are included in Appendix A. Five field duplicates were submitted to be analyzed.for SVOCs, VOCs,
TRPH, and moisture. Three samples submitted were designated as matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
(MS/MSD) samples for SVQG, VOC, and TRPH analyses. Three field blanks were submitted for TRPH,
SVOC, and VOC analyses. Ten trip blanks were submitted to be analyzed for VOCs.
In general, post-treatment samples were collected from boreholes generally placed within 2 feet
(0.61 meters) of the corresponding pretreatment boreholes at the previously sampled depths. Figure 8
shows the locations of pre- and post-treatment soil sampling boreholes. Soil samples were typically
collected using a 3-inch (0.08-meter) diameter split spoon., although 2-inch (0.05-meter) diameter split
spoons were occasionally used during post-treatment sampling in the dry soil to improve soil recovery.
However, due to presence of the shallow groundwater, B&RE decided to not take post-treatment samples
any deeper than 24 feet (7.3 meters) below ground surface (bgs). Eight pretreatment samples were
collected below 24 feet (7.3 meters) bgs. As a result, no analytical results are available to evaluate
contaminant concentration changes below the revised design treatment zone. In addition, some difficulty
was experienced hi the collection of samples above 24 feet (7.3 meters). In particular, five samples were
lost due to insufficient recovery in the split spoon, because the soil in certain areas of the treatment zone
was extremely dry and would not remain in the split spoon unless a sandcatcher was used. These five
samples were collected again at deeper intervals. Three other samples were not collected as a result of
problems encountered during drilling. As a result, post-treatment samples taken for chemical analysis
49
-------
A1
A1
O
TW1 TW1
• O
X
C1
A2 -A3
A2 ,A3
0 0
TW2 TW2 B1 B1
• O*O
0 0
C2 C3
A4 AS
M AS
.0 n
B2 B2 B3 B3
• O • O
U
CS ,,
A6 A7
AS A7
0 0
B4 B4
• 0
0 0
CS C7
AS
AS
O
C2
C3
C4
CS
O
CS
CS
O
TW7
TW7
O
¥
Scale: 1 inch = 2 feet
Heated zone
Revised design treatment zone
Pretreatment borehole
Post-treatment borehole
Pretreatment borehole that was not
sampled: therefore no
corresponding post-treatment
borehole was required
Figure 7. SITE demonstration boreholes.
50
-------
A1
A2
A3
A4
AS
A6
A7 AS TW1 TW2 TW7
0-2'
2-4'
4-6'
6-8'
8-10'
10-12'
12-14'
14-16'
16-18'
18-20'
20-22'
22-24'
24-26'
26-28'
28-30'
8
+
IS
m
X
+
—
H
•
X
—
—
n
n
—
V
I
lllil = designated in sampling plan
X = sampled during pretreatment sampling
-j- = sampled during post-treatment sampling
Rgure 8. Borehole sampling depths.
51
-------
81
B2 B3 B4
C1
C2
C3 C4 C5 C6
C7
C8
0-2'
2-4'
4-6'
6-8'
8-10'
10-12'
12-14'
14-16'
16-18'
18-20'
20-22'
22-24'
24-26'
26-28'
28-30'
H
if
±
H
If
i
H
—
IJjlJ) s designated in sampling plan
X - sampled during pretreatment sampling
-{- s sampled during post-treatment sampling
Figure 8. Borehole sampling depths (continued).
52
-------
were only collected for 37 of the 48 pretreatment samples. Figure 8 shows the actual pre- and post-
treatment sampling depths relative to the depths designated in the sampling plan. Pre- and post-treatment
samples that were intended to be matched pairs but were not collected from the same depth intervals were
still considered matched pairs.
For post-treatment sampling, 37 samples were analyzed for TRPH, SVOCs, VOCs, and moisture.
Four field duplicates were submitted to be analyzed for SVOCs, VOCs, TRPH, and moisture. Three
samples submitted were designated as MS/MSD samples for SVOC, VOC, and TRPH analyses. Three
field blanks were submitted for TRPH, SVOC, and VOC analyses. Five trip blanks were submitted to
be analyzed for VOCs.
Forty-four pretreatment samples (plus one laboratory duplicate) and 11 post-treatment samples
were submitted for particle size distribution analyses. Field duplicates could not be collected as planned
for particle size distribution analysis due to insufficient sample quantities.
The numbers and types of ,QA samples analyzed for the SITE demonstration are summarized in
Table 7. Table 8 summarizes the total number of pre- and post-treatment analyses for samples inside and
outside of each treatment zone. As was previously discussed, 11 post-treatment samples were not '
collected. Poor sample recoveries also altered some pre- and post-treatment sample locations. When
sample recovery in a designated interval was inadequate, an attempt was made to collect the sample from
the next interval below the designated interval. Such field adjustments to sampling plans are common
at sites of this complexity, and resulted in no identifiable impact on the overall soil sampling design. The
sampling design was still random in nature since there was no intentional bias associated with changes
in locations. Pre- and post-treatment samples that were intended to be matched pairs but were not
collected from the same intervals were still considered matched pairs. The criteria for determining which
matched pairs were to be included hi the statistical analysis (complete matched pairs) are described in
Appendix A. Table 9 summarizes the number of complete matched pairs for each of the zones under
consideration.
53
-------
Table 7. Summary of Number of QA Samples Analyzed
Measurement
Pretreatment
SVOCs
VOCs
TRPH
Moisture
Particle Size
Distribution
Post-treatment
SVOCs
VOCs
TRPH
Moisture
Particle Size
Distribution
Field
Duplicates
5
5
5
5
NA
4
4
4
4
NA
Laboratory
Duplicates
NA
NA
NA
5
1
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
Matrix
Spikes
4
11
4
NA
NA
3
7
3
NA
NA
Matrix Spike
Duplicates
4
11
4
NA
NA
3
7
3
NA
NA
Field
Blanks
3
3
3
3
NA'
3
3
• 3
3
NA
Trip Blanks
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
NA Not analyzed
54
-------
Table 8. Number of Soil Samples Taken During the SITE Demonstration
Measurement
Pretreatment
SVOCs
VOCs
TRPH
Moisture
Particle Size
Distribution
Post-treatment
SVOCs
VOCs
TPJPH
Moisture
Particle Size
Distribution
Total
48
48
48
48
43a
37
37
37
37
llb
Inside Revised
; Design Treatment
Zone
31
31
31 "
31
29
28
28
28
28
9
Inside Heated
Zone
8
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
4
Outside Revised
Design Treatment
Zone
17
17
17
17
14
9
9
9
9
2
Outside Heated
Zone
40
40
40
40
35
31
31
31
31
, 7
a Seven of the samples were subjected to both dry- and wet-sieving; six of the samples were subjected to wet-sieving only;
the remainder of the samples were subjected to dry-sieving only.
b All samples were subjected to the wet-sieving analysis.
Table 9. Numbers of Complete Matched Pairs for the Soil Samples
Contaminant
TRPH
Chlorobenzene
2-hexanone
4-methyl-2-
pentanone
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
pfathalate
Inside Revised Design
Treatment Zone
.23
26
5
9
20
15
7
17
Inside Heated
Zone
5
5
0
0
4 .
2
2
4
Outside Revised
Design Treatment Zone
8
7
1
1
3
1
3
6
Outside Heated
Zone
26
28
6
10
19
14
8
19
55
-------
4.2.2 Groundwater Sampling
Groundwater sampling was not a part of the original project scope. However, because ketones
were discovered in post-treatment samples of the revised design treatment zone, groundwater samples
were collected at Site S-l approximately 6 months after post-treatment soil sampling. Post-treatment
groundwater samples were collected from three wells (see Figure 6) near the treatment zone (MW-10,
MW-09, and DW-02) on January 14 to 19, 1993. Three well volumes were purged from each well
before the samples were collected with a Teflon® bailer. Groundwater samples were analyzed for the
same compounds as the soil samples (TRPH, VOCs, and SVOCs). Data from these samples were used
to characterize the groundwater and to identity whether it was a potential source for contaminant
migration into the revised design treatment zone.
4.2.3 SVE Vapor Stream Sampling
Concentrations of TRPH and specific VOCs and SVOCs in the SVE vapor stream were
monitored by a USAF subcontractor and were not part of the SITE demonstration. Therefore, the
appropriateness of the methods used and the quality of the data are unknown. The results appear to
indicate qualitatively removals of TRPH and certain VOCs and SVOCs. Because of limitations of the
sampling and analytical methods, the quantity of contaminants removed cannot be estimated.
4.3 PERFORMANCE DATA
The results presented hi this subsection address primary and secondary objectives of the ITTRI
SITE demonstration. The primary objective of the demonstration was to measure changes hi the
concentrations of TRPH, selected SVOCs, and selected VOCs hi the in situ soil. The critical and
noncritical contaminants were discussed in Subsection 4.1.
Since the revised design treatment zone was not isolated by a physical or pneumatic barrier
during the SITE demonstration, contaminant migration entering and exiting the revised design zone was
a concern and, therefore, evaluated hi this subsection. In order to determine if contaminant migration
occurred, samples were collected and analyzed hi the zone being heated and the surrounding area before
and after RFH. Results of the soil sampling for each zone are summarized in Appendix A.
56
-------
4.3.1 Results of Chemical Analyses
4.3.1.1 Revised Design Treatment Zone
There was a statistically significant decrease in TRPH concentration at the 95 percent confidence
level; the estimated decrease in the mean concentration was 60 percent. There were statistically
significant decreases in the concentrations of two SVOCs, pyrene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, at the
97.5 percent confidence level; estimated decreases in the mean concentrations were 87 and 48 percent,
respectively.
The decrease in TRPH and SVOC concentrations may be due to some combination of the RF
energy and the SVE system. In areas where significant heating occurred, the contaminants were likely
volatilized and migrated laterally to areas beyond the revised design treatment zone post-treatment
sampling locations. Here they were either extracted by the SVE system or recondensed in the cooler
soils. In cooler areas, the SVE system alone may have removed more volatile fractions of the TRPH,
but removals of pyrene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate are less likely. Alternatively, these contaminants
may have been pyrolytically degraded due to soil temperatures of 1,300°C (2,372°F) and greater in some
areas.
Based on results of an air flow model, inefficiencies in the design of the SVE system may have
resulted in gas flows between the outer edge of the impermeable cap and the extraction wells being five
times greater than those between the two rows of extraction wells. As a result, contaminant migration
into the treatment zone was possible, especially near the outer edges, and contaminant removal from the
treatment zone may have been relatively slow as compared to inward contaminant migration. The air
flow model does not indicate any pathway by which contaminants would migrate outward from inside the
revised design treatment zone. The air flow model does, however, indicate pathways by which
contaminants outside the revised design treatment zone could migrate toward the extraction wells.
Therefore, the decreases hi TRPH and SVOC concentrations are not likely due to outward migration,
since the configuration of the SVE system limited this type of migration. A tracer test was performed
by the developer to evaluate contaminant migration. The results of this test also indicated that inward,
and not outward, migration occurred. '
The air flow model does not, however, account for the generation of steam in the heated zone.
The generation of steam can increase the pressure within the heated zone, causing contaminants to migrate
57
-------
outward. Theoretically, the steam generation rate increases as the soil temperature increases, then
decreases when most of the soil moisture has been driven off. The effect of this phenomenon has not
been quantified.
For the VOCs within the revised design treatment zone, there was no statistically significant
decrease in the concentration of chlorobenzene at the 90 percent confidence level. There were statistically
significant increases hi the concentrations of four noncritical VOCs (all ketones) at the 99 percent
confidence level; estimated increases in the mean concentrations were 457 percent for 2-hexanone; 263
percent for 4-methyl-2-pentanone; 1,073 percent for acetone; and 683 percent for methyl ethyl ketone.
The fact that chlorobenzene (a VOC) did not exhibit a statistically significant decrease in the
revised design treatment zone, while less volatile contaminants (i.e., pyrene) did, is difficult to explain.
It is possible inward migration offset any contaminant removals. Also, the apparent removal of pyrene
may be somewhat misleading since, as discussed previously, the decrease in pyrene concentration may
have been due to degradation. No definitive conclusions can be drawn.
The ketones may have been formed by the degradation of TRPH near the exciter electrodes,
where soil temperatures were highest. A possible degradation pathway may be the pyrolytic conversion
of TRPH to unsaturated hydrocarbons. In the presence of sufficient oxygen and a catalyst (e.g., silica
in the soil), the RF energy may convert these Ir drocarbons into ketones. No literature was found on this
exact topic, but similar reactions are described in several references [1,2]. The increase in ketones may
also have been caused by inward migration. Possible sources of ketones are the groundwater, of which
only post-treatment samples were taken, and the soil beyond the sampled area. However, since these
sources cannot be verified, there are not sufficient data to confirm or disprove either of these hypotheses.
4.3.1.2 Heated Zone Results
There was a statistically significant decrease hi TRPH concentration at the 97.5 percent
confidence level; the estimated decrease in the mean concentration was 95 percent. No SVOCs or VOCs
exhibited statistically significant decreases hi the heated zone. Pyrene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
concentrations exhibited statistically significant decreases inside the revised design treatment zone, but
not inside the heated zone. This is due to the limited number of complete matched pairs of pyrene and
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate data within the heated zone. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, for example, had only
four complete matched pairs of data within the heated zone. Pretreatment concentrations in all four pairs
58
-------
were higher than post-treatment concentrations, but these data were not sufficient to demonstrate a
decrease at the 90 percent confidence level. The number of complete matched pairs in the heated zone
was also limited (less than or equal to four) for the ketones, so that no statistically significant conclusions
can be drawn.
No plausible theories have been developed to explain the fact that chlorobenzene did not exhibit
a statistically significant decrease in the heated zone while other less volatile contaminants such as TRPH
did. The air flow model does not indicate any pathways by which contaminants can migrate into the
heated zone. Furthermore, there are no apparent reaction pathways by which chlorobenzene could have
been formed from other contaminants present in the soil.
4.3.1.3 Outside Revised Design Zone
Outside of the revised design treatment zone, only TRPH showed a statistically significant change
at the 95 percent confidence level, with an estimated 88 percent mean concentration increase. As was
previously discussed, based on the configuration of the SVE system, this increase may have been due to
inward migration from the groundwater or from soil beyond the areas sampled and not outward migration
from the revised design treatment zone.
4.3.1.4 Outside Heated Zone
There was a statistically significant decrease in the concentration of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
at the 90 percent confidence level outside the heated zone; the estimated decrease in the mean
concentration was 37 percent. There were also statistically significant increases at the 99 percent
confidence level in the concentrations of four noncritical VOCs (all ketones) outside the heated zone.
The estimated mean increases for these four ketones were 423 percent for 2-hexanone; 249 percent for
4-methyl-2-pentanone; 1,347 percent for acetone; and 1,049 percent for methyl ethyl ketone. As
previously explained, these ketones may have been formed, by the pyrolytic conversion of TRPH to
unsaturated hydrocarbons, migrated inward, or have come from the groundwater.
4.3.1.5 Groundwater Samples
One groundwater sample was collected by a USAF contractor, but it is not known where or how
this sample was collected. The sample was also analyzed by a USAF contractor. These analyses were
not part of the SITE demonstration and the quality of the data is unknown. The laboratory report
59
-------
indicates that SVOC concentrations were determined using Method 8270 from SW-846 [3] and that VOC
concentrations were determined using Method 8020 from SW-846 [3]. No SVOC concentrations above
detection limits were reported. VOC concentrations reported above detection limits are presented hi
Appendix A.
Post-treatment ketone concentrations hi the soil were significantly higher than pretreatment
concentrations, and the groundwater was proposed as a possible source of ketones. As stated above, the
groundwater analysis conducted by a USAF contractor used Method 8020. Ketones are not on the target
list for this method. To investigate the possibility of ketones in the groundwater, three groundwater
samples were collected by the SITE Program. These samples were collected from three wells (MW10,
MW09, and DW02) whose locations are shown hi Figure 6. However, due to contractual limitations,
these samples were collected approximately 5 months after post-treatment sampling. As a result, it is not
known whether these samples are representative of groundwater contaminant concentrations during the
demonstration. Ketones were detected at low concentrations in one of the three samples. The results of
these samples are presented hi Appendix A.
4.3.1.6 Condensate Samples
Condensate from the vapor treatment system was collected in a 55-gallon (0.21-cubic-meter)
drum. When the drum became full or nearly full, its contents were pumped to a 20,000-gallon (76-cubic-
meter) tank used to store water from dewatering activities. The combined water was subsequently
transferred to a Kelly AFB facility for treatment. The total quantity of condensate was not measured,
but the date, time, and approximate quantity were recorded in a field log each time the condensate drum
was emptied. Based on this information, it is estimated that 800 gallons (3 cubic meters) of condensate
were collected.
Two condensate samples were collected by a USAF contractor on May 14, 1993. The condensate
samples were analyzed by a USAF contractor. These analyses were not part of the SITE demonstration
and the quality of the data is unknown. The laboratory report indicates that SVOC concentrations were
determined using Methods 3510 and 8270 from SW-846 [3]; VOC concentrations were determined using
Methods 5030 and 8260 from SW-846 [3]; and TRPH was determined using EPA Method 418.1 [4].
Concentrations reported above detection limits are presented in Appendix A.
60
-------
4.3.1.7 SVE Vapor Stream .
Concentrations of TRPH and specific VOCs and SVOCs in the SVE vapor stream were
monitored by a USAF contractor and were not part of the SITE demonstration. The results appear to
indicate qualitatively removals of TRPH and certain VOCs and SVOCs but no conclusions can be drawn,
since the appropriateness of the methods used and the quality of the data are unknown. Graphs of the
vapor stream data for selected contaminants are presented in Appendix A.
4.3.1.8 Moisture
Moisture analysis was conducted so that soil sample concentration results could be converted to
dry weight. Appendix A presents the results of moisture analyses.
4.3.2 Physical Analyses
4.3.2.1 Particle Size Distribution . ...
Particle size distribution analyses were conducted to characterize the soil. For evaluation
purposes, particle size distribution data are simplified into three categories: gravel, sand, and fines.
Particles that are less than 3 inches (0.08 meters) hi diameter but will not pass through a #4" sieve '(4.750
millimeters) are classified as gravel, particles that will pass through a #4 sieve (4.750 millimeters) but
will not pass through a #200 sieve (0.075 millimeters) are classified as sand, and particles that will pass
through a #200 sieve (0.075 millimeters) are classified as fines.
Pretreatment particle size distribution analyses were conducted using two procedures, which are
referred to as dry-sieving and wet-sieving. Regardless of which procedure was used to analyze the
samples, the soils were first prepared according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Method D421 [5]. In this method, the soils are dried and processed to break down all soil particles into
their component sizes. The samples that were dry-sieved were simply taken from the sample preparation
procedure and s'creened using 12 sieve sizes, ranging from 3 inches (0.08 meters) to #200 sieve (0.075
millimeters). This procedure was used as an inexpensive way to characterize a large number of soil
samples at the site. The wet-sieving procedure followed ASTM Method D422 [5]. This method was
used to confirm the dry-sieving results and was expected to yield similar results. For each of the wet-
sieved samples, the dried soil sample is initially segregated into two fractions using a #10 sieve (2.00
millimeters). Soils that pass through the #10 sieve (2.00 millimeters) are then dispersed hi an aqueous
solution and passed over the remaining sieves "wet." Particles that pass through the #200 sieve (0.075
61
-------
millimeters) are further classified using a hydrometer, which results in a minimum size classification of
approximately 0.001 millimeters. -
Most pretreatment samples were analyzed by dry-sieving only, but a fraction of the samples were
analyzed by wet-sieving only or by both wet- and dry-sieving. (Because only 11 post-treatment samples
were collected for particle size distribution analyses, they were all analyzed by wet-sieving.) Wet- and
dry-sieving were used in combination because discussions with laboratory personnel indicated that the two
procedures would yield similar results for particles that would not pass through a #200 sieve (0.075
millimeters). It was known that wet-sieving and a subsequent hydrometer analysis would be required to
characterize further particles that would pass through a #200 sieve (0.075 millimeters). Since, dry-sieving
is less costly, and the further characterization of these small particles was a minor point, it seemed
reasonable to use dry-sieving primarily.
Contrary to expectations, wet-sieving produced significantly different results from dry-sieving.
It appears that the sample preparation associated with the dry-sieved samples was not rigorous enough
to break down many of the cohesive silt and clay particles into sizes that would pass through a.#200 sieve
(0.075 millimeters).
For evaluation purposes, particle size distribution data are simplified into three categories: gravel,
sand, and fines. Particles that will not pass through a #4 sieve (4.750 millimeters) are classified as
gravel, particles that will pass through a #4 sieve (4.750 millimeters) but will not pass through a #200
sieve (0.075 millimeters) are classified as sand, and particles that will pass through a #200 sieve (0.075
millimeters) are classified as fines.
The dry-sieving results should accurately represent the fraction of gravel present at the site, but
probably do not accurately represent the fractions of sand and fines. The actual fraction of sand is likely
to be lower than the dry-sieving results indicate, and the fraction of fines correspondingly higher. Dry-
sieving results should, therefore, only be used to characterize the site in terms of the fraction of gravel
and the fraction of sand and fines. Wet-sieving results should be used to characterize the site in terms
of the individual fractions of sand and fines. Table 6 summarizes the number of particle size distribution
samples taken during the demonstration. The particle size distribution results are summarized in Table
10. The results of each particle size sample are presented in Appendix A.
62
-------
Table 10. Summary of Particle Size Distribution Data
• Dry-Sieving
Pretreatment
Wet-Sieving
Pretreatment
Post-treatment
% Gravel
42.6
% Gravel
38.8
44.1
% Sand, Clay, and Silt
57.4
% Sand % Fines
25.5 35.8
33.9 22
4.4
RESIDUALS
The aqueous residuals generated during the RFH SITE demonstration included groundwater from
the dewatering wells and washwater from PPE and equipment decontamination. During the
demonstration, 325,920 gallons (1,234 cubic meters) of groundwater were removed from the soil, stored
in 20,000-gallon (76-cubic-meter) tanks and periodically transferred to a Kelly AFB facility for treatment.
Depending on its design, the vapor treatment system may generate residuals. The materials
handling requirements for these residuals vary depending on the design of the vapor treatment system and
the contaminants present hi the soil. During the SITE demonstration, condensate that formed in the vapor
collection system was collected in a 55-gallon (0.21-cubic-meter) drums. Approximately 800 gallons (3
cubic meters) of condensate were collected, pumped to the groundwater storage tank, transferred to a
Kelly AFB facility, and treated with the groundwater from the dewatering wells. Uncondensed vapors
were channeled directly to a propane-fueled flare. The quantity of uncondensed vapors was not
measured, but operating conditions for the SVE system were monitored by a USAF contractor and are
summarized in Appendix A, Subsection A.3.2.
Two drums of spent carbon, used during the demonstration for shield air evacuation, were
generated. The spent carbon was analyzed and found to be nonhazardous. The vendor planned on
regenerating the carbon for reuse.
63
-------
4.5 REFERENCES
1. Scheffer, J.R. and M.D. Ouchi, Tetrahedron Letters, 3, 233, 1970.
2. House, H.O., Modern Synthetic Reactions, Second Edition, pp. 338-340, 1972.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846):
Third Edition, November, 1986, and Final Update, September, 1990.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, 1983.
5. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
64
-------
SECTIONS
OTHER TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION REQUIREMENTS
State regulatory agencies may require permits for the onsite installation and operation of IITRI's
RFH system. An air emissions permit may be required for the vapor treatment system. If offsite
disposal of contaminated residuals is required, the residuals must be removed from the site by a licensed
transporter. These residuals must be treated or disposed of by a permitted incinerator or other treatment
or disposal facility. •
5.2 PERSONNEL ISSUES
Appropriate PPE should be available and properly utilized by all onsite personnel. PPE
requirements are site-specific and should be determined based on the contaminants present at the site and
on the work activities being conducted. During the demonstration, PPE levels were designated according
to the potential hazards associated with each work activity. At a minimum, Level D PPE was required
for all personnel within the exclusion zone. During most demonstration activities, site personnel were
not in contact with the contaminated soil because it was covered with a layer of gravel. The potential
for exposure to soil contaminants was increased during drilling activities, including pretreatment
sampling, installation of subsurface system components, and post-treatment sampling.
Site monitoring should be conducted to identify the extent of hazards and to document exposures
at the site. Monitoring results should be maintained and posted. During the demonstration, a hand-held
FID was used to monitor the air near the surface and in the breathing zone during drilling and related
activities. Because the degree of soil contamination varied considerably within the treatment zone, the
drill crew and other personnel working near the borehole alternated use of Level C and Level D PPE.
The drill crew upgraded to Level C when the FID indicated air contaminant concentrations in the
breathing zone were greater than 5 ppm over background for 5 minutes and were permitted to downgrade
to Level D when the FID indicated breathing zone air contaminant concentrations were maintained at less
than 5 ppm over background. Respirators were required periodically during pretreatment as well as on
several occasions during post-treatment sampling activities.
65
-------
OSHA 40-hour training covering PPE application, safety and health, and emergency response
procedures should be required for all personnel working with the RFH technology. Additional training
provided prior to the operation of the system at a given site should include information regarding
emergency evacuation procedures; safety equipment locations; the boundaries of the exclusion zone,
contaminant reduction zone, and support zone; PPE requirements; and site- and technology-specific
hazards. Potential hazards associated with the RFH technology include drilling accidents and personnel
exposure to RF fields. Safe operating procedures should always be observed, particularly during drilling
operations. Periodic monitoring for RF fields and the use of the system's RF shield will also reduce the
technology-specific hazards.
Onsite personnel should participate in a medical monitoring program. Health and safety
monitoring and incident reports should be routinely filed, and records of occupational illnesses and
injuries (OSHA Forms 102 and 200) should be maintained. Audits ensuring compliance with the health
and safety plan should be carried out. In the event of an accident, illness, hazardous situation at the site,
or intentional act of harm, assistance should be immediately sought from the local emergency response
teams and first aid or decontamination should be employed when appropriate. To ensure a timely
response in case of an emergency, workers should review the evacuation plan, firefighting procedures,
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) techniques, and emergency decontamination procedures before
operating the system. An evacuation vehicle should be available at all times.
5.3 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
Community acceptance of a.technology is affected by both actual and perceived hazards. The
fact that the RFH technology allows in situ remediation of contaminated soils should improve the potential
for community acceptance, since excavation of contaminated soils often releases volatile contaminants.
Although some contaminants will likely be released during electrode and thermowell installation, the
potential for emissions during drilling is substantially lower than during excavation.
Disadvantages associated with in situ RFH arid other hi situ technologies are the difficulty of
determining whether the treatment zone has been uniformly remediated and the potential for contaminant
migration if pockets of contamination remain in the soil. Actual or perceived hazards associated with the
RF energy may also become an issue, as potential health effects of electromagnetic fields have recently
received significant publicity. The American Conference of Government and Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) has established Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) for RF radiation. The TLVs are dependent on
66
-------
the frequencies of the radio waves. TLVs and formulas for calculating TLVs are presented in Table 10.
The RFH system used during the SITE demonstration was designed to operate at a primary frequency
of 6.78 MHz and a secondary frequency of 3.4 MHz. TLVs for these specific frequencies are also
presented in Table 11.
Table 11. Radio Frequency Radiation TLVs [1]*
Power Density1"
Frequency (mW/cm2)
3.4 MHz
6.78MHz
30 kHz to 100 kHz
100 kHz to 3 MHz
3 MHz to 30 MHz
30 MHz to 100 MHz
100 MHz to 300 MHz 1
300 MHz to 3 GHz f/300
3 GHz to 15 GHz 10
15 GHz to 300 GHz 10
Electric Field
Strength"
(V/m)
541.8
271.7
614
614
1842/f
61.4
61.4
Magnetic Field
Strength"
(A/m)
4.79
2.40
163
16.3/f
16.3/f
16.3/f
0.163
.,
The exposure values in terms of electric and magnetic field strengths are the values obtained by spatially averaging values oveir an area
equivalent to the vertical cross-section of the human body (projected area). The exposure values for 30 kHz to 15 GHz are calculated
by averaging the values over 6 minutes.
f = frequency in MHz
5.4 REFERENCES
1. American Conference of Government and Industrial Hygienists. Threshold Limit Value. 1992.
67
-------
SECTION 6
TECHNOLOGY STATUS
ITTRI's RPH system was used to heat approximately 125 cubic yards (95.6 cubic meters) of soil in
the revised design treatment zone at Site S-l at Kelly AFB during the SITE demonstration. However,
due to the presence of a shallow groundwater table that previous geological studies had not indicated and
operational problems during the demonstration, only a portion of the revised design zone was .heated to
the desired temperature of 150°C (302°F). This zone is referred to as the "heated zone." The soil was
contaminated with mixed solvents, carbon cleaning compounds, and petroleum oils and lubricants. The
results of this demonstration are discussed in Section 4 and Appendix A of this document.
Prior to the SITE demonstration, IITRFs RFH system was tested at two other sites: RMA and Volk
ANGB. At RMA, approximately 60 cubic yards (50 cubic meters) were contaminated with wastes from
chemical warfare agents, incendiary and explosive munitions, pesticides, and herbicides. At Volk ANGB
approximately 20 cubic yards (15 cubic meters) of soil were contaminated with organics including waste
oils, fuels, and solvents. Both tests are discussed in greater detail in Appendix B.
JLLTKl claims its technology is not ready for commercialization. Considerable development and
optimization of the process is required before a full-scale system is ready for field use. The IITRI RFH
technology cannot be used as a stand-alone technology.
68
-------
APPENDIX A
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
A.1 CHEMICAL ANALYSES
•A.1.1 Procedure for Selecting Contaminants for Statistical Evaluation
Soil samples were analyzed for TRPH and target VOCs and SVOCs. The target VOCs (those
in Method 8240) are listed in Table A-l; the target SVOCs (those in Method 8270) are listed in Table
A-2. Critical contaminants were selected from these lists of analytes based on a combination of the
following:
• Pretreatment concentration information provided by B&RE
• Data from SAIC's pretreatment soil sampling
All critical contaminants were selected for a preliminary statistical evaluation (Subsection A. 1.2). TRPH,
five SVOCs (2-methylnaphthalene; naphthalene; 1,2-dichlorobenzene; 1,3-dichlorobenzene; and 1,4-
dichlorobenzene), and five VOCs (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzehe, chlorobenzene, and xylenes) were
designated as critical.
The only noncritical SVOCs that were subjected to a preliminary statistical evaluation were those
. with concentrations above then: method detection limit (MDL) in at least 25 pretreatment soil samples.
Pyrene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were the only noncritical SVOCs to meet the qualifications to
undergo a preliminary statistical evaluation. The only noncritical VOCs that were subjected to a
preliminary statistical evaluation were: 2-hexanone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, methyl ethyl ketone, and
acetone. These contaminants were chosen since they were present in much larger quantities in the post-
treatment samples than in the pretreatment samples.
All contaminants that showed a statistically significant change in the preliminary evaluation were
then subjected to a final evaluation (Subsection A.3.2).
69
-------
Table A-l. Target VOCs in the Initial and Final Soil Samples*
Compounds
Classification
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone)
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
traus-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
cis-l,3-Dichloropropane •
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanone
Methylene chloride
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NC
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C
NC
NC
NC
C Critical
NC Noncritical
* Extracted by Method 3540 and analyzed by Method 8240.
70
-------
Table A-l. Target VOCs in the Initial and Final Soil Samples* (Continued)
Compounds
Classification
Styrene
Toluene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes (total, all isomers)
NC
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
C
C Critical
NC Noncritical
* Extracted by Method 3540 and analyzed by Method 8240.
71
-------
Table A-2. Target SVOCs In the Initial and Final Soil Samples*
Compounds
Classification
Base/Neutral Extractahles
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzyl alcohol
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromophenylphenylether
Butylbenzylphthalate •
4-Chloroaniline
2-Chloronaphthalene
4-ChIorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Di-n-butylphthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C
c
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C Critical
NC Non-critical
* Extracted by Method 3540 and analyzed by Method 8270.
72
-------
Table A-2. Target SVOCs In the Initial and Final Soil Samples* (Continued)
Compounds
Classification
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
n-Nitrosodipropylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Acid Extractables
Benzoic acid
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C
c
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC,
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C Critical
NC Non-critical
* Extracted by Method 3540 and analyzed by Method 8270.
73 .
-------
A.1.2 Methodology for Statistical Evaluation
The test design called for paired soil samples to be collected before and after the RFH treatment.
Because the test design was structured for a comparison of paired samples, pre- and post-treatment data
for the revised design treatment zone were reviewed and data pairs were matched.
Practical quantitation limits (PQLs) of five times the MDLs were calculated for all data points
for each of these contaminants; these PQLs were then used during the statistical analyses. The use of
PQLs eliminates estimated results and yields a more conservative evaluation. Because the PQLs were
defined as five times the MDLs, the conversion to PQLs eliminated many previously identified complete
matched pairs. Performing statistical evaluations on the revised design treatment zone and heated zone
instead of the original design treatment zone also eliminated several complete matched pairs.
Data pairs were eliminated from consideration in the statistical analysis for any one of three
reasons:
1. A reported pan: was dropped from the statistical analysis if both samples (pre- and post-
treatment) were less than their respective PQLs.
2. A reported pair was dropped if the pair consisted of one detected value and one
observation less than the PQL when the PQL was greater than the detected value
(otherwise the pair was retained and the PQL value used).
3. A reported pair was dropped ir one or both members of the pair were coded "NA" (that
is, no sample was collected for one or both members of the pair).
The number of complete matched pairs for a given contaminant was determined and was
represented by N. The distribution of the data was evaluated and was judged to be log-normal.
Probability plots of the data were generated hi the original scale and hi the log-transformed scale, and
it was visually determined that the transformed data were closer to a normal distribution. The distribution
of contaminant concentrations hi soil is generally highly skewed, and log-transformations are commonly
done. Logarithms of all data were calculated before the data were manipulated, which is a conventional
;
statistical practice for log-normally distributed data. X^ was used to represent the pretreatment log
concentration of this compound from the i* sample location and Xu was used to represent the post-
treatment log concentration from the 1th sample location (where i varied from 1 to N). The difference kt
log concentrations (Xu - X^) was calculated for each data pair and was denoted by 4. The mean of the
differences in log concentrations was calculated according to the following formula:
74
-------
N
R was used to represent the geometric mean of the ratios of post-treatment concentration to
pretreatment concentration, which was calculated from the mean of the differences in log concentrations
according to the following formula:
R =
R was then converted to either percent removal or percent increase, as appropriate.
The standard deviation of the differences in log concentrations was calculated according to the
following formula:
s =
\
It was assumed that the unknown pre- and post-treatment logmean concentrations throughout the
entire site were HQ and /tj, respectively, and the logvariances were equal. The following equation defines
the statistic used in the paired t test:
t =
The resulting value of t was compared to tabulated values of t for two-tailed tests to determine the
probability that the measured change (percent removal or percent increase) was representative of the
heated zone.
Results for all critical compounds and select noncritical compounds (see Subsection A. 1.1) within
the original design treatment zone were subjected to a preliminary evaluation which consisted of using
a 2-sided t test to determine if a statistically significant concentration change was exhibited at greater than
or equal to the 80 percent confidence level. The geometric mean percent change hi concentration was
also estimated. The eight compounds that exhibited statistically significant changes were: TRPH; bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate; pyrene; chlorobenzene; 2-hexanone; 4-methyl-2-pentanone; acetone; and methyl
ethyl ketone.
75
-------
A final statistical evaluation was then conducted on these eight contaminants for each of the four
zones: the revised design treatment zone, the heated zone, outside the revised design treatment zone, and
outside the heated zone. The final evaluation consisted of performing a 2-sided t test to determine if a
statistically significant concentration change was exhibited at greater than or equal to the 90 percent
confidence level. In addition, the geometric mean percent change in concentration was estimated. The
upper and lower 90 percent confidence intervals were also calculated for each contaminant within the
revised design treatment zone and heated zone. All of the compounds with the exception of
chlorobenzene achieved a statistically significant change at the 90 percent confidence level.
A.1.3 Data Summary
A.l.3.1 Soil Samples
Figures A-l through A-8 summarize the contaminant concentrations used hi the final statistical
evaluation. Each of the eight figures presents pre- and post-treatment results for one of the eight
contaminants. To illustrate sampling locations, the results are presented on cross-sections of the original
design treatment zone. Each figure consists of three cross-sections of the original design treatment zone.
For each figure, the first cross-section shows samples collected from ground electrode row A, the second
cross-section shows samples collected from exciter electrode row B, and the third cross-section shows
samples collected from ground electrode row C. Samples collected from the thermowells TW1, TW2,
and TW7 are included hi the second cross-section because TW1 and TW2 are hi line with the exciter
electrodes. TW7 is actually outside the original design treatment zone entirely, but it is included hi the
second cross-section for convenience.
The revised design treatment zone and the heated zone are shown on the cross-sections. For each
cross-section, samples included hi the revised design treatment zone are inside a box formed by a thin
black line. Samples included hi the heated zone are inside a box formed by a thick black line. The
heated zone is only shown on the second cross-section, because it does not extend out to the ground
electrode rows. (Samples not included hi each of these zones are outside the appropriate box.) Note that
all samples included hi the heated zone are also included hi the revised design treatment zone. Also, note
that the pretreatment samples for TW2 were outside of the heated zone but the post-treatment samples
were actually inside the heated zone boundaries. For purposes of statistical .evaluation, TW2 was
considered outside of the heated zone.
76
-------
A1
A2
A3
A4
AS
A6
A7
A8
PRE POST- PRE 'POST'; PR£ PPST" PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE
' ?
0-2 - >
2-
^
-4 - ' * '
^ -, ^
4-6 200 - <
n * •• v
6-8 31^
••".•, ^ '
8-10 , , i
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
-12 " , , ; *
-14 --
> %
f f
-16 - ' ",*
% f **
-18 /- \ '
- 20 - '- --%
*•• .- -.
-22 ;/ '
-24 <'/*
, ' ^5 ! 7's * .:•'•'''
'' "' ._[ 150 * 150.5 * , ^ ;'" ' - '
^ ''" % * % '•• ' s' i
1900 ' , H}' - s ' * ' " - .. '- "- '
f ,^\ >. "• ~ f * '• f f
', ' -'••'. ' ', ,' ' X
- "' '' , \ ' •• ..- ' •• ' "
' , c A - - ^ - ; , ' - " < - -
* ' ^ s/ ' ^% ' "*
5 \,\, ' -- \ .' - ' • 340 , - 6§5
* ' : J',l,^ :^,<' " '''\' ''/"
400 -\-- " ' s % ° , 1( , . , 610 " ^500
%' % ft f f * / / n
; f "* v *• .. / / •. _. ' ^ /
/ ,700^ \ ^ - ! s ; -, - ] w - , "\ -
•• : :, ••?<•••' ? ' s ''' " ' * '
^" - 26000 ,f y s -/ -; - '- ' ; ' \"; "
•• ' iSS(W •.<%-. ** % 750 6^1 6 ^ "" ""'
' ' - , •? >. •. "-: ^ '- ••' "" ' ' I ' . ' - ^ ^
;" ^ J, " 12000 [ JB979" Sl,- 'J ' / v -
^ -''--' ," ' , "- 3100 } 9690 ' -i
'<, | %^
•. *, '<
••i ' \
~~ v vj! 'j
'• /^ ''
N,K
^'-/'?',
V'*Y
> •• s-^ •.
x .-
^ v
•• •>)*" ' f> s f s f f f f, '' f f ^
~26 >l:\ -'' \ ";{ , ', , , ' •* , K-;
V .. f .. , s- " ^r, '-
NA: Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of this symbol Is the practical quantltation limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the TRPH
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
|| Revised Zone
| | Heated Zone
Figure A-l. IITRI soil samples: initial and final TRPH concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppm.
-------
TW7
TW1
TV/2
B1
B2
B3
B4
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16
16- 18
18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
PRE 'POST PRE POST PRE 'POST^ PRE POST PRE >POSTr PRE [Pb'af* PRE ''POST*
270 ' 359
300
271
9300 "7030 1400 842Q
-.'
I - <
420 ] ' 124 *
\j * "*'
* < C ' *
V-. ,
980 ' 130t)
- \ \ *
| > "
V v%
4-* ,
^ ' l • ; <
1200 12-15* " -'
\ ' ' ", '.. /Jv 155* 122.5--*
; f " * V"''<' (" ( r
I"' f^l 350 ;'J24.5"« ; ' *
Vv^>i 1100 J^",NA, ,'"< i " I
*2 ':" 5v^%> 2100° 1^**
2300 1;,"'^ 51000 ^|^ " * ;,
b?* v*-^v'
^>'-. ^ % fS i* 'It J ^ "i. "^ ^./*X*\ J^^v
'-\^; 4J/v b * " 120QO > 18lX
^ -',° X ' 8800 NA
"^ °'T '- '"" '.-''' 10000 236Q
'„ ^
, £
NA: Not analyzed
*; The value to the left of this aymbol is the practical quantltaUon limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the TRPH
concentration of this sample was below the PQL.
| | Revised Zone
1 | Heated Zone
Figure A-1. IITRI soil samples: initial and final TRPH concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppm (continued).
-------
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C7
C8
PRE POST PRE POST
0-2 * * I
2-4
i
4-6 • , - ^
6-8 - -;
6-10 , , "'
10-12 , "Y
12-14 ;, -
••
14-16 , <
16-18 !
18-20
^ ',
20-22
22 — 24
x \
, ,%
" '*• '
>:
460 - 35t,
*"% ••••
"r 'I ;
L-
t •.*" '"*
- ' ","
' •• ?f
5
E4000 ,^490Q
-. •••:
-.5 ' •> '' Jr
24-26 .,, - s
26-28
28-30 , ' ** " ,X
PRE POST1 PRE ;POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST- PRE POST,-
- " * ^ s ( * '•<•.< .. '
165* 146^* r;.f "' ^\ " f „" ''•
5 - "-', 1SO* ' W* '^"
"V ' ' ' 160* "126*
*t "•..,' ,r -
'' ^ " V ''",''
-••:,"', ""if £*!< :'r 850° 'c ^
3700 > 'i2s* , ' ' ; 4s9
''•.", - 't J' ; , ' "' •••,-' J
'''^ ^-S?^ ^ ^^ ^^
' \ •• ' -.^ ^/" N % '
1 /•• ' * » > \
11000 , S13300 % ' -;N 'v^ \ 6100 ' ,2*51$.
^ ;"• "• x .. •• s •• '""^
-- - ' ; ' -"' ;^ "' ^ -^;-
12000 77SO ' ' - ' , H , • —
*
?- /
V^-i
320 t }7QQ;
;-;>;
: >/
• . • •. &'
* '> '•.
"?; />"
155* s'; 157*
\'\r-
:' 5 •" '
'/,''*
2400 - 81 tO1
*,'••* *' • ''tf' ' T' • ' V'
^ V* * t\-\ '- >, } - " ^ i
' ,-^ ; - ' \ - ^ »' J" ?/
:: ,„ I - ;' '\ - ' ' " -^ '"••
NA* Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of this symbol Is the practical quantitaflon limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the TRPH
concentration of this sample was below the PQL.
| | Revised Zone
| | Heated Zone
Figure A.-1. IITRI soil samples: initial and final TRPH concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppm (continued).
-------
oo
O
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7
PRE *POSTi| PRE IR1ST* PRE 3
14 P ^, ;
\
16 ,' '„.
% J
18
20 '' ^ s
22
24 -s -
• ' - * ?,', * • ' s'
I - 4 1^ s 1# * > r >
V '' / j . ' * '! 5 • '""^
f/rs -. 4.8 * 1,6^ " ^,,;J ^ * . % '? • , ,' !
:'':/-' l\l '*&* I'-"/ ,!d It; ';
-' s>-^/ *»»%* ' nX''*^'! , / % / - st ^ ,^-.^ j ^ y| •
'/A *j *' ' * * >"''/',x'% ' " - {''<1 •> f
X,'^ «- 'l? 5"{"V-'* / X "'''1 K'jv^
cJ ^s- ^%*' -" iv^ '-" x " V' ' 12-5* ^'11.?
K'''t "r*'? * v% ' # v* '% \f~~i
^ } " ^ ' A -1 %^5, '' / ' *\** ?,5 * x ?
11 -' '" ?' 5 { ^"^-J '"'' ' 43 '~ P3-3'
'% r^ %i.^ ' f f ^^
2^*4- v , ^ ^^/ \ " ? v^ "*
%' V % ' \ * '•. 'Vtff^ f fV \ ' S V
looo ^ '^^ „" -'-- , ^ * ; "
'^"-'" (WO r;'/' ' , zoo \%10§ *\,V,
^ 16000 ^ ,,$49 ' s
?' s •> \ 19000 1660" " * ' .,<
26 - f" :": ,--v- ', % * * ' ,'s ^
30 "" \° $ - ' - " - --
AS
PRE
NA: Not analyzed
": The value to the left of this symbol Is the practical quantltatlon limit (PQL). The PQL la provided because the chlorobenzene
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
I j Heated Zone
< ,' S. •.
a.' * . X
260
Figure A-2. IITRI soil samples: initial and final chlorobenzene concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb.
-------
TW7
TW1
TW2
B1
B2
B3
84
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-6
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16
16- 18
18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
PRE POST PRE :PQ$T
•• , " , \
'X '« nV\"
'-^^: -X* ^
^ "-J •• •• •>"• <, w*
17.5* 6.8;* 12.5* "' ';*
o v s %' x
^ ^ H0ft
s "" % i "* -. •""
r - -. ; 'v
\ •• V !?'
^ I' *%
*" *• "\* •! \
•* "• N % 5
,'-•• " - ,>, -''
46 - 2^,95,* 45 -" I9,ft'
< % "
^•-; ,.•'''' A
•••• 'I !
« ; ?, ",
PRE .POST-
y.M.M^..,,.
'
- */
•.' J '
17.5* "'2?40%
•; % s
v A
•• "
5 - -
.
'
110 -\1&
•• *"
%
s \
,
'i "
PRE POST PRE PO$T" PRE POST PRE POST
(,">'! "?•> ••$'•' ' - , "
1300 ,., ,3|<7' - j " , f, - ,'t
''"£- ' ". ^ - 12.5* ;--^,1
) '/ ^^ ',
( "-' ^ 12.5 * , 4200 -' ' -J ' <
^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^
'/* ^ ^ •- - ;
"' •••• " •. '" " S 1
"" ''. , 12 * -" 'VA ^ - " . , " ' -*
- ^ ' •. ..,'•. '' ^ ^ •? '•
'••• *-' 10.5 * , 7.^3 : - " ,
• > - X"' ,
21 ^ 230 - ' NA
^'\ . -' ' -
"2560 ' .: "- * 1000 863"
*"»* Xi' " *'*'<,
** '> s v % O
" s, ; ' ; 11000 , NA'
' - - V ' 34000 - -137
NA: Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of this symbol la the practical quantitation limit (POL). The PQL la provided because the chlorobenzene
concentration of this sample was below the PQL.
| | Revised Zone
Heated Zone
Figure A-2. IITRI soil samples: initial and final chlorobenzene concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb (continued).
-------
C1
C2
C3
C4
05
C6
C7
OS
PRE
PRE
PRE
PRE
• xf "f#
°~2 ^ 1
2-4 \' , '%
,'
14-16
16-18
18-20
20-22
22-24 ^
24-26
13* i7.a fV ;>;| *''V- \^J'li tf /':;
' S v ^ ** •. /v ..C j -.''x i ^^ •^r*l8tri f' f j- J A?"
'X <« ^. "• J\ ^f 'T ,, ' >^, ^ S-'1' _, Tfupi^Ji/ X.
^' 3 V'" '! "• «- *>:^ ^' -' r'5V-:l 12-5* If4§^
12 * ,^s 12,2 ; , '- ,\ > ;- , t J 1' V ' 'flln^ '* ": «'-;
*//" '', ," ' ' ^,A -'"^ 3"'^ 21 '',*"?''
c;X J;^ >;Vj n.5*?;^ "0 i,^
-X, - ; ~~* - ',\"\ i\t, ^K r$\
'/''' % '^^ ^'' " - , ,' ^'>-> iV'I;
f c-^ ; ^ \'vv -^ 'i XS :%rH?;
V / 1100 nw \ - ' - ' ^ - , 89° ;:17{^s H^s'>
5700 ;j4«xj '- , "", " '; '- 1 s/ ;< '-' ' ..<,">/"," *;
48000 "64200% ' ' - •> >'^' *.'.'. V- \" " -
;; " , ^. ; X ',: ,VM • ^r \
26- 28 , ' ' > , * ' ,,>t,,-l ,"f-^ ;
28-30 < V « * "^ * -^ ^
NA: Not analyzed
*: The value to Ihe left of this symbol la the practical quantltation limit (PQL}. The PQL Is provided because the chlorobenzene
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
I | Heated Zone
PRE
13
\ f *
340
15000 75500
Figure A-2. IITRI soil samples: initial and final chlorobenzene concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb (continued).
-------
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
AS .
00
LO
PRE POST" PRE POST\ PRE POST ? PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE ;PQST'
0-2 ' ^
2-4 ,' \ r-
4-6 25.5 *
6-8 •• M^*
8-10 . . ^ ;
10-12 'I ''
12-14 ' * ' ,
14-16 ' 'f ' -
16-18
16-20 -' ,
20-22 V '
22-24 ' -
24 - 26 ', ' .' ;
"j v -"; ;/ " -;•. '' - ,' ; ' ' ^ ''
"- ,'\\ - ' is-5 * 1^ ' ; ^ ;; 5, ? - '" '
-''">" 20* , \ty" " ' ; '," -, 5 ''%':\" ' , "' ,,
;;-^ */ > ^ ;' i t;; / ^V- V;
%-C7, %;'^ '/;? ^^' vv- ^^v
-\:' * ,\y, '," -s - ! /T " ^-' \ 24* /5>o*
\ ',', } •••.'''• '• ' - \ <. ' ' "-. , 'v V'' •• '"
21.5* /" c ^ *\*"\ ;)\' / j /^ 25.5* ', 14.4*
49* ^ , -i* ^'^ /r -
k- 21'5* \V"; ;<" \ ;)-; ' . ^;.; .*/'
-%^ -x-'*/ 425* '-.^585* \u ^' ' * '""% -'« -
^ -*!,> / " - • S,^' 440* r-615* '" ^" s^ 'l^"\'.
"',* ", * f " ,- 'V '-,-'" "- ' ' "'>* * "
^%'\ ^.' , "5 I" -' 1 < -' ,
" ' * ',i * / x ;,, ;, - '-
26-28 / - ' \ •• l " * '\' ,-, -
28-30 - ,\ " ij, ' "''- <• "' / *"*"'•> ••-.'' '" " •.
NA: Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of this symbol Is the practical quanUtatton limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the 2-hexanone
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
| j Heated Zone
23* ?
figure A-3. IITRI soil samples: initial and final 2-hexanone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb.
-------
TW7
TW1
TW2
B1
B2
B3
B4
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-6
6-10
10-12
12-14
14 -16
16- 18
18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
PBE
34.5* > 335* 24.5*
'< PBE .POST"* PBE rPOSTf PRE ^POST'S PRE *PO8T;» PRE *
22.5* 164* 26.5* 365
' ;•!
3<-^
v^>
' v * >
^ ^
zr* ** jM
- ^ f t
s- ' y* &
23* , 28.6* % ; , %
\ ,t, * 24.5 * 2/BV'*
, ''v,' 25* 28* '-'^h i y
>,-'' J 24* ' NA I'S^ N '
20.5* ^"SU-e/* i
26* ' ' ; 115* NA" * %'v-C'v
'' S ^ « /'-
'- *" s , * '
'v,570'* ^/'-'^ 125* 326
O-X ^
5\ s x'*\l*% 44°* NA
* "" ; ; /";?i" - use* gs.^*
NA: Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of thla symbol la the practical quantitatlon limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the 2-hexanone
concentration of thla sample was below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
I I Heated Zone
Figure A-3. IITRI soil samples: initial and flnal 2-hexanone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb.
-------
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
06
C7
C8
00
Ol
PRE ,PQST PRE ,PQ|p
0-2
2-4 % '•i*"
4-6 ^ \ ;v
} - -
6-8 "
8-10 " ' ,*'
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
-12 , ,.,
- 14
-16 - r,
- 18
••^
-20 s, *
-22 ; ,-..
- 24 ' - ^
-26 : -' '
/r| ^ 25.5* r/jo-V !;-,;; -, "•",-'< ,x // ^ *-^
';'M '" ''tt -'-; 23* - (^* '*'« 1 -'
!>••>,, -;
*"'/ " 2150* -645* "-'-' --"" ' """' , .-..,./
' o ' - , , ,, ^ - , ,>
-28 , ," , ; * ,""-* *, ^ f ," '" s - ' " ''„ ",
-30 % <> '^jj *"/' 5" > ; ,^ ' '"- "'^
NA: Not analyzed
*; The value to the left of thla symbol Is the practical quantitation limit (PQL). The PQL la provided becauoe the 2-hexanone
concentration of this eample was below the PQL.
| | Revised Zone
| | Heated Zone
24.5 * , 42;CK$>
450
* 1 ,^*
Figure A-3. IITRI soil samples: initial and final 2-hexanone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb.
-------
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
4 '
0-2 ^ f||
2-4 ' " *ls
4-6 17* * '
6-8 j 13,J *
8-10
10-12 x
12 - 14
14-16
16 — 18
18-20
20-22
22-24 * '
24-26
'S <> i ' % j | v •. ^ *
\ ^ * !>9fi* * flit? * S , < ' "*>
! ,, » J £t& V*,1 f ' , ,t < ^ } ,
I;- 23* | 506! \ t J | >
L'v> ' > * ' /> \' >:-" '—" f\
>* ' * V.%' ' 'w, V * """ S
'vj--''% '< ^ ' ' f " '••' 16 * ' |28
' v^; ; ' xv->, v ,- ^ "< ^ , ;
25*1/1? , A /, ' j% -,; - 17* 61^
%/%^ "" '"^'"
t'\U* . \ " ,x"v '^'C* '- '
' , ' " 25* ' „ ^ ,'' 5'-' ••
*,*' ' 2$7,5* ,// - 19-5* * 13,1s* "
/ -\ 285 * 261 5 * , ' '- ' ;, ' '
* ' ; 295* - 273.5*
X "• f •
26-28 - ^ . s - , '-" ;-
28 - 30 . * /, ,. ' ^ *
NA: Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of this symbol It the practical quantitatlon limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the 4-methyl-2-pentanone
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
I '1 Heated Zone
PRE
15.5* v 30.6*
figure A-4. IITRI soil samples: initial and final 4-methyl-2-pentanone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb.
-------
TW7
TW1
TW2
B1
B2
B3
B4
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16
16-18
18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
PRE POST, PRE
,
23* ; 14-8* 16.5* " " (-"'fl
' , «* > ' ,- '>
15
PRE PQST'> PRE -POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE -POST
^* "'
;! Vs'
22.5 * /' "Z5S"
\S
£
%'•* ""
"1, ••
\' ' •"
'
f "X
18* - 63.4
5 * •.
.' • ;-;
is* ,j2.-75* . ,*\- -. , ,*, / ;;
"/^ ' i6-s* ts,'7'* ' ':
/ > 16.5* ""1$J5,* ' ' *' -
\ •* ^ <• / / '
»' * N
\' - ; 16 \ ; f^ -w \ ; ,' -,
/ -'-' • | ./ : 14* t.'i4,t> "'
s •.•••• -.f ' ' , ; '•.
17.5 * " 75 * ' fjAj. > % ' ;
•"" • <. ^ o-- *•
•"X •.•• "* S {'• ' r
; ,\ " ' ^ t
',\25/J* 'Vf ' ' '" ' *' 85* ',1295'*
'\\ ' - -\ , 290 « |JA
* ^ ^ , s ' ' ; •. 760* 153,
Thi!IIto«« left of this symbol U the practical quantHatfon limit (PQL). The PQL U provided beoauae the 4-methyl-2-P6ntanone
concentration of thl* sample was below the PQL
| | Revised Zone -• ' _
j | Heated Zone
Figure A-4. IITRI soil samples: initial and final 4-methyl-2-pentanone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb (continued).
-------
oo
00
C1
PflE jfO^Tj
0-2 *<''*£
2-4 t ^ n
4-6 >l $*
""l^K* f
6-8 ^ <:" /
8-10 f '^ *
10-12 ?'/V
12-14
'"" ' "
H-16 *, *,;"
16-18 - ': '
18-20 , ? "
20-22
i w/v
22-24 v . * '
•", -'
24-26 "''', '
"A
26-28 " ,
28-30 % "
C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
PRE >PO8T*s PRE iPOST'' PRE 'POST" PflE 2POST PflE ,POSW PflE *P08T*
* r ~ •; -,/ F *
17* ' 35,a s- ' ;
1 < 5: *•* * *
, ' \ { f < \ " / ^//^ 15.B* 29.4J* f, ,
* >* " f ' *'< '»* f '' 16.5* ^ 38.8
15.5* ,J7le«5* . < , <^,"
U -^ - N ' ' -^/" * 20-5* '*" ',<
^\;/ \ i5*c^a* ' T * \fat
*-t ^ ^ •.
' %**' f\ ' ? * ' A ' ""
'/' ^ '''.-'
% ' V ' < '""%
v ' t 345 * 2d3,0 * < f'r ' 85 * ^ 4/J10
315 * "' 88^ * < ^ " " " %
1400* 281?* ;«%v - ^
^ " ' "
^ O f 'V N V.
' ' %\ - , ; ^\ , '
cs
PRE |Pp,ST|
1 •* y
i' l^
17* * <28,7|*
^ *"' '
' * /
' -, ''
! ^
<
S
16.5* ' 62,6*
-
/
300* 570;*
-
\
NA: Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of this tymbol le the practical quanUtatlon limit (PQL). The PQL It provided because tha 4-methyl-2-pentanone
concentration of this eample waa below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
I | Heated Zone
Figure A-4. IITRI soil samples: initial and final 4-methyl-2-pentanone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb (continued).
-------
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A3
oo
vo
PRE
\ V
0-2 " " - "
•. V
v i *
2-4 '- , -
' :* '
4-6 210 ;„ ^
6-8 ' >% 162'
8-10 !] "
10-12 , ..
12 - 14
14 - 16
16-18 , -
18-20 ,'-' -
20-22 *
22-24 , * ,
24-26 '*'*
26-28 ',""
28-30 5 5 '
'\i,\ V '- BO* /KM- ,!;/:, <\,f '**' ; -
, ;- - » '- i ' %>, „ , i vv\ $ •>•* ,
, ••' ^ 170 ,tieoq! ; " •>,, %f -"„« '>'*.-*- l'\ "I
&* '-• -v ";-; , \- ^". ^ ''- " , "•; ' ^-l ' »
>'s ' ' ' •."-"- 1? ' V ',c %i * V ^%
;">" ^; -"'''\" ^, 'f% ^ :/ ', " ' "', 160* '•> $360
** . > ' A * "'^ ' cV' '^ ' ' .s ' '
110 i,*;*; svf y % ;^ ' ;v> 170* ^35Q
'" 4H' ^ * - ' ,' - ;-;' ^ ,f
!'4S leo •• ; ^ [ J *,\ ^ ; ^
K ' «4lp; ^5 ' ^ ' 70* i-^124, " %'v ',
2850 * " 1525/ " ' \ s % ' ,
-'; -",', -" * ^ :~f '- 2850 * "^ 15SO * 'M"*"5 , .,
'/T v - -- -•: - \ - "\ >t ' ' "
' J \" ' ' ;' - - , ' : - s " '--"'" ' ' '*
;; ,, -* ^ \- : ^'(/ >} [ ' ~ 1 *""
NA: Not analyzed
*; The value to the left of this aymbol Is the pracdcal quantltadon limit (PQL). The PQL la provided becauae the acetone
concentration of this sample waa below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
I | Heated Zone
155
Figure A-5. IITRI soil samples: initial and final acetone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb.
-------
TW1
TW2
B1
B2
B3
B4
PRE 'POST PRE .PQ3T-
0-2 J ' j * J
2-4 l',\l «. x*
fr ' -O f s {
4-6 230* C"-6| 400 ^ *'>
*V • ' V ' ' *
6-8 - " f 4580
:-> ,3 i ', i
8-10 t , < v , *
*•• ^ § £% A *"
10-12 ; " * 1; \ ?' *
»'* ' * '" *\ ' I
12-14 ;*' , i <' - <
.• *" *J ^ **" >
14-16 150* '399,8* 240 ,'^1$S:
16-18 5\ ' t ^
'f i » ' ^
18-20 ;, ^ *,'
20-22 , ': -
•. ^ f •. •>
22-24 •>''- \' /
24-26 -' ", x ',;
PRE POST- PRE fcQSTS PRE iPO&ft PRE POST PRE |PQ8T !
> , , ; i f i
^ A
3
330 * t3400
'x-
?
y ,#
\ f
180* 363
V A
150* ; 106Q* *
• 360 74^
ri * > <
1 , "i 165* < ]70 \ / > i ;
^ ''"'-'', s I , " *
X 1 ' " # ' <
^ ! j xv» ? j
T '," ! i 160 * NA s <
^ < ' A %
/"'/- ^'v * 140* *> aa*
175* 'V,, I5' 750* NA> ' " }
' < , ; - <}"
';f 480"* x * 850 * * ' 895
"" $ "*"% ^
, '"' % *"
\ « ^ ' 2900 * NA
f" x ,
- ' - 7500* - 230
% %
26-28 \' , y- , : ,
28 - 30
NA: Not analyzed
'; The value to the left of this symbol Is the practical quantitation limit (POL). The POL la provided because the acetone
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
| [ Revised Zone
I j Heated Zone
Figure A-5. IITRI soil samples: initial and final acetone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb (continued).
-------
01 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
PRE POST PRE 'POST PRE POST PRE POST, PRE POST" PRE POST PRE POST-
, '*
0-2 '< ' \
V .. ^
2-4 ,; -
_ s •.
4-6 '* ' „
6-e \; \
8-10 ••'""'
j-.
-*
10-12 '
t
12-14 , ; -"
14-16 ; --
•• ••
16-18 ' , -
%
18-20 ;
20-22 " ; '"
22-24 ' ",,
,* ' X s" *V ' •• i *\ "'•> % ' ' -
,( '" 170* 4550 , \ ; , is / -' '/'""'' \
,' %"•-. % ** ' f f •.
"', .. , '• ,\ \ 155* ^g7(X)% ' x -"
' ' " * * /'-, " -^ - i " / ' 165* 1,220Q
^ ' -. •• ff ft ' ' -" 5 ,\ 205 * ' ; ,-;
'"" % "• * ' •••. "-%\\^ . f *•.
''• " 150* 2910 - ->;!•. 'I^OQ
S " ' '" ix *% ", ' % 5 %s - •• » "•
' * ' ''','<
'-"••" ^ ..:; ..^ " \''r'- ^ ** < ' - '''';
/•* "* •• '•'' s i%%
'• ' ' \ * ' ' 1 •'.' ' ' 'S'',.
f '' *• •'.' ' >i f f" ^f •,''
* -'" ' 3450 * s t$59* • ' "- ' * " \ 850 * ;"301QO < ^
3160* S"f665* ; - ; -'
'"'" " 14000 * -: 1675 * ' *.J...'....^ , "- ' ,-;
PRE -posr
'' K
% ' -
* f t ' ' '
'•.."'*'' ^
170* lzi\.S
y , -•} ^
V' '" ''
- ..'/'••
t
;• ' '».
t
'•.,
;r -^
165* ;'"494,|S
% .-•. * «%
^
•*
'; % ''
K''V
3000 * ' VSlV
, * * S* "- -' , - ' , ,--, ; . ,
24-26 '" ' - - ,' i 5 ' ' , j ' -' * ; " " ' i
£ ^ .. -.^ .. \ '' > <
5.' > : ' ' , ' *
26 -28 ..'-'"<'> • ' t ** , , ; ' " " I ' s "> * ' ;-^ ;
* < ' — ," , - - : ^ ;, 5 ;-- -* ; ' - ; ; c ^ i"^
28-30 '<:-<.. •< ,> s -
NA: Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of this symbol la the practical quantitatlon limit (PQL). The POL la provided because the acetone
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
| [ Revised Zone
| | Heated Zone
Figure A-5. IITRI soil samples: initial and final acetone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb (continued). v
-------
03/08/95
A1
A2
A3
A4
AS
A6
A7
A8
PRE JPQSTls PRE JPQSTl PRE ^POST'S PHE IPOSTIH PRE ipOST^ PRE -P08T1 PRE ?PQ8tl PRE fPPSli
I j. - -fi
0-2 f 4
' v^
2-4 \ l',£
' ' <• ^
4"6 TO"ii^
6-8 <^ '4S'4*
«'-, |
8-10 '<"
*""' "
10-12 OV
S' •"• V
12 - 14 4 ''
14-16 % ' ^
'•ff X
16-18 '/'-'
18-20
20-22
22-24
"1 *"• j , "I *
i * 24* ' *?s? i T '^t ^| K y
•i ^5 ^5 y •. **^ £
5< < 43 , IP>! ;, j * ' - ; ^ ;, v *
-1" V^^J '•'§"' ^^""^ ^
^ > " \s^^ 'i''<'t ' ' "-- ' 'L 5 ;/ '*
f ^ > ^ > •* ^ s '" X * ^
% > N ' ' v ^ t ^ * ^ ' * ' * > C <
• ,^; ?:-*0 ^vi ' * ^v 70* ^
ifl, * f ^f -ff V>
A f. rfj \f Xs j t
X -.'%% f f f f ^""v'
27* /: ;, ; / ; >",- 70* 2?r
t* ' ' S rf •• \ s (
% s v *" •» % <• X '^
-4d 9S * •*%•* _, A *" %
•. r f . f ' , $
f ^ ' ff ff
50 /'\" \ % /' ' ' " -'
\'JWP -:/J 21* ^ ^*
1200* ^ 7^%* ; ^" J
J ,- ^ / 1250* 765*
j f"£
f, V *^S
x ..^
„ :
1
*•
V
65* 66
j.
'
24-26 's , -" * \
%\ ° ' " ' " % ^ ^ <• •
28-28 \" , - ~
1 - >» "
28-30 - ! , o " , ' v
NA: Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of this symbol Is the practical quantitation limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the methyl ethyl ketone
concentration of this sample was below the PQL.
| | Revised Zone
I j Heated Zone
figure A-6. IITRI soil samples: initial and final methyl ethyl ketone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb.
-------
TW7 TW1
PRE fQ$T" PRE IWp
* } :* s >}{ < f
.'• v ^\ |^-> ,f>
0-2 ' ^% £. ' ^-x^
2j V' W ^'/\ ^3
— *• g/ j •"••• :•••.,
% i-. v-| *V
4-e 95* :$.#* no ;- ,y\?t
/ £ > , AA^ '*" ' <.
^ •- ft °- •• •••• ,
6-8 X" j ' ,*1^
? f$ f 'ff, f-C'- f •>
8-10 •* ^ i'^ '^^,
10-12 ;-- ", -^-v H
12-14 ', \ , - '£" I
'^ "':'•••
14-16 65 * '/' 1&2 * 75 * ^J5,S4 *
16-18 ""5 * "^ 'f'^
18-20 '/'s- """''^s
\ H
20-22 f s ' ..' '<"" \
22-24 - t s^ % : ,
24-26 is > ' < '' ;v
26-28 , 5 ' - * *' - f'-'
28-30 !' ,,-' ! ' '
7W2
PRE 'P0§f
• » ! *•;
> ' ^ ;
" i "*
: /•
/% ^", MX-,- 77 "W^51 '^'V
« x '''' *' 1 C ^ '/; '/% ^ A ' * '
, 'V', ' 70* '-M'^* ^"^X"v,
#> %5 > ^ ^ "^ S """" • V% ""\ r f f
f f \'- •, '< «! ** ^ •"/••.• % ^J
j:\ \ ; ,f v.f ; fff '-. ••*,''
"• *" ^ "-^ * % •>'& ''•••. > •. \ -f
;5V '"' es* VNA ^ -'-, r/-
>/'; ! , '- 60* l^Ai* f'"' ; :
75* 'c'- I 325* ;rtN^ \ '' '• * ,
; ;;',5V %'"| ''""'*, -' 1250* , " NA*
* V'^ * '" " a '- 3200" 41.7"
" ' "*, '; *'''-* 1 -
v? f "" VJJ ,* •"
' , «< J %,
NA: Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of this symbol la the practical quantitaflon limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the methyl ethyl ketone
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
j 1 Heated Zone
Figure A-6. IITRI soil samples: initial and final methyl ethyl ketone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb (continued).
-------
C1
C2
C3
C4
G5
C6
C7
C8
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16
16-18
18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
PRE |POST|
5 |
C, f |
1
* 1*
$
11 ?
? ' 'f
f
'
y *
f
-
s
\
v
-
PRE -POST** PRE POST- PRE POSTf. PRE POST4 PRE ?POST* PRE IPOQT^
^ 70* ' 1130 * ', > * j ,t^;
'X v ^ ^ -j.
f ' ' >% ' 65* s »\
< ' ' ' / * •- • . *;• '- :<";-v
'- ;< = „* '> as * |>y> 5 ;
*> s "* •«• ' rt ^5 ^ ^% V
S ' ' 65* < .110' f'/' " -%^
J ^ -1 '5 / •• '•'' ^ ' •"> f •; ^ ^
f V * "" '' ft % "~ %"$'"" ^
N ^ ' v V-*1" ^
-.'"" ' ' ' 'f^JV
1450* 795-* , < '' ^ 360* :^?<»% ^!-?
1350* aoo* - \sc"-"<.
6000* 805* * > '. ' "* '
PRE
NA*
*: The value to the left of this aymbol Is the practical quantitatlon limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the methyl ethyl ketone
concentration of this sample was below the PQL.
| | Revised Zone
| | Heated Zone
? t
I il
70 * * 66"*
^
\ •"
70* 130.6'
1250 * 1195 *
figure A-6. IITRI soil samples: initial and final methyl ethyl ketone concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb (continued).
-------
A1
A2
A3
A4
AS
A6
A7
PRE
PRE POST PRE POST- PRE POST PRE .POST PRE ^POSTu
0-2 ' V; :
2-4 . " :\;^
4-6 89.5 * ' - "f
6 — 8 % 80.IJ *
6-10 ..,
"i '• f
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
-12 - '' ,t-
V 's
- 14
-16 ' , "
* .
-18 \- I
-20 ,
-22 ' ' '
-24
-26
- 28 "" ;,
,-v<'; *-fl 370 s as.6* - '• ",--,-•• /* ,%"j,
"• % X f ^ :••<•• ; ••
, f f '• 2900 ,f 1 7$* ^f ' ' ^ ' "J\ y\ /'„ ;/
•"v1* "^ '•V ^ "" •ft'^ "•
f f >t *• f~ "•*, < If
s •> f f f' "" •" s ^ ^ V *" /•'"•"'
,!'" ,; '"^lU"* ' ' '• " ' l;L ' }:«
' -] ^ ^ ^ , / - " 84.5* \" 78*
'•''•- f* -. -. ^ "• * *s < ' : ' ''
^ "'{ ^ ^ "*; ^
'1 ' i! V ' ' ' ' " N ' •> '
91.5* ' 'l ,' " '* *; ' % "- >v* 88.5* ",8Q,5*
/:iil * "' \ 4 " • ' ' '^
*. % / s ^ ^ , , '<..',
/-/ 91.5* ^, jk % -^ - ;
- - " ^M* , - , 72-5* ,s 81vs*
- 223.5* 840.5* * ,..- ' - --^'
"' "-^ "^ \< ^ 230* 121S* ^-Cs ' ''• ••,
' 'j!..^ " •> % '•'•.
"-'I "' , -5 ^ \,
'« I." ' '- ! ' > ^ *
X' ', ' *
' " V ' % , - "•-'",
-30 - \ * ; • ? ,s , , A*^- * ' '
NA; Not analyzed •
*: The value to the left of this symbol Is the practical quantltatton limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the pyrene
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
I | Heated Zone
80* '
Figure A-7. IITRI soil samples: initial and final pyrene concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb.
-------
TW7
TW1
TYV2
B1
B2
B3
B4
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16
16-18
18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
PRE POST PRE .PQ8T|
> Y, f
120* ^ 82JS;* 94 T r-'\
180
93.5* -^OOB"*
•170 - * 78J*
94.5 * -, \ 240*
•,« -
,,, j . JI ' T'
1400 78* s : j
- 1 85.5* ' 79-* s
' * S '"V % *
\ 210 '^'/ 78> vC'1 ' ' i x,
/ ,/', 415.5 * :; %i HAi ^>i < ^
* , 'v -I'' :^ 725* VXJ^,* x '
91.5* „, 3700 '' ''(t§ **^"g *'*
\?a-* ' : <{;{,l 220 2^95*
' , ," "' '- , , 250 NA
*" % \ ••
; '" x ' > -C" { ><• 250 2735*
NA: Not analyzed . „
*: The value to the left of thle symbol l»the pracUoal quantitaBon limit (PQL). The PQLIs provided because the pyrene
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
| 1 Revised Zone
Heated Zone ;
Figure A-7. IITRI soil samples: initial and final pyrene concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb (continued).
-------
vo
-J
01 C2 03 , 04 05 C6 07
PRE POST
0-2 -f *,*
2-4 , (,
4-6 * ' V
•:• •• i v
6-8 ;; \-.'-'y
8-10 '"':.',''
! '
10-12 \" ,'
12-14 ""£',"""
14-16
16 - ,18 ,„ ; >
18-20 j"]
20-22
22-24 -
24-26
PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST, PRE POST
,"\{ 3200 - ;1p2 ,",,"' ""' , J A - '' ']
;' :( . *: • , " \, , -!' , «'* *'**: /' {
'•< '"--',"••' , - '^Vss ' ••-;''' 86-5* - 79-5-*
.. * - < - * " ? "^'^ ' " s -
82* "-108.6* -'/ ' • : ' ' : * _ " f
' , " "''^ -' -< ' % - , ^% ", 535* \ '
> n " <5-- - --;; , ,„- * ,
- , •f" ' -% 250 > 774* '-- ';" 23^,8'*
^ -X- s ' '^ ''
'*''.. - - - : '' "" !-••'- - '
' ' ' ' •. ' » ' '
;;A« ^v?v ? ^': y^;1 'i''1' ':' :
' -" 300 f8j59/ n- ' ,; , -" 190 ^S2$J5* ; ,
1100 j|29$* ,'"" ^ ' \1' ;'x«% "" ^ - ,- ,
.< '' f ' "- ,, 5 ^ " - , *
250 -1245* '- ', - ..! t \
% v\ x- ;, ; ;^ -*/ ^\ s ^ J!',
26-28 ,, :<" - " , i '" , * ' ;" > -
*- " " '' , , , "•• ' ' ,- --' \ ' '"*
28-30 % '; .,•<"" ;' , ' ,- % * - " " -« %
NA: Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of this symbol Is the practical quantitation limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the pyrene
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
1 1 Heated Zone •
C8
88 * 82,6
86* -' $9
233.5* ,,^1295'
Figure A-7. IITRI soil samples: initial and final pyrene concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb (continued).
-------
vo
00
A1 A2 A3 A4 AS A8 A7 ... A8
pRF jpqoys PRF POSTfl PHE 1PQST* PRE .POST8* PRE 'POSTX PRE ;POST»i PHE iPOST *
I * I
0-2 if
f •* $
2-4 [ "I
1 ' I
4-6 520 , •;
{
••.
6-8 * 604'
*
8-10 >
10-12 '
12-14
14-16
16-18
18-20
/
20-22
22-24 , ;
J " T * < s f > >
ft *< ' " 120 | 3/7/ | ' „ '; ** » '*
1000 f/305,6:* \ - I ',, • i ^ ; » *
|v ^ i , f ''''*, ; * J <* *
> ^ J ' ' ' ^vA^ >^*^ /'*^i
^ ^''J 5^.'/-' .%" ^'-^''^ J
" t*« i^ ** ' "' -^ ^ ' ^ ;* 'Xy I
* * *s" i ;, ^ \ f>f - ' * 119.6* W*
•* '""--^ ^*>^ ' '•Vv^ ^r^
4 ^ * s''1' /%5' * > ^V
129.5* $ { *'] ^t',,i ??',< ;''', 125* 314*
^4* r>-' yv; f;f \:\
17000 ; ; - / r -'" f , J
J2600 - '' ' ,,« i°2-s* ^-&$*
f SC%^ '-.^ % ^ *" '
5900 ; 7520 '' / - '
% ' *" '
^ ~ 4700 ' 9000
'" - ^
PRE |P08Jf
i ' 9*.
i "* 1 JJ
* 51
> i <
> ;,*
••' -k Jj^
vC ''j/j-S
^*'-J%<^ v^
s ^-; ^'
>v>
1 ', •'''^
' ' t /'
;- vV
170 $77.6*
,
V , V1
^ "
•• ^
\ /*
, !
24-26 , , , , , -
26-28 - % ^ ' ' %
" x< - ' ' , ' v
28-30 -> " ' "" " "
*: Thel'Ze to Uie left ofthit symbol Is the practical quantitaHon limit (PQL). Tha PQL U provided because the b|8(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
concentration ofthla sample was below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
| | Heated Zone
Figure A-8. HTRI soil samples: initial and final bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate concentrations at depths of 24 feet or less, ppb.
-------
TW7
TWt
TW2
B1
B2
B3
B4
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
10-12
12-14
14-16
16- 18
.18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
670 ^ SW, 360 < (,<,-
2100 ^ 4SSO, 840 ,' WB'*
790 - 3C>5<6 *
V •.
'' '-"
%
990 ' 940*
s/ -
\, '
^ ,, ^" '> <• " s
940 - , 305* ^ ; -
' ' ,r ', %'' 480 $06,8* ;>
123* ^/ao?* ;>.. ' '^ \ ,,
' '-' „ 's, ^
* ," ^s ' / % 1025 * ; ijO'* - \ v
470 '' ; , 56000 '' NA ;
*"V-.~ ^ > ~~ •,
,- gps* ,' -, ' ,-':,',- 13000 8^0,*
* •. % ^
' - ^ 5 , 14000 NA
, ',' 1300Q ?07Q*
'' ''
NA; Not analyzed
*: The value to the left of this symbol Is the practical quantltatlon limit (PQL). The PQL Is provided because the bla(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
concentration of this sample was below the PQL.
| | Revised Zone
I I Heated Zone
Figure A-8. IITRI soil samples: initial and final bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate concentrations at depths of 24 feet
or less, ppb (continued).
-------
8
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
6-1
10-
12-
14-
16-
18-
20-
22-
24-
26-
28-
C1
PRE 'POST *
f "p !
I'l-l
;; 1 4;l
,,.> %3 ../jj
^-.""^ "V
o » '*/»*
12 ;-7 ,"-
'•. "•
14
16 £ ' ' <
11
18 >\."
20 « v I
22 V; ,-
-. t"> *
24 '••!",
26 "'I \
28 ,' ' ;
30 /;, ''
C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 07
PRE >PQqTs" PRE ^POST«s PRE ?PQST- PRE *POST4 PRE .POST PRE 'POST,
i ' < t
s , , 127* 5,364,8* ; ^ •*;
' " x , - ! ^ '-' - ! ••*,*;: 260 ^siw* '>; 4
;s ./ 5 \','f s! ^ X * 122.5* 1 "311.5"
s ^j- ' ' ^ ^ * ' ^ '
340 s 46Q , ¥;'/^ |/' i sl-;7^ l< S'f*,t
f\ - V,^ J" -%~" ;\ *',i ' ' >
s * v
X % ' * « ; ^ ' '
" ^ ( •. A '," '' '•• 'l '
14000 mxf, , \ % ', '' 1500° ^ ,'\ S
19000 8080^ ", , " '' ! ' - ' ," '
%V ' A/ I ' ' *
9100 ' 7290' '- *J , ' ' ,v , ", , -',
' <•
,s' '-
ss "" % ' " % '
C8
*: The value to the left of this symbol Is the praottoal quantltation limit (POL). The PQL Is provided because the b!s(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
concentration of this sample was below the PQL
| | Revised Zone
| | Heated Zone • : •
PRE
-
200 t '323**
650tt
5300 7540^
Figure A-8. IITRI soil samples: initial and final bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate concentrations at depths of 24 feet
or less, ppb (continued).
-------
In Figures A-l through A-8, all contaminant concentrations are presented on a dry-weight basis.
When a contaminant was not detected at or above its PQL, the PQL is presented. An asterisk to the right
of a value indicates that value is the PQL, rather than a measured concentration.
The final statistical evaluation examined pre- and post-treatment analytical results from four
zones: the revised design treatment zone, the heated zone, outside the revised design treatment zone, and
outside the heated zone. Results for each of the four zones are presented in Tables A-3 through A-6.
For all contaminants that exhibited statistically significant changes at confidence levels of 90 percent or
greater, these tables present the specific confidence level and the estimated change hi mean concentration.
Tables A-3 and A-4 also present the 90 percent confidence Interval (CI) for each contaminant.
A.I.3.2 Groundwater
One groundwater sample was collected by a USAF contractor, but it is not known where or how
this sample was collected. The sample was also analyzed by a USAF contractor. These analyses were
not part of the SITE demonstration and the quality of the data is unknown. No SVOC concentrations
above detection limits were reported. VOC concentrations reported above detection limits are presented
in Table A-7. These results are reported because they are the only available measurement of contaminant
concentrations in the groundwater during the demonstration.
Post-treatment ketone concentrations in the soil were significantly higher than pretreatment
concentrations, and the groundwater was proposed as a possible source of ketones. Approximately 6
months after post-treatment soil sampling, the SITE Program collected groundwater samples from three
wells whose locations are shown in Figure 5 (MW10, MW09, and DW02). The results of these samples
are presented hi Table A-8. Ketones were detected at low concentrations in one of the three samples.
A.l.3.3 SVE Vapor Stream
Concentrations of TRPH. and specific VOCs and SVOCs in the SVE vapor stream were monitored
by a USAF contractor and were not part of the SITE demonstration. The results appear to indicate
qualitatively removals of TRPH and certain VOCs and SVOCs but no conclusions can be drawn since
the appropriateness of the methods used and the quality of the data are unknown.
101
-------
Table A-3. Summary of Results Inside the Revised Design Treatment Zone
Contaminant
TRPH
Chlorobenzene
2-faexanone
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Estimated Change in Confidence
Mean Concentration Level
, -60%
No statistically
+457%
+263%
+ 1,073%
+683%
-87%
-48%
>95%
significant change at a
>99.9%
>99%
>99.9%
>99.9%
>99.5%
>97.5%
Upper Bound Lower Bound
of90%CI of90%CI
-21%
confidence level of 90 %
+750%
+617%
+2,245%
+ 1,477%
-68%
-23%
-79%
or greater.
+264%
+ 83%
+486%
+288%
-95%
-65%
Table A-4. Summary of Results Inside the Heated Zone
Contaminant
TRPH
Chlorobenzene
2-hexanone
Estimated Change in Confidence Upper Bound Lower Bound
Mean Concentration Level of90%CI of90%CI
-95% >97.5% -77% -99%
No statistically significant change at a confidence level of 90% or greater.
Final statistical evaluation was not conducted for this contaminant because it
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
had no complete matched pairs of data.
Final statistical evaluation was not conducted for this contaminant because it
had no complete matched pairs of data.
No statistically significant change at a confidence level of 90% or greater.
No statistically significant change at a confidence level of 90% or greater.
No statistically significant change at a confidence level of 90% or greater.
No statistically significant change at a confidence level of 90 % or greater.
102
-------
Table A-5. Summary of Results Outside the Revised Design Treatment Zone
Contaminant
Estimated Change in Mean
Concentration
Confidence Level
TRPH
Chlorobenzene
2-hexanbne
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
+ 88%
>95%
No statistically significant change at a confidence level of 90% or
greater.
Final statistical evaluation was not conducted for this contaminant
because it had only one complete matched pair of data.
Final statistical evaluation was not conducted for this contaminant
because it had only one complete matched pair of data.
No statistically significant change at a confidence level of 90% or
greater.
Final statistical evaluation was not conducted for this contaminant
because it had only one complete matched pair of data.
No statistically significant change at a confidence level of 90% or
greater.
No statistically significant change at a confidence level of 90% or
greater.
Table A-6. Summary of Results Outside the Heated Zone
Contaminant
TRPH
Chlorobenzene
2-hexanone
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Estimated Change in Mean
Concentration
No statistically significant change
greater.
No statistically significant change
greater.
+423%
+249%
+ 1347%
+ 1049%
No statistically significant change
greater.
-37-%
Confidence Level
at a confidence level of 90% or
at a confidence level of 90% or
>99.9%
>99.5%
>99.9%
>99.9%
at a confidence level of 90 % or
>90%
103
-------
Table A-7. Results of Groundwater Analysis for VOCs (Not Conducted by SITE Program)
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene I
Xylene IE
Chlorobenzene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Detection Limit, jig/L • - -
5
5 '
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Concentration, /tg/L
1,319
195
41
15
48
5,747
2,700
230
964
Table A-8. Results of Groundwater Analyses Conducted by the SITE Program
Well ID Number
Measurement
Result
MW10
TRPH(mg/L)
Volatiles (/tg/L)
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Trans-l,2-dichloroethene
Methyl ethyl ketone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
Semivolatiles (/ig/L)
2-Chlorophenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
4.92
61.9
782
25,500
14
16.4
11.5
51.2
28
193
11,200
760
2160
36.3
16.2
121
22.3
51.4
104
-------
Table A-8. Results of Groundwater Analyses Conducted by the SITE Program (Continued)
Well ED Number
Measurement
Result
MW09
TRPH (mg/L)
Volatiles (/tg/L)
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
Semivolatiles (jigfL)
2-Chlorophenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methyhiaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenol
0.83
596
12,000
91.9
5.65
10.2
12
37.4
163
23.5
183
59.2
71.1
3.58
DW02
TRPH (mg/L) 267
Volatiles (jig/L)
Chlorobenzene 15,700
Semivolatiles (jtg/L)
Acenaphthene 7.79
2-Chlorophenol 22.1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1820
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 152
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 529
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 218
Fluoranthene 29.3
Fluorene 7.51
2-Metfaylnaphthalene 124
Naphthalene 86.8
Phenanthrene 7.17
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 15.5
Graphs of the vapor stream data are provided for selected contaminants. In each of the graphs,
the vapor stream contaminant concentration is shown as a function of time. The time is given as "Day
of Treatment," where Day 1 is defined as the first day that a vapor stream sample was collected. It is
important to note the application of RF energy to the soil did not begin until Day 5 and was discontinued
on Day 66.
105
-------
Figure A-9 illustrates vapor stream concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Due
to the non-specific nature of the TRPH method used to analyze soil samples during the demonstration,
it is not possible to correlate soil TRPH results with vapor stream TPH results. Figures A-10 through
A-17 illustrate vapor stream concentrations for the following VOCs: benzene; toluene; ethylbenzene;
chlorobenzene; xylenes; 2-hexanone; 2-butanone (synonym for methyl ethyl ketone); and acetone. This
list includes all of the VOCs included hi the original or final statistical evaluations, except 4-methyl-2-
pentanone, which was not detected hi any of the vapor stream samples. Graphs of SVOC vapor stream
concentrations are not provided because, with two exceptions, no SVOCs were detected in the vapor
stream. The two exceptions are 1,2-dichlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene, which were each detected
at 1.5 milligrams per cubic meter on March 31, 1993 (before the RFH system was turned on) and were
not detected in any subsequent samples.
Several trends can be observed hi the vapor stream data. Many of the contaminants that were
present hi the pretreatment soil samples (TPH, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, and
xylenes) were detected hi the vapor stream shortly after the SVE system was turned on. It does not
appear that RFH contributed significantly to these early spikes, since the RF power was not turned on
until Day 5 and since soil heats slowly. After these early spikes, most contaminants were not detected
in significant concentrations until Day 44 or later. These later spikes may be due to contaminants that
were volatilized by the RFH, then collected by the SVE system. Alternatively, they may be due to a
pocket of contamination that had a long travel time before being collected by the SVE system.
It can also be observed that, in general, significant concentrations of ketone were not detected
in the vapor stream until Day 44 or later. This could be used to support either of the theories that were
presented hi Section 4 to explain the increases hi ketone concentrations in the revised design treatment
zone.
A.l.3.4 Condensate
Condensate from the vapor treatment system was collected in a 55-gallon (0.21-cubic-meter)
drum. When the drum became full or nearly full, its contents were pumped to a 20,000-gallon (76-cubic-
meter) .tank used to store water from dewatering activities. The combined water was subsequently
transferred to a Kelly AFB facility for treatment. The total quantity of condensate was not measured,
but the date, tune, and approximate quantity were recorded in a field log each time the condensate drum
was emptied. Based on this information, it is estimated that 800 gallons (3 cubic meters) of condensate
were collected.
106
-------
1 7 13 ' 19 25 31 37 43 49 55^ 61 67 73 79. 85
Day of Treatment ; , ; ,:: ••:
Figure A-9. TPH SVE vapor stream concentrations.
40
30
t
B
I 20
a
(U
o
a
o
O
10
" 'tm*^****** I ^•••••^•••••••^M
AJU
4 8 11 15 17 19 21 26 28 35 40 44 54 58 64. 71 83
Day of Treatment
Kgure A-10. Benzene SVE vapor stream concentrations.
107
-------
30
f
e
20
§
c
10
-.-^^m^^^^JLj\A^^
4 8 11 15 17 19 21 26 28 35 40 44 54 58 64 71 83
Day of Treatment
Figure A-ll. Toluene SVE vapor stream concentrations.
40
30
to
I
I 20
V
a
10
4 8 11 15 17 19 21 26 28 35 40 44 54 58 64 71 83
Day of Treatment
Figure A-12. Ethylbenzene SVE vapor stream concentrations.
108
-------
Concentration, mg/m ~ 3
2J
*•
I
5"
§ a
§ 3
I
i
CO
83
o
T~
a
o
Z
§•
"8
i
I
o
Concentration, mg/m ~ 3
o o o
a
-------
40
30
4
e
P 20
S
10
4 8 11 15 17 19 21 26 28 35 40 44 54 58 64 71 83
Day of Treatment
Figure A-15. 2-Hexanone SVE vapor stream concentrations.
40
30
CO
4
a
20
c
a
10
4 8 11 15 17 19 21 26 28 35 40 44 54 58 64 71 83
Day of Treatment
Figure A-16. 2-Butanone (MEK) SVE vapor stream concentrations.
110
-------
40
30
4
s
.2 20
1
a
§
a
10
4 8 11 15 17 19 21 26 28 35 40 44 54 58 64 71 83
Day of Treatment
figure A-17. Acetone SVE vapor stream concentrations.
Two condensate samples were collected by a USAF contractor on May 14,1993. The condensate
samples were analyzed by a USAF contractor. These analyses were not part of the SITE demonstration
and the quality of the data is unknown. The laboratory report indicates that SVOC concentrations were
determined using Methods 3510 and 8270 from SW-846 [2]; VOC concentrations were determined using
Methods 5030 and 8260 from SW-846 [2]; and TPH was determined using EPA Method 418.1 [3].
Concentrations reported above detection limits are presented hi Tables A-9, A-10, and A-ll.
A.l.3.5 Moisture
Moisture analyses were conducted so that soil sample concentration results could be converted
to dry weight results. Figure A-18 presents the results of moisture analyses in the same format (described
in Subsection A. 1.3.1) used to present the results of the chemical analyses. Based on the final statistical
evaluation, there were statistically significant decreases in percent moisture inside the revised design
treatment zone, inside the heated zone, outside the revised design treatment zone, and outside the heated
zone. Moisture results for all zones are summarized in Table A-12.
Ill
-------
Table A-9. Results of Condensate Analysis for SVOCs (Not Conducted by SITE Program)
Contaminant
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Phenol
Detection Limit, jig/L
50
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
Sample Concentration, jtg/L
140
26
95
16
50
14
300
120
Table A-10. Results of Condensate Analysis for TPH (Not Conducted by SITE Program)
Contaminant
Detection Limit, mg/L
Sample Concentration, mg/L
TPH
Table A-ll. Results of Condensate Analysis for VOCs (Not Conducted by SITE Program)
Contaminant
Detection Limit, mg/L
Sample 1 Concentration, Sample 2 Concentration,
mg/L mg/L
Acetone
Bromomethane
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1
0.1
0.05
0.05
2.4
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
12
1.3
0.06
0.09
112
-------
A1
A2
A3
A4
AS
A6
A7
A8
PRE ^QSK PRE -POST'. PRE POST PRE ,PQ$J;x PRE
\ '** '«
0-2 ,x;"r'v;
2-4 v?;n
;_. ,s
4-6 24 ', ' x \"*
6 a f /o £+'
"^ O •"> v.D 1.
»"' ^''^
8-10 ji) , - , '.
10-12 ,'V-
12-14 "• " ••
14 - 16 -f ',
16 - 18 " - " *
18-20 "'• 1 - *
20-22 - *'* ,s
22-24 ,;|M
24-26 18 ^HA!
!%;! J|i 1^ &ij| :;Jj i ;|" ^! • i:fJi
/%"" /••''•'•' 19 ^ <'0^o95- -.f f o; . ^ -.' •% *• ' ^ *• v * ^ ^%
4 ' -• v" ^%-- ^/^^ If I:^'"'P ?^ ^X^"1 -•''
'*- /', '< ''"^ ^5^^ ^ ''% V' i! " 5" 1' ","''
|T ^% ""•• •• "• ^"-.^ -. * •''"'^/X '''%•'^ :l•V^^^''
!. ^ ^ •. i-.'s<;'"-~ '•*"•, > , »"% % - l '
' * ' ', '' S -. •"• i ' '•• • \ ' > 's 'S^ 1®'^ 0'?^
- ' "' f " "/ r , * s<^ ^ % «. -'' '(- < '-t T>V% -
26 ,.."*• ' '" ' "•" L^ -^ -f ^< \ ^ ,. " \ ^-^ 22.8 >\ 2,$g
-520,7 ^-«^N '/"* * . •,*, ^ '\- 3"" ;• '\"\"f
*- 26 ' -'< ^ -;>r'« ^ ,; "; ' "V- % -
* s "" """ - -\"f-." "" ''-"' ' "•."" -' i "
: -r - - '",ty& '«"-'' 4'^-< •• 5-64 ' ''-^''- J°*,'^
"" » - *'l-;^ 8-42 1 2'9'® f^ " < - :!' V;f
1 '> - - '' '" '' ' " % ' ' V^'* ''' * ' * , * '' •' ' s
,; ?>\%% * 11.5 - "T-oe^ *'!' " .. ? -'J.-
" '," ^ ;' - '"- * "- * ','" ' T '"' '! ""•'-" *-'
v^,1 j*^
Si
> 5 // /
K '? *'* ^
^'-\*'-'s
j;;||
< ^* !
14.8 ; f|.$:
; "?;; ^
-**:7^
f * S'<
31
26-28 1, , ^, ' /-, ^\ ' ; -/; '\J' ',-*< ^V';-l
,% " •• S •> ' '''••' ' ', >. 'f ' ;. * v ••
28 -3° 5' J ^x % ' "- ' V ' ^ , " "! '»- ' / 15.3 ,''M'
NA: Not analyzed
| | RevlsedZone
j | Heated Zone
Figure A-18. Moisture content analyses.
-------
TW7
1W1
TW2
B1
B2
B3
B4
0-2 > * 1 ; 1
2-4 " • ";
I k * ":
4-6 43 J5.$' 21 \',, f-'
'• --' -
6-8 , • ^ ,1,7;
8-10 , " -:;*'•
10-12 t >''\';
12-14 I x '"V*",
14-16 14 12.6 27 f'-23.i'
\ f'ff
16-18 - , ' ,
18-20
20-22 - S '^ - V
22-24 " %
24-26 11 NA 8.4 ' , NA
26-28
28-30
*• ^
43 ; 0.185!
-V , , \*
;\-"i'
28 V;2,6.
»;>
s. -* • - » -= - - s ; •=
14.6 0J ; , -
, " - - j 20.4 1 0,193 "/,-, ' s
^-\^ 21.5 -W^i !'/' - V ;^M
\ ^'1 18.0 ?T^N^ \V, \ '$&•'?
i 1"*"' J-V ^"'/? ' ' *<' "" %¥"'%'v
25.3 v's'^ ^ 15.8 ^J1^ ^ ,' ^'>=iJ
*";V ^i\ l*V ?^l
x X^^-'^'1^ x ^ ^-"S.^ '"-^
' ' ~ ^ '' •. •*. \ v~
- ; 11-1 -, N^"
\-% "% ' "^ " " 14.0 ;\"""15,5*
38 \ NA ;V-\\> /$--'A-
li.l NA " ;;": , ^'^"
* l - s -
s^ ' '5 1 * ^
•J •••• t < -
NA: Not analyzed
| | Revised Zone
| | Heated Zone
Figure A-18. Moisture content analyses (continued).
-------
01
02
03
04
05
06
G7
08
PRE
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10 -12
12-14
14-16
16-18
18-20
20-22
22-24
24 -26
26-28
28-30
PRE PQ8T PRE POST.; PRE -RQ8ir PRE 'POST. PRE POST-. PRE 'POSTV PRE ;PO6^'
*-.' ; 24-i "; W& '-•'-, 'v '<\- "*'\« * '- v'f,^
:- : 'o ^C ^ ''' '<'* ^-\( 16-0 M-32 < ^l ;(j/-
,< - s <'',," '' .. , "„ ";., - ;••''••
16.9 •• 28.2
•i, ' ••
17.3
25.0 f:
I 8.53 '. H
NA: Not analyzed
Revised Zone
Heated Zone
21.1 fc
36-2
14.0 r^-
24.0 ,; S1.3.
' t >
!- •• , 16.5 , NA'
-. '', '' : t '•
16.8 -,
22.6
20.7 . '- ^20,6
't
i; 5 ,-
l^< V
*'' *%''
12.9 ;;ti.$
Figure A-18. Moisture content analyses (continued).
-------
Table A-12. Summary of Percent Moisture Results
Inside Revised Design Treatment Zone
Inside Heated Zone
Outside Revised Design Treatment Zone
Outside Heated Zone
Estimated Change in Mean
Concentration
-86%
-97%
-53%
-73%
Confidence Level
>99.9%
>97.5%
>95%
>99.9%
A.2 PHYSICAL ANALYSES
A.2.1 Particle Size Distribution
Particle size distribution analyses were conducted to characterize the soil. For evaluation
purposes, particle size distribution data are simplified into three categories: gravel, sand, and fines.
Particles that are less than 3 inches (0.08 meters) in diameter but will not pass through a #4 sieve (4.750
millimeters) are classified as gravel, particles that will pass through a #4 sieve (4.750 milluneters) but
will not pass through a #200 sieve (0.075 milluneters) are classified as sand, and particles that will pass
through a #200 sieve (0.075 milluneters) are classified as fines.
Pretreatment particle size distribution analyses were conducted using two procedures, which will
be referred to as dry-sieving and wet-sieving. The dry-sieving results should accurately represent the
fraction of gravel present at the site, but probably do not accurately represent the fractions of sand and
fines. The actual fraction of sand is likely to be lower than the dry-sieving results indicate, and the
fraction of fines correspondingly higher. Dry-sieving results should, therefore, only be used to
characterize the site in terms of the fraction of gravel and the fraction of sand plus fines. Wet-sieving
results should be used to characterize the site in terms of the individual fractions of sand and fines.
Tables A-13, A-14, and A-15 summarize results of particle size distribution analyses. In Table
A-13, wet-sieving and dry-sieving results were averaged when both procedures were conducted for
samples from a given sampling location.
The USAF contractor prepared a geologic profile of Site S-l prior to the demonstration. The
revised design treaanent zone is located within Site S-l, near SB01. The geologic profile is presented
in Figure A-19, and the legend associated with the geologic profile is presented in Figure A-20.
116
-------
Table A-13. Results of Particle Size Distribution Analyses Using Wet- and
Dry-Sieving — Pretreatment Samples
Sample Location
(Borehole, Depth)d
Al, 4'-6'
A2, 12'-14'
A3, 2'-4'
A3, 16'-18'
A4, 20'-22'
A5, 22'-24'
A6, 18'-20'
A7, 8'-10'
A7, 12'-14'
A8, 14'-16'
A8, 28'-30'
Bl, 0'-2'
Bl, 12'-14'
Bl, 26'-28'
B2, 4' -6'
B2, 8'-10'
B2, 12'-14'c
B3, 2'-4'
B3, 10'-12'
B4, 16'-18'
B4, 20'-22'c
B4, 22'-24'
C2, 6'-8'
G3, 0'-2'
C3, 18'-20'
C3, 22'-24'c
C5, 10'-12'c
C6, 2'-4'
C6, 18'-20'
Percent Gravel
33.6
20.2
40.9"
16.6
53. la
. 77.5
73.7
42.6
6.9
' 31.2»
58.3
32.2V
18.1
92.8
- '• 5.8
66.9
4.1
38.5
45.4"
77.2
37
86.2
13.9
28.7«
0.3
78,8
40.5
26.3
63.7
Percent Sand and Fines
66.4
78.8
59.1b
83.4
46.9
22.5
26.3
57.4
93.1
68.8
41.7 •
67.8
81.9
7.2
94.2
33.1
95.9
61.5
54.6
22.8
63
13.8
86.1
71.3
99.7
21.2
59.5
73.7
36.3
117
-------
Table A-13. Results of Particles Size Distribution Analyses During Wet-
and Dry-Sieving — Pretreatment Samples (Continued)
Sample Location
(Borehole, Depth)d Percent Gravel
C6, 24'-26' 64.5
C7, 4'-$' 32.5
C7, 8'-10' 42.7
C8, 4'-6' 33.4
C8, 14'-16' 27.5
C8, 22'-24' 85.8
TW1, 4'-6'° 34
TW1, 14'-16' 14.3
TW2, 4'-6'c 29.3
TW2, 14'-16' 30.5s
TW2, 24'-26' 92.3
TW7, 4'-6' 39.9
TW7, 14M6' 42.3
TW7, 24'-26' 71.9
Average 43.1
» Avenge value of wet- and dry-sieving value taken from the sample location.
b Actual value is slightly higher. Determined by subtracting the % gravel value from 100%.
c Wet-sieving value.
d Sample intervals are given in feet because a 2-foot-long split spoon was used for sampling.
Percent Sand and Fines
35.5
. 67.5
57.3
66.6
72.5
14.2
66
85.7
' 70.7
69.5
7.7
60.1
57.7
28.1
56.9
To convert to meters, multiply by 0.3048.
.118
-------
Table A-14. Results of Particle Size Distribution Analyses Using Wet-Sieving
Only — Pretreatment Samples
Sample Location
(Borehole, Depth)*
A3, 2'-4'
A4, 20' -22'
A8, 14'-16'
Bl, 0'-2'
B2, 12'-14'
B3, 10'-12'
B4, 20'-22'
C3, 0'-2'
C3, 22'-24'
C5, 10'-12'
TW1, 4'-6'
TW2, 4'-6'
TW2, 14'-16'
Average
Percent Gravel
33.6
73.8
26.3
48.0
4.1
49.7
37.0
30.3
78.8
40.5
34.0
29.3
18.9
38.8 .
Percent Sand
27.9
17.1
25.0
30.0
17.8
26.0
28.0
20.7
14.7
34.0
26.6
30.1
33.0
25.5
Percent Fines
38.5
9.1
48.7
22.0
78.1
24.3
35.0
49.0
6.5
25.5
39.4
40.6
48.1
35.8
a Sample intervals are given in feet because a 2-foot-long split spoon was used for sampling. To convert to meters, multiply by 0.3048.
119
-------
Table A-15. Results of Particle Size Distribution Analyses Using Wet-Sieving
Only — Post-Treatment Samples
Sample Location
(Borehole, Depth)*
A4, 20'-22'
A7, 8'-10'
A8, 14'-16'
B2, 4'-6'
B3, 2'-4'
B3, 10M2'
B4, 16'-18'
B4, 22'-24'
C2, 6'-8'
C3, 22'-24'
C8, 22'-24*
Average
Percent Gravel
47.6
24.2
34.2
48.8
40.3
26.6
22.5
- 55.7
30.1
73.8
81.6
44.1
Percent Sand
23.4
35.3
36.0
44.9
44.2
60.4
39.7
29.8
30.1
17.6
11.2
33.9
Percent Fines
29.0
40.5
29.8
6.3
15.5
13.0
37.8
14.5
39.8
8.6
7.2
22.0
a Sample intervals aro given in feet because a 2-foot-long split spoon was used for sampling. To convert to meters, multiply by 0.3048.
120
-------
TOO
SI 02
693.30
RR SBOI
694.06
690 r- -i==5=ri'=:
680 .- -..—
QGROWOON DRIVE
SiOl
690.46 I
_700
"~—• (BLACK) —
_—_—_ (BLACK)—_
— (BROWN) — —
_—_— BROWN) _— —_
— —(BROWN) __—_
* " * * **'»*' °g ^_ ' ' ' *_" *
• -.
640
500
DISTANCE (FT.)
1000
660
—• 650
640
1400
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = IOX HORIZONTAL
NOTE:
WATER LEVEL DATA ACQUIRED ON MARCH 27,1990.
GEOLOGIC PROFILE
SITE S-l
KELLY AIR FORCE BASE
IMUS
_J ICXDRPORAnON
\ A Hallibunon Companv
Figure A-19. Geologic profile of Site S-l at Kelly AFB.
-------
SYMBOL
UTHOFACES OR
MATERIAL TYPE
DESCRIPTION
LANDFILL
MATERIAL
FILL
MATERIAL
(BLACK)—
CLAY
(BLACK)
.-(BBOWNH-
CLAY
(BROWN)
SILT
IS
li
"*^ «^»
S5
S§
u. =!
5i
QZ
SAND
CLAYEY
GRAVEL
LOWER
CLAY
a & * a o
GRAVEL
NAVARRO CLAY
TRANSITION
ZONE
NAVARRO
CLAY
AQUITARD
S3
CD
E
LU
QD
cr
LU
§
<
O
HIGHLY VARUVBLE BLL MATERIAL (CLAY-GRAVEL) CONTAINING GARSAGE. METAL.
WOOD. PLASTIC. AND OTHER LANOHLL MATERIALS.
HGHLY VARIABLE SILTY CLAY WITH VARYING GRAVEL CONTENT. SAND ALSO
COMMON. CONCRETE AND ASPHALT ARE TYPICAL ••NON-NATURAL-
CONSTITUENTS. DIFFiCULTTOaSTINGUISHFHOMALLUVlALSEDIMENTSINMAN^
CASES CSUCH AS LEON CREEK PUMP TEST LOCATION).
ORGAMC-RKH CLAY. TRACE SILT. RNE TO COARSE SAND SEE CALICHE STIFF.
PLASTIC WHEN MOIST. NO VISIBLE INTERNAL LAYERING.
TYPICALLY LIGHT TO DARK ORANGE- TO RED-BROWN CLAY, TRACE AMOUNTS OF
SILT AND SAND. ISOLATED GRAVEL CLASTS. CALICHE COMMON IN BROWN CLAY.
TRANSmONAL WITH OVERLYING BLACK CLAY (TYPICALLY AS NODULES).
SOMETIMES APPEARS MOTTLED OH CRUDELY LAMINATED.
BROWN TO LIGHT SHOWN SILT. TRACE AMOUNTS OF CLAY. AND RNE SAND.
ISOLATED GRAVEL. CALICHE COMMON IN UPPER PART OF UNfT. VERY THIN VUGS
TYPICALLY FILLED WITH BLACK ORGANIC MATERIAL. IN SOME AREAS (UNION
PACIFIC RH YARD) THIS UNITIS CEMENTED WITH CALICHE
RNETO COARSE SAND. TYPICALLY RNE-TO MEDIUM-GRAINED. <40% CLAY. SILT.
AND GHAVELTEXrURALLY IMMATURE. SORTING IS VARIABLE BUT USUALLY POOR.
TYPICALLY SHOWN TO GRAY. POORLY SORTED LIMESTONE-CHERT GRAVEL WITH
(XAY-SlLTMAT«X>20%BUT
-------
A.3 OPERATIONAL DATA
A.3.1 Temperature
RF energy was applied to the exciter electrodes and flowed outward to the ground electrodes.
Soil temperatures were monitored throughout the 61-day treatment period during which RF energy was
applied to the soil. Before treatment began, the soil throughout the treatment zone was at a temperature
of approximately 20°C (68°F). -
At the end of the treatment period, the soil temperature varied considerably throughout the revised
design treatment zone. Figure 4 shows the electrode and thermowell layout for the SITE demonstration.
A.3.1.1 Temperatures at Ground Electrodes
The soil near the ground electrodes was gradually heated as RF energy flowed to the ground
electrodes from the exciter electrodes. The soil temperatures near the center ground electrodes (A3, A4,
A5, A6, C3, C4, C5, and C6) rose higher and faster than, soil temperatures near the outer ground
electrodes (Al, A2, A7, A8, Cl, C2, C7, and C8). In addition, higher temperatures were measured in
the shallow soils than in the deep soils.
Depth of. 1 foot (0.3 meters) - Soil temperatures at a depth of 1 foot (0.3 meters) followed the
same pattern for all ground electrodes but A4. In all ground electrodes but A4, the soil
temperature gradually rose to a maximum of 80 to 96°C (176 to 205°F), which was reached near
the middle of the treatment period. The temperature then decreased slightly to 62 to 78°C (144
to 172°F). The temperature of ground electrode A4 rose to 90°C (194°F) after an elapsed time
of 45 days, decreased slightly, then increased to 112°C (234°F) by the end of the treatment
period.
Depth of 12 feet (3.7 meters') - The temperature pattern at this depth is similar to the pattern
observed at a depth of 1 foot (0.3 meters). The soil temperature rose to a maximum temperature
of 68 to 99°C (154 to 210°F) near the middle of the treatment period. After reaching this peak,
the temperature decreased slightly, to 63 to 82°C (145 to 180°F).
Depths of 24 and 29 feet (7.3 and 8.8 meters) - In general, the temperatures hi the ground
electrodes at depths of 24 and 29 feet (7.3 and 8.8 meters) rose steadily throughout the treatment
period. Maximum temperatures were reached at or near the end of the treatment period and
ranged from 42 to 52°C (108 and 126dF) at 24 feet (7.3 meters) bgs and 31 to 34°C (88 to 93°F)
at 29 feet (8.8 meters) bgs. The final temperatures at 29 feet (8.8 meters) bgs are only about
10°C (20°F) higher than the soil temperature before RF energy was applied.
123
-------
A.3.1.2 Temperatures at Exciter Electrodes
The RF energy applied to the exciter electrodes progressed gradually from the surface to the
lowest point of each exciter electrode. All exciter electrode temperature data fluctuated widely near the
end of the treatment period.
Depth of 1 foot (0.3 meters') - Temperatures of 150°C (302°F) or greater were first consistently
achieved 2 to 9 days after treatment began and were generally maintained throughout the
remainder of the treatment period. Temperatures began to vary widely 38 to 61 days after
treatment was initiated. Maximum temperatures of 330 to 1150°C (626 to 2102°F) were reached
during this period.
Depth of 10 feet (3 meters') - Temperatures of 150°C (302°F) or greater were first consistently
achieved 19 to ,34 days after -treatment began and were generally maintained for the remainder
of the treatment period. Temperatures began to vary widely 45 to 58 days after treatment was
initiated. Maximum temperatures of 725 to 1304°C (1337 to 2379°F) were reached during this
period.
Depth of 19 feet (5.8 meters') - Temperatures of 150°C (302°F) or greater were first consistently
achieved starting 20 to 32 days after treatment began and were maintained for the remainder of
the treatment period. Temperatures began to vary widely 40 to 51 days after treatment was
initiated. Maximum temperatures of 978 to 1330°C (1792 to 2426°F) were reached during this
period.
A.3.1.3 Temperatures in Thermowells 1 and 2
As shown in Figure 5, TW1 and TW2 were in line with the exciter electrodes. Because TW2
is closer to the exciter electrodes, temperatures in TW2 were generally higher than temperatures in TW1.
At 1 foot (0.3 meters) bgs, maximum temperatures in TW1 and TW2 were 103 and 129"C (217 and
264°F), respectively. At 12 feet (3.7 meters) bgs, maximum temperatures in TW1 and TW2 were 94 and
126°C (201 and 259°F), respectively. At 20 feet (6.1 meters) bgs, maximum temperatures in TW1 and
TW2 were 69 and 117°C (156 and 243°F), respectively. At 24 feet (7.3 meters) bgs, maximum
temperatures in TW'l and TW2 were 63 and 60°C (145 and 140°F), respectively. At 29 feet (8.8 meters)
bgs, the maximum temperature for both TW1 and TW2 was 38°C (100°F).
A.3.1.4 Temperatures in Thermowells 3. 4, 5. and 6
As shown in Figure 5, TW3, TW4, TW5, and TW6 were located within the treatment zone
between the exciter electrodes and the ground electrodes. Because TW3 was farther from the exciter
electrodes than were TW4, TW5, and TW6, lower temperatures were measured in TW3.
»
124
-------
Depth of 1 Foot (0.3 meters) The temperature in TW3 remained above 80°C (176°F) after Day
10. The temperatures in TW4, TW5, and TW6 remained above 100°C (212°F) after Days 17,
10, and 14, respectively. The temperature in TW5 remained above 150°C (302°F) from Day 25
through Day 46. Maximum temperatures for TW3, TW4, TW5, and TW6 were 105°C, 195°C,
243°C, and 181°C (221, 383, 469, and 358°F), respectively.
Depth of 12 Feet (3.7 meters') The temperature in TW3 remained above 90°C (194°F) after Day
20. The temperatures hi TW4, TW5, and TW6 remained above 100°C (212°F) after Days 31,
21, and 15, respectively. Maximum temperatures for TW3, TW4, TW5, and TW6 were 111°C,
168°C, 201°C, and 206°C (232, 334, 394, and 403°F), respectively.
Depth of 20 Feet (6.1 meters') At this depth, data were only collected from Day 44 through Day
53. Temperatures in these thermocouples fluctuated considerably during this period. Maximum
temperatures for TW3, TW4, TW5, and TW6 were 87°C, 197°C, 234°C, and 205°C (189, 387,
453, and 401°F), respectively.
Depths of 24 and 29 Feet (7.3 and 8.8 meters') The temperatures in TW3, TW4, TW5, and TW6
at 24 and 29 feet (7.3 and 8.8 meters) bgs seem anomalous. At 24 feet (7.3 meters) bgs,
maximum temperatures for TW3, TW4,-TW5, and TW6 were 90°C, 90°C, 68°C, and 65°C (194,
194, 154,.and 149°F). At 29 feet (8.8 meters) bgs, maximum temperatures for TW3, TW4,
TW5, and TW6 were 81°C, 38°C, 36°C, and 39°C (178, 100, 97, and 102°F).
A.3.1.5 Temperatures in Thermowell 7
As shown in Figure 3, TW7 was located outside the treatment zone. The temperature patterns
observed in TW7 were therefore similar to those in the ground electrodes, although, as expected, the
temperatures were lower hi TW7. At 12 feet (3.7 meters) bgs, the temperature rose to a maximum
temperature of 62°C (144°F). The temperatures at 24 and 29 feet (7.3 and 8.8 meters) bgs rose
gradually throughout thfe treatment period, reaching final temperatures of 40 and 30°C (104 and 86°F),
respectively.
A.3.2 SVE System Operation
The SVE system was designed, operated, and monitored by B&RE. A log of SVE system
operation was provided to the SITE Program. SVE operating conditions while RF power was being
applied are summarized in Table A-16. After the heating period ended, the SVE system operation
continued for approximately 2 months during the cooldown period. SVE operating conditions during
cooldown are summarized hi Table A-17.
125
-------
Table A-16. Summary of SVE System Operation Conditions During RF Heating
Period
Operating Parameter
Average Value
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
Inlet air flow rate
Mixed vapor flow rate
Inlet air pressure
Vapor temperature
Mixed vapor temperature
Ambient temperature
Suction pressure
Discharge pressure
73 scfm (34 liters/s)
197 scfm (93 liters/s)
79 psi (545 kPa)
149°F(65,°C)
115 °F (46 °C)
69 °F (21 °F)
8.4inH20(2.1kPa)
15 in H^O (3.7 kPa)
55 scfin (26 liters/s)
150 scfin (71 liters/s)
44 psi (303 kPa)
85 °F (29 °C)
60 °F (16 °C)
45 °F (7.2 °C)
7.0 in H20 (1.7 kPa)
12 in HjO (3.0 kPa)
90 scfin (42 liters/s)
230 scfin (109 liters/s)
94 psi (648 kPa)
170 °F (77 °C)
145 °F (63 °C)
95 °F (35 °C)
13 in H20 (3.2 kPa)
18 in Hy) (4.5 kPa)
Table A-17. Summary of SVE System Operation Conditions During Cooldown
Operating Parameter
Average Value
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
Inlet air flow rate
Mixed vapor flow rate
Inlet air pressure
Vapor temperature
Mixed vapor temperature
Ambient temperature
Suction pressure
Discharge pressure
55 scfm (26 liters/s)
182 scfin (86 liters/s)
55 psi (379 kPa)
134 °F (57 °Q
97 °F (36 °C)
77 °F (25 °C)
7.5 in H20 (1.9 kPa)
13 in H20 (3.2 kPa)
30 scfin (14 liters/s)
60 scfin (28 liters/s)
3 psi (21 kPa)
78 °F (26 °C)
76 °F (24 °C)
69 °F (21 °C)
4.0 in H20 (1.0 kPa)
4.0 in H20 (1.0 kPa)
76 scfm ( 36 liters/s)
250 scfin (118 liters/s)
88 psi (607 kPa)
165 °F (74 °C)
135 °F (57 °C)
95 °F (35 °C)
14 in H20 (3.5 kPa)
20 in By) (5.0 kPa)
126
-------
The suction for the SVE system was provided by an air compressor that supplied compressed air
to an inductor. The inlet air temperature and pressure were measured hi the compressed air line leading
to the inductor. The suction pressure and the vapor temperature were measured in the vapor collection
manifold, upstream of the inductor. The mixed vapor flow rate, mixed vapor temperature, and discharge
pressure were measured in the combined air stream (containing air from the compressor and vapors
extracted from the soil) downstream of the inductors.
A.3.3 Dewatering System Operation
The dewatering system, which was designed and Ojperated by B&RE, was installed in January
1993. Dewatering began on February 1, 1993 and continued during the remainder of pretreatment
sampling, which was completed on February 6, 1993. B&RE has provided the SITE Program with a log
of dewatering system operation from April 3, 1993 through August 23, 1993. This log indicates that
325,920 gallons (1,234 cubic meters) of groundwater were removed from the site between April 3, 1993
and August 23, 1993. It is not known whether the dewatering system was operated between pretreatment
sampling and April 3, 1993.
IITRI believes that shallow groundwater led to the RFH system malfunction that caused high
temperatures near the exciter electrodes and rather low temperatures near the ground electrodes. IITRI's
explanation is that RF energy, like a conventional microwave, preferentially heats water (and other polar
materials). They believe that the proximity of the groundwater to the exciter electrodes "shorted out"
the RF energy and disrupted the heating patterns. Because the dewatering system was designed to prevent
this type of problem, it appears that either the dewatering system was inadequate or IITRI underestimated
the distance that must be maintained between the groundwater and the ends of the exciter electrodes. The
exciter electrodes extended from the ground surface to 19.5 feet (5.94 meters) bgs. The results of
groundwater level monitoring during the first 18 days of dewatering are presented in Table A-18. The
results of groundwater level monitoring during the RF heating period are presented in Table A-19.
Groundwater level monitoring locations are shown in Figure 5. All information regarding groundwater
levels was provided by B&RE.
127
-------
Table A-18. Groundwater Levels After Dewatering Was Initiated (Feet bgs)a
Well Number
Date
2/2/93
2/2/93
2/2/93
2/2/93
2/2/93
2/3/93
2/3/93
2/4/93
2/4/93
2/4/93
2/7/93
2/7/93
2/8/93
2/8/93
2/9/93
2/9/93
2/9/93
2/9/93
2/10/93
2/10/93
2/11/93
2/11/93
2/12/93
2/13/93
2/13/93
2/15/93
2/16/93
2/16/93
2/18/93
2/19/93
PW03
22.5
22.8
23.5
23.1
23.5
23.8
**
23.7
22.9
23.8
23.4
23.5
23.6
23.4
22.9
23.0
23.1
23.5
20.6
22.1
23.3
23.5
24.8
24.5
24.5
22.6
24.4
24.6
24.7
24.7
DW01
23.8
**
**
**
**
29.8
**
30.0
29.9
29.7
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
'**
**
**
»*
**
**
**
**
DW02 DW03
22.6
26.0
25.8
**
**
28.3
27.8
27.8
27.7
28.0
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
#*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
a Groundwater levels were measured in feet.
** No groundwater level provided.
23.3
**
**
**
**
24.2
**
**
24.2
**
**
**
** •
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
23.7
25.6
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
MW09
24.4 "
**
**
**
**
24.4
**
**
24.5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
To convert to meters,
128
MW10
23.8
23.9
23.9
**
**
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
23.9
**
**
**
24.1
24.1
**
**
24.2
24.1
24.1
24.2
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
multiply
MW11
23.7
23.8
23.9
**
** '
24.1
24.1
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.2
**
**
**
24.5
24.2
24.3
24.1
24.2
24.3
24.2
24.3
24.3
**
**
**
**.
**
**
**
by 0.3048.
MW12
23.9
**
**
**
**
26.3
26.2
26.1
26.1
26.1
25.8
**
**
**
24.2
24.7
25.0
25.7
24.1
25.5
25.7
25.7
26.8
**
26.0
**
**
**
**
**
PW04
24.6
35.4
32.8
**
**
35.0
34.9
**
35.0
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-------
Table A-19. Groundwater Levels During RF Heating (Feet bgs)a
Well Number
Date
4/29/93
5/8/93 .
5/10/93
5/12/93
DW01
30.6
**
**
30.1
a Groundwater levels
DW02
27.6
**
**
29.6
DW03
26.5
**
**
26.3
were measured in feet.
MW09
25.0
24.9
24.5
24.5
To convert
MW10
24.7
24.1
24.3
24.4
to meters,
MW11
**
**
24.4
24.4
multiply by
MW12
26.6
25.6
26.1
26.2
0.3048.
• PW04
32.9
**
**
**
A.3.4 Electric Usage
An electric meter was installed and monitored by B&RE. Because the first two meters installed
did not work correctly, electric usage was only monitored from April 26, 1993 through August 11, 1993.
Based on the electric usage log for this period, the average power usage rate during the heating period
was 58 kW and the average power usage rate during the cooldown period was 6.5 kW.
A.3.5 RF Emissions
The USAF contractor responsible for monitoring the RFH system did not supply RF emissions
data from the flTRI demonstration to the SITE Program.
129
-------
APPENDIX B
CASE STUDIES
B.I VOLK AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE (ANGB)
The first in situ field test of the HTM RFH system was conducted at Volk ANGB in Wisconsin
[1], The treatment zone was located in a fire training pit and contained approximately 20 cubic yards
(15 cubic meters) of sandy soil contaminated with organics, including waste oils, fuels, and solvents [at
a depth of 7 feet (2 meters)]. The homogenous sandy soil present at Volk ANGB was considered an ideal
medium for remediation by RFH.
RF power was applied to the treatment zone to heat the soil. The temperature at the center of
the zone reached 100°C (212°F) after 2 days and approximately 150°C (302°F) after 8 days. Grab
samples were taken on the ninth day and analyzed immediately. As shown in Table B-l, the test results
indicated removal efficiencies of 90 percent or greater and the test was terminated.
Table B-l. Results of Volk ANGB Test
Contaminant
Volatile Aromatics
Volatile Aliphatics
Semivolatile Aromatics
SemivolatUe Aliphatics
Initial Concentration,
rag/kg
210
4200
250
1660
Final Concentration,
mg/kg
0.9
28
2.3
95
Removal Efficiency,
Percent
99.6
99.3
•99.1
94.3
Vapors rising from the treatment zone were captured and channeled to a vapor treatment system
consisting of an air-cooled heat exchanger (for condensation of steam and contaminant vapors) followed
by a separator (to remove the condensate from the vapor stream) and carbon adsorbers.
130
-------
Grab samples were taken outside of the treatment zone to analyze the potential for contaminant
migration into or out of the treatment zone. Contaminant concentrations in the soil surrounding the
treatment zone were reduced by 75 percent or more. ilTKl. concluded that contaminants from outside
the treatment zone were being volatilized and collected by the in situ RFH system. This conclusion was
substantiated by radon tracer studies, which also indicated that contaminant migration occurred from
outside regions into the treatment zone.
B.2 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL (RMA)
The second in situ RFH field test was conducted at RMA, near Denver, Colorado [2]. The test
zone contained approximately 60 cubic yards (50 cubic meters) of soil contaminated with
organochloropesticides and organophosphorus compounds at concentrations up to 5,700 mg/kg and 3,900
mg/kg, respectively. Because these compounds have higher boiling points than the contaminants present
at Volk ANGB, target treatment conditions were 250°C (482°F) for 72 hours.
A 40-kW RF power source delivered approximately 18,000 kWh of energy to the test zone over
a 37-day period. The soil in the test area, which consisted, of sandy clays and clayey sands, was not
heated uniformly. Portions of the test zone were heated to over 350?C (662°F), while other portions were
heated to only 100°C (212°F). In areas that reached temperatures in excess of 250°C (482°F),
organochloropesticide destruction efficiencies of 97 to 99 percent were achieved. Destruction efficiencies
were generally lower in areas that did not reach 250°C (482°F).
The vapors produced during heating were treated hi a vapor treatment system which removed both
the VOCs and SVOCs. A total of 1,545 gallons (5.8 cubic meters) of water was produced during the
heating. This water was recovered in the vapor treatment system, and was ultimately sent to Pond A at
the RMA for storage.
B.3 REFERENCES
1. Dev, H., J. Enk, G. Sresty, J. Bridges, and D. Downey. In Situ Decontamination by Radio-
Frequency Heating — Field Test. Prepared by IIT Research Institute for Air Force Engineering
& Services Center, September 1989.
2. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Rocky Mountain Arsenal In Situ Radio Frequency Heating/Vapor
Extraction Concept Engineering Report, November 1992.
131
-------
APPENDIX C
VENDOR CLAIMS
NOTE: This appendix was prepared by 1TTRI. Claims and interpretations of results in this Appendix
are those made by the vendor and are not necessarily substantiated by test or cost data. Many of IITRI's
claims regarding cost-and performance can be compared to the available data in Section 4, Section 3, and
Appendix A of this ITER.
C.I INTRODUCTION
The In situ radio frequency (RF) heating process utilizes electromagnetic energy in the radio
frequency band to heat soil rapidly without injection of heat transfer media or on site combustion. The
process can be used to heat soil to a temperature range of 150-200°C. A modification of the process,
called EM heating, based on the use of 60-HZ alternating current (AC) can be used to heat soil to a
temperature range of 80 to 90°C. The contaminants are vaporized along with native soil moisture. The
gases and vapors formed upon heating the soil are recovered for on site treatment by means of a gas
collection system.
In situ heating is performed by energizing an array of electrodes emplaced in bore holes drilled
through the soil. The process can be used for the removal of organic chemicals which exhibit reasonable
vapor pressure (5 to 10 mm of Hg) in the treatment temperature range.
The feasibility of the in situ RF soil decontamination process was first demonstrated at a site of
a jet fuel spill (1). Three additional field experiments or demonstrations have been conducted
subsequently at Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA), Kelly Air Force Base (AFB), and Sandia National
Laboratory (SNL). The Kelly field test was conducted under the EPA SITE program, and is the subject
of this report. IITRI could not complete soil heating at the Kelly field test due to unanticipated shallow
groundwater at the site. A larger demonstration of the technology has recently been completed (April,
1995) at SNL as a part of the Thermal Enhanced vapor Extraction System (TEVES).
132
-------
It must be noted that the SITE program evaluation and the scale-up of the technology performed
by the EPA are based on the incomplete demonstration at Kelly AFB. Cost analysis of the technology
reported in this document is also based on the EPA's scale-up and design. IITRI disagrees with some
of the assumptions made during the scale-up and design because of a number factors including scale-up
based on an incomplete soil heating test at Kelly AFB, limitations concerning the longitudinal propagation
of RF energy along the length of the scaled-up electrode array, use of a 10-in. hollow stem auger for the
drilling of all electrode (3 or 4 in.) holes, and the lack of an energy balance. Our scale7up designs that
were based on ilTKl's knowledge and experience with the application of the RF technology have been
summarized elsewhere (2).
This section contains a brief description of the RF heating process, a summary of results obtained
during field tests and reasons for the experienced difficulties at Kelly AFB, and nTRTs current plans for
further development and commercialization of the AC and RF heating technologies.
C.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The RF soil decontamination process is a two-step process which operate simultaneously once the
average temperature of the soil exceeds 50°C. These steps are: heating of the soil, and vaporization and
recovery of .the contaminants.
In the first step of the process, the soil is heated to elevated temperatures (80 to 90°C for AC
heating and up to 200°C or higher for RF heating) by means of an electrode array inserted in bore holes
drilled through the soil. Selected electrodes are specially designed to permit the application of RF power
while collecting vapors by application of a vacuum down hole. Figure C-l is an artist's illustration of
the process as utilized during the TEVES demonstration at SNL. Both AC and RF heating were used
at SNL. Power to the electrode array is provided by means of a variable-tap transformer or power
amplifier designed to generate RF energy in the frequency range of 1 to 10 MHz.
The vapor collection system is an integral part of the electrode array since vapor collection points
are physically integrated and embedded hi the array. A vapor containment barrier is used to prevent
fugitive emissions, and provides thermal insulation to prevent excessive cooling of the near surface zones.
Prior laboratory and field experiments (1-5) have shown that high boiling contaminants can be
boiled out of the soil at much lower temperatures than their actual boiling point. This occurs due to two
133
-------
W« tfr J? * * ,£/..—.H-''.V,..r. .'>-'— -^.—^ .i..,, i " irl." ' ..'i". >.•': i i Ti i* .8.,,".,.,-'--.— .,i. i'l «««.. .—.,...-. 'i .•.*—-.•• •• i .......I... ii .......-——Jf- fi.l—ii. I ,=- * >.
Vapor
Containment
Cover
RF Excitor
Electrode
On-Site
Vapor Recovery
and Treament
Guard
Electrodes
Extraction
Figure C-l. Illustration of TEVES demonstration at SNL.
-------
reasons: first, the presence of an autogenously established steam sweep helps to improve vaporization
rate of such high boiling materials; second, the long residence time in situ permits significant removal,
albeit at a rate which is slower than that obtainable in above ground thermal treatment systems. Another
phenomenon which operates during «in situ heating is the development of effective permeability to gas
flow. The increase in permeability is confined to the heated zone, thus creating a preferred path of gas
and vapor flow towards the soil surface.
The second step of the process is the collection, recovery, and on-site treatment of the vapors and
gases formed by heating of the soil. The collected waste gases are transported to an on-site treatment
system. Various treatment techniques based on condensation, carbon adsorption, spray chambers,
combustion, and catalytic oxidation have been used during previous field tests.
There are several important advantages of the in situ AC or RF soil decontamination process.
These are: true in situ treatment minimizes earth removal, excavation etc., thereby minimizing attendant
hazards related to odors, fugitive emissions and dust. Only 0.5 to 1.5 percent of the treated volume will
require removal for the formation of the electrode bore holes. There is no on site combustion; a
concentrated gas stream containing air, water and contaminant vapors is produced which is treated on site;
the process equipment may be trailer mounted and mobile.
Some of the limitations of the process are: unable to treat metals, salts, and inorganic pollutants;
if large buried metal objects are present in portions of the treatment zone then the applicability of the
process may be limited to zones free of such objects. Another important limitation for the RF heating
process concerns with heating saturated zones with rapidly flowing groundwater such as the one noted
at Kelly AFB. Water absorbs a considerable amount of energy for its heating and evaporation. If water
moves rapidly through the heating zone, it carries the heat away and the array continuously and
preferentially supplies energy to heat and evaporate water from bottom of the electrodes. This can result
hi peaking of the RF energy at the tips of electrodes and interfere with heating. It is necessary to control
the movement of the groundwater through the soil matrix by the installation of impermeable liners and/or
pumping wells prior to the application of RF heating process. If site conditions preclude groundwater
control, only AC heating should be considered for such sites. At such sites energy consumption will be
high, proportional to heat loss due to flowing water but unlike the RF process, the AC heating system
should be free of anamolous hot spots that force a shut-down of the process.
135
-------
C.3 TREATABBLITY STUDIES
Several treatability studies on various types of contaminants have been performed. These studies
were done in the laboratory to determine the optimum temperature and treatment time for different types
of contaminants found hi different soil types. The treatability studies have focussed on chlorinated
solvents, volatile aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene, etc. (BTEX), petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH), phenols, chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
The results of various treatability studies are summarized in Table C-l. Detailed information on
any given study is available in the cited reference. The data summarized in table 1 indicates that suitable
treatment conditions can be found under which high removals of most of the tested contaminants occurs.
The data further confirm that high boiling compounds need not be heated to their boiling points hi order
to achieve high removals. As an example consider the PAHs of various molecular weight (viz. number
of fused rings). The more volatile PAHs under consideration boil in the temperature range of 280-
300°C, while the less volatile ones boil at temperatures above 500°C. Yet the results show that
significant removals of PAHs boiling up to 400°C can be achieved in the temperature range of 200 -
230°C. Similar results were obtained for Aroclor 1242. The results show that the concentration of
Aroclor 1242 can be reduced to below 25 ppm when the soil is treated at 230 °C.
C.4 FIELD EXPERIMENTS
A total of four field experiments/demonstrations have been completed to date. Table C-2
provides a summary of the field experiments and the results. Since RF and AC heating process are
innovative soil treatment processes under development, we have attempted to scale-up the process during
these experiments to heat increasingly larger volumes of soil, and to extend the applicability of the
process to different types of soil and contaminants, and to treat soils to a greater depth. The field
experiments at Volk Air National Guard Base (Volk), RMA and SNL have been successfully completed.
Since the SNL test was only concluded hi April, 1995, data on the concentrations of contaminants was
not available at the tune of preparation of this document. A summary of the experience gained during
the Kelly demonstration is provided below.
C.4.1 Kelly Demonstration
The demonstration conducted at Kelly AFB resulted in incomplete heating of the target soil
volume because of a shallow and rapidly moving groundwater through the treatment zone. Prior
136
-------
Table C-l. Summary of Pilot Scale Experiments
Type of Soil Source of Soil Source
Sandy Volk ANGB Spike
Sandy Volk ANGB Field
Sandy Tyndall AFB Spike
Clayey Carlswell AFB Field
Clayey Kelly AFB Field
Sandy/clayey Chicago Spike
Clayey Wood Field
Preservative
Site
Field
Spiked
Contaminants
List
PCE
CBZ
Jet Fuel
Aromalica
Nonaromatic
Pentadecane
Aroclor 1242
Jet Fuel
Aromatics
Nonaromatics
Sludge
Aromalica
Nonaromatics
Phenol
PCP
Phenanlhrene
PAHa
2-ring
3-ring
4-ring
5-ring
PCBs
Aroclor 1242
Treat.
Ink. Cone. Temp., °C
(ppm)
0.2 - 35 128 - 159
n.d. - 36
155
400
4,000
100
1,000 150-300
90-165
40
200
140- 153
200
1,000
1,000 110-200
1.000
1,000
6-50
7 - 60 200 - 230
250-410
10-27
200 - 230
1070- 1250
Contaminant 11TRI
Removal Proj. No.
98.4 - 100 C06600
C06600
>95
90- >99
75- >95
48 - 99.7 C06600
C06691
66-83
70 - 87,
C06691
87 - 98.8
94-98.8
74 - >99.7 C06693
42 -> 98.3 C022
60- >99.1
C06730
84- >97
61 - >97
7-37
8-35
96 - 99 C06730
Reference Comments
1 Spike evaporation
caused low initial cone.
1 Steam sweep enhanced
removal of the high-
boilers.
1 High Aroclor removal
and poor mass balance
at high temps.
2 Residual cone, was a
few ppm.
2 Experiments were
conducted with steam
sweep.
4 Higher temperatures
and steam sweep
helped removal of PCP
phenanlhrene.
5 Mass balance data
available.
5 Mass balance data
available.
-------
Table C-2. Summary of Field Experiments/Demonstrations
Target Soil Volume, cu. yds.
Array Dimensions, ft.
Depth of Treatment, ft.
Target Temperature, °C
Soil Type
Site Description
Major Contaminants
Treatment Duration, days
Heating System
Summary of Results
Volk
19
5'xlO'
7'
150
Sandy
Fire Training Pit
Solvents, Jet Fuel
13
RF
Removed >99% of VOCs and
>94% ofSVOCs
RMA
30
6' x 14'
3'xl3'
250
Clay
Waste Basin
Organochloro Pesticides
35
RF '
Removed >99% endrin, aldrin
and dieldrin. Removed
>98% isodrin
Kelly
122
10' x 17.5'
23'
150
Silt, Clay and Cobbles
Sludge Disposal Pond
TPH
60
RF
Heated only 44 cu. yds. to
target temperature. Removed
95% TPH from heated zone
and 60% from the total revised
treatment zone
SNL
550
20' x 50'
18'
150
Silty Sand
Chemical Waste Landfill
Solvents, TPH, Heat Transfer
Fluids
67
ACandRF
Vapor concentrations for high
boiling hydrocarbons increased
significantly. Soil
concentration data not
available at this time.
-------
characterization data for the site precluded any groundwater in the treatment zone. Hence, the system
design did not consider the effect of groundwater. However, shallow groundwater at a depth of less than
25 ft. was encountered during drilling for electrode placement. The following steps were taken to
mitigate the effect of groundwater.
1. Dewatering wells were installed to pump as much water as possible and to attempt to
maintain the water level below 25 ft.
Installation of center (excitor) row electrodes was delayed to see the results of the
dewatering system.
2. The length of the exciter electrodes was reduced to 20 ft. from their fabricated length of
24 ft. New, shorter excitor electrodes were fabricated in the field. With the shortened
exciter electrodes, shortening of the ground electrode was indicated, but due to time and
cost constraints it was decided to leave the long (29 ft) ground electrodes in place.
3. The bottom tips of the new excitor electrodes were modified to have spherical bottoms
to partially mitigate the effects of excess currents.
Despite the above corrective steps, DTRI was not able to complete soil heating as planned. As
per our interpretation of the data, some time during the second half of the 9-week test period, applied
RF energy concentrated towards the tips of the excitor electrodes causing their progressive melting. In
fact, we were not able to increase the average temperature of the two outer rows of electrodes during the
last two weeks of the test period. We were able to recover a total of only a few feet of the excitor
electrodes with the rest having melted prior to termination of the test period. Interpretation of the
electrical properties of the array indicates that the array input impedance changed irregularly after May
3, 1994 or the 30th day after heating started. These changes became even more drastic and irregular
after May 18th. Melting point of copper was first exceeded in the center row of electrodes sometine
between May 19 and 20. This indicates that only 45 days out of the total 61 day test period were
effective (6).
As a result of the melting of excitor electrodes, only 44 cu. yds. of the 122 cu. yds. of soil from
the revised design volume was heated to the target temperature. The soil near the ground electrodes
never reached target temperatures. Since ground electrodes were used as collection wells, inadequate
heating resulted in ineffective effluent collection, as noted by the EPA, and condensation of some of the
contaminants migrating from outside regions in their vicinity. As a result, the concentrations of a
number of contaminants increased in this region. The data prepared by EPA shows that the
concentrations of some of the contaminants increased by several hundred percent. Since the pre- and
139
-------
post-test concentrations were in the range of a few ppm or lower, it is easy to see large percentage
increases with condensation of even small quantities of contaminants. For example, acetone, whose
concentration increased by the largest value of 1073% in the revised treatment zone, had concentrations
ha the range of .11 and .38 ppm in the pre-test samples and .12 to 30.1 ppm in the pos-test samples.
Similarly, methyl ethyl ketone, whose concentration increased by 683% had a concentration range of 0.04
to 0.11 ppm hi the pre-test samples and 0.08 to 12.7 ppm in the post-test samples.
flTRI took into account lessons learned from the Kelly demonstration and performed a subsequent
larger experiment at SNL as part of the TEVES demonstration. The TEVES demonstration heated the
entire contaminated site to avoid concerns associated with the migration of contaminants from the
unheated regions. The effluent collection wells were moved from the ground row of electrodes to excitor
electrodes to remove contaminants from the hottest regions and thus to avoid contaminant condensation.
The test site also did not have shallow ground water.
C.5 CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE PLANS
The RF heating process is currently under development for soil decontamination. The recently
t
completed field experiment at SNL is the first large-scale demonstration of the RF heating technology.
It is IITRI's opinion that additional development and demonstrations are necessary before the technology
can be considered to be commercial. 11TKI has equipment necessary to perform large-scale
demonstrations and treat soil volumes of 1,000 cu. yds. or more. A sound design for treating large
volumes of soil such as the one considered by the EPA can be developed based on the results of our field
experiments, and this task must precede any cost evaluation.
The scale-up, design, and cost estimates developed by the EPA and discussed hi this document
were developed based on an incomplete heating test and a number of assumptions, and as a result, have
a number of drawbacks.
The AC heating process has been used by DTRI and our licensees for heating oil wells for a
number of years. The AC heating process for soil decontamination is a modification of existing
technology, and has been demonstrated at SNL. nTRI is currently offering full-scale soil treatment using
the AC heating process through its wholly owned subsidiary, Technology Commercialization Corporation.
140
-------
C.6 REFERENCES
1. Dev, H., Enk, J., Sresty, G., Bridges, J. In Situ Decontamination by Radio Frequency Heating-
Field Test. nT Research Institute. Final Report C06666/C06676. Prepared for USAF, HQ
AFESC/RDV, Tyndall AFB, Fl, May 1989.
2. Dev, H., and G. Dubiel. Optimization of Radio Frequency (RF) In Situ Soil Decontamination
Process. Draft Final Report, IITRI Project No. C06691. ANL Contract No. 83482402. June
1990. '
3. Dev, H., J. Bridges, G. Sresty, J. Enk, N. Mshaiel, and M. Love. Radio Frequency Enhanced
Decontamination of Soils Contaminated with Halogenated Hydrocarbons. EPA/600-2-89/008,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1989.
4. Sresty, G.C., Dev, H., Gordon, S. M., and Chang, J. Methodology for Minimizing Emissions
by Remediation of Environmental Samples Containing Wood Preserving Chemicals, Draft Final
Report, ITT Research Institute. U.S. EPA Contract No. 69-D8-0002, Work Assignment No. 22,
IITRI Project No. C06693C022.
5. Sresty, G., Dev, H., Chang, J., and Houthoofd, J. In Situ Treatment of Soil Contaminated with
. PAHs and Phenols. Presented at and to be published in the proceedings of the International
Symposium on In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Soil and Water, Air and Waste Management
Association, February 4-6, 1992, Cincinnati, Ohio.
6. Radio Frequency soil Decontamination Demonstration Project, Site S-l, Kelly AFB, Texas.
Draft Final Report. IITRI Project No. C06781, Halliburton NUS Sub-contract No. GCKF-92-
3688-002, September 1994.
141
-------
------- |