&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/R-94/530
December 1994
SITE Program:
An Engineering
Analysis of the
Demonstration Program
SITE Demonstration Locations
70 Completed Demonstrations
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
-------
EPA/540/R-94/530
December 1994
SITE PROGRAM
AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF THE
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been prepared for Hie U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program under Contract No. 68-CO-0047. This document has been subjected
to EPA's peer and administrative reviews, and approved for publication as an EPA document Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute an endoisement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program was authorized in the 1986 Superfund Amendments
and Reaujthorization Act The SITE Program is a joint effort of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Office of Research and Development (ORD) Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), and EPA's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). The SITE Program was created to evaluate and assist the
development of innovative technologies relevant to hazardous waste problems, especially those that offer permanent
remedies'for contamination commonly found at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. The SITE Program
evaluates! innovative treatment and monitoring and measurement methods through technology demonstrations designed
to provide engineering and cost data for the selected technologies. These demonstrations occur in the SITE
Demonstration Program .and the SITE Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program, respectively.
The SITE Program has conducted more than 60 field demonstrations of innovative treatment or monitoring and
measurement technologies to date. Over 100 participants have demonstrated or iare currently demonstrating their
technologies for SITE Program evaluations. The SITE Demonstration Program provides environmental decision-
makers with data on new, viable treatment technologies that may have performance or cost advantages compared to
conventional remediation technologies. At the conclusion of each demonstration, EPA produces and distributes reports
documenting demonstration data and the potential applicability of the demonstrated technology.
This Engineering Analysis summarizes the information from all SITE Demonstration Program reports completed to
date. A limited number of copies of this report will be available at no charge from EPA's Center for Environmental
Research! Information, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, (513) 569-7562. Requests for
copies sliould include the EPA document number found on the report's cover. When this supply is exhausted,
additional copies can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, Ravensworth Building,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4600. Reference copies will be available at EPA libraries in the Hazardous
Waste Collection.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory ™
iii
-------
Abstract
This report documents an engineering analysis of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Demonstration Program performed between February 1993 and April 1994. The SITE Program evaluates new and
promising treatment and monitoring and measurement technologies for cleanup of hazardous waste sites through its
Demonstration Program and its Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program. Analyses of 36 remediation
technology demonstrations from data in published and draft SITE Demonstration Program reports are included. This
analysis also considers additional material contained in those reports, including case studies of the technologies
provided by their developers, but not evaluated by the SITE Program. Performance and cost information for
conventional remediation technologies is included for comparison.
This report is divided into ten sections. Section 1 introduces the SITE Program. Section 2 discusses the applicability
of innovative technologies to various environmental media and .hazardous waste constituents. Sections 3 through 9
compare innovative remediation technologies demonstrated in the SITE Program to conventional alternatives for the
following technology types: thermal destruction, thermal desorption, solidification/stabilization, biological treatment,
physical/chemical treatment, materials handling, and radioactive waste technologies. Section 10 discusses SITE
Program accomplishments and future challenges, and advancements needed in the hazardous waste remediation
technology market
Tables in each section compare the applications and costs of innovative and conventional technologies. The text
briefly describes each technology, available SITE Program demonstration results, and advancements in each technology
area. SITE Program reports from each technology demonstration and additional EPA reports on remediation
technology types are referenced.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Section t Page
Notice i :. ft
Foreword . .. ; iii
Abstract! . iv
Tables i . vj
Acknowledgements . viii
1.0 SITE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 1
i
1.1 SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ."...' 1
1.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES AND AUDITS '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 2
1.3 ENGINEERING SURVEY , 2
2.0 TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY TO WASTE TYPES 5
2.1 HAZARDOUS WASTE PROBLEMS AND APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES 5
t
3.0 THERMAL DESTRUCTION 7
3.1 EVALUATION OF SITE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS . I 7
3.2 THERMAL DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS 8
4.0 THERMAL DESORPTION 15
i '
4.1 EVALUATION OF SITE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS . 15
4.2 THERMAL DESORPTION TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS . '.'.'. .. '. '. 16
5.0 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION ; 21
5.1 EVALUATION OF SITE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS . 21
5,.2 SOLIDIHCATION/STABILIZA'nON TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS 22
6.0 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 31
6;.l EVALUATION OF SITE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS . 31
6.2 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS '.'.'/.'.'.'.'.'.'. 31
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
7.0 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT 37
7.1 EVALUATION OF SITE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS 37
7.2 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS 39
8.0 MATERIALS HANDLING 57
8.1 APPLICABLE SITE DEMONSTRATIONS 57
8.2 TREATMENT TRAIN AND TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS 57
9.0 RADIOACTIVE WASTE TECHNOLOGY .61
10.0 THE SITE PROGRAM-PRESENT AND FUTURE 63
10.1 SITE PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS . . 63
10.2 FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR THE SITE PROGRAM 63
10.2.1 Providing Additional Cost and Performance Data 64
10.2.2 Pinpointing Future Innovative Technology Needs 64
10.2.3 Technologies on the Horizon 64
SITE PROGRAM DOCUMENTS REFERENCED 67
TABLES
Number
Page
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES 3
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES AS
DEMONSTRATED BY THE EPA SITE PROGRAM 6
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY THERMAL DESTRUCTION 9
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY THERMAL
DESTRUCTION 12
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY THERMAL DESORPTION 17
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY THERMAL
DESORPTION -. 19
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
SOLIDMCATION/STABILIZATION
23
VI
-------
Number
5-2
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
8-1
CONTENTS (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
26
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 33
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 35
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
TREATMENT 40
i . .
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT . . 48
SFJE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS AND COST SUMMARY
MATERIALS HANDLING 59
vu
-------
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared under the direction and supervision of Mr. Donald Sanning, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Senior Scientist in the Superfund Technology Demonstration Division (STDD) of the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio. Contributors and reviewers for this report were Mr. E. Timothy
Oppelt, Mr. Robert A. Olexsey, Mr. John Martin, Ms. Annette Gatchett, and Mr. Gordon Evans of EPA RREL.
Materials for this report were provided by the EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program,
the STDD Technical Support Branch, and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Technology
Innovation Office (TIO). Three contractors support the SITE Program by developing data and preparing reports:
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIQ, Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. (FWEI), and PRC
Environmental Management, Inc. The efforts of SAIC and FWEI staff in supplying information for this document
are gratefully acknowledged.
TMs report was prepared for EPA's SITE Program by PRC Environmental Management, Inc. under Contract No. 68-
CO-0047.
viii
-------
1.0 SITE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program, was established in 1986 to encourage the
development and use of innovative treatment
technologies and innovative measurement technologies
at hazardous waste sites. The SITE Program was
established by EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of
Research^ and Development (ORD) in response to the
1986 Surierfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA),,which recognized a need for an alternative or
innovative treatment technology research and
demonstration program. While it was initiated to
serve Superfund legislation, the SITE Program provides
valuable information for use in remediating hazardous
waste sites under Superfund, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and other
cleanup legislation.
The SITE Program includes the following component
programs|:
Demonstration Program - Conducts and
evaluates demonstrations of promising
innovative treatment technologies to provide
reliable information on their performance,
cost and applicability.
Emerging Technology Program - Provides
funding to developers to continue
developmental efforts from the bench- and
pilot-scale levels to promote the full-scale
usejof innovative treatment technologies
I
Monitoring and Measurement Technologies
Program - Evaluates innovative technologies
that detect, monitor, and measure hazardous
and toxic substances to provide better, faster,
and more cost-effective methods for producing
real-time data during site characterization and
remediation
Technology Transfer Activities - Disseminates
technical information on innovative technologies to
assist in removing impediments to using these
technologies
The SITE Program is administered by ORD's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio. This document specifically evaluates
and summarizes the innovative treatment technologies
which have been demonstrated by RREL under the SITE
demonstration program. This document was prepared as an
engineering review of the technologies evaluated under
SITE since the beginning of the program. This report is
designed to be a compendium of current information on
innovative technologies and vendors for completed
demonstrations. Information was obtained from draft and
final AARs for demonslTations completed to date; from
technology vendors; and from personal communication
witii SITE project managers. Every effort was made to
update and clarify the enjjineering data associated with the
technologies.
1.1 SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
The SITE demonstration program develops reliable
engineering, performance, and cost data on innovative
treatment technologies through rigorous testing and on a
specific waste site. Data collected during a field
demonstration are used to assess the technology's potential
applicability and performance for a variety of waste and
site conditions. The SITE Program does not certify or
approve technologies for use at hazardous waste sites.
Rather, it provides detailed information to those making
decisions concerning which technologies to use on their
sites.
1
-------
For each completed SITE demonstration, EPA prepares
a report that evaluates the specific technology and
analyzes its overall applicability to the site
characteristics, waste types, and waste matrices or other
sites. These Applications Analysis Reports (AAR),
recently reformatted and renamed the Innovative
Technology Evaluation Reports (TIER), are the primary
technology transfer products of the SITE demonstration
program. Other reports, including the Technology
Evaluation Report (TER), further describe the technology
and its operating characteristics. Demonstration bulletins,
project summaries, engineering capsule reports, and
videotapes are also prepared after each demonstration.
Technologies are selected for the program primarily
through annual requests for proposals (RFP). EPA
reviews proposals to determine which innovative
technologies have promise for use at Superfund and other
sites where priority cleanup goals are not adequately
addressed with reliable and cost-effective conventional
technologies. EPA then invites selected technology
developers to participate in demonstrations, hi addition,
other technologies, primarily those used for ongoing
Superfund projects or private sector activities, may be
identified for evaluation by EPA regional offices or other
state or federal agencies.
The technology demonstration activities generally fall
into three categories: predemonstrationor planning, field
demonstration, and postdemonstration analysis and
evaluation. These activities are listed in Table 1-1 along
with responsible or participating organizations.
13. QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES
AND AUDITS
The quality assurance objective for a SITE demonstration
is to produce results that complement other data that
could be used to make decisions concerning remedial
activities. RREL Category 2 quality assurance is
typically used for SITE demonstrations. Quality is
measured by the data's precision, accuracy, completeness,
representativeness, comparability, and target reporting
limits for the analytical methods. Detailed quality
assurance project plans (QAPP) are prepared for each
demonstration to insure that
appropriate and valid data are collected to.meet
technology and site-specific project objectives.
EPA audits both the field demonstration and the
laboratory analysis to verity that:
Sampling, analytical, and quality control
procedures from the approved QAPP are
properly implemented
Modifications to the approved procedures are
appropriate to resolve problems encountered in
the field or laboratory
1.3 ENGINEERING SURVEY
Following this introductory section, the report is
organized into sections dealing with specific technology
categories: thermal destruction, thermal desorption,
solidification/stabilization, biological treatment,
physical/chemical treatment, materials handling, and
radioactive waste treatment Each section includes a
brief overview of the technology category and a set of
tables listing demonstration results and other data. Basic
information concerning the technology demonstration,
such as location, matrix, hazardous constituents tested,
and test results are presented in one table. Engineering
data concerning application, unit cost, and limiting
factors are presented in a second table for each
innovative treatment technology. A short narrative is
included to present important information on the
contribution of each demonstration to the field of
environmental treatment technologies. This document
will provide the reader with a means of matching a given
hazardous waste problem with the appropriate innovative
technology type for that waste.
-------
TABLE 1-1
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES
Predemonstration Activities
Site selection
Waste characterization
Treatability testing
Demonstration plan preparation
Site preparation
Equipment mobilization
Responsible Organizations
EPA ORD, EPA regions, state agencies, and
developer
EPA ORD, EPA regions, and state agencies
EPA ORD and developer
EPA ORD
EPA ORD
Developer
Demonstration Activities
Equipment operation
Process monitoring and measurement
Sample collection onsite
Photo documentation
Developer
EPA ORD and developer
EPA ORD
EPA ORD
-------
TABLE 1-1 (continued)
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES
Demonstration Activities
Quality assurance field audits
Visitors' Day and other community relations activities
Responsible Organizations
EPA ORD
EPA ORD, EPA regions, state and local agencies, developer,
community groups and other interested parties
Postdemonstration
Equipment demobilization
Site restoration
Laboratory analysis
Quality assurance laboratory audit
Technology performance and cost evaluation
Technology transfer (bulletins, reports, videotape, and
conferences
Developer
EPA ORD
EPA ORD
EPA ORD
EPA ORD
EPA ORD, developer
-------
2.0 TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY TO WASTE TYPES
This section provides an overview of the types of
treatment! technologies demonstrated and evaluated
under the) SITE Program, and the types of hazardous
wastes to ;which they are applicable.
The SITE Program has demonstrated 56 treatment
technologies on Superfund sites, at RCRA facilities,
and on real or simulated wastes at EPA, developer, or
other research facilities. These demonstrations provide
a collection of information on the performance of
individual technologies and on the general treatment
categories in which they fit. Furthermore, the SITE
Program encourages developers to submit the results of
other trial! or field work as case studies. By examining
this information, a larger collection of information
regarding waste applicability has been developed.
Hazardous waste problems can be categorized in many
different ways. Under Superfund, a site is generally
typified b|y the activities formerly performed there.
Under RGRA legislation, wastes are categorized by the
origins of the waste material or by the characteristics
of the waste material. Other systems (for example, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) may simply identify
the predominant contaminants and waste matrix (or
medium), j For example, it may be appropriate to
identify a hazardous waste problem simply as "cyanide
in groundwater" or "trichloroethylene (TCE) and
perchloroethylene (PCE) in subsurface soils and
groundwa|ter." Certain contaminants are frequently
grouped under a single title. For example, anthracene,
fluorene, phenanthrene, chrysene, benzo(a)pyrene, and
others are grouped as polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) or "EPA Priority PAHs." Some
contaminants may fit into more than one grouping, and
different prganizations may have different groupings
(for example, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, various
states). Similarly, hazardous wastes may appear in
several different media or matrices at a site. Terms
such as soil, sediments, and sludge may have different
meanings when used by different agencies or authors.The
SITE Program generally specifies contaminant type and
waste medium or matrix in order to facilitate
communication within any waste identification system.
2.1 HAZARDOUS WASTE PROBLEMS AND
APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES
The SITE Program has performed evaluative
demonstrations of seven types of innovative treatment
technologies designed to treat a variety of hazardous
wastes. During SITE demonstrations, all data regarding
cost and technical performance of the technology were
obtained and analyzed by EPA. The developers of these
technologies presented SITE with additional information
concerning their treatment experiences with other waste
types. Taken together, this data allows for some
conclusions to be drawn concerning various types of
innovative technologies and the hazardous waste situations
for which they may be applicable. Before planning any
full-scale remediation, it is always recommended that a
feasibility study and a treatability study be conducted in
order to verify the cost-effectiveness and implementability
of the preferred technology, and to verify that remediation
goals can be met for the site and waste type in question.
Table 2-1 shows the types of contaminants and media
examined during SITE Program demonstrations and the
technology types which were evaluated with those wastes.
This information can be used to begin identifying
appropriate treatment tecltmologies for a given hazardous
waste problem. Sections; 3 through 10 of this document
summarize specific information on the SITE demonstration
program innovative treatment technologies. Readers are
referred to the appropriate individual SITE Program reports
to further investigate the performance of a specific
technology on a given waste type.
-------
TABLE 2-1
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES
AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE EPA SITE PROGRAM
o\
Waste
VOCs
SVOCs
Halogenated
organics
PCBs
PAHs
Heavy metals
Organics
Inorganics
Lead, zinc
Pesticides
Petroleum
hydrocarbons
Radionuclides
Thermal
Destruction
S L G
D # #
D # #
D # #
D # o
# # o
D # o
D D o
D # o
D # ' o
D # #
D # .#
D o o
Thermal
Desorption
S L G
D o o
D o o
D o.o
D o o
• • o o
O 0 O
• o o
o o o
0 O 0
DO 0
0 0
o o o
Solidification/
Stabilization
S L G
D o o
#00
D o o
D o o
#00
D • o
D • o
D o o
D o o
000
D • o
o o o
Biological
Treatment
S L G
• #
0
D D o
o
D • o
0 00
0 O 0
000
D o o
D D o
o o o
Physical/
Chemical
Treatment
S L G
D D D
D D o
D D D
• - o
D D o
D DO
• Do
#00
D • o
D • o
# o
Materials
Handling
S L G
D D o
# # o
• o o
0 00
# # 0
o o o
O 0 O
o o o
o o o
# # o
# # o
O 0 0
Radioactive
Waste
Technology
S L G
O 0 0
o o o
O 0 0
o o o
o o o
0 O 0
o o o
O 0 0
o o o
O 0 0
o o o
o D o
Note: S = Solids, L = Liquids, G = Gases, D = SITE Demonstration waste, • = Data supplied by technology developer, # = No data, technology believed to succeed when performed
by experienced developers, o = No available information.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SHE) program. Technology Profiles. Sixth Edition. Office of Research
and Development. EPA/540/R-93/526. November.
-------
3.0 THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Thermal destruction technologies are classified by the
type of j combustion chamber. The common types
include: rotary kilns, multiple hearth chambers, and
fluidized beds. Innovative thermal destruction
treatment technologies focus on improving cost
effectiveness, efficiency, and environmental safety by
modifying or enhancing these proven waste treatment
systems. Also, newly developed waste vitrification
treatment systems are included in this category.
In thermal destruction systems, the contaminated
material to be processed, or waste feed, is stored or
prepared in some type of waste handling system. The
waste feed then enters a combustion chamber, where it
is oxidized and reduced to carbon dioxide, water, and
acid vapor and ash. Air pollution control equipment,
which may include afterburners, scrubbers, demisters,
baghouses, and electrostatic precipitator, capture
vapors j and particulates leaving the combustion
chamber. Residual wastes typically include slag or
bottom 'ash from the combustion chamber, fly ash, and
liquid wastes from air pollution control equipment. In
vitrification systems the waste is converted into a
glass-like material.
Additional information on thermal destruction
technologies are found in EPA's Engineering Bulletin
and Engineering Issue Paper numbers EPA/540/2-
90/014,! EPA/540/S-92/010, EPA/540/2-91/004, and
EPA/540/S-92/014.
3.1 EVALUATION OF SITE TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS
Five thermal destruction technologies have been
demonstrated under the SITE Program. A summary of
the SITE demonstrations is provided in Table 3-1, and
a summary of the technology applications and cost
information is provided in Table 3-2. Both tables
follow this sectioa Information pertaining to the results or
accomplishments of each SITE demonstration is
summarized below.
American Combustion Inc. (ACI) developed the Pyretron
Oxygen Enhanced Burner, which was demonstrated at
EPA's Combustion Research Facility hi Jefferson, Arkansas
from November 1987 to January 1988. The ACI
PYRETRON® technoloj?y controls the heat input into an
incineration process by using PYRETRON® oxygen-air-fuel
burners and controlling the level of excess oxygen
available for oxidation of hazardous waste.
Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) developed the Cyclone Furnace
Vitrification Technology, which was demonstrated in
August 1992, at B&W's Research and Development Pilot
Facility in Alliance, Ohio. B&W's cyclone furnace is
designed for the combustion of high inorganic content
(high ash) materials and has been used to vitrify wastes
containing heavy metals, organic contaminants, and
surrogate radionuclides. Surrogate radionuclides are
nonradioactive metals that behave as radionuclide species
in the cyclone furnace.
Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. (HRD),
developed me Flame Slagging Reactor, which was
demonstrated in March 1991 at HRD in Monaca,
Pennsylvania. The HRD flame reactor system is a
patented, hydrocarbon-fueled, flash-smelting system that
treats residues and wastes containing metals and produces
a nonleachable slag.
Retech, Inc., developed the Plasma Arc Centrifugal
Treatment Furnace (PACT),which was demonstrated in
June 1992 at the Department of Energy (DOE) Component
and Integration Facility in Butte, Montana. The PACT
-------
vitrification process uses heat from a transferred plasma
arc torch to create a molten bath that detoxifies the feed
material, and melting and vitrifying the solids at 2,800 to
3,000 °R
The Shirco Infrared Incineration System (now owned by
Gruppo Italimpresse and available from several U.S.
vendors) was evaluated in two SITE demonstrations.
One demonstration took place in August 1987 at the
Peak Oil Superfund Site in Brandon, Florida, and the
other demonstration took place in November 1987 at the
Demode Road Superfund Site hi Rose Township,
Michigan. Shirco's infrared thermal destruction
technology is a mobile thermal processing system that
uses electrically-powered silicon carbide rods to heat
organic wastes to combustion temperatures. Any
remaining combustibles are incinerated in an attached
afterburner.
/
3.2 THERMAL DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY
ADVANCEMENTS
The SITE demonstrations of thermal destruction
technologies have shown that thermal destruction systems
can effectively immobilize and decrease the teachability
of inorganic compounds, thus decreasing reliance on air
pollution control equipment to remove these compounds
from stack emissions. These demonstrations also have
advanced the development of both innovative destruction
and destruction support technologies. For example, prior
to participation in the SITE demonstration program,
thermal destruction technologies such as Shirco's Infrared
Incineration were considered unproven and were not used
to remediate Superfund sites. Other incineration
technologies demonstrated under the SITE Program, such
as HRD's Flame Slagging Reactor and Retech's PACT,
have expanded the range of thermal destruction to
options other than conventional, fixed facility, rotary kiln
technology.
A major drawback to thermal destruction is disposal of
residual ash, which often requires stabilization treatment
or disposal in a secured cell due to its teachability. The
Babcock & Wilcox claim, that its Cyclone Furnace
Vitrification technology immobilizes heavy metals and
radionuclides in a nonleachable slag, was verified by the
SITE Program. Similarly, Horsehead Resources
Development Company claims that the Flame Slagging
Reactor also immobilizes
metal species. Both developers, as well as Retech
(PACT) and Gruppo Italimpresse (Shirco Infrared
Incineration) also claim high destruction efficiencies for
organic compounds.
The SITE Program also has provided a forum for
advancements in thermal destruction support equipment.
American Combustion, Inc. 's PyretronOxygen Enhanced
Burner equipment is designed to enhance the destruction
efficiency of wastes. It has also been designed to
decrease air emissions as explained in SITE'S emerging
technology program for Energy and Environmental
Research Corporation's Reactor/Filter System and
General Atomies' Acoustic Barrier Paniculate Separator
(EPA 1992h).
Future thermal destruction technology advancements
may include increased transportability, greater
immobilization/encapsulation, increased throughput, and
increased destruction efficiency.
-------
TABLE 3-1
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
DEVELOPER/TECHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
American Combustion, Inc. (ACI)
PYRETRON® Oxygen Enhanced
Burner
EPA/540/A5-89/008
November 1987 to January
1988
Sludge and soil waste mixture
containing decanter tank tar sludge
from coking operations (EPA
EPA's Combustion Research hazardous waste code K087).
Facility in Jefferson, Arkansas,
Peed Soil (ppm)
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
62
15
7.6
28
8.3
14
PYRETRON® system replaces the
combustion air with oxygen. Oxygen
enhancement reduces the combustion
volume which results in increased
throughput rates and greater residence
time.
Destruction Removal Efficiencies
(ORE)
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
>99.99%
>99.99%
>99.99%
>99.99%
>99.99%
>99.99%
PYRE1RON® system achieved
DREs greater man 99.99% at feed
rates double those for
conventional incineration.
Babcock & Wflcox (B&W)
Cyclone Furnace Vitrification
Technology
EPA/540/AR-92/017
August 1992
B&W Research and
Development Pilot Facility in
Alliance, Ohio
Synthetic soil matrix (SSM) was a
well-characterized, granular material
spiked with heavy metals, SVOC and
surrogate radionuclides (SR).
Feed Soil (ppm)
Treated Soil (ppm)
DRE's for POHCs were greater
than 99.99 percent The
quantities of POHCs in the stack
gas were not measurable;
therefore, the furnace obtained
better than expected results.
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Bismuth (SR)
Strontium (SR)
Zirconium (SR)
Anthracene
Dimethyl-phthalate
Cadmium [TCLP]
Chromium (total)[TCLP]
Lead [TCLP]
1,260
4,350
6,410
4.180
3,720
4,070
4,710
8,340
49.9
2.64
973
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Bismuth (SR)
Strontium (SR)
Zirconium (SR)
Anthracene
Dimethyl-phthalate
Cadmium [TCLP]
Chromium [TCLP]
Lead [TCLP]
106
1,610
1,760
730
3,210
3,640
<0.24
<3.89
<0.12
0.22
<0.31
Simulated radionuclides were
immobilized within slag according
to standards. However, data
regarding simulated radionuclides
are suspect since the testing
method has not been well-
quantified or validated.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989a. American Combustion, Inc. PYREIRON® Destruction System. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CEPA). 1992a. Babcodc & Wilcox. Cyclone Furnace Vitrification Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. August.
-------
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
DEVELOPER/TECHNOLOGY/AAR DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
Horsehead Resource Development
Company, Inc. (HRD)
Flame Slagging Reactor
EPA/540/A5-91/005
March 1991
Monaca,
Pennsylvania
Feed Slag (ppm)
Arsenic
CfluDUUfll
Lead
Zinc
0.0515
0.0411
5.41 '
0.416
Arsenic [TCLP] tt213
Cadmium [TCLP] 12.4
Lead [TCLP] 5.58
Dried and crashed rotary kiln
secondary lead smelter (SLS) slag
transferred from the National
Smelting and Refining Company, Inc.
(NSR), Superftmd site in Atlanta,
Georgia. SLS slag from the NSR site
had a moisture content of up to 30
percent
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Treated Oxide
Slag Product
(ppm) (ppm)
0.0262 0.110
0.000373 0.128
0552 17.4
0.113 1.38
Arsenic [TCLP] 0.474
Cadmium [TCLP] <0.050
Lead [TCLP <0330
ORE: >99.99%
Flame Slagging Reactor achieved a net
weight reduction of 36.6 percent when
the waste feed was processed into oxide
product and effluent slag.
Retech, Inc.
Plasma Centrifugal Furnace (PCF)
BPA/540/A5-91/007
June 1992
Department of
Energy
non
Facility in Butte,
Montana
Test material consisted of a mixture
of metal-bearing soil and No. 2 diesel
oil The mixture was blended to
provide 10 percent by weight diesel
oil and spiked to provide 982 ppm of
zinc oxide and 972 ppm of
hexachlorobenzene.
Feed Soil (ppm)
Calcium 175
Zinc 982
Hexachlorobenzene 972
Naphthalene 0.397
2 Methyl-naphthalene 0.282
Furnace evaluated during the
demonstration test was a pilot-scale unit
designated PCF-6. The feed rate for the
PCF-6 is 120 pounds per hour (Jb/hr).
ORE:
>99.99%
Calcium [TCLP] 2.22
Zinc [TCLP] 037
Hexachlorobenzene [TCLP] Not Detected
Naphthalene [TCLP] Not Detected
2 Methyl-naphthalene [TCLP]Not Detected
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992e. Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. Flame Reactor Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development May.
EPA. 1992f. Retech. Inc. Plasma Centrifugal Furnace. Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development lone.
-------
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLQGIESJUMMARY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
DEVELOPER/TECHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Gruppo Italimpresse
Shireo Infrared Incineration System
(Shireo)
EPA/540/A5-89/010
August 1987
Peak Oil Superfund
Site in Brandon,
Honda
Test material consisted of 7,000 tons
waste oil sludge. The sludge was
mixed with sand, soil, and lime to
form a conditioned waste soil matrix.
Feed Soil (ppm)
PCB
Lead
Treated Soil (ppm)
4.63 PCB
5500 EPtox: Lead (EP tox)
TCLP Lead (TCLP)
0.423
31.250
0.013 ORE (PCB): >99.99%
November 1987
Demode Road
Superfund Site in
Rose Township,
Michigan
Test material consisted of 4,000 tons
of soil described as dry, brown,
sandy, and silty cky topsoil.
Feed Soil (ppm)
PCB
Lead (EP tox)
Lead (TCLP)
Treated Soil (ppm)
288.79 PCB
0.228 Lead (EPtox)
1.168 Lead (TCLP)
0.386
0.597
1.80 ORE (PCB): >99.99%
Shireo met the Toxic Substance
Control Act for PCB treatment
standards
Source: U.S. Enviromnenlal Protection Agency (EPA). 1989c. Shireo Infrared Systems, Inc. Shireo Infrared Incineration System. Applications Analysis Report, Office of Research and Development June.
-------
TABLE 3-2
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
American
Combustion,
Inc.
PYRETRON*
PYRETRON* is an incineration "add-on" which
enhances incineration destruction by injecting
oxygen into the combustion train, thereby
increasing throughput
Conventional comparison:
Since PYRETRON* is an incineration "add-on,"
comparison with a conventional process is not
applicable
Limiting factors include:
• Supplied oxygen
• Water
These are probably limiting factors only for
transportable incinerators.
PYRETRON* system can be less costly than conventional
systems, especially when treating waste with low heating
value, when auxiliary fuel and operating costs are relatively
high, and when oxygen costs are relatively low. Cost savings
based on the demo, are about $45/ton.
Conventional comparison:
This is a specialty application item. Cost comparisons to
conventional equipment would be based on specific
applications.
Babcock & Wilcox
(B&W)
Cyclone Furnace
Vitrification
(CFV)
CFV can be used to treat soils, sludges, liquids
and slurries contaminated with inorganics,
organics and low level radioactive solid waste or
mixed waste
Conventional comparison:
Most conventional incineration units are not
capable of burning mixed matrix streams without
modifications.
Incineration ash from conventional incineration
technologies is considered a hazardous waste.
Limiting factors include:
Electrical source
Need for natural gas
Continuous water source
Site specific air and water permits
Moisture content
Storage/disposal facilities for water and slag
Downtime needed for maintenance
Feed rate
Particle size of feed
Cost range:
$465 per ton (operating factor of 80%)
$529 per ton (operating factor of 60%)
Treating 20,000 tons of soil using the commercial cyclone
furnace system, with a capacity of 3.3 tons per hour.
Conventional comparison:
Conventional incineration costs range from $800 - $1100 per
ton for bulk soils. Liquids and slurries wfll start at $0.18 per
pound and will increase inversely with the BTU value. Costs
include transportation and disposal of residual ash.
The CFV process has more limiting factors than conventional
incineration.
Source:
US. Environmental Protection Agency CEPA). 1989a. American Combustion, Inc. PYKETRON* Destruction System. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development June.
EPA. 1992a. Babcocfc & Wilcox. Cyclone Furnace Vitrification Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development August
-------
TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY JtPPLICAnON AND COST SUMMARY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
Horsehead
Resource Development
Flame Slagging Reactor
(FSR)
The FSR is a high temperature metals recovery
process that produces potentially recyclable metal
oxide product and slag meeting RCRA TCLP
Conventional comparison:
Metals shorten the life of kiln refractory in
conventional incineration. Ash from conventional
incineration is considered hazardous waste.
Limiting factors include:
• Variability in waste feed
• Transportation of the FSR
• Cannot accept mercury contaminated wastes
• Transportation, shipping, and handling of
residuals
Cost per ton for treating secondary lead smelter waste:
$932
Conventional comparison:
Incineration cost for bulk solids will range from $800 -
$1100 per ton which includes the cost for disposal of residual
ash and landfill fees.
The FSR costs do not include transportation and disposal of
treated residues.
Retech, Inc. PCF uses heat generated from a plasma torch to treat
organic and inorganic wastes. Metal bearing solids
Plasma Centrifugal are melted and organic contaminants are thermally
Furnace (PCF) destroyed. Molten soil forms a hard glass-like
nonleachable mass on cooling.
Conventional comparison:
Conventional incineration would be used to treat this
waste and the resultant ash is considered a hazardous
waste.
Limiting factors include:
• Utility requirements
• Cooling water (350 gallons per minute)
• Capital costs of equipment
• System must be erected in enclosed facility
Cost range:
$1,816 per ton at a rate of 500 pounds/hour (Ibs/hr) and
operating factor of 70%
$757 per ton at a rate of 2,200 Ibs/hr and operating factor
of 70%
Conventional comparison:
Incineration cost for bulk solids will range from $800 -
$1100 per ton which includes the cost for disposal of residual
ash and landfill taxes.
The PCF costs do not include transportation and disposal of
treated residues.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992e. Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. Flame Reactor Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. May.
EPA. 19921. Retech. Inc. Plasma Centrifugal Furnace. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. June.
-------
TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
Shirco Infrared
v Incineration (SII)
Conventional comparison:
The Shirco system can take a wider range of solid
waste and oily sludges containing PCBs.
' Conventional incinerators must have special
permits to bum PCB material Ash from
conventional incinerators is considered a
hazardous waste.
Continuous water source
Site-specific air and water permits
Moisture content and particle size of the feed
Suitable storage and disposal facilities for
wastewater and ash
Downtime needed for maintenance
Feed rate
Presently unavailable in U.S.
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
Gruppo
Italimpresse
Shirco system can process solid waste or semi-
solid, oily sludges with minimum particle size of 5
microns to 2 inches in diameter.
Limiting factors include:
• Powerful electric source
• Natural gas
Cost range per cubic yard:
S182 to $241
Based on an operating time of 50-75%
Conventional comparison:
Conventional incineration of PCB contaminated
sludges cost from $0.60 - $1.40 per pound. A high
BTU value of the sludge will lower the cost This
includes disposal of any residual ash.
The SII costs do not include transportation and
disposal of treated residues.
Source:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989c. Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.. Shirco Infrared Incineration System. Applications Analysis Report Office of Research said Development June.
-------
4.0 THERMAL DESORPTION
Thermal, desorption processes involve heating soil
contaminated with volatile.organic compounds VOC
and SVCfCs, to volatilize the contaminants. Heating is
accomplished in a direct or indirectly heated reactor.
The contaminants are then removed from an off-gas
stream. 'The desorbed organic contaminants can be
recovered and handled separately, destroyed in an
afterburner, or destroyed via thermal or catalytic
oxidation.
i .
Thermal desorption provides an alternative to thermal
destruction and differs from thermal destruction in
several ways. First, treatment temperatures for
desorption systems are below the temperatures typically
used for thermal destruction. Thermal desorption
requires heating contaminated soil to 200 to 500 °C
instead of the 1,000 to 1,200 °C normally associated
with thermal destruction. Second, the thermal
desorption process removes rather than destroys
volatile organic contaminants. Third, treated soil is not
transformed to ash, thus providing a potentially more
desirable; fill material. Finally, thermal desorption
systems t generally do not have a problem with
transformation by-products, such as dioxins, and with
products iof incomplete combustion.
In thermal desorption systems, contaminated soils and
clean gas are fed to the desorption unit. Typically, the
desorptipn unit consists of a rotary dryer or heated
screw conveyor. Both direct and indirectly heated
systems |are available. Sweep gases that remove
contaminants from the soil are captured and treated.
Gas treatment systems vary among thermal desorption
systems based on type of sweep gas (typically air or
nitrogen), type of contaminants, and degree of potential
product recovery. Additional information on thermal
desorptiojn technologies is found in EPA's Engineering
Bulletin EPA/540/5-94/501.
4.1 EVALUATION OF SITE TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS
The SITE demonstrations provide evidence that thermal
desorption is a viable, cost effective alternative to thermal
destruction. SITE demonstrations also provide evidence of
the technology's ability to remove contaminants from soils,
sediments, and sludges contaminated with a wide variety of
organic contaminants, vsfhile having low air emissions.
These organic contaminants include the following: VOCs,
SVOCs, including PCBs, and some PAHs. Thermal
desorption has proven most effective at treating VOCs.
Four thermal desorption innovative treatment technologies
have been demonstrated in the SITE Program. A summary
of the SITE demonstration technologies is provided in
Table 4-1, and a summary of the technology applications
and cost information is provided in Table 4-2. Both tables
follow this section. Information regarding the results or
accomplishments of each SITE demonstration is
summarized below.
Canonie Environmental Services Corporation (Canonic)
developed the Low Temperature Thermal Aeration
(LTTA®) technology, LTTA is a low-temperature
desorption process. It reinoves organic contaminants from
contaminated soils into a contained air stream, which is
extensively treated to either collect the contaminants or
thermally destroy them. LTTA was evaluated through a
SITE demonstration at an abandoned pesticide mixing
facility in central Arizona in September 1992.
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc. (SoilTech), developed the
Anaerobic Thermal Processor (ATP). Contaminated soils,
sludges, and liquids are heated and mixed in a special,
rotary in directly-fired rotary kiln. The unit desorbs,
collects, and recondenses hydrocarbons and other pollutants
found in contaminated materials. The ATP was evaluated
through two SITE demonstrations at (1) the
15
-------
Wide Beach Development (WBD) site in Brant, New
York, in May 1991 and (2) the Outboard Marine
Corporation (OMQ Superfund site in Waukegan,
Illinois,in June 1992.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Weston), developed the Low
Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3®) system, which
thermally desorbs organic compounds from contaminated
soil without heating the soil to combustion temperatures.
LT3® was evaluated in a SITE demonstration in
November and December 1991, at the Anderson
Development company (ADQ Superfund site in Adrian,
Michigan.
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM), developed
the X*TRAX™ Model 200 Thermal Desorption System
(X*TRAX™), which removes organic contaminants as a
condensed liquid, characterized by a high heat rating,
which may then be either destroyed in a permitted
incinerator or used as a supplemental fuel. Because of
low operating temperatures (200 to 900 degrees
Fahrenheit) and gas flow rates, this process is less
expensive than incinerators. X*TRAX™ was
demonstrated at the Re-Solve Superfund site in Norm
Dartmouth, Massachusetts, in May 1992.
4.2 THERMAL DESORPTION TECHNOLOGY
ADVANCEMENTS
The SITE demonstrations in this treatment have
established thermal desorption as a viable technology for
treating both volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds, including PCBs, PAHs, and pesticides.
Concerns regarding dioxin and furan formation have been
addressed. Results indicate that formation of these
compounds can be controlled through proper waste
characterization pretreatment, and process operation. A
significant advancement that SITE has proven to be
successful, is the combination of thermal desorption with
chemical dechlorination technologies.
16
-------
TABLE 4-1
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGrES^SUMMARY _.
THERMAL DESORPTION
DEVELOPER/TECHNOLOGY/AAR DATE/SITE
Canonie Environmental Services September 1992
Corporation
Abandoned pesticide mixing
Low Temperature Thermal Treatment facility in central Arizona
Aeration (LTTA®) Technology
EPA AAR in preparation
gMjk
-J
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc. (SoilTech) May 1991
Anaerobic Thermal Processor (ATP) Wide Beach Development
(WBD) site,
EPA AAR in preparation Brant, New York
June 1992
Outboard Marine
Corporation (OMC)
Waukegan Harbor Superfund
site in Waukegan, Illinois
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
1,180 tons of sandy soil with
low moisture content
Feed Soil (ppm)
4,4'-DDD1.89
4,4'-DDE 6.98
4,4'-DDT 18.70
Dieldrin 0.783
Endosulfan I 0.850
Endosulfan II 0.408
Endrin 0.526
Endrin Aldehyde 0.170
Toxaphene 21.70
104 tons of soil contaminated
withPCBs
DEMONSTRATION
RESULTS
Treated Soil (ppm)
4,4'-DDD0.0004
4,4'-DDE 0.683
4,4'-DDT 0.001
Dieldrin 0.0005
Endosulfan I 0.0004
Endosulfan II 0.001
Endrin 0.0004
Endrin Aldehyde 0.003
Toxaphene 0.020
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Removal Efficiencies (RE) for Pesticides:
Toxaphene and
4,4'-dicWorodiphenyl-dichloroethane
(ODD)
4,4'-dicUorodiphenyl-trichloroethane
(DDT) 99.75
1,1-dicbloro-
2,2 bis(p-chlorophenol)ethylene
>99.99%
-> 99.99%
(DDE) 82.37 - 97.75%
Average RE for PCBs:
99.85%
Stack Emissions: 23.1 micrograms of particulaies
Feed Soil (ppm)
PCB 28.2
-- •
253 tons of soils and sediments,
primarily harbor sand and
sandy soil, contaminated with
PCBs
Feed Soil (ppm)
PCB 9,761
Treated Soil (ppm)
PCB 0.043
Treated Soil (ppm)
PCB 2
per dry standard cubic meter (ug/dscm)
Destruction Removal Efficiency
(ORE) for Stack Gas: 99.807%
Average RE for PCBs:
Stack Emissions: . 0.837 milligrams of
particulates/dscm
DRE for Stack Gas: 99.999988%
99.98%
Source: EPA 1993b. Canonie Environmental Services Corporation. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment Aeration (LTTA®) Technology. Draft Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. January.
EPA 1993k. Soiltech ATP Systems, Inc. Anaerobic Thermal Processor. Draft Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. March. .
-------
TABLE 4-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
THERMAL DESORPTION
DEVELOPER/TECBNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
MATRDOHAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION
RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
oo
Roy F. Weston, lac. (Weston)
Low Temperature Thermal Treatment
(LT3) System
EPA AAR in preparation
November-December 1991
Anderson Development
Company (ADC) Superfnnd
site in Adrian, Michigan
80 tons of chemical treatment
sludge, dewatered by filter
press with addition of lime and
ferric chloride
Feed Soil (ppm)
REforVOCs: 96 to > 99%
REforSVOCs: 57 to 99%
RE for MBOCAi 79.8 to 99.3%
Treated Soil (ppm)
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
X*TRAX™ Model 200 Thermal
Desorption System (X*TRAX™)
EPA AAR in preparation
In-Situ Steam/Hot Air Stripping
Technology (m-Sitn Stripper)
EPA/540/A5-9Q/008
May 1992
Re-Solve Superfund Site hi
North Dartmouth,
Massachusetts
May 1992
GATX Annex Terminal site
in San Pedro, California
Toluene 1,000 - 25,000
PCE 690 - 1,900
4,4'-Methylenbis
(2-chloroaniline)
(MBOCA) 43.6 - 860
Methyl
phenol 3,100 - 20,000
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 1,100 - 7,900
1,2-Dichloro
benzene 1,400 - 110,000
Phenol 470 - 4,200
215 tons of granular and sandy
soils and sediment
contaminated with PCBs.
Feed Soil (ppm)
PCB 247
65 yd3 of material was treated.
Feed Soil (ppm)
VOC 473
SVOC 902
Toluene
PCE
4,4'-Methylenbis
(2-chloroaniline)
(MBOCA)
Methyl
phenol
Bix(2-ethy]hexyl)
phthalate
1,2-Dichloro
benzene
Phenol
Treated Soil (ppm)
PCB
Treated Soil (ppm)
VOC
SVOC
<0.03
<0.03
'3-9.6
0.54 - 4
<0.82
<0.82
1.3 - 7.8
i
0.13
71
409
Phenol concentration increased due to chemical transformation
of 1,2-dichlorobenzene. Also, under certain combustion
conditions the by-products dibenzo(p)dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans can be found.
RE for PCBs:
REforVOCs:
REforSVOCs:
99.95%
85%
55%
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992L Roy F. Weston, Inc. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT") System. Draft Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993d. Chemical Waste Management, be. X*TRAXIU Model 200 Thermal Desorption System. Draft Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development September.
-------
TABLE 4-2
SITE pEMONSTj^TIONJtECHNOLQGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
THERMAL DESORPTION
TECHNOLOGY
Canonic
Environmental
Services
Corporation
Low Thermal
Treatment
Aeration
(LTTA)
APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIT A is designed to desorb hazardous organic
constituents at low temperatures (300°F to
800°F), into an enclosed air stream. LTTA has a
rotary drum designed for high throughput rates.
LTTA has achieved pesticide removal
efficiencies ranging from 82.4 to greater than
99.9 percent
LIMITING FACTORS
Limiting factors include:
• Utility costs
• Carbon replacement and disposal
• Wastewater discharge
• Treated soil disposal
Feed material should be:
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
Cost per ton:
$207
$144
$133
Based on the cost to process
Average processing Rate
(tons/hour):
20
35
50
10,000 tons of soil
Conventional comparison:
Conventional incineration:
• More costly than LTTA
• Produces potentially hazardous ash
• Lower throughput rate
Less than 2 inches
Less than 20 percent moisture
Conventional comparison:
Cost of conventional incineration will range from $800 to
$1100 per ton which includes the transportation and
disposal of any hazardous residual ash.
SoilTech ATP
Systems, Inc.
Anaerobic
Thermal
Processor (ATP)
Thermally desorbs and removes PCBs and other Limiting factors include:
organic contaminants from soil and sediment
Designed for high throughput rates and well
suited for oily wastes. High potential for ATP
as treatment technology for PCBs or other
chlorinated organics.
Conventional comparison:
Conventional incinerators require special permits
for the destruction of PCBs. As a specialized
technology, ATP may qualify for a technology
permit to destroy PCBs, therefore making it
amenable to a transportable incineration
application.
• Electricity
• Need for natural gas or equivalent
• Cooling and fire water
• Compressed Nitrogen
• Moisture content of feed should be less than
20 percent
Cost range:
$155 to $265 per ton (excluding fixed costs) •
$264 to $298 per ton (including fixed costs)
Conventional comparison:
Costs of conventional incineration of PCB contaminated
soils or other solids range from $1200 to $2800 per ton
which includes transportation and disposal of any residual
hazardous ash.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993c. Canonie Environmental Services Corporation. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment Aeration (LTTA®) Technology. Draft Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research,
and Development January.
EPA. 1993. SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc. Anaerobic Thermal Processor. Draft Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development. March.
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
THERMAL DESORPTION
TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
Roy F. Weston The LT3 System has thermal screw conveyors
with circulating heating oil designed to beat
LT5 System sludges and soils with a widely varying moisture
content The Applications Analysis Report has
shown that the system can remove most volatile
organic compounds to below 60 micrograms per
kilogram (jig/kg).
Conventional comparison:
Since LT3 is a nondestructive thermal desorption
technique no direct comparison exist to
conventional thermal destruction.
Limiting factors include:
• Dust handling
• Off-site disposal of desorbed organics
• Carbon replacement and disposal
• Off-site soE disposal (if necessary)
Feed material with soil moisture contents greater than 75
percent may require dewatering prior to treatment
Percent moisture content:
20
45
75
Cost per ton:
$373
$537
$725
Process Rate: 2.1 tons per hoar
Conventional comparison:
Costs for conventional incineration range from $800 to
$1100 per ton and includes the cost of transportation and
disposal of residual hazardous residue.
The LT3 System costs do not include transportation and
disposal of treated residues.
Chemical Waste
X*TRAX
The X*TRAX System processes a wide variety
of solids with moisture content of less than 50
percent
Conventional comparison:
Since X*TRAX is a nondestructive thermal
desorption technique no direct comparison can
be made with conventional thermal destruction.
Limiting factors include:
• Feed size less than 1.0 inch
• Soil feed rate
• High maintenance
• Limited contaminant application
• May require regulatory permit
• Treated material may require further treatment
• Soil moisture content
• Off-site disposal of desorbed contaminants
Cost range:
$281 per ton (based on 10,000 tons)
$166 per ton (based on 35,000 tons)
$137 per ton (based on 100,000 tons)
Process Rate: 4.9 tons per hr
Conventional comparison:
Costs for conventional incineration range from $800 to
$1100 per ton and includes transportation and disposal of
residual hazardous residue.
The XTRAX™ costs do not include transportation and
disposal of treated residues.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992b. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT5*) System. Draft Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development December.
BPA. 1993e. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. X^TRAX™ Model 200 Thermal Desorption System. Draft Applications Analysis Report, Office o£ Research and Development. September.
-------
5.0 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
Solidification/stabilization (S/S) treatment technologies
have been used to chemically fix and immobilize heavy
metals and organic compounds in contaminated
matrices^. These technologies (1) reduce transfer or
loss ofi hazardous constituents, (2) improve the
handling characteristics of a waste and (3) reduce the
cost of treatment and disposal by providing on-site
treatment and disposal. EPA Superfund guidelines
place S/S technologies in the broader immobilization
technology category.
Under the SITE Program, solidification is defined as
the process that converts contaminated soil, solid,
sludge and liquid waste into easily handled waste
materials for disposal. S/S treatment technologies can
be used) following biological, physical/chemical, and
thermal! treatment to further immobilize wastes.
Additional information on S/S treatment technologies
is found hi EPA's Engineering Bulletin number
EPA/540/S-92/015.
5.1 EVALUATION OF SITE TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS
I
Five S/S innovative treatment technologies have been
demonstrated under the SITE Program.
Demonstrations have indicated that S/S is a potentially
viable, cost effective alternative to more expensive
technologies such as incineration. SITE
demonstrations have provided evidence of the
technology's ability to immobilize contaminants,
especially metals, from soils, sediments, and sludges
while avoiding large-scale excavation and treatment
Both tables follow this section. Table 5-1 summarizes
the completed SITE demonstrations, and Table 5-2
summarizes the SITE demonstration costs and S/S
technology information.
Chemfix Technologies, Inc. (Chemfix) developed the
Chemfix Process®, which was demonstrated in March
1989, at the Portable Equipment Salvage Company site in
Clackamas County, Oregon. The Chemfix Process® uses
pozzolanic materials, which react with polyvalent metal
ions and other waste components to produce a chemically
and physically stable solid material.
Funderburk and Associates, Inc. (Formerly Em Tech, Inc.
and Hazcon, Inc.) developed the former HAZCON
immobilization process, which was demonstrated in
October 1987, at the Douglasville Disposal, Inc. Superfund
site at Douglasville, Pennsylvania. The former HAZCON
process, now the Funderburk process, uses cement, water,
and one of 18 patented immobilization reagents commonly
known as "Chloranan" to immobilize and stabilize heavy
metals and organic contaminants hi hazardous wastes.
IWT and Geo-Con, Inc. (IWT/Geo-Con) are separate
companies that afffliafejd for this SITE demonstration.
IWT/Geo-Cpn developed this in situ S/S process, which
was demonstrated in April 1988 at General Electric
Company's electric service shop hi Hialeah, Florida.
IWT/Geo-Con's S/S process immobilizes organic and
inorganic contaminants in wet or dry soil using reagents
and additives to produce a cement-like mass.
Silicate Technology Corporation (STC) developed the
SOILSORB S/S treatment reagents, which was
demonstrated in November 1990 at the Selma Pressure
Treating site in Selma, California. The SOILSORB HC
process for treatment of organic compounds oxidizes or
dechlorinates selected organic contaminants by more than
95 percent. The SOILSORB HM process chemically
fixates/stabilizes inorganic contaminants by forming
insoluble chemical compounds, thus reducing the
teachability of inorganic contaminated soils and sludges.
Both SOILSORB processes can be combined to treat and
immobilize wastes which contain both inorganic and
organic contaminants.
21
-------
Soliditech, Inc. developed the Urrichem S/S process,
which was demonstrated in December 1988 at Imperial
Oil Company/Champion Chemical Company Superfund
site in Morganville, New Jersey. The Soliditech process
uses Urrichem, a proprietary reagent, water, proprietary
additives, and pozzolanic materials, which are blended in
a mixer and then are solidified forming a concrete-like,
leach-resistant matrix.
S3, SOLIDmCATION/STABILIZATION
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS
Over the last five years, a variety of proprietary S/S
additives and reagents have been demonstrated under the
SITE Program. By demonstrating S/S additives and
reagents, EPA has developed data to (1) provide
guidelines on the cost effectiveness of treatment
technologies comparing conventional versus innovative
S/S technologies, (2) evaluate the performance of various
fixative materials available for treatment, (3) address the
potential physical handling problems and techniques of
using S/S technologies, (4) address the long-term stability
and effectiveness of S/S on inorganic and organic
contaminated wastes, and (5) demonstrate that S/S
treatment technologies are cost effective when treating
inorganic contaminated wastes.
A related advancement in S/S technology is the
development of various analytical procedures for
solidified wastes. SITE evaluations generally require
feasibility studies, bench-scale screening, and pilot-scale
demonstrations to evaluate the performance of individual
S/S technologies. These evaluations have assisted with
the development of the following EPA protocol
documents:
Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and
RCRA Wastes. Physical Tests, Chemical Testing
Procedures, Technology Screening, and Field
Activities (EPA 1989)
Technical Resource Document,
Solidification/Stabilization and its Application to
Waste Materials (EPA 1993)
22
-------
DEVELOPER/
TECHNOLOGY/
AAR
Chemfix
Technologies, Inc.
(Chemfix)
Chemfix Process®
uses CHEMSET®
C-220 family of
polysilicates and
CHEMSET® family
of dry calcium-
containing reagents
EPA/540/A5-89/011
to
w
Funderburk and
Associates (Formerly
Em Tech, Inc., and
Hazcon, Inc.
HAZCON process
using Chloranan and
other pozzolanic
materials
EPA/540/A5-89/001
DATE/SITE
March 1989
Portable
Equipment
Salvage
Company site,
Clackamas
County, Oregon
October 1987
Douglasville
Disposal, Inc.
Superfund site
at Douglasville,
Pennsylvania
SITE DEMONSTRA
SOLIDIFI
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
TABLE 5-1
3ION TECHNC
CATION/STAB:
Feed Soil (ppm)
Copper 18,000 to 74,000
Lead 11,000 to 140,000
Zinc "*• 1,800 to 8,000
Copper [TCLP] 12 to 120
Lead [TCLP] 390 to 880
Zinc [TCLP] 16 to 71
Unspecified soils and sludges with about 30 percent moisture and less
than 30 percent organic content
Sandy, clay and loam soils containing 1 to 25 percent oil and grease,
0.3 to 2.3 percent heavy metals (primarily lead), and greater than 500
ppmSVOCs
Feed Soil (ppm)
LGN PCS LF PFA LGS
Chromium 19 31 46 95 750
Lead 9250 22,600 13,670 7,930 14,830
Zinc 150 655 735 1,600 5,800
Chromium [TCLP]<0.008 0.270 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008
Lead [TCLP] 31.8 17.9 27.7 22.4 52.6
Zinc [TCLP] . 1.1 23.0 6.7 1.4 4.8
LGN = Lagoon North, FCS = Filter Cake Sludge Area,
LF = Landfaim area, PFA = Processing Facility Area,
LGS = Lagoon South
MLOGIES SUMMARY
DLIZATION
,,
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
Treated Soil (ppm)
Copper 18,000 to 74,000
Lead 11,000 to 140,000
Zinc 1,800 to 8,000
Copper [TCLP] 12 to 120
Lead [TCLP] 390 to 880
Zinc [TCLP] 16 to 71
The Chemfix Process did not reduce or effectively treat VOCs, SVOCs,
oil and grease, or PCBs.
Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) results exceeded EPA
solidification guidelines of 50 (psi). Permeability was not conducted
during this demonstration.
Wet/dry and freeze/thaw weathering tests: Less than one percent weight
loss
Waste volume: Increased by 20 to 50 percent with the addition of
Chemfix reagents
Treated Soil (ppm)
LGN PCS LF PFA LGS
Chromium NR NR NR NR MR
Lead 2,800 10,300 1,860 3,280 3,200
Zine NR NR NR NR NR
Chromium [TCLP]<0.007 0.020 <0.007 <0.007 <0.008
Lead [TCLP] <0.002 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.14
Zinc [TCLP] <0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04
VOCs and PAHs were not effectively immobilized. UCSs of the
treated waste ranged from 220 psi for the FCS and 1,750 psi for the
PFA. All UCS results met EPA solidification guidance of 50 psi.
Weathering tests were satisfactory. The 28 day permeability test had
results which ranged from 8.4 x lO'8 to 5.0 x 10* centimeters/second.
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES
Removal
efficiencies were
not determined
for this
demonstration.
Removal
efficiencies were
not determined
for this
demonstration.
Solidification/Stabilization Process. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989b. Hazcon, Sic. HAZCON Solidification Process, Douglasville, Pennsylvania. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. May.
-------
TABLE 54 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
DEVELOPER/
TECHNOLOGY/
AAR
International Waste
Technologies Corp.
(IWT)/Geo-Con, Inc.
(Geo-Con)
IWT* HWT-20
chemical was used in
the S/S process
EPA/540/A5-89/004
i
Silicate Technology
Coiporation (STC)
SOiLSORB proprietary
reagents (P-4 and P-27)
used in S/S process
EPA/540/AR-92/010
DATE/SITE
April 1988
General Electric
Company electric
service shop in
Hialeah, Florida
November 1990
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
Sandy soil containing porous coral-
like limestone
Feed Soil (ppm)
PCB
Copper
Lead
Zinc
VOCs
PCB [TCLP]
Copper [TCLP]
Lead [TCLP]
Zinc [TCLP]
VOCs [TCLP]
Coarse to very-fine,
<1 - 650
59 - 910
280 - 2,500
190 - 1,000
189 - 1,485
<0.0001-0.4
0.02 - 0.24
0.05-0.20
0.29 - 2.2
2.49 - 4.42
sandy soil
Treated Soil (ppm)
PCB <1 - 170
Copper 6 - 39
Lead 11-140
Zinc 17 - 80
VOCs 24 - 41.3
PCB [TCLP] <0.2 - <1.0
Copper [TCLP] 0.04-0.06
LeadlTCLP] ' 0.03-0.1
Zinc [TCLP] • 0.03-0.1
VOCs [TCLP] , <0.013- 0.604
Wei/dry weathering tests: Less than OS percent weight loss.
Freeze/thaw weathering tests: 3.0 and 30.7 percent weight loss.
Waste volume: Increased by 8.5 percent with file addition of HWT-20.
Permeability tests: Untreated soil 1.8 x Iff* cm/sec; treated soil
4.2 x lO'7 cm/sec.
Treated Soil (ppm)
containing oil and grease (up to
Selma Pressure
Treating Site in
Selma, California
-
20,000 ppm)
Feed Soil (ppm)
PCP
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
PCP [TCLP]
Arsenic [TCLP]
Chromium [TCLP]
Copper [TCLP]
2,000 to 8,300
270 to 2,200
340 to 2,100
330 to 1,300
1.5 TO 23
1.1 to 3.3
<0.025 to 0.27
1.4 to 9.4
PCP 80 to 170
Arsenic 200 to 1,600
Chromium 270 to 1,300
Copper 210 to 780
PCP [TCLP] <0.25 to 5.5
Arsenic [TCLP] 0.09 to 0.88
Chromium [TCLP] 0.19 to 032
Copper ITCLP] 0.06 to 0.10
Long-term results indicate mat the 18-month cured samples showed
improvement over the 6-month cured samples. UCS treated results
ranged from 259 to 347 psi, which exceeded EPA solidifcatioa
guidelines of 50 psi.
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Percent
Reduction
PCB 0%to30%
Copper 0% to 75%
Lead 0% to 65%
Zinc 67% to 98%
VOCs 87% to 99%
PCBs appear to be immobilized; however me
analytical results for untreated soil were low
and close to PCS analytical detection limits.
Immobilization of VOCs and SVOCs may
occur, however insufficient data exist to
confirm th«t isnuObwizcuCn will occur.
UCS results ranged from 75 to 579 psi, which
exceeds the EPA solidification guidelines of 50
psi.
Percent
Reduction
Arsenic 35% to 92%
Copper 90% to 99%
PCP and chromium percent reductions were not
determined. Wet/dry and freeze/maw
weathering tests: Less man 0.1 percent weight
loss. Waste volume: Increased by 59 to 75
percent with the addition of SOILSORB.
Permeability tests: untreated waste not tested;
treated waste ranged from 0.8 x 10* cm/s.
Source: EPA 1990b. International Waste Technologies Corp./Geo-Con, Inc. In-Situ Stabilization/Solidification. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. August.
EPA 1992g. Silicate Technology Corporation. Solidification/Stabilisation Technology for Organic and Inorganic Contaminants in Soils. Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development December.
-------
TABLE 5-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
i
DEVELOPER/
TECHNOLOGY/
AAR DATE/SITE
Soliditech, Inc. December 1988
Urrichem, Portland cement Imperial Oil
and proprietary additives Company/
Champion
EPA/540/A5-89/005 Chemical
Company
Superfund Site
; in Morganville,
New Jersey
to
Ul
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENT
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
Soil, waste filter cake material from a site waste pile,
and oily sludge, contaminated with low levels of
various heavy metals and oil and grease
Feed Soil (ppm)
Arsenic
Cadmium '
Lead
Zinc
Arsenic [TCLP]
Treated Soil (oom)
US
94
1.5
650
120
0.1.9
WFC
26
0.37
2,200 2
26
0.0050
Cadmium [TCLP] < 0.0050 0.0052
Lead [TCLP]
Zinc [TCLP]
0.46
0.63
4.3-
0.28
OS
14
1.0
,500
150
0.014
0.0043
5.4
. 1.3
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Arsenic [TCLP]
US
92
0.70
480
95
0.017
. Cadmium [TCLP] < 0.0050
Lead [TCLP]
Zinc [TCLP]
< 0.0050
<0.02
WFC
28
0.50
680
23
< 0.0020
< 0.0050
<0.20
<0.02
OS
40
1.0
850
54
< 0.0020
< 0.0050
<0.050
<0.02
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Percent
Reduction
Arsenic 60% to 90%
Cadmium 0% to 4%
Lead 95% to 99%
Zinc 93% to 96%
Waste material containing up to 17 percent oil and grease and 58 percent
water were successfully immobilized: VOCs and SVOCs were low or not
detected in untreated soil samples.
UCS of treated waste samples ranged from 390 to 860 psi which exceeds
EPA solidification guidelines of 50 psi.
Wet/dry and freeze/thaw weathering tests: Less than 1.0 percent weight loss
Waste volume: Ranged from 0 to 59 percent increase with the addition of
Urrichem
Permeability tests: Untreated waste not tested; treated waste ranged from 4.5
x 10'7 to 8.9 x 10-' cm/s
Source:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990c. Soliditech, Inc. Solidification/Stabilization Process. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. September.
-------
TABLE 5-2
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
TECHNOLOGY
APPUCA-nON/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
Chemfix Solidification/stabilization (S/S) of heavy metals
Technologies, Lie. and organic contaminants in various types of
soils, and inorganics and nonvolatile organic
Chemfix process catbon in organic waste.
Conventional comparison:
Conventional stabilization agents such as cement
kiln flue (CKF) dust are excellent for treatment
of soils with metals and low organic content
Limiting factors include:
• Particle size less than 1 inch
• Organic levels above 25% may interfere with
the S/S process
Cost per cubic yard:
$54
Conventional comparison:
Average processing Rate
(cubic yards per day):
118
CKF costs $10 per ton of CKF plus the transportation cost
The amount of sofl treated by CKF is dependent upon the
organic and inorganic concentrations present CKF is usually
available within a 150 to 250 mfle radius of most potential
treatment sites and transportation costs will range from $18 -
$20 per ton. A minimum tonnage charge is required for
transportation. Not all CKF suppliers keep a large supply on
hand.
10
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). l991c. Chemfix Technologies, Inc. Solidification/Stabilization Process. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research end Development Miy.
-------
TABLE 5-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPIICATTpN AND COST SUMMARY
SOLroiliCATiON/StABILIZATlbN
TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
to
Funderbuik &
Associates
(formerly Em
Tech, lac., and
HAZCON.foc.)
HAZCON process
Designed to stabilize organic contaminants (oil,
grease, and chlorinated organics) and heavy
metals in solids and sludges. Process can also
be applied to underwater sediments because the
reagents are formulated to be hydrophobia
Conventional comparison:
CKF dust is excellent for treatment of metals but
the efficiency decreases as organic content
increases. Since Hazcon process is hydrophobic
it may have applications beyond conventional
fixation agents.
Limiting factors include:
• Low moisture material may require the
addition of water, thus increasing the volume of S/S
waste treated.
• Cold weather (below 40 °F) may affect the
hydration reactions, which can add significant
amounts of time to a S/S project
Cost range per cubic yard (yd3):
1987: $63 to $137
Based on a total of 23,290 yds3 treated with an average
bulk density of 1.8 grams per cubic centimeter.
1993: $200
Average ex situ S/S throughput is about 100 yds3 per hour.
Conventional comparison:
CKF costs $10 per ton of CKF pins the transportation cost
The amount of soil treated by CKF is dependent upon the
organic and inorganic concentrations present CKF is
usually available within a 150 to 250 mile radius of most
potential treatment sites and transportation costs will range
from $18 - $20 per ton. A minimum tonnage charge is
required for transportation. Not all CKF suppliers keep a
large supply on hand.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989b. Hazcon, foe. HAZCON Solidification Process, Douglasville, Pennsylvania. Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development May.
-------
TABLE 5-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION/CONVBNTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
International In Situ solidification/stabilization of heavy
Waste metals and organic contaminants in soil wastes
Technologies and sludges. Product possibly combines
Corporation physical/chemical immobilization with chemical
(IWT)/Geo-Con, destruction.
Inc. (Geo-Con)
Conventional comparison;
IWT's HWT-20 CKF dust works best on stabilizing soils with
« metals, but decreases in efficiency as organic
content increases. The heat of formation of CKF
does not cause chemical destruction.
to
oo
Limiting factors include:
• Maximum depth of the auger is 150 feet
below ground surface
• Soil debris can hinder progress of auger
• Slurry can freeze
• Alignment of system hindered by uneven land
contours or obstacles
Cost per cubic yard (yd3):
1993: $41
Processing rate (yds* per hoar):
Ex situ 40 - 225
In situ 100 - 140
Assume a 15% addition rate of 188 pounds of reagent per cubic
yard of soil
1988: $70-$121
Total of 24,000 yds3 treated; assumes waste has an average bulk
density of 1.9 g/cm3.
Conventional comparison:
CKF costs $10 per ton of CKF phis the transportation cost The
amount of soil treated by CKF is dependent upon the organic and
inorganic concentrations present CKF is available within a 150 to
250 mile radius of most potential treatment sites and transportation
costs will range from $18 to $20 per ton. A minimum tonnage
charge is required for transportation. Not all CKF suppliers keep a
large supply on hand.
Source: EPA. 1990b. International Waste Technologies Corp./Geo-Con, Inc. In Shu StabUization/SoHdificatioa. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research sad Development. August.
-------
TABLE 5-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
SOLTODICATION/STABILIZATION
TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
N>
Silicate Solidification/stabilization of organic and
Technology inorganic contaminants in various types of soils,
Corporation (STQ wastes and sludges.
SOILSORB
Conventional comparison:
CKF dust works best on stabilizing soils with
metals, but decreases in efficiency as organic
content increases..
Limiting factors include:
• Not effective for wastewater contaminated with low
molecular-weight organic contaminants (alcohols,
ketones, and glycols).
• Organic contaminant concentration
Cost range per cubic yard (yds3)
$90 - $330
Amount treated (yds3)
15,000
Throughput of raw waste is based on two sizes of mixers (5 and
IS yds3) and two different mixing times (0.5 hourQu) and 1.0
nr). Using a 15-yd3 mixer with a mixing time of 0.5 hr, the ex-
sita SIS throughput rate was 1,200 yds3 per week.
Conventional comparison:
CKF costs $10 per ton of CKF plus the transportation cost The
amount of soil treated by CKF is dependent upon the organic and
inorganic concentrations present CKF is usually available within
a 150 to 250 mile radius of most potential treatment sites and
transportation costs will range from $18 to $20 per ton. A
minimum tonnage charge is required for transportation. Not all
CKF suppliers keep a large supply on hand.
Source: EPA. 1992g. Silicate Technology Corporation. SoKdificatkm/Stabffization Technology for Organic sad Inorganic Offltaminanffl in Soils. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development December.
-------
TABLE 5-2 (Continual)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
SOUDmCATION/STABIIIZATION
TECHNOLOGY
APPUCAHON/CONVEN1TONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
Soliditech, Inc.
Urrichem Process
Solidification/stabilization of low level organics
(below about 10 percent) and heavy metals in
soils, wastes, and sludges.
Conventional comparison;
CKF is the standard treatment technology for
metals. As organics increase the efficiency of
CKF decreases.
Limiting factors include:
• Water content may cans* freezing in cold weather
Cost per cubic yard (yd3):
$152
Amount treated (yds3):
5,000
The ex-situ throughput rate was about 400 ydsVweek,
operating in a batch mode.
Conventional comparison:
CKF costs $10 per ton of CKF pins the transportation cost
The amount of soil treated by CKF is dependent upon the
organic and inorganic concentrations present. CKF is
usually available within a 150 to 250 mile radius of most
potential treatment sites and transportation costs will range
from $18 to $20 per ton. A minimum tonnage charge is
required for transportation. Not all CKF suppliers keep a
large supply on hand.
Source: EPA. 1990c. SoMtech, Inc. Solidificjtion/Stalilizalitm Process. Applications AsaSym Report. Office of Resarci «nd Development. September.
-------
6.0 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Biological treatment employs the biodegradation
capabilities of natural bacterial microorganisms to
degrade i and metabolize contaminants into non-
hazardous constituents. Bioremediation approaches
include both in situ and ex situ biodegradation
processes. Biodegradation often requires inoculation of
contaminated media to stimulate bacterial proliferation
and mixing to improve waste-to-bacteria contact Both
aerobic and anaerobic bacteria are* used, allowing
treatment in both oxygenated and anoxic environments.
Under the SITE Program, biological treatment has been
applied to process sludges, contaminated soil, and
contamhiated water. Treatment has taken place in
bioreactors as well as in native site conditions.
Biodegradation is often an integral part of a treatment
system which must address multiple contaminants and
waste streams. The most frequently applied systems
use soil washing followed by bioremediation.
)
6.1 EVALUATION OF SITE TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS
Tables 6-1 and 6-2 summarize the five completed SITE
bioremediation demonstrations. Both tables follow this
section, i
The BipGenesis™ Soil Washing Process showed
effective! integration of a biological treatment process
with a spil washing technology to treat oil refinery
wastes. A proprietary surfactant is used to wash oily
wastes from soil. After washing, the oil can be
reclaimed for reuse or disposal, and washwaters are
treated in a bioreactor. Residual surfactant in the
treated soil stimulates bioremediation of any remaining
trace contaminants.
The demonstration of the BioTrol, Inc. Biological
Aqueous! Treatment System (BATS) was performed on
groundwater contaminated with pentachlorophenol
(PCP) from wood-preserving activities. The system utilizes
immobilized bacterial populations in a submerged,
multiple-cell, fixed-film reactor. Nutrient levels,
temperature, oxygen, and other parameters are carefully
controlled.
BioTrol, Inc. also demonstrated its integrated soil washing
and bioremediation system for soils contaminated with
PAHs and PCP. This sysitem consists of debris separation,
soil slurrying, a soil sciubbing unit with interstage size
classification, biological treatment of the slurried fine-sized
material, and biological treatment of washwaters in a fixed-
film reactor.
ECOVA Corporation's Bioslurry Reactor was demonstrated
on wood preserving wastes in soil and is also applicable to
other wastes and to sludges and sediments. In this
technology, the contaminated solids are slurried with water
and transferred to batch and continuous-flow reactors.
Specific bacterial inocula of indigenous or other naturally-
occurring bacteria are added and nutrients, oxygen, and
other parameters are carefully controlled.
6.2 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
ADVANCEMENTS
Advancements in the field of bioremediation have been
substantial since the inception of the SITE Program. The
Bioremediation Field Initiative, established by EPA to
provide project managers: and other remediation specialists
with application data on biological methods, reports over
75 sites currently using biological methods to treat organic
contamination. !
Important advancements in this technology category have
included:
31
-------
Treatment of chlorinated aromatics and
PCBs. Bioremediation processes were originally
used only to treat hydrocarbon contamination,
such as petroleum wastes. In one of the first
demonstrations of its kind, BioTrol demonstrated
that PCP, a common contaminant, could lie
biologically degraded. Other projects are
continuing to advance the state-of-the-art in this
area.
Bioventing treatment. Bioventing is a method
in which air is injected into contaminated soil at
rates low enough to increase oxygen
concentrations and stimulate indigenous
microbial activity without causing release of
volatile emissions. The U.S. Air Force has
announced a bioventing initiative, in which more
than 55 sites are targeted for treatment by
bioventing. Projects using bioventing or similar
technologies are presently undergoing SITE
Program demonstrations and evaluations.
In situ and on-site soil treatment Two SITE
demonstrations involved in situ or on-site soil
bioremediation. While not fully successful, both
demonstrations illustrate the progress made in
this area. Much work remains to optimize in
situ bioremediation technologies and improve
then: reliability. Advancements in this area could
bring about substantial cost savings in future soil
remediation efforts.
32
-------
TABLE 6-1
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY-
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
DEVELOPERATECHNOLOGY/AAR DATE/SITE
Biotreatment Process
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
Run No.l Run No.2 Run No.3
TRPH 7,600 7,567 9,933
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
BioGenesis Enterprises, lac.
(BioGenesis)
BioGenesis81* Soil Washing and
November
1992
Confidential
Refinery Site
Oil sludges and soils contaminated with
petroleum hydrocarbons
Feed Soil jmgykg) Treated Sofl (ing/kg)
Removal Efficiencies
by percent dry weight
Run No.l Run No.2 Run No.3
Run No.l Run No.2 Run No.3
After Soil Washing
TRPH 2,650 2,033 2,800
After 120-Day Biodegradation
TRPH NA 980 1,000
Complete soil treatment incorporates a soil washing and a biodegradation
reactor.
Biodegradation treatment requites adeijuate storage space in a temperature
moderated environment (above feezing) for a period of 120 days to 1
year depending upon target contamination level desired.
BioTrol, Inc. September
1989
BioTrol - Biological Aqueous Treatment MacGillis and
System (BATS)
EPA/540/A5-91/001
Gibbs Co.,
New
Brighton,
Minnesota
Groundwater contaminated with wood
preservative constituents
Contaminated Groundwater (mg/L)
Two groundwater feeds were tested:
Pentachlorophenol
50snd<50
Bioassay of die treated effluent indicated that acute Removal Efficiencies
lethality to minnows and water fleas was eliminated by the in groundwater
process.
Feed Cone. >50mg/L
99%
Feed Cone. <50mg/L
- ' 95%
Source: EPA. 1993b. BioGenesis Enterprises, toe. BioGenesis"* Soil Washing Technology. Innovative Evaluation Report. Office of Research and Development. September
EPA. 1991b. Biotrol,Ihc. Biological Aqueous treatment Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development September.
-------
TABLE 6-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
DEVELOPER/TECHNOLOGY/AAR DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
BioTrol, Inc.
BioTrol - Soil Washing System
EPA/540/A5-91/003
September Soil contaminated with wood preservative
1989 constituents, PCP and PAH
MacGillis and
Gibbs Co., PCP Feed Soil (mg/kg)
New
Brighton, PCP 130-160
Minnesota
PAH Feed Soil (mate)
PAH ' 3.1-118.5
Bioassay of the treated soils by Microtox5" indicated that Removal Efficiencies
acute environmental toxicity characteristics were removed by percent dry weight
by the process.
PCP Soil 87-89%
The soils washing process generates large solids, soil fines,
and contaminated water effluents. PAH Soil 83-88%
ECOVA Corporation May -
September
Biosluny Reactor ' 1991 EPA
w Testing
*" EPA/540/A-5/91/009 Facility,
Cincinnati,
Ohio
Soil, sediments, and sludge contaminated with
creosote and PAHs
Peed Soil (mg/kg)
PAH 5,081 ± 1,530
-•
Treated Soil (mg/kg) - After 12 weeks
PAH 501 ± 103
Data from the pilot-scale program will be used to establish
treatment standards for K001 wastes as part of EPA's Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (DBAT) program.
Removal Efficiencies
After 1 week 82% ± 15%
After 2 weeks 96% ± 2%
After 12 weeks 97% ± 2%
Total soil bound PAHs
Source: HPA. 1992b. BioTrol, Inc. Soil Washing System. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. February.
EPA. 1993£ ECOVA Corporation. Bioshmy Reactor. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development.
-------
TABLE 6-2
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
APPUCATTON/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
BioGenesis
Enterprises, Inc.
BioGenesis
Soil Washing
and
Treatment
Process
BioGenesis processes soils contaminated with
petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, pesticides, PCS and PAH.
Conventional comparison;
Conventional treatment by incineration requires
transportation and disposal of ash residue.
Limiting factors include:
• Soil composition
• Contaminant composition
• Ambient: temperature
• Oxygen availability
• Target cleanup level
• Requires approximately 30,000 square feet for
setup '
• Effluent may need to be treated
• High metals content toxic to biodegradation "
organisms
• Clay composition over 45% prevents
contaminant removal
Cost range per cubic yard (yd3):
$94-$367
Based on treating ISO to 1000 yd3.
Conventional comparison:
Costs of conventional incineration of PCB contaminated soils
will range from $1200 per too ($0.60 per pound) to $2800
per ton ($1.40 per pound). Cost includes transportation and
disposal of residual ash. BioGenesis may stin. require offsite
transportation and disposal of treated residue.
BioTrol, toe.
BioTrol
Biological
Aqueous
Treatment
System (BATS)
Treats waters and sludges contaminated with
VOCsandPCP.
Conventional comparison:
Waters may be treated by deep well injection.
Sludges would be incinerated. At present only
one incinerator is permitted to bum dioxins or
dioxin precursors. It is not known how many
deep well facilities can handle dioxins or their
precursors.
Limiting factors include:
• Contaminant composition
• Ambient temperature
• Oxygen availability
• Target cleanup level
Cost for labor, chemicals, and utilities:
$3.45 per 1,000 gallons at 5 gallons per minute (gpm)
$2.43 per 1,000 gallons at 30 gpm
Minimum Capital and Operating Costs:
$2.93 per 1,000 gallons
Conventional comparison:
Costs to incinerate PCP contaminated sludges range from $8
to $25 per pound depending on the presence of additional
organics and/or metals and additional handling requirements
by the disposal facility., Costs do not include transportation.
Deep well injection costs range from $0.18 to $0£5 per gallon
for liquids with 0 to 0.5 percent total suspended solids (TSS).
A surcharge of $0.12 to $0.16 per gallon will be assessed for
each additional 0.5 percent TSS. There will be additional
charges for handling out-of-phase organics.
Source:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CEPA). 1993b. BioGenesis™ Soil Washing Technology. Innovative Evaluation Report. Office of Research and Development. September.
EPA. 199 Ib. Biotrol, Inc. Biological Aqueous Treatment. Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development October.
-------
TABLE 6-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
BioTrol, Inc.
BioTrol Sou
Washing System
The BioTrol Soil Washing System processes
soils contaminated with creosotes, phenols, and
other PAHs.
The system includes soil washing followed by
biodegradation of contaminants hi soil slurries
and residual wash waters on-site.
Conventional comparisons
These soils would normally require conventional
incineration.
limiting factors include:
Soil composition
Contaminant composition
Ambient temperatures
Oxygen availability
Regulated target cleanup level
O\
Cost per ton: $168
Based on treating 30,000 yds* of pentachlorophenol PCP
contaminated soil.
Cost is $40 per ton if incineration of fine and coarse
oversized woody debris is excluded.
Conventional Comparison;
Cost to incinerate bulk soils range from $800 to $1100
per ton. This cost includes transportation and disposal
of residual ash. As the BTU value increases, the cost
usually decreases. If the soils contain PCPs the cost will
range from $8 to $25 per pound and the incinerator must
be permitted to handle the waste.
The BioTrol process treated waste may still need to be
incinerated to reduce the contaminant levels below
acceptable EPA requirements.
ECOVA
Corporation
Bioslurry
Reactor (BR)
The BR process treats primarily petroleum
hydrocarbon and PAH contaminated soils,
sediments and sludges.
Conventional comparison:
Conventional incineration is used to process
these wastes. The BR treated soils may need
further treatment to meet EPA requirements.
Limiting factors include:
Pilot-scale demonstration only
Soil composition
Contaminant composition
Ambient temperature
Oxygen availability
Target cleanup level
System configuration
Cost range per cubic yard: $50-$250
Cost based on site specific requirements.
Conventional comparison:
Incineration of bulk soils costs from $800 to $1100 per
ton. Sludges, which must be packaged in smaller
containers, will cost $0.40 - $0.55 per pound. These
costs include transportation and disposal of residual ash.
If the waste contains dioxin precursors the cost will
range from $8 to $25 per pound and uje incineration site
must be permitted.
Source: US.Envirome.Bal Protection Agency CEPA). 1992b. BioTVol, Inc. Soil Washing System. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development February.
EPA. 1993f. ECOVA Corporation. Bioslurry Reactor. Draft Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research «nd Development. February.
-------
7.0 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
Physical/chemical treatment is a broad technology
category ttjat encompasses a wide variety of processes.
Physical treatment generally refers to methods that
separate hazardous constituents without chemical
transformation, while chemical treatment involves
addition of outside agents, such as precipitating
chemicals pr oxidizers to effect a substantial change in
the target compounds. Many technologies in the SITE
Demonstration Program involve the simultaneous or
sequential use of physical and chemical methods. For
example, jsoil washing, advanced oxidation using
ultraviolet ,(UV) light, soil vapor extraction (SVE), and
solvent extraction technologies are included in this
category. JThis technology category includes both, in
situ and ex) situ treatment and incorporates technologies
capable ofi treating soil, sediments, groundwater, and
other contaminated aqueous streams.
Additional) information on physical/chemical treatment
technologies are found in EPA's Engineering Bulletin
numbers EPA/540/2-90/013, EPA/540/2-90/015,
EPA/540/2r90/017, EPA/540/2-9V005, EPA/540/2-
9V006, EPA/540/2-9V021, EPA/540-2-91/025 and
EPA/540/2-92/006.
1
7.1 EVALUATION OF SITE TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS
1
A total of 14 physical/chemical treatment technologies
have been; demonstrated under the SITE Program.
Table 7-1! summarizes important data from each
demonstration. Table 7-2 summarizes the SITE
demonstration costs and applications of
physical/chemical treatment technologies. Both tables
follow this section. Information pertaining to each
demonstration technology is summarized below.
\
AWD Technologies, Inc. (AWD) developed the
Integrated Aqua DeTox/Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
System, which was demonstrated in September 1990, at
Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company in Burbank,
California. The AWD Integrated AquaDetox/SVE System
integrated two existing technologies in an innovative way:
AquaDetox, a low-pressure steam stripping technology for
the removal of VOCs from water, was combined with SVE
to separate VOCs from soil gas. This system can
simultaneously treat separate water and soil gas streams in
a single closed-loop system. The demonstration met goals
for reducing VOC levels to below regulatory discharge
limits. The system was operated at the site for more than
2 years.
CF Systems Corporation (CF Systems) developed the
Organics Extraction, which was demonstrated in September
1988, at New Bedford Harbor Superfuhd site in New
Bedford, Massachusetts. The CF Systems Organics
Extraction process used a pilot scale mobile treatment
system on PCB-contaminated sediments. The technology
uses liquified gases as solvents for removal of
contaminants from solids or water. Solvents are recycled
and contaminants are recovered for reuse or disposal. This
technology was successfully demonstrated oh PCB-laden
sediments.
Dehydro-Tech Corporation (Dehydro-Tech) developed the
Carver-Greenfield Process®, which was demonstrated hi
August 1991, at EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) facility in Edison, New Jersey. Dehydro-Tech's
Carver-Greenfield Process was successfully tested at a
pilot-scale (100 pounds per hour) on approximately 640
pounds of oily drilling mud wastes containing low
concentrations of organics. This technology uses a food-
grade solvent to separate hydrocarbon contaminants from
sludges, soils, and industrial wastes. The solvent is
recycled and contaminants are recovered for reuse or
disposal. '
37
-------
Toxic Treatments, USA, Inc. (Toxic Treatments)
developed the In Situ Steam/Hot Air Stripping
Technology, which was demonstrated in the Fall 1989, at
the GATX Annex Terminal site in the Port of Los
Angeles, California. Toxic Treatments sold the company
to NOVATERRA, Inc. in about 1990. The In Situ
Steam/Hot Air Stripping Technology was tested
successfully on soils contaminated with a wide range of
VOCs and SVOCs including TCE, PCE, and
chlorobenzene. This system mixes soil in situ using
auger blades to enhance removal of contaminants via
steam- and air-stripping. Terra Vac, Inc. (Terra Vac)
developed the In Situ Vacuum Extraction System, which
was demonstrated from December 1987 to April 1988, at
the Valley Manufactured Product Company in Groveland,
Massachusetts. , The Terra Vac vacuum extraction
technology was tested successfully on soils contaminated
with VOCs including degreasing solvents (primarily
TCE). This technology uses a vacuum pump to draw
contaminants from the subsurface via a series of
extraction wells. A liquid/gas separator and emissions
control technologies are used to treat the extracted
vapors.
Ultrox International, Inc. (Ultrox) developed the
Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation/Oxidation Technology, which
demonstrated from February to March 1989, at the
Lorentz Barrel and Drum Company in San Jose,
California. The Ultrox UV Radiation/Oxidation
Technology was tested successfully on groundwater
contaminated with TCE and vinyl chloride. This
UV/oxidation technology subjects contaminated waters to
UV radiation, ozone (O3), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)
simultaneously to oxidize contaminants. Air emissions
controls include an ozone decomposition device.
E.I. DuPont De Nemours Company (E.I. DuPont) and
Oberlin Filter Company (Oberlin Filter) codeveloped the
Membrane Microfiltration Technology, which was
demonstrated from April to May 1990, at the Palmerton
Zinc site in Palmerton, Pennsylvania. E.I. DuPont's and
Oberlin Filter's combined microfiltration technology was
demonstrated on groundwater contaminated with zinc,
cadmium, copper, lead, and selenium. This technology
combines an automatic pressure filter mechanism
developed by Oberlin with a Tyvek membrane microfilter
material developed by E.I. DuPont,
EPOC Water, Inc. (EPOC) developed the Microfiltration
Technology, which was demonstrated
from May to June 1992, at the Iron Mountain Mine site
in Redding, California. The EPOC microfiltration
technology was tested on acid mine drainage containing
approximately 3,000 mg/L total metals including iron,
aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, magnesium,
and zinc. The EPOC dynamic membrane microfiltration
unit operates by passing water through a unique tubular
cross flow microfilter (EXXFLOW). The concentrate
stream is then dewatered in an automatic tubular filter
press of the same material (EXXPRESS).
Toronto Harbor Commission (THC) developed the Soil
Recycling Treatment Train, which was demonstrated in
the fall 1992, at the Port of Toronto in Toronto, Ontario,
Canada. The THC Soil Recycling Treatment Train
consists of three soil remediation technologies: an
attrition soil washer to segregate soil into uncontaminated
coarse material and highly contaminated fines; a metals
removal process based on chelation; and chemical and
biological treatment for removal of organic contaminants.
The process was tested on approximately 1,040 tons of
soil contaminated with oil and grease and PAH
compounds.
EPA RREL developed the Mobile Volume Reduction
Unit (VRU), which was demonstrated in November 1992,
at the Escambia Treating Company in Pensacola, Florida.
The VRU developed by was tested on PGP- and PAH-
contaminated soil. A surfactant, Tergitor, was used as
the main agent for contaminant removal. This
technology performs soil washing via subsystems
including soil handling and conveying, soil washing,
coarse screening, fine particle separation,
flocculation/clarification, and water treatment.
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. developed the
PO*WW*ER Technology, which was demonstrated in
September 1992, at the CWM Lake Charles Treatment
Center in Lake Charles, Louisiana. CWM's
PO*WW*ER Technology was tested on landfill leachate
contaminated with VOCs, SVOCs, ammonia, cyanide,
metals, and other inorganic contaminants. The
PO*WW*ER Technology combines evaporation of
contaminants from wastewater with catalytic oxidation of
the vapors. Air emissions controls in the form of a
scrubber are sometimes required.
Resource Conservation Company developed the Basic
Extractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.) Solvent
Extraction System, which was demonstrated in July 1992,
at me Grand Calumet River hi Gary, Indiana. The
38
-------
B.E.S.T. j solvent extraction system was tested on
sediments contaminated with PCBs and PAHs and is
also, applicable to sludge treatment. This technology
consists o'f a mobile system including a cold extraction
reactor, gravity and centrifuge solids separation, a
heated reactor to separate water, steam stripping for
solvent recovery from the water, and a, solvent
evaporator for contaminant separation. Solvent is
recovered^ for reuse, and contaminants are reclaimed for
reuse or disposal.
t
t
Peroxidation Systems, Inc. developed the UV Radiation
and Hydrogen Peroxide Treatment (Perox-pure™
chemical' oxidation) Technology, which was
demonstrated in September 1992 at me Lawrence
Livermore National
Laboratory Site 300 in Tracy, California, The perox-
pure™ chemical oxidation technology system was
tested on VOC-contaminated groundwater. The
principal j contaminants were TCE and PCE. This
technology uses UV-oxidation combined with hydrogen
peroxide to destroy organic contaminants in water.
I
SBP Tebhnologies, Inc. (SBP) developed the
Membrane Treatment Technology, which was
demonstrated in October 1991, at the American
Creosote (Works in Pensacola, Florida. SBP's cross-
flow membrane treatment system was tested on
creosote-derived polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon-
(PAH) and pentachlorophenol- (PCP) contaminated
groundwater at a wood treatment facility. This
technology utilizes formed-in-place membranes in
stainless s|teel support tubes and a cross-flow technique
to separate a variety of contaminants from water.
Membranes may be biodegradable to reduce disposal;
costs. !
7.2 PHY;SICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS
The 14 cojmpleted demonstrations listed in this section
use solvent extraction, stripping, microflltration,
oxidation, and other means to separate or destroy
hazardous: constituents. Although many physical and
chemical j technologies are still considered largely
unproven,; SVE is now considered to be an acceptable
treatment technology, primarily due to its:
demonstration under the SITE Program. Similarly,
UV oxidation is now considered to have a strong
potential for wide application since its initial
demonstration in 1989.
Important areas of achievement in this technology area are
as follows:
Innovative applications of existing technologies to
contaminated sites. The SITE Program has shown that
technologies using extraction, a commonly employed
method used by chemical industries, could be applied to
contaminated solid media. The Carver-Greenfield Process,
CF systems extraction, EPA's mobile volume reduction
unit, and the B.E.S.T solvent extraction technology have all
been shown to successfully remove contaminants from
difficult matrices.
Introduction of microflltration methods for removal
small metallic and organic compounds from solution
without incurring a large capital expenditure. The
microflltration technologies demonstrated have showed that
toxic metals can be removed from contaminated water
without the use of traditional wastewater treatment
methods, such as clarification and settling. These
technologies have provided a large potential for enhanced
metals treatment at sites where conventional metals
treatment would be inefficient. Similarly, SBP's cross-flow
microfiltration technology demonstrated successful organics
removal without typical, expensive fouling problems.
Substantial advancement: of non-incineration destruction
technologies. Oxidation technologies tested at SITE
demonstrations have made a significant contribution to this
area, proving that organic; contaminants can be destroyed
without resorting to expensive, large-scale technologies
such as incineration. The Ultrox International (UV
oxidation) demonstration has resulted in numerous
developers providing improvements in this technology over
the past several years. New developers have also extended
other advanced oxidation methods to vapor phase
destruction of organics, filling an important need in this
area. This area is expected to experience continued growth
through the decade. ;
39
-------
TABLE 7-1
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
DEVBLOPER/TECHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
AWD Technologies
Integrated AquaDetox/SVE System
BPA/540/A5-91/002
September 1990 , Soft gas and groundwater
Lockheed VOCs, primarily trichloroethene (TCE)
Aeronautical Systems and tetrachloroethane (PCE)
Company, Burbank,
California Groundwater Contamination Levels
Dependent upon the carbon
regeneration frequency. Granular-
activated carbon beds are effective
at removing VOCs even after 24
hours of continuous operation
without stream regeneration.
PCE
TCE
Ranged from 2,000 to 2,500 Effective at removing VOCs with
boiling points of 120°C and below.
Ranged from 99.92 to 99.99 percent
removal efficiency (RE) for VOCs
in groundwater.
Ranged from 93 to 99.9 percent RE
for VOCs found in soil gas vapors.
Ranged from 400 to 600
Pg/L
Expected to be effective at removing
VOCs with boiling points up to .
200°C.
CF Systems Corporation
Organics Extraction
EPA/540/A5-90/002
September 1988 Sediments
New Bedford Harbor Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
Snperfund Site, New
Bedford, PCB sediment concentrations in the
Massachusetts untreated waste were 350 and 2,575
ppm.
Operational control was difficult to PCB extraction efficiencies were
maintain. greater than 90 percent
Solvent flow fluctuated and solids
were retained in process hardware,
and were observed in organic
extracts. The pilot-scale unit used in
this demonstration required multiple
treatment passes to simulate a full-
scale, four-stage operational unit.
PCB sediment concentrations in the
treated waste were as low as 8 ppm.
Scarce: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991a. AWD Technologies. Integrated AquaDetox/SVE Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. October.
EPA. 1990s. CF Systems Corporation. Solvent Extraction. Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development August
-------
TABLE 7-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
DEVELOPER/TECHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Dehydro-Tech Corporation
Carver-Greenfield Process®
EPA/540/AR-92/002
August 1991 Waste oil production drilling muds, Total Toxicity Characteristic
consisting of very fine clays, water and Lsachate Procedure (TCLP) values
EPAORD waste oils for all tested metals and organic
Edison, New Jersey compounds in the treated soils were
below RCRA regulatory limits.
Feed Waste Oil (mg/ka)
Test Run 1:
VOCs
Test Run 2:
VOCs
The final water discharged from this
4.95 to 5.58 process may require further
treatment depending on the metal
and organics content and on local
>10.5 to 13.3 effluent discharge limitations.
Total VOCs were not analyzed on
either test run. Over 90 percent of
indigenous oil from the raw waste
feedstock was removed.
Essentially 100 percent of TPH was.
removed during both test runs.
NOVATERRA, be. (formerly Toxic
Treatments, USA, Inc.)
In Situ Steam/Hot Air Stripping
Technology
EPA/540/A5-90/008
Fan 1989
Gay soil
GATX Annex
Terminal Site
Port of Los Angeles, VOCs
California
Pretreatment core samples (ppm)
Average electrical energy The average RE for total VOCs was
consumption was about 11 kilowatt- 85 percent
hours/operational hour. No evidence
of fugitive VOC emissions during or The average RE for total semi
315 to 618 after treatment. VOCs was 55 percent
466
System operates in a batch-like
336 to 1403 mode, thus allowing control of VOC
902 removal by varying the treatment
time. VOC and SVOC testing
Posltreatment core samples (ppm) indicates that the soil blocks have
substantial heterogeneity between
VOCs 45 to 98 each one produced.
VOC Average 7i
Soils with a high clay content can
Semi-VOCs 49 to 818 be treated effectively, with longer
Semi VOCs Average 409 treatment times required for sandy
soils.
VOC Average
i i
Semi VOCs
Semi VOCs Average
EPA, 1992o. Dehydro-Tech Corporation. Carver-Greenfield Process®. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development August
EPA. 1991f. Toxic Treatments USA, Inc. b Situ Steam/Hot-Air Stripping Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. March.
-------
TABLE 7-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
DEVELOPER/TECHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Terra Vac, Inc.
In Situ Vacuum Extraction System
EPA/540/A5-89/003
December 1987-April Soil
1988
Retreated soils (mg/kg)
Valley Manufactured
Product Company TCE 0.87 to 2.27
Groveland,
Massachusetts Postlreated soils (ingte)
TCE 0.34 to 84.5
Permeabilities (centimeters per
second^O4 to 10*
VOC contaminated soils with wide REs ranged from 0 to 95.6 percent
ranging permeabilities can be
removed using this process.
Demonstration data indicates that
less volatile hydrocarbons such as
gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene and
heavy naphthas can also be removed
from soils using this process.
Organic vapor releases require
carbon treatment before discharge.
Total carbon usage was 15,200
pounds over a 56-day period. Total
wastewater extracted over the same
period was 17,000 gallons.
Ultrox International
Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation
Technology
EPA/540/A5-89/012
February-March 1989 Groundwater
Lorentz Barrel and
Drum Company
San Jose, California
Organic compounds treated included
TCE, vinylchloride, 14- and 1,2-
dichloroethane (DCA) 144-
trichloroethane (TCA), benzene,
chloroform and PCE.
Feed groundwater (mg/L)
VOC 120-170
TCE 0.100
Vinyl chloride 0.040
Other VOCs 5-15
SVOCs and polychlorinated biphenyls/
pesticides were below detection limits.
About 13,000 gallons of groundwater
was treated over 13 test runs.
Operational problems include
frequent UV lamp and ozone sparger
cleaning, which are due to iron and
manganese precipitation in the
reactor. Proper pretreatment of
metals will eliminate this problem.
Ozone treatment unit destroyed
ozone from off-gases from the
reactor to less than 0.1 ppm.
REs for total VOCs ranged from 90
to 99.99 percent in most cases. The
TCE RE was greater than 99
percent The RE for 1JI-DCA and
144-TCA were less than 40 percent.
Ozone RE was greater than 99.99
percent
Source: EPA. 19894 Terra Vac, be. In Situ Vacuum Extraction System. Applications Analysis Keport Office of Research and Development July.
EPA. 199M. UltoK International Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. September.
-------
TABLE 7-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
DEVELOPER/TECHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
DuPont/Oberlin Filter Company
April-May 1990 Groundwater contaminated by zinc
plating operations
The technology produced a filler
cake with a solids content of 41
Zinc and total suspended solids
(TSS) REs were about 99.95
Membrane Microfiltration Technology .
EPA/540/A5-90/007
Palmerton Zinc site
Patoerton,
Pennsylvania
percent
Feed Groundwater (mg/L)
Zinc
Cudnmnfl
Lead
Selenium
PH
Alkalinity
400-500
1
0.015
0.05
4.5
15
The filter cake passed both toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure and
EP-toxicity tests.
Filter cake passed the paint filter
liquids test
percent
Treated effluent met the 95 percent
confidence level for applicable
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit limits
for metals and TSS. Treated
effluent may require pH adjustment
before discharge.
EPOC Water, Inc.
Microfiltration Technology using
EXXFLOW and EXXPRESS
EPA AAR in preparation
May-June 1992 Groundwater, wastewater, acid mine
drainage
Iron Mountain Mine
Site Feed Groundwater (mg/L)
Redding, California
Total metals 3,000
Metal Precipitate
(weight percentageJ-2.5%
Dewatered sludge metals content
ranged from 12 percent to greater
than 30 percent by weight.
REs have not been determined for
this treatment technology
Source: EPA. 1991A BJ. DuPont D« Nemours & Company/Oberlin Filter Company. Microfiltration Technology. Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development October.
EPA. 1993h. EPOC Water, Inc. Microffltration Technology. Draft Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development May.
-------
TABLE 7-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
DEVELOPBR/EECHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Toronto Harbour Commission (THC) Fall 1992
Soil Recycling Treatment Train: soil Port of Toronto
attrition washing, metals removal, and Toronto, Ontario,
biosluny treatment Canada
EPA/540/AR-93/517
Soils, sediments
Feed Soil (mg/kg)
Oil and grease
TRPH
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
8,200
2,500
183
115
83
1L2
1.9
Organic and inorganic compounds Soil washing
can be removed from soil using
these three treatment processes. The
developer's primary claim that the
sand and gravel component
(representing 79.6 percent of the
final product) meet THC's criteria
levels for industrial soils.
REs for gravel, sand and fine slurry
were 67,78 and 74 percent,
respectively, for oil and grease,
TRPH, naphthalene and
benzo(a)pyrene.
Fine slurry exhibited significant
TRPH and polynudear aromatic
hydrocarbon reductions.
The vendors results from other
treatment studies indicate that the
THC system can effectively remove
metals.
The system's hydroclone, designed
to dry treatment residuals, did not
sufficiently dewater treated soils.
The metals removal system was not
tested during the demonstration
because of the low levels of metals
present in the feed soil
Bioslurry treatment.
Oil and grease RE was limited.
REs on the fine slurry for other
organic contaminants were: TRPH -
60 percent, naphthalene - at least 97
percent and benzo(a)pyrene - about
70 percent
Source: EPA. 1993n. Toronto Haibour Commissioners. Sofl Recycling Treatment Train. Draft Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development April.
-------
TABLE 7-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
— PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
DEVELOPER/TECHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
EPARREL
November 1992
Soils
Mobile Volume Reduction Unit (VRU) Escambia Treating Feed Soil (ppm)
Company, Pensacola,
EPA/540/AR-93/508 Florida PAH range
average
PCP range
average
550 -1,700
980
48-210
140
Three physical conditions were tested
during the demonstration. These were
as follows:
Condition 1: no surfactant, no pH adjustment and
no tempemture adjustment
Condition 2: surfactant addition, no pH adjustment
and no temperature adjustment
Condition 3: Surfactant addition, pH adjustment
and temperature adjustment
High REs (greater than 90 percent)
are more easily attainable when
contaminants are concentrated in the
finer fraction (less than 015 mm) of
the feed soils.
Total Material Mass Balance Data
for Condition 3 was as follows
(expressed as pounds/hr):
Feed soil ranged from 117 to 148
Ib/hr. Wash water ranged from 622
to 635 Ib/hr. Wasted soil ranged
from 112 to 121 Ib/hr. Finer shiny
ranged from 644 to 653 Ib/hr.
Closure ranged from 95 to 101
percent with the average closure at
98 percent
The average PAH REs were 70,83
and 95 percent for Conditions 1, 2
and 3, respectively.
The average PCP REs were 76, 92
and 97 percent for Conditions 1,2
and 3, respectively.
Condition 3 physical conditions met
the demonstration'
objective criteria.
Source:
BPA. 1993g. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL). Mobfle Volume Reduction Unit Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development August
-------
TABLE 7-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
DEVELOPER/TECHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. September 1992
PO*WW*ER Technology using
evaporation, catalytic oxidation, air
scrubbing and condensation
EPA/540/AR-93/506
CWM Lake Charles
Treatment Center
Lake Charles,
Louisiana
Aqueous wastes, landfill leachate
Feed Leachate (mg/L)
VOCs
SVOCs
Ammonia
Cyanide
Total metals
350 - 110,000
6,000 - 23,000
140-160
24-33
4,600 - 5,000
Results showed that the
PO*WW*ER system effectively
evaporated aqueous waste streams,
achieving a total solids concentration
ratio of about 32 to L
Product brine was found to be
hazardous based on TCLP results
and contained relatively high levels
of cyanide. Low levels of metals,
below toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP), was detected in
the product condensate.
REs were not determined for VOCs,
SVOCs and total metals.
Ammonia Evaporation Efficiencies
(EEs) ranged from 99.4 to 99.8
percent during unspiked test runs.
Cyanide EEs ranged from 81 to 86
percent during unspiked test runs.
Spiked test run EEs for ammonia
and cyanide showed similar EE
results.
Resources Conservation Company
Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment
(B.E.S.T.) Solvent Extraction System Gary, Indiana
using amine-based solvents to extract
organic contaminants
EPA/540/AR-92/079
July 1992 Sediments
Grand Calumet River Feed Sediment (mg/kg)
Sediment A Sediment B
PCB 12.1 425
PAH 550 70,900
Oil and grease 6,900 127,000
Treated products compared
favorably to the developer's claims
of low residual solvent
(triethylamine) concentrations;
treated sediments exhibited residual
solvent concentration of less than 110
mg/kg.
The untreated sediment and the
treated solids both passed the
toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) test for metals,
therefore significant conclusions on
the effects of the B.E.S.T.® process
could not be determined.
Sediments A and B REs for total
PCBs average greater than 99.6
percent, total PAHs REs were
greater than 96 percent and for oil
and grease REs were greater than
98.4 percent
Source: EPA. 1993d. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. PO*WW*ER Technology. Evaporation - Catalytic Oxidation Technology. Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development September.
EPA. 1993J. Resources Conservation Company. BJ3.S.T. Solvent Extraction Technology. Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development June.
-------
TABLE 7-1 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
DEVELOPER/TBCHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
MATRIX/HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Peroxidation Systems, lac.
Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation and
Hydrogen Peroxide Treatment
Technology (Percx-pure™ Chemical
Oxidation Technology)
EPA/540/AR-93/501
September 1992 Peed Groundwater (ppb)
Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory
(LLNL) Site 300,
Tracy, California
TCE
PCE
1,000
100
The demonttration was conducted in three phases
where Phase 1 consisted of eight raw groundwater
tuns, Phase 2 consisted of four spiked VOC
groundwater runs, and Phase 3 consisted of two
spiked groundwater mm used to evaluate the
quartz tube cleaning effectiveness for Phase 2 and
3, groundwater was spiked with about 200 to 300
ug/L each of chloroform, DCA, and TCA.
The perox-pure™ system waste REs were not determined for this
effluent met the state of California's demonstration.
drinking water action level and EPA
drinking water maximum Average raw groundwater REs for
contaminant level criteria at the 95 tCE and PCE were 99.7 and 97.1
percent confidence level percent, respectively.
Groundwater temperature increased
at a rate of 12 degrees F per minute
of UV exposure in the treatment
system.
Average spiked groundwater REs
for chloroform, DCA, and TCA
were 93.1,983, and 81.8 percent,
respectively. TOX REs ranged
from 93 to 99 percent
SBP Technologies, Inc.
Membrane Treatment Technology
Cross Flow Filtration
EPA/540/AR-92/014
October 1991
American Creosote
Works Facility,
Pensacola, Florida
Feed Groundwater (pom)
Phenol
PAHs
PCP
4.9
82.0
2.4
Individual VOC concentrations in the
feed stream were each SO ug/L. Total
VOC feed concentration was about
143 ug/L
Treated Groundwater (ppm)
Phenol
PAHs
PCP
Permeate
Results
3.88
16.9
1.88
Concentrate
Results
NR
NR
NR
Overall rejection efficiency of the
demonstration was 74 percent over
a six day test period.
The membrane is not expected to remove
chemical species with molecular weights less
than 200. '
SBP effectively controlled excessive fouling
of the membrane.
Tat system effectively concentrates organic
contaminants into a smaller volume
concentrate. PAH contaminated wastewater
were reduced by over 80 percent Twenty
percent of the feed stream would require
further treatment.
The average permeate flow rate for the
filtration unit was 2.6 gpm.
Source:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993L Peroxidation Systems, Inc. Perox-pure™ Chemical Oxidation Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Develbpment. Jury.
EPA. 1993k. SBP Technologies, Inc. Membrane Treatment of Wood Preserving Waste Groundwater Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. August
-------
TABLE 7-2
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
APPUCATION/CONVBNTIONAL
UMTTING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
AWD
Technologies
Integrated
AquaDetox/
SVE System
(IAD/SVES)
The IAD/SVES process is designed to remove
volatile organics from soil and groundwater by
stripping under a moderate vacuum.
Contaminants are retained in a granular activated
carbon (GAC) Filter
Conventional comparison:
Deep well injection .would be used to treat
contaminated groundwater with low organics,
with or without metals. Both processes may
need pretreatment to remove suspended solids.
Limiting factors include:
• Treatment of low volatility organics may
increase steam consumption.
• Pretreatment of effluent stream.
• Ultimate disposal of GAC residual
Cost per 1,000 gallons:
$0.71
Conventional comparison;
Deep well injection costs range from $0.18 to $055 per
gallon for liquids with a total suspended solids TSS) of 0
to 0.5 percent For each additional 0.5 percent TSS there is
a surcharge of $0.12 to $0.16 per gallon. Cost does not
include transportation. Liquids with phased organics will
incur a similar surcharge.
CF Systems
Organics
Extraction Process
(OP)
The OP process is designed to remove organics
from soils and sediments by solvent extraction.
Contaminants may be reclaimed or may require
disposal
Conventional comparison:
———^^—— |
Soils with high organics and low to no metals
are normally treated by incineration. The
incineration of PCB contaminated soils requires
a special permit.
Limiting factors include:
• Water may be required to lower viscosities.
• Separate process equipment required to treat
water streams.
Operational control difficult to maintain.
Possible disposal costs for contaminant residual
Cost per ton:
$148
Costs highly sensitive to initial contaminant concentrations.
Conventional comparison;
Bulk soils contaminated with organics will cost from $800
to $1100 per ton. Cost includes transportation and disposal
of residual ash. PCB contaminated soils can be incinerated
within a cost range of $1200 to $2800 per ton.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991a. AWD Technologies Integrated AquaDetox/SVE Technology. Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development Octolwr.
EPA. 1990a. CF Systems Corporation. Solvent Extraction. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development August.
-------
TABLE 7-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
.._ PHYSICAL/CHEMICALTREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
Dehydrc-Tech
Corporation
Carver-Greenfield
Process® (CG)
APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
The CG process separates organic contaminants
from soils, sludges, and industrial wastes.
Originally developed to dewater municipal
sludges. Contaminants may be reclaimed or may
require disposal
LIMITING FACTORS
Limiting factors include:
• Pretreatment to attain particle sizes of less
than 0.2S inch.
• Organic stream may require incineration or
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
Cost per ton: '
$221
Conventional comparison;
Conventional comparison:
As much free liquid as possible would be
removed and then the sludges or solids would be
drummed for incineration or stabilized with
cement kiln flue dust (CKF). If the organics are
high incineration is the best alternative.
Liquids extracted from the CG process may
require further treatment.
treatment prior to disposal.
• Water stream may require treatment.
• Possible disposal costs for contaminant residual
Incineration of .bulk solids and sludges win cost from
$800 - $1100 per ton or $0.40 to $0,55 per pound. These
costs do not include transportation.
CKF costs $10 per ton plus transportation. CKF is
usually available within a 150 to 250 mile radius of most
potential treatment sites and transportation costs will
range from $18 to $20 per ton. A minimum tonnage is
, required for transportation. Not all CKF suppliers keep a
large supply on hand.
NOVATERRA,
Inc. (Formerly
Toxic
Treatments
USA, Inc.)
In Situ Steam/Hot
Air S&ipping
Mobile in situ stripping process that uses steam
to remove VOCs from soils without excavation.
Contaminants may be reclaimed or may require
disposal
Conventional comparison;
Conventional treatment would be offsite
Limiting factors include:
• Site preparation may be extensive.
• Treatment area must be graded to a minimum
slope of 1%.
• Must have a total site area of 2 acres.
• Longer treatment times for high boiling point
VOCs
• Possible disposal costs for contaminant residual
Cost range per cubic yard (yd3):
$251 - $317
Based on a total volume, of about 9,000 yds3 not including
costs of transportation and disposal of treated residues. -
Conventional comparison:
The cost range for incineration of bulk soils is $800 to
$1100 per ton which includes transportation and disposal
of residual ash. As the volume of soils and British
thermal unit (BTU) value increases, the cost decreases.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992c. Dehydro-Tech Corporation. Carver-Greenfield Process®. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. August.
EPA. 1991f. Toxic Treatments USA, toe. to Situ Steam/Hot-Air Stripping Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. March.
-------
TABLE 7-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
APPUCAHON/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
Terra Vac, Inc. In sitn vacuum extraction for removal of VOCs. Limiting factors include:
Conventional comparison:
In Situ Vacuum
Extraction System The conventional method would be incineration.
Note that the process will require transportation
and disposal of the spent carbon and wastewater.
Both of these waste streams may require
pretreatment
Contaminant volatility
Soil porosity
Cleanup levels
May involve off-gas and ground water
treatment
Cost range per ton:
$100 - $250
Conventional comparison:
Bulk soil incineration costs range from $800 to $1100 per
ton which does not include transportation. As the volume
of soil and BTU value increases, the cost will decrease.
Uitrox
International
Ultraviolet
Radiation/
Oxidation
Technology
(UR/OT)
The UR/OT process uses combinations of
ultraviolet radiation, ozone, and hydrogen
peroxide to destroy VOCs.
Conventional comparison:
Due to the high water content and no metals,
conventional treatment would include liquid
injection incineration or deep well injection.
Limiting factors include:
• Pretreatment may be required.
Cost range per 1,000 gallons:
$0.25 - $17.00
Conventional comparison:
The liquid incineration process costs from $0.18 to $0.23
per pound. The higher the volume treated the lower the
cost
Deep weH injection costs range from $0.18 to $0.25 per
gallon for liquids with a TSS of 0 to 0.5 percent For each
additional 0.5 percent TSS there is a surcharge of $0.12 -
$0.16 per gallon. Liquids with phased organics will incur a
similar surcharge.
These costs do not include transportation.
Both processes require installation of wells and pumping
equipment
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989d. Terra Vac, Inc. In Sim Vacuum Extraction System. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. July.
EPA. 199M. Ultra International. Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. September.
-------
TABLE 7-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
APPUCATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
DuPont/
Oberlin Filter
Company
Microfiltration
Technology
Microfiltration technology removes small (>0.1
micron) particulate contaminants from aqueous
wastes.
Conventional comparison:
Due to the high liquid and metals content, the
conventional treatment would be deep well
injection. However, as the Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) increases so does the cost
Limiting factors include:
• Pretreatment to convert metals.
• Optimal operating conditions (pH, additive dosages,
blowdown time and pressure) must be determined
before treatment
Cost per gallon:
$0.40 per gallon
Capital costs for a unit treating about 500,000 gallons per
year is $370,000 including site preparation costs.
Conventional comparison:
Deep well injection costs range from $0.18 to $0.25 per
gallon for liquids with a TSS of 0 to 0.5 percent For each
additional 0.5 percent TSS there is a surcharge of $0.12 to
$0.16 per gallon. Cost does not include transportation.
EPOC Water, Inc. Treats water or sludge contaminated with heavy Limiting factors include:
metals by microfiltration. Particle sizes greater
than 0.1 micron can be removed. • Streams with dissolved metals require
Microfiltration precipitation pretreatment.
Technology Conventional comparison:
i
Due to the high liquid and metals content, the
conventional treatment would be deep well
injection. However, as the total suspended solids
increases so does the cost
Cost range per 1,000 gallons:
$50 •> $150
Low cost end based on treatment unit processing 3,000
gallons per hour.
Conventional comparison:
Deep well injection costs range from $0.18 to $0.25 per
gallon for liquids with a TSS of 0 to 0.5 percent For each
additional 0.5 percent there is a surcharge of $0.12 to $0.16
per gallon. Cost does not include transportation.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991d. El. DuPont De Nemours & Company/Oberlin Fitter Company. Membrane Microfiltration Technology. Applications Analysis Report Office of Research and Development. October
EPA. 1993h. EPOC Water, Inc. Mierofiltration Technology. Draft Applicadons Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. May.
-------
TABLE 7-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMHING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
Toronto Harbour Treatment train for removal of inorganic and
Commissioners organic contaminants, involving soil washing,
chelation, and a bioslurry process.
Soil Recycle
Treatment Train Conventional comparison:
Conventional treatment would include
incineration for the organics and low metal
content or CKF for high metal content and low
organic content
Ul
Limiting factors include:
• Soil fines should not exceed 30 to 35 percent
of the feed.
• Soils high in metals may require multiple
passes through the system. !
Cost per ton:
$219
Conventional comparison:
CKF costs $10 per ton plus transportation. CKF is usually
available within 150 to 250 miles radius of most potential
treatment sites and transportation costs will range from $18
to $20 per. A minimum tonnage charge is required for
transportation.
Bulk soil incineration costs range from $800 to $1100 per
ton or $0.40 to $0.55 per pound. These costs include
transportation and disposal of residual ash.
EPARREL
Mobile Volume
Reduction Unit
(VRU)
The VRU process removes organic and inorganic Limiting factors include:
contaminants by dissolving them or by
suspending them in a wash solution.
Conventional comparison:
Conventional treatment would include
incineration. At present, only one incinerator is
permitted to bum dioxin or its precursors.
Soil fines should not exceed 30 to 40 percent
May require pretreatment.
Residuals may be hazardous and may require
further treatment
Cost per ton:
$130
Conventional comparison:
Bulk soil incineration costs range from $800 to $1100 per
ton or $0.40 to $0.55 per pound. These costs do not
include transportation. If the waste contains PCP, a dioxin
precursor, men incineration will cost from $8 to $25 per
pound depending on the presence of additional organics
and/or metals and additional handling requirements by the
disposal facility.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993n. Toronto Harbour Commissioners. Soil Recycle Treatment Twin. Draft AppHcations Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development April.
EPA. 1993g. EPA Risk Redaction Engineering Laboratory (RREL). Mobae Volume Reduction Unit. Draft Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development August
-------
TABLE 7-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
Chemical Waste
Management
PO*WW*ER
Technology
PO*WW*ER technology removes volatile,
semivolatile, and other contaminants by
evaporation, followed by catalytic oxidation,
scrubbing, and condensation. System is best
suited for concentrated wastewalers.
Conventional comparison:
Conventional treatment would include liquid
injection incineration or deep well injection. As
the volume of total suspended solids is increases,
deep well injection becomes less practical
Limiting factors include:
• Total contaminant loading
• Not cost effective in treating dilute streams
Cost per 1,000 gallons:
$100
Based on 50-gallon-per-minute treatment system.
Conventional comparison;
The liquid injection incineration cost ranges from $018 to $0.23 per pound
for high water content wastes. Reactive liquids will increase the cost to
$0.43 per pound. The higher the volumes treated the lower the cost
These costs do not include transportation. Deep well injection costs range
from $0.18 to $0.25 per gallon for liquids with a TSS of 0 to 0.5 percent
For each-additional 0.5 percent TSS there is a surcharge of $0.12 to $0.16
per gallon. liquids with phased organics will incur a similar surcharge.
Resources
Conservation
Company
B.E.S.T. System
Solvent extraction technology that exploits the
variable solubility characteristics of organic
amines at varying temperatures.
Conventional comparison;
Conventional treatment would be by incineration.
The process may require further treatment of
residual solvents.
Limiting factors include:
• Prescreening to attain particle size < 0.5 inch
• Full-scale system treats sludges only
Cost range per ton:
$172 - $192
Based on an on-line factor of 60 to 80 percent
Conventional comparison:
Bulk soil incineration costs range from $800 to $1100 per ton or $0.40 to
$0.55 per pound. Treatment of PCS contaminated soils requires a permit
and the cost increases to $1200 to $2800 per ton. These costs do not
include transportation.
Source:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
TABLE 7-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
Peroxidation,
Systems, Inc.
Perox-pure™
Chemical
Oxidation
Technology
APPUCATION/CONVENTIONAL
Perox-pure™ is designed to destroy organic
contaminants found in contaminated water
through the addition of hydrogen peroxide and
sulfur** to feed water. The feed water is then
exposed to ultraviolet radiation in a reactor
vessel.
LIMITING FACTORS
Limiting factors include:
• pH dependent
• A filter cartridge replacement and disposal
• Wastewater discharge
Feed material should be:
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
Casel
Gallons per minute (gpm)
10
50
100
Costs per 1,000 gallons treated
$19
$5
$5
Perox-pure™ has achieved chlorinated organic
contaminant removal efficiencies ranging from
97.1 to 99.7 percent conventional comparison.
Conventional comparison
Due to a high water content, conventional
treatment would include liquid injection
incineration or deep well injection. As the total
suspended solids increase, the cost for disposal
increases. At present, only one incinerator is
permitted to bum dioxin or its precursors.
• Slightly acidic at a pH equal to 5.0
• Free of suspended solids greater than 3
micrometers in size
contaminants difficult to oxidize. Assumes continuous flow cycle, 24
hours per day, 7 days per week.
Case 2
gpm
10
50
100
Costs per 1,000 gallons treated
$15
$3
$2
Based on groundwater containing two organic contaminants which are easy
to oxidize. Assumes continuous flow cycle.
Conventional comparison:
The liquid injection incineration cost ranges from $018 to $0.23 per pound
for high water content wastes. Reactive liquids will increase the cost to
$0.43 per pound. The higher the volumes treated the lower the cost
These costs do not include transportation. Deep well injection costs range
from $018 to $0.25 per gallon for liquids with a TSS of 0 to 0.5 percent
For each additional 0.5 percent TSS there is a surcharge of $OJ2 to $016
per gallon. Liquids with phased organics will incur a similar surcharge.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993i. Petoxidatiott Systems, Inc. Perox-pure™ Chemical Oxidation Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. July.
-------
TABLE 7-2 (Continued)
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
PHYSICAL^CHEmCAL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
APPUCATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
SBP
Technologies, lac.
(SBP)
Membrane
Treatment
Technology
SBP's cross-filtration membrane technology is
designed to remove organic contaminants found
in contaminated water. This process reduces die
concentrating high molecular weight organic
contaminants with a molecular weight greater
than 200.
Conventional comparison
Due to a high water content, conventional
treatment would include liquid injection
incineration or deep well injection. As the total
suspended solids increase, the cost for disposal
increases. At present, only one incinerator is
permitted to bum dioxin or its precursors.
Limiting factors include:
• Removing organic compounds with a molecular
weight less than 200
• Removal of waste soluble organic compounds
(i.e. phenolics)
• Wastewater discharge
• About 24 gallons per minute (gpm) can be treated, if
conditions are optimal
Feed material should be:
• Diluted to a predetermined level which allows
discharge of the permeate without further treatment
• Free of oil and suspended solids
• Operating with a feed water chemical oxygen demand
between 100-500 mg/L
Conventional comparison:
The liquid injection incineration cost ranges from $018 to $0.23 per pound
for high water content wastes. Reactive liquids win increase die cost to
$0.43 per pound. The higher the volumes treated the lower the cost
These costs do not include transportation. Deep well injection costs range
from $0.18 to $0.25 per gallon for liquids with a TSS of 0 to 0.5 percent
For each additional 05 percent TSS there is a surcharge of $OJ2 to $0.16
per gallon. Liquids with phased organics will incur a similar surcharge.
The maximum assumed flow rate is about 24 gpm. Total costs are based
upon 1,000 gallons of contaminated water treated (with and without further
effluent treatment and disposal costs).
\
Projected costs are as follows (per 1,000 gallons):
24 gpm 12 gpm 7.2 gpm
With treatment $228-$522 $456-$l,044 $760-$1,739
Without treatment About $222 About $444 About $739
Source: EPA. 199%. SBP Technologies, Inc. Membrane Treannent of Wood Preserving Waste CroundwMer Technology. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development. August
-------
-------
8.0 MATERIALS HANDLING
Materials [handling is an integral part of the
remediation process involving physical or chemical
processes which facilitate use of the remediation
technology; This type of technology is particularly
important vyhere other stand-alone technologies may be
inefficient pr impractical; its purpose is to increase the
efficiency jand effectiveness of other remediation
processes. Treatability studies and field investigations
are a necessary precursor in order to determine the type
of materials handling technology required for the
wastes present.
Additional information on materials handling is found
in EPA's Engineering Bulletin number EPA/540/2-
93/023, j .
t
8.1 APPLICABLE SITE DEMONSTRATIONS
Three materials handling technologies have been
demonstrated under the SITE Program. Table 8-1
(following! this section) summarizes SITE
demonstration costs and applications.
U.S. EPA; Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory! (AEERL) in conjunction with the U.S.
RREL, U.S. EPA Region 9, and the California
Department of Health Services (CDHs) sponsored a
•SITE demonstration which was demonstrated in My
1990, at trie McColl Superfund site in FuHerton,
California. EERL, RREL, EPA Region 9 and CDH
evaluated a vapor-suppressing foam and a temporary,
contained, 'atmosphere-controlled building to contain
VOC vapor and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions during
excavation! of contaminated soils. In this
demonstration, a foam was applied to soil before,
during, anil after excavation activities to reduce
emissions emanating immediately from the exposed
surfaces. to addition, a large, temporary structure
enclosed the excavation area and equipment, and all air
emissions were passed through emissions control
equipment including a scrubber prior to release into the
atmosphere.
-------
problem that otherwise could not be handled with a
conventional approach.
As remediation of certain hazardous wastes becomes
better understood, the development of additional
materials handling technologies can extend the
effectiveness of remediation technologies to wastes which
are presently more difficult to treat. The pneumatic and
hydraulic fracturing technologies have increased the
range of effectiveness of in situ technologies in this
manner. Further advances in the area of materials
handling are greatly needed to reduce costs as well as
increase effectiveness of existing remediation techniques.
58
-------
TABLE 8-1
SITE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS AND COST SUMMARY
MATERIALS HANDLING
DEVELOPER/
TECHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE
APPUCAHON/CONVENTTONAL
LIMITING FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
EPA Air and Energy
Engineering Research
Laboratory (AEERL),
EPA Risk Reduction
Engineering
Laboratory (RREL),
EPA Region 9, and
the California
Department of Health
Services (DHS)
Excavation Techniques
and Foam Suppression
Methods
EPA/540/AR-92-015
July 1990 Emissions control during soil excavation.
Technology involves temporary enclosure
McColl Superfund with exhaust air treatment system, vapor-
site, Fullerton, suppressing soil surface foam to contain
California VOC vapor and sulfur dioxide (SOj)
emissions during excavation of contaminated
soils.
Conventional comparison:
No comparable technology exists for this
process because it is an add-on. It was used
to alleviate technical problems with an
existing method.
Limiting factors include:
* Adequate exhaust air flow and filtration rate,
and foam-to-soil-contaminant compatibility,
must be determined prior to application.
• Exhaust from diesel engines generated within
the enclosure may exceed the process
capacity of the exhaust air treatment unit
* Suppression foam may get slippery,
increasing work hazards.
Cost per ton based on excavation of 116,700 tons:
$593 with an equipment/services purchase option.
Total cost $69.2 million.
$637 with an equipment/services lease option.
Total cost $74.3 million.
Cost estimates reflect a 6.4 year remediation
period, which is based on a process rate of 100
tons/day.
Conventional comparison:
No comparison available.
Accutech Remedial
Systems, Inc.
Pneumatic Fracturing
Extraction8" and Hot
Gas Injection
EPA/540/AR-93/509
Summer 1992
New Jersey
Environmental
Cleanup
Responsibility Act
site, Hillsborcugh,
New Jersey
Designed to assist removal of trichloroethene
(TCE) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from vadose subsurface zones by
pneumatic fracturing and hot gas injection,
increasing permeability, and thus enhancing
treatment.
Conventional comparison;
No comparable technology exists for this
process because it is an add-on. It was used
to alleviate technical problems with an
existing method.
Limiting factors include:
• Ambient air and ground temperature
• Presence of water in the vadose zone
• VOC solubility and vapor pressures may
affect removal efficiency
Cost per pound of VOCs:
$130 (Based on TCE removal
efficiency)
Exact costs highly dependent on specific
applications.
Conventional comparison:
No comparison available.
Source:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).. 199M. EPARegionK, AEERL, SHE, and California Department of Health Services. Demonstration of a THal Excavation at the McColl Superfund Site. AppBcatioM Anatysi* Report.
Office of Research and Development October.
EPA. 1993a. Accutech Remedial Systems. Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Hot Gas Injection, Ptase 1. Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development July.
-------
TABLE 8-1 (Continued)
SHE DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST SUMMARY
MATERIALS HANDLING
DEVELOPER/
TECHNOLOGY/AAR
DATE/SITE APPLICATION/CONVENTIONAL
LIMrnNG FACTORS
COST INFORMATION/CONVENTIONAL
EPA Risk Reduction
Engineering
Laboratory
and the University
of Cincinnati
Hydraulic fracturing of
contaminated soil
EPA/540/5-9 l/006a
September 1992 Designed for use in low permeability
Integrated with sflty ckys contaminated with organic
other compounds. A hydraulic fracture is
remediation induced in the soil which enhances
techniques at other in situ remediation techniques
sites in Oak such as vapor extraction, pump-and-
Brook, Illinois treat, and bioremediation. Additives
and Dayton, may be used in fracturing which
Ohio enhance other treatment processes.
Conventional comparison:
No comparable technology exists for
this process because it is an add-on.
It was used to alleviate some
technical problem with an existing
method.
Limiting factors include:
• Direction and extent of fracture propagation
difficult to control.
• May require multiple fracture emplacement for
maximum technology effectiveness.
Cost range for creating a typical fracture:
$950-$1,425
Capital cost of equipment is $92,000. Rental cost is
$1,000 per day.
Conventional comparison:
No comparison available.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991e. RRBL and the University of Cincinnati. Hydraulic Ractoring of Contaminated Soil Applications Analysis Report. Office of Research and Development May.
-------
9.0 RADIOACTIVE WASTE TECHNOLOGY
The unique problems associated with the handling and
disposal of radioactive waste in any type of media pose
a formidable challenge to any technology. Radioactive
waste must be liberated from its host media,
concentrated, stabilized, and disposed of or recycled.
Technologies in the SITE Program indicate that, since
radionuclides cannot be made nonhazardous, the most
desirable methods for handling and disposing of
radioactive waste involve concentration and subsequent
treatment using S/S technologies. S/S technologies are
described in Section 4.0.
Two radiqnuclide technologies have been accepted into the
SITE Program, and each will be demonstrated in early
1994. The TechTran chemical precipitation, physical
separation, and binding process technology will treat
uranium-contaminated pond water at a uranium mine in
south Texas using A radionuclide concentration technique.
A similar technology, the Filter-Flow heavy metals and
radionuclide sorption method, will be used to treat
groundwater at the Departraent of Energy (DOE) Rocky
Flats, Colorado, facility.
Because no demonstration projects have been completed at
present, no further information is available on technologies
for the treatment of radioactive wastes.
61
-------
-------
10.0 THE SITE PROGRAM-PRESENT AND FUTURE
The SITE Program is a key element in EPA's efforts
to increase the availability and use of innovative
technologies for remediation of the nation's hazardous
waste sites. This section highlights the SITE
Program's accomplishments to date and discusses
issues pertinent to the future of the program and
removal and remediation technologies.
i
10.1 SITE PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
!
The major) accomplishments for the SITE Program
since its inception in 1986 include:
i
j
• Increased awareness and acceptability
Innovative technology use has increased in
both the public and private sectors. At
Superfund sites, the number of innovative
technologies selected for remediation now
equals the number of conventional
technologies selected.
• Documented cost savings
The SITE Program has shown that innovative
technology usage has resulted in significant
cosj savings compared to conventional
technologies. In an analysis of technology
cosjts hi four EPA regional offices, selection of
innovative technologies resulted in average
cost savings of $ 21 million, or 62% per site.
• Increased business for developers
Technology developers have reported an
increase in business inquiries resulting from
their participation in the SITE Program.
Developers who have completed SITE
demonstrations reported 533 contract awards
(395 non-Superfund plus 138 Super-fund)
attributable to SITE Program participation.
• Expanded technology transfer
EPA's Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI) has distributed over 200,000
copies of repoits documenting innovative
technologies in the SITE Program. Users include
consultants, state and local governments, EPA and
other federal officials, universities, industries, and
private citizen groups.
• Continued growth
More than 60 demonstrations of innovative
remediation technologies have been completed to
date. Over 100 developers are participating in the
SITE Program.
10.2 FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR THE SITE
PROGRAM
One goal of the SITE Program is to promote innovative
technologies with marketable futures. Some technologies
in the program have passed the innovative stage and are
now accepted as applicable standards. One of these
technologies, Terra Vac's soil vapor extraction (SVE), is
now considered a standard option for removal of VOCs
from the unsaturated zone. As a testimonial to the strength
of the market, many other companies have developed and
are now marketing SVE technologies, some with
enhancements such as hot air injection combined with
groundwater extraction. Several of these SVE companies
are participants in the SITE Program.
Another example of SITE technology marketability is the
Shirco Infrared Incineration technology. Allhough the
company which owns and markets this technology has
changed, the technology and its application have remained
basically the same: use of electrically-powered silicon
carbide rods to heat organic wastes to combustion
temperatures. The Shirco Infrared system has been and
continues to be used at numerous Superfund sites.
63
-------
To continue successful development and evaluation of
innovative treatment methods, the SITE Program must be
responsive to the changing market needs. Important
challenges still facing the SITE demonstration program
are described below.
10.2.1 Providing Additional Cost and Performance
Data
The SITE demonstration program uses cost and
performance data collected during each technology
demonstration to generate accurate and independent, cost
estimates. Since a primary goal of promoting technology
innovation is reducing overall remediation costs, SITE
cost estimates provide decision-makers with information
central to their search for cost-effective treatment
solutions. In addition, well-developed cost estimates
provide technology developers and end users with
analytical Insights useful in optimizing remediation
technologies. Finally, SITE cost estimates are used to
help innovative technology developers enter capital
markets by helping match investors' funds with proven,
cost-effective technologies.
10.2.2 Pinpointing Future Innovative Technology
Needs
The science of site investigation has advanced
dramatically in the past twenty years. Advancements in
field detection equipment and laboratory analyses have
revealed new information about the problems at waste
sites. These advancements, coupled with the experience
gained from the numerous sites under investigation, have
generated a need for new, innovative technologies.
One of the critical needs for remediation technology is
for methods to accelerate aquifer cleanup. By nature,
groundwater is a slow-moving, slow-to-change medium.
Groundwater contamination may consist of multi-phase
contaminant plumes, light non-aqueous phase liquids
(LNAPLS), and dense non-aqueous phase liquids
(DNAPLS), which can potentially move in different
directions. New technologies are needed to control and
remediate these diverse problems.
Some of the most important technology breakthroughs
are anticipated in chemical conversion methodologies.
Technologies which rely on chemical conversion of the
contaminant species rather than destruction or
stabilization will end the remediation process at
treatment Conversion eliminates the need for further
environmental engineering, containment, or control of
waste products or byproducts (for example, incineration
ash, solidified waste material). These technologies are
also at the core of in-line, chemical conversion process
research that could eventually supply solutions for re-
engineered processes to reduce waste material generation.
The need for recycling and reuse technologies will help
drive the development of chemical conversion
technologies because of their potential for cost savings
and for limiting short- and long-term liability.
10.2.3 Technologies on the Horizon
As a result of evaluating field demonstrations of
innovative remediation technologies each year, in
addition to providing financial assistance to developers of
emerging technologies, the SITE Program maintains a
unique position in the hazardous waste remediation
marketplace. Together with EPA's Technology
Innovation Office, SITE provides information on
technology gaps and upcoming technical advancements.
A number of promising technologies based on sound
scientific principles, but lacking engineering and
performance documentation, are appearing on the
horizon. Some of these promising technologies are
described below. These technologies are being
researched and developed under the SITE Emerging
Technologies Program, and by the U.S. Department of
Energy, and others. It is likely that field demonstrations
may occur within one to two years.
• In situ steam/hot air extraction - The use of
steam or hot air as an extraction medium has
been proposed for many years. This technology
forces steam or hot air through injection wells to
remove SVOCs in addition to VOCs.
Challenges remaining for this technology
include: harnessing and controlling the steam,
decreasing rather than increasing the volume of
waste, and collecting and disposing of the
contaminated material. The application of this
technology to unsaturated soil has improved the
prospects for this technology.
• Bioremediation - Various bioremediation
technologies have entered the SITE Program. In
some instances, biodegradation is used with
64
-------
other technologies to accomplish a greater total
removal lefficiency of organic contaminants.
Difficulties associated with biodegradation include:
determining which microorganisms can break down
specific 'organic compounds, culturing the
microorganism in a favorable environment which
provides nutrients and promotes growth, and the length
of time required to completely degrade an organic
compound to acceptable levels. Using methanotrophic
bacteria to degrade chlorinated volatile organic
compounds; in soil and sludges is a new technology in
the SITE Program. Other biodegradation technologies
include: biosluny (bionet) and bioreactor techniques
which can be combined with pre-washing or flushing
soil, bioscrabbers for air emissions control, and
bioreactors combined with ultraflltration membranes for
treatment qf aqueous wastes. Enhancements under
investigation include: hydrogen peroxide and other
electron acceptors and air sparging to improve
treatment, co-metabolic processes and consortia, nitrate
enhancement, and anaerobic or sequential
aerobic/anaerobic degradation.
I
Electroremediation techniques - Techniques
such as electro-osmosis, electromigration, and
electrophoresis through electrokinetics, and
electrochemical oxidation are used in situ to
treat contaminated soils, sludges, and aqueous
media. In electrokinetics, direct current
flowing from positive to negative electrodes in
combination with pore-conditioning fluids
circulating in the soil provide in-situ removal
of jcontaminants. The contaminants ate
direpfly deposited on the electrodes or removed
from the conditioning fluid through a
puriflcation process. Electrokinetics can
effectively increase the flow of fluids and/or
gases within formations where intrinsic
permeability is very low. In electrochemical
oxidation, electrodes are used to generate
hydrogen peroxide from contaminated
groundwater. The hydrogen peroxide
catalytically decomposes on iron particles to
form hydroxyl radicals, which then react with
organic contaminants. This technology
performs chemical conversion, thereby
destroying the contaminants.
i
Hydrogen reduction - This technology is
based on the gas-phase, thermochemical
reaction of hydrogen with organic and
chlorinated organic contaminants at 850 °C or
higher. This technology chemically reduces
organic compounds to smaller, lighter, chained
hydrocarbons. The technology can be used with
thermal desorption, and may be more cost-
effective than traditional thermal destruction or
incineration.
Advanced physical/chemical treatment - Many
new technologies are under development in the
area of physical and/or chemical treatment of
contaminated matrices. Many of these
technologies remain unproven or are in
developmental phases. Using these technologies
can expand in-situ cleanup opportunities to
medium- and low-i>ermeability soils, semivolatile
organic compounds (S VOCs) in addition to volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and areas where
excavation costs are prohibitive or excavation is
infeasible. These advanced physical/chemical
treatment technologies include:
hydrofracturing and pneumatic fracturing
to improve in situ permeability through
injection of pressurized fluids or air,
air sparging to improve in-situ
bioremediation or to remove contaminants
from the subsurface;
directional drilling to place wells under
surface structures or in horizontal
positions;
radio frequency heating using
electromagnetic energy to volatilize
contaminants;
high energy electron beam irradiation to
destroy orgiinic contaminants in a variety
of waste matrices;
regenerable adsorption materials which can
adsorb 5 to 10 times the capacity of
granular activated carbon for treatment of
aqueous matrices;
cross-flow pervaporation systems which
remove VOCs from aqueous matrices;
in-situ reaction walls which funnel
groundwater through permeable gates,
where treatment occurs via reductive
dehalogenation or other techniques;
in-situ photocatalytic oxidation of various
wastes in soils, sediments, or sludges.
65
-------
Treatment trains and combination
technologies -A treatment train is a sequential
combination of technologies which treat
recalcitrant waste matrices more effectively than
any single technology could. Treatment trains of
innovative technologies can be less costly and
more effective in achieving treatment goals than
conventional technologies. The "Lasagna"
process is an example of several innovative
technologies used in concert to treat
contaminants in situ in less permeable soils
including clays and silts. Electro-osmosis first
drives contaminants out of soil pores and into
treatment zones created by hydrofracturing,
pneumatic fracturing, or trenching.
Contaminants are then treated in treatment zones
by biodegradation, catalytic dechlorination, or
adsorption. Electrodes for the electro-osmosis
system can be placed by sheet piling,
hydrofracturing, or horizontal drilling. Further
development of this process is proceeding under
a Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement with Monsanto Company, DuPont,
General Electric, and EPA.
66
-------
SITE PROGRAM DOCUMENTS REFERENCED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPjA).1989a. American Combustion, toe.
PYRETRON® Destruction System.
Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development EPA/540/A5-
89/008. June.
i
EPA. 1989b. Hazcon, Inc. HAZCON Solidification
Process, Douglasville, Pennsylvania.
Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development. EPA/540/A5-
89/001. May.
EPA. 1989c. Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc. Infrared
Incineration System. Applications Analysis
Report. Office of Research and Development
EPA/540/A5-89/010. June.
EPA. 1989d. Terra Vac, Inc. In Situ Vacuum
Extraction System. Applications Analysis
Report. Office of Research and Development
EP^/540/A5-89/003. July.
EPA. 1990a. CF Systems Corporation. Solvent
Extraction. Applications Analysis Report.
Office /of Research and Development
EPA/540/A5-90/002. August
EPA. 199,0b. International Waste Technologies
Corp./Geo-Con, Inc. In Situ Stabilization/
Solidification. Applications Analysis Report.
Office of Research and Development
EPA/540/A5-89/004. August
EPA. 1990c. Soliditech, Inc. Solidification/Stabilization
Process. Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development EPA/540/A5-89/005.
September.
EPA. 1990d. Ultrox International. Ultraviolet
Radiation/Oxidation Technology. Applications
Analysis Report. Office of Research and
Development. EPA/540/A5-89/012. September.
EPA. 1991a. AWD Technologies. Integrated
AquaDetoxISVE Technology. Applications Analysis
Report. Office of Research and Development
EPA/540/A5-91/002. October.
EPA. 1991b. Biotrol, Inc. Biological Aqueous
Treatment. Applications Analysis Report. Office
of Research and Development EPA/540/A5-
91/001. September.
EPA. 1991c. Chemfix Technologies, Inc.
Solidification'Stabilization Process. Applications
Analysis Report. Office of Research and
Development. EPA/540/A5-89-011. May.
EPA. 1991d. E.I. DuPont De Nemours &
Company/Oberlin Filter Company. Membrane
Microfiltration Technology. Applications Analysis
Report. Office of Research and Development.
EPA/540/A5-90/007. October.
EPA. 1991e, EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL) and the University of
Cincinnati. Hydraulic Fracturing of Contaminated
Soil, Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development EPA/540/5-91/006a.
May.
67
-------
EPA. 1991f. Toxic Treatments USA, toe. In Situ
Steam/Hot-Air Stripping Technology.
Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development. EPA/540/A5-
90/008. March.
EPA. 1992a. Babcock & Wilcox. Cyclone Furnace
Vitrification Technology. Applications Analysis
Report. Office of Research and Development.
EPA/540/AR-92/017. August.
EPA. 1992b. BioTrol, toe. Soil Washing System.
Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development EPA/540/A5-
91/003. February.
EPA. 1992c. Dehydrp-Tech Corporation. Carver-
Greenfield Process®. Applications Analysis
Report. Office of Research and Development.
EPA/540/AR-92/002. August
EPA. 1992d. EPA Region DC, EPA Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL), EPA
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program, and California Department of
Health Services (DHS). Demonstration of a
Trial Excavation at the McColl Superfund Site.
Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development EPA/540/AR-
92/015. October.
EPA. 1992e. Horsehead Resource Development
Company, toe. Flame Reactor Technology.
' Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development EPA/540/A5-
91/005. May.
EPA. 1992f. Retech, toe. Plasma Centrifugal
Fwnace. Applications Analysis Report. Office
of Research and Development EPA/540/A5-
91/007. June.
EPA. 1992g. Silicate Technology Corporation.
Solidification/Stabilization Technology for
Organic-and Inorganic Contaminants in Soils.
Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development EPA/540/AR-
92/010. December.
EPA. 1992k Roy F. Weston, toe. Low Temperature
Thermal Treatment (LT3®) System. Draft
Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development. December.
EPA.
EPA.
EPA.
EPA.
EPA.
EPA.
EPA.
EPA.
EPA.
1993a. Accutech Remedial Systems. Pneumatic
Fracturing Extraction and Hot Gas Injection,
Phase I. Applications Analysis Report. Office
of Research and Development July.
1993b. BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc.
BioGenesi/"* Soil Washing Technology.
Innovative Evaluation Report. Office of
Research and Development EPA/540/R-93/510.
September.
1993c. Canonic Environmental Services
Corporation. Low Temperature Thermal
Treatment Aeration (LTTA®) Technology. Draft
Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development January.
1993d. Chemical Waste Management toe.
PO*WW*ER Technology. "Applications Analysis
Report. Office of Research and Development
September.
1993e. Chemical Waste Management toe.
X*TRAX™ Model 200 Thermal Desorption
System. Draft Applications Analysis Report.
Office of Research and Development.
September.
>
1993f. ECOVA Corporation. Bioslurry Reactor.
Draft Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development March.
1993g. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL). Mobile Volume Reduction
Unit. Draft Applications Analysis Report.
Office of Research and Development. August.
1993h. EPOC Water, toe. Microfiltration
Technology. Draft Applications Analysis Report.
Office of Research and Development. May.
19931. Peroxidation Systems, toe. Perox-Pure™
Chemical Oxidation Technology. Applications
Analysis Report. Office of Research and
Development. EPA/540/AR-93/501. July.
68
-------
EPA. 1993J. Resources Conservation Company.
B.E.S.T. Solvent Extraction Technology.
Applications Analysis Report. Office of
Research and Development EPA/540/AR-
92/079. June.
EPA. 1993k. SBP Technologies, Me. Membrane
Treatment of Wood Preserving Waste
Groundwater. Applications Analysis Report.
Office of Research and Development
EPA/540/AR-92/014. August
EPA. 19931. SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc. Anaerobic
Thermal Processor. Draft Applications
Analysis Report. Office of Research and
Development March.
EPA. 1993m. The Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program. Technology
Profiles, Sixth Edition. Office of Research and
Development EPA/540/R-93/526. November.
EPA. 1993n. Toronto Harbour Commissioners. Soil
Recycle Treatment Train. Draft Applications
Analysis Report. Office of Research and
Development April. Section 7-4, 7-11
EPA. 199$o. Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT)
Database. Version 2.0. June.
•fru.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 - 6SO-006/002Z9
69
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand comer.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE D;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand comer.
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/540/R-94/530
------- |